This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gtoffoletto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1(talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar
Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1(talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Cdjp1! I really appreciate you taking the time to send me this barnstar (my first ever!). I'm very proud of the work we all did on COVID-19 related pages. Especially during the initial stages of the pandemic. Your kind gesture really means a lot. Keep up the good work. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk10:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
A token of appreciation
Thanks for helping out with the Signpost interview :) Here's a little token of appreciation!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hey GregKaye, can they also repair a completely removed (only referenced) sources? I guess it's possible if they go search for it in the page history... {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hi! I saw your edits to the Depp v Heard page. If you have an issue with the contents of the article you should make a bold edit then discuss in the talk page if it was reverted rather than reverting the reversion and engaging in edit warring. I hope this helps! Originalcola (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I just saw this unfortunate waste of time. I'm sorry it got to this. The block reason is a violation of the three revert rule. For future reference: have I actually violated the 3 revert rule? I was very conscious of the 3 reverts I made (and was trying to be as clear as possible in the edit summaries: [2][3][4]) but thought they were justified in the context of WP:BLP (I see that content as potentially problematic and wanted to remove it and discuss how and if it was worth including in the talk page – but I'm no expert in BLP). I stopped editing as soon as I realised the other user was never going to stop and opened a talk page discussion. Did I actually violate 3RR or were my attempts to avoid an edit war simply not enough? Thanks and I would appreciate any tips for handling similar situations in the future.
In general: Along with other editors I have been really struggling to collaborate with that user. Another user opened an AN/I that was inconclusive but I think it shows that the problems will not stop with this block. I personally attempted to cool things down in that case and "save" the user from himself but I see now it might have been a mistake. I'll try to just remove this subject area form my watchlist (I don't care that much) but if left unchecked things will go south for those articles which have substantial interest and potentially negative implications. A recent study of the coverage of the trial has found: “What we observed was one of the worst cases of cyberbullying and cyberstalking by a group of Twitter accounts that we’ve ever seen,” the report reads, suggesting that the platform did “very little to stop the abuse and targeted harassment”. I think we should be quite careful to avoid this from spreading to Wikipedia as well by ensuring only top notch sourcing and very conservative editing on those pages. Unfortunately this view is not shared by all users editing that page, with some definitely showing signs of being "too involved" in the subject. Should I not worry about this? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
p.s. sorry if I'm WP:BLUDGEONing this but I just noticed how the page "evolved" after I stopped editing... let's just say my worries were confirmed:
- Giving WP:UNDUE weight to support his (fringe) POV (already reverted by another user): [5]
- Removing reliable sources against his POV for contentious statements [6]
I think it is clear that the editor in question is unashamedly WP:POVPUSHing. This editor has been making tens of edits like this a day. Keeping him under control has been a huge waste of collective time and he is outlasting the patience of all other editors that just give up. Well I've said my bit. I'll leave it up to you to decide here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Answering your specific question, yes you had a 3RR violation with a couple to spare: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. It's also worth noting that a 4th revert after a little more than 24 hours often results in a block per WP:GAME. VQuakr (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks VQuakr. I don't think I ever really understood how it works then...
- This was my first edit proposal (in which I meant to integrate the text into a sub section). It was disputed and reverted.
- The Second try was a different edit in which I proposed to remove the existing text entirely (not a revert).
