User talk:Gleeanon409 - Knowledge (XXG)

4134:

in the crosshairs of the perennial deletionist/inclusionist issues. I was new to social media so didn’t handle the constant abuse well, I felt I was targeted and attacked, on and off wiki. Suffice it to say I eventually reacted very poorly and by late 2010 made up a ton of socks which ended up causing headaches to others, it was obvious the attacks would continue and there was an organized offsite effort. I certainly shouldn’t have, and I wish I would have known or considered any better options. I saw zero future for me with a project I loved, and saw zero options but the poor ones I chose. Until 2021 I either didn’t know or realize a standard offer existed. In 2019 I tried to make what I thought was a clean start but was sleuthed out by editors who are into such things. I regret that they also made bad faith accusations as a pillar of the report alleging that I have any support for child rape, I certainly do not, but I’ve learned anyone canu say anything on the internet without consequences. Generally I think my Gleeanon409 account shows that I support insisting on reliable sources and building consensus when disagreements arise. It can take longer but the results last longer as well. I’d like to resume with the Gleeanon409 account with the community’s permission. I’d appreciate if you could take this request to whatever board is appropriate for consideration. p.s. I did try editing a bit on other wiki projects but I didn’t find it to be a good experience.

4579:, this is the only way I can communicate so apologies in advance for the hassle. You are correct that “child rape” is not the common Knowledge (XXG) term, it’s at the heart of many abuse survivors terminology because that’s a big part of what pedos do. My defense of Haiduc, years ago, was an appeal to treat them civilly, and pre-dated them being banned for pedo-promotion including false sourcing. Another charge was that I defended the most notorious pedo organization in history, I don’t however it is a fact some of their founding members were homeless teenage sex-workers and the group had early support as it included supporting legal rights for those youth. Support evaporated when pedos demanded everyone abolish all age of consent laws. Along the same lines has been my effort to get Hay’s bio to be NPOV. He was an emancipated teenager when he seduced an older man, and later recalled this many times as a positive experience. It’s a type of pederasty but is presented so POV that all nuance is lost. So child sexual abuse/pedo* is what is alleged I in some way supported. I am against all child abuse, sexual or otherwise. 2319: 4397:, if the community wants restrictions placed then I’ll of course abide. I do want to ask to consider more some of those areas: not accusing — yes, I can invite more eyes on any situation, accusations were leveled at me and I certainly didn’t like it; AFD/DRV — sure, this is often a contentious area and I can live without the grief, holding off on ARS at the same time; proxying — of course not; not editing LGBTQ BLPs — this is my area of expertise, however if it helps rebuild some of the trust I’ve damaged I’ll certainly cooperate with a carve out for reverting vandalism if that’s acceptable. 4554:, I have no interest or intention of editing here unless the community allows it. I walked away in 2014 and realized that using multiple accounts was simply abusive and I didn’t want to be a part of that at all. In 2019 I tried with a fresh account making productive contributions and was soon caught anyway. I took almost a year off and learned about the standard offer. I’m hoping now to resume that account with whatever appropriate restrictions. If the community decides not now then I’ll simply continue to hold off until they allow me to return. 4529:“but was sleuthed out by editors who are into such things”, yeah I could have phrased that better. In fairness I think there are some dedicated editors attuned to anything dealing with child rape, and I caught their attention even if I wasn’t a high priority to them. There is a decades-old slur against LGBTQ people that we aim to sexually abuse children so I found a bunch of incendiary unsourced POV content and removed it as such. That was among the evidence that I was in some way okay with child rape. I’m not and never have been. 4623:, yes my behavior was horrible way too often, I apologize for not assuming good faith and trying to more collegially build consensus. It had been many years since I edited and I was too quick to be combative. I still think the Hay article violates NPOV, and relies on content from NAMBLA itself, but that will have to stay that way I guess. As for the Desmond is Amazing article I was steadfast that any content had to be reliably sourced. In hindsight I wish I would have disengaged quicker and waited for more people to get involved. 4601:, I was assured at the Reference Desk that it was a reliable source, and I only suggested it might be useful to that article. I fully left it for editors there to use it if they saw fit, and didn’t push any content or other ideas when they didn’t. As for the Desmond is Amazing article several editors double-checked everything in the article, and we worked on consensus to make changes. And you are mistaken on the sourcing, none of it was against policy, and nearly none were from primary sources. 830: 240: 1936:

whether it be in the form of prose or tags, may not be homophobia. It is your use of the word "attempt" in the barnstar above that I object to as it suggests malevolence when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is the case. I am in no doubt that your intentions were honourable, let's make no mistake about that, but we enter dodgy ground when we start making indirect allegations of bigotry when that may not even be the case.

