User talk:An undesired fidelity: Difference between revisions

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I’m submitting this statement to explain my conduct, the dispute with [[Rambling Rambler]], and to request a fair, policy‑based review. My participation on the admin thread was affected by stress and by how I was addressed. I read remarks as pressuring deference and as part of broader hostility toward women on Wikipedia; neither justifies what followed. I was blocked for perceived insubordination, not LLM use or sockpuppetry. For transparency: I am an academic, not a paid editor. My participation is in response to a call‑to‑action to improve pages on Marcel Duchamp’s readymades based on recent scholarship. A bibliography has been circulated via community mailing list. The call-to-action did not promote any one institution or individual, but simply listed pages that needed to be improved, and linked to those initiatives.

The page I created, Spiritual America (gallery)—a woman‑led gallery—was deleted and now redirects to Richard Prince without explanation; protecting those pages would harm efforts to update records. That this page revert was hidden in a redirect was in order to avoid due process for articles for deletion. This action was taken after 2 pages I created passed deletion review and I believe it demonstrates an concerted abuse of admin authority.

On the admin thread, the dispute across multiple pages and emphasis on my tone created a presumption of bad faith, and an environment of hostility, for the purposes of bypassing discussion of content. I am requesting a review of reverts based on verifiable sourcing, civility, and consistent application of policy. I, and others in the greater art community, would like to make a concerted effort to improve pages related to Marcel Duchamp and his work. We should not have to deal with aggression in order to do so, nor be expected to maintain a deferential attitude in the face of aggression at the risk of being disruptive.

I defended myself on four points: a reverted typo correction, alleged LLM use, alleged sockpuppetry, and a supposed copyright issue involving images I either own or have a right to use. When I tried to de‑escalate the administrator thread by offering a sculpture barnstar for improvements he made, I was accused of giving a “fake” barnstar. What policy distinguishes a “fake” barnstar from a “real” one other than how it is received?

I request a woman‑led or otherwise neutral arbitration focused on evidence, motives, and policy. I'm also looking for clear guidance on best practices for incorporating recent scholarship into contemporary‑art pages and for improving entries related to Marcel Duchamp and his work. Rhonda Shearer's scholarship provides the only empirical object data on Marcel Duchamp's work. Shearer's research highlights variations in institutional records, which differ, and does not do so at the expense of other scholars in the field. Shearer is an art historian whose empirical object data is widely cited; incorporating her findings on pages related to Marcel Duchamp's work is not promotion when her scholarship is already cited on those pages. Edit histories since 2008 on her BLP show recurring hostility and gendered aggression. My changes used established sources and built on experienced editors’ work as well as what was available on her talk page.

The bibliography and call for experts was circulated by someone with whom I have an academic affiliation and who said she'd been blocked when an aggressive revert resulted in the removal of dozens of hours of her work. I reviewed the edit history of Shearer's page and did not find any bad faith contributions, though a lot of content could have been written from a more neutral point of view and lots of the refs were out-of-date print publications.

I accept responsibility for mistakes and for moments when my tone reflected frustration. Each time I asked for clarification, my “attitude” became the focus. Reasons shifted and humor was condemned. A copy‑paste mistake on Stephen Gould’s page led to an inference of LLM use even though I promptly corrected it and can point to the diff. Another editor noted that exact three‑time repetition looks like human error, not an LLM. Despite this, [[Rambling Rambler]] continued to claim LLM use and sockpuppetry across talk spaces. This amplified distress via alerts only I could see while continuing to address me in the third person, while publicly compiling a case file, generated an audience who took [[Rambling Rambler]] at facevalue despite hearsay, intimidation and a threat (what's unspoken behind "I wouldn't do that if I were you" is "or else"). What happened was that [[Rambling Rambler]] couldn't prove motive or find evidence of bad faith, and so they had to teach me a lesson somehow.

[[Rambling Ramblers]] revert actions have been framed as quality control without specific explanations; else, an isolated shortcoming (a citation error, a poorly written passage) has been used to deprecate all of my contributions. Where citation issues existed, tags like “citation needed” could have been added instead of confirmation bias—especially when citations predated my edits.

For greater transparency: I use a code editor with AI assistance for formatting markdown and simple scripts to format citations; this is not content generation. It would appear that Wikipedia is currently developing guidance on appropriate automation; I welcome guidance, and I've been led to believe the use of LLM's on wikipedia is as bad as child pornography. However, using LLMs to improve pages on underrepresented subjects is currently the focus of a workshop at the upcoming wiki conference in NYC. I have not used LLMs to generate article content.

My intent is constructive. I set a goal of 500 edits to bring out‑of‑date pages in line with current scholarship and in one month demonstrate leadership in contemporary‑art portals as a vy for adminship. I am prepared to remediate anything specific: remove any image found to be in copyright violation, supply my bibliography and notes, show diffs where I corrected errors, and demonstrate how pages conflate fiction and non‑fiction. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I’m submitting this statement to explain my conduct, the dispute with [[Rambling Rambler]], and to request a fair, policy‑based review. My participation on the admin thread was affected by stress and by how I was addressed. I read remarks as pressuring deference and as part of broader hostility toward women on Wikipedia; neither justifies what followed. I was blocked for perceived insubordination, not LLM use or sockpuppetry. For transparency: I am an academic, not a paid editor. My participation is in response to a call‑to‑action to improve pages on Marcel Duchamp’s readymades based on recent scholarship. A bibliography has been circulated via community mailing list. The call-to-action did not promote any one institution or individual, but simply listed pages that needed to be improved, and linked to those initiatives.

The page I created, Spiritual America (gallery)—a woman‑led gallery—was deleted and now redirects to Richard Prince without explanation; protecting those pages would harm efforts to update records. That this page revert was hidden in a redirect was in order to avoid due process for articles for deletion. This action was taken after 2 pages I created passed deletion review and I believe it demonstrates an concerted abuse of admin authority.

On the admin thread, the dispute across multiple pages and emphasis on my tone created a presumption of bad faith, and an environment of hostility, for the purposes of bypassing discussion of content. I am requesting a review of reverts based on verifiable sourcing, civility, and consistent application of policy. I, and others in the greater art community, would like to make a concerted effort to improve pages related to Marcel Duchamp and his work. We should not have to deal with aggression in order to do so, nor be expected to maintain a deferential attitude in the face of aggression at the risk of being disruptive.

I defended myself on four points: a reverted typo correction, alleged LLM use, alleged sockpuppetry, and a supposed copyright issue involving images I either own or have a right to use. When I tried to de‑escalate the administrator thread by offering a sculpture barnstar for improvements he made, I was accused of giving a “fake” barnstar. What policy distinguishes a “fake” barnstar from a “real” one other than how it is received?

I request a woman‑led or otherwise neutral arbitration focused on evidence, motives, and policy. I'm also looking for clear guidance on best practices for incorporating recent scholarship into contemporary‑art pages and for improving entries related to Marcel Duchamp and his work. Rhonda Shearer's scholarship provides the only empirical object data on Marcel Duchamp's work. Shearer's research highlights variations in institutional records, which differ, and does not do so at the expense of other scholars in the field. Shearer is an art historian whose empirical object data is widely cited; incorporating her findings on pages related to Marcel Duchamp's work is not promotion when her scholarship is already cited on those pages. Edit histories since 2008 on her BLP show recurring hostility and gendered aggression. My changes used established sources and built on experienced editors’ work as well as what was available on her talk page.

The bibliography and call for experts was circulated by someone with whom I have an academic affiliation and who said she'd been blocked when an aggressive revert resulted in the removal of dozens of hours of her work. I reviewed the edit history of Shearer's page and did not find any bad faith contributions, though a lot of content could have been written from a more neutral point of view and lots of the refs were out-of-date print publications.

I accept responsibility for mistakes and for moments when my tone reflected frustration. Each time I asked for clarification, my “attitude” became the focus. Reasons shifted and humor was condemned. A copy‑paste mistake on Stephen Gould’s page led to an inference of LLM use even though I promptly corrected it and can point to the diff. Another editor noted that exact three‑time repetition looks like human error, not an LLM. Despite this, [[Rambling Rambler]] continued to claim LLM use and sockpuppetry across talk spaces. This amplified distress via alerts only I could see while continuing to address me in the third person, while publicly compiling a case file, generated an audience who took [[Rambling Rambler]] at facevalue despite hearsay, intimidation and a threat (what's unspoken behind "I wouldn't do that if I were you" is "or else"). What happened was that [[Rambling Rambler]] couldn't prove motive or find evidence of bad faith, and so they had to teach me a lesson somehow.

[[Rambling Ramblers]] revert actions have been framed as quality control without specific explanations; else, an isolated shortcoming (a citation error, a poorly written passage) has been used to deprecate all of my contributions. Where citation issues existed, tags like “citation needed” could have been added instead of confirmation bias—especially when citations predated my edits.

For greater transparency: I use a code editor with AI assistance for formatting markdown and simple scripts to format citations; this is not content generation. It would appear that Wikipedia is currently developing guidance on appropriate automation; I welcome guidance, and I've been led to believe the use of LLM's on wikipedia is as bad as child pornography. However, using LLMs to improve pages on underrepresented subjects is currently the focus of a workshop at the upcoming wiki conference in NYC. I have not used LLMs to generate article content.