The other 3 were actual reversions (I was probably too aggressive here in any case – but I thought my WP:BLP concerns indicated in the edit summaries might warrant it in this case). I thought the first two edits were not considered "reverts" but just "basic editing" as I was trying to propose different new solutions (among several other edits) and not reverting someone's work. I guess it doesn't work like that? Any edit to the same general area of text counts? I think this exacerbates the problem in dealing with such "super active" editors... it's impossible to avoid breaking this rule with dozens of problematic new edits every day. Thank you very much for taking the time with this. I'm sorry you got dragged into it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk17:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yup all 5 were reverts as defined at WP:EW. Any edit that removes or adds content, in whole or in part, previously added or removed by another editor is a revert. A series of consecutive edits counts as one. The alternatives are suggested at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Thank you for clearing this up. I always misunderstood the way reverts are counted apparently! Well now I know ;-) In any case I think the sheer volume of problematic edits this user makes daily makes it impossible to follow any of the normal dispute resolution techniques. This is a clear case of WP:POVPUSHING. Here is an example of one the edits this editor did to the page today as soon as the block expired: removing a RS with no clear justification. Apparently the distinguished Law Professor Mary Anne Franks is "atypical. Law professors may be disproportionately likely to receive notifications in connection to legal trials". No idea what that's supposed to mean but at the very least it is problematic WP:OR. And this is just one of the 20+ edits he made in the last few hours. I'll also ping Daniel Case. I will not revert this as I do not wish to keep editing this page but the issues here won't stop. I really think a topic ban is the only solution at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk14:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Gtoffoletto, when you say that you "opened a talk page discussion" please keep in mind that opportunities like this can be used to link to a full discussion that develops. I noted within the thread you started that "your appropriate action would be to have left it to talk page discussion" (there is a related discussion ongoing, accessed by the many knowledgeable editors working on Depp v. Heard), yet you, at best, went forum shopping with your post at WP:BLPN. When you say "I was very conscious of the 3 reverts" this seems to me to be out of step both with WP:BRD which had been taken as the standard in discussion at Talk:Depp v. Heard and with your justifications for substantial edits on the basis of an essay[12][13][14]. You were repeatedly removing, from an article on a jury trial, the comments of a juror. I'd say that I was the editor trying to collaborate with you while facing a repeated hostility not exhibited by others. Please, I would certainly appreciate more collaborative, yet still policy-based, interactions with you. I know you have previously objected to pings but, if you are going to talk about me, I would very much appreciate if you'd ping me. GregKaye07:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I can't help you anymore I'm sorry. I think you have proven that you cannot edit this topic area constructively and should be topic banned. I tried my best with you and still got dragged down with you. Please don't write on my talk page anymore. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk14:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The Depp v. Heard article content (from #Background to bottom of the #Notes section) measures with a 4602 word count (5203 with collapsible boxes open). The #Social media section measures with a 1019 word count. #Other reactions also has a disproportionate 517 words. Your contributions to the page have been pretty exclusively anti-Depp-jury/juror-judge and yet you talk of WP:POVPUSHing. I find that mind blowing. The article is meant to be about the Depp v. Heard trial. GregKaye18:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Despite the blocks I imposed, I can't say I know enough about the situation to definitely support a TB or not. And frankly that's something better determined through consensus in such a discussion, rather than an admin's comment before one gets started. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
To add my unrequested $.02, I would prefer to see a good faith attempt at WP:DRN rather than jumping to ANI and proposing any bans. VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Very much appreciate the replies from both. I've had enough of AN/I for a lifetime so I try to stand clear from it at all costs. VQuakr your $.02 go straight into my "good advice" tip jar. Please keep them coming. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk08:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I've tried olive branches and will now try this. Cards on the table, the reason I've held back from taking you to ANI with you is that I'm not convinced that this would do you particular individual good. I have hoped to confront your habits of harassment, of presenting others in the poorest possible light and of pushing seemingly solely on one side of issues directly. Sure I think that it would be good for Wikipedia to get your login's permanent exclusion reinstated or to at least get you banned from BLP articles. However, I don't see reason to think that, even in context of bans, you wouldn't just transfer these habits into another forum. You have manipulated texts with violations of mos:instruct, resisted efforts to present wp:balance, ignored previously noted rules while pushing for edits whose lack of validity had been explained and claimed consensus even policy/support leaned the other way and, in the situation presented in this thread, seemingly tried to game the system. Please consider the approaches you take and their effects on others. GregKaye19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
GregKaye has been edit warring again, and now he's removing long-stable, carefully-crafted consensus content "per Gtoffoletto," while also suggesting that he might allow it to be restored if he gets his way about adding the juror to the lede: "[W]e would need both references to social media sympathies and reference to jury or judge's claims this not being relevant to the outcome of the Depp v. Heard trial." Greg's statement that his revert is "per Gtoffoletto" surprised me, considering that he is simultaneously agitating for sanctions against you (notwithstanding his own documented record of extensive misconduct, some of which he has since admitted and apologized for) and you have never expressed agreement with him regarding the juror's lede-worthiness (quite the opposite, in fact). It seems to me that Greg might be misrepresenting your position, based on your having requested citations to back up the statement in question almost a week ago—sources which have since been provided. Therefore, I would like to ask, bluntly: Did Greg make this edit on your behalf and do you endorse it, as alleged in Greg's edit summary? Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: I have no idea what "per Gtoffoletto" is supposed to mean... I don't think I'm wikipedia policy (yet!). I definitely agree we should keep that text in the lead and probably expand it actually. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk08:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging:the only people breaking WP:BRD are Gtoffoletto in the situation above and you in the situation you kindly mention. Let's break it down: Gtoffoletto removes lead contents of both the "later stated they "didn't take into account anything outside" and, referencing to social media response: "the majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and critical of Heard" with Gtoffoletto citing NPOV in regard to the (at this point) balanced changes.[16] TheTimesAreAChanging selectively replaces the "the majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and critical of Heard" content.[17] I revert this[18] after nine hours, within which other editors had seemingly accepted this revert, I decided it might add integrity to add a direct link to the social media content and replace both lead contents with edit summary quoting "mos:instruct state info, let readers decide"[19] (at most I edit warred with myself. I was still hoping for balance).. Fantuanss12 reverted both changes to lead content.[20][21] TheTimesAreAChanging reverted selectively replacing the "the majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and critical of Heard" content.[22] I reverted.[23] TheTimesAreAChanging reverted[24] braking WP:BRD as the only edit warring editor involved. GregKaye19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Content discussion was brought off the article's talk page by TheTimesAreAChanging above. I fairly replied. Wikipedia is about WP:Five pillars editing to build an encyclopaedia according to NPOV. I'm not the one trying to present the other in the poorest possible light. I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a battleground and am asking you to consider your engagement.[25]GregKaye20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"I have no idea what 'per Gtoffoletto' is supposed to mean... I don't think I'm wikipedia policy (yet!). I definitely agree we should keep that text in the lead and probably expand it actually." Thanks for setting the record straight, Gtoffoletto. I agree that the statement in question (i.e., "the majority of [social media commentary] was sympathetic to Depp and critical of Heard") is extremely tame and milquetoast, containing no mention of the viral misinformation, conspiracy theories, or misogynistic rhetoric directed at Heard and carefully avoiding any suggestion that this anti-Heard campaign influenced the jury verdict. (Note, too, that I did not object when GregKaye moved the sentence to the bottom of the paragraph, thereby reducing its visibility.) Of course, that only makes GregKaye's newfound insistence on total deletion all the more baffling...
GregKaye, editors in good standing have very broad discretion regarding control of their own talk pages. For example, Gtoffoletto could simply revert any comments that you might make here, and you would have no justification whatsoever for edit warring to restore them. (Needless to say, this is reciprocal if you would like to "ban" Gtoffoletto or myself from your talk page.) There may be some exceptions, such as mandatory notifications, but for this reason you should generally respect another editor's request to refrain from contacting them by way of user talk. By my count, Gtoffoletto has politely asked you not to comment here at least twice ([26], [27]). As a matter of common courtesy, you should honor this request and cease your engagement in this forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging thank you for pinging me which is appreciated. If editors are commenting or referencing you, its fair to reply which here you facilitate. Your much edited first sentence reference to "per Gtoffoletto," I'd argue to be unfair in that I was presenting the stated policy rationale for removing both contents per NPOV that Gtoffoletto had presented. Movement of the contents fits in with chronology with news articles being written about the Depp v. Heard legal trial long before it began. Gtoffoletto, states above "I have been really struggling to collaborate with that user". I'd both characterise this differently and consider that a struggle for collaboration could encourage communication. GregKaye04:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The section I edited is called (Closing Arguments) and it already includes several qoutes from all their lawyers made during the closing arguments. How can it be inappropriate for me to add more qoutes from the already cited sources, qoutes that were said during the closing arguments, to the (closing arguments) section? I dont understand. And what was the problem with my edit to the (Comments by juror) section, u deleted that too. RSH7 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Gtoffoletto, just to let you know, I've removed [28] some stuff you added to Depp v. Heard in July 2022 [29] and April 2023 [30].
I'll explain the latter first, it is plainly obvious that Lisa Bloom does not understand the verdict, if anyone were to properly read and understand the lede of Depp v. Heard, one would see that there is no contradiction: jury says it was false that Heard roughed up penthouse as part of hoax, and jury says it was false that Depp perpetuated sexual violence and domestic abuse, different things. There are tons of commentary about this case, we do not need the single worst take in the room. Plus, this is sourced to Vice, and WP:RSP says: There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.
Now, the former, on legal commentators criticized..., I'd like to particularly object to the second source (TODAY.com) quoting Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft, while the third source (NPR) quoting both Heard and Elaine Bredehoft. I view the use of these cites to support legal commentators criticized... as extremely careless. As for the first source, it is Vice, and again, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.
