Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:27, 2 March 2023

Feel free to push my button: Help!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Email

I presume that you have your email disabled? A tad confused because I feel like having seen the option, last month! Or maybe I am misremembering things as usual. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I don't think you're misremembering! :-) You probably saw it when I had it turned on temporarily last month because I made a request at WP:RX (all hail the gods of RX). I normally keep it off because I receive a high amount of unsolicited email. For example, last month when I turned it on, it was only a little over 24 hours before I got an unsolicited email, so I turned it off again. I think it's an occupational hazard of being active at places like ANI. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm not a stranger to ANI, but I very rarely get unsolicited emails. I wonder whether that's an perk that comes with the ability to block people's accounts, or whether I just don't say anything interesting enough to respond to. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You're more likely to be referee than combatant :-) For clarity, when I say "unsolicited emails," I'm thinking of a certain type: emails from editors I've never interacted with about disputes I am not involved in, along the lines of, "can you help me with...?" or "I wanted to bring to your attention what so-and-so did." (The other category of generally unwanted email is people continuing on-wiki disputes off-wiki.) That's what I got 24 hours after quietly turning on my email last month; I couldn't believe it. To give you another example: initially (years ago), I turned off my enwiki email; I started getting emails from sister projects. Some people said, "I noticed your enwiki email was turned off so I'm emailing you here." This happened multiple times, so I went and figured out how to shut off the global preference. I also tried turning my userpage into a redirect, deleting my custom signature, and participating less in on-wiki controversy, in an attempt to "lower my profile". (It didn't work.) Levivich (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That's weird, and kind of creepy. I've got e-mail turned on, and I guess I get a 'Misplaced Pages email' like, once or twice a month. Hang on, I'll have a look...

Hmm, I have a bad memory, or I'm a very bad judge of frequency, or something. I get quite a few, but almost of them are relevant to something I'm doing. One this morning, from a user I don't know, but giving me useful observations about an SPI case I'm working; I got one about three days ago, again from a user I don't know, but giving me useful info about a block I'd made; one about an ANI thread I'd commented on, from one of the other participants; I got one about five days ago from an SPI clerk I know well onwiki, asking about an account they thought might be connected to a case; another from another admin, asking if I could tidy up an SPI case someone had made a mess of - that's all in the last ten days or so. OK, so I do get a lot of unsolicited emails, but they're all useful and not from totally random people asking me to help them out. Do you think it might be related to your creation of the 'Help' button, or did it predate that? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It predated the help button. Most of the people emailing me, IIRC, were editors who were active in ANI threads at the same time that I was active in an ANI thread, but a different ANI thread (or AN or AE, etc.). Levivich (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I get a decent amount of email but usually it's along the lines of sharing nature photographs with fellow Wikipedians and online penpals. I also do stuff related to wikimeda-related mailing lists (I recieve a lot of incoming email in regards to that but rarely participate). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, understandable. I had planned to shoot you a mail on something-of-interest but was confounded by the sudden (to me) lack of option! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

YGM Levivich (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a question, I hope you know the answer.

Dear @Levivich:, What do you do when you feel an editor is intentionally WP:GAMING to disruptively edit and wage edit wars? Here’s what I mean, an editor at the Nord Stream Explosion page seems to be WP:GAMING in order to get a interview with Hersh from a WP:NOTRS into the article in 24 hour stretches. Before the editor re-added the NOTRS, the editor knew his source is WP:NOTRS but he re-added it anyway. And then after he re-added it, he 'warned' me not to undo his edit and wrote "just a friendly warning that today you were in violation of the 3 revert rule by reverting my changes and those of other editors. . Also after he re-added it (knowing he shouldn't) he pinged other editors to accuse me of violating 3R for deleting his NOTRS of which he intentionally ignored wiki policies to re-add for a 24 hour period, "At this point I think is violating the WP:3RR rule, I count at least six reverts of other editor's changes on this page within 24 hours. Including those of myself... That sounds like 'gaming' to me, disruptive editing, edit warring, & intentionally ignoring wiki policies just to get his NOTRS in the article for 24 hours. Personally I don’t give a flying-fig how much FRING SOAPBOX non-sense is on a wiki page, but as a volunteer wiki editor I do care. At this point, I have no idea what to do about the perceived gaming, disruptive editing & edit warring going on over there so any advice you can give me will be greatly appreciated. :)
More info in case you want it:

- The editor added the NOTRS interview into the article, , I deleted it for NOTRS .

