| Revision as of 18:17, 28 March 2015 editDiannaa (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators349,408 edits →Concerns with user 174.3.213.121: warned← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:34, 25 December 2024 edit undoHandThatFeeds (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,415 edits mv retaliatory filing to be a sub-heading of the original concernTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
| 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 | |||
| == Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] == | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |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. | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------------> | |||
| 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 . | |||
| == Personal attacks alleged == | |||
| ::''(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. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| Edit March 10, 2015 (added 5 more diff's below) | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *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. | |||
| *<u>Another link to the section in comments to discredit me | |||
| *Another link to the section in comments to discredit me | |||
| *Another link to the section in comments to discredit me | |||
| *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)) | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: |
::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry ] (] · ] · ]) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| **Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for ? ] (] · ] · ]) 03:29, 5 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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| ], 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) | |||
| ::], 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) | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| :{{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). | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::A short time ago I did . ] (]) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| :Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day. | |||
| :Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike> | |||
| ::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===None of this matters=== | |||
| I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===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) | |||
| *If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.] (]) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| **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) | |||
| :Meh. None of ''this'' matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| ::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::::: 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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a ''behavioral'' discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: @ {{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). | |||
| ::It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into ''other content''. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* Wikistalking: 10 petty examples | |||
| :::agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. ] (]) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* 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) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| {{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| * {{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) | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :@]: 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) | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::@]: 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) | |||
| :::{{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 IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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 --> | |||
| *'''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 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) | |||
| ::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here). | |||
| ::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles. | |||
| ::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading. | |||
| :Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here. | |||
| :Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — ] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I 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) | |||
| *'''{{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) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| *::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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| **<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)) | |||
| *: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. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| *: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." | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| :*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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :::::::Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see '''''precisely''''' what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. ] (]) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You need to provide evidence for serious accusations, not unsubstantiated insults. You should probably also read ] and ].] (]) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: 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> | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| :::::::], 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) | |||
| ::::::::@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}} | |||
| :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. | |||
| ===Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret=== | |||
| :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). | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| <!--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)--> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::{{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) | |||
| :::: 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) | |||
| :::::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. | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :::::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. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (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'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report. | |||
| :::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is. | |||
| :::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me. | |||
| :::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge. | |||
| :::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader. | |||
| :::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. · · · ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further. | |||
| :::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context"). | |||
| :::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago." | |||
| ::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request for closure=== | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :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''' per Doc James. ] (]) 00:05, 6 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''' 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) | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (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) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I 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'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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::: |
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *'''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). | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::<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)) | |||
| *'''{{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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :::<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)) | |||
| *'''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): | |||
| ::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. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Here's the same data presented in a different way: | |||
| :: | |||
| ::{{col-begin}}{{col-break}} | |||
| ::*AlbinoFerret: 1641 | |||
| ::*QuackGuru: 630 | |||
| ::*Doc James: 490 | |||
| ::*Levelledout: 233 | |||
| ::*Zad68: 203 | |||
| ::*CFCF: 151 | |||
| ::*Formerly 98: 148 | |||
| ::*Cloudjpk: 141 (note: fixed) | |||
| ::*Jytdog: 91 (note: fixed) | |||
| ::*EllenCT: 84 | |||
| :: | |||
| ::*A1candidate: 22 | |||
| ::*Johnuniq: 13 | |||
| ::*InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits) | |||
| ::*Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies) | |||
| :: | |||
| ::{{col-break|gap=4em}} | |||
| ::*AniMate: 0 | |||
| ::*Atsme: 0 | |||
| ::*BoboMeowCat: 0 | |||
| ::*BMK: 0 | |||
| ::*Bishonen: 0 | |||
| ::*Cardamon: 0 | |||
| ::*Collect: 0 | |||
| ::*Cullen328: 0 | |||
| ::*John: 0 | |||
| ::*JzG: 0 | |||
| ::*Kevin Gorman: 0 | |||
| ::*Middle 8: 0 | |||
| ::*RexxS: 0 | |||
| ::*Robert McClenon: 0 | |||
| ::*Softlavender: 0 | |||
| ::*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}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| :If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::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. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --] 11:42, 13 March 2015 (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) | |||
| {{hat|hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock ] (]) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::::::::I'll take that as an affirmative. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (], 2007, unassigned). Users ], ], ], ], {{lang|la|et al}} edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. {{Small|(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)}}{{pb}}The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "''must''" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.{{pb}}In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.{{pb}}At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| :::{{Small|Also, like, if only one of {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} {{tqq|gets updated}}, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. ] (]) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::::::::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. | |||
| * 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) | |||
| 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 | |||
| *{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{col-begin}}{{col-break}} | |||
| :{{re|Fram}} this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like {{u|Silver seren}} mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*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}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *Oppose - 8, including three based on procedure or venue | |||
| *Support - 15, includng one "very weak support" | |||
| 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). | |||
| ] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So it seems anyway you slice it, the uninvolved editors are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::::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. | |||
| :::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :@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) | |||
| WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Notification'''. I started an ArbCom discussion since this is going nowhere. See ]. ] (]) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| === KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret === | |||
| ::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=Not helpful <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:06, 15 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :Of course . That's because ] has also made many controversial edits to the ] page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits. | |||
| ::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 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. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| : This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| : This edit mainly deleted text from a formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| : This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations. | |||
| :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) | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ]. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
| : 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| === Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles === | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| ''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. | |||
| *{{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. | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::<small>Well after the fact (no User Pings or talk page notices)</small> Couple points: Make sure there's an appropriate log page to log the warnings/sanctions. Make sure there's a venue for editors to neutrally report what they percieve as violations in the sanctions without calls of ADMIN-shoping. ] (]) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::Yes ] linked to his twitter feed which include his efforts at meat puppetry ] (] · ] · ]) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' not sure this will help . ] (] · ] · ]) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (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) | |||
| ::Sure thing! You're looking for ]. ]! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks! That was very helpful. ] (]) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Oppose</s> per CFCF. ] (]) 05:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::: ], 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). | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Notification'''. I started an ArbCom discussion. See ]. ] (]) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::(That request has since been .) ]! 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *<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> | |||
| :*Moot, since the topic ban thread was closed first. ] (]) 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :*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) | |||
| ::*Maybe this question was asked before about sanctions in general. There might be some specific guidelines to follow. ] (]) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Support''' for numerous reasons mentioned above and per {{U|AlbinoFerret}}.--] (]) 05:38, 19 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 . | |||
| *'''Oppose''', because this will not get to the root of the problem, which is the number of relentless obvious ] e-cig manufacturer advocates (]) who have infiltrated the articles and made them impossible to edit constructively without constant disruption. The most egregious of the lot is {{noping|AlbinoFerret}}, whose entire edit history from September 30, 2014 to present speaks for itself. The problem is not the "toxicity of the atmosphere", or the fact that the SPAs have made it a "battleground", but rather the problem is the (paid) SPAs themselves, and the solution is weeding out and eliminating (via permanent topic-banning, indeffing, or community banning) the clearly paid advocates. ] (]) 10:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very weak oppose''' per Softlavender. I do think admin attention can be good at the article, but I don't think discretionary sanctions will address the core problem here. Sanctions are good for addressing acute misbehavior that's readily identifiable such as incivility, edit warring, etc. I would be concerned sanctions just end up banning whoever slips up slightly first without addressing the real problem. What's going on here is more systemic ] and advocacy-like behavior that isn't readily identifiable by outside editors without taking a close look at each user's overall behavior in discussions and cannot easily be summarized in a few diffs. That being said, I am overall neutral on community discretionary sanctions, but just with the caveat that the underlying issues will likely not be addressed by the sanctions, but hopefully stem the tide at best. If the sanctions are intended as an actual solution, I think that would become a distraction. Short of an ] type look at certain users here (I don't think ANI is structured enough for that), ArbCom seems to be the only other option to really sort things out at that level at this time. ] (]) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The editors at this article are not the problem. It is the subject itself that is controversial. Having discretionary sanctions in this article would not be effective because a significant number of ] edit at this article. Applying sanctions on an article where highly experienced Wikipedians edit as single purpose accounts is not effective in controlling controversy because the editors using them are not invested in protecting the reputations associated with those accounts or in using them long-term to build an online identity. It can be right to use WP:SPAs, and I am not critiquing the use of WP:SPAs or suggesting that anything inappropriate, like socking, is even happening here. I am only suggesting that the Misplaced Pages community gives a bit more weight and protection to established users with established accounts with varied history of participation, as opposed to limited use accounts managed by talented editors. Sanctions is a tool for controlling established accounts, and not for SPAs. Its use here would would empower SPAs and disempower established accounts, which is not a desirable outcome in this space. Taking no action to control the e-cigarettes space is an acceptable response to the controversy. The controversy can persist in this space as it has been for months. ]] 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic of those who write that the behavior in the topic area is bad, or that the subject area is controversial and generates SPAs, but then vote to oppose discretionary sanctions which would give admins the tools necessary to deal with bad behavior (from anyone) and to reign in the e-cig advocates. This is especially odd to me because if community-imposed discretionary sanctions are not implemented here, it's more then likely that someone will request an ArbCom case, which will be opened this time because the community has failed to act, and the result of that will almost certainly be, among other actions, ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. So, in the end, the probability of there being discretionary sanctions for the e-cigarette topic area seems pretty high, in my opinion. ] (]) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess I'll clarify, but based on where I've seen discretionary sanctions work, it seems to be when specific diffs can be pointed out as problematic. I don't think a single admin overseeing the articles would be suited for the specific behavior problems discussed here though that require a close look at long-term behavior. Looking over the definition of ], how do you think an admin would identify tendentious or advocacy-like behavior compared to easier things to identify like incivility? To me, that doesn't really seem like a judgement call for an admin can easily make (I could be convinced otherwise), but rather for a comprehensive case about the editor to be examined either here or by ArbCom. ] (]) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Unfortunately, an effective AN/I thread in a non-DS topic which will convince an admin to close it with sanctions to the subject party takes a lot of time and the input of a lot of people. An ArbCom case takes even '''''more''''' time, although the number of participants is typically smaller. Both of these methodologies are generally inefficient at taming a wild subject area -- in fact, ArbCom results can engender more hassles, although they tend to shift to the Arbitration Enforcement area. With discretionary sanctions in place, however, admins can more easily put a stop to misbehavior with non-draconian blocks and bans leading (if necessary) to harsher sanctions. It empowers '''''every''''' admin to use their best judgement under the circumstances, which means that more gets done, and gets done faster. If, as everyone seems to agree (but for different reasons) the e-cigarette subject area needs to be brought under control, discretionary sanctions are an extremely efficient tool to get that done. ] (]) 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support'''. Inasmuch as the Arbitration Committee has deferred to the community, at least for now, it seems this is the only reasonable way to deal with the probems. ]<sub>]</sub> 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::You've already voted to support in your previous post. Why are you voting again? -] 09:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are correct, my oversight. I've stricken it above. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you. -] 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''': And while we're discussing if sanctions should be enforced, QuackGuru is antagonizing a new group of editors at an ]. -] 23:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you'd like. ] (]) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is relevant because it is evidence of the ''complete futility'' of these proposed sanctions. Feel free to disagree, but don't remove or modify my comments. -] 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is '''''not''''' relevant because this thread is about providing admins the tools to deal with '''''any''''' editor who misbehaves in this topic area, and '''''not''''' about the current misbehavior (if it is that) of any specific editor. If you've still got a thing about getting QG blocked or sanctioned or whatever, even after the effort failed just above, and you think his current behavior warrants it, then '''''start another thread''''', but don't try to hijack this one. ] (]) 01:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Question''' If this passes, do people have an opinion on how long the sanctions should last? Presumably the topic should become less controversial with time as new and reliable studies come out, but I have no idea what that timeframe is. I think "indefinite" is kind of a default for this kind of stuff, but I thought it would be good to at least ask what people think about an expiration date. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) <small>pinging ] 16:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'd say six months would be the absolute minimum, but that a year would be more likely to be helpful in waiting for the research to catch up to the questions. ] (]) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*This may not be necessary to have proposed sanctions. This was an overreaction to the above threads IMO. We can try one month if there is consensus for the sanctions. I think three months would be the most. ] (]) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* A year is the default in most cases, and given the duration of the dispute already I say we go with that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*So far there is no broad consensus for the community-imposed sanctions. As a compromise we can try the DS for a month. ] (]) 18:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. Right now, just on pure count, I see 14 supports and 8 opposes, which is 64% (63.63). In any case, if there is no consensus for community-based sanctions, as you contend, then there will be no community-based sanctions, not for a month, not for any amount of time. ] (]) 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I oppose this without a sunset clause. (Note also that admins effectively have the ability to take these types of actions without DS.) All the best: ''] ]'', <small>05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :*True, but most admins are loathe to hand out topic bans etc. without the support of discretionary sanctions either from the community or from ArbCom. (Incidentally, 1 year of DS '''''is''''' a "sunset clause", so why isn't your vote "support - 1 year"?) ] (]) 08:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the opposing position seems to be based on the fact that sanctions probably won't fix anything but the worst I can see them doing is not being used. They certainly won't make it worse. ] (]) 10:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
| *'''Support''' Community authorized discretionary sanctions will allow any uninvolved administrator to topic ban an editor who is disrupting the e-cig article(s) without first seeking consensus here at ANI. More accurately, if this passes it shows that there already is consensus at ANI for such a topic ban. And of course if an admin misuses DS we have procedures in place for dealing with that. --] (]) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' based on Bluerasberry's comment and Doc James' oppose, I wonder if the best alternative might be to full protect the article for a good long while, processing new edits through consensus on the talk page. ] (]) 07:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is already fully protected until March 30, but there's also ] and ] to consider. Certainly these could be fully protected as well, but that puts the onus on admins to judge whether every suggested edit has consensus behind it. Surely it's better to allow free editing of these articles, and let admins sort out who is being disruptive from who is being helpful in their editing? ] (]) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''(Involved editor)''' I would support long-term protection of at least the main article and possibly forks as an alternative to discretionary sanctions. We have recently had issues with a user to get full-protection removed, almost immediately making including 16 other edits in 2 hours. Then when protection was , immediately trying to have it (in fact they successfully managed to get the expiry date moved forward to March 30th this time despite opposition from two other editors including myself). Such desperation to have protection removed clearly demonstrates an intention to do something that can't be done with protection instated, most likely grossly violate ]. So yes, I think there's a clear requirement for long-term full-protection. At the very least very close long-term monitoring by admins against consensus and edit-warring violations is required but that would not be as straightforward as protection.] (]) 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Full protection is, generally speaking, a step to be avoided if at all possible, since it's inherently contrary to the Misplaced Pages ethos of free editing. It also essentially freezes the articles into their current states, as getting a consensus to add or subtract something through the protection is going to be very hard to do, and admins should not accept any suggested edit which does not have a talk page consensus behind it.<p>Again, I'm not sure why opponents of discretionary sanctions are trotting out other possible solutions when it hasn't been settled whether '''''this one''''' will be put into effect or not. Tallying !votes once more, I see 16 supports and 9 opposes, which means that '''''64%''''' of the respondents here are in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. That's not a landslide by any means, but it is a healthy supermajority in favor. ] (]) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' discretionary sanctions. Too often cudgel for the maintenance of House Point of View... It takes two to tango and I expect the anti-e-cig advocates are every bit as tendentious as the routed pro-e-cig peeps... ] (]) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*And what about the third possible group, those editors who wish to keep the article neutral and supported by reliable sources in line with MEDRS? What do they do when the pros and the antis are duking it out, making it nest to impossible to edit the articles effectively? ] (]) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' As written and how written (without any explicit sunset provision). Writing an explicit sunset provision only tells disruptive elements how long they have to wait before they can start being disruptive again. The language that this proposal was cribbed from was specifically designed to not have a sunset provision (i.e. indefinite in the same sense that we have indefinite blocks) because either the sanctions will fall into disuse and forgotten or a WikiHistorian will see that we still have the sanctions on the books and a simple consensus vote to revoke them can be accomplished at a later date when it's clear that the authorization has outlived it's purpose. As it stands right now the e-cig field is far too disruptive in it's current state to explicitly state when the sunset will take place. I'd rather have positive action to deprecate the sanctions than positive action necessary to maintain them. ] (]) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Oppose'''. Vaguely worded. ] (]) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</s> <small> Sockpuppet of a blocked user. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :*You are, of course, free to !vote whatever way you wish, for whatever reason you wish, but this: <blockquote>'''Proposed: The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, 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.''''</blockquote> is in no respect "vaguely worded." ] (]) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Behaviour of Walter Görlitz == | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The user ] (]) has been involved in various edit wars and ignorant reversions/discussions on articles of and related to ]. This user refuses to accept fact as grounds to edit the article and has taken it upon himself to "preside" over the article and undo any new edit that he deems unworthy. Perhaps worse than this is he will then post "warning" messages on other users' talk pages not to start edit wars (which he has begun by serially reverting). | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I completely understand Misplaced Pages policy referring to edits/sources, but this user is instantly deleting anything that doesn't comply with his literal translation of policy - completely undermining the spirit of a community edited encyclopaedia. Instead, I am left with no choice but to raise this as an official incident in the hope that he will be told to, in so many words, "let others play". | |||
| {{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| :It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I hope I haven't come off as disrespectful, but when a user is as persistent in making other editors' time on Misplaced Pages totally non-enjoyable, I feel a strong approach is needed. | |||
| ::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--> | |||
| --] (]) 00:59, 23 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) | |||
| ::<s>{{ping|Samcooke343}} You must notify the person you are starting a discussion about on their Talk page. I have notified Walter Görlitz about this thread for you, but in future please notify them. Thanks,</s> ] (]) 01:11, 23 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::{{ping|Samcooke343}} My apologies, I see you've done this already but it was removed from the Talk page. ] (]) 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history? | |||
| : This interpretation of events is novel at best. | |||
| *:Or is that just something that isn't done? – ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : First, let's look at his current issue. ], says | |||
| *::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) | |||
| :: Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to ''only'' those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is '''not''' intended as a ] for ''every'' instrument the subject has ever used. | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| : He was reverted by two separate editors: I was the first and . | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| : Also, I did let him play. He made multiple genre changes that I saw and didn't revert. I'm not sure why he thinks that Misplaced Pages is a playground though and why he, as a musician, is more capable of recognizing a genre than other editors. See ]. | |||
| : Second, "facts" are not the ground for Wikiedpia edits, ] is. ] (]) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Third, I spend multiple hours on Wikiedpedia and know various policies and guidelines and come into contact with casual editors. My goal is to educate them on those policies and guidelines. It's clear not all of them appreciate being told that they're not editing according community consensus. That brings me into conflict with them. ] (]) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the instrument issue, this is more or less as difficult as genres and associated acts. But yeah, only most well-known instruments. I don't know ] very well, so I wouldn't know. -- ] (]) 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
| {{ping|Samcooke343}} As {{u|Walter Görlitz}} said, "fact" alone is not a justification for anything on Misplaced Pages. It's one of the more counter-intuitive but fundamental principles guiding the project: ], not truth or what an editor declares truth, is what matters. In other words, if you want to add something, just add a source. On the talk page it looks like you included a couple sources, but they're just videos that include Young playing the instruments you said he's "known for" playing. That's not sufficient. It's a primary source and it's ] to say that he's "known for" playing them just because there are videos of him playing those instruments. Again, all that's needed is to support your claim with reliable sources. ] is a particularly relevant part of the Verifiability policy here. The other issue is stylistic. You added the word "sophomore" to refer to his second album. Walter pointed you to ] in his edit summary, but then you . I understand the frustration of being reverted, and I don't know that I agree or disagree with , but restoring the word that's even included in the link ] suggests learning about best practices for writing might not be a priority -- or rather, I could see how it could give someone that impression. — <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree with Rhododendrites, which is not an uncommon situation in which to find myself. I understand that it's frustrating to be reverted, but both combatants should probably try to communicate a bit better. Maybe we could try to deescalate the conflict and take the debate to the talk page. There hasn't been a post there in six months. ] (]) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Anyone can add a page to their watchlist, without claiming ownership of an article. I wonder why this was even being discussed. ] (]) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</s> <small>'''Sockpuppet of blocked user. ] (]) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)'''</small> | |||
| :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. | |||
| == Question regarding user space page == | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}. | |||
| ::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.'' | |||
| ::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states. | |||
| ::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.'' | |||
| ::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial. | |||
| ::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album | |||
| :::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/ | |||
| :::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ] ] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} === | |||
