Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

While I do not exactly object... the description reads "Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III". So why does it archive also sections which have just been inactive for three days and were not marked as being closed in any way? --KnightMove (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: The administrators' noticeboard is set to archive after six days, but the /incidents noticeboard (which sees more movement) is set to archive after three days. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:AN#Admin_Abuse_of_Alpha_Motor_Corporation_Page (diff)

Primefac (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Self promotion on en.wiki by User:Jimbo Wales”, in California time, was opened around 11am, and closed around 9pm. It was emotive, had no formality, and no pretence of representativeness. Maybe it should have been speedy closed as not an “incident”. Maybe such threads should be *required* to pose a formal proposal, and involve notifications, advertising, and minimum discussion time. ANI is a drama forum, and allowing these threads is part of the problem. I propose formal closing rules for ANI threads. Seeing as an apparent ANI consensus may lead to a quick heavy response, some formality is needed to bring it under control. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent discussions of changes to ANI: [1] [2] [3] [4] Levivich 05:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was blocked from ANI for a duration of 3 months for CIR. I have been instructed that if I had an urgent issue I could bring it up here and ask for it to be transferred to the noticeboard. Recently I have been the target of personal attacks and have been disruptively reverted while attempting to improve the article Sharon A. Hill. I will provide diffs below both of the page and related discussions.

• My first edit (diff) was a major edit where I removed large amounts of fluff and aligned the article more closely with MOS. I described my reasons why briefly in my edit description.
• This was then reverted by an IP without explanation (diff), so I reverted that and instructed the IP to explain why they disagreed with my edits using the talk page (diff).
• Rp2006 reverted this and in a dismissive manner told me to go to the talk page and justify my edit (diff), which I obliged in detail (diffs). Note me pinging Rp2006 asking them to respond in order to establish some consensus.
• I then listed the thread at WP:3O as Rp2006 and me have a history of strong disagreements and thought a neutral editor would be very helpful to the discussion and help us improve the article.
  • TransporterMan delisted the thread and very kindly told me to follow the steps at WP:DISCFAIL if I was unable to start a discussion with Rp2006 as 3O required a discussion to have taken place.
  • I roughly followed (diff) the steps outlined in DISCFAIL and notified Rp2006 again that I had waited for them to respond to my edit justification so we could improve the article, to no response.
• I was then attacked by the IP range that initially reverted my edit, who emailed my university about my "vandalism" saying the university "will talk to [me]" (Note, the IP has now been blocked after I requested advice on how to manage the situation at my talk page, see this thread.
• Rp2006 then posted a notice at WP:Skepticism that had very biased wording (see this thread), and so I left a canvassing template notice in their page as the notice was not neutral and so can be considered canvassing.
• Rp2006 proceeded to come to my talk page and continue the attacks, threatening to "bring [me] up on libel charges (or the equivalent here at WP)" for my canvassing notice, as well as attacking me in the article talk page as well (diff) telling me I do not have the "command of English to be editing Wikipedia" when citing unrelated discussion, and writing the following. I have no idea what they might be referring to here but I'll leave those reading this thread to interpret it for themselves "Else, my suggestion is to... Well, neverminded. Whatever I say you will take as an attack and lodge a complaint." He still had not properly replied to the justifications for my edit aside from general statements about notability.
  • I replied to them in the article talk page in these edits.
• As no one had replied to my justifications for my edit in any meaningful way, I then proceeded to edit the article again diff, except for some edits that Animalparty had made and a revert by the IP (diff). This was promptly reverted by Roxy the dog (diff), who has attacked me or made hurtful comments to me in numerous occasions before (diff1, diff, diff).

At this point I have come to ANI because I feel that without community input and sanctions the disruptive pattern of attacking me and refusing to build consensus with me will not stop. I don't have any bad faith against these editors but the level of complete disregard for my good faith to improve articles related to the topic they're most passionate about is completely unacceptable at this point. I will paste below a very nice statement Animalparty made in relation to the biased notice on WP:Skeptic as I think it adds a lot of nuanced analysis to the whole issue:

I have no prior knowledge nor opinion of Sharon Hill, but in my view the article currently reads like a showcase written by devoted fans, boosted by copious use of primary/affiliated sources to present Hill's POV nearly exclusively (although it waspreviously much more unbalanced). The section "Study of paranormal investigative groups" is largely based on a presentation Hill gave. While self-published sources can be used with caution and within reason, both WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF discourage basing large portions on them. There are some valid issues raised on the Talk page. This article is representative (though by no means the most egregious example) of an issue affecting many biographies of notable modern-day skeptics (e.g. Kylie Sturgess, Michael Shermer (BLP/N) and Steven Novella), and is in marked contrast to the treatment of subjects often on the receiving end of skepticism: would the community be so keen to compile podcast appearances, articles, and lectures by alternative medicine promoters or COVID-19 conspiracy theorists and structure the article around them, replete with lengthy quotes by the subject? This WikiProject could benefit from some honest self-reflection among its regulars, recognizing the potential for blind spots, bubbles, and biases, and reining in the impulse to show the world how cool their favorite skeptic or podcast is.