So, the Lisa Bloom comment, I'm objecting to it totally. The legal commentators criticized... content, I think if you find a proper reliable source, multiple is better, can be re-added. starship.paint (exalt)14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Gtoffoletto. I noticed your recent addition to imidacloprid. I'm not so concerned about its actual content as I am about the fact that all the addition was in the WP:LEAD of that article. As I'm sure you know, the lead is supposed to summarise what the body of the article says, so I'm always a bit worried when the citations in the lead are not mentioned anywhere else in the article: indeed, very many of Wikipedia's best articles don't have any citations at all in the lead. Perhaps you would reconsider the placement of your text. I also note the same issue at thiamethoxam. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
There's a fair bit in the relevant sections already. If you go ahead and make the changes you think might help, I'll take another look tomorrow (I'm a bit pressed today). Thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
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.
Hey @KoA thanks I am aware of this. Please note that I haven't done a single revert on that page. Only new edits and each with clear edit summaries. On the other hand you seem to be mass reverting all my editing without any discussion. Let's try to find consensus on the talk page (I already started a couple of discussions before your last revert) and please try to limit reversions to specific edits with clear motivations so that we can address your feedback. Those massive reverts can be quite disruptive to the editing process. See you on the talk page! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, the above notice specifically cautions about attempting to game the system, and when we crafted the original sanctions at ArbCom, we frequently had issues with exactly what you're trying to do in gaming 1RR. Instead of WP:NOTTHEM, I would take the advice of your previous blocks like Bishonen gave about being disruptive in topics and what was essentially WP:CIVILPOV pushing at best. When your content is disputed, that is not the time to lash out as you did at editors trying to deal with issues you are bringing into the topic. Instead, it is time to full stop and get consensus for your edits. KoA (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I made some edits to a page you evidently didn't like. Which is absolutely fine. You reverted them with clear reasoning (and I agree with many of them). The ones I didn't agree with we are discussing on the talk page. That's exactly what WP:BRD dictates. So stop trying to turn this into something that isn't by referencing unrelated blocks from years back. I really don't like the way you are trying to turn a normal content discussion into a personal issue at all. At this point I will ask you to please leave my talk page alone and stick to the content discussions on the talk pages. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk22:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I suggest you avoid future mention of potential COI in the area of GMOS/Agrichemicals. At least 5 editors have been blocked or topic banned in the last few years for suggesting other editors have connections to major agribusiness. I would not want you to be the next to receive such a ban.Dialectric (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion @Dialectric. I've shared my thoughts, my goal was simply to encourage transparent discussion, not to accuse or attack anyone. I would like to think that our community should be able to question itself constructively. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
In the same vein, I have said this: [31], at KoA's talk page, and I want to make you further aware that I said it by posting here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for casting aspersions and disruptive behavior. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
Gtoffeletto, you have been bludgeoning at Talk:Environmental Working Group, where you accuse KoA of stonewalling (4 times), a very serious and bad-faith-assuming accusation - I'm assuming you have read WP:STONEWALLING, which you link to every time you use the word - and filibustering. I can't see any basis for these accusations, or for other assumptions of bad faith. Now you have moved on to making aspersions on KoA's talkpage, accusing them of not being transparent, etc. I see that User:JoJo Anthrax has said "you are now tripling down on implied bias against another editor, under the false claim that transparency is needed, in an apparent attempt to gain advantage in content disputes." I have therefore blocked you for a week. I also note that you have been told about the ArbCom case and what it says about aspersions and the tactics used to get our content to criticize glyphosate. This one week block should give you an opportunity to reflect upon your actions and comments. If your behavior doesn't change, User:Tryptofish may not have to take you to AE as I will probably just go ahead and topic ban you. Your choice. Doug Wellertalk21:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Hatted your inappropriate response to a close Administrative Action Review
@Thryduulf you replied to my comments and our exchange has been "pushed under a rug" so that it may be less visible. It is appropriate? I was mentioned several times in the discussion and my comments (and yours) were definitely not just "off topic". At the very least this should remain within the discussion and more impartially titled (if it needs to be "hatted" at all which I don't think). I also find it somewhat ironic that someone proposing another admin was too WP:INVOLVED in an administrative review performed this action. It feels very persecutory. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Your comment was inappropriate for the forum it was placed in, for the reasons I explained in my reply. If you have issues with the hatting, you need to take that up with the person who did the hatting. If you have continued issues with KoA then you need to deal with them in the appropriate forum. I am not involved in the dispute, and have no desire to become involved in the dispute so pinging me about it is waste of time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I don’t want to drag you into this and totally understand if you want to stay out of it. I just wanted an uninvolved third opinion to know if I was over reacting as I find this action unnecessarily aggressive and intimidating. In any case thanks for the clarification on that thread. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk15:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) "Persecutory", and now "aggressive and intimidating"? One more dig at Doug Weller, who was kind enough to not totally remove your misplaced post on the Admin Action Review page, and I'll block you for harassment. And why are you wasting people's time by irrelevantly repeating a lot of it at a request concerning Leyo's use of admin tools at WP:AE? What's it all got to do with the price of tea in China? Bishonen | tålk18:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC).