| Is it really appropriate to compile diffs for presentation to ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated is being done at ], or considering the fact that the content is under DS, should any such complaints be raised at the appropriate locations as the concerns are raised, and could such a collection of material be seen as being a form of ]? ] (]) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :See ], but so long as the compilation intends to be used before any of the diffs go stale, I'm pretty sure it's allowed. // ] <small>(]|])</small> 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think your second sentence might be the more relevant one here. As it's purported purpose is to raise concerns at AE and ANI, which are more or less intended for immediate response, isn't it some what inherently dubious to basically collect grievances which one is apparently not willing to act on, or which perhaps are not worthy of being acted on? Collecting evidence for ArbCom is certainly well-precedented and acceptable, but I don't know that I've ever seen a collection specifically intended for ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated here. ] (]) 21:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the rule of thumb is a week or two before a diff goes stale, so the timeline remaining on this is running out (oldest diff I noticed is from 10 days ago). It could possibly get ]'d or ]'d once any of the diffs on the page go past 14 days, despite the 90-day notice on the page. // ] <small>(]|])</small> 22:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Per ] '''The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted ''provided'' it will be used in a timely manner.''' ANI and AE are part of the dispute resolution process (albeit the tail end), so it's OK for that. "Timely" is subject to interpretation, but if you believe it's been around too long without being used, or unlikely to be used soon, bringing it to MfD would allow a consensus to determine whether the "timeliness" factor had been breached. ] (]) 22:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also note that Arbcom frequently simply blanks userspace evidence pages after closing the case. For instance, ] (at ) contains some diffs that are years old. --] (]) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm just curious, ], what do you think about ]? If the information is not actually used for the DR process, should it be proposed for deletion in two weeks? Right now, it seems like an enemies list even though the wording is exceedingly polite so it can't be seen as an attack page even if that is its purpose. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 16:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: @Liz: It looks to me like an "enemies list" which are strictly forbidden. It should go to MfD after DHeyward is asked on his talk page to delete it himself, which I will do now. ] (]) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I've left DHeyward a message asking him to delete the page. . ] (]) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I'm not optimistic that he'll choose to delete the page but I appreciate you assessing the situation and offering your perspective on it, ]. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: DHeyward deleted my request without comment, so I've nominated the page for deletion . ] (]) 04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Thank you for the information. ] (]) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The evidence page under discussion here is a list of diffs and quotes with little or no interpretation, has a clear intent, and has a deletion date (with a clearly stated request for any admin to delete after that date). --] (]) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Feel free to nominate the Ebionites 2 page for deletion if you so see fit, but I think it is also true that user pages which are actively used in arbitration cases, such as the one you link to, are different as they contain some of the evidence used in the arbitration. I also note that your comments do not address the matter of the use of the word "timely", even though you seem to have perhaps somewhat arbitrarily decided 90 days qualifies as timely, and I think, under the circumstances, as the person collecting the material, you are probably not the best person to determine how to apply the relevant policies and guidelines. ] (]) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Absolutely (although I'd suggest a better title e.g. "sandbox3"). </s>. There's a falsehood on the page: ; see link on . <small>]</small> 22:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you {{U|NE Ent}}. I have the (already closed) ANEW filing and the closing admin of the mistaken link, with a recommendation that they reconsider the outcome of the filing if appropriate. Given that the ANEW report considered an editor that was edit warring on my user page and on the subpage we are discussing here, it is likely that the closing admin would have seen the page anyway. That does not change that it was an entirely inappropriate mistake on my part to link to it as evidence in the ANEW filing. --] (]) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You mean at ], right? ] (]) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Correct - ] and ] are both shortcuts to ]. Thanks for making sure. --] (]) 01:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. | |||
| == Personal attack by Nagakura shin8 == | |||
| 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 | |||
| Whilst I am not afraid of robust debate, I was shocked by the vitriol in by ] (]}. I have seen editors receive lengthy blocks for far less. I would think a 24 hour block might be appropriate as a shot across the bows. - ] ] 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that's pretty nasty, but it's . As to the dispute, the Australian pronunciation of "emu" may be dominant (as a Canadian, I pronounce it as you describe - even though I say "jaguar" with two syllables and otherwise agree with American pronunciation in many respects), but I don't think I can support calling any pronunciation "incorrect" if it's the established pronunciation of a major body of speakers. It's just ''variant'' pronunciation, just like variant spelling. And heaven knows Misplaced Pages has seen enough ] over '''that'''. It hardly surprises me that another editor might take exception to that, even if the response is disproportionate. ] (]) 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name. | |||
| :::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| ::I did not bring this matter here to resolve the content dispute. If I have over stepped the line on conduct, I will take my licks, but I at least tried to keep my comments civil. However, Ns8's response is way out of proportion to anything I said and is disparaging and deeply offensive. That is the matter I brought here. - ] ] 09:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see a great deal of civility in your comment, Nick, I see anti-American insults. If you attack Americans (or any other nationality) in that way, you should not be surprised to see them fight back. And you shouldn't come complaining if you can't take what you dish out. ] (]) 10:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't think you can compare the two editors' remarks. While neither is civil, ]'s second comment is a completely over-the-top response. Additionally, it was he/she that first brought up the American vs. Australian comparison that Nick Thorne then responded to. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, been busy IRL. I apologise unreservedly for for any offence caused by my comments. BTW, the content issue is largely resolved, I think. However, I am disturbed by . I am not perfect but I have heard and heed the advice given here and on my talkpage, I will strike the offending words. - ] ] 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Gotta love the social norms around here. ] is policy, but has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. Just go on your merry ways. Sigh. --] (]) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *No one said NPA has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. But we have to remember that there are living, breathing people behind every account. Disputes can get heated. Most people will get offended if they feel insulted, and many will respond by returning fire. It just happens. In this case, both parties provoked each other with very serious and cutting insults. While Nick's comments were certainly more passive-agressive reserved I don't think they were any less offensive to Nagakura, and he has no grounds to come here and ask for a one-way block when he's equally at fault for escalating the dispute. I recognize and appreciate him redacting his comments and apologizing, that's the civil thing to do and the correct course of action. But it doesn't change the fact that he's partially at fault for the situation blowing up to begin with. We could certainly dish out blocks here in terms of severe personal attacks, but I think both editors have already ] and the actual dispute seems to already be resolved. I don't think a block would serve as a preventative measure in this case. ] ] 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*While this level-headed approach seems wisdom on the surface, I've been here long enough to know it's a failed way of handling such disputes. It simply doesn't work. A polite tap on the wrist saying "please don't do that again" doesn't work. If someone is able to be riled up by what a completely unknown person (to them) says about them or something they care about, they've got serious problems with being able to hold their tongue. The behavior exhibited in such cases ''will'' happen again; the characters in question will have too quick of a trigger finger. In this particular case, we're seeing it continue right before our eyes. With we're seeing not only continued gross incivility after this thread here on AN/I had begun, but a threat to continue in the future; "don't include insults to other countries ... and your country won't be insulted. It's not really very difficult" Meanwhile, just the mere ''beginnings'' of a cursory review of Nagakura shin8's edits show other incivility . I'm finding other evidence of incivility on his part as well. --] (]) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC:) | |||
| Agree with {{u|Nick Thorne}} on this one. I don't think that kind of nastiness is acceptable, no matter what was said before. I do not agree with the above response by the IP user that it was "hardly unprovoked." I saw what Nick wrote and, as an American, was not offended in the least. Additionally, responding this way makes Americans look a lot worse than anything Nick Thorne said. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 22:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras == | |||
| 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 | |||
| There is a conflict among a number of editors, which is becoming quite heated among at least two of them, of them at ]; sections '''restoration of duplicate content''', '''detailed Legislation section''' and '''RfC'''. The underlying issue is whether a passage should be placed in ] or in ]. It's morphed from a discussion of that point into an additional argument about how the conflict should proceed, and has now gotten to the name-calling stage. | |||
| , , . | |||
| 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 don't see any sign that the more vocal editors will calm down any time soon. As I mention above, the discussion involves two pages, and my concern is that in the crossfire, the information may be inadvertently removed from both and made difficult to restore as further edits are made to the pages. | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| I do have a position in the underlying issue and have stated it on that talk page, and am otherwise now staying out of the discussion, because I don't have anything further to add and don't want to fan the flames. | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandal encounter == | |||
| The two most vocal editors are {{user|DrChrissy}} and {{user|Jytdog}}. I am placing a notification of this discussion on the ] in addition to the individual talk pages of the above-named editors, due to the number of editors involved. ] (]) 15:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : i haven't edited the page since March 19 (last ), so there is nothing to do worry about me from me with regard to article content. i am frustrated with drchrissy's behavior, but i know how to use ANI and other boards and have not chosen to bring this anywhere, at this time. i do wish he would withdraw the flawed RfC that he pre-emptively launched (he had never done one before), and have asked him several times to do so, but he has so far not chosen to. I see no need for admin action at this time. ] (]) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find the launching of this ANI extremely curious to say the least. ] launched the ANI but was also the editor that removed the disputed content within 48 hours of my instigating an RfC ] - way, way too early for any consensus to be reached.__] (]) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not edited the article page since March 20, 2015 ], so I am also not actively aditing the article page. Again, what is the motivation behind this ANI being launched?__] (]) 15:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|DrChrissy}} the motivation, i reckon, is to get you and i to start working together instead of fighting, which is disrupting the Talk page and making us both look like assholes. a good first step would be for you to stop publicizing the RfC and to withdraw it, so we can frame one together that we both find acceptable. ] (]) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are free to describe yourself as you believe others are perceiving you, but please do not include me in that sort of description. I launched an RfC because it became apparent that you and I are unable to work together at the moment. I launched the RfC for outside comments, not for bonding. Instead, this RfC is being hijacked by inflammatory remarks, moving/changing other peoples' edits, removing the material under discussion, questioning the faith of edits and so on and so on. It is as if someone is deliberatly trying to sabbotage the RfC with unnecessary, unwanted and distracting edits.__] (]) 16:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If conditions at this RfC are as disruptive as you describe, DrChrissy, perhaps admin intervention is called for. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:11, 24 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. | |||
| {{od}} OK, so again instead of just making this simple, drchrissy, and withdrawing the RfC, you are making drama. (just like with the content you too-closely paraphrased despite 4 editors, including MoonRiddenGirl, telling you it was problematic as discussed ]). In the case of this RfC: | |||
| * after you edit-warred the content back in while Alexbrn was temp blocked, i , referring to the two prior sections where we had been discussing this | |||
| * the next day , ignoring the one i had opened | |||
| * after some unproductive back and forth between us, on March 20 i would '''draft an RfC for us to discuss''' | |||
| * you acknowledged that and and | |||
| * all the sudden on March 22 '''without discussion''' | |||
| * which and (and did again several times e.g ). | |||
| * instead you made it more malformed by and blah blah blah just more bad behavior from there including instead of withdrawing it. | |||
| * for the second time, instead of doing the simple, community-oriented thing of acknowledging a mistake, you have doubled down. '''please just do the simple thing and withdraw the RfC, so we can discuss a neutral, well-formed RfC that can guide discussion going forward'''. ] (]) 17:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The discussions and arguments on the talk page are layered, splintered, and in some cases, it seems, even recursive. It's not only difficult for an outside party to get involved, but also has not shown to produce even basic agreements on which to build upon (at least not recently). Stripping away the specifics and the behavioral issues, the crux of the matter seems to be to what extent information about the critical aspects of foie gras should be covered in the ] article, and to what extent they should be covered at ] (and only summarized in the main article). {{u|DrChrissy}} has stated that he does not believe they should be separate articles, which to me explains some of his edits and arguments others have taken issue with. | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| It seems like the first and foremost question should be whether ] is a viable and appropriate fork. | |||
| ::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| If the answer is yes, then next we'd have to determine what is considered "controversy" such that it should primarily be covered at the controversy article. And furthermore what topics relate to the controversy but should be weighted similarly (if covered differently) at the main article. ---- (The latter comes from DrChrissy's point -- and please correct me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly -- that legislation concerning foie gras is central enough to the subject of foie gras that even if it's covered in the controversy article, it should not merely be summarized in the main article). | |||
| {{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) | |||
| Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places? | |||
| Once we've determined the domains of each page, the scope and venue for each of the arguments becomes a bit simpler. It's not a fix for everything, but it seems like a good place to start. As of now, the controversy article is all but neglected while these heated disputes take place in the main article, which doesn't make sense to me. — <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 22:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :that is well said. this is some of the stuff i was considering with regard to framing the RfC, before drchrissy launched his RfC. ] (]) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Soon after you started to request I withdraw the RfC, I invited you to post an alternative RfC ] so that we could discuss this. You declined to take up this opportunity of a collegiate approach to resolving this dispute.__] (]) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it {{duck}}. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::you don't run 2 RfCs at the same time on the same topic. i will ask you again, just : Please withdraw the RfC already. Why will you not just withdraw it? Please answer. Thanks. ] (]) | |||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| *'''Comment''': There may have been dueling threads on the Talk page, but there is only one RfC there now, so no actionable items exist at this time that I can see. There's no prohibition in creating an RfC (a public discussion to engage more outside opinions than the current page-watchers), and that seems to be what was done. Some folks claim the RfC is not neutrally worded, but I don't see that it isn't as it merely asks a brief question and states how long the material in question was previously in the article. I think the presence of the RfC should give a forum to the discussions under way, and also invite outside input, which should calm the situation down. Again, at this very minute I don't see anything actionable. ] (]) 09:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : i agree there is nothing actionable. the RfC is not neutral and doesn't capture the debate, nor the larger issue of moving. Per ] drchrissy '''should have''' discussed it before launching it. that is what i had said i was going to do; i had just not gotten to it yet when he jumped the gun and launched his, without discussion. I keep asking him to withdraw it ( and now, why he will not withdraw it) and he doesn't respond. what i want is to work together to frame a useful RfC that will provide helpful guidance going forward. the current one, does not do that. i don't think his launching of the RfC is actionable, nor is his refusal to withdraw it, nor is his refusal to say why he will not withdraw it. it is just ugly behavior. i am about ready to give up trying and just let the damn thing run. waste of a month. you know, i will give up trying to get him to withdraw it, or to say why he won't. so.. done with that. ] (]) 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yesterday, I gave an explanation why I will not withdraw the RfC. This explanation is under a thread which Jytdog created themselves. It is not up to me to do thread-watching or research for another editor.__] (]) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::i already asked you twice ( and ] (]) 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (mistaken per below. striking ] (]) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::well I am wrong about that and have struck. drchrissy does know how to make a diff! see where he is building up a nice record on me. so, he has skill and time to put diffs there, but not here. OK. priorities are very clear. ] (]) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Jytdog's message makes it clear that they are monitoring my sandbox where I am preparing an ANI. I appreciate this type of monitoring is not illegal, but to then make negative comments about me on here does rather smack of harrassment.__] (]) 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{od}} <s>i find drchrissy's behavior to be incomprehensible. he goes from being very on point and seemingly knowing what he is doing, to being completely lost on Misplaced Pages basics (from the launching of the RfC and subsequent refusal to discuss it per above, to stuff like ] and ] and especially ] and other stuff, and i have no hope of working through controversial content to reach consensus with this editor - their behavior is just baffling to me. I am unwatching ] and walking away.. ] (]) 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking. since I was drawn back against my wishes, I am sticking around. Will do my best to avoid dealing directly with drchrissy but will do if needed.) ] (]) 18:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| == ] repeated unsourced material == | |||
| {{archivetop|1=Indeffed by {{u|Nakon}}. {{nac}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user has been repeatedly adding unsourced material to various articles, such as ] and ]. Warnings have not stopped the disruptive editing. ] (]) 01:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} S/he hasn't edited since the last warning; let's see what happens. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The user has continued their behavior. Please help. They aren't listening. ] (]) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. Please help. ] (]) 22:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: at ]. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In the last hour, they've posted unsourced content 6 times. Think it's definitely time for a block. I've reported at ] as well. ] (]) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| == Closure of talk-page discussion == | |||
| #* 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:''' | |||
| Would someone be willing to close ] to put ] argument to rest? ] (]) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't need closing, it just needs you to hit the road and it will cease to exist.'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : {{Nao}} This article's Talk page makes it clear that there's a long-running content dispute going on at ]. I suggest ANI steer well clear of this. --] (]) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't think it is "long-running" but it is still an active discussion. I know a couple admins are checking in on it and it is probably better that someone who has been following this dispute close the question about hidden text. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The edit warriors on that page, on such a trivial matter as an ''infobox'', fer cryin' out loud, should be put on ice for a suitable interval. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, I don't quite get the battle over infoboxes, ←], but this dispute is actually about placing hidden text on an article forbidding editors from placing an infobox on the page. It's the wording (and the all caps) of the text that needs changing. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And that debate is even sillier. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| No close, the article's been unprotected and the usual suspects are back to edit warring. What can I say? ] (]) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The "usual suspects" are a cadre of malcontents who band together to defend each other's behavior. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| == Requested mass rollback == | |||
| # Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed. | |||
| {{archivetop|All finished. Nothing new to see ] (]) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| # Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments. | |||
| I mistakenly unlinked (using Twinkle) all backlinks to ]. I'm sorry. Request a mass rollback. Thanks, ] (]) 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it's done. May need to be checked. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It managed to trip quite a few edit filters so attracted quite a bit of attention. Edits to templates have been reverted (manually). ] (])(]) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *With your permission, may I add you to the ]? ''']''' 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh dear, looks like a trout is in order. Maybe not village stocks, but no one has offered our favorite seafood yet? --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Konveyor Belt}} Yes, you may! ] (]) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Editor with recent breaches of policy == | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
| {{archivetop|Editor has been indefed, with talk page access revoked, due to repeated attacks and copyvios (non-admin closure). '''~'']'']''' <small>] ]</small> 03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
| ]'s recent history has some concerning edits that are, at best, ] but could be an indication of a general disregard for Misplaced Pages's policies as indicated by this edit's edit summary {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Copyright_problems/2015_February_27|prev|653515045}}. Some of the recent problematic edits starting with the most recent: {{diff|User_talk:Justlettersandnumbers|prev|653514731|personal attack}}, {{diff|User_talk:Stefan2|prev|649294296|personal attack}}, {{diff|User_talk:Brigade_Piron|prev|647633098|accusing editor of vandalism in a content dispute}}, and {{diff|User_talk:Royalmate1|prev|645106835|personal attack}}. The user is currently in several permission groups that involve frequent user interaction, specifically rollback and pending changes reviewer, and because of what is at best a lack of understanding of policies that apply to user interaction I think these rights should be removed. Note that the user was recently blocked for the first personal attack. ] (]) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably deserving of an indef imo. . ] (]) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (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 have increased the block to indef, as the user either does not understand copyright law, or has no intention of obeying it. -- ] (]) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (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.'' | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." | |||
| ::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{tq|you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated}}{{snd}}Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got ''97% human''. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". ]] 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
| :::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
| :::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
| :::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{external media|video1=}} | |||
| ::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::<p>Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But ] has provided none. </p><p>Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "{{tqi|Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor}}". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here ] there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article. </p><p>Then there is ]. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment. </p><p>Next we see ]. Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about. </p><p>Next there is ]. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have ]. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on ] and none of them seem to deal with North Korea. </p><p>So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it. </p><p>] (]) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</p> | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| <s>The user in question here clearly understands Misplaced Pages policy. Have you even looked at his userpage? I think the problem here was with the admins' refusal to be intelligent about the incident here because of some supposed personal attacks. Increased blocks here is really just stupid, seeing as he is a rollbacker with thousands of extremely helpful edits and article creations. Shame on the admins, honestly. ] (]) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</s> <small>'''Sockpuppet of blocked user Royalmate1. ] (]) 22:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)'''</small> | |||
| {{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| == use of COI as a weapon in content dispute == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Am seeking 24 hour block for {{u|DePiep}} for violating ] in which he used claims of COI as a cudgel in a content dispute. Admins may find this trivial - it is not a death threat or calling someone "fucking stupid" or the like, but this stuff is very ugly to me and should not stand. | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| * and | |||
| * , | |||
| ** which and | |||
| *** , and | |||
| *** | |||
| ** I , which | |||
| ** | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| * he and | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * DePiep | |||
| ** , and | |||
| ** | |||
| *** "You are supposed to TALK when you have an issue, instead ot threatening by template. Don't ever visit my userspace again." | |||
| :"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. | |||
| * and immediately went back to Talk and made another personal attack, , and after I redacted it, <s></s> with edit note: "lol fix" | |||
| :Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet. | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is not "lol". As I said, I am seeking a 24 hour block for NPA. User was well-warned. Using COI as a cudgel is '''not OK''' in WP. Thanks ] (]) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (fix bad dif, sorry) | |||
| :(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. | |||
| :Distorted approach. Telling detail: my "lol fix" edit summary was with a minor sp correction -- bad faith by Jytdog here. Jytdog did not engage in ''talk'', instead added opinion-by-template from their edit 01. Etcetera. Is what I said. Of course someone template-threatening without talking is not welcome in my userspace. -] (]) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::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). | |||
| ::This is what I was expecting. No insight, no remorse. Wikilawyer tactic. Flinging charges of COI is not OK... period end of story. (and thanks for pointing out that my dif was bad - will fix that removal of my strike by you, pronto. ] (]) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :::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: | |||
| :::: • | |||
| I'm the user primarily involved with DePiep here (of course my first version fails to send and is deleted). Here's a summary of what's happened so far. Essentially, they began an edit war attempting to insert new content into the lede. Diffs: | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| # I remove it due to ] and weight issues to explore in the body of the article first expecting more discussion to occur on the talk page. Instead followed by a revert from DePiep. | |||
| ::::and many more | |||
| # I revert reminding DiPiep to come to the talk page per ] to discuss the new content they want to (while avoiding additional reverts). They in return revert saying "No: you are to talk first" | |||
| ::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| They then posted on my talk page the 3RR template while also including the text I added as well referring to BRD. This seems to indicate the editor lashes out when called out on problem behavior with edit warring. Within that template, they also included, '''"Fuck off and don't think your "warning" has meaning. You did not talk. "''' After finally getting some discussion out of them on the talk page, they instead lash out by casting ] accusing me of COI and another user for paid editing . Another user removed the personal attacks which DePiep reinstated, . Another accusation occurred that was also removed by another user. | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| The point isn't getting across from anyone at the article that edit warring and personal discussions are not ok, and that if your newly proposed edit is reverted, that's the time to follow ] and discuss on the talk page rather than edit war the content back in. Hopefully a warning would get the point across, but judging by the comments here and at the article, I don't think a temp block (i.e. 24 hours) is a bad idea either. ] (]) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::{{ec}}So Jytdog says: 1. : "strike, ANI", and 2. says: "agree", about the very same source added. Safe always. -] (]) 01:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is this, by Jytdog: ? coordinating action? -] (]) 01:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::absolutely - his post was way too long. you are not a genius to see that. ] (]) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::::Doesn't seem intended. I can get a little wordy sometimes trying to lay these cases out, but my diffs are largely different instances of the edit warring and behavior problems laid out relatively concisely. | |||
| ::::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::{{ec}}One more note and then I'll log off: I find the introduction of '''weapon''' by Jytdog aggressive. -] (]) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (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}} your behavior is very "internetz", DiPeip. We are not about "lulz" here. '''I am looking for a swift, simple block here from an admin.''' Thanks. ] (]) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I think an I-ban would do better here. - ] (]) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll note I've never interacted with this editor before a few hours ago. I'm not interested in an ban this early on if the behavior will just stop now and in the future. ] (]) 02:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not going to act unilaterally and block just to punish anyone. But I see a clear battleground mentality from DePiep here. I do not see any desire or effort to work with others, to reach consensus or to compromise position, to discuss to work out what is best for the article, or any of that. I see someone who only wants to "win" the battle, and isn't interested in collaboration. Whatever anyone wants to do with this is fine by me, I would support any sanction (interaction ban, topic ban, etc.) which will prevent this behavior in this venue. The requested 24 hour block is not a method to stop the problematic behavior, and would be purely punitive, and thus not a useful means to stop the problem behavior here. Some sort of indefinite ban which will curb the behavior is needed. DePiep does good work in many areas (chemistry, for example), but this kind of toxic behavior is not useful in building up the encyclopedia, and something should be done to see that it stops. --]] 02:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Jayron32}} the point of the short block is not punitive - it is educational, to make it clear that the behavior is not OK. If Depiep continues, the next one can be longer, etc, until they end up at an indef. I would not support an indef now - it is way too much. I would appreciate it if you or another admin would do this simple, clear thing. I think the evidence is solid and I have no interest in this turning into a drama-fest. That is the worst thing that can happen, as there is no lesson offered, much less learned. Thanks. ] (]) 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Saying it's educational is the same as saying "I hope he learns from his punishment." That's not why we issue blocks. We issue blocks to stop imminent harm to the encyclopedia. The issue is, will a 24 hour block have any effect on stopping the behavior once the block stops. Unequivocally no. If the user is contrite and also understands what they have done wrong, and indicates no intention to commit the same mistakes again, we wouldn't do anything. If the user shows no signs of understanding why their actions are harmful, than an expiring sanction is useless, because they would just restart their disruption again. We need to 1) have a sanction which last the duration of the problem and b) have a sanction which minimally affects the users ability to edit in other areas nondisruptively if we believe them to be capable of that. A full indefinite block is excessive because DePiep shows positive contributions in many other areas. An expiring block is inadequate because it does not stop the problematic behavior once it expires. That means the appropriate tool is a targeted ban: either a topic ban, or interaction ban, which removes the locus of the disruption, and allows DePiep to continue positive contributions in other areas. --]] 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for replying, Jayron. I understand your interpretation of ] and the way you choose to implement your powers, but there is clear justification per ] that other admins may choose to act under. I have no interest in turning this into a semi RfC/U dramafest to examine broader patterns of behavior, which is what it would take to pursue a T-ban and these users have not interacted before as far as I know, so there are no grounds for an I-ban. And an indef is unwarranted, i agree. ] (]) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Indef I-ban or T-ban''' broadly constructed. The problem seems to center around these two but Misplaced Pages is a big place, lets try one of these first before an outright Indef behavioral block. - ] (]) 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{Nao}} A Topic Ban in this instance is a very bad idea, in my estimation. Long-term editors should be given more benefit of the doubt than that... --] (]) 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::completely inappropriate for the evidence presented. no. ] (]) 02:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *All that has to happen here is a bit of cooling down. Long term bans are not needed as it appears that editors understand how they have offended each other. The editing on ] seems to be converging to a consensus form. ] (]) 02:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Content isn't really the problem, but behavior. The reason why I went here at least was become it doesn't seem apparent DePiep understands the how problematic their behavior was and attempts to alert that to them were shrugged off. ] (]) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with Kingofaces. It doesn't matter where the content goes. The problem is offensive behavior. ] (]) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''this is not a content dispute''' - I am seeking a 24 block for '''behavior''' - for violating ] by making unfounded accusations of COI. User was well-warned and went ahead, flauntingly. ] (]) 02:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support warning and 24-48 hour block.''' Just clarifying from above. As the person who's been receiving the brunt of this behavior, I just want it to stop and make sure it stays that way. It's too early in the process for an I-ban or T-ban given no previous history. If the behavior stops, all is well. I don't think a warning alone would get the point across that the behavior is inappropriate, so the temp block seems the logical next step. ] (]) 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::My fears are reaffirmed DePiep is not taking seriously how disruptive their behavior is given some comments below. Saying the equivalent of just kidding or no big deal with respect to slinging around COI accusations can't be taken seriously in the context of the diffs. I'd ask the community to just look at the diffs provided for behavior problems while avoiding the drama fest below, and at least settle on a warning that gives very little ]. Folks can discuss things like the appropriateness of bans as a what-if if it looks like the behavior will continue after that if they really want, but can we at least settle this bare minimum request? This should not have to turn into a stereotypical sprawling ANI post. ] (]) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support 24 hour block or IBAN'''This sort of thing is deeply offensive and it is far too often ignored as some sort of "boys will be boys" issue that does not need administrative attention. As a result, personal attacks have become an argument of first resort for certain editors, and I think we really need to start enforcing NPA, which in principle is a pillar of wikipedia. | |||