4515:“more than my share of negative attention both on and off wiki” in retrospect some of it was certainly because I was openly LGBTQ and focused editing on those subjects. I was also too invested in preserving content in that topic area and saw things through a filter of always being in crisis, moving from one article under “attack” to the next. It wasn’t healthy and turned other editors off. I have to learn to extend good faith that others mean the best. 2024:- no such series exists in connection to me, I'm not aware of ever having removed categories like this from any article in the past, and I don't understand why you've raised this. I appreciate that you are naturally and rightly concerned about the possibility of biased editing in this area, and I thank you for your vigilance; please also recognise that even the suggestion that one might have homophobic motivations can be deeply unpleasant. Saying 1542: 493: 95: 386: 85: 2560: 4201: 295: 251: 105: 1309: 1040: 398: 2890: 4364:, I gave up and did some reflecting on my poor actions, after 2014 I turned my energies into other personal projects. Since 2014 I’ve only had the Gleeanon409 account and used it on Simplewiki, and wikidictionary. I had technical issues interfacing with them as a newly user in particular. I quickly realized it would just be a gap experience for me if I stayed as article building and improving is what I prefer. 4231: 262: 1780: 3252: 2992: 371: 361: 325: 145: 3594: 3384: 3213: 2781: 218: 125: 4044: 438: 1453: 4510:, all fair points, in trying to keep it brief and provide some explanation I definitely left out most of the context. The banning was because I was sockpuppeting. The reasons behind my decision to do so are less important than the disruption I caused. A big part of this has been my combative attitude which I have to keep in check, and just take breaks if things get heated or personal. 3468: 2406: 1847:

innocence but after a series of similar edits all erasing LGBQ sexualities a pattern emerges. I just happened to stumble upon a case like that last year. This case may be well innocent but the ease at which all LGBTQ categories were just plucked off was a bit chilling to me. If they really don’t belong then all is well but two women who marry feels like it’s an LGBTQ relationship.

423: 310: 412: 155: 196: 135: 2907:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 185: 75: 65: 26: 2867: 207: 4734: 3967: 174: 1367: 115: 273: 2752:. For a brief period on 16 November, changes to categories will not be sorted correctly for most languages. This is because the developers are upgrading to a new version of the library. They will then use a script to fix the existing categories. This will take a few hours or a few days depending on how big the wiki is. You can 229: 2133: 4525:

There was at least one website dedicated to “fixing” Knowledge (XXG) which lampooned me. The griefing was near constant by then, or it sure felt that way. I saw threats everywhere even if none existed in that moment. I also think there’s never a need to hound or grief or harass other editors even if

4521:

Then the brewing issue of Paid Editing came up and I sympathized with those who may truly need a job, I tried to build some guidelines to help move things forward but my actions were interpreted that I must have been paid myself, I wasn’t but also felt I didn’t have to deny it. So on all fronts I had

1917:

brought it up as part of their FAC review. We can seek consensus that it shouldn't be there. We shouldn't, IMO, unilaterally remove part of a review; still less should we remove just the subsequent discussion attempting to reach consensus. Personally I have no problem with TRM's comments, other than

4133:

I have had a checkered history. How people conduct themselves with other editors has improved over the years but back then (2006) I was out and gay and had more than my share of negative attention both on and off wiki from other editors. I was also active with the Rescue Squad which put me squarely

2049:

I may have felt, it’s a thing these days, “triggered”, to see such a quick removal of all the categories, easily I might be just too sensitive on the subject. For me it brought up instances I’ve witnessed on Knowledge (XXG) before of purposeful anti-LGBTQ erasure. I may have been using short-handed

2006:

Hi Gleeanon409 - I don't want this to become unpleasant, and I'm not here to have a go at you - indeed, I think that your comments at the FAC discussion have been fair, reasonable and helpful. Having just seen something you've written above though, I want to make one thing entirely clear: I have no

3374:

Information from Wikidata that is used on a wiki page can be shown in recent changes and watchlists on a Wikimedia wiki. To see this you need to turn on showing Wikidata edits in your watchlist in the preferences. Changes to the Wikidata description in the language of a Wikimedia wiki will then be

1935:

I am throwing around words like "homophobia" as in my view, making an "attempt" to erase LGBTQ history, facts or any mention of homosexual relationships, whether it be in the form of prose or tags, suggests homophobia. Simply erasing LGBTQ history, facts or any mention of homosexual relationships,

1846:

Whether it was intentional or not, the net effect is similar to cases where prose is changed from ‘Foo realized he was gay at six years old’ to ‘Foo discovered his sexuality at six years old’. They might mean the the same thing but to me feel miles apart and purposely erasive. One can always claim

2016:

and put it to WikiProject LGBT Studies for comment, and that he would be happy with whatever the consensus was. So, I acknowledged his concerns at the FAC discussion, I removed the categories with an edit summary referencing that discussion, and in my very next edit I posted at the talk page for

2011:

our content on the history of gay people, not to erase anything. I think it was my collaborator, rather than myself, who added those categories, but I was perfectly happy with them being there. You say that you found their removal 'chilling' - please let me explain exactly what happened from my

695:

I never noticed until this morning how many there was. Every sentence could needs a ref is the standard. He is eminently notable so I don't think there is any problem with them removing at least 30 of them. Removal of duplicates is the ideal. It is 33k so not a huge amount, a couple of dozen.

1861:

We simply cannot be accusing someone of bigotry when they haven't even had the chance to answer for themselves. The use of "attempt" conveys the idea that it is premeditated, when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is homophobia. Ok, so there have been a few edits that have been

937:

be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Knowledge (XXG). Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable,

1958:

Thank you for so clearly isolating your area of concern. Even with that I struggle to so how it is a tenable reading. But I claim no expertise in the nuances of English, and if a reasonable reader, such as you, can find the word "attempt" so loaded, then it is probably best if I remove

4207:

sockpuppetry here, on 2021-06-12 and 2021-08-29 and have concerns more broadly. I want to be incredibly clear, though, this is possible rather than likely. Another checkuser should weigh in here as the technical specifics make this a bit more tricky than normal to render an opinion.

711:

I think removing any refs is a very bad idea, none of those guides really state that what we have is a problem. And this is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. There are multiple cases of the same ref being listed multiple times, maybe those could be combined?

756:

Generally we only have one ref per fact, some statements had more than one fact. Right now I haven’t figured out how to see the underlying code, I switched editing display so I could add full refs and I don’t know how to switch back. I’ll see if I can figure it out.

1487:, I would love any reference you can find. I did as much as I could but now paywalls and subscriptions have stopped me in my tracks. I know there is at least five journal reviews, and countless books that talk about Sweet Tea but I can’t seem to access them. 733:

Yip, I don't think there is any lack of references. It is wikipedia policy. It unusually one ref per fact, I think. I got called up for it, in similar situation donkeys ago, so it is genuine thing, a real policy. You can use ref tags as <ref name="john":

4526:

you feel they deserve it. I felt lower than dirt and some assumed I was already socking before I had ever even created one. I figured my time was short. I mention it because it was taking the Knowledge (XXG) battleground and extending it into my real life.

1918:

thinking that they don't belong in a FAC and disagreeing with their suggestion. That's a run of the mill content dispute, being settled by reference to policy. I am even defending TRM's right to keep his comments on the FAC, despite disagreeing with them.

2028:

is not sufficient - this case is most certainly entirely innocent, and I'd thank you if you'd be kind enough to acknowledge that explicitly. Please feel free to examine my contributions history thoroughly to satisfy yourself about that. Cheers

1905:

As I said in the FAC "I also think that the main author has got the balance spot-on." Not surprising - from the main author's nomination statement "Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements."