Gtoffoletto, I've been looking back at the history of an old block, which was lifted on 24 August 2020 on condition that you didn't contact or interact with me.[32] I can hardly blame you if you had forgotten, three years later (I had). Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, I just want to clarify that now that I've spoken to you, of course there is no longer any requirement that you don't speak to me. Feel free. Bishonen | tålk01:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC).
Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I am WP:INVOLVED so can't use my tools, but I would definitely support someone else using them, or at very least giving an official warning. I guess that WP:AE is the venue to go to. SmartSE (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks I understand. I would prefer avoiding the time waste and drama if possible. Maybe some other admin will intervene? I think a warning could be enough to at least slow them down a bit but they clearly ignored yours. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk10:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Smartse unfortunately the behaviour has not stopped. Those personal attacks on me by Julius (see [34]) discourage any discussion and do not focus on the content. The page is already quite contentious and hard to edit. It doesn't need such toxicity. I am trying my best and constantly receiving POV accusations and other attacks doesn't help. Any advice on what to do? I cannot believe no other admin is following that highly contentious page. Why are such actions tolerated? Any advice? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I only just noticed your ping. I don't think that particular diff is too bad - it is at least targeting your contributions rather than you personally. I am watching the page and will take action if there are more personal attacks, but given that I'm INVOLVED that would only be to ask someone else to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. That diff is certainly not that bad in a vacuum, it is just a bit frustrating given the context. But knowing someone is watching the page attentively is already reassuring and things have somewhat improved. Regarding the ping I noticed the autosuggestion gives me only "Smartse" without the proper capitalisation. Might be some kind of bug? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.
I left you a message on Twitter to follow me. I have found information to help remedy your contribution with contrary editors from your contributions towards the topic of Ufology. Some comments are best made in private. Archangel1966 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
You have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. I will provide the default notification text sent to parties at the beginning of a case below, to ensure that all information is present. You will already be aware of most of this.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Leyo and KoA are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Leyo is admonished for battleground behavior, personal attacks, and use of administrator tools while INVOLVED. Leyo is INVOLVED in the topic area of genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed. Future instances of this kind of conduct may result in sanction, including removal of adminship, without warning, especially if it is INVOLVED tool use.
KoA is warned for edit warring and is reminded to engage in good faith when resolving their disputes.
After having an addition to the lede reverted on the basis it is undue, you just go right back and add similar to the lede again[35] here? I'm stunned. Do you really think this is best practice for a WP:CTOP. What is more, your summary of the source is very one-eyed, with no mention of the fact (as the source puts it), that Bayer is winning legal cases. Bon courage (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I left a message on the talk page of the article for you as I was editing the text when you reverted and I think it was going in the direction of your comments. I can self revert without problems if you don't agree with the new text and we can figure it out. Let's keep the conversation on the talk page of the article for that. Please note that Bayer in the last month won 1 case and lost at least another one [36]. There are 50.000 pending cases so focusing on any single one (either won or lost) would be undue and we obviously can't follow them all. Watch out because for sure saying that "Bayer is winning legal cases" is very "one-eyed" since they have lost several tens of thousands so far. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk14:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, and that is rather an insulting question, and seems peculiar given that I actually quote a source verbatim in my edit. I think I shall disengage now. Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Your edit is a revert. So I am not sure what you are referring to. Maybe take a deep breath here and let's look at things calmly instead of going off and assuming I'm trying to "trick you" into something. I don't have anymore time so we'll get back to it after the holidays. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk15:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