| * "Are you sure you have no WP:COI?" | |||
| * "Lucky you get paid for edits here." | |||
| * "Kingofaces43 arguing 'newishness' about a scienctific publication needs to check the COIs" | |||
| This is deeply offensive stuff that does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment. I strongly support a 24 hour block. ] (]) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * <b>Boomerang</b> -- Jytdog is using COI allegations that are not even about him to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and control of the article by attempting to block a new editor to the page who has a different POV, no different than the . Unfortunately, the behavior goes unchecked.] (]) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So is your position then that personal attacks and allegations are an appropriate behavior on the article Talk pages? ] (]) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' Has Jytdog engaged in paid editing? If there is no evidence I support a short block for . --] (]) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The diff has nothing to do with Jytdog. -] (]) 08:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|John}} I have not edited for pay. Kingofaces, against whom most of the personal attacks were made, ] who has studied pesticides. Formerly 98, against whom DePiep flung the charge of "paid editing", ]. No evidence of paid editing by any of them. Please implement the short block. DePiep was just spewing allegations in the content dispute to discredit those with differing perspectives. Thanks. ] (]) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since it came up, I will reiterate I have absolutely no COI here as I have nothing to do with herbicides from a research perspective. I lay everything out very clearly on my to try to prevent exactly the kind of situation we have here. ] (]) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I apologise for misreading which editor was being accused of being a paid editor. Regardless of who was being referred to, the use of an unevidenced slur to win a content discussion seems reprehensible to me. I will not block as I have recently been in an unrelated dispute with DePiep, but I have to say that if this was not the case I would consider it. Certainly a warning needs to be given that this behaviour is not acceptable. --] (]) 20:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::ANI keeps surprising us for its chaotic timelime & logic. Expect discovery of America soon. -] (]) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Breeze in a teacup? Kingofaces43 ''twice'' reverted an edit , and only then started a talk. Then he comes to my talkpage to tell ''me'' about edit warring, using 3rd person btw. I just copied (mirrored) this. No reason to be surprised. Pot & kettle, tit & tat, case closed. Then we met on the article's talkpage. So far so good. | |||
| :Clearly my COI mentionings are tongue in cheek, and a mere reference to POV -- just a sidenote to my argument. | |||
| :Then Jytdog enters the arena ''removing my argument'' (keyword: recenticism; and again later ). So I reject the judgements by Jytdog. More: after these misjudgements, Jytdog claimed to know about COI . And he still not corrected their wrong "lol fix" conclusion I mentioned here @01:10. (To spell it out: the fix was a closing strike-tag, the lol was that the whole section was stricken. funny typo = lol to me). | |||
| :Jytdog applied words like "weapon" (see last diff), and this ANI post was opened (titled even) with "weapon" and "as a cudgel". That is introducing aggressiveness, and ''not'' reflecting my posts. -] (]) 08:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''your behavior''' was unacceptable. you absolutely used COI as a rhetorical weapon to discredit 2 editors with different perspectives than you, and you mocked our efforts to get you to stop your personal attacks. You continue to do so now, calling it "tongue in cheek". It is not funny, it is destructive and disruptive. ] (]) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are evading my points re your judgements. -] (]) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, the point here is the inappropriateness of personal attacks on article Talk pages. Whether the discussion that went before that was contentious or not is arguing off point. | |||
| ::::Do you understand that this is completely inappropriate behavior, and are you willing to apologize and refrain from such attacks in the future? That is what this ANI is about. Yes or No? ] (]) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re Formerly 98 (diffs are already in; can be repeated by request). The before-discussion was brought up here by someone else, so I am entitled to respond and correct that one. If it is off point, the original post should be addressed, not me. Also, that discussion has direct effects on the followup topic because Jytdog deleted my talkpage ''arguments''. Next. I repeat that multiple statements here (by John, by Jytdog) are ''incorrect''. For example, Jytdog mis-presented my es "lol fix" and still has not corrected themselves (which makes his statement false). And introducing words like "weapons" and "cudgel" sets the wrong tone, as does Jytdog's canvassing. This attitude might also have mislead other contributors here. I am entitled to correct all errors and wrong music. And I can call that bad judgements. Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again. -] (]) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: again this is '''more wikilawyering distraction'''. <u>You made three personal attacks and ignored two very clear warnings<u> and you show no sign of understanding the problem with your behavior. '''Again, a short block per ] is in order here.''' ] (]) 16:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::re Jytdog: Stupid fucking warmongering illiterate. At this point, you are to apologise to me for keep making a beetlefart into a Hisoshima. You still have not addressed your own bad judgeents. I wasn't even responding to you. -] (]) 20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' block. It would make more sense to focus on why the edit to the lead about the March 2015 was . WHO has reported that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Kingofaces removed it from the lead citing UNDUE, because other sources disagree, but the solution is to add the other sources to the lead, assuming they're as authoritative and reasonably up-to-date. What has happened now is that the WHO report has been restored to the lead, but a 1991 EPA report has been too – saying that glyphosate displays "evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans" – but without indicating in the text that it's from 1991. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is off-topic and does not address the behavioral issues raised. Flinging charges of COI is '''not an appropriate response to a content dispute.''' The issue here is DePiep's behavior, for which he was warned twice, and persisted nonetheless. SlimVirgin if you would like to open a separate thread on Kingoface's behavior, or open a case at COIN on him, if ''you'' believe that his edit was driven by COI, please do so. Thanks. ] (]) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree that they're separate issues. The Monsanto suite of articles is likely to end up at ArbCom, because there have been repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests. That needn't be because of COI; it may simply be that they agree with the company. And perhaps editors on the other side are too quick to believe that large corporations try to control content on WP. But there does seem to be unusual editing there. Trying to keep a recent WHO report out of the lead on the grounds of UNDUE, then equating it to an EPA report from 24 years ago (without alerting the reader to the age of the latter), looks odd. I urge all the editors on those articles to double their efforts to "write for the enemy" to head off the inevitable. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|User:SlimVirgin}} Can you explain the last sentence further? Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them? ] (]) 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{U|David Tornheim|David}}, I've left a question about this for Jytdog in the section below entitled "Close". ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::David this is yet more campaigning by you - you were warned about this : "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. " and, by the way, SlimVirgin has arguably made herself ] in these articles by her comments here. ] (]) 02:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I made it pretty clear that I didn't think the content was appropriate specifically for the ''lede'' quite yet because it was already in the body of the article where it belonged while details were being hashed out there per ]. That people resort to drama and insinuating COI rather than hammering out the finer details needed to make the content accurate according to the sources (including the WHO source and other up to date sources) is disruptive both at the article and here. ] (]) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Slimvirgin, really. This thread it about DePiep's behavior and your "oppose" doesn't speak to what DePiep did, at all. (On the other matters, I would be surprised if those articles end up at Arbcom anytime soon. They may do, but we are very far from there now, in my view. The articles have generally stayed off ANI and there have been no behavioral blocks for any of the editors who work on them regularly. Outside the occasional campaigners things proceed generally smoothly and we are able to talk through content disputes, generally reasonably. And I don't know '''any''' editors, including me, who "agree with the company". I generally do "write for the enemy"; that does not mean that pseudoscience holds sway over WP. There is a difference. What I do above all, is follow the reliable sources. For example, when the recent meta-analysis was brought up on Talk by another editor. It was a good source; it came in as did content based on it. ) ] (]) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was a similar situation ] in September when you and Kingofaces43 sought to have an editor topic-banned because she said or implied that there was COI editing at two agriculture-related articles. Kingofaces43 was arguing that the funding of a source didn't matter, when of course it often does. The way forward is for you and Kingofaces43, and everyone else at these contentious agriculture articles, to do everything reasonable to correct the perception of COI or POV editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for pointing out the ellenCt case. What you just said to me is ] here- "it is ''your fault'' you were attacked". Personal attacks based on bias are not OK - not when you have an ax to grind like EllenCT does (who strongly believes that neonics cause CCD and the science be damned (or be blessed only to the extent it supports her POV)) nor when they are used as a sloppy cudgel like DePiep used it - both are ugly and biased attacks. These '''are''' personal attacks. Smearing me or anybody else as a corporate zombie whore is '''not acceptable behavior''', period. It is very true that this attack does not have the weight of systemic societal bias that attacks based on race or gender do, but here inside WP there is a very strong anti-corporate bias. We don't shrug when someone is attacked on the basis of their gender; this behavior should not be shrugged off either. I get sick of being spit on and seeing others spit on. I am a good Wikipedian and editor; Kingofaces is better than me in some ways. This behavior is '''not OK'''. ] (]) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But this takes us back full circle to the quality of the editing. Removing the recent WHO report from the lead on the grounds of UNDUE is odd. Arguing that the funding of scientific sources doesn't matter is odd. People see that editing and put two and two together, because of the presumed corporate interest in those articles. They may be wrong to jump to that conclusion, but there does appear (at first glance) to be something amiss. I'm asking that you and Kingofaces43 take those concerns on board, even if they seem unfair, rather than seeking blocks and bans. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::], part of the problem is that you are misrepresenting my statements, which I directly explained to you and asked you not to do at the ANI you mentioned. I'm just going to assume you forgot. My comment on funding source was that as editors we need to rely on other scientists in the fields to comment on the reliability of findings. We as editors are not experts who can assess that, nor can we use funding source of peer-reviewed studies as a proxy for that. That is the actual context of what I said. If you want to discuss scientific publishing, this isn't the place. Also, please don't modify other people's threading as you did here . Jytdog did not respond to me, so please restore the threading to how I responded to you. ] (]) 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, SlimVirgin, it does not take us back anywhere. Content disputes happen all the time and they can get worked out calmly. '''This ANI is about DePiep's <u>behavior</u> in the midst of a content dispute -- and now has broadened to his behavior here.''' This is about behavior, not content. Again, if <u>you think</u> Kingofaces behavior during that content dispute is actionable, please open a thread on that. I don't see it is as actionable: he didn't break 3RR, he made no personal attacks, etc. Content was getting - ''and is still getting'' - worked out. The WHO report is brand new and it is being contextualized and worked into the article even as this ANI drags on. ] (]) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{U|Kingofaces43}}, it's clear from the indenting who's responding to whom. I don't really want to discuss this further, or the previous case, but as you feel you're being misrepresented, this is what I was referring to. It was in relation to a suggestion that be used as a source in ], an insecticide. The paper says (just above the references): "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division". ] makes this type of insecticide. You wrote, in response to an objection: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." That was one of several posts that the other editor felt were red flags, which led to your request that she be topic-banned for expressing concern. I'm not arguing that people be allowed to make accusations without evidence. I'm asking only that you and Jytdog do more to counter wayward perceptions with good editing before seeking blocks and bans. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I already asked you to refrain from misrepresenting those statements. You've been told multiple times I was not proposing that source for within the article but that is was being used while discussing the many reviews available (all the others did not have such funding). It's well past time to drop the stick. ] (]) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support warning and 24-48 hour block.''' Statements like, "I disagree with you, are you sure you don't have COI?" (my paraphrase of a diff given above) are an ad hominem attack and a cheap attempt to "win" a content dispute and should not be tolerated. A 48 hour block is not unreasonable given the damage this sort of thing can do. ] (]) 18:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' – Is the proposed interaction ban here between Jytdog and DePiep or Kingofaces43 and DePiep? It appears the COI concern/allegation was made against Kindofaces43 by DePiep, yet it appears the animosity is mostly between Jytdog and DePiep, so it’s unclear to me what interaction ban has been proposed.--] (]) 20:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The actual conduct dispute at the article is primarily between myself and Depiep, so those looking for an interaction ban would I imagine mean a one-way one banning DePiep from interacting with me. Jytdog's involvement really only came from warning DePiep and removing the personal attacks on the article, so things definitely can look confounded to an outside editor. Given recent comments by DePiep though ], I'm really not sure what action is best anymore given the scaling up of attacks towards other users than myself now. ] (]) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::there is no proposed interaction ban. not a live option here. ] (]) 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support LONG block.''' If this statement is tolerated on the noticeboards, and isn't a reason for a block for incivility, then there is no need for the AN/I noticeboards at all. ] (]) 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{u|Jayron32}}, {{u|John}} thoughts on the remark diffed above? Again I am not advocating a long block. What I am advocating is a short block to inform DePiep that this behavior '''is not OK'''. If he does this elsewhere, and/or continues after the block, the community can take further action later - and a longer one, to show that yes, we really mean it. I am so, so not interested in drama. I am interested in a clear statement from an admin or the community, that the unrepetent, continued behavior is not OK. Misplaced Pages is not the internetz where we flame each other for lulz. This is not complicated. ] (]) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree, regarding the inappropriateness of that statement. Honestly, ], if you want people to hear your side of this, whatever that might be, you should really strike that and come back when you can state your issues without profanity etc. Otherwise a block here would seem inevitable. --] (]) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) re {{U|BoboMeowCat|}}: I don't need to be "heared" any more. That's useless by now. No one reads, no one listens. It was when this thread started, but is has gone beyond its borders. Everyone can say anything and there is no check. Today I responded ''carefully'' to a ''serious'' post by User:Formerly 98 (search 16:11). What happened: Formerly 98 restarted their position elsewhere saying 'got no response'. All reset. That is WP:ANI 'discussion' level, this is why I have no confidence in any serious outcome being balanced. That is why I say that ''arguing'' here is useless (making an exception for you here ;-) ). And to Jytdog: don't be a dick. -] (]) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::re {{u|Jytdog}} I think I would now recommend a warning as {{u|DePiep}} has to stop acting out at this venue. I would hope they have learned their lesson. This is about preventing disruption, not about punishment. --] (]) 21:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{[u|John}} About the dif you link to - that is 20:34, 26 March. That was him getting mad and stomping away. He did not stay away, he has come back and had plenty more to say: | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* ]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=653661444 here] | |||
| ::::* | |||
| :::: none of that is clueful, or steps back ''at all'' from his behavior. But look, I did not come here for extended drama. To me this is cut and dry shitty behavior in the face of very, very clear warnings. It goes beyond heat of any moment. But if you will give a warning, fine, please give a warning and put this derailed ANI out of its misery. I will be grateful that action was taken. Thank you. ] (]) 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *In general, I would support some sort of interaction ban, but, in all honesty, the ones given out by ArbCom tend to be more effective than the ones imposed here. That being the case, I think it might make more sense to file a request from ArbCom if an i-ban or topic ban of some sort is being sought. Regarding the repeatedly attested to personal attacks, I can see that there are grounds for a block based on some of the comments such as those linked to by ScrapIron above, possibly longer than 24 hours. So I guess I would '''support block''' of 24 hours or more, and also suggest that ArbCom be considered for possible imposition of DS. ] (]) 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks for supporting the short term block. no topic ban or interaction ban is being sought - there are not diffs to support that; it was not the goal. We do not need discretionary sanctions. DePiep rarely edits that article - he showed up and made of ass of himself for one gloriour evening, which he continued here. That's it. ] (]) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*<s>'''Oppose block'''. Doesn't seem necessary. Administrators have too many priviliges here and they just too often love to block people for trivial and vindictive reasons. ] (]) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</s> <small>Sockpuppet of a blocked user. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ===What about the quality of the edits?=== | |||
| Given that we just had story, would anyone like to look at the quality of the edits made by the various accounts involved here? The above is more reminiscent of WWE theatre than an editorial discussion in an encyclopedia project. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This thread has '''nothing''' to do with content. Personal attacks are destructive to the process of working out good content and in my view flinging charges of COI is an especially pernicious and all too common personal attack in content disputes. And adding that link about a business school is yet more sloppy throwing around of COI. This is a specific issue, well documented. DePiep acknowledges above that he used it "tongue in cheek". COI is a serious issue here, and if people have concerns about it, the way to deal with it - and how '''not''' to deal with it, are clearly documented in the COI guideline, here: ] Jayen if you care about COi then read ] carefully and come help at COIN, where I work every day. ] (]) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andreas does have a point though, this is looking more like a "WWE theatre than an editorial discussion" with the (you idiot, re: no you) kind of talk. - ] (]) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::the discussion above is '''not an editorial discussion.''' ANI is for '''issues about behavior.''' if you are getting distracted, there is nothing I can do about that. The behavioral issues and difs I raised above are sharp and clear. There is a real problem with COI in WP - see the thread the just below this one for an example. What DePiep did is ugly behavior. I am looking for a short, clear block. The behavior is not OK. ] (]) 16:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What would it solve though? I can see Jayron's point above, once the block is up you are still going to have to deal with each other. - ] (]) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::please read ] and especially ]. ] (]) 16:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You don't know much about people, do you? Sending him to his room for 24 hours to "think about it" doesn't actually generate contrition and understanding. It compounds the problem and causes the punished user to set his heels and become even more intractable. We don't do it, not because we don't feel like it, or because we have some "belief" against it, or because it offends us to do so. We don't do it because ''it doesn't work''. Purely based on empirical evidence, from years of humans being humans on planet earth, this is not how you manage disagreements between adults, because ''it doesn't produce the results we're after''. We're not arguing for no sanctions, ''per se''. We're arguing for action ''which has been shown to have effective results''. 24-hour "cooling off" blocks aren't done because ''they don't work''. People do not cool down when you block them for 24 hours. They don't come back ready to work and cooperate with others. The reason we are offering other options is those options have been shown to reduce the problem. 24-hour blocks don't stop long-term disruptive behavior, so we don't issue them. --]] 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think there are a range of possibilities here, the only one that I would strongly oppose is to do nothing, thereby sending the message that this sort of behavior is accepted. ] (]) 19:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::re <s>Formerly 98</s> '''all''': I did reply to you at 16:11. What's wrong with that? -20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::re OP ] ({{U|Andreas}}): in a cleaner environment I would like to converse with you and others about this. However, this thread is spoiled, even by the lower ANI standards, so I won't engage. Hope to meet you elsewhere. -] (]) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{u|Jayron32}} I replied to you above, and said that I understand your perspective on BLOCK and how you choose to use your powers. I do understand it, really I do. I just don't agree with it. You don't ask me any questions (your first one is rhetorical, not authentic) so I will say nothing further. ] (]) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| There is something terribly amiss about the title of this section. '''How is that so many want to discuss editor behavior on article Talk pages and argue content at ANI?'''. Lets stay focused on a discussion of behavior here and not try to justify personal attacks based on a content dispute. This is something we have to get right if we are going to work together effectively. ] (]) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. You, for example, could have sticked stayed with 16:11 reply. -] (]) 21:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===ecce ANI=== | |||
| ''Moved here'' | |||
| ::Arguing is useless by now. Given the unending one-way hammering by Jytdog, what caused multiple more cool editors to get a distorted view, I will not spend time on responding. Plain responses are not read or used, simple questions ignored. That's the way ANI rolls then? If I'm blocked from this 'discussion', I pity wiki. Jytdog: don't be a dick. | |||
| ::I unwatch this page. ] (]) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)/-] (]) 20:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|DePiep}} since you address me directly. This all goes away if you say "Yeah, i got carried away in the argument and said some stupid things. I get it, it was bad, I won't do it anymore" -- this all goes away. Pushing harder in the middle of it, is ~kind of~ understandable. Everybody (including me) gets hot sometimes. But persisting, the next day, and - showing you really do think Misplaced Pages is the internetz, for lulz and flaming? You dig your own ], man. ] (]) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::DR:TL. duh. When I did ''not'' address you, you responded in bold. Ask help, recompose. -] (]) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::yep, more internetz. ] (]) 23:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Blocked=== | |||
| *'''Blocked'''. I have blocked DePiep for 48 hours for right in an ANI report complaining of their personal attacks. This block isn't meant to put a cork in further discussion of topic bans/I-bans; no need to close the thread if people wish to continue to discuss those matters. ] | ] 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Endorse block''' I'd have indeffed him, and was about 30 seconds behind you to do so. Still, good block, and I hope he'll prove me wrong and a short block will be an educational experience. Good one. --]] 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Jayron32}} about your of my non-admin close. There is no serious discussion of an interaction ban (all the players above said that they had rarely interacted before, and I-bans are for long-term problems). I see no serious discussion of a topic ban (which would essentially be a site ban since pretty much of what DePiep does is chemistry). What other bans are under real discussion here? (real question) Thanks. ] (]) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::My revert had nothing to do with your not being an admin. Non-admins don't lack any rights that admins do here. Anyone can close any thread when it is ready to be closed, and not being an admin doesn't mean you don't have that right. So that's a non-starter, and has nothing to do with what I did. The reason I reverted was that several people above were discussing responding to behavioral issues with longer-term sanctions. I didn't feel that discussion needed stopping merely because he cussed someone out during the actual discussion of his behavior. --]] 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know you knew it was non-admin, and I knew it was ok for me to do it. :) i just don't see any real momentum for anything longer and i reckon that what bit there was will die, especially now that a block has been done. Now that you have reverted me i will not try to close this again, but I would appreciate it, if you would mind this and close it if no further momentum for that develops. (in my view, it would be a shame if it did. It would be too much, at this time, on too little evidence of there being a sustained problem. ) Thanks. ] (]) 01:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You do what you gotta do. It's a free world. --]] 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}{{nonadmin}} Considering not even an hour after the block, maybe the block should be extended to indefinite after all? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>'''Endorse'''</s> '''Close''', at the very least talk-page access should be revoked. - ] (]) 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I meant to suggest that too. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{Nao}} Look, this guy's done a lot of good work. There's no question he's a "hot head" (I've seen it personally, on one occasion), and he's lost it here, but I really don't think an Indef block is the way to go this time. Go with a longer block (say, 1–3 months), let DePiep hopefully cool down, and then hopefully he can come back and do good work after a break. But I really don't think an Indef serves the project in this case... --] (]) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' block and revocation of talk page access if necessary. An otherwise productive editor lost his sh*t but nothing suggests it'll be a long term thing. Give him the weekend to have a couple of beers, mow the lawn and come back on Monday. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Note: {{u|Callanecc}} made by DePiep on his Talk page and warned him against more. ] (]) 04:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Oh, hm, I just pinged him for something chemistry related. Damn. Well, '''endorse''' everything Stalwart said. ] (]) 05:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * <b>Opportunity Knocks</b>: Now that Jytdog's more successful has taken down his opponent's more pathetic "cudgel", he is free to use his to the article in question unopposed by DiPiep as he pleases (16 edits to ] since the block), and that pesky mention of cancer can be buried deep in the article, so hopefully no one sees it. ] (]) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::We deal with one editor making personal attacks, and now another pops up. Really, David. You you by {{u|Drmies}} just a bit over a week ago, and you are stepping right back into it, here at ANI! Not only just above, but at DePiep's talk page ("Yes, "they". They don't mess around. ") and and . You just keep ] instead of simply editing. And do you really think I am not well aware that the ] article is under increased scrutiny now? For pete's sake. I was so busy with work and this yesterday that I had no time to even deal with the new content that had been added. we are working that through normally, and the cancer stuff is still in the lead, with a good, collegial talk page discussion going on. no drama. no ''need'' for drama. just editing ] (]) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : I also '''endorse''' this block. The content dispute? Take it somewhere else. ANI is not the place to hash out this kind of issue, which has parallels with the EU's classification of mobile phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" (which in scientific terms means it is unlikely to be carcinogenic, but we can't rule it out, and in crank terms means it definitely causes cancer and therefore so does WiFi and your Apple watch). These arguments involve deeply held beliefs colliding with careful science that, oddly, never says what those with deeply held beliefs would like it to. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Support unblock. I think the block was righteous, but I also have to acknowledge that DePiep, before he went over the top and made the remark that got him blocked, . "Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again" I admit that I stopped reading that remark before I got to the end (tl/dr). Hopefully, he meant that. I am sorry that I didn't see that and respond to it. I also supported unblock at his Talk page, . {{u|Bishonen}} would you please consider unblocking? he is not a clear communicator which has gotten in his own way, but I think he "got it" which was the point of the ANI. Thanks for considering. ] (]) 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is about unblocking the editor who wrote response to my block notice? No. I do tolerate blocked users venting, more than many admins do; I'm not one to impose extra time for it, or to remove talkpage access in other than extreme cases. But neither will I be extra nice about being told I'm sniffing your farts. If you're prepared to be ], ], that's up to you; I'm not. I'll leave this block to uninvolved admins. If one of them is willing to unblock the user, I have no objection. Note also that what I gave DePiep was a ''short'' block of 48 hours — there are now only a few hours remaining of it — so I'm not sure why you're agitating quite so urgently for an unblock at this time. (You have pinged me on DePiep's page as well.) He was lucky I hit the block button first, placing a 48-hour block just a few seconds before another admin was going to indef him. ] | ] 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::thanks bish. seeing how deleted my remarks there, i cannot argue with you. it is just that i realized he did acknowledge the problem, before he created another one. that's all. ] (]) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I'd in fact written up a short note for you for DePiep's page as well, for posting immediately after my reply above, just to emphasize that uninvolved admins needn't consult me. But I was too slow; DePiep had already removed your unblock appeal to me as "harassment". I'm not really comfortable posting on that page at all, and now I guess I won't have to. Good. ] | ] 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ===Close=== | |||
