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)

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)

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)