User talk:Hotpine

re: NPOV of "consequences of paternity fraud"

hey hotpine, I saw your post on the wiki talk page for paternity fraud wiki. I just wanted to thank you for saying what you did. I am absolutely gobsmacked that some people will look at a situation where: A.) the man not only recently found out his girlfriend/wife cheated on him, and B.) she didn't care about or respect him enough to tell him that, while C.) coming to terms with the fact that the children he thought were his, aren't

and somehow twist that situation to one where *he* is the villain. Alone, any one of those has the potential to be devastating, life altering information. As it stands now, the post vilifies and shames the abused while completely ignoring the actions and behavior of the abuser. There's really no two ways about it: this is at best inappropriate content and at worst the hateful spewings of an out of touch academic with zero empathy.

The consequences of paternity fraud run broad and deep. There is no shortage of content for this. At some point, after we've talked about counseling, divorce, reasons for secrecy (implicit or explicit; if a mom isn't 100% sure of who the father of her new born is, she should have the decency to let all parties know, including the child), consequences for the child, recourse with the biological father, uphill legal battles for the father to avoid what amounts to involuntary servitude, long term effects of being manipulated into that situation, learning your mother would do that to your 'father,' and so on... then maybe we can talk about how the dad is bitter.

Thanks! Glad to know there's at least one other person who agrees. Hotpine (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.

• We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
• We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
• We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
• We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
• We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
• We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
• We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
• We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
• We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
• We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
• We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
• We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
• We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
• We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
• We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
• We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
• We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
• We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
• We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
• We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
• We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
• We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
• We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
• We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
• We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
• We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
• We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
• We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
• We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Noticeboard

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sexual addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu

Tgeorgescu: I don't understand your edits. You linked to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, but my username isn't mentioned there, and I don't see reference to any other place in your edits where the determination was made that I have "shown interest" in "alternative medicine", "pseudoscience", or "gender-related disputes or controversies". Please clarify your position with objective evidence and public proceedings, or undo your edits.

It isn't clear why you posted the "Yes. We are biased." section. Please clarify this, or undo your edits.

It isn't clear why you posted the "Noticeboard" section. Please clarify this, or undo your edits.

So far, your behavior has been abrasive and unwelcome. After this matter is resolved, please do not interact with me to the furthest extent possible.

In order to clarify my position, as you have requested:

Those notifications were making you aware that your edits were about topics which fell under discretionary sanctions. I never said that I sought arbitration about your edits.

But if you edit again articles pertaining to pseudoscience or alt-med or gender issues, you will be issued again awareness notifications. I may post standard, necessary notifications even if otherwise I should refrain from posting at your talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu You have not done the following:

You linked to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, but my username isn't mentioned there, and I don't see reference to any other place in your edits where the determination was made that I have "shown interest" in "alternative medicine", "pseudoscience", or "gender-related disputes or controversies". Please clarify your position with objective evidence and public proceedings, or undo your edits.

An example of doing this would be providing a list of the edits I made, the official source that designates those pages as belonging to those categories, and the official source that determined that those edits "do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions", as per the wording above:

Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

If this is not done within one week, I will initiate a dispute. Hotpine (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic notifications cannot be retracted. They expire after one year, anyway. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not done the following:

You linked to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, but my username isn't mentioned there, and I don't see reference to any other place in your edits where the determination was made that I have "shown interest" in "alternative medicine", "pseudoscience", or "gender-related disputes or controversies". Please clarify your position with objective evidence and public proceedings, or undo your edits.

An example of doing this would be providing a list of the edits I made, the official source that designates those pages as belonging to those categories, and the official source that determined that those edits "do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions", as per the wording above:

Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

Your edits that added sections to this talk page can be reverted, and the sanctions you imposed on me can be undone.

The clock is still ticking. Hotpine (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Your demands are over the top. So, go on, report me to WP:ANI. See WP:BOOMERANG.

And no, I did not "impose sanctions" upon you. You're misreading those notifications. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I see.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

This read to me like you had imposed discretionary sanctions on my account because I "[hadn't] strictly [followed] Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic". Hotpine (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hotpine, WP:CTOP alerts exist to make you aware that you're editing in a contentious topic and there is a higher standard of behavior, and often stricter rules. Once you have been made aware, that's it, you're aware. That's all it means. The alerts cannot be rescinded. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! That makes sense. Hotpine (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Also there's no official designation of "pages as belonging to those categories" since that's not how CTOP (nor discretionary sanctions before it). Any edits anywhere on the English wikipedia in an area that is a contentious topic is covered. This may be the entire page in some cases, but in other cases may be only part of the page. It's even possible that nothing in the page is affected by CTOP but your edit is if you add something that is covered. Now that you're aware, it's your responsibility as an editor to consider whether CTOP applies when you edit. If you behave poorly on any page where one of the 3 CTOPs apply, you may be sanctioned without any editor needing to further inform you CTOP applies. The simple option is to ensure your editing is always good, then it doesn't matter if it's a CTOP. For some specific pages there might be specific CTOP restrictions, in such pages there will be edit and talk page notices. (Some specific CTOP have universal restrictions, but not any of the 3 you were alerted about.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You refer to "3" "CTOPS", but I don't know which specific pages or edits are involved. The notices linked to arbitrations for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality, but I don't recall editing normal encyclopedia pages with those names, nor any pages falling within those categories (if that's what was meant). No edit history links are provided, so I have absolutely no clue what this is about. How are these notices supposed to be useful if I don't know what they pertain to? It should be trivial to point them out.

If the notices are just informational about having edited pages under discretionary sanctions, then what is the purpose of the "Yes. We are biased." section? That implies that the reason for the notice was that my edit(s) had been judged to be bad, and contradicts the "it does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" wording in Template:Contentious topics/alert/first and the custom notices above.

According to Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics, Template:Contentious topics/alert/first should be the notice used, but the notices put here don't use that template; they seem to be custom-written and pasted here. Template:Contentious topics/alert/first would have clearly explained what was going on, although the presence of the "Yes. We are biased." section would still have clouded the situation. Hotpine (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Also there's no official designation of "pages as belonging to those categories" since that's not how CTOP (nor discretionary sanctions before it).

It seems that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality are the sources for the public proceedings that put those pages/categories under discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture seems to be only about the page Acupuncture, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality seems to be about an entire category of pages. It isn't clear from the information presented in the above notices what is going on regarding how these sanctions pertain to specific edits I've made. Hotpine (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

First the CTOP is for all "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" not simply acupuncture. Please concentrate on what the CTOP alert says not on the case name. If you check out the details for the case, the designation will mention the area covered but at this stage of your editing career I'd advice against that since you seem to be causing unnecessary confusion to yourself. And again there is no single page that fits into any CTOP area. The entirety of the English Wikipedia can be covered by CTOPs. It's whether you are edits are covered by the topic that matters. If I edit any page to say "Person A has demonstrated via their work that chiropractic is a pseudoscience" where person A is non-binary and prefers them/their pronouns than my edit will be affected by all 3 of the CTOP areas no matter where I edit. Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: "Please concentrate on what the CTOP alert says not on the case name."

For the "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" notice, I knew I had never edited the "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" article, and the only other link in the notice that seemed to provide info was the link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. Again, these notices were confusing. The "gender-related disputes or controversies" notice didn't even have a link to an article.

I understand your overarching points, however. Hotpine (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want specific examples from your editing, then my judgment as a non-admin is that these edit [1] [2] [3] will be covered by the gender and sexuality CTOP. It's my judgment that this edit [4] and probably this edit too [5] will be covered by the pseudoscience CTOP. The first editThis [6] will also be covered by the complementary and alternative medicine CTOP. To be clear you asking these questions will also be covered by the CTOP. And ultimately it doesn't matter if any of your edits were covered. While the alerts should generally only be given when someone has made an edit which will be covered, ultimately once you've been given alerts then your taken as aware and can be sanctioned if any of your future edits covered by CTOPs you've been alerted to fall below the standards we expected. As I said in my first reply, the simplest solution is to ensure all of your edits are up the standards of behaviour we expect on Wikipedia. Unfortunately your unnecessarily aggressive replies here and on ANI are definitely not up to the standards you should be showing generally but which are especially important when editing any CTOP area. While we normally don't sanction editors who are just seeking clarification, it is possible if you're too much of a problem and either way I'd suggest you cut it if you're going to edit in any CTOP area. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC) 11:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: My point was that the person who posted the notices hadn't identified what he had judged to fall under these CTOPs/sanctions. Playing a guessing game with an entire edit history across all pages isn't productive or fair, in my opinion. In the dispute commentary, the person eventually posted this:

The page was named above: Sexual addiction

That referenced a separate post of his above that:

Now in the article Sexual addiction the link between sexual addiction therapy and conversion therapy is abundantly sourced.

That was in response to this post by someone else:

What I don't understand is that these notices were posted on their user talk page almost 3 years ago and the editor has edited since 2021. Why are they complaining about them now? I hope they will find their way here and offer an explanation.

It wasn't clear from the wording, and especially from the context, that this was identifying the article in question. I had no idea what he was talking about.

On top of that, it isn't clear at all how the sexual addiction article is related to the "Complementary and Alternative Medicine", "pseudoscience", and "gender-related disputes or controversies" topics. I can maybe see pseudoscience applying, if your position is it isn't real (Sexual Addicts Anonymous, exists, so good luck with making that argument, but I digress), but I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would agree that the totality of the three CTOP topics mentioned/notified-about obviously point in the direction of the sexual addiction article. Again, what is the point of these notices, if the specific edits in question aren't identified? "You made some edit, some time, some where, that I decided falls under these three topics" doesn't seem to me to be a productive practice.

Unfortunately your unnecessarily aggressive replies here and on ANI are definitely not up to the standards you should be showing generally but which are especially important when editing any CTOP area

Why do you think they were aggressive? And unnecessarily aggressive, on top of that? All I did was ask him to explain his reasoning. Several times. I warned him that his answers weren't sufficient, and after a waiting period, I would initiate a dispute. He was the one who initiated the dispute on WP:ANI, referring to my requests and waiting period as an "ultimatum". Who does that?

Actually, re-reading that WP:ANI section again with my current understanding, it seems that he admits in this comment that he did in fact need to explain his reasoning:

Okay, now that I got the point that such notifications do not expire, I have to say why I told them they're editing under WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions: sex addiction therapy and porn addiction therapy have become a way of performing conversion therapy without calling it so. This is especially relevant since conversion therapy has been banned in several states. I don't know any WP:MEDRS to that extent, but it is a point which reputable experts made in mainstream media.

Am I reading that right? Hotpine (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Also to explain why the notices are different from the current official templates. The contentious topics system used to be known as discretionary sanctions. The system underwent revision back in 2023 and one of the changes made was to rename it to contentious topics as it was felt this was a clearer name. The templates were of course changed along with this. Since you're complaining about alerts given in 2021 the templates used to alert you are the older templates. These templates are intentionally substituted so you will see the revision that existed when you were alerted. Previously under the discretionary sanctions system, alerts would 'expire' after one year and so the presence of an old alert would not mean someone was aware that the topic was covered by discretionary sanctions. This is why there were earlier striken comments about "expired". Under the new contentious topics system, this is no longer the case and even old discretionary sanctions alerts are enough to presume awareness. There is a template that can be used to help explain CTOP to someone only ever alerted to discretionary sanctions but since you're only engaging in this discussion long after the system has become CTOP it doesn't seem necessary. The CTOP page does mention old discretionary sanctions alerts in a footnote. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for this great explanation!