2453: 996:

Also note that Knowledge (XXG) articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Knowledge (XXG) project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in

3698:

template shows when a statement in a Knowledge (XXG) article needs a source. If you click on it when you edit with the visual editor there is a popup that explains this. Now it can also show the reason and when it was added.

2012:

perspective. First, an experienced reviewer said that he was not sure the categories were appropriate because of the lack of sourcing explicitly confirming her sexuality; in doing so, he suggested that we remove them

3115: 4273:(And for what it's worth, I know your email asked me to copy the request where appropriate from the start; but for the sake of transparency I prefer that that kind of request be made in public rather than by email) 4039:. I’m having technical problems using the site but here goes...thank you for your response. I was asking you to take the request to the appropriate board for consideration but as you wish I’ll try here as well. 4259:, appreciate that. I will post the appeal to AN. Gleeanon: I recommend that you watch that discussion; if you have specific comments to make you may make them here and ask that they be copied to the discussion. 2017:

WikiProject LGBT Studies asking for editors with knowledge of this area to comment. How you can see that as chilling escapes me - what could I possibly have done to be more open and collegiate about this?

1794:

By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your timely and articulate opposition to the erasure of historic LGBTQ relationships.

3238:

will show readers more of the article history. They can see new updates and easier see how the article has changed over time. This is an experiment. It will first be shown only to some iOS app users as a

3822: 3854: 3838: 3096: 1902:

I am not sure why you are throwing around words like "homophobia". We are simply having a civil debate as to the threshold of evidence required to support a particular cat tag. ABF is not helpful.

3862: 3139: 1161:

or you could also temporarily switch to desktop mode (There should be a Desktop link at the bottom of the page next to Terms of user and Privacy) then the link he is talking about will show up -

1621: 3846: 3806: 3131: 3107: 3064: 1412:

Good job with the article. Do you think you could possibly make similar articles for their earlier exhibitions? They don't have to be as detailed--if you start then, others will add to them.

3601:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 December. It will be on non-Knowledge (XXG) wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 December. It will be on all wikis from 17 December (

2788:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 November. It will be on non-Knowledge (XXG) wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 November. It will be on all wikis from 19 November (

4518:

Coupled with this was the very battleground of deletionists vs inclusionists. I helped build up the Article Rescue Squad and had to learn to dial down my bad faith assumptions there as well.

2753: 2666: 3391:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 December. It will be on non-Knowledge (XXG) wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 December. It will be on all wikis from 10 December (

1603: 1460: 3814: 3220:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 December. It will be on non-Knowledge (XXG) wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 December. It will be on all wikis from 3 December (

3088: 4753: 1831:. The nominator hasn't even responded yet! It simply may be a case of the nom not even realising it. To say this was an "attempt" to erase such an important issue is assuming bad faith. 681:

Maybe some of them can be combined? I only added when new information was introduced that someone would question. Desmond is certainly notable so it’s not there is something to prove.

40: 4482:, I’m not blaming anyone for reporting banned users. I screwed up and deserved the ban. They were simply doing their duty. I will defend myself in being squarely against child rape. 4130: 3975: 2652:. It will move out of beta and be enabled by default. There will be an option not to use it. The developers are looking for small or medium-sized wikis to be the first ones. You can 1681: 1573: 3123: 1463:

Keep it, add more references and feel free to ask me if you need any help regarding improvements. I can help you in finding references, getting research articles/books too. thanks

445: 2007:

wish to erase lesbian history. I wrote the article from scratch (in collaboration with another editor) because I found Macpherson Grant's story so compelling - I was attempting to

3275:

will no longer work. You can also only query a database if you connect to it directly. This will happen in February 2021. If you think this affects you and you need help you can

3003:

they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from 1 December. Unclaimed projects can be deleted from 1 January.

1962:

Gleeanon409, I am extremely wary of altering anything on your talk page, even if it is my own words and within a barnstar citation. Can I ask for your forbearance in this case.

3886: 3830: 3080: 1666: 1598: 3908: 3894: 3503: 3161: 1670: 211: 206: 3878: 3870: 3147: 3072: 741:

section. I don't mind cleaning it up. Are you planning to stick around Gleeanon409, once you finish this. There is plenty of other articles that could do with some work.