| The editor involved has been blocked for 48 hours, unless there is a clear consensus for an indef here I suggest this be closed. - ] (]) 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :well, now David is almost begging for a block, per his comment just above... ] (]) 13:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Split it off into a separate section then if you feel strongly about it so this doesn't turn into confusion. - ] (]) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm OK to let this sit a bit. ] (]) 13:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Whoever closes this, it could be helpful give a summary or warning in closing rather than just saying the editor was blocked. If this does need to be referenced again (I hope not), that helps other readers by not needing to have them read the whole post. Thanks. ] (]) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===How to deal appropriately with COI concerns?=== | |||
| {{U|Jytdog}}, this is at least the third editor (EllenCT, David Tornheim, DePiep) for whom you and {{U|Kingofaces43}} have sought topic bans or blocks, after the editor expressed concern about pro-industry COI editing. Yet I know you've been concerned about COI yourself and its impact on WP. We're already hamstrung because of OUTING. It means editors often can't produce the evidence, but if they express concern without evidence, someone will seek a block. What can be done about this? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, someone will seek a block...probably the person being harassed by COI witchhunt. It's unfortunate that an expectation of having some sort of evidence first is too constraining for some. ] (]) 17:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|SlimVirgin}}, one reason I have not been keen to participate in policy discussions heretofore is seen in this very thread. There may be a better venue for this discussion, where drama cannot impede the process? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reason I started it here, {{U|Petrarchan47|Petra}}, is that it's about the role of AN/I in COI discussions (people seeking sanctions), and there's a degree of momentum. But we can certainly continue it elsewhere. WT:COI and WP:COIN are two possibilities. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I think ] raises an important question here regarding COI concerns and what can be done about this. It seems one potential way to deal with this would be for ANI to differentiate between COI concerns raised as vicious allegation/personal attack vs civil reasonable COI concerns backed up by diffs. For example, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” vs someone saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”. The former seems block worthy while the later doesn't seem to be block worthy. --] (]) 21:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|BoboMeowCat|Bobo}}, I agree with your suggestion. I'm pinging {{U|Smallbones}}, {{U|Coretheapple}}, {{U|Gandydancer}} and {{U|Petrarchan47}} too, as they've been involved in many discussions about this. We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point. Editors should at least be allowed to say that they believe it is happening, without risk of sanction. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :They should not be able to say it over and over again, over a period of months, without producing evidence. That's harassment intended to suppress opposing views, and should be dealt with the same way that NLT is dealt with, for the same reason (squelching speech). It should absolutely not be "safe" to do that. ] (]) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::One question comes to mind, in an incident of which I am aware. I am thinking of an admin who had not previously been involved in the related discussions, who stated here in wikipedia he had "seen evidence" of a COI problem off-site. The editor with the alleged COI has, not surprisingly, vociferously denied it. And, FWIW, having seen the information (I think) myself, I think it, well, reasonably good evidence, but producing it here might involve OUTing. Any ideas on how to deal with cases of that type? ] (]) 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that rules should allow someone with CU rights to be shown that evidence and to dispense sanctions based on it as they deem necessary. That doesn't worry me at all, because there's <i>evidence</i>, even if the rest of us can't see it. ] (]) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::], with an outing concern like that, maybe our existing policies and guidelines such WP:NPOV, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, WP:OWN etc can used in lieu of any evidence which would constitute outing. Outing seems like something we should work to avoid. Also, it seems to me that even if an editor does have a COI, it is still the edits and/or behavior that are the real concern here. With offline evidence like that, looking closer at that user's edits and behavior seems warranted to assess the problem, but if someone who works for Monsanto or who works for a political campaign etc comes here and actually edits neutrally, civilly, and collaboratively, maybe we shouldn’t worry about that.--] (]) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think COI-tainted participation is a dreadful thing that mucks up the consensus forming process and distorts the encyclopedia, and it needs to be fought. On the other hand as I see it there are a number of problematic editors that starting throwing around COI allegations as soon as an editor makes an edit - be it ever so good - that they personally ''don't like'', particularly in the fields of corporate politics, medicine and fringe science. I've been on the receiving end of it myself. I certainly do not want to see that bad behaviour encouraged. In Jytdog's case, as I recall, the pitchfork brigade previously stirred up such a fuss with regard to Monsanto that Jytdog was effectively forced to subject themselves to vetting at COIN by an independent third party ... and yet even that doesn't seem to have satisfied some people ... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| In my experience, all one has to do here to elicit accusations of COI is to add any favorable statement about a corporation, pesticide, or drug (pharmaceutical that is, its ok to laud the unrecognized curative powers of psychedelics), or remove a negative claim about one of the above topics. The quality of the sourcing does not matter, nor do arguments based on NPOV, the accusation will follow about one such edit in 3. Its rude, tiresome, and I believe it inhibits many editors from even thinking about participating on the more controversial articles. | |||
| We have a COIN board, and if someone has actual evidence, that is the place for such discussions. Jytdog has shown the effectiveness of dealing with real COIs by this board, which was established for exactly this purpose. There is a clearly enunciated policy against making unsupported accusations on article Talk pages and it needs to be enforced. Unfortunately some editors seem to be unable to get their heads around the idea that others might honestly have a different pov than their own, and such accusations become an argument of first resort. This is completely unproductive and violates the basic principles of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I would comment here that I have noticed that these accusations are disproportionately aimed at people that have, or appear to have, some technical or scientific understanding in the relevant subject area. In effect, <i>you know too much to be trusted to write this article</I>. I'm not sure if that's the usual experience, but it sure isn't beneficial to this encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|SlimVirgin}} I want to start out by noting that your question to me, is a response to : "Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them?"] | |||
| ::*David . yet he continues. And now you aid him. As I wrote above, you are now arguably ] and I will look for you to not act in an admin capacity on matters related to GMO or pesticides. | |||
| ::*There are three icky parts of your question that I will address. The long part, I will not. | |||
| ::*The first icky part is that your post is a thinly veiled accusation of COI; in your ] here (as you did above and you are making a claim that editors deserve to have adolescent flamers (DePiep) and POV-pushers (EllentCT and David) attack them. | |||
| ::*The 2nd icky part is your lumping three distinct cases together. Besides the differences I just mentioned, the DePiep thing was one foolish evening, on one article; with EllenCT there were at least two articles where there were extended content disputes in which her personal attacks arose; with David, he has barely edited in the topic at all, but instead has been ] his personal attacks across WP. Each one is different. | |||
| ::*the 3rd icky part, is your acceptance of this behavior. These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here. I ask you to reflect on your acceptance and support of that. | |||
| ::*The long part is how to deal with conflicted editing; and with its corollary problem, ] (which you do not mention, but which is as damaging - maybe more? nobody knows as there is no data). ANI is not the place for this and it is too bad others are taking this venue up with answers; if you want to discuss that please raise it at ]. If you do, I would appreciate it if you would uncouple the question from your continuation of the accusations against me. | |||
| ::* One thing I will tell with you absolutely clarity - acccusations - especially persistent accusations - of COI made without on-wiki evidence of off-wiki interests, are corrosive personal attacks that violate AGF and OUTING; editors who make them should be warned and if they refuse to stop, they should receive a block per ], and if they continue through further, longer blocks, they should be banned. | |||
| ::*Per Drmies's advice to David in her close, he should stop campaigning and start editing - and he should edit better when he does. ] (]) 22:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Response to ping''' It certainly is a continuing problem. Policy doesn't appear to provide a remedy, which presents a vulnerability that can be exploited by special interests and their PR firms, or by editors who just happen to be big fans of some given industry. Perhaps a new category such as "COI-like editing" can be introduced. Sure, it's just another form of POV editing, for which we have guidelines, but on Misplaced Pages, obvious pro-industry editing is running rampant. When this POV editing is coupled with well-established alliances, a penchant for drama, bullying and downright abusive communication, this activity ends up taking its toll not only on WP's credibility but it is running good editors off the site (and perhaps ridding WP of honest editors is the goal). '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ec}} finally, i will add that '''our COI guidleline has <u>very clear guidance</u> on how to deal with COI concerns''', and not a single person here has cited it. Everybody here, please actually read ]. If you have issues with that, please raise them on the Talk page of the guideline. ] (]) 23:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You wrote that, as I recall. I think it's very problematic. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::For clarity, are you saying that Jytdog wrote the COI policy to which he is linking? Can you expand on what you find problematic and how? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{U|Petrarchan47|Petra}}, the part I disagree with is in bold: "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI ... '''raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page''' ..." I recall that Jytdog and Kingofaces used that against EllenCT (they argued for a sanction because she was raising the issue elsewhere, without having approached Kingofaces on his talk). Jytdog in July. But in my view it's sometimes important not to interact directly with the editor, and sometimes people simply won't want to; that person might be aggressive, for example, and the editor with the concern might feel intimidated. So I think it's bad advice. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{U|SlimVirgin|Sarah}}, thanks for clarifying. There are many editors for whom this would be far too confrontational, especially for those who find 'colourful language' distasteful, for that is surely what faces them in some cases. Furthermore, editors who are gaming the system have a lot to loose and will stop at nothing - editing, monitoring, stalking day and night, 24/7 - to win disputes, since the truth alone will not suffice. It does no good to interact with a liar directly. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::so dark, petrarchan. so dark. ] (]) 01:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Slimvirgin, the problem with EllenCT's behavior was that instead of dealing with her "concerns" in any considered way, that would get the community involved and get her concerns addressed, she just hounded and hounded, and tried to use that as a weapon in the content dispute to win her point. She never brought the claim anywhere for the community to act on it. That is ugly, disruptive behavior. The point of that section of the guideline is to guide people away from that. That is not OK behavior. Please tell me at what time in the history of WP that chasing somebody through talk pages with any kind of personal accusation was ever OK. ] (]) 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::yep i worked on that, and i believe you were working on the page at the same time SlimVirgin - i'm surpsised that you let it stand so long if you long if you find it problematic.. And no one fucking owns any fucking guideline or fucking policy in WP and the claim that it is "mine" is unbefuckinglieavable. ] (]) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, in spite of Jytdog's somewhat colorful language, a search of the history of the guideline shows that his first edits were in June 2014, and mainly dealt with paid editing. The sections requiring civility and instructing editors to bring COI concerns to COIN predate Jytdog's edits. So we should try to keep this rational and lose both the insinuations and the language. ] (]) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * SlimVirgin, I am repeating what I wrote above, and I would be interested in a response from you. "These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here.". Please explain what you disagree with about that. ] (]) 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * note: I have started a discussion at ] here: ] ] (]) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Is it just me, or has this thread gone off-topic? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don’t think it’s off topic. There have been multiple ANI complaints regarding COI concerns as personal attacks, with users requesting blocks. I think ANI needs to make an attempt to differentiate between concerns which are PA vs reasonable concerns as I stated above. To reiterate, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” seems to be block worthy, but saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”, that seems reasonable. Other editors have also brought up good points. Having a different POV is not COI-style-POV; however, I’d say having a different POV while bullying others off the page and engaging in WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH etc and violating NPOV to keep stuff you don’t like off that page might be. Having scientific knowledge is definitely not COI-style-POV. Additionally, refusing to let WP:ADVOCACY editors “balance” WP:MEDRS sources with blogs is not COI-style-POV, but when editors remove WP:MEDRS sources that do not support their POV, for a laundry list of questionable reasons, that might be COI-style-POV. I think ] brought up a good point above when he asked “what about the quality of the edits” . --] (]) 13:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::On your very last note, I don't think anyone was removing MEDRS sources in this specific case. I get the vibe Andreas might have been asking that question towards my edits though. For those that didn't follow the diff summaries, I only removed the single sourced content from the lede because it and other competing sources were still being hashed out in the body. There seems to be some insinuation I was wanting to remove the WHO source (probably from skimming the first diff) so I just wanted to clarify that wasn't the case. ] (]) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright violations by ] == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tjmayerinsf}} | |||
| I haven't looked at this too thoroughly, but it appears ] is a serial copyright infringer. Most recently was copied from . I'm seeing a string of copyright warnings e.g. dating as far back as 2007, with some of them . ] 12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : I found a couple more things: a copy vio plot on ], and material in ] copied from (this one is not certain, as the Wayback Machine archived it on the same date the content was added here). That's with spot checks back to the beginning of January. I don't think there's enough to warrant opening a case. I will post on the user talk page and will monitor his contribs. -- ] (]) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Creator of article repeatedly removes ] tag even though he is specifically instructed not to on the tag. == | |||
| {{archive top|Discussion continues at ]. {{nac}} ] (]) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] was created about a month ago by ] as a content fork. The editor wants to establish, using Misplaced Pages, his own spin on terminology that does not exist in the discipline. No one else had made substantive contributions to the article. It is OR. It is worthy of a discussion regarding whether or not the article should exist at all. But, rather than have the discussion, the editor is doing everything he can to quash it. ] (]) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the one trying to avoid discussion is you, since you keep battling to have the page speedy-deleted. This page does not qualify for ] speedy deletion: it is neither ''obviously'' invented by {{ul|Clusternote}} (despite your unfounded allegation) nor does it fail to make a credible claim of significance. I have sent it to AfD - feel free to discuss there. {{nao}} ] (]) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Mishandling of an SPI == | |||
| An SPI, has been mishandled two times now. | |||
| About 20 days ago, I had figured some objectionable edits on an article, that would be exceptionally backed by other account in order to avoid previous account from breaking 3rr. Though this account(DanS76) hadn't made any edits in last few months. After seeing the similar attempts to ], I would find a lot of similarities between these two accounts. I went to open an SPI. | |||
| Evidence was so strong that Zhanzhao,(the puppeteer) claimed that it was his brother, similar to some people claiming that their account was operated by their ]. {{U|Salvidrim!}} took his words and let him go, despite he was blocked back in 2009 for evading his block, and he had affirmed to have read ]. In his own words: | |||
| ::"I just hope I'm following the right procedure regarding WP:SOCK#LEGIT : "openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks" when doing so." | |||
| Even after that, he had been socking since 2010 with this account(DanS76) for influencing many articles, discussions, and other procedures including accepting the own article submission, raising same votes in deletion review, AfD, ANI, etc. | |||
| <U>Question:</u> Such a violation of ] wasn't enough for blocking him indefinitely? | |||
| It took him hardly 7 days and he returned to violate ]. Now he was more prepared, I would report again and he was sure that CU wouldn't confirm, despite he continued to admin-shop with these 2 accounts. He attempted to reply every single word that he would see against him for confirming that he should avoid every single chance of getting caught. | |||
| Now recently, after he made a long list of absurd explanations, comparing himself with many others editors including Jimbo Wales, his explanations also included a personal attack and claims such as the creation of "3 words userpages" is not isolated, because I(me) have also created three words userpage, and he linked to this that has over 150 words. He actually affirmed it by saying "that is indeed a 3-word page, the rest of the words were formed from a template box". DoRD closed the SPI saying that "this is getting out of hand". One day earlier he had found these accounts to be unrelated. However, I find the evidence to be just too big to ignore. | |||
| There is another interesting thing behind these accounts that I have recently discovered. Same way Zhanzhao was reblocked for evading his block, other suspected sock was also blocked for evading 3rr with an IP in 2013. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Two things: One, I said that the page was getting out of hand due to the numerous large additions of weak evidence to the case. Two, the CU results are unambiguous, and I invite any CU to double check my finding that the accounts are technically unrelated. That doesn't rule out ], of course, but I don't see how the three accounts could be related, otherwise. Now, I'm going to be traveling for a few days, so I doubt that I'll have much else to say in this matter. —] (]) 15:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't need double check really because you are a very trusted member. I am more concerned about the mishandling of this SPI, including the first time. They are related because I cannot find even 2 of the listed similarities with any other account on here, while these accounts have relatively small amount of edits. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' He had to be blocked after it was confirmed that he has socked his way for over <s>4<s> 5 years. He must have ''retired'' DanS76 so that he could make way for new socks. ] (]) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * : Since everyone's an admin here, I assume everyone here can run their own CheckUser on the suspected accounts. I have no idea exactly how CU works beyond the fact that it checks one's IP, but I am sure there are other checks as well. My confidence in me being vindicated can be simply explained by the fact that I know I am innocent of all charges, therefore whatever process/tech is involved in the CU, will find that I was not socking, even without me having to know exactly how it works. I had been willing to put this past me, and made that very clear to OccultZone on his talk page, even though he chose to remove my "olive leaf" twice. I have even asked JamesBWatson to ask him to cool down , since he seemed to hold JamesBWatson in high esteem, to stop what I sensed was a slow-motion-trainwreck, without any success. | |||
| : I know not the actions of my fellow accused (I'm frankly too tired to bother at the moment to see their contributions page), but the "admin shopping" OccultZone said I was doing, were mostly to ask how I could get CU expedited, and also what remedies I can pursue for being continually harassed by OccultZone. He can keep taking popshots for free at me, while keeping his hands busy but clean, while I am getting an SPI, and now an ANI against me. Since this has escalated to ANI, I welcome any and all to run an CU on me against TCKTKtool, Resaltador and Resaltador. I already volunteered that DanS was by brother in the same household so I am told that CU would not reveal anything other than show that we lived in the same household, so I don't know how helpful that is, but go ahead if you feel that is useful for your conclusions. Because either I am the world's greatest hacker, I hired an army of scary socks, OR, I am simply innocent of the claims OccultZone has yet again thrown at me. | |||
| : And since we're at ANI, I would seriously welcome any suggestions on how to stop OccultZone from harassing me further. My socking infraction came early in my editing career, and even then, '''I signed off on the edit with "Zhanzhao" as I had no intention of hiding my identity''', and was merely trying to get an answer at one of the boards before the thread went dead. His actions are clearly now running the gamut of incivility, personal attacks and harrassment. Cos what next, when this goes against him yet again? Am I to be continually subject to this misguided vendetta against me? Or whoever happens to have different opinion and edit against OccultZone? Please. Run the CU against me again. Let the evidence speak for itself. ] (]) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : As for OccultZone not finding anything similar from any other account other than me and my fellow accused, let me present this . Which basically refutes his claim that he could not find anything similar. Its because he didn't want to, while, I have been pushed to the corner to prove him wrong.] (]) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : I also want to highlight that even when DoRD pointed out the evidence was weak, OccultZone promtly removed DoRD's comment with his collapse. So I am not even allowed to have someone else speak up for me. ] (]) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you know that you have just thrown yourself into the territory of ]? First one you had lied to be your bro. Now history of these pointed socks explicits that you are abusing them occasionally. Whenever there be an edit war over the content of that article you will produce a new "army" of sock puppets. If that's wrong, why they are not coming to defend themselves the way you just did? Or you will just go now and log into each? ] (]) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That would only be true if the accusations are true. But try to imagine if the accusations were false. As I said. Run CU on me before making judgement. Whatever DoRD sees must be pretty compelling, even though I don't know what that is. ] (]) 16:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why you are shouting the same absurd every time? There was firstly no need of a CU. You have clearly abused the multiple accounts for pushing your POV on a specific article, same way you were abusing DanS76. That is seriously enough for considering that only you can do it. That is also backed by great amount of similarities, that you share with these obvious socks. There are hundreds of SPIs where even new editors could evade CU. That way you are still more experienced, already spending so many years in sock puppetry. | |||
| :::::If you are not a sock, why you even bother to bludgeon the SPI and bludgeon this ANI with baseless commentaries? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | {{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 have to first make sure that what actually convinced Salvidrim that you both were brothers and not one person, when evidence was enough to consider you as one. Also we have to make sure that you weren't aware of the policy, even though you have clearly stated to have read ] after you were blocked for socking. Furthermore you were opening and contributing to SPIs. It was a poor judgement of Salvidrim which is now up for review. Also reading the above editors comments that you intentionally retired DanS76, because it was no more of use, you couldn't use it anymore on same articles, it is simply obvious that you are socking. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:56, 26 March 2015 (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) | |||
| : Fine. As Dan had suggested previously, point me to a high-level admin. I can email him a scan of me and my brother's identification which shows us living in the same address, and the email will also explain beyond doubt why thats our identification and not something I borrowed off 2 real brothers off the street. I will also furnish supporting evidence why I use StongVPN in the first place - Its not to sock - which will be very clear in my mail. Note, however, that I do this VERY RELUCTANTLY, as this is obviously leaving me to higher chances of identity theft which Dan had already pointed out I am very paranoid about, but I am sick and tired of these string of accusations. I had though that spending (wasting) my time showing why OccultZone's evidence was laughable (which DoRD already also mentioned was weak and circumstantial) would have been enough, but apparently this is not so. If I am really a sock, I wouldn't even need to resort to this, I can just retire this account as well, and start afresh from a new account. But I'll be very pissed (a very strong understatement) if OccultZone gets off scott free now, since there's nothing to prevent him from continuing to harass me and keep attacking the integrity of my account. And hence, I will now insist that some punitive action be taken against my harasser. Is that fair? | |||
| *It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''The reason why OccultZone is out to get me is because he mistakenly blames me for getting him blocked since he's under the assumption that I was socking as the one/more of the accounts that '''. Which was why he opened the 2nd SPI. And when the 2nd SPI showed that there were no relationships between the accounts through CU and otherwise, which means I was not the cause of him getting blocked, OccultZone refused to believe it and attempts to link it back to the first SPI which was totally unrelated and involved totally different accounts, to find any way he can in a misguided attempt to get back at me. You'll note that one thing OccultZone has not done up to now, which he very actively did in the 2nd SPI, was to report any overlaps of article editing in the accounts of the 1st(DanS76) and 2nd SPIs(Resaltador and TCKTKtool). The only single convergent point, was the article that got him blocked. Beyond that, he's rambling evidence like "Oh look, they capitalizing the "T"s for Talk in 2 edit summaries, they must berelated." Look at the evidence in the 2nd SPI he pulled out. Then what DoRD thought about it. (Unfortunatelty you have to check the history of the page because OccultZone removed DoRD's comments). Then my pointing out that the supposed common behavioral traits he identified between the socks, OccultZone was doing the same thing as well. Is OccultZone my sock as well? ] (]) 23:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would be fine with confirming your identities as you propose (as I'm sure DoRD would), however I am afraid there is some likelihood that OccultZone would take our word for it anyways! <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 00:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{U|Salvidrim!}} He will show the identity card of his father and present him like his brother, and we will believe it? How come such fairytales don't fall under the violation of ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks. We're both out at work now (Its morning now here), I'll scan and send them over via email to you ASAP. (I'll wait for DoRD's confirmation - as I said, I'll only send it out when absolutely necessary). I'll trust you to keep the information confidential, thanks. ] (]) 00:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is not a matter how much you can fake DanS76 to be your brother or not. You cannot show a video of both of you edit warring on same articles for one, forget it. You switched accounts, that's what we know. If you can show both of the accounts editing together at the same minute, that would really work. But you cannot. Even if you did,(which is impossible) that was still the violation of ]. It is not an assumption that you weren't socking. '''It is a fact that you are socking'''. If you are not a sock, then why you are bludgeoning this ANI with your garbage? Just like you had recently bludgeoned that SPI. It is also correct that I am investigating in this matter because we don't want any sort of trouble because you. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You're the one heaping wildaccusations after wild accusations at me, first at the 2nd SPI, and now here. The only thing I did was to defend myself, and you call that bludgeoning? Is that your ideal vision of wikipedia, slamming anyone you dont't like and just expect them to take it lying down? Cos I noticed that you did not even bother to notify me that there was an ANI here. A video of 2 guys editing in front of the computer would not mean anything. If I were really socking, it could just be a guy I got off the street to pass off as what you assume to be my fake brother. Our identity cards are issued by the country's authorities, which has info like name, address, birthdate, and other info which I will explain to the admin how they helped us decide our editor names, hence proving conclusively that there are indeed 2 of us. I will not scan my dad's card, because just revealing our 2 cards is more than I am comfortable with. But the birthdates shown on the cards are more than conclusive proof that its my brother, not father. ] (]) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Dear @], | |||
| :::::::These fairytales don't support any policy or even an essay that can be used for exempting you from socking, especially when you had admitted to have read ], right when you were blocked for evasion. Similar to other sock, Resaltador. Kindly stop ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old. | |||
| :::::::: IF I was really socking as Resaltador, and allegedly had alternate accounts of TCKTKtool, DanS and of course Zhanzhao, wouldn't it have been smarter of me to use one of these and pretend to be an uninvolved editor, instead of using an IP while posting in a manner that readily identifies me, even, as you pointed out, that would get it banned since I had that happen to me before? Unless you think I purposely want it to get banned? And you're claiming I'm spinning fairytales? Are you even thinking through what you are posting? ] (]) 02:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Resaltador also don't know the difference between ] and ], just like you don't know. That's how it cannot be anyone else other than you. You socked with that account for supporting yourself, and also socked with TCKTKtool and IP for edit warring, just like you were socking with DanS76. There is a huge list of similarities. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 03:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: I know the difference. I am just getting fed up from being harassed and victimized and am DEFINITELY not calm now, so pardon me if I make the mistake of mixing up block and ban. I was typing off a freaking ipad1 during lunch that crashes on me cos the thread is so long, and had to retype that 3 times. For me, in my mind, the 2 words might as well be the same thing now, because I am being hounded and not even allowed to defend myself, since any defense isbeing labeled as "bludgeoning the topic". A check user has already been run against me, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool that proved we were different accounts. And to ] who asked why Resaltafor and TCKTKtool are not responding, only they can answer that. But one BIG reason could be because OccultZone did not bother to tell them about this ANI, which he was supposed to. He didn't even tell me. The only reason I knew is because I have this page on my watchlist. This time, run a Check User against '''Dan''', Resaltador, and TCKTKtool. Check if/how Resaltador and TCKTKtool has ever "helped" me before the article that caused OccultZone to be blocked. Go all the way to when the accounts were started. IF a CU like that still shows that all 3 are distinctly different account, me socking would be the least of the concerns here. It would imply that I have actual inside information on how CU works from way way back, a severe implication that has huge ramifications: that Check User just cannot be trusted anymore at all and you guys should just scrap it, since you guys are unwilling to trust your own tools to tell you the truth and would rather listen to a conspiracy theory that's been noted as being flimsy and countered (or in his word, bludgeoned). I'll send Salvidrim! the info I promised that would show that me and Dan are indeed distinctly different persons, the crux of the first SPI. Any other admin can request the same and as long as I can trust that you will not leak the info back to OccultZone, I should be fine sending it to you as well. The 2nd SPI has already been closed, but anyone here, feel free to rerun the CheckUser to verify. In any case, I wish you all the best dealing with OccultZone the next time this timebomb explodes in the future. ] (]) 06:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Dear @], | |||
| ::::::::::::Reason behind first SPI was to get rid of your disruption, since you shamelessly sock and edit war for your edits. Same with my 2nd SPI, if first SPI was taken seriously none of the 4 editors would've got any malformed blocks that were quickly reversed. We don't need checkuser to confirm that you are socking, nor we need any of your identity proofs. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::We have real evidence here:- | |||
| *::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| *::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Apart from abusing accounts on 100 percent same namespaces, you have also abused them for bigger purposes. It took a few minutes to confirm that how you and DanS76 are not brothers, but one person. | |||
| *:::::::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*"TALK", "possibly vandalism", " already summarized", "Removed POV language", "my defense", "properly attributed", "more accurate to", "Re-added", "overly detailed",, "my 2 cents". | |||
| *::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Same ]. You were page move warring and edit warring with the former admin and indeffed editor, La goutte de pluie, by using multiple accounts. | |||
| *::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Exactly same votes and choices in AfD,(, , ) deletion review,() ANI,( , ) RFC/UA () accepting own article submission, etc. | |||
| *:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This is when you had made slightly more than 150 edits on other account. One wouldn't be convinced even if you claim that you both are ], because there's only one sock puppeteer operating these accounts. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Dan already said that he shadows me to see what/how I am editing, which explains a lot of the similarities, and has retired his account to avoid that again. And considering I was the one who introduced him to Misplaced Pages, so its unavoidable that he emulates me, what do you expect me to do, travel back in time and ask not to do so? And he already retired his account (willingly since he's so busy these days), so this issue will not resurface again. And the claim that I did not need him anymore since I had new socks does not hold water since the 2nd SPI's CU already proved that those were not my socks. | |||
| *:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Mass comparison with other editors}} | |||
| *::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 1) For the 100% talk space bit, the ] page history, particularly the April 30 2011 - May 5 2011 since thats the area we both appeared, we were both there, but doing our own stuff which is clear even from the edit summaries. For , I knew Dan was riling him up and was in fact trying to trcik him into making an error, while I was trying to cool Ahnan down and was in fact sent him a mail what Dan was trying to do. Again clear from the conversation thread. For the ], although we were both there, I was doing my own stuff, Dan his own, we did not even interact, much less support each other there. | |||
| *:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages. | |||
| : 2) I already said I have used every iteration of "TALK", "Talk" and "talk" before. Easily checked. | |||
| *:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 3) I have used "possible vandalism" as well before. (note the "e"). I checked that Dan never uses that. | |||
| *I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 4) One was used as "in my defense", the other was "you removing my defense", the wording is same, but the usage is totally different | |||
| *:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 5) Do you know how commonly used "properly attributed" is? | |||
| *::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 6) Do you know how commonly used "more accurate to" is? | |||
| *:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 7) Do you know how commonly used "re-added" is? | |||
| *::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 8) Do you know how commonly used "overly detailed" is? | |||
| *:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 9) Do you know how commonly used.... do I even have to get to "my 2 cents"? ] (]) 08:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 10) Other than me and my brother, which other accounts are you supposing to be part of the multiple acocunts? I suppose you mean Foxhoud since that looks to be the must likely culprit who has the unfortunate coincidence of being a sock. Again, please run a checkuser to ensure that we are not related. I already said before, due to living in the same house with Dan, there are instances of dinner-table talk so me and Dan edit with the same angle. And Dan already retired his account to avoid that. | |||
| *::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 11) How the hell do you consider a "Merge" to be similar to a "strong delete" | |||
| *::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 12) My given rationale for these was quite different from DanS, and did you check how many were overwhelmingly voting the same as us? Are the rest all socks then? If I had a sock, I wouldn't even have needed it there. | |||
| *:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 13) For these 2, the vote was already overwhelmingly one sided, even supported by the admin you claim we were ganging up against. If I had a sock, I would not have needed to activate it. And yet you say I unnecessarily put my sock there. | |||
| * Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 14) I was answering different questions from Dan, and the end result was so lopsided (even Jimbo Wales voted there) that it wasn't even funny. Even if I had a sock, I would not have needed to use it there. | |||
| *:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : In summary, the so called evidence of "similar phrasing used" are not as unique as OccultZone thought. Of Dan and me having worked on the same pages, most of the time we did not interact, we acted behaved differently, or in cases of voting the results were so overwhelmingly one sided that if I were socking, I would not have needed to unnecessarily expose it there. Do go to each and every one of those voting pages to check if everyone that voted similar to me were socks as well. And as OccultZone just admitted, he is blaming me for being blocked, caused by editors he claims to be socks of me. This conspiracy theory was already disproven by the 2nd SPI's CheckUser. OccultZone, You've been barking up the wrong tree all along. Don't you get it? ] (]) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Update to Admins. OccultZone just hatted every single rebuttal I just gave to his raised "evidence". Please open it up to read. I know its a lot to digest, but that's what OccultZone threw at my feet so I had to go through all of them. | |||
| *::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Problem is that you remember so much of Dan because you operate that account. Examples that I have provided are not all, it is just for confirming that you are a long term sock abuser. You gave same reasons in each of these AfD while no one else had them, with these accounts. You retired that account like it has been pointed here, so that you could use new socks. Exactly that's what you are doing. None of these summaries can be used by two persons that have socked for each other. Why you even have to type out all this garbage if you think that you are not a sock? I have just hatted much of it that you are typing only for killing the environment of this ANI, just like you did on SPI. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Nice. You "hatted" all my explanations just like that. Just like when you took out DoRD's comments at the 2nd SPI that your previous findings were frivolous. I just spent the past few hours looking through YOUR list, and typing that out using all the links YOU gave above, to explain myself. I didn't "need" to be Dan to remember, because its all so obvious by looking at the pages, just by looking at who was posting what according to the signatures to tell there was no interaction, or by counting the votes on the page to tell that the voting was lopsided. But you're discouraging the Admins from looking at it. And yet again, you're shutting people up everytime they say something that would prove you wrong. First DoRD, now me. Good Job. ] (]) 10:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Where did you prove anything wrong? These diffs are about you and about your block evading accounts that share similarities, show where they are wrong? You said "you're shutting people up everytime they say something", while Resaltador says that I "seems to attack anyone that disagrees". You have now also capitalized the 'a' of 'admin' just like Resaltador. Looking at some of your self admission, you also seem to be expressing that how much you socked when you were hauling an editor to RFC/UA, ANI. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 12:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If you want to talk about analysing behaviors, try this. Thanks for bringing that link up, because it reminded me that DanS has a particular habit of using "Just Sayin"/"Just Saying". He used it again recently on talk of ], so thats at least 2 times used on wikipedia. Considering I have so many more posts than his, if we were the same, you should be able to find me using that phrase as well. You wont, because in real life, I keep telling it is a little presumptious and rude. You also keep assuming that Resaltador is a sock of mine, but despite repeated reminder, have you even notified him or any of my other alleged socks about this ANI? Isn't that what you are supposed to do when you file this? Or am I reading the notification at the top of this page wrong, that "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."]. I don't blame that admin, I blame YOU for mishandling this complaint about me. You just keep shutting every avenue of of defense (CU, comments from other admins, real-life identity verification) that could prove my innocence, because you are so fanatically wanting me to be guilty. I'm sick and tired of this. I just emailed you a link to a photo on A website, posted a while ago long before all this started, which has clear inference to my name and is clearly described as a picture of me and my brothers, with no edit history on the picture so it could not have been changed just for this. You can send me a message via facebook to verify that it is me. You forced my hand. I haven't had time to send the ID card scans to Salvidrim! because this has disturbed me so much that it distracted me from work in real life that I need to catch up on my work over the weekend. SATISFIED? If my real identity is revealed or if this is used against me anywhere else, I will now also know who to blame. So. I have a brother in real life who used to edit and retired, there's been people other than me pointing out that the so called "similar" behavior is actually circumstantial, and CheckUser had already exonerated me from all the other socks. Please, I'm begging you, stop directing your anger at me for being blocked, I WASN'T EVEN INVOLVED IN THAT CASE! ] (]) 00:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::::I hadn't notified them about SPI either, they just jumped in the same fashion like DanS76, it also confirms that these socks are either told off-wiki or their operator(you) just know where to abuse them. A dubious photo cannot be used for permitting sock puppetry. Your socking has been damaging for en.wiki, you are socking since 2010 and it must not be ignored. If you were not a sock then why you are bothering to bludgeon ANI, SPI with your garbage? You do because you are a sock. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Again you describe defense against your accusations as bludgeoning, when all I have done is a point by point rebuttal of your accusations. Its not about the photo, its about me having posted about having brothers, somewhere else long before this. The timing, the subject, and the discussion thread about the picture from long time ago explicitly demonstrates that. People have been jumping into SPI randomly as well all the time. I have randomly participated in SPIs as well. So its supposed to be exclusive? Anything you start, you only allow invited guests to participate? You don't own wikipedia. You cannot NOT allow people to defend themselves. You cannot NOT ignore CU just because it does not justify your accusation. You still have to follow the rules, regardless your assumptions. Like following instructions about ANI notification. Even as you accuse me of breaking the rules, you break them on a whim. And you say I am damaging wikipedia. ] (]) 01:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Have added a lot of newly discovered evidence to this . We will see. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of incident == | |||
| {{archive top|1=Report has already been archived, so no action to be taken. The voluntary disengagement is appreciated. Renewed edit warring should be re-reported to ]. -- ] (]) 05:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Would an administrator kindly mark an issue as "Resolved" at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:GeorgeLouis_reported_by_User:Purplebackpack89_.28Result:_.29? I removed myself from the discussion about the contested issue for a period of one week, and it has now been eight days. Thank you? ] (]) 16:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Former name George Louis) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Request to have unfair block reviewed == | |||
| {{archive top|Consensus is that the block is valid, regardless of the reason, due to repeated attempts to add ] after numerous previous similar issues with this user. IP blocked for 48 hours as either block evasion or contributing fuel to the fire. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Enchev EG}} | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Germanwings Flight 9525}} | |||
| Whilst contributing to the ] article I became aware of a closed discussion opened by ] headed, "It was suicide" but later renamed, "Latest reports point to suicide" on the Talk page. The author of the discussion had provided reasons why he felt suicide was the reason for the disaster. I observed that English might not be his/her first language and that he/she was finding resistance to his points made with the help of historical and technical data. I personally found this quite worrying as he/she was effectively being bullied. He was accused of pushing his agenda and later, further down the page he was called a troll and told to go away...how charming! | |||
| It was my understanding that anyone is entitled to contribute to Misplaced Pages as long as it is done in a manner which adds to the article content. I feel this user was not given a proper opportunity to develop his argument which ironically as it turns out would appear to be the reason for the crash. He was in fact spot on! | |||
| This morning I discovered ] had been handed a two week block and all because he/she had made an unacceptable comment out of pure frustration. I can empathize with him/her because I can see he/she genuinely wanted to add to the article but other users with their own clear agenda weren't having it. | |||
| Please review this matter. ] (]) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Your editing histories are really remarkably similar. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 17:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't made any contributions to Misplaced Pages for well over a year so how on earth can our editing histories be similiar? ] (]) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apart from 35 since yesterday on the German wings crash!!! lol ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And that constitutes the basis of your editing history claim? An admin with the appropriate permissions can verify that we probably aren't even on the same continent. Irrespective, I await with interest the blocking admin ] justification for his/her actions. ] (]) 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block''' - The registered editor's history shows a history of showing up at articles about air crashes and being disruptive. This is irrelevant to the unregistered editor, whose edits can be reviewed on their own merits. ] (]) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support block''' per ] - entirely unacceptable comment, entirely justified block.</s> No comment on the IP. ] (]) 18:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' partly involved, I hatted the section. My opinion is to avoid drama and not to feed the trolls. ] (]) 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Obviously support block''' —they weren't blocked for their unproductive comments on the talk page, they were blocked for an explicit personal attack against another editor. ] ] 19:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block''' although I am involved in that I blocked the user for a week for disruptive behaviour on another accident article recently, no evidence that the user is here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' User was blocked today for abuse that occurred over three weeks ago. This may have been the easy option but I don't think it was correct and/or in line with policies. User has had a final warning for using talk pages as a discussion forum and arguably was involved in similar on germanwings talk page but a two week block without a further warning seems harsh. Some useful stuff was being added. ] (]) 19:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose block'''. Seems to have done nothing wrong at best, not enough wrong to be punished like that at worst. An examination of some of the things written during this exchange proves at times unsettling and much of this is not from Enchev EG (who themselves wrote at least once: "I was not rude", perhaps in response to accusations of the same). | |||
| :*Enchev EG, the person blocked, was told "You have a better chance of being listened to if you make a rational argument" (which it seems s/he was doing). | |||
| :*Enchev EG was told what s/he was saying was "outlandish" (it wasn't). | |||
| :*A not untypical response received by Enchev EG (capitals included): "THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT!" | |||
| :*A particularly outrageous and immature quote from this whole sorry affair (given that 150 people are dead and untold numbers of family members are dealing with the aftermath) was even written partially in '''bold''' (needless to say, this was not the blocked user themselves): "So you in fact mean: '''IT WAS SUICIDE OR HIJACKING BECAUSE PILOTS BOTH WENT TO THE TOILET BECAUSE OF AN AIRLINE STRIKE!''' Great." I presume the last word to be sarcasm. Either way it reflects atrociously on the attitude of this ], who in my opinion should be penalised given the seriousness of the situation. | |||
| :::What penalty would you suggest? Would you like to inform this ] that you are discussing a penalty? I thought (and still think) that was a fair summary of what had been posted and what would have made a more accurate heading for that thread (later carefully "adjusted" by someone). Thanks. ] (]) 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unless this editor had some kind of "special access" to the as yet undisclosed analysis of the CVR, or of the pilot's motives, (both of which possibilities seem extremely unlikely), I would regard the accusation that a pilot had deliberately flown an aircraft into a mountain, killing 150 people, as a wholly unreasonable defamation. ] (]) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*As for the general standard of some other replies (examples include "Blah blah blah" and "Go troll somewhere else" and "I'll not answer you again, don't have the time") and the goading ("can't see him lasting that long") of Enchev EG as "the problem" and his/her words as "grammatically incorrect" (we're not all blessed with good grammar and those who see fit only to mock might examine their manners) I am led to conclude that it is the most dignified person who has been punished here. --] (]) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your comments, my sentiments exactly. ] made one silly comment, which he/she has since apologised for, after being harangued yet others get away with calling him/her names and making derogatory comments. I would go further and say he/she was ridiculed and made fun of because of his pigeon English. If he had an agenda it was to get to the truth, the agenda of those who taunted him might be somewhat more difficult to determine but I have my own thoughts on that. ] (]) 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You think that almost incomprehensible and (at the time) wholly unjustified contribution was "one silly comment"? ] (]) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' was Enchev EG's post that started the current situation. It matters not that the claim has turned out to be correct. My was that an extraordinary claim required an extraordinary source, which was not provided. There was no way that such a claim was going to get into the article without one. I first came across Enchev EG at the talk page of the TransAsia Airways Flight 235 article. You will note of the post, an extraordinary claim not backed up by a RS, and also SHOUTING! The block was for in response to . I've never had occasion to deal with {{u|Escape Orbit}} so have no dog in the fight there, so to speak. My impression is that Enchev EG is a SPA here to push an agenda. Unless there is a rapid improvement in their behaviour, I forsee the community losing patience with him before too long. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I'm a bit under the waether atm. ] (]) 20:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **The fact that the PA went undetected for 23 days is immaterial IMHO. ] (]) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***I should have said yesterday that I went to Enchev EG's talk page to see what warnings had been issued in respect of ], with the possibility of a block in mind. I didn't realise that the PA was as old as it was, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be allowed to go without any consequences. ] (]) 07:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block''' - At ], Enchev EG repeatedly engaged in ] on the talk page and ignored repeated warnings about it. Here is a typical comment from them, from the archives of that talk page: ''For example, my comments are closely monitored by the CIA and each of them is interpreted by their analyst. Then their lies are coordinated in such a way with my comments, that they do not contradict with them - before being sent to the media.'' They received a one-week block and, thankfully, did not return after the block expired. They reappeared for this Germanwings article and started doing the same things again. They don't get the point of NOTFORUM and no amount of explaining can get through to them. The fact that they may have turned out to be correct on some things is completely beside the point, and it doesn't come close to justifying the disruption they cause. If the block reason is a problem, then by all means correct it. ―] ] 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose block''' - I think the community should show some good grace and acknowledge that blocking for personal abuse over three weeks ago was not appropriate. Blocking policy forbids retrospective blocking. There may have been other good reasons for blocking him but not for the reason cited. He should be unblocked and given another chance. His behaviour is not particularly disruptive. ] (]) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::But don't you think maybe "Escape_Orbit you are fucking moron:))" sends out "slightly the wrong signal"? ] (]) 21:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::If he was to be blocked for that he should have been blocked at the time.] (]) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, he certainly should have been. But it's tricky to hand out a retrospective block, isn't it? Or is three-week old abuse somehow less offensive? ] (]) 21:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The "another chance" began when the first block expired. I think we've seen what this user does with "another chance". They will get a third chance beginning in about 13 days, and I have no doubt they will be at it again; if not immediately, then after another rest period. The question is how many chances they get before an indeff. As for "his behaviour is not particularly disruptive", you have not been involved in either of the articles in question, so it is not particularly disruptive to you. ―] ] 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - The unsourced accusation that was made against the pilots is extremely nasty and probably would fall under BLP issues. ] (]) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' Just to point out it was this remark on his TP that he was actually blocked for- not specifically any remarks about the crash: ... 'fucking moron', anyone?!?! ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 21:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::''On edit:'' sorry ] didn't notice you'd just said that already. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see that the editor in question has not protested his block or offered any reasons why it should be reversed. And to his great credit he has posted ".. I wish you all a nice day and I apologize if I have offended anyone". In my book that counts for a lot. But then I am just "outrageous and immature", apparently. ] (]) 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn block''' per ] - apologies for not noticing earlier that ''23 days went by'' between the user's posting and the block being set. I'm having a hard time seeing how that was meant to prevent disruption rather than to punish the user. Blocking a user for a transgression that occurred ''three weeks ago'', which wasn't repeated or ongoing, and for which they later apologized, is extremely inappropriate. That looks like hunting for an excuse to block. Now, if we want to talk about whether or not the user should be indeffed per ] well then fine, but that should be a different block. ] (]) 21:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support overturn, new block''' 23 days is a long time, but I don't think that a technicality should allow what seems to be a pattern of disruption to continue. ] (]) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block'''. Clear breach of ]. ] (]) 06:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block''', although ] would have been the more appropriate reason. Still, even the PA was not entirely singular, . Moreover, the user persistently failed to grasp the principles of Misplaced Pages and his contributions are explicitly not aimed at improving the articles. Whether his theorycrafting is correct or not is irrelevant. This is not the place. That being said a good part of his claims were 'outlandinsh', e.g. that the plane was hacked by someone with MS Flight Simulator, that it certainly must have been the pilot, or that the CIA is after him. And even if he was correct in all of that, does not matter this is Misplaced Pages, including the talk pages. ] (]) 09:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Disruptive behaviour? Since when is it a breach of the rules to put forward some well thought out and well researched information? This member was attacked from the off by a group of established users who frankly should know better. I personally was appalled at the comments made towards him some of which are noted above. So tell me, what action is to be taken against the abusive bullies? ] (]) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Since when is it a breach of the rules to put forward some well thought out and well researched information?" No original research has been a principle of Misplaced Pages since 2003. ] (]) 12:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose block'''. While the comment may have violated our NPA guideline, blocks aren't meant to be punitive, and should ''not'' be placed over 3 weeks after the offending comment. Besides, they apologized.<p>Giving them a new, indefinitely long block would be another issue altogether. ] (]) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support Block''' Right result, wrong reason. Enchev EG should have been blocked after their attempts to add ] onto ], as a repeat of behaviour they had been repeatedly warned about (and blocked) before on other articles. Regardless of whether this latest theory turned out to be right, it doesn't change the fact that it was, and is, ] and there has been no indication that Enchev EG won't continue this behaviour. Otherwise we may as well say that OR guesswork is OK on talk pages, just as long as you can be shown at a later date to have guessed right once in a while. | |||
| :I didn't report because I hoped it was just frustration, and that Enchev EG was finally ''getting the message''. It resulted in he/she removing some other stuff from talk pages, so I hoped this indicated he/she understood exactly why he/she had been warned, and was slowly learning. But the same actions on ] just a few weeks later suggest that Enchev EG just can't help herself/himself. --<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So Enchev made a mistake by lashing out at his abusers. Now, what action is going to be taken against them or do they get off Scott Free being part of the 'gang'? ] (]) 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Editor making a series of personal attacks == | |||
| {{archive top|Making yet another scatological insult '''at the same time an ANI thread is going on''' about your personal insults is kind of stupid. Blocked indef. --] (]) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] appears to be ], but rather to make various personal comments and attacks against other editors, namely myself. They have edit-warred on other user talk pages to . They have my talk page posts in a juvenile and disparaging manner. This appears to stem from ] in the ] article, but I am at a loss to explain their and their immediate resort to personal attacks rather than reasoned discussion. I have repeatedly requested that the user refrain from making these personal attacks, but they have thus far refused. I request appropriate administrative action be taken against the user. ] (]) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe one of the particular insults in is a reference to contents suppressed edit. I might be mistaken though, as I'm working from memory. — ] (]) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I am Latino, and I am PROUD of that fact. It has no basis in what we are talking about here. Just to put things i perspective, I have a six year old son, and a twelve year old son. From time to time, they look at wikipedia. Today I was met by my 12 year old, Jeff, with tears in his eyes asking me "Dad, why does this man hate you so much?" and pointing to the latest comment NBSB made on my page. Furthermore I have '''NEVER''' edited NBSB talk page in a juvenile manner, and when I edited MY OWN TALK PAGE, I IMMEDIATELY realized my mistake and self-reverted. The level of hate being directed toward me is unbelievable. NBSB claims I have edit warred on other users talk pages to disparage him - RUBBISH. I was very clear that the situation I had outlined (trouser-fouling) had NO basis in real life. NONE. The disclaimer was in BOLD PRINT at the top and bottom of said comment. Can someone please gie me the benefit of the doubt here??? I STOPPED editing Gamergate in an effort to do the right thing and was met with immediate hostility. | |||
| :::Furthermore, ] lied and accused me of making personal attacks (exclusive of anything dealing with NBSB) . Why is he allowed to call me a liar with NO BASIS in fact for his accusations???? ] (]) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply|Marcos12}} That statement is referring to the comments you wrote about NBSB. — ] (]) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{reply|strongjam}} Ok, I understand that. But Strongjam, please! I went to NBSB talk page and (I'm paraphrasing here) said '''"I am truly sorry for offending you in any way. I am going through a personal crisis, and sometimes y emotions bleed through to wikipedia. There is no excuse, however I would ask for your forgiveness as until last night, we have had eseentially zero interaction"'''. I know of no other way to apologize for an argument that became too heated. I have stepped away from Gamergate. I have listened to your suggestions. And yet, this morning I had to have another talk with my 12 year old son about how hate still exists in this world, and that hate is magnified for people of color like us. Let's try to BUILD an encyclopedia here. I'm game! I will listen to anyone's suggestions provided they arent threats and intimidation. ] (]) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This appears to be a shining example of the ] by an obvious troll, and I trust that responding administrators will detect its transparent nature. ] (]) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not believe that Marcos12 is here to improve the encyclopedia. --] (]) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd be willing to ] from most of the diffs in isolation, but screams ] if someone doesn't presents some evidence of that editor's usefulness. Looking through on my own, I'm seeing an almost ] on attempting to legitimize Gamergate (continuing up to yesterday), and BLP violations (one of them revdel'd) on an article about a female author who focuses on sexuality. That makes me suspect that we need to at least topic ban the editor from any pages relating to feminism, female sexuality, and any living women (even both transwomen and transmen, simply because they have become or were identified as women at some point). Given how broad such a ban is, and the personal attacks, a block would be less trouble. ] (]) 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Agreed with Ian.thomson, I think that he should be blocked for ] (]) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you Jorm for your opinion. NBSB - is it not true that I made <big>'''FOUR'''</big> separate attempts to apologize to you ON YOUR USER PAGE? All were reverted and ridiculed. Every single time I attempt to make a civilized overture I am met with scorn and contempt. Yes, I went to a community college - does that make me LESS of an editor???? I am the first man in our family to graduate from college. Yes, again, I am PROUD of that fact. Even if I could have gotten into to U Penn, I would not have been able to afford the tuition, but the point is this is all window dressing and distraction. There is NO" Chewbacka defense". I have been ridiculed regularly both on-wiki and more importantly OFF WIKI . | |||
| ::::My final request is this - find someone who is vehemently ANTI gamergate and ask them if ANY of my edits EVER have been in bad faith. Ask them! I trust my fellow editors will tell the truth. Yes, we have had robust discussions, but they never denegrated to hatred until NBSB waded into the fray. ] (]) 18:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is a difference between other editors showing patience and your behavior being acceptable. ] (]) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ian, I TOTALLY agree about , except that you are missing the fact that I IMMEDIATELY self-reverted literally 3 seconds later. It was done in frustration. I agreed to walk away from GG and I DID. Blocking me from all these other topics makes no sense man! I've been above-board the whole time, albeit my opinions go against the mainstream. Can I humbly ask for a week long block and then let me come back as a full user??? ] (]) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, the purpose of blocks is prevention, not punishment. You've demonstrated little interest in anything except pushing a chauvinist POV, and a week long block would not fix that. ] (]) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree with ] - is well over the line of appropriate conduct. ] (]) 18:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply|Simom223}} Simom, please, did you read the BOLD PRINT disclaimer I made at the bottom of the edit. I was very clear my statements did not refer to anyone in particular and that they were fiction. Also, did you see the off-wiki collaboration where I have been threatened, doxed, ridiculed, and accused of abuse?? http://sealionsofwikipedia.com/?p=335 ] (]) 18:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Obvious case. I have not idea what invoking "Latino" or "community college" has to do with anything, so many red herrings here it starts to make a shoal.] (]) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| May I make one humble request? May I be allowed to resign? ] (]) 18:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no such thing as resignation here. You could have stopped editing at any point, but you didn't. Even if you quit now, I still support a block of your account so you can't just waltz back here once you think we've forgotten about you. ] (]) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::For God's sake then PLEASE block me for a few weeks rather than indefinitely. PLEASE. ] (]) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A new . Refactoring NBSB comment. — ] (]) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Strongjam, I can't stop other people from EDITING MY TALK PAGE. ] (]) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That wouldn't be a problem if you weren't a chauvinist troll. ] (]) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}}Ok, that means obvious troll is obvious. I think we've got a clear consensus to indefinitely block Marcos12. ] (]) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Resignation per se is always possible. You can put up a retired banner on your page. My view is that indef blocks and bans should be a '''last resort'''. That said there is no doubt that marcos has crossed the line and we need to address this. To which end I... | |||
| '''...support a 30 day block''' with a warning to stay clear of subjects that are likely to provoke intemperate responses and a very clear further warning that if this subject has to be revisited ever again, that he will be blocked indefinitely. -] (]) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support finite block''' so the user can ]. The most recently posted diff, in which the user edited a ] warning template to , shows a shocking lack of self-awareness, and then (it was - anyone can read the diff). I do strongly suspect that the user is ] but I have to grant that this tantrum seems to be an isolated incident. However, they're on the path to a ban if they keep this up. ] (]) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}I'd be more open to that if he had demonstrated any interests outside of Gamergate and Violet Blue, or if his edits there weren't full of serious POV problems; and if he hadn't engaged in of behavior after this thread started. The begging sounds like every other troll I've heard in the past who does that to lull us into thinking they won't come back under that account (and others) right. | |||
| :As it is, since he's been of little (if any) use to the site, and his behavior since this thread started indicates either trolling or terminal ] issues. '''Support block, preferably indefinite'''. ] (]) 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *In light of this , I strongly support '''indefinite block'''. Already showed to have a bad attitude, the user deliberately vandalise while this discussion is ongoing, and then even have the nerve to come up with this . The user is clearly not here to build a Misplaced Pages, and the last diff shows that the user has no intention of being honest with us. If there's a finite ban, I'd suggest six months.] (]) 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Jeppiz}} Your second link should be this I think. — ] (]) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Strongjam}} Of course, thanks for spotting it! Now corrected.] (]) 20:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Wow, ]. Hear me out, I '''Oppose''' any sanctions if the user is genuinely sorry for their previous actions and promises they will not repeat their actions. From what I hear, the user is genuinely sorry for their actions, and they have stated they will make constructive edits if they are not blocked. ]. ] (]) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Given the ArbCom's recent re-affirmation that they want their sanctions applied ridiculously broadly, and that NBSB has been widely covered in the sources as someone being targeted by gg trolls and therefore within a broad application of the sanctions, and given Marcos12's fixation on GG topics, and given that Marcos12 JUST GOT BACK from a gg related block, the "genuinely sorry" seems not applicable - a strong application of the tools available for minimizing disruption should be applied. -- ] 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where was NBSB covered in the sources? Just curious. Other than that, I am going to go the fuck away, as I feel I have just done something horribly wrong. ] (]) 21:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Unexplained blanking and original research == | |||
| *{{userlinks|123.100.149.51}} | |||
| IP user ] (]) has repeatedly made edits of unexplained blanking and original research with an apparent right-wing viewpoint over a period of several months in at least the following recent examples: | |||
| 10 February: | |||
| Unexplained blanking: | |||
| ] | |||
| 10 February: | |||
| Unexplained blanking: | |||
| ] | |||
| March 22: | |||
| Original research: | |||
| ] | |||
| Then repeated same edits after being reverted: | |||
| March 26: | |||
| Unexplained blanking and Original research: | |||
| ] | |||
| March 26: | |||
| Unexplained removal of image: | |||
| ] | |||
| Then original research: | |||
| Then unexplained removal of category: | |||
| The IP user has repeatedly ignored warnings posted to their talk page after each of these cases; then they blank their talk page after each warning (see their Talk page history), causing editors who provide further warnings to usually make only a level 1 warning. Let me know if I can do anything more to help. ] (]) 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you tried to actually discuss the matter by actually writing a personalized, targeted message that explains the issues in detail? Templated warnings are basically useless in communicating with users, which is why they are ignored. If you want someone to change their behavior, being personal with them, and showing a willingness to ask about and listen to their explanations for their motivations is a good way to do so. Slapping a templated warning on a talk page does not cause changes of behavior. --]] 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank-you for your suggestion. Yes, I had placed a personalized, targeted message today, the same day as this report. Perhaps we should wait a day or so to see if the IP editor responds to it, per your suggestion. I am uninvolved otherwise; I simply noticed that I had warned this user before and then noticed others had been warning them also, then saw the the pattern of ignored warnings and the continued POV-pushing behavior. I have been going through their edits and see several other similar POV edits that others reverted but did not warn. ] (]) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The IP's first warning was by Cluebot on March 8th last year. About 11 editors have left further warnings. Looking at the talk page blankings, most if not all would have encountered an empty talk page. I blocked the IP last May with the message ":Ignored warnings. Deletion and changing sourced text at ] shows this editor has some sort of agenda. I'm not arguing against it, but these sorts of edits don't belong here." ] (]) 17:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Latest IAC meatpuppet == | |||
| {{archive top|status=<!-- closed or user blocked -->|result=User blocked for 31 hours(?) for ] by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 02:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{iplinks|122.162.28.57}} --] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Dealt with by ]. Might be worth revoking tp access if its anything like the rest of them. ] (])(]) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archivetop|No need to revoke talk page access as no edits have been made since block. ] (]) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Abuse of talk page after block. Please revoke talk page access. --] (]) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh... I can't see any edits made to the talk page after the block was put in place, the only edit I can see is the one before the block. ] (]) 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No edits after the one you reverted, just my block notice. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Personal Attacks by Poeticbent == | |||
| I appreciate that Admins are busy people and this is not a case if disruptive editing rather of personal attack, but to save an admin time Poeticbent continues the attack below, writing | |||
| "In a frenzy of manipulations and lies he also vehemently objects to having a stake in the sales of this publication." | |||
| I could just ignore this and hope it goes away but surely there is supposed to be civility on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 05:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Here are other specific instances where he implies that I and another editor may have COI | |||
| Poeticbent’s insinuations | |||
| ] | |||
| To Lightshow. If you happen to have a wp:conflict of interest, please state it upfront, | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Man_who_Broke_into_Auschwitz#Edit_war | |||
| To me. I would like to encourage editors with possible interest in improving the online sales of this book, based on our Misplaced Pages article, to please reveal your identity, and refrain from any further revisions to this entry with the aim of silencing dissent and independent critical thought. Thank you, | |||
| Edit summary when reverting my edit on this article 26th March | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Man_who_Broke_into_Auschwitz&action=history | |||
| (removal of sourced info based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, possibleWP:COI → back to referenced wp:lede) | |||
| I don’t think he should make such insinuations without very good evidence. He provides none. The article concerns a book ‘The Man who Broke into Auschwitz’. written by a living person Denis Avey. We are both trying to ensure that the lead sentence is conservatively written, that is all. I can’t think that Lightshow has any connection with the publishers, I certainly don’t. Poeticbent needs to be at very least warned about his behaviour ] (]) 09:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Please would someone review the behaviour of Poeticbent on his/her edits today on 'The Man who Broke into Auschwitz' and his talk page. It is very strange. He has got it into his head that I have a COI, reverts edits without discussing on talkpage even though when requested to do so, and rather rudely deleted my comment on his talk page re his allegations of COI. Perhaps a warning rather than a block would be appropriate. ] (]) 22:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} Diffs? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>In addition, you neglected to notify {{u|Poeticbent}} of this discussion, but for you. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| I did notify him on his talk page, he removed the notification.] (]) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)] (]) 09:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :. My apologies. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <hr>This is a frivolous report by a user who is up to his neck in ], deleting reliable sources based solely on ]. In a frenzy of manipulations and lies he also vehemently objects to having a stake in the sales of this publication. Nevertheless, you can see him making a ] at least once, and admitting to the following when the truth about ] and made public in England first (quote): "we are likely to get a retraction"... "We"? What "we"? ] ] 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)<br> | |||
| '''''Addendum''':'' There's only one thing I can add to this unprecedented wave of new attacks and refactoring of all posts by User:Sceptic1954. He's been fighting tooth-and-nail since 25 September 2012 to have all references removed pointing out to the fact that the Auschwitz ''superhero'' story, fabricated in England, was refuted by Auschwitz Museum director already, on top of the leading Jewish organizations around the world. ] ] 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)<hr> | |||
| Even after I raise the matter here Poetic bent continues his insinuation that I am COI despite me doing my level best to put him right. "We" simply means the general public, perhaps in particular, as I am a British citizen, the British public. It's now got to the stage where I think he should be blocked for a while for making a personal attack. ] (]) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, this looks like another example of a seemingly evidence-less COI accusation being used as a WP:Stick in a content dispute. I request a warning +/- a short block on {{Ping|Poeticbent}}. ] (]) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Diffs showing this is a repeating dynamic in a content dispute: , , . ] (]) 01:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC) it' not even evidence less it in fact I'd contradicted by the evidence if Poeticbent were to examine my record on this and the Denis Avey page. That's the strange thing. ] (]) 06:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Legal threats by MitchOssimPants == | |||
| {{archive top|status=closed|result=User page deleted under ] by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| This may be minor, but ]' user page says "...or you will be sued". An IP blanked/modified the page twice, and I reverted it with huggle until I saw it was a threat. This is from three years ago, I don't know the statue of limitations of the matter. ''''']]''''' 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I deleted the page as ] and left a message on their talk page. Apparently the account was created merely to stake a claim to the name, which is problematic enough if they're not otherwise editing, plus the legal threat was just too much. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archive top|status=resolved|result=Situation sorted with article ] (of the venerable ]) by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 02:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi, Can someone with a mop move this back to ]. I think i've tagged all the other unnessecary redirects but i cant move it back. ] (])(]) 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * User:EurekaLott did it. --] (]) 02:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == User:86.145.107.226 == | |||
| {{archive top|status=user blocked|result=IP user blocked for 31 hours for ] by ]. All editors are reminded that ] (and also ]) are the preferred forums for filing reports on Edit warring (and ], respectively). {{nac}} --] (]) 02:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please block {{User|86.145.107.226}} whom I met edit warring on ] and according to his talkpage is involved in numerous other edit wars. His most recent edits seem to be the useless additions of spaces. ] (]) 01:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. In the future, please use ] for reports like this. --]] 01:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Archival of Deleted Material == | |||
| {{archive top|1=I left this open for a while to allow comments and criticisms, and these were duly received. We're now moving away from especially useful additions, so closing this thread as the "incident" that generated it is resolved. Am happy to continue discussion if required, preferably on my talk page or somewhere like DRN. -- ] (]) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello. Editor {{User|DHeyward}} recently created a page he used to store diffs of people he believed were hounding or otherwise attacking him. This as a potential ]. While this discussion was ongoing, DHeyward blanked the page and then requested that it be deleted, which it was. However, he has archived the page . Despite polite requests from and an attempt by {{User|Beyond My Ken}} to remove this material, he has . I would request that the material be deleted. Cheers! ] (]) 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I archived what I no longer needed and didn't need wikidrama on a separate page so the page was deleted at my request. There is nothing negative and there is nothing unsourced and no policy violations. I would hope that PeterTheFourth (who argued at deletion that it should be kept, which is quite the opposite of claiming it's an attack page here - it can't magically become an attack page through archiving). PeterTheFourth needs to stop hounding me around Misplaced Pages. I don't know what his issue is. --] (]) 02:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I stated that it should be kept if it were to be used in dispute resolutions, per policy (]). Apparently you weren't aiming to use it in dispute resolution, so I don't believe this material should be stored on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::WP:POLEMIC isn't a policy. And since you brought it to ANI, it's now DR. Congrats. How petty a request.--] (]) 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh dear. How should I refer to ] and its contents? ] (]) 03:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :From his first edits he is an obvious GamerGate SPA (WP:DUCK) well aware of WP editing. As long as he was editing GamerGate articles, a SPA might be appropriate. Since then he has branched out to articles that I have edited as well as admin space and arbcom space. I'd prefer he use his primary account if he is going to continue to WIKIHOUND me all these drama areas. His branching from GamerGate is a violation of our multiple-account polices. --] (]) 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe just recreate the page and add PeterTheFourth to it since if anybody is, they are hounding and attacking you.--] 03:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{out}} If DHeyward blanked the page ] after archiving its contents in his Archive 7, while the page was a subject of an active discussion at MfD, that's a pretty good example of ]. ] (]) 04:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I requested to speedy delete a page in my own user space to end pointless drama. MfD actually says you shouldn't have even brought it for deletion but I did you a favor. There's nothing wrong with the content. It's diffs. I can post them here if you like, but I'd rather let them archive away. I could put it on my main talk page or any admins talk page to ask for input too. I had hoped the hounding had stopped. --] (]) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The subpage was not deleted as an attack, but as a user request. However, had that request not brought the discussion to a close I would have deleted the page in any case as the definition of ]: ''"...keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody."'' DR issues need to be raised in a timely way, or the material stored off-wiki. Not the end of the world either way, but have deleted the material from the archive - in effect what would have occurred had the user requested deletion not proceeded. Happy to email a copy across if/when the stated DR process is due to begin. -- ] (]) 05:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::What part about the page being a week old did you miss? Diffs showing attacks and snide comments against DHeyward are not attack pages!--] 05:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Euryalus}} And MONGO's point is why it was failing at MfD. It was neither a list of enemies nor a list of everything bad. It was diffs of Wikihounding just in the last week. I can make it an RfC on my talk page if the diffs are examples of wikihounding. Why are you tolerating a WP:DUCK troll whose first edit was to GamerGate arbcom and only topic being GamerGate continue to stalk and harass me? --] (]) 06:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh well....it's not hounding until he files a sockpuppet claim against you to compliment his stupid AE complaint and this latest escapade and article stalking he did.--] 06:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you'd like to start a dispute resolution process (or an SPI) against any or all of the people in your list, please do so. It's been ten days since you started compiling the list - not an infinite period but not a particularly short one either. To avoid falling foul of ATP, I suggest if you are compiling a DR case you maintain your diff list off-wiki until its ready. And per the above - its not the end of the world either way, but people on "the list" do have policy backing in asking that it be removed and it doesn't seem like much to ask. -- ] (]) 06:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Maybe DHeyward was going to do that. I had a page onsite for two months linking diffs to prepare for an arbcom case...now if he wanted to take that to DR he has to start all over. There are users that have had links up to diffs of comments made by those they disagree with for years.--] 06:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|Euryalus}} Help! I've been attacked on a user page for over four years! --] 07:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{nonadmin}} Umm... isn't ] the place for this? If the page in question was deleted because the user requested it, then it doesn't necessarily count as a "consensus", and he/she is free to restore it at his/her will. I'm not saying the page ''shouldn't'' be deleted (haven't looked into it enough either way), but I don't think this is the right forum for this request. ] (<small>]]</small>) 13:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Euryalus}} revdeled it before saying I should save it offsite or before anyone discussed it. Had I let it complete, the consensus was "keep" as there is no specific time limit and it's reasonable to keep diffs of harassing and wikistalking for DR. And as we are at ANI, the harassment continues. --] (]) 14:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As above, if you need a copy of these diffs for an imminent DR matter please let me know and I'll send you an email of the deleted material. -- ] (]) 14:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Euryalus}} Sorry, missed that. Yes, please email a copy of the deleted page. --] (]) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Done. -- ] (]) 15:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| DHeyward, your definition of harassment is so broad that even me just pointing out here that you have a broad definition of harassment constitutes, in your eyes, harassment (even though it is not a threat, an intimidation or a personal attack). If you still had your list, I'm sure this is a diff that would be added to it. Considering that your enemies list could serve to intimidate other editors, it could constitute harassment (see ]). Enough, let's move on and return to editing. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for commenting. I'm sure you thought it was helpful. --] (]) 18:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Where is this user copy/pasting this from? == | |||
| ] is copy/pasting information into the ] article given the way it has clear attempts at in-line citation and speaks from the point of view "we" ("We have information also about the large populations of this bee in the Altai Region of the Republic of Udmurtia."), however, my Google-fu can't find it. How should I handle this? --] (]) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Let me add that now ] should be fully enforced (him reverting both myself and ClueBot, God bless), and that I've left several messages on the man's talk page before this, but he's bent on making edits to this article with no summary whatsoever. Judging by the username and style, he's definitely an eastern poster; I have a bit of experience with them already so don't think I'm ignorant here... ] (]) 06:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you'll find they are one of the authors from the sources they cite. If 3RR is exceeded report at AN3. '''<font color="blue">]</font>''' '''''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;color:red">]</span>''''' 07:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : From the username (]?), it seems like this is probably an ]. I agree that the user is probably a researcher ], which would probably make this person a Russian scientist – but who knows. The lack of communication, poor formatting, and undue weight on Russian history are all problematic, but I don't see any evidence that this is a copyright violation. It's a pain to deal with these kinds of situations because you can never truly know what's going on. You could try ] if you think the additions are undue weight. ] (]) 11:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == IP Range 62.128.211.2XX == | |||
| *{{IPvandal|62.128.211.216}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|62.128.211.251}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|62.128.211.202}} | |||
| Over the last week, this IP range has been following me around randomly undoing my edits on unconnected articles i.e. just to be annoying with no other apparent reason for the revert. It's happened on three IPs in the same dynamic range (see history on each of the above - undoing my edits is pretty much all that's in the contribs). It's obviously someone socking who I upset at some point. It's quite trivial but it is annoying. Any suggestions on what can be done? (It's a dynamic IP so only notified last one) ] (]) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The range (62.128.211.192/26) is tiny, with only 64 IP addresses, but even so there's unrelated edits coming from the range. Not inclined to do a range block. -- ] (]) 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok - I guess I'll just have to put up with it. ] (]) 17:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom == | |||
| ] has been convassed by ] to participate in ]. After that, Green Cardamom did a , he has several edits unrelated to the AfD and makes it digress. But this is not the end of story, recently he made another edit completely irrelevant to the AfD and repeated it in 3 other AfDs: . These edits are another convassing and a kind of disrupting the AfDs. Please tell me if I am wrong. Thanks ●] <sup>]</sup>● 11:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''': I never asked ] to support me at the AFD. In fact it was an ]. He seemed expert to me in this field and he had participated closely related topics in previous discussions. By the way, ]'s serial AFD nominations of my articles also seems odd to me. After 50 days of absence in English Misplaced Pages, he began nominating my articles just after I had opposed in in Farsi project (where he is an admin). His Clumsy nominations makes me even more doubtful; One may refer to those AFD pages and follow the discussions to get my point. ] (]) 12:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @ | |||
| :::This is the first time I see this user and I really do not understand what is the relationship between the above link and me. The link is really not my concern, this is another personal attack to me, the user tries to relate all the things together and make them personal. This is my right to nominate every article I feel is not proper for Misplaced Pages, that is why you can see there are lots of discussion about them in the AfDs. Such edits make the users disappointed from editing in Misplaced Pages, I would like to wait for an admin here. ●] <sup>]</sup>● 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{nonadmin}} The "personal attack" to which the OP refers appears to be an expression of suspicion of off-wiki canvassing, sockpuppetry, or something to that effect. The OP posted several times on the AFD between this supposed "personal attack" (which followed the "canvassing") and opening this thread. Clearly this is just a user who is angry that their AFD isn't going the way they want. I'd say '''close''' this thread, and I'd '''strongly''' advice ] to agree with me on this point lest their be a ] headed their way. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{nonadmin}} I also find the "personal attack" not to be one. It appears to be questioning why something appears to be happening and not an attack. I also think a boomerang may be appropriate. ] 14:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::First we are talking about a convassing here and second personal attack. ●] <sup>]</sup>● 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As far as the canvasing, its a pretty neutral post to an expert on the topic. That they participated in some discussions on the topic also negates the canvasing. Its just one person, if they had notified multiple people and only those that they knew would side with them, that would be canvassing. But in this case it doesnt appear to be the case when the edit is looked at is looked at in view of the specific requirements of canvassing and what is allowed and negates it. ] 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| You can now see the result of this canvassing in the mentioned AfDs, some users came to the AfDs simultaneously and wrote on them. I still wait for an admin here. ●] <sup>]</sup>● 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry. Missed that. Cardamon posted the same, perfectly reasonable, critique of your strange practice on all of the relevant forums. "Canvassing" can only have taken place if the person doing the canvassing was anticipating specific support for their position on the AFD. But none of the above diffs show Cardamon !voting in favour of keeping the pages. If you are trying to get Cardamon blocked in order to prevent him/her from revealing you have been hounding another user, then posting on ANI was '''the worst idea you could have possibly had'''. If you believe that you have not been the hounder but the houndee, then please specify that. Your canvassing accusation is clearly bogus. The wording of the "canvassing" message was fairly neutral all things considered. ] (<small>]]</small>) 13:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::With all due respect, your statements are not neutral. I posted here to talk with an admin and will explain everything required for him, so please do not digress my edits with your theories. ●] <sup>]</sup>● 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It's for his religious and political beliefs ("degenerate religious thinking"). Now the articles he created are being systematically targeted for deletion. Clearly there is a wider battleground spillover and it's sucking in myself and other editors. I worked with Mhhossein on some of these articles in the past and found him to be courteous and professional. I have never encountered Mehran before this (that I know of). In terms of the canvassing allegations others have addressed that (thank you), but I'd be happy to respond if requested by an admin. -- ]] 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Fawiki RfA overspill=== | |||
| This AfD has very obviously become a battleground for a fawiki RfA dispute, ], and ], both of whom support Sahehco's nomination, voted to delete an article by Mhossein who opposed the nomination (Mehran also nominated all other articles Mhossein has created for deletion, and Ladsgroup had voted to delete "per nom" on all of these AfDs). Meanwhile ] who opposed the nomination, voted to keep the article created by his fellow opposer. I know this is an extreme accusation to make, but there is no way the votes can line up like this merely from coincidence. ] (]) 13:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This was an Iranian-related AfD and it is not strange to see Fawiki users. Anyway your theory was cool! ●] <sup>]</sup>● 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the compliments on my theory. I dont think this is merely an everday occurrence of fawiki editors commenting on AfDs however. Prior to the Mhosseins AfD's, Ladsgroup had not commented on an AfD since , and Seyyed had not commented on an AfD since . You yourself, had not edited enwiki since , before returning to nominate Mhossein's articles for deletion. Regardless of actual motives, this comes across incredibly fishy. ] (]) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't want to reply you, someone (or more) here disobeyed the policies and I am waiting for an admin to comment. ●] <sup>]</sup>● 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{nonadmin}}I have not had any contact with @] and do not know him. @] made an strange claim about my vote. My vote does not relate to Persian wikipedia at all and he should provide evidence for his claim. @] is my friend. He found me in English wikipedia about one years ago and asked me to help him learn wikipedia guidelines and policies. In my view he is a professional editor. Finally, I hope @]'s serial AfDs does not relate to the matters of Persian wikipedia. I do not endorse his action to follow a user and nominate the articles made by him for deletion, however, I do not want to accuse him. I just vote for one of the AfDs, which is deserved to keep based on wiki policies and guidelines, and I have neutral view in the other cases . --<font face="monospace">](]-])</font> 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Several articles of Mhossein were subjects of AfD in fa.wp before Saheco's RfA. All articles of this user regardless of Wiki is highly related to Iranian government propaganda. We also blocked lots of users with similar behavior (]) due to WP:SOCK they are blocked also in Wikimedia Commons, it's strange that these users have exact same views and classic ] regardless of Wiki. It's not unreasonable to think of undisclosed paid editing or at least volunteer organized work <code style="background:yellow">:)</code>]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{nonadmin}} '''Comment and Disclaimer''' - For the record, and since I was/am involved in the AFD discussions being considered here, I have absolutely no Conflict of Interest here and do not know any of the other parties involved beyond this current conversation. I see what looks like to me serious systematic AFDs by several accounts targeting one editor's articles. Beyond that my interest is solely in the AFD process and notability, underrepresented voices, and not the content of this particular set of articles. ]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 19:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{nonadmin}}{{ping|Ladsgroup}} Mhossein's block log in Persian wikipedia and commons are completely clean. Your false reasoning about WP:SOCK mislead the readers. You are an admin and bureaucrat in Persian wikipedia. So, try to provide facts before accusing and blaming the others. Certainly, You had blocked him there, if there had been any proof against him. --<font face="monospace">](]-])</font> 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Sa.vakilian}} I never claimed this user is a sockpuppet master. As I said it's a classic tag teaming case and people don't get blocked because of ] and that's why the block log is clean. <code style="background:yellow">:)</code>]<sup>]</sup> 04:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Ladsgroup}} Sorry for the delay, Could you please make more explanations on the following points: | |||
| ::::* You said that several articles of me had been subjects of AfD in fa.wp before Saheco's RfA. This is while I have created no article in fa.wp. What do you mean? could you please clarify your point and name those mentioned articles? | |||
| ::::* Could you please explain what you mean by "classic tag teaming"? | |||
| ::::* Is there any reasonable reasons behind your accusations? I would like you to see the pattern of my edits most of which are related to military history Wikiproject. Thanks ] (]) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| . <code style="background:yellow">:)</code>]<sup>]</sup> 08:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I asked you some other questions, too. Btw, how do you call it tag teaming? ] (]) 10:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Comment''' I am also unclear as to who ] is accusing of tag-teaming and on what basis that accusation is being made. Please explain in sufficient detail for others to understand. ]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Issue with User:Verdy P== | |||
| {{userlinks|verdy p}} | |||
| Please review the user Verdy P and the way he responds to users on wikipedia, as can be seen on his Talk page. I originally inquired why a page title was changed, in addition to some of its content. He did provide a valid reason for the former, but had no valid points for why he changed the content and made it more incorrect. I tried to explain this to him, but he instead chose to insist that he is correct, despite being proven wrong with facts, and continued to respond with arrogance, and then rudeness. As you can see in his latest reply on the issue, he proceeds to use inflammatory words and declares that he will delete any further replies from me, which he did. | |||