It's something that anyone giving CTOP notices should be able to give. Hotpine (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

BTW, you have not been given a BLP CTOP alert but WP:BLP is also a CTOP area Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons. To go back to my earlier example, if person A is a living person, my edit would also be covered the BLP CTOP. It's easy to take this further. If for some reason I am writing that in the Second presidential transition of Donald Trump page then my edit will also be covered by another CTOP, the recent American politics one, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics. So at least 5 CTOPs covering my one edit. And only two of them came directly from the page. And even with that while BLP would reasonably apply to pretty much any edit in the presidential transition page, for my edit it also applied for any page where I would make that edit. And I'm aware of all of these CTOP areas, so any admin would be free to sanction me under any of the 5 if they felt it justified and I could also be taken to WP:A/R/E over that edit although one edit is unlikely to be enough for that. BTW, the information page for the 3 CTOP alerts you've been given are Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality. I'm fairly sure these have already been indirectly linked above but in any case they're better pages for you to check out than the case pages. Also I should tell you that the change to CTOP has significantly reduced what's needed for awareness. As mentioned, you've not been given a BLP nor a American politics alert; and I don't plan to give you one at this time. However under the new system, me telling you this is possibly enough to make you aware that they are covered especially since you've already been given the earlier alerts. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Realised I forgot to make some details clear. So for further clarification, I have not been named in any arbcom case. And if I were to make the example edit, I do not need to seek any "official ruling" that my edit is covered. If I make problems via my editing with that particular example, I'd fully expect I could be sanctioned under CTOP without further warning or notice. (And just to re-iterate, for the first 3 along with BLP if person A is living, this would apply anywhere on Wikipedia. It applies even for me bringing up the example here although obviously BLP doesn't apply to a hypothetical person.) I haven't ever brought up the example before with anyone and haven't seen the particular example as something that's been discussed before. (Although pronoun issues is an area that does come up a lot as an area affected by the gender and sexuality CTOP.) I'm simply going by my reading of the what each CTOP covers and my experience and understanding of what that means and what I wrote means. To some extent this includes my experience with the English Wikipedia and CTOP generally. But with the particular example I don't feel this is really necessary since I chose what I feel is a fairly clear cut case where "broadly construed" doesn't even have to come in to it. Perhaps the only area where there might be some uncertainty is in understanding that it's likely BLP applies pretty much to the entirety of the transition article although it shouldn't be that hard to understand it applies to anything you say about living person A. (Nor should it be hard to understand that the recent American politics CTOP applies to the entirety of the transition article.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Good info! Thanks! Hotpine (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You have been blocked for one week from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.

You are engaged in tendentious editing. You are making a mountain out of a molehill and wasting other editor's time. It stops now. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I don't understand your reasoning. What are your arguments for those conclusions? Tendentious editing seems to apply to article editing. I see some things listed there that could happen outside that context, such as "Accusing others of malice", but it isn't clear which one you could mean. I am also not making a mountain out of a molehill, as I explained in my reply to the user Liz. I would have been able to further explain why this is a mischaracterization in my planned reply to the user Remsense, if I had been allowed to. How is participating in the discussion of an ANI incident, of which I am a named party, disruptive? Am I not allowed to fully explain my position and reply to comments? The user Liz had asked me to reply with the reason why I had waited so long. Hotpine (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my block. You were grinding an axe and wasting other editor's time. It is commonplace that a blocked editor will disagree with the blocking administrator. That is why we have a formal unblock procedure, where another adminstator will come along and review a block. Please feel free to formally appeal my block, following the instructions in the block notice I left you. If any adminstrator asks for additional information or commentary from me, I will be happy to comment in greater detail at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, why don't you save everyone time and raise the block to indefinite? That's what's going to happen eventually anyway. EEng 14:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)