Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 5 May 2021

Archives

1, 2, 3

Film LTA

Hello, and thank you for dealing with 107.77.237.71. 107.77.236.9 may be connected, and I see similarities to this LTA. Certes (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Certes, thank you very much for the notification, and for tracking that case. Re-blocked. I'm not linking to the LTA page in my block reasons just in case they're doing it for this kind of attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User:FDW777

User:ToBeFree has replied to this private email and requested that I repost it on his talk page.

Hi,

Could you please re-open my ANI about FDW777. The user is acting like a bully, and I don't appreciate the way you've closed it. The fact that someone asked if I had appealed suggested it wouldn't be unreasonable. I've contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages over the years, and I don't like the way that FDW777 is steamrollering over the work of myself and others. I don't appreciate being told that I have a 'Failure or refusal to "get the point"'. What is being ignored is that the behaviour of FDW777 *is* uncivil, and they've had a new article completely altered with their bullying enforcement of BLP policy. And it isn't "forum shopping" - I haven't raised their behaviour elsewhere repeatedly. I don't think FDW777 is helping to reach consensus. It seems that any efforts to question them are being shut down, though.

Regards, TT.--TrottieTrue (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but the situation at hand is unsuitable for discussing the described behavior. This is because the core of the dispute is content-related and you have a strong content disagreement that is mixed into your ANI report. If you look at this in a week, you'll probably notice the issue that led to the closure.

The BLP policy is one of the very few policies that can be strictly enforced against pretty much all other concerns, including against administrative action: It's one of the very few "exceptional circumstances" named at WP:WHEEL, for example. Thus, any attempt to re-negotiate that policy after having been warned about misconduct in the area will inevitably look like IDHT behavior. If that discussion had continued with you throwing further accusations into the noticeboard, a less patient administrator would probably have blocked you, or a less patient community member would have proposed sanctions against you beyond the original warning (e.g. a topic ban). Such sanction discussions then quickly run out of hand as WP:BLP is deeply supported throughout the entire community, and as the community is relatively unwilling to invest time into repeatedly explaining the same BLP policy concerns to the same user again and again. The closure may have prevented a much less desirable situation.

For the same reason, I recommend against appealing the warning; I'm not sure if a warning can even be properly appealed. You have been warned, and that's it – the warning can practically not be taken back, as the information has reached its target. Trying to appeal it anyway just goes further into the IDHT area.

Again, FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but for the next weeks or months, you have practically exhausted your means of drawing community attention to it. There's not much I can do about that except pointing it out and explaining it. The situation may well be unfair, but I can't make it fairer; I can only prevent it from escalating further to your disadvantage.

PS: I prefer public transparency/accountability to email discussion. If you agree with this principle, please write your original email message as a new message on my talk page, I'll publicly reply with this message 1:1 and you can continue to answer there then. I'd prefer not to (and will probably not) answer per e-mail if there are further questions. I'll happily answer any questions on my talk page, though.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for posting your message here. I'm glad you agree that "FDW777's behavior may not be ideal". I wasn't attempting to renegotiate the BLP policy; it simply struck me that after a great deal of effort had been spent in creating a new, highly detailed article, User:FDW777 popped up to complain about it. It was actually created by another editor, though I had some slight involvement in getting it going. My point was that FDW777 is going about this in the wrong way: issuing ultimatums and threats in a terse manner is not appropriate for WP, IMO. There was nothing like "could you please use the birth years only until you have referenced sources for the full list", but simply ill-mannered demands. It's also noteworthy that they did not remove the unsourced DOBs from the articles they highlighted on that Talk page, so the user is clearly rather selective in how they enforce policy.

The BLP policy I violated is actually not the same as the problem in the table identified by FDW777. I used public records to add DOBs in BLP articles. In this instance, I was querying whether the table needed references for every usage of a DOB, since other list tables on WP do not have fully referenced DOBs. As you can see, I have already appealed against the warning, to no avail, but if I don't violate that policy again, I don't think it should do me any harm. I probably wouldn't have appealed it if another editor hadn't asked if I disputed the result. "The situation may well be unfair" hits the nail on the head in this situation. FDW777 does not assume good faith, and is violating policies around civility. They have yet again insulted me in the talk page for this article, here. They are certainly casting aspersions on me there.

Andrew Gray commented on my ANI: "I had reasonably assumed the data in the list was all uncontroversial and did not need each point individually cited, which has been our general practice for list articles like this for many years." This is essentially my issue with FDW777 leaping on the article to demand it conform to BLP or be deleted. The tone and general manner is unhelpful. This isn't the only complaint about FDW777's incivility in recent months - see this comment by User:OgamD218, referring to a comment by User:CeltBrowne: . CeltBrowne is correct, FDW uses baseless claims re WP rules to bully other editors. This user also has a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, the PIRA page was denied GAN by Peacemaker67 bc, referring to FDW, "it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article." I notice that you've previously awarded FDW777 a barnstar, so you may not be entirely neutral when discussing this user. I hope that isn't the case though. The point is, I will accept I am wrong if I the discussion is kept civil and polite. This wasn't, and FDW777's way of handling it has made the situation more heated.--TrottieTrue (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that has made any dispute "more heated" is your stubborn refusal to listen in order to pursue your unhealthy interest ih the dates of birth of UK MPs. See for example the history of John Finucane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 01:58, 17 March. You add a date of birth using public records, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Reverted the same day, pointing directly to BLPPRIMARY. You were fully aware of this reversion, due to your subsequent edit on 25 March.
• 14:11, 24 March. You were specifically told about the unsuitability of Companies House as a reference for the dates of birth for living people.
• 23:15, 2 May. Back at John Finucane, you ignored the previous reversion of your edit and the post on your talk page, and again added a date of birth using public records from Companies House.
• 07:29, 3 May. This change was reverted with a clear edit summary of WP:BLPPRIMARY. "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." (emphasis added).
• 12:36, 3 May. You revert to add back the date of birth, claiming the fact it is public record implied the subject does not object. What part of 'Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth is hard to understand?

