User talk:Lardlegwarmers

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

IP Editors

…add to the chaos in an interesting way.

Wiki-lawyering 101

It’s tempting to treat Wikipedia like a wp:game. But we must resist, for it is a blockable offense. But then what with all these rules? The answer: use ChatGPT to describe the fallacy you encounter and it will give you a wiki-policy to ding them on!

Large Language Models

…are plagiarism. It is a list of words with weight on each word given the input. This is nothing more than a snapshot of the database which should be copyrighted. That is not to say that we do not from time to time use ChatGPT to clarify our own thoughts into prose that could be easily decoded by our fellow human beings.

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Alpha3031 (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Alpha3031. Unfortunately, I have found several ongoing instances of these norms being ignored and a lack of enforcement when the behavior is used to assert or maintain the so-called "Neutral" point of view.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to raise any such behaviour at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. There are instructions on the page, just read the red box. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement's red box provides: If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. I would rather not expose myself personally to extra scrutiny simply for pointing out obvious instances of chronic incivility on the part of one editor in particular. At first blush, it seems like this person has been getting away with frequent ad hominem arguments in virtue of the fact that he targets pro-fringe editors, who by their very nature would be vulnerable to the possibility of being sanctioned for their own behavior, since apparently two wrongs make a right. But that nobody else, just your regular run-of-the-mill editors on the page, has brought this up at all is a bit surprising. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors getting banned for being a "dick", editing Covid-19 articles

Hello, Lardlegwarmers,

I'm not sure what message you are trying to send by linking to this user essay on your User page. You aren't being a "dick" and no one is trying to ban you.

I see that you have already found your way to the Teahouse so you know you can always bring your questions about editing on this project to that forum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any statistics on the number of accounts that have been banned or suspended for taking part in the [[COVID-19 lab leak theory]] 85.206.30.170 (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they ban editors just for having an obvious POV on controversial topics that diverges from the consensus (AKA Wikipedia:PROFRINGE). I read an interesting essay on this on the user page of Cullen328. It seems that the editors leave the site on their own when they realize that Wikipedia policies are not very conducive to promoting the "fringe" point of view. It's set up so that basically if your POV diverges from what's endorsed in a survey study in Science journal, then Wikipedia considers you to be "pro fringe", and no matter how many times you protest, it's like shouting into the void. The bans only come if you start getting angry and being an outright giant dick. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I don't really know if they actually ban people for continuing to argue against the consensus after it's been consented to by the group, although the policies do say that you're supposed to be willing to surrender to consensus, for the good of Wikipedia as a whole. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to read essays in this area, then I recommend Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and if you want to read the relevant behavioral guideline, then Wikipedia: Disruptive editing is it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan on returning to the Covid lab leak talk page? Please explain your choice. 85.206.30.170 (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the consensus of editors is that lab leak is fringe. So be it. I will sit back and watch people come in who want to change the POV throw themselves against that brick wall. But there is more work to be done. The Origin of SARS-CoV-2 relies excessively on primary sources and the editors there seem to be willfully ignoring it, while they vigilantly maintain their consensus against primary sources in the lab leak article. I do not have extended confirmed status, so somebody else should actually make the necessary edits. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate three topic bans and one indef block within the past year, all editors who were politely trying to bring the page towards NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of this? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The indef was User:Sennalen, you can see some of the lead in on her talk page. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't maintain links to noticeboards but you can track down the AE case from there. The main thing you need to worry about is that while people bringing cases need to document extensively, there is no due process for a BOOMERANG.

Sounds like I can't help you much more, as I don't have time to fight off attacks from FTN. - Palpable (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @User:Doug Weller, how’s it going? If you would be so kind as to provide an edit summary or mention your rationale for this edit. It might seem obvious, but I am curious how you’d describe it. [1] thank you.10:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)10:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Lardlegwarmers (talk)[reply]

It was an attack on another editor by an IP whose edits were mostly vandalism. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A thing I read that you may find useful

Hey! I was reading some wikipedia essays and found something that reminded me of your comment on the teahouse. I will quote the relevant section:

When Wikipedians spend too much time on the noticeboards, in Arbcom cases, and on talk pages of contentious articles, they have a high probability of concluding that Wikipedia is dysfunctional, incompetent, and doomed to fail. Once a Wikipedian has reached this realization, expect that person's user page to boast an essay announcing the imminent failure of the project. The best cure for this condition is to leave those places, and instead read a few articles on genuinely encyclopedic topics, noticing just how good they actually are. Similarly, if you were to look at a table at a subatomic level, you would see that it consists mainly of empty space, with innumerable minuscule particles whizzing about angrily, each having an arbitrary and undefinable position; indeed, if you look at them too closely, they will change just to spite you: but back away, the whole becomes visibly a table again. We're a pretty good encyclopedia, and you will notice it once you back away from the conflict zones.

Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Wikipedia is falling short of it's fundraising target this year. What happens when no one trusts Wikipedia? Will they stop funding it? 95.214.66.65 (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally say that the Wikimedia foundation has a spending problem. The donation banners always talk of urgency because that language works. If the project was ever actually in danger of shutting down due to lack of funding, I think a lot of people (including myself!) would donate. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 08:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying about behavior in Lab Leak talk

@ActivelyDisinterested moving this conversation off your talk page to here.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the consistent and ongoing issue of editors using bullying language and ad hominems to disparage the other editors on this topic (not the comments by user:107.115.5.100). I am not sure if you have been watching this talk topic for very long, but if you have, then you probably already know exactly who and what I'm talking about. I was leaving it vague and general because it was already obvious and didn't need to be specified, just called out. I already contacted the user directly and they steamrolled me on their user page. And no, I am not going to go through initiating a disciplinary process. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are issues and you have diffs to prove them then you should take them to WP:ANI, if you can't you should drop it. You can't decide to not start "disciplinary process" but slight editors who disagree with you by saying they are uncivil and fail to assume good faith. They likely feel the same about you. It's all to easy to get into snipping back and forth, it's why I'll be avoiding the page for a few days. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. This is more than just POV-pushing. An editor was making outright rude and derogatory comments on a daily basis. Would you like me to provide diffs? By the way, 107.115.5.100 got blocked from Lab Leak talk, and their harassment wasn't nearly as pronounced. It seems as if their getting involved with WP:ANI contributed to the block. (See: User_talk:107.115.5.100#c-331dot-20250102092500). I'm not excited about the idea of getting sanctioned partly because I reported obvious badmouthing. At any rate, the user with the most egregious edit history seems to have left the page right after I made that post, which I would take as a sign that my topic was a good contribution. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ANI page states: All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution. (emphasis added) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't want diffs, why would I? Don't make accusations at talk pages, discussion maybe but not accusations. If you discussed it with the user then you should stop at that. The section can read as you asking "When did you stop hitting your wife?", you but the presumption of guilt before the question of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP and the other editors were blocked for edit warring other SPA tags, a dumb argument in a thread that is full of dumbness. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your sense of the distinction between discussion versus accusations? I assumed that leaving out the editors' names made it too vague to be an accusation. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't, it just spreads it around to anyone who seems to not be on your side in the argument. Also please don't point other editors to my talk page to discuss third hand matters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored my talk page, please do not edit it like that again. I have nothing to add here that I haven't already said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening an AFD

Instructions are at WP:AFDHOWTO. Follow them exactly. Note in particular that blanking or archiving the old AFD is not how it works. New AFDs go on a new page. Adding the AFD to the log page is also crucial step. MrOllie (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you are subject to an indefinite topic ban from the subject of COVID-19, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your community-imposed topic ban from COVID-19, unambiguously, almost immediately after it was enacted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lardlegwarmers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have only been very active editing Wikipedia for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing POV on Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. But, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that it was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out and reason things out like grownups with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to either walk away or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an arbitration enforcement thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment [2] was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the discussion itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Wikipedia's approach to Covid-19 [3], which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and not some Covid-19 talk page. It's really a comment about the state of Wikipedia as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If I am not allowed to post that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to misunderstand your ban. It is "an indefinite topic ban from the subject of COVID-19, broadly construed". It applies to any type of page on Wikipedia, and apples no matter how small a connection to the subject of the ban. As I understand this type of block, no admin can unilaterally remove it without the consent of the blocking admin, or as the result of a community discussion. As the block is only a week, I doubt a community discussion would be resolved much before the block expires. If the blocking admin is persuaded that it was a honest mistake on your part, they will take action. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please do not alter closed requests; you may make a new request or new statement below. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLW, usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Wikipedia as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits. I would suggest taking this week to think about whether this is still a site you wish to contribute to, and, if so, what you will edit about now that you are topic-banned. However, if you are dead-set on appealing now, I can copy a request to the administrators' noticeboard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin Part of my message is missing from the above request because there was an edit conflict between the final draft of my request and @331dot's reply. This diff shows my complete text including what was removed: [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardlegwarmers (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly resonate with your feelings about wikipolitics. I'm afraid it doesn't change my opinion on this block, though. Again, it's not just the fact of the topic ban violations, but the fact that they were belligerent and continued the dispute with a battleground mentality. But if you would like me to copy the request in Special:Permalink/1269606228#Unblock request, or some other request, to the administrators' noticeboard, then I can. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, please post my request as represented in this diff [5]. And please add a ref cite to [6] if you don't mind. Really, I was trying to use common sense and reasons to challenge that toxic political culture--you know what's going on and it's not right. If I can't use my words to point out this rapid-fire cascade of fallacious tactics to enforce the majority's view in lieu of good faith reasons, then what is to be done here?, and how can anyone have confidence in the information presented? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Was that where you wanted the citation to be? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]