Please transfer this section on to ANI. I assume it will be necessary to notify the involved users via the relevant template only if the section is transferred or if I am instructed otherwise. Thanks, Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot figure out what the problem is here. The IP was blocked. The other editors were, at worst, rude. But I don't see anything actionable that needs administrator intervention. Perhaps you can give the tl;dr version? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very short tl;dr: the refusal of Roxy the dog and Rp2006 to engage in consensus building, their tendentious editing in favor of skeptics against PAGs, and attacks against my character are disruptive.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their conduct should also be reviewed in the context of Roxy's many blocks for edit warring, harassment, and personal attacks. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an issue requires a wall of text to describe, it is not urgent. Is there a BLP problem? Exactly what? In a typical topic ban, trying to work around the ban by finding an alternative is not well regarded. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am bringing the issue to ANI per suggestions at WP:DISCFAIL. The wall of text is simply a summary of all the diffs, as they span multiple pages so it might be a bit confusing otherwise. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For context, A._C._Santacruz was page blocked from ANI during this thread about the 'Guerilla Skeptics' and the Center for Skeptical Inquiry, in which Santacruz generally inflamed the situation as much as possible, including building a suspect list of people they thought might of belong to the organization based on almost nonexistent evidence, as well as applying speedy tags, prods, and AFDs to associated articles (all seem to have been kept). The article here is another one associated with the Center. I think it shows very poor judgment to keep going after them like this, and I think a topic ban from the Center for Skeptical Inquiry, their publications and biographies of associated persons may well be in order here. - MrOllie (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed many of the OP's diffs and they show nothing worthy of ANI or this talk page. Perhaps the mess should be moved to ANI if there is further support for a possible topic ban. I haven't done enough checking to see if that would be warranted but reviewing your ANI links shows it may be. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie I understand why I was banned and those actions were in good faith. As I said then and will repeat now, I didn't build a suspect list, I was just analyzing skeptic pages to see if there was a pattern of disruption by an off-wiki group with anonymous membership who have edited pages with millions of views and who refused to be transparent about their coordinated actions. I see now how that was wrong and agree with the ban I received. However, I am a new editor trying to follow the advice I receive. WP:DISCFAIL says I should go to ANI or AN3 if they "continue to revert without discussion", which they have continued doing, and I thought ANI would be more appropriate seeing what I see as personal attacks. If you believe I should take this to AN3 I'm more than happy to oblige, but again, they are still reverting without discussing. That is disruptive. You have to understand the Hill article is in a completely terrible state. There are 4 paragraphs dedicated to her masters thesis and half of the article is composed by quotes by her which is a terrible understanding of MOS:QUOTE. I tried and fix that like I have for many other articles without issue, like Shawn Carlson and Richard E. Berendzen, and the editors I mention above will not discuss any of my concerns with the article. What else can I do? WP:DR, WP:3O, and WP:RFC all require some discussion to have taken place. Any guidance by you or Johnuniq in this is greatly appreciated, as I have only come to ANI as a last resort per the suggestions at WP:DISCFAIL and if there's some other, less intense way of resolving the issue I'd rather take that path. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I fear the TL;DR version is that the OP has discovered that their true calling on Wikipedia is not creating content, but creating drama. As the numbers show[5] since the GSoW episode at ANI, A. C. Santacruz seems to have become electrified by the prospect of drama so that their mainspace activity has dramtically shrunk to become a tiny portion of their effort: for this month currently it's 6%. I was involved in their AfD[6] of Taner Edis. This they had identified at ANI as being on their target list of "GSoW" articles that would get AfD'd in expectation[7] of a SNOW close. Well, there nearly was a SNOW close, but not in the desired direction, and since this article was one where Sgerbic was principal contributor, this was apparently an effort to continue the GSoW drama by other means. I also note the launching of hyper-controversial RfCs at Talk:J. K. Rowling, as the first contributions to this topic and without any prior editing involvement. The result, of course, has been another drama-fest which has consumed (and will consume) a huge amount of community time.

Not sure what to do about this, but much more of this flitting around Wikipedia lighting fires would begin to look a bit too much like WP:NOTHERE for the community's patience to last, I'd have thought. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This section of WP:NOTHERE seems totally applicable, with the most pertinent words being highlighted by me: Treating editing as a battleground: "Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing." Rp2006 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll expand on this later when I have the time, but in regards to the Rowling mess, I started two RfCs there after being summoned by the bot to an unneutral RfC as a way to help the discussion be organized. The idea that I am exhilarated by drama is unnecessarily theatrical language. Regarding the not here accusation, I'll respond in more detail later but I'm surprised I'm accused of not being here to build an encyclopedia when I'm actively trying to resolve a dispute with editors that are ignoring my calls for discussion and reverting my edits. Additionally, a lot of my editing has been in talk pages like Talk:Èric Zemmour where me and other editors are doing a lot of work to improve the article in the most neutral and encyclopedic way possible. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]