- Then the editor opened a talk page discussion & asked me to give him a wiki link that shows 'source' for the Hersh interview he keeps re-adding is NOTRS. So I gave him the wiki link that shows it.

- In that same sub-topic, the editor asked what it means if RS is not listed on wiki's list and other editors brought up WP:RSPMISSING

- Multiple times I explained in that subtopic that according to WP:RSPMISSING the editor has to start a discussion at the RS/N if they want their source to have RS status. , ,

- Another editor chimed saying a source w/ a current status of WP:NOTRS is "not grounds to remove a source or call it "not RS" before that process is completed." Of course, that RS/N “process” hasn’t even started. So I don’t know which wiki policy that editor is talking about. Best wishes ~

BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Betsy, my advice would be to ignore the conduct issues altogether and just focus on the content issue. On the content:

• I do think you're misreading RSPMISSING, which says (below the search box): "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet." That means Berliner Zeitung's absence from RSP does not mean that it is, or it is not, an RS; it's just a ? right now: undetermined.
• While I am not convinced by the "absent from RSP" argument, I am equally unconvinced by the "cited a lot on Misplaced Pages" argument (made on the article talk page): lots of bad sources are cited hundreds of times on Misplaced Pages; we have millions of articles, nobody is checking them all, or even most of them.
• You're in a WP:1AM situation on the article talk page about Berliner Zeitung. That doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it does mean that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, right now, "against" you. I don't think you're going to change that on the article talk page. It also means WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS have been met, at least for now. You're outvoted on the talk page; there is not much that can be done about that.
• All the above is just procedural stuff. Just like conduct issues, I wouldn't worry too much about procedural issues, either. The real "meat" is in the substance, which is:
• The arguments you've made about what The Independent and Der Spiegel wrote about Berliner Zeitung gives me pause about Berliner Zeitung's reliability. To me, unlike whether it's listed on RSP or how many times it's cited on Misplaced Pages, what other RSes say about Berliner Zeitung, matters.
• For the reason, I think it's worth going to WP:RSN and asking if Berliner Zeitung is an WP:RS for this edit. A related question is whether Seymour Hersh is an RS for this, because, as you've said, Berliner Zeitung's article is actually just an interview, so really it's Hersh who is the "author", it's essentially an WP:SPS. To my eyes, I don't see any functional difference between a self-published Substack post, and a Q&A interview. In both cases, the author's words are being printed without any independent fact checking.
• There's a broader question that I think is even more important. Look again at the edit where Berliner Zeitung is used. That sentence has five citations. That's WP:OVERCITE, by a lot. I just removed the Business Insider article that was cited there, per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. We already cite The Times, Reuters, Snopes, and other clear RSes. It adds nothing to add a third, fourth, or fifth citation to Business Insider, or to Berliner Zeitung. In other words, this whole edit war is, in my view, stupid, because it's an edit war about adding a fifth citation where we really don't need even a third. That Hersh wrote a Substack piece on Feb 8 accusing the US of bombing Nord Stream is not actually controversial: no one denies or disputes that Hersh wrote it. It's Hersh's substantive allegations that are denied and in dispute (based on one anon source, etc.), but not the fact that he made the allegation. (Similarly, the fact that he made the allegation is DUE, even if the allegation is false.) I know you're the one tryin to keep Berliner Zeitung out, but I don't really understand why anyone would want it in, given how many other better RSes are already cited at the end of that sentence (and later in the paragraph).

Bottom line: if you want it out, I'd take it to RSN, forget the "not on RSP" argument, and instead point to what other RSes (e.g., Der Spiegel, The Independent) have written about Berliner Zeitung. Hope this helps! Levivich (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you for being so helpful! Frankly, I don't really care what sources are used so long as they're acceptable RS & not OVERCITE. I don't know if it came out in my comments (but I hope it did) and it is that I only had two issues with Berliner Zeitung 1) They're not listed as RS so (the way I read RSPMISSING) then the editor who wants it in should start a RS/N, and 2) it is self-promoting interview, not an article. Other than those two issues, I couldn't care any less about that source. It must not have come across in my comments, but I did undersand that RSPMISSING doesn't mean it's not reliable and what I was trying to (unsuccessfully) get across is that even though it may end up being an RS, since it's currently RSPMISSING, the guideliine says to start a RS/N to determine it's status.