| I don't think this is the attitude that regular wikipedia editors should be displaying; it also should not be tolerated because he can easily just continue with these questionable edits and dismiss everyone who tries to correct him.] (]) 15:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|70.51.38.110}} You must notify users when you start a discussion about them on this noticeboard. I have for you. ] (]) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Agreed. His response was heavy handed and haughty <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please clarify—which response was heavy handed and haughty? ] (]) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I saw some of the discussion (] has been on my watchlist since April 2013 when Verdy p provided some very helpful advice). The IP is completely misguided—we are volunteers and expecting people to argue indefinitely on their user talk page is very unreasonable. Verdy gave several detailed explanations (the section is now 1950 words), and the fact the IP does not like the replies does not entitle them to waste even more volunteer time at ANI. In general, if an editor thinks a page title is not correct and they not sure how to discuss that, they should ask at ]. Harassing someone on their talk page is not helpful. ] (]) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Because you are volunteers, it gives you the permission to respond to people with arrogance and call them names? Because that is what he had been doing in all of his replies. It seems to me that you did not read the entire discussion, nor did you try to understand the details of why the discussion had been prolonged. Verdy had made some changes to the content of an article, which were incorrect changes. Despite my many attempts to explain to him why those changes are incorrect, using facts and clear evidence, he continued to insist that I am the one who is wrong (again, with invalid arguments); so you are saying that I should simply agree to whatever he says, even when he's wrong. Sorry, but being a volunteer does not entitle you to treat others with a lack of respect; it does not make your words and assumptions the absolute truth and it certainly does not label others who try to fix your errors as harassers. Also, the argument would not have extended "indefinitely" had Verdy at least tried to carefully read my replies and humbly accept that he was mistaken; not wanting to admit his mistake was a bigger priority to him.] (]) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Nothing the IP has done is harassment. You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend). Furthermore, in addition to the harassment claim, you told the IP that he was "wasting time here at ANI." You seem to have exactly the same civility and superiority complex-toward IPs issues Verdy has. I hope that's only because you're heated about your friend being brought up here at ANI. --] (]) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Repeatedly posting to a user's talk page ''is'' a minor form of harassment. ] (]) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it is not a form of harassment when those repeated posts are replies to the user. If I had been posting a bunch of additions without any replies and simply filling up the talk page with provoking messages, then yes, that would be harassment. Don't tell me that users aren't allowed to post replies in an attempt to correct someone, claiming that such would be a form of harassment. If it's in the clause for you volunteers to have the right to be stubborn and unwilling to accept when you're wrong, then I'm sorry for the "harassment".] (]) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''': The moment I saw Verdy's message that included "IP accounts like yours have very low trust among Misplaced Pages users, they are frequently reverted," it became clear to me that we have a ] issue as well as a lack of understanding of ]. Verdy has certainly tipped his hand about his bad faith towards the IP that makes anyone trying to argue that he isn't being a ] and needs to take a step back here simply wrong. If the IP can produce his sources that show 1. The North American release is the only official one. and 2. It's referred to as "C: The Contra Adventure" by the game's own manual, then he's entirely in the right. However, even if he is wrong, Verdy has handled this quite poorly. ''Side note: other damning comments include " like you stupidely continue to do here" and "if you want trust you DO need a personal account"''. --] (]) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to provide sources, but you're right, his talk page isn't the place to list them. I have plenty of sources that confirm what I posted; but even if I did try to provide them at the right page, as Verdy stated, he doesn't care about the game. That, I find rather contradictory for someone who claims they are correct on a matter that pertains to the game itself.] (]) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Your reading is incorrect, and Verdy is a helpful editor, not my "friend". The advice given to the IP is completely correct—anyone caring about their privacy would make an account (see ] which is displayed to the IP every time they click ''edit''—Verdy's advice is merely echoing that official statement, with the extra and correct observation about reactions from many editors—whether those reactions are justified or not). Please don't conflate direct language with ''civility''. The issue of the article title is not a matter to be settled on Verdy's talk page, as Verdy explained to the IP; also see my above reference to ]. ] (]) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, but correcting him when he's wrong is a matter to be settled because otherwise, that kind of attitude will follow him with further edits he makes on Misplaced Pages. Please don't tell me that you would condone such conduct. That has been the biggest issue with him.] (]) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I agree; you're right that this conversation absolutely should not have taken place on Verdy's talkpage. That is the fault of the IP, who wouldn't know better. That being said, Verdy still handled it awfully. His first response, rather than telling the IP to go to the right page, was to engage him with a lengthy reply (which already showed him getting heated in the last sentence and didn't mention the correct venue to use). Did you honestly expect the IP not to think to reply there? It wasn't until Verdy's very last reply, where he also said he would delete any new comment the IP posted (which is totally his right to do per user talkpage policy) that he directed him to the right page. By this time, Verdy had already been extremely rude and, as others have said, heavy-handed and haughty. And no, I honestly wouldn't say I'm "conflating direct language with civility". Check out the Avoiding Incivility section of ]. He was intense, unprofessional, name-called, and became condescending - those are right there in that section. Furthermore, it doesn't matter that his "advice" about creating an account was correct. It had absolutely no place in the discussion, it wasn't brought up by the IP at all, and Verdy was clearly using the fact that he was an IP to condescend to him. Second, no, it isn't true that IPs aren't to be trusted, should be discredited in discourse, or "need" accounts. Like I said, I'm quite the fan of ] as well as the plenty of other WP policies about it. The bottom line is that Verdy were going to respond in the uncivil manner that he did (as well as bringing up the user's IP status as a jerky point out of nowhere multiple times), he shouldn't have engaged the IP at all. The best thing he could have done was direct him to the article's talk page right away. You're making it sound like he did and, as you said, "explained it to the IP." He didn't (until the very end, as I said). --] (]) 07:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Sad to say, I might not have been able to master the patience for so much tedious explanation as Verdy p did when the IP wouldn't take no for an answer. The only problem wrt courtesy on Verdy's page that I can see is that they were a bit short with BracketBot. (That's supposed to be a joke.) IP, I'm afraid you expect too much time expenditure of our volunteers. @ ]: Golly, I recommend the parable of ] to you, with your attack Johnuniq's integrity here. "You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend)", "given that he's your friend". Twice, you say it, and it's made up out of whole cloth. You're a fine one to talk about assuming bad faith. Am I to assume the IP is ''your'' friend? (To be clear, I don't suppose so for a moment.) Don't make such charges lightly, please. ] | ] 10:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :Yes, Verdy is not at all out of line for his inflammatory responses. Instead, it is the fault of the IP user (me) for even having a problem with that. Because Verdy is a volunteer, right?] (]) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*You're right. That was a mistake on my part and an indicator of my bad judgment. With that - I've said my piece. I will depart from this thread. I apologize to ] sincerely. ] (]) 10:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Close? Not close? == | |||
| With reference to ]. I feel like it needs more votes, but it's been open most of a month already...not sure the bot's not about to archive it. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333" size="2">]</font></b><font color="#444" size="2">]</font></span> 15:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like there hasn't been any substantive debate since 19 March, so keeping it open would just drag it out for no reason. I think the bot ''will'' archive it but only when it's been inactive for (is it 2 weeks?) - you could request a close at ] to at least get an evaluation of the discussion. The result looks fairly clear to me but I'm neither an admin nor an experienced closer. ] (]) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] editor == | |||
| I strongly suspect some ] issues with {{User|Mavsfan123}}. I have warned the user at least twice that they are putting way too little content into their articles, but six days after their last warning, they an article as lacking in content as their previous efforts. Other articles of theirs have been nominated for deletion for similar reasons, and they removed a deletion tag at least twice. The user has been here since last July, and yet they have made no attempt whatsoever to improve their article creation (compare ). They have also made no attempt to communicate on talk pages. I'm tired of cleaning up this editor's half-assed attempts, and I really want to get through to them, because it's obvious they're not listening. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There's nothing in particular wrong with this user's contributions, they're just short. A quick scan of their contribs shows that many of the short articles they've created have been kept and improved by other editors, and we wouldn't have these articles if not for this user having created them (even though they're stubs). ]. ] (]) 17:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == It's starting again (harrassment by banned IP) == | |||
| * {{user5|104.173.225.10}} | |||
| I hope I am not premature about this, but here goes. Starting in 2009, I began to be harassed by an IP editor (under my previous username, ''Yworo''). This continued through 2012. To make a long story short, the user behind the IPs was community banned (see ] which has links to the discussions and result). The IP's MO was to revert perfectly good edits I made, or to remove legitimate sourced content from articles repeatedly, falsely claiming that the source was not reliable. So, it's started again. Here are some diffs: , . So yeah, it's only happened once so far, but I believe I recognize this user from long past experience. Personally, I am happy to give them another chance to continue editing as long as the leave me and the '']'' alone. In any case, the IP needs additional eyes on their activities. ] (]) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Skyerise, It is premature, you've got the wrong person/IP. If you check the records this IP 104.173.225.10 got started on October 22, 2014 and has never made an edit connected to you (until yesterday). The edit you are disputing on Appalachia Rising was from a different editor -- so it's not connected to you at all. | |||
| ::In addition, I'll re-post what I wrote to you on your talk page today, I sincerely believe it because Misplaced Pages like our society at large should be free from any harrasement: "Skyerise, Sorry if you feel that way seriously, I'm only curious about the source of the edit from a different user on Rising Appalachia. It's not personal. I discovered this band from the edits over at Game of Thrones. It looks very interesting. I hope we can keep Misplaced Pages from anything that's not professional or civil-minded. It should be fun. In all sincerity, thank you for listening". ] (]) 18:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whoever you are, you ''don't know'' Misplaced Pages sourcing requirements and you ''Wikilawyer''. And you've ] simply to revert my edits. Please read ] - only personal self-published blogs are a no-no. A multi-contributor news source is fine. So I ask you to just stay away from me and the articles I am currently working on: I've been here for ten years and ''I know what I'm doing''. It's clear you are retaliating for my on an article which I was not editing myself. Just leave me alone. Got it? ] (]) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::First I will answer your accusation(s). I edited something on Appalachia Rising from a different user today at the beginning of this discussion. How is that connected to you? The point of Misplaced Pages is discovery. Discovery of music, art, and culture etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about discovering a new artist through whatever means on the site. For someone who has contributed so much to Misplaced Pages please, why not let others do the same? Thank you. ] (]) 18:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Skyerise: I think you may be right that this is premature, but certainly worth pointing out. Other than the ] posting and your talk exchanges, I don't see much evidence that this IP is ] you. It seems quite possible you've simply crossed paths with a new-ish user who doesn't understand the ] guideline nor the ] policy. | |||
| *However, 104.173.225.10, having been brought to an enforcement noticeboard by a user and then showing up in an article that that user edits to revert their contributions smells bad, if you catch my meaning. Please make sure you understand our ] (especially what we call ]) which explicitly forbids following a user from topic to topic just to interject in their discussions and cause annoyance. Skyerise has requested that you leave her alone; you are very strongly advised to respect that. ] (]) 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ivanvector, I appreciate your expertise in this matter. Could you do me a favor and officially request that Skyerise do the same? Specifically, on the Game of Thrones page. I want to thank you all for keeping the site civil and a place where we can all reach for consensus.] (]) 19:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd like to jump in to give a friendly reminder to Skyerise about ]. Right now you seem paranoid and are assuming an inordinate amount of bad faith. --] (]) 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Have you ever been stalked for three years because that's how long it takes to get anyone here to take it seriously? I was nearly driven off Misplaced Pages and I'd rather jump the gun that ever submit to that level of harassment again. ] (]) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Point taken. I believe you - your reaction certainly is justified. --] (]) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****Thank you. ] (]) 07:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **@DawnDusk: Please stop sprinkling CIVIL links around. Either produce some text that breaches CIVIL or withdraw per ]. ] (]) 08:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *** While I don't mind you attempting to nitpick me, I already '''did''' withdraw that (if you read the conversation), and '''this''' was the text to which I was referring. ] (]) 08:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Guys, we're making a chain of meta-civility notices here. May I suggest we close this? ] (]) 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == IP editing userspace pages == | |||
| {{IP user|198.102.153.1}} recently edited several userspace pages of different editors, the edits don't appear to be vandalism but s/he doesn't leave any edit summaries. I reverted three of his edits which were made to users' main userpages, it seemed like the right thing to do. I tried asking but it looks like the IP . Can anyone else confirm if we have a problem here or not? — ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :They've started leaving edit summaries. Looks like they're chasing down and fixing broken redirects due to userboxes being migrated to user space. I don't see any problems with what they are doing. Do you have specific edits that look disruptive? --]] 19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually it's most of the sandbox edits that look like a problem, people can have their own reasons for using invalid templates and whatever in their tests, also newbies can get confused when their version of their sandbox suddenly looks different and they won't know why; one user has to the IP for editing his sandbox; also it's absolutely unclear where the IP got that content from since the template they substed didn't exist. I think he should generally stay out of sandboxes/test pages and always provide an (understandable) explanation when editing others' userpages. — ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates == | |||
| Following ], the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at ]. Comments are welcomed at that page. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee; | |||
| ] (]) 19:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == 92.41.108.109 harassment == | |||
| {{archive top|status=user blocked|result=IP user blocked for 2 weeks for ] ] by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{IP|92.41.108.109}} harasses me on my talk and user page. ] (]) 20:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a mobile IP, so perphaps ] would be effective. ] (]) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've blocked the IP. Would you like your pages semi'd as well, ]? ] | ] 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::No, but thanks. Seems like he/she has stopped now. ] (]) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Mass genre changes == | |||
| {{ping|Masterclopedia2015}} has been changing music genres, without any references, or even edit summaries, to their liking , and Wednesday and again today, this is causing a lot of un-necessary work for editors who monitor music articles. Maybe a short block will get their attention. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 00:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : The three examples cited here strike me as examples of making shit up... This is an editor that needs to be watched closely. Calling Metallica "groove metal" and coining the subgenre "progressive pop punk" (sic.) from whole cloth are very concerning. ] (]) 11:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor is clearly willing to engaged in an edit war on a number of articles: | |||
| ::*] | |||
| ::*]: | |||
| ::*]: | |||
| ::*]: | |||
| ::Because of this and the unwillingness to discuss the widespread genre changes, I suggest that {{user|Masterclopedia2015}} be blocked for 72 hours with progressively lengthier blocks if the disruptive behavior continues. —''']''' (] | ]) 12:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that a short block is necessary to stop the disruption and get the user to communicate. - ]] 13:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't know how helpful it will be, but I left a message explaining the situation to him. Maybe wait to see what happens now. If he keeps messing with genres, I think a block would be warranted. ] (]) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I've blocked {{u|Masterclopedia2015}} for 72 hours for disruptive editing. He has been pinged and informed about this discussion, ignored it and continued to edit without involving himself in the sort of discussions and collegial editing we expect for all of us, really. ] (]) 16:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == David Tornheim's behavior, redux == | |||
| {{userlinks|David Tornheim}} | |||
| {{u|David Tornheim}}, just over a week ago, just a bit over a week ago, with {{u|Drmies}} writing a close that "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.". | |||
| Since then David has continued campaigning, even in this thread: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (a beauty) | |||
| * (a real beauty) | |||
| Since he has completely blown off the warning, please provide a 24 hour block, per ]. David is making it more and more clear that he is ] so I will not oppose an indef, but all I am asking for is a 24 hour block. Thanks. | |||
| I am sorry to keep cluttering up this board, but these personal attacks of corruption and COI are not OK. ] (]) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note, fixed dif per note below. ] (]) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| ::*<b>Witness Intimidation</b> for testimony on . This accusation against me shows just how impossible it is to speak about a problem. ] (]) 05:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is what we mean with ]. just bizarre. ] (]) 05:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' The "don't be a dick/gravedancing" diff you linked as evidence against David Thorheim isn't from David Thorheim, it is from DePiep --] (]) 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :thanks, i fixed it. sorry. god i sick of this drama. i have articles i want to work on. ] (]) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note - made this a separate new incident. ] (]) 23:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :*I moved this section back here, because it's part of the same incident; whoever looks at it has to see it in context. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Noting that when I wrote "here," I was referring to the section above that this report is part of. Jytdog has moved it again. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::David's behavior has nothing to do with DePiep's. David is responsible for what he does. This belongs in its own section, and so i moved it back. too much drama. ] (]) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* Jytdog, I'm surprised to see you seek sanctions for posts like , given your interactions recently with {{U|DrChrissy}}. You were cursing at her with practically every post at one point, but no one reported you (and I'm glad they didn't, because it meant that it eventually stopped without fuss). Shouldn't you extend a similar attitude to others? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::drchrissy is a guy, for what its worth. you really cannot sort out a personal attack from someone fucking cursing in frustration? And in any case, if you want to bring a case against me for that, please do so. This thread is about David's behavior. ] (]) 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Still, even to a casual observer, you bring an awful lot of cases to ]. You seem to be involved in a lot of confrontational encounters. Again, just an observation. And you failed to notify the editor about bringing this case to ANI. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Liz}} this has been a really crappy couple of weeks, i grant you that. i work on controversial subject matter and in general manage to keep things calm enough that we don't end up here; david's campaigning has been stirring the pot for sure. Depiep's thing was random. and i apologize for not giving notice to David. doing that now. thanks for the reminder. ] (]) 01:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think its been more than a crappy week. You have 563 edits to this page, in only two article do you have more. That is an amazing number for someone who has a bad week. ] 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Note: this thread is about David Tornheim's behavior. It is what it is. Each editor in Misplaced Pages is responsible for his or her behavior. Period. David is hounding me with personal attacks across WP; this is a violation of ]. He has been warned, and persisted. Please give him a block per ]. Thank you. ] (]) 00:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :At ] David Tornheim has: | |||
| :* to make an ] that Reiki isn't ] medicine | |||
| :* shouldn't be compared to "Western" Medicine (because it'd fail that comparison horribly) and so somehow shouldn't be treated as a fringe topic | |||
| :* argument that dismissing Reiki as pseudoscience would lead to dismissing Eastern culture as fringe (]) | |||
| :* while still arguing that it should not be treated as ] because it supposedly doesn't make scientifically testable claims (despite previously citing an article titled "The Greatest Healing The World Has Ever Known") | |||
| :* claims to basically be the force (able to heal at a distance), even though says "Reiki can be sent at a distance." | |||
| :*, instead of by skeptical sources (in the absence of ]s supporting it) | |||
| :* for Reiki's founder referring to it as medicine, only to when his challenge was met. | |||
| :For those not in the know, ] is a form of "]" where the "healer" can "cure" ]s, ], ], ], and ] through energies that science says do not exist, across time and space. No ]s were ''ever'' presented in support of Reiki, despite repeated requests for them. To argue in defense of Reiki the way Tornheim has requires at least one of the following: ], a ] on ] ], or ]. Given his other behavior, I think that a '''''topic-ban''''' may be in order, probably '''against all topics relating to health sciences''' (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering). ] (]) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::^I will address misrepresentations made above. Please give me time to respond. I am not an advocate for Reiki. And I am definitely no advocate (and have little respect) for "quack" or "snake oil" medicine that deceives patients with false promises or pseudo-scientific claims. My discussion at the RS forum about Reiki had to do with appropriate use of RS, which was being misapplied and against policy and included the use of circular, contradictory logic. Please note that I have never edited the Reiki article or talk page. Nor have I edited any article or talk page related to Alternative Medicine or mainstream Western Medicine as far as I can remember. I don't think GMO food is medicine, is it? ] (]) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You kept citing a Reiki website in place of a ], and made arguments that went against the source you cited and arguments that demonstrated you had not read anything about Reiki (''except pro-Reiki sources''), to try and keep Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to ]) away from ] and open the door to presenting it as a legitimate "healing" distinct from "western" medicine. If ] is not at play here, then ] or ] definitely is. The topic ban is necessary because either you like to argue in defense of quackery out of either ] or ]. ] (]) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ian.thomson says "Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to the Force)". This is incorrect. I have read numerous sources on Reiki and NONE of them (including the current wiki article ])), even the skeptics, say that it relies primarily on praying--all of them say Reiki is about touch and many say it is more like massage. (Yes, it does use ]). Ian.thomson is clearly confused about Reiki, and now is trying to ban me for pointing out his/her confusions like these about Reiki. | |||
| ::::I do regret I tried to help the people at that forum understand the major differences between Eastern Practices viz-a-viz Western Medicine which are entirely different systems. Obviously, a waste of time. I should have focused only on the RS issue. Although that seems like a waste of time too which is why I have not said anything on that forum for a few days. ] (]) 10:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Anyone with a passing acquaintance with reiki will know practitioners claim it can be used at distance (in that respect it is like prayer or Christian Science healing). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 11:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You didn't object to the Star Wars reference? The indication that I was clearly making a joking comparison? Please read the article on ]s. If you've read plenty of sources on Reiki, and you're capable of tutoring students on physics, then you should have known better it was essentially magical in nature. It isn't an east vs west thing, it is a science vs pseudoscience thing. Reiki makes scientifically testable claims, but provides no evidence. As I said at RSN, its western parallel is not "western" medicine, Reiki's western twin would be something like ] or crystal healing. | |||
| :::::I and for other cultures, but that respect does not require gullibility. If someone makes a scientifically testable claim, ]]. If they do not present it, we treat their claims as ]. It's that simple. | |||
| :::::And how have you read numerous sources on Reiki, but somehow supposedly don't have an opinion on it one way or another? Either you're a stealth advocate, or you're in denial about it. ] (]) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * couple of links to comments from david with comments in reply from some admins: | |||
| ** (see especially comments at the end of that thread) | |||
| ** | |||
| Per those comments there, ] is at play here. ] (]) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::^Now he is going here saying I am "incompetent". The criticism from Jytdog just never ends! ] (]) 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::yep, and you are proving the case with almost every post you make here. See ] ] (]) 05:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Comment - to Ian.thomson - calling for a topic ban based on subject-related comments on the RSN is bizarre, particularly given that David states he never edited the Reiki article. While the Reiki article should certainly avoid overweighing fringe viewpoints, the notion of undue weight does not apply to talk page and discussion board comments, and these are reasonable places to bring up non-mainstream viewpoints and discuss how they relate to wikipedia.] (]) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where did I attempt to apply ] to RSN? On undue weight, however, Tornheim's actions at RSN would have had the effect of allowing undue weight on fringe viewpoints in the article. "These sources are reliable information on Reiki from the perspective of the practitioner" would have been a fine argument ''and relevant to the discussion'' -- ''but'' his actions there specifically pushed the idea that Reiki should not be treated as a fringe pseudoscience because pro-Reiki authors do not characterize it that way. By that standard, there is no such thing as pseudoscience. | |||
| :::His other actions have resulted in arguments at GMOs, Glyphosate, and Genetic engineering, and Jytdog has come to ANI and other places because of Tornheim's actions there. Those other actions, in the light of his behavior at RSN, demonstrates serious problems with either ] or ] (via mostly ]) when it comes to health sciences. ] (]) 02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You raised ] in your initial comment, which is closely related to ]. Showing interest in a fringe or minority viewpoint is not in itself a bannable offense. Do you have diffs showing clear disruptive behavior?] (]) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At what point did I say that he should be banned for simply showing interest? Having overhauled the ], I have to say there's nothing wrong with interest. What I have already linked to shows a POV-problem. | |||
| :::::As for Tornheim's behavior, see the ], which was closed with the comment "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." Tornheim edit warred to keep that edit in, and has previously canvassed to change articles relating to GMOs to suit his POV. He also to support his POV. | |||
| :::::Has Jytdog been perfect in his interactions? No, but even in isolation, Tornheim and science do not mix. ] (]) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I would really appreciate your striking out the <i>ad hominem</i> that questions my competence in Science. I happen to have a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering (from University of Cincinnati) Magna Cum Lum Laude, where I excelled in numerous college level science classes, and a Masters of Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (U.S.C.) and was top in my high school class in math and science. I also have tutored students in math, including advanced Calculus and Statistics, as well as Physics. So I would really appreciate your striking out the <i>ad hominem</i> allegations that I do not know much about Science. -] (]) 09:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::]. Then you should have known better to try and give equal validity to Reiki. But wait, you've also read numerous sources on it, and all of them pro-Reiki. You may be in denial about it, and pretend that you just don't know, but your behavior screams that you believe in it and advocate it's use to others. Believe what you want, but it's unacceptable to try to reshape Misplaced Pages to fit those beliefs when they conflict with science. ] (]) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| ::::::The two problematic edits you spoke of were already raised in the closed AN/I. Why are you raising them again? Is there no ] on Misplaced Pages? As for the mentioned in the closing comments, that issue was resolved less than two hours later and again . I relinquished all interest in the material, as soon as those who had done the reverts (mostly Jytdog) explained <i>on the talk page</i> (rather than in vague edit summary ) why he believed a normally reliable source like the BBC had made a very serious mistake in its reporting. His explanation on the talk page made sense, I accepted it without further comment--so I thought--that would be the end of it. But it seems never to go away. I saw I made a mistake and never showed the least interest in adding the problematic material again. Yet this edit which I have long divorced myself from apparently I am still married to? Where do I get a Wiki divorce? Admitting you made a mistake by sleeping with the wrong "edit" more than once, apparently is just not enough. | |||
| {{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute. | |||
| '']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent. | |||
| ::::::And all of this was before the first AN/I Jytdog used against me (01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)). I admitted in the AN/I that I misunderstood the ] rule: | |||
| :::::::I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| ::::::And I have made hardly any edits to the GMO articles since Jytdog's first ANI against me, knowing that doing so, no matter how reasonable, will land me here. But I guess you still need me banned from the GMO articles even though I have made no more controversial edits you can point to? -] (]) 10:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| :::::::The double jeopardy comparison, and the prior mention of witness intimidation is ]. The Reiki advocacy was mentioned, and evidence of prior problematic behavior was asked for, which is why that thread was mentioned. This isn't simply bringing up that thread again without new points. Even if you have changed how you're peddling an anti-scientific POV onto articles into a more indirect fashion, you're still peddling a POV that gives equal validity to pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:29, 28 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. | |||
| 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'': | |||
| ::::Ian.thomson: So are you really saying that if I raise an issue and someone disagrees, then I "caused an argument" and that is a good reason to have me banned from the article or topics related to that topic? Are you saying that dissenting opinions are impermissible because they cause arguments? It is hard for me to imagine Misplaced Pages where everyone agreed all the time. Are you still saying that you want me banned from GMO and the ] articles because they are primarily articles having to do with medicine and medical advice? ] (]) 04:22, 28 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.}} | |||
| :::::You're twisting my words, as you did at RSN. Like I said, it would have been one thing to support the use of those sources for the perspective of a Reiki practitioner, but you repeatedly argued for not classifying Reiki as a fringe pseudoscience because that's not how its practitioners classify it. Your edits to and concern their effects on human health, and therefore fall under health science. ] (]) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''. | |||
| ===Topic ban from agriculture and health-related topics=== | |||
| Ian proposed a topic ban due to David's '''behavior'''. I will get the ball rolling here.] (]) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support.''' per demonstrated lack of ] and violations of ], ], and ]; not to mention ] after having been warned at last ANI. ] (]) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Given the extraordinary editing at <ins>the</ins> ] <ins>Talk page (in the diffs above)</ins>, this is certainly warranted for health-related topics. ] (]) 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC); edited 12:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{yo|Alexbrn}} What would be the length of that topic ban? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*As discussed above, David cannot have done 'extraordinary editing at ]' as he has made no edits to that article page.] (]) 12:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{replyto|OccultZone}} long enough to have a chance of getting to know the on-point policies; a month maybe. {{replyto|Dialectric}} have clarified. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :::He has tried to shift the direction of the article on other pages, however. ] (]) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Classic '''content dispute'''. Where we see Jytdog yet again at the AN/I to get an editor blocked on an article he is editing where the other editor disagrees with the direction the article is going. The diff's are all on AN/I where we are pointed to diff's that question Jytdog's motives. But AN/I is the place to raise such issues. ] 12:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the Reiki advocacy? ] (]) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is also a content dispute. You have collected talk page diff's showing that someone disagrees with the direction of the article. The talk page is exactly the place where those discussions should happen. This whole section appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute by removing the opposing view. ] 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * <b>Time to Respond to Complaint?<b> -- I said earlier that I had planned to write a response to ian.thomson's allegations and that I needed more time . I have put hours into writing that response. I have not edited on any of the articles in question since DiPiep's ANI--only here on the AN/I board and on one user's talk page. It has been less than 24 hours. What is this rush to judgment that Jytdog is pushing to have me topic banned based on allegations I have not had a chance to respond to yet? Are we assumed guilty until proven innocent? ] (]) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::it is a behavior thing. it doesn't matter why. you have done what you have done. you were warned to stop the battleground behavior and you went right ahead with it. you have advocated for pseudoscience all over the place. you have demonstrated lack of competence, all over the place, and although made a move to get mentored, you have blown that off. those are all demonstrated behaviors. this is about behavior. it is really simple. ] (]) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I agree with ]. --] (]) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|I am One of Many}} - what should the community do about David's continued campaigning and attacks against me? I can respect you not !voting for this answer, but I would like the community to stop this behavior. He has already been warned and he blew right past that. I am not asking you to change your !vote, I am asking for your thoughts on the problem. Thanks. ] (]) 17:32, 28 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.() | |||
| == ]: Protracted uncivility and harrassment == | |||
| {{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;...}} | |||
| I wish to raise an ANI about ]. This is in regard to their protracted uncivility towards me and their harassment of me. | |||
| 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'' | |||
| After several postings which I considered to be uncivil, I reminded ] on 16th March here to be civil in discussions. However, this uncivility has continued. | |||
| I further reminded ] on March 23rd here and March 24th here that I was finding their behaviour unacceptable, but this has persisted. | |||
| 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.'' | |||
| ] is a well established editor. Given their considerable experience on here, they should not need to be reminded about being civil and not harrassing other editors. Neither should they be using a highly suspect tactic of making fleeting accusations, inflammatory remarks or uncivility in postings so that editors currently involved in the discussion briefly see it, and then quickly removing the edit before others comment so that it does not remain on the page or is later struck out here and here compare with These are only 2 examples of this behaviour. The harm to the project and the taunting of me has been done before the striking out. | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Wikihounding:''' | |||
| *] is following me so that negative comments about me can be left on pages to which I am contributing or using. I asked a question at the WP:Teahouse here about an editor's talk page that was edited by ] but which did not attribute the edit to ]. In my initial posting, I was careful not to name editors or indicate the location of the problem. Within 50 mins of my posting the question, ] had posted an edit on the thread I initiated. The only way ] could have known about my posting this question was if they were monitoring my postings. ] soon after posted that I was "inexperienced" in an attempt to belittle me. | |||
| 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''. | |||
| '''Prophanities:''' | |||
| *] left prophanities on my Talk page here to belittle my editing. | |||
| *] used prophanities on other pages in messages directed at me, e.g. "I made a motherfucking mistake by editing a comment when I thought no one had replied yet - when you pointed out that you had replied I went back and struck it properly and acknowledged my mistake. That is not "uncivil", it is called being a fucking human being who can make mistakes and is capable of fucking admitting them and even fucking fixing them" | |||
| * ] used further prophanaties in messages directed at me here. | |||
| 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 ]'' | |||
| '''Personal attacks:''' | |||
| *] was aware of my being an academic here. They subsequently made a personal attack (and veiled attack on my career competence which I find extremely unpleasant and totally unacceptable) by writing "i run into this sometimes with academicish editors who just cannot say "i don't know" and cannot back down, ever" here | |||
| *] described my edit as "slimey varmint behavior". | |||
| 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 . | |||
| '''Belittling a fellow editor:''' | |||
| *] described me as "inexperienced" here | |||
| *] stated that my RfC was "wasting time" here. | |||
| *] made a comment disrespecting my editing abilities here | |||
| *] made comments that suggested/stated I have "fucked up", "screw it up, and an RfC I initiated was described as "...a flawed fucked up waste of time...". | |||
| *] made a comment that I should "get around more", clearly in a way to belittle me | |||
| 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) | |||
| '''Inappropriate use of warning templates:''' | |||
| :Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive. | |||
| *] left a warning template on my Talk page that was not warranted and unjustified even after a request. | |||
| :*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 free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Followup=== | |||
| '''Admission of yelling at me''' | |||
| I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy. | |||
| *] admitted telling at me here. | |||
| *] admitted yelling at me here. | |||
| While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]] | |||
| '''Other editor's independent and unrequested comments support my concerns:''' | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| Independent editors have noted ]'s uncivil attitude toward me. | |||
| *An independent editor left a message on ]'s Talk page stating ] should "watch your tone" in messages directed at me.] Jytdog apologised at their own Talk page but not at the original posting or at my Talk page. | |||
| *An independent editor left a message on my Talk page stating that postings by ] were "...intended to inflame". | |||
| == User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
| It seems clear to me that ] has breached the principles of civility and non-harassment of other editors repeatedly, despite being warned. Some of these have been extremely upestting to myself and have caused me to think about stopping working on the project. I truly believe this editor needs to learn that there are consequences to this extremely uncivil behaviour.__] (]) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| __] (]) 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I acknowledge that I got angry with drchrissy and that i expressed that anger. that was not good of me. i am not sorry for cursing; that is not a problem in WP. but some of my remarks were uncivil, and for that i do apologize, and i will be use more restraint going forward. I am sorry for that, drchrissy. None of what you write is actionable and much of it is nonsense (which should make it clear why i described you inexperienced). But i am sorry for being uncivil. ] (]) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You don't seem to be sorry, because you've just responded . I don't know why you think cursing isn't a problem on WP. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::and you know what slimvirgin, i never understand why people think it is such a great "gotcha" to link to a comment that someone overwrote. i never do that. ended up. of course i wrote what you linked to and of course i regret what i wrote originally; that's why i changed it. (which per TPG I can do, before someone else responds. after that i have to redact) i don't like what i originally wrote there. i have always wondered if there is some specific policy or guideline that calls linking to an overwritten comment "slimey behavior." ] (]) 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And has also written about my notice that "..much of it is nonsense"! It never stops!... __] (]) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults == | |||
| :::I do regret losing my temper with drchrissy. that is on me. and i do apoligize for that. I do get it that cursing is ~probably~ uncivil. cursing ''at'' someone (like, "Jytdog you are a stupid fucking asshole") would be uncivil and a personal attack to boot. but saying "that is fucking wrong" is not cursing at somebody. ] (]) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::oh drchirssy much of what you object to (like the edit war notice) was totally appropriate on my part. you didn't understand then and you still don't understand. i tried in the past to explain to you some of these sorts of things ] (]) 00:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The beam sticking out of your eye is rather large. ] 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The bottom line is that if an editor talks like a low-life, they shouldn't be surprised if they get treated like one. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Two wrongs never make a right, civility is required, even if there is a perceived problem. Article talk pages and user pages are also the last place that it should be allowed. If there is a problem, bring it to one of the noticeboards. As experienced as Jytdog is, and his activity here pointing out issues, he should have known that. "it is a behavior thing. it doesn't matter why. you have done what you have done". ] 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Taken as a whole, Jytdog's behavior towards DrChrissy does appear to constitute a systematic pattern of harassment and incivility. Many of the worst comments have been struck by Jytdog, but there appears to be a pattern emerging in which Jytdog makes uncivil or unfounded remarks about an editor and then strikes them. Repeatedly making comments that have to be struck is itself a pattern of incivility. The edit warning also appears to be harassment. Jytdog attempted to justify the warning with but notice that the third diff is not a revert. @], I suggest ] rather than engaging in less than ] behavior and giving the appearance of being a ]. --] (]) 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree, and quite strongly. The edit war warning arose after drchrissy tried 3 times to change a comment on a talk page that I had responded to, without redacting (showing the change): | |||
| :* with inaccurate edit note: " I have simply added my vote in bold to help editors who might wish to collate information quickly. The content in the message has not been changed." | |||
| :* with edit note: "yes this changes the context very much, and makes my remark nonsense. strike if you with to redact it" | |||
| :* | |||
| :* at 22:55, 25 March 2015 , explaining again "this violates TPG, you must ], not simply edit, comments others have responded to" | |||
| :* at 23:02, 25 March 2015 on his Talk page (which I often give in this kind of situation, at this point. it is fine under policy to do so - the point of the notice is to prevent 3RR and spur discussion; you get an edit war noticeboard notice after you break 3RR and are actually brought to the edit warring notice board) | |||
| :* at 23:04, 25 March 2015 commented on the Talk page: "@Jytdog. How do I redact information that is no longer there - you have already deleted it?" which is just baffling. | |||
| :* later , "Why have you put this notice on my Talk page: Where am I supposed to be edit-warring?" | |||
| : so...I give an edit warring notice and he stops edit warring, writes a bizzare comment, and then later on his Talk page asks why the edit war notice. the whole things shows either ] or just deliberately off-throwing behavior. I can't decide which but in either case, frustrating. I admit that I let myself express my frustration over this baffling behavior, which arises in the midst of a content dispute. Yes, I own that and have apologized for it. But my actions have been solid. There is no harassment. I have tried to talk through things with him, and almost every conversation goes off into bizarro world, exactly like that interaction did. I can give plenty more examples. Again, I acknowledge that I let myself express my frustration, which I should have not have done. That is as far as this goes. ] (]) 17:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support Warning''' - Jytdog for incivility. Profanity-laden personal attacks like these , , have no place in wikipedia. These are from the past 2 months and are only the worst examples. Removing or striking such comments, as Jytdog has done, does not unsay them. An experienced editor should not be making comments like this in the first place, and when such comments are made and deleted repeatedly it raises questions of potential baiting other editors and gaming the system.] (]) 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : I'll accept a warning; I acknowledge that i allowed my frustration to get to me. I have absolutely not gamed anything. | |||
| :* the first dif is not fair, as I overwrote that (final comment was and then i altogether | |||
| :* the second diff is not fair, as i overwrote that -the final comment was and i apologized to that user ], which was accepted. | |||
| :* third dif, same thing. I overwrote is so it ended up and then altogether. it is not reasonable to link to earlier versions of comments. it has been a frustrating time for me, and i have been intemperate, but have fixed thing as I have gone. But i do accept a warning. ] (]) 17:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Support warning, and wash out his mouth, too.''' "i am not sorry for cursing; that is not a problem in WP." That is a ridiculous statement by Jytdog. Of course it is a problem. If this is the sum of the editor's opinion about ], the that editor should not be editing here. Why does he think that folks don't stick around? We don't need him unless he can maintain civil discourse. Just my opinion, but I've ] (]) 17:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' As the initiator of this ANI, I'm not entirely sure I am allowed to comment on punitive action. If I am not, I apologise. As the recipient of the protracted mis-behaviour of Jytdog this has reduced my Wiki-experience to being one of dreading opening up the site, and extreme stress and frustration whilst trying to get on with constructive editing. I have just looked at the examples offered by Dialectric above - it appears I got off lightly. Surely any punitive action should be more than a warning. Other editors will see this ANI and if they see that such uncivility results in just a few harsh words, I am sure they will not be impressed. ] indicated here ] that they believed their mis-behaviour was not actionable. This indicates that with their considerable experience of such behaviour they have carefully considered their actions and decided to stick two fingers up to the admins considering this (I hope this translates to other languages...it essentially means "****-off you lot"__] (]) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Somebody just got accused of being a liar and a felon right here at ANI== | |||
| :Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|Being resolved in relevant section. ] 01:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Alleged in this diff: . I'm shocked. The (unnamed) miscreants should be found and punished, or else the accuser should be punished. Would this fall under NLT or NPA?</s> ] (]) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you will notice, the subject is COI and COI-like editing. It is a ''general'' discussion. Chill out. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh. Sorry. ] (]) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| === Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions === | |||
| == Suggest more eyes at ] == | |||
| {{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear admin, | |||
| The article is about a main primary contender against the incumbent mayor of Chicago. We've had unexplained deletions {{U|Diazmr.90}} and {{U|24.13.117.243}}. The IP's edits overlap with Diazmr's entirely, and the IP user geolocates to Chicago. This seems like a POV edit with an IP used to avoid the appearance of an edit war by a single party. Given the highly contentious primary and the unexplained deletions I suggest an admin at least watch the page, if not semi-protect it. Thanks. ] (]) 02:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform. | |||
| :Those two are no doubt the same person. The question the IP just asked here below this post is the same that Diazmr asked on Articles for Creation. --] (]) 03:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Section title changed, as this is a request for "oversight" in its usual, everyday meaning, not its obscure, wacky, ] meaning.--] (]) 03:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future. | |||
| * There's also ], created by {{U|Diazmr.90}}, who created the article ] referred to in the subthread below called "Page Vandalized then deleted" posted by {{U|24.13.117.243}}, who is indeed the same person. They need to be warned about ] and/or have the IP blocked. ] (]) 12:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. | |||
| === Page Vandalized then deleted === | |||
| Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ] ] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| * Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The Misplaced Pages page ]as vandalized in the past before it was restored promptly. The page is now entirely off the Misplaced Pages and redirects to a different page. Where did the page go? Was it taken down by administrators or was it vandalized again. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :The article was ] redirected to ]. If you click on ] it will take you to the election page. You will see a note at the top saying you were redirected and the article name. If you click on that link it will take you to the redirect page. As for why this was done, I took a look at the last version of the article before it was redirected and it was clearly little more than a piece of political ]. With rare exceptions, candidates for political office are not usually considered ] until they actually win election to a major office. See ]. The community has consistently set the bar fairly high and taken a dim view of efforts by candidates to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for free advertising. The article in question was an unambiguous puff piece that likely would have qualified for speedy deletion under CSD G-11. I hope this helps. -] (]) 04:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
| :Ping {{U|Tiller54}} -] (]) 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Noping|Nlkyair012}} | |||
| :What Ad Orientem. Unless an unelected candidate receives significant media coverage (eg ]), Misplaced Pages doesn't consider them notable enough for their own article. ] (]) 09:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism. | |||
| Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * As an uninvolved observer, I think the bold redirect of the Yañez piece is arguably okay — although the best practice for something that well developed would be to take it to AfD rather than to unilaterally make a decision. In no case should there be an edit war over that although at a glance there is about a 98% chance that the outcome at AfD would be "Redirect" (unelected politician). As for the Jesús "Chuy" García piece, that's an elected Chicago alderman and thus almost certain to be regarded as a keep at AfD. 24.13...... should be sure to sign in and to identify any potential Conflict of Interest on the talk pages of any articles being edited. I don't see any need for administrative action here one way or the other. ] (]) 11:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've taken the liberty of combining this with the preceding thread, since they are related articles by the same author. ] (]) 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this thread is the functional equivalent of a "Contested PROD" and this needs to be restored and taken to AfD. I will do that. ] (]) 11:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I think that's just well-meant busywork, ]. I wonder how likely your "courtesy AfD" is to get enough input for any sort of consensus. ] | ] 11:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::: The content creator put the work into it, we should treat this as we would any other Contested PROD. He should have his 7 days to make a case for a GNG pass — I'll do the rewrite for tone myself if he can do that... The AfD appears ], by the way. ] (]) 12:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
| *'''Note''': The election is April 7 (15th Ward), and is a run-off between Yañez and someone who does not have a wiki article, so this article needs to go away fast. {{Re|Carrite}} I know you meant well un-redirecting this article, but it shouldn't stand for a full week's AfD in my opinion, due to the promotional nature of it and due to the fact that the election is only nine days away right now. ] (]) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program. | |||
| ::I concur. The article is an obvious CSD candidate (G-11). I just posted a more detailed response on the AfD. -] (]) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources. | |||
| :As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress. | |||
| :I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure. | |||
| :In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. == | |||
| == Concerns with user 174.3.213.121 == | |||
| {{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Over a period of months, user ] has been making inflammatory edit summaries on reverts, sometimes with anti-Hinduism tones. Examples involving Hinduism are: | |||
| :<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] | ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] | ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
| *"removing previous editor's unwarranted insertions; mods: please handle further changes, as i suspect this individual is hindu and will 'go down swinging' for this edit. thanks" | |||
| *"nothing on talk. please rebut before saying you did, it makes you a liar. alhazen sucks. archimedes pwns your wallah bro)" | |||
| *"stop it you hindu fundamentalist. make your arguments under newly-created talk page section or revert again at your own peril" | |||
| Other generally aggressive edit summaries include: | |||
| *" rv vandalism. what the hell do you think you're doing?i'll slap you, punk." | |||
| *"Undid revision 641954597 by Rgdboer (talk) see talk, lorentz loving loser. his transformation is garbage, and you've yet to rebut wcherowi's args in talk)" | |||
| All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I have issued a clear and final warning, and any further such posts or edit summaries will lead to a block. -- ] (]) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection == | ||
| {{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The page 'Amanda Knox' seems to have disappeared? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive behavior from IP == | |||
| :Nope: ]. ] (]) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Strange Bug: "The revision #0 of the page named "Amanda Knox" does not exist.". History and Talk are there. ] (]) 13:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And now it is working again... ] (]) 13:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes. It's working now, but for a while, I got this message: | |||
| <blockquote>The revision #0 of the page named "Amanda Knox" does not exist. | |||
| This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log. </blockquote> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Sometimes it's needed to purge your cache. I know that's standard advice but it can resolve problems like this. Or reload the page, Cntrl-Alt-F5. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Multiple slow burning edit wars by IP. == | |||
| ::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] | ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Rude and unfestive language in my talk page == | |||
| ] is having fun with multiple slow burning edit wars at the same time. Almost straight after a ] at "Promised land", he continued his behaviour at other articles, like , , , and . His ] is one collection of warnings, including a warning about sockpuppetry and block evasion (not checked by me). This IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 16:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Correction, It are now full blown edits wars on the first three articles... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have blocked them for a week for edit warring. ] (]) 17:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] editor == | |||
| {{archive top|Please don't duplicate threads. ] (]) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| I strongly suspect some ] issues with {{User|Mavsfan123}}. I have warned the user at least twice that they are putting way too little content into their articles, but six days after their last warning, they an article as lacking in content as their previous efforts. Other articles of theirs have been nominated for deletion for similar reasons, and they removed a deletion tag at least twice. The user has been here since last July, and yet they have made no attempt whatsoever to improve their article creation (compare ). They have also made no attempt to communicate on talk pages. I'm tired of cleaning up this editor's half-assed attempts, and I really want to get through to them, because it's obvious they're not listening. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Bump because no one ever listens to me. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 17:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| My esteemed editor collegue ] just left on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. ] (]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you titled your thread "WP:COMPETENCE admin" they'd be here like flies to shit. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Vector legacy (2010)}} and {{u|Marcus Markup}}, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
Latest revision as of 18:34, 25 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- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
| 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
| 1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
| 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.
Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it
, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.
" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
- Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since
2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
None of this matters
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
IP blocked 24 hours, and then kept digging and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus
There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user User:Sxbbetyy (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at User talk:Sergecross73, where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
- As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
- On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
- Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
- Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73:
"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
- Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
- The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
- This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
- This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
- I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
<--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
- And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
- So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
- The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
- If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
- Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
- Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
- At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to
WP:Don't be a dick(looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
- And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
- Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
- Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."
- Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for closure
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages,
{{under discussion inline}}is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
- Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits
Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
- As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries
": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories
", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. - Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the
|blp=and|living=parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
|blp=and|living=gets updated
, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Augmented Seventh
User:Augmented Seventh is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
- After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
- Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
- Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
WP could be sooo much better. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also
How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"
- because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their removal of Category:Corruption from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. Rotary Engine 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.
Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
- For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible
because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
User talk:International Space Station0
Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. Liz 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized Spore (2008 video game) by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
- Or is that just something that isn't done? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...
User User:Longislandtea has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing alternative pop simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
- Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
- Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.
- A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
- Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.
- Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
- Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
- https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
- Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on When the Pawn... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On October 22 2024, User:Pillowdelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
Thank you. Longislandtea (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
- Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article
Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on Gilman School, with both Counterfeit_Purses (talk · contribs · logs · block log) breaking 3RR 1, 2, 3, 4 and Statistical_Infighting (talk · contribs · logs · block log) being right at 3 Reverts 1, 2, 3.
This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it here and here, again on the 17th, 18th, and then being at the above today.
- E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.
I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
We don't include all notable alumni in these lists
Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Vandal encounter
This IP seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Glenn103
Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
- I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
Key Points:
- Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
- The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
- The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
- The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
- Ongoing Disruption:
- Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
- This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
- Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
- Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
- Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
- Impact on the Community:
- The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
- These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
Request for Administrative Action:
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
- Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
- Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
- Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
- If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
- I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated
– Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got 97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". EEng 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
- At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
- There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
- You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
| External videos | |
|---|---|
 Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy |
- Rc2barrington's user page says
This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring
, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But User:Rc2barrington has provided none.
Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "
Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor
". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.Then there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.
Next we see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?). Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about.
Next there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Remove Belarus from the infobox. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20 and none of them seem to deal with North Korea.
So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.
- Rc2barrington's user page says
Concern About a New Contributor
Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dear Wikipedians,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
- Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
- By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
- She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
- Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
- •
- •
- •
- •
- and many more
- Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @BusterD,
- It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
- Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Remsense,
- I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Simonm223,
- I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can't both criticize someone for
lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL
, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
- In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S-Aura, how did you make the determination
User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages
? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) - S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. Liz 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — Hex • talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence
- Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.
Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:
| − | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks | + | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla. |
This was reverted (diff) by Darkwarriorblake with the comment not what the source says.
After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.(diff)
| − | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks | + | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;... |
My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim
That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.
This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.
This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING
At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".
So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all. — Hex • talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
- I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
- The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
- When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
- The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
- The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
- I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
- Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
- Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away.
- Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — Hex • talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
Followup
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.
I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng
User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page
User:Stationmanagerskidrow is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at their station. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was WP:LOUTSOCKing as this IP, and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ⇒SWATJester 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Insults
I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions
This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN and including here , accusing me of vandalism.
Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Ratnahastin,
- To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
- I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
- As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
- I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
- In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.
Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in Tampa. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Lil Dicky Semi-Protection
WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive behavior from IP
For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA T\ 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA T\ 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Semiprotected Boeing 777 for two days. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Rude and unfestive language in my talk page
My esteemed editor collegue Marcus Markup just left this rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vector legacy (2010) and Marcus Markup, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)