Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 22 January 2022 (→Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ping

I saw your ping, I will respond later this morning, when I'm strapped to the Chemo chair and have free wifi and an ipad. They strap me down because the first time I had this, I woke up on the floor. You'll understand I'm a little busy until then. regards Roxy the dog. wooF 07:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Take all the time you need. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings @ Hob Gadling,

This request is being made since you seem to have engaged in topics related to Superstition.

Requesting your visit to the article Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the same if the topic interests you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not very good at expanding articles. Not my thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You should archive some of these sections!

The section list is super long! It’s like 200 sections in the same page, so much that the page has been zoomed out! Please fix this! GregYoot (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I just copied an archive thingie from somebody else's page. Let's see if it works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

(removed notice) I have blocked you for violating WP:CIVIL; you told someone to fuck off here, and made a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@331dot You are blocking an editor for alleged violations committed (respectively) about 5 months ago and 2.5 years ago? By policy, blocks shall be preventative and not punitive. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize, I did this after the posts were pointed out to me, I did not carefully check the date and assumed it was an immediate problem. This is my error and mine alone, and I apologize without condition. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  No problem. (Except all those edit conflicts.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Looking through my new Talk page archive, considering the fact that the user who told me I should archive it is the same one who started this : all edits he complained about had been discussed on my Talk page, and that is where the links came from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Trump supporters

Would you please consider editing your comment at Talk:Anthony Fauci to remove "It is nice to hear that you consider "Trump supporter" a "smear", but a reliably sourced fact is a reliably sourced fact." Aside from that bit of snark, you answer the (supposed) question well, but it helps no one to add fuel to fires already burning too bright. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your turn. Do it better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:SchreiberBike: You thanked me for telling you to do it better, but did not even try find a better response? Please refrain from coming here to tone-police me in the future. Tone-policing adds fuel to fires, have you thought of that? No need to answer, that was rhetorical. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Seemed a bit backwards from the source, so have rephrased it as "Fauci's advice was frequently contradicted by Trump, and Trump's supporters alleged that Fauci was trying to politically undermine Trump's run for reelection." It's not Fauchi's place to bow to the Prezzy's medical expertise. . dave souza, talk 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Much better now. I like it when complaints by profringe users lead to articles becoming less fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hello Hob Gadling. I apologize for the distractions at talk:Bret Weinstein. I try to remind myself not to respond in the moment, and sometimes I fail. You're right of course, I should have saved my vaccine status particulars for "later", should someone have taken the tack I anticipated; pre-emptively inserting it was practically begging for backlash. I'm human, I can be an ass-hat, a dumb-ass (related terms?) and more terms I will reserve that are between me and my god, or words to that effect. Two years of COVID have frayed my nerves. I wish it would just. Go. Away.

I will now go away, off to my more typical efforts here on WP of fixing grammar, and copyediting for clarity. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have similar problems... Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19

I think this draft is ready for mainspace, and would like your opinion. I have moved the list to the talk page for now, to develop a specific consensus as to how it should be included. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi Hob Gadling. In the recent ArbCom case about GSoW, you made a reference to people asking "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of...?" I was just wondering if that was maybe a reference to a question I asked at COIN: . If that is the case, I will maybe just add a note to explain the Catch-22 situation between COI and OUTING. Otherwise, I don't intend to comment on the case. This question is supposed to have a friendly tone and does not imply any sort of conflict or hostility against you, by the way. JBchrch talk 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That refers to the general atmosphere, not to specific contributions. I can't even remember where to put you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hob Gadling, I have just submitted evidence with regard to incivility and what I perceive to be POV problems in the skepticism area. Quite a lot of the diffs in the 'General atmosphere of incivility' section come from your edits. I just wanted to let you know.

My aim was to inform the Arbitration Committee about the general atmosphere of incivility, not to single you out in some way, and I did not mention your name. However, you may want to consider submitting some evidence of your own to put a few of these diffs in context, and/or think about saying something about them in the workshop. Or perhaps it is better not to participate as long as your name is not mentioned in the workshop, I'm not sure. Tryptofish and a number of clerks and Arbs have given some advice about this on Roxy the dog's talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: thank you for the ping. I have now read your evidence. I had a rather strong reaction to it, that you were (metaphorically speaking, of course) throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Even if you don't mention people by name, it still comes across like you are criticizing them by citing their diffs. There are an awful lot of diffs repeated from earlier evidence sections, and about editors who are not parties (and at least one of whom has retired). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some editors seem to be oblivious of ours being an encyclopedia, not a tea party. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: some repeated diffs I posted with the specific aim of discussing who would remove them (see here), and some have now indeed been removed. I fully understand your reaction, but I'm sure that you'll also understand that I, having been on the receiving end of some of this, have a somewhat different perspective. I am not seeking sanctions, and I sincerely hope that no sanctions apart from a warning or two will come from this case. What I do want, however, is an acknowledgment of the fact that there indeed is a civility problem, and that it needs to be addressed.

In the topic area where I edit, we are dealing with incompetent nationalist and/or religious POV-pushers on a daily basis. It does happen that I lose my patience and get a bit rough around the edges, but I don't think I've ever, even once, called editors out on being incompetent nationalist and/or religious POV-pushers. I don't 'call a spade a spade', because far too often, the spade turns out not to be a spade at all. If you go through my talk page edits like I went through Hob's you will find very little to throw at that metaphoric wall (in fact I invite you all to do so: I've found it's a great way to actually 'get to know' an editor a bit, which breeds sympathy). Anyway, it is very much possible to give obnoxious editors succinct policy-based replies, and to AGF and to be at least 50% friendly as long as you're not 100% sure about what they are trying to accomplish. This is not happening in the skepticism/fringe area, and that needs to change.

@TrangaBellam: I'm not entirely sure if I get your meaning, but building an encyclopedia will work much better in the general atmosphere of sharing a cup of tea than in something resembling a battlefield. Even the worst offenders here are really just homely pieces of laundry that need to be put in and out of the washing machine on time, while we are sitting in the kitchen having tea. If you look at my contribs you'll see that I'm a regular in the laundry room. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not submit any "evidence". I think this whole thing is partly an overblown trumpeting of a few cases where people made mistakes, which can be remedied easily, and partly a toxic attempt to get rid of editors with a certain viewpoint. I also think that the arbitrators are capable of discerning which is which just by looking at the quality of you people's reasoning without my help. I am watching the spectacle though, and I do not need any text from you on my Talk page. Never did, never will. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)