Several editors at several discussions have tried to explain the importance of BLP to you, yet you ignore them and simply continue to ignore it. In those circumstances, my patience is understandably wearing thin. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, there’s clearly little point in engaging with you on this subject. You keep repeating the same mantra as above: "to pursue your unhealthy interest ih the dates of birth of UK MPs". This personal insult has been repeated by the user on multiple talk pages now, and is clearly in violation of the WP policy Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks (which, User:ToBeFree, is what I was trying to raise yesterday, although I realise the issue gets conflated with disagreements on how BLP policy is enforced).

FDW777 is also violating the policies on wikipedia:Civility, wikipedia:Harassment and WP:Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, particularly by raising a resolved arbitration request here. "Several editors at several discussions have tried to explain the importance of BLP to you, yet you ignore them and simply continue to ignore it." I think this is an exaggeration, and the use of the present tense is misleading. Now that the arbitration enforcement has been resolved, I should be given the opportunity to follow BLP, which I believe I have done since then. The arbitration request has been dealt with and closed, after I had accepted the policy. Therefore FDW777 should not continue to raise the issues from that discussion.

The harassment is also suggested by this comment, which indicates they only paid attention to the list article because of my involvement with the UK Politics project elsewhere. There is a baseless accusation of me there too, in which it is stated that my discussion on the project was "to try and circumvent the BLP policy".

I would remind the user of the guidelines around Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and wikipedia:Etiquette: "Be friendly and flexible. Act in good faith. Focus on improving Misplaced Pages articles." See also Misplaced Pages:ACCUSE and WP:COMPROMISE.

In fact, the table which was being discussed yesterday was about former UK MPs, and wasn't even created by me. It was my suggestion, which others supported. The discussion is continuing there, with another editor querying the need for references throughout the table, and noting that the table doesn’t function as well as it did since the enforced changes. Querying the inclusion of the DOBs on a list article is not the same issue as the BLP policy violation I failed to comply with. FDW777 is using those resolved incidents to evade any responsibility for their behaviour, which is a tack that others are using. One policy violation does not excuse others, or mean they should be ignored.—TrottieTrue (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

When incivility comes from both sides of a conflict, and both sides complain about the behavior of the other side, a common solution is an interaction ban. Sometimes, this is explicitly asked for by the upset insulted users. There is, however, no practical difference between an interaction ban and the most recommendable behavior in this specific situation here: disengaging from the conflict.

I don't (and can't) keep track of sent barnstars, cookies and kittens. I have sent so many of those that construing a bias from them would practically prevent me from dealing with any request for administrative action, as 99% of those asking for it will likely have received Wikilove from me sometime in the past. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"When incivility comes from both sides of a conflict" is far too much of a generalisation to brush away my issues with this editor. It completely ignores all the reasonable complaints above. I do disagree that there is incivility on both sides (an easy way to dismiss my concerns - "you're both as bad as each other" sort of thing). At the ANI you refer to, I said: "It's clear that their mission seems to be to police others on WP, and complain." You refer to this as an example of Misplaced Pages:Casting aspersions. The quote was my perception of FDW777: given that a large number of their edits involve policing other users, and being involved in edit conflicts, it's not a huge leap to describe their behaviour as a "mission". You also refer to this quote: "It's as if they seem to get pleasure from merely enforcing policy." That is my perception of the editor, an opinion. It is not "casting aspersions". No doubt that the project is helped by editors highlighting misconduct to keep it ticking over, but WP:Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This has clearly been ignored by the editor. My behaviour was not "incivility"; it was expressing an opinion, and came after repeated personal attacks on me.

I am attempting to disengage from the conflict, but that should not excuse the policy violations which have clearly been committed by FDW777. Since you have no bias when dealing with administrative action, you should be able to properly consider FDW777's policy violations (listed above) without using "but you're bad too" as a get-out clause. FDW777 is continuing to be involved in the discussion around the list article; perhaps they will manage to do this in a civil manner, but I feel their behaviour should still be addressed (see details above). You described my ANI request as "forum shopping", yet FDW777 responded to it by suggesting to User:Seraphimblade that they reopen the arbitration enforcement case against me. "I don't know if this calls for a rethink of the close" is an insinuation that it should be reopened, at Seraphimblade's talk page. My "crime" on this occasion is that I said "The article isn't doing any harm" in relation to an article "which contains 800+ unrefernced dates of birth of living people." To suggest it is doing harm is an exaggeration: the original article creator posted the list without references, and User:PamD has said "I'm surprised that it's considered necessary to provide sources within a table when there is a link to the article on the person". By all means, discuss the use of references in a table like this, but FDW777 was issuing an ultimatum as a threat when they said "I've challenged the column. Reference it, or lose it. Your choice." That isn't a constructive way to work on WP (and they weren't replying to me, so this is how they interact generally).

Incidentally, I must be in the 1% of editors who have not received any Wikilove from you.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned on ANI

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cheesy McGee, thanks. GiantSnowman 11:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

IP partial block

Hi ToBeFree, hope all is well. Just a heads up, I expanded your partial block of 2001:999::/32 to sitewide due to continued harassment and vandalism. Just wanted to make sure you're aware. Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)