1143:

As I’ve stated that doesn’t work, I don’t get a link to go back on redirects apparently just a brief pop up that tells me what happened but no link in the pop up box.

166: 3522:

if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2053:

The issue is being looked at and pretty much universally it’s been explained no harm was meant. That’s good enough for me. Thank you for taking the time to check in.

1102:

You'll notice that "GuRu (book)" is a link -- click that to be taken to the redirect page, which will suppress the redirect. You can then edit that page directly. --

606: 1689: 1593: 950:

copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See

1091:

The redirect doesn't need to be deleted. Click the link in your message above and you will be redirected. Right under the article title, you will see this text:

1921:

It may well be that I am misreading my own comments, but if there is any lack of AGF by me, then whoever points out just where will receive a fulsome apology.

3762: 3620: 3428: 3300: 3020: 2825: 2688: 1428:

Thank you! I was trying to get it into good shape as the exhibit is already open. Two of the articles are already done but I’ll consider doing the other two.

4191:

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.

3406: 2803: 1578: 848: 3912: 3165: 852:.) While we appreciate your contributions to Knowledge (XXG), there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid 441: 437: 3782: 3640: 3475: 3448: 3320: 3040: 2845: 2708: 2472:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1674: 951: 4438:, I need to mend the damage I’ve done and earn trust again. Plus S Marshall’s insight how combative I was is humbling. Life’s too short to be fighting. 1568: 415: 411: 737:

to another location and you only have one reference location, but it linked multiple times. There is only seven areas where is needs to be done, e.g.

2919: 1685: 4084: 2434: 2425: 353: 2661:

From November 16 the categories will not be sorted in order for a short time. This is because the developers are upgrading to a new version of the

1738: 1722: 1608: 1002: 1588: 108: 104: 4027:(replacing (reason) with your appeal for why you should be unbanned), I or another administrator can copy your appeal to the correct location. 3280: 4176: 3722: 970: 1638:

is a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. Requests for image improvements can be added to the workshop pages:

4744: 4726: 3959: 1009:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be

837:

have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the

3920: 3173: 2749: 2665:. They will use a script to fix the existing categories. This can take a few hours or a few days depending on how big the wiki is. You can 2662: 158: 154: 3519: 2469: 4645:, you mentioned my comments could be copied over to the discussion. Can that please still happen? Or how should I request that be done? 2645: 1205:

should work for all devices. If it doesn't work, feel free to restore the template. You can also create the page anywhere else (e.g. at

1076:

but the redirect is preventing me from getting to the page to start the article. Could someone remove the redirect code so I can start?

1583: 1559: 3745:. They can soon hide multiple entries at once using checkboxes. This works like hiding normal edits. It will happen in early January. 2653: 1658: 364: 360: 222: 217: 4079: 3903: 3156: 1328: 1059: 450: 44: 1899:

It is not an ""attempt"", it is an accomplished fact. Gleeanon409 objected, promptly and civilly, to this. I commended them for it.

912: 401: 397: 255: 250: 3770: 3758: 3668: 3653: 3628: 3616: 3560: 3545: 3436: 3424: 3348: 3333: 3308: 3296: 3199: 3184: 3028: 3016: 2952: 2937: 2833: 2821: 2736: 2721: 2696: 2684: 2622: 2607: 1749: 128: 124: 3993: 3916: 3725:

what technical improvements should be done for geographic information. This could be coordinates, maps or other related things.

3169: 2318: 2077:

Thanks for these words - that's also good enough for me. No harm done all round, thanks for taking an interest in the article.

1218: 4700: 2771: 900: 138: 134: 54:, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. 3766: 3624: 3432: 3304: 3024: 2829: 2692: 2268: 2232: 2161: 881: 3729: 2903:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 1662: 527: 189: 184: 2107:

and Gleeanon409, thank you for the time; apologies for my over-cautiousness, and thanks for your time here. Best regards.

1013:

from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —

633: 2908: 2413: 877: 4771: 3732:

to switch between writing systems or variants of a language. This can only be done for the entire page. There will be a

3681: 3581: 2968:

are now links. They go to Special:Log for only that entry. This is how timestamps work on for example the history page.

4057: 3000: 1375: 1010: 277: 272: 4278: 4264: 4032: 3667: