Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) |
→Weboflight: r |
||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
:::Edits like 1, 5, and 9 are the sort you should be looking for, they would be primary evidence of POV-pushing that you'd lead with. Three diffs really isn't enough to launch a case with, though (if they were that bad, I'd get away with [[WP:NOTHERE]]ing them). A large group of themed edits like 2 through 4 could help a case but you should not lead in with them. They're best as secondary evidence that you'd post after your initial filing because they don't establish POV-pushing by themselves but (once POV-pushing is established) they demonstrate that the user can't be trusted with something like 0RR or even sticking to [[WP:ER|edit requests]] -- they will subtly POV-push unless topic banned. |
:::Edits like 1, 5, and 9 are the sort you should be looking for, they would be primary evidence of POV-pushing that you'd lead with. Three diffs really isn't enough to launch a case with, though (if they were that bad, I'd get away with [[WP:NOTHERE]]ing them). A large group of themed edits like 2 through 4 could help a case but you should not lead in with them. They're best as secondary evidence that you'd post after your initial filing because they don't establish POV-pushing by themselves but (once POV-pushing is established) they demonstrate that the user can't be trusted with something like 0RR or even sticking to [[WP:ER|edit requests]] -- they will subtly POV-push unless topic banned. |
||
:::The rest don't really help. 6 is questionable because jargon isn't necessarily capitalized. 7 misses that non-personal proper nouns and titles for concepts are capitalized{{sup|(c.f. [[Immaculate Conception]], [[Ancillaries of the Faith]], [[Great Renunciation]])}}. 8 misses that [[MOS:ALLEGED|we avoid scare quotes]]. 10, 11, and 12 actually stand a chance of tanking a case. You'd pretty much need them to confess that those were the exact reasons they made those edits and without that, you're opening the door to an argument about [[WP:AGF]] that's going to distract people and make them ignore your points. 13 is... similarly problematic. If it was any other religious organization, I'd say "teaches" would be better. Yes, the Co$ is a cult but that doesn't mean that we take an anti-Scientologist POV (we let reality do that for us). If there was already (at that time) a variety of sources that say "promotes" and even a talk page consensus to use that phrasing, that he was aware of, then it could be evidence... But without such sources and discussion, "teaches" also works. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson#top|talk]]) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC) |
:::The rest don't really help. 6 is questionable because jargon isn't necessarily capitalized. 7 misses that non-personal proper nouns and titles for concepts are capitalized{{sup|(c.f. [[Immaculate Conception]], [[Ancillaries of the Faith]], [[Great Renunciation]])}}. 8 misses that [[MOS:ALLEGED|we avoid scare quotes]]. 10, 11, and 12 actually stand a chance of tanking a case. You'd pretty much need them to confess that those were the exact reasons they made those edits and without that, you're opening the door to an argument about [[WP:AGF]] that's going to distract people and make them ignore your points. 13 is... similarly problematic. If it was any other religious organization, I'd say "teaches" would be better. Yes, the Co$ is a cult but that doesn't mean that we take an anti-Scientologist POV (we let reality do that for us). If there was already (at that time) a variety of sources that say "promotes" and even a talk page consensus to use that phrasing, that he was aware of, then it could be evidence... But without such sources and discussion, "teaches" also works. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson#top|talk]]) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::Oof, thank you so much. Glad I asked now! There's just 1, 5, 9, and the edits just yesterday removing "cult" again + the explanation on the talk page, which is just four things (yeah they did that twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=971758616&oldid=970951931] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=970186857&oldid=966461001]). I gotcha about 2 and 4. I figured it couldn't hurt to include more tangentially related ones, but thanks for explaining the AGF component, it makes sense now that they can actually detract from the overall point. I'm wondering, do you think that their edit history means they are a SPA? Or are their "other" edits substantial enough that they don't "count" as a SPA in the first place? And it sounds like these are not enough, so I'll just wait until something further happens I suppose...? Is ARE even the right place to go, or do I go to like... ANI? For NOTHERE? (I've never done anything like this before as is probably apparent lol) [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 20:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:35, 8 August 2020
—Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!
Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.
If I'm not responding, that's probably because
...And I'm either asleep, at work, or figuring out life here. |
... | ...see my contributions, go here. | ...just generally feel lost, read this. |
---|---|---|
...want to accuse me of a Christian bias, read this. | ...want to accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this. |
...want to know more about me, see my user page. |
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)
To-do: red plastic gas cans
These things are ubiquitous in the US (or at least any part I've been to) but we don't have an article on them. Like, I've only ever seen three consistent models (each different sizes of the same basic pattern) and looking online, it looks like those are the only three models that have been allowed since the gas crisis in the '70s.[original research?]
I've got a lot of other things on my plate, but I think these might be sufficient sources for someone (me, anyone else, whoever) to write up an article on them:
- News article
- News article
- News article
- News article
- News article
- Gov't regulation document
- Gov't regulation document
- Gov't regulation document
- "Non-Profit" run by the companies that make these things (haven't actually read through and found specific pages yet)
The last source definitely doesn't establish WP:NOTE and I'd normally be wary of anyone insisting that it be used. Still, I think they also discuss regulatory info and maybe manufacturing history. Given the news sources (all of which are "oh shit, these things are exploding again" and "please stop doing things to make them explode"), I think it's safe to say that its inclusion probably won't amount to promotion.
I'm not sure that this would accomplish much more than a stub, at least with my usual "summarize, paraphrase, combine overlapping statements" approach. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I saw this up in your table of contents. Those damned things are a colossal nuisance , I finally found a brand that allows better control of flow and doesn't end up slopping gas all over the lawnmower, generator, or tiller. The mesh screen appears nowadays to be broadly used. They also come in yellow for diesel and blue for kerosene. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am remembering my dad using blue barrels made of the same material for kerosene back when we had a space heater but yeah, I do see the same design in blue and yellow. (I think he got them on sale, I'm not sure I've seen them in stores ever again, and boy hell were they trouble to get rid of). Guess I need to look for sources on the diesel and kerosene ones and figure out what the industry name is for this family of cans. They're not Jerrycans (which is where gas can currently redirects): they're broader, have a handle on the back, and the stamping on the sides is just embossed warning text (not a structural feature). (I'm sure you know but other talk page watchers who haven't opened the links might be wondering why I want to reinvent the Jerrycan).
- There's another gas can design that I'm seeing, "Safety gas cans," which I suppose needs to be written about as well. Basically squat half-capsule mini-barrels with a handle and spout on the flatly rounded top. They're why I haven't just made "gas can" about the red plastic ones, since we really need "gas can" to be a disambig between the standard plastic, the Jerrycan, and the safety gas cans. Thanks for helping me realize that. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm accumulating a museum of gas cans. I got two of the safety cans after squirrels started eating the plastic ones. After that generation of squirrels died they seem to have stopped munching plastic and confine themselves to the house, so now I have some plastic ones that are easier to handle, and a yellow one in case we run out of heating oil - I can get off-road diesel and use that in a pinch. I think fuel container is a safe generic term. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Useful information for editors working in certain topics
This video series "The Alt-Right playbook" is almost required viewing for anyone editing in topics touched upon in WP:NONAZIS. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Prompt message
Thanks for the quick prompt message on my questions I forgot to ask would actual credits from movies would be a reliable source aswell? ZTR2001 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ZTR2001: That's one of the few instances where we're OK with primary sources, though movie credits are a bit harder to verify than online sources. In short, yes and it's not wrong but it's not ideal. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Bias conversation pertaining to Wiki Loves Pride
Hello, I read your note "Even though this is hatted, I'm removing a rant that served no purpose but to troll. If someone seriously believes that natural attraction to the same sex is anywhere near a threat to America as Covid-19, systemic racism, police brutality, rising fascism, an upcoming housing market crash, financial corruption among the rich, Russian and Chinese interference in politics, or even Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile ring -- nothing they have to say is worth wasting space on our site"
This is a completely inaccurate catagorisation of the conversation. I am not ranting or trolling, and I do not believe "attraction to the same sex is anywhere near a threat to America as Covid-19...", in fact this conversation has nothing to do with threats about America.
I am simply pointing out that it is not neutral for an encyclopaedia to have a program called "Wiki loves Pride" as loving pride is a moral and political stance.
Therefore I must object to the removal of the conversation as I see it is a hushing up of a valid dispute, which has arisen many times but has not been addressed properly by the likes such as people on the page.
Perhaps we should add a note to the main page that "Wiki Loves Pride" is not the opinion of the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia as to refrain from confusion.
Regards,
Ray2556 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- (by talk reader) @Ray2556: Wikipedia is a left-wing website because the over-educated, under-employed volunteer editors skew left. The few right-wingers left years ago for Conservapedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ray2556: As you can see here, I removed a post by Somua35 that described human rights for LGBT individuals as "one of the greatest threats that the society considers today. Many have and are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to defend the rights of Americans to resist it" -- In other words, my assessment was accurate. Somua35 did not contest my description of his post. As you have quoted, I said "even though this is hatted, I'm removing..." What did I remove? Your post? Show us with a WP:DIFF where I touched or spoke about your post. Unless Somua35 is a sockpuppet account of yours, then my action was about someone else's post. This conversation suggests you have a problem of ignoring facts when they get in the way of your anger, an attitude that's pretty useless when contributing to an cooperative project (especially an encyclopedia). If this is generally not the case for you, then you need to find a topic where you think clearly.
- LGBT people are a persecuted minority. Their orientations are not a simple choice but a result of genetics and neurological hard wiring (with any nurture elements being early enough in life that you can't really change it now). As a Christian, I believe we should love people -- especially downtrodden -- instead of spreading false witness to deny their humanity and right to live. It's not like loving someone for choosing to be a Nazi or choosing to be a domestic abuser. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Easy on the accusations
Your edit summary on George Floyd protests "Undid revision by Dtatsu - the same problem exists with this edit as the other -- you are pushing a term normally favored by white supremacists to downplay the legitimacy of protests by African-Americans. If that is not your goal, you need to discuss the matter instead of silently edit warring." was overly belligerent. The term "riots" was used multiple times throughout the article due to proper RSs. I personally disagree with Dtatsu's edits but lets please refrain from hurling insults as it discourages proper editing from new editors. Anon0098 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your edits on this subject are fine, Ian. Anon0098, you are 100% wrong. That isn't bitey in the slightest, and it is you that needs to dial it back. Youve been here a couple months. You have neither the knowledge or experience to be instructing an administrator, with thousands of edit and many years experience in matters of Wikipedia policy, behavior or etiquette. I'm reasonably sure Ian will file this appropriately - in the cylindrical file that sits on the floor, exactly where it belongs. Is you gonna be all butt-hurt now? John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for white knighting, I don’t frankly care how much prestige you boast on here, I am simply suggesting that we should refrain from accusing people of using white supremacist vernacular without justification. I even said I agreed with the edit just not the accusation Anon0098 (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, I've generally don't see the phrase "white knighting" used outside of certain circles. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And if we're going to pretend that it's not part of a vocabulary for particular groups, you're as guilty of white knighting for Dtatsu and not really in a position to point out anyone else doing that. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- One is a rebuke and one is defending a person in a situation you have zero original reference to — the latter is laughable. I got my point across regardless. Not going to argue with someone I have never even seen before, so Peace, Anon0098 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, so things you do are OK when when you do them but not when someone else does them to you, and you don't want the opinion of a third party to prompt you to consider that you might be wrong, got it. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, I've generally don't see the phrase "white knighting" used outside of certain circles. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm in the middle here. While biting newcomers is not generally good, certain topics do attract users who are not here to help (and they aren't upfront about it) and some who, while theoretically having the right to their beliefs, do not need be given the means to voice them and should be shouted down whenever they whimper. My actions are not perfect, they are moving towards a line -- but still not crossing it. While that line should not be crossed, and it's disruptive to make a show of running up to the line but stopping for purposes other than helping the site, staying as far away from the line as possible is less than useless.
- I try to make sure to include lines like "If this is not your goal" to show the assumption of good faith that that wasn't their intention, or even give them a way to gracefully back down if it was. Instead, we have sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And I appreciate the sentiment but I figured I would point out that line, since I don't want it moving if you catch my drift — the rest of the article is fine. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for white knighting, I don’t frankly care how much prestige you boast on here, I am simply suggesting that we should refrain from accusing people of using white supremacist vernacular without justification. I even said I agreed with the edit just not the accusation Anon0098 (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyvios
Thanks very much for the fast cleanup on Mottingham. Now that I look, I see Diannaa rev-deleted material from the same source immediately before that, so I could have saved myself the search on "capacious" or whatever it was that triggered my suspicions. I had originally planned to figure out how to ask for the history to be cleaned, but the rewrite turned into a multi-hour marathon ending after 1 am my time, and I was even too zonked to notice I'd messed up the Commons cat template. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Editor advice for newcomers
Hello Ian,
I have created a page called WP:Editor advice for newcomers where you can provide comments to help newcomers on Wikipedia. You are welcome to share your thoughts on what would help newcomers be better editors. Interstellarity (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
unilateral insta-block
Recently you immediately blocked user CorrectingBias after he made one and only one article edit. That edit was quickly reverted by one of the editors who patrol that article, and had the user you blocked continued with similar edits he might very well have ended up blocked anyway. I don't think there was any real chance of edits like the one that caused you to block him making their way into the article for more than a few minutes or hours at a time, as it is read and patrolled by many people. The editor who reverted, for example, is a highly active SPA for purposes of all articles on race and ethnicity-related controversies, which she monitors and in some cases takes control over.
My question, though, is whether a single edit that happens to offend a roving admin is in and of itself grounds for instant unilateral blocking. You cited NOTHERE and CIR, but WP:CIR lists blocking as a "last resort". The user in question asked a question on Doug Weller's talk page, which you apparently follow, at which point you immediately hammered him down. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) a brand-new account that names itself "CorrectingBias" which immediately edits an article about a work widely recognized as antisemitic and written by a noted white supremacist and conspiracy theorist, replacing those statements with fluffy language about the point of view being "alleged" by unspecified sources, is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; see WP:PROFRINGE. Whether that's an immediate block or a warn-and-wait situation is up to admin discretion. However, you might notice in the article history there is an anonymous editor (12.154.111.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) making specifically the same sort of edits to that part of the article, and also railing about the intro's "bias" on the article's talk page. That IP was blocked on 6 July, and CorrectingBias arrived 11 days later to make the same edits. Either they're the same person or they're responding to a request somewhere to "correct" the article, a very common approach by civil POV pushers and brigaders. So, yeah, this was a good block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I did not notice the IP edits, and I don't share the assumption that the edits are probably correlated, but if that was part of the reason for the block it does make more sense.
- I recently made some edits to that article and have followed the edit history and talk page, and that of some similar articles such as Ron Unz. One reason that there are a lot of "sympathizers" showing up with FRINGE or NAZI edits on the articles is that some of these articles are ridiculously slanted, as though Wikipedia's role is to be a didactic good-or-bad classification service. The articles on MacDonald, Unz and others have been a free for all of edits painting them with stuff outside of their actual views and activities, and this is a problem regardless of the unsavoriness of those views. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Saying that a noted white supremacist and conspiracy theorist is going to provide insight into Jewish culture is reason enough for someone to not be editing.
- Nazi editors would be showing up to articles on their favorite topics to complain until we look like Metapedia. They're not just gonna stop at WP:GEVAL. We only cover fringe claims to point out what mainstream sources say about them: that they're wrong. We don't owe them anything more than that. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well said. Thanks for taking decisive action. Well done. El_C 21:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- The complaint about "insight" mischaracterizes that part of the edit and then dramatizes the mischaracterization to justify a block. With that said, I was not asking for reasons or justification for the block or a debate about whether the blocked account is a Nazi, but about policy on instant blocks of brand new users based on single edits. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- That response like telling an admin who blocked a vandalism-only account after only three edits "I was not asking for reasons or justification for the block or debate about whether the blocked account is a vandal, but about policy on instant blocks of brand new users based on single edits." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The complaint about "insight" mischaracterizes that part of the edit and then dramatizes the mischaracterization to justify a block. With that said, I was not asking for reasons or justification for the block or a debate about whether the blocked account is a Nazi, but about policy on instant blocks of brand new users based on single edits. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well said. Thanks for taking decisive action. Well done. El_C 21:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, double checking the article history and then Special:Contributions/Generalrelative, @Sesquivalent: calling Generalrelative an WP:SPA is dishonest to the point of being a personal attack. Between that and your accusations of someone else being a "notorious anti-Trump editor" for merely pointing out that John McCain was a Republican (even if were Trump would like to think otherwise), I'm wondering how long until AP2 DS gets thrown at you. This prompted me to here, finding that no matter how many people are involved, including third-parties, anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have any reason besides POV-pushing! There's also you accusing the SPLC of slander for not sticking to a naive reading of an author you like and saying Stephen Jay Gould "was a purveyor of a considerable amount of demented nonsense under an academic veneer" because of his opposition to racialist views. Then there's this post where you accuse a section directly summarizing current pieces from the Associated Press, NPR, WaPo, The Atlantic, Politico, and many more as being a "SYNTH POV" "selectively anti-Trump screed." One must never question fearless leader, eh? Others have pointed out the beam in your eye when you try to make a mountain out of the speck in others, and you completely miss it. Honestly, your prior history leaves you with less than no room to accuse anyone of being an SPA or POV-pusher with regards to race or politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this story ends in quite the way that you imagine.
- The link salad you just posted rather badly (and obviously) misrepresents 10 out of 10 cited comments of mine in order to imply racism, Trump worship, dishonesty and other nefarious sins. Both the sheer number and the individual extent of the misrepresentations, were we to go through them item by item, make the totality hard to describe in anything but the most uncharitable terms. I'm happy to go the fisking route and will probably even have the time to do it in the next day or two. If that's what you want just say so, or (equivalently) do nothing and keep the salad as-is. But you might save time for me and face for yourself by making some corrections instead. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Multiple users have told you the block was good and why. If you want to go for arbitration, be prepared for a boomerang. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The link salad you just posted rather badly (and obviously) misrepresents 10 out of 10 cited comments of mine in order to imply racism, Trump worship, dishonesty and other nefarious sins. Both the sheer number and the individual extent of the misrepresentations, were we to go through them item by item, make the totality hard to describe in anything but the most uncharitable terms. I'm happy to go the fisking route and will probably even have the time to do it in the next day or two. If that's what you want just say so, or (equivalently) do nothing and keep the salad as-is. But you might save time for me and face for yourself by making some corrections instead. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Pizzagate
You asked:
Would you say the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is:
- debunked
- not proven
- debatable
- not debunked
- plausible
- proven?
I would just say it is alleged as it has neither been proven or disproven thus far.Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Your saying "false accustions" is a violation of POV without proof.Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Degen Earthfast: So allegations without proof are true?
- So if I don't have proof that you rape babies in the name of Satan, then it's just alleged and not "false"?
- Do you not see the utter stupidity in that? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not actually saying you rape babies in the name of Satan, just pointing out how ridiculous your argument is. Pizzagate and QAnon argue that children were being kept in a non-existent basement. QAnon has gone ahead to make further predictions that have repeatedly failed, as documented in the article. If you can't understand that, you lack the connection to reality to be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Aain you want to use your argument against me, Wiki:POV is quite clear, it's only an allegation until it's proven or disproven.Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Probably you should actually read what WP:NPOV says, particularly the section WP:WEIGHT. --JBL (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Degen Earthfast: Following what JBL says, what part of NPOV actually says that? WP:GEVAL would indicate that that's not true. Unless we're gonna say that we have no proof that you don't rape babies for Satan. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
2600:100E:B017:BF0:D89D:98A1:E4FE:260
Could you please block user:2600:100E:B017:BF0:D89D:98A1:E4FE:260 asap. CLCStudent (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
An instance racial harassment / attack
Hi and thanks for pinging me into the recent discussion "unilateral insta-block". I didn't have much to add there but I appreciated being informed of the conversation. You seem quite knowledgeable about dealing with racial provocations here on WP so I thought I'd ask you whether this [[1]] may be grounds for blocking the IP range. I'd engaged with them in the past on that talk page, then they went away for a while, and now they've returned with a vengeance, making clear how sure they are that I'm a black wikipedian, of course
(much as the user in the previous discussion, to my amusement, was quite sure that I'm a woman; for the record I've given no indication as to my race or gender). Any advice you might have to offer, or actions you'd care to take as an admin would be appreciated. I would be happy to take this to a noticeboard, but I'm not seeing one devoted to this type of harassment / attack, and I'm still a relatively inexperienced user so I'm unsure of the correct protocol. Thanks again. Generalrelative (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just FYI the issue has been resolved: [[2]] Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Weboflight
Could very well be time to send them to WP:ARE for an indef for being a pro Scientology SPA. What do you think? I collected this from their past edit history (on top of this most recent edits to Scientology and its Talk, which are the most blatant BY FAR):
- July 29 2020 Most blatant demonstration of pro-Scientology agenda - moving the entire negative section of the Scientology lede out of the lede
- June 26 2020 - This linked article says
The organization promotes[2] Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's writings on human rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
but Weboflight edited it to only mention the latter, and not that it is primarily promotional of L. Ron Hubbard. - June 2 2020 - Weakens criticism by stating that the documents were church-protected, when the cited source says nothing of the sort
- June 2 2020 - Weakens criticism by adding unneeded qualifiers to descriptions of Scientology from a RS that pulls together other criticisms
- Oct 2019 - Adds CN to a negative statement about Scientology that is expanded upon and well supported in the immediate next paragraph
- Oct 2019 - Lowercasing the bad Scientology jargon nouns to make them seem like normal words and not official terms
- Nov 2019 - Uppercasing the good Scientology jargon nouns to make them seem official
- Nov 2019 - Removal of implied skepticism of L Ron Hubbard, despite the actual paragraph being full of "allegedly"
- Mar 2020 - Adding CN to a negative statement about Scientology that is well supported elsewhere in the article, makes the statement appear unsupported
- Mar 2020 - Scientology's association with drug rehab
- Mar 2020 - Ah yes, there aren't controversies in general, just a few that this film touched on
- [3] - (see various diffs around March 19) - muddies the waters regarding thetans, makes the idea seem more reasonable
- August 3 2020 - Weasely reduction of what the Church does, down to something unobjectionable
Also as you might have noticed from their talk page, they were blocked in March on suspicion of this. Guess it was proven true lol Leijurv (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Leijurv: I've been wanting to finish List of Sufi saints before I do anything like that but looks like you've done the legwork already. Thanks and good luck! Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright. I've never done it before, do you think this is enough to go to WP:ARE with...? :) Leijurv (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Leijurv: Looking over them a little more, I think you might be overplaying your hand on some of these. In general, if you want to prove that someone is POV-pushing, collect diffs as if their userpage advocated the opposite POV (so in this case, pretend their user page says "I hate Scientology, hail Xenu and Operation Clambake"). Weak evidence is how he got off last time. More specifically:
- Edits like 1, 5, and 9 are the sort you should be looking for, they would be primary evidence of POV-pushing that you'd lead with. Three diffs really isn't enough to launch a case with, though (if they were that bad, I'd get away with WP:NOTHEREing them). A large group of themed edits like 2 through 4 could help a case but you should not lead in with them. They're best as secondary evidence that you'd post after your initial filing because they don't establish POV-pushing by themselves but (once POV-pushing is established) they demonstrate that the user can't be trusted with something like 0RR or even sticking to edit requests -- they will subtly POV-push unless topic banned.
- The rest don't really help. 6 is questionable because jargon isn't necessarily capitalized. 7 misses that non-personal proper nouns and titles for concepts are capitalized(c.f. Immaculate Conception, Ancillaries of the Faith, Great Renunciation). 8 misses that we avoid scare quotes. 10, 11, and 12 actually stand a chance of tanking a case. You'd pretty much need them to confess that those were the exact reasons they made those edits and without that, you're opening the door to an argument about WP:AGF that's going to distract people and make them ignore your points. 13 is... similarly problematic. If it was any other religious organization, I'd say "teaches" would be better. Yes, the Co$ is a cult but that doesn't mean that we take an anti-Scientologist POV (we let reality do that for us). If there was already (at that time) a variety of sources that say "promotes" and even a talk page consensus to use that phrasing, that he was aware of, then it could be evidence... But without such sources and discussion, "teaches" also works. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oof, thank you so much. Glad I asked now! There's just 1, 5, 9, and the edits just yesterday removing "cult" again + the explanation on the talk page, which is just four things (yeah they did that twice [4] [5]). I gotcha about 2 and 4. I figured it couldn't hurt to include more tangentially related ones, but thanks for explaining the AGF component, it makes sense now that they can actually detract from the overall point. I'm wondering, do you think that their edit history means they are a SPA? Or are their "other" edits substantial enough that they don't "count" as a SPA in the first place? And it sounds like these are not enough, so I'll just wait until something further happens I suppose...? Is ARE even the right place to go, or do I go to like... ANI? For NOTHERE? (I've never done anything like this before as is probably apparent lol) Leijurv (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright. I've never done it before, do you think this is enough to go to WP:ARE with...? :) Leijurv (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)