My intent is constructive. I set a goal of 500 edits to bring out‑of‑date pages in line with current scholarship and in one month demonstrate leadership in contemporary‑art portals as a vy for adminship. I am prepared to remediate anything specific: remove any image found to be in copyright violation, supply my bibliography and notes, show diffs where I corrected errors, and demonstrate how pages conflate fiction and non‑fiction. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I’m submitting this statement to explain my conduct, the dispute with [[Rambling Rambler]], and to request a fair, policy‑based review. My participation on the admin thread was affected by stress and by how I was addressed. I read remarks as pressuring deference and as part of broader hostility toward women on Wikipedia; neither justifies what followed. I was blocked for perceived insubordination, not LLM use or sockpuppetry. For transparency: I am an academic, not a paid editor. My participation is in response to a call‑to‑action to improve pages on Marcel Duchamp’s readymades based on recent scholarship. A bibliography has been circulated via community mailing list. The call-to-action did not promote any one institution or individual, but simply listed pages that needed to be improved, and linked to those initiatives.

The page I created, Spiritual America (gallery)—a woman‑led gallery—was deleted and now redirects to Richard Prince without explanation; protecting those pages would harm efforts to update records. That this page revert was hidden in a redirect was in order to avoid due process for articles for deletion. This action was taken after 2 pages I created passed deletion review and I believe it demonstrates an concerted abuse of admin authority.

On the admin thread, the dispute across multiple pages and emphasis on my tone created a presumption of bad faith, and an environment of hostility, for the purposes of bypassing discussion of content. I am requesting a review of reverts based on verifiable sourcing, civility, and consistent application of policy. I, and others in the greater art community, would like to make a concerted effort to improve pages related to Marcel Duchamp and his work. We should not have to deal with aggression in order to do so, nor be expected to maintain a deferential attitude in the face of aggression at the risk of being disruptive.

I defended myself on four points: a reverted typo correction, alleged LLM use, alleged sockpuppetry, and a supposed copyright issue involving images I either own or have a right to use. When I tried to de‑escalate the administrator thread by offering a sculpture barnstar for improvements he made, I was accused of giving a “fake” barnstar. What policy distinguishes a “fake” barnstar from a “real” one other than how it is received?

I request a woman‑led or otherwise neutral arbitration focused on evidence, motives, and policy. I'm also looking for clear guidance on best practices for incorporating recent scholarship into contemporary‑art pages and for improving entries related to Marcel Duchamp and his work. Rhonda Shearer's scholarship provides the only empirical object data on Marcel Duchamp's work. Shearer's research highlights variations in institutional records, which differ, and does not do so at the expense of other scholars in the field. Shearer is an art historian whose empirical object data is widely cited; incorporating her findings on pages related to Marcel Duchamp's work is not promotion when her scholarship is already cited on those pages. Edit histories since 2008 on her BLP show recurring hostility and gendered aggression. My changes used established sources and built on experienced editors’ work as well as what was available on her talk page.

The bibliography and call for experts was circulated by someone with whom I have an academic affiliation and who said she'd been blocked when an aggressive revert resulted in the removal of dozens of hours of her work. I reviewed the edit history of Shearer's page and did not find any bad faith contributions, though a lot of content could have been written from a more neutral point of view and lots of the refs were out-of-date print publications.

I accept responsibility for mistakes and for moments when my tone reflected frustration. Each time I asked for clarification, my “attitude” became the focus. Reasons shifted and humor was condemned. A copy‑paste mistake on Stephen Gould’s page led to an inference of LLM use even though I promptly corrected it and can point to the diff. Another editor noted that exact three‑time repetition looks like human error, not an LLM. Despite this, [[Rambling Rambler]] continued to claim LLM use and sockpuppetry across talk spaces. This amplified distress via alerts only I could see while continuing to address me in the third person, while publicly compiling a case file, generated an audience who took [[Rambling Rambler]] at facevalue despite hearsay, intimidation and a threat (what's unspoken behind "I wouldn't do that if I were you" is "or else"). What happened was that [[Rambling Rambler]] couldn't prove motive or find evidence of bad faith, and so they had to teach me a lesson somehow.

[[Rambling Ramblers]] revert actions have been framed as quality control without specific explanations; else, an isolated shortcoming (a citation error, a poorly written passage) has been used to deprecate all of my contributions. Where citation issues existed, tags like “citation needed” could have been added instead of confirmation bias—especially when citations predated my edits.

For greater transparency: I use a code editor with AI assistance for formatting markdown and simple scripts to format citations; this is not content generation. It would appear that Wikipedia is currently developing guidance on appropriate automation; I welcome guidance, and I've been led to believe the use of LLM's on wikipedia is as bad as child pornography. However, using LLMs to improve pages on underrepresented subjects is currently the focus of a workshop at the upcoming wiki conference in NYC. I have not used LLMs to generate article content.

My intent is constructive. I set a goal of 500 edits to bring out‑of‑date pages in line with current scholarship and in one month demonstrate leadership in contemporary‑art portals as a vy for adminship. I am prepared to remediate anything specific: remove any image found to be in copyright violation, supply my bibliography and notes, show diffs where I corrected errors, and demonstrate how pages conflate fiction and non‑fiction. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}