I don't know what wiki has to say about this, but my ultimate, biggest issue with including Hersh's blogpost is that it's not notiable and is fringe so including it does not improve that article one iota. I have that view because all the people on that article's page who've commented are government leaders, or former leaders, who are directly impacted -- and then there's Hersh & his blogpost.
In my view it makes sense to give weight to the government officials on that page; but giving weight to any blogpost that is not notable, received scant coverage, and is FRINGE doesn't make sense because it doesn't improve the article.

Oh well, most importanly, you're absolutely correct, the edit war over a 5th citiation is stupid, very stupid. And I cannot thank you enough for your words of wisdom and your helpful response. :) Best regards always~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Approaches

Hi Levivich. I hope you don't mind that I respond to your comment here because that page is already long, and there are word count limits. I think it is possible to pursue multiple avenues of resolution at the same time. Certainly we need to strengthen policy and community process, which is what I understand you to suggest, but my view is that ArbCom could be helpful incrementally. For instance, you can see my suggestions here. Jehochman 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, it's been a while, hope you've had a good year! Of course I don't mind you responding here, but please be mindful that on this page there is a 2,000-word limit for praise and a 250-word limit for criticism. I agree ArbCom could be helpful incrementally, but I don't think naming everybody mentioned in the paper as a party to a case request was the best first increment. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they probably need to make a tighter criteria and have better focus, but I think that will come, inevitably. It has been a good year, thank you. By the end of this semester I will have finished 80% of my PhD coursework and will start writing my thesis by next year. Jehochman 17:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment at WP:CESSPOOL

Completely unrelated tangent to the discussion where this came from, but...

I don't think that rant even falls in the top 100 ANI bangers. ... It shouldn't have to be among the top 100 ANI bangers for us to call it out.

I don't think we would ever be able to include it in Misplaced Pages-space or even userspace due to the WP:ENEMIESLIST connotation, but I'd sure love to see a list of the "top 100 ANI bangers" someday. There were some editors (most of them gone now) back in the old days whose rants were legendary. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope someday one of mine makes the list. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Hi! I would like to ask you to remove your comment calling me a noob at the Trannarchist ANI thread. I might be new here but I am aware of WP:CIVIL. cheers! --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Ok, done. I would like to ask you to read MOS:LABEL so that you understand that being a mountaineer is not an MOS:LABEL. When people make these kinds of arguments at ANI, it can waste time and derail discussions. Levivich (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I did that before I came here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Thanks"

Your suggestion to renominate Leo Liu at WP:AFD was a good one. We'll see how that goes. Maybe this kid will merit a feature article in a decade or two, but not yet. Banks Irk (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks of my thanks! Levivich (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been fun to watch. Thank you both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to think twice before following your suggestions again, lest I be dragged to the Spanish Inquisition again. But it was still a good suggestion; no regrets. Banks Irk (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

OK but if you ever change your mind, I have plenty of suggestions for how to get dragged to ANI. Levivich (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd ignore your suggestions, just that I'd think twice. So keep your to-do list handy - not that I don't have a pretty comprehensive list of my own should I ever decide to exit Misplaced Pages in a blaze of glory. Banks Irk (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Gotta reach the WP:Unblockables level before you can trigger the blaze of glory alternate ending; I'm not there yet. Levivich (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Per your last comment

Not keen on what is unsubtly implied in this last comment–FA received warnings for similar. Also, likely merge is an acceptable decline rationale; see rationale "mergeto" within the AFC tool. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't intend any implications. What do you think I unsubtly implied? Levivich (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Your comment Also, please mind systemic bias when you're evaluating articles about women and people of color, especially Americans, especially historical. Their notability will not be as obvious as white American men is plainly evident: you feel my editing takes a sexist and racist bent. A peculiar assessment, especially when I addressed the need to work against systemic bias earlier in the discussion. If you had an alternative implication, you are welcome to give it. Also, again, mergeto is valid rationale. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think your editing takes a sexist or racist bent. Nor do I believe that people, when they don't mind systemic bias, or don't mind it enough, are being sexist or racist. Systemic bias is systemic, we all contribute to it, it doesn't mean we're racist or sexist. "Mergeto" is a valid rationale, but it's not the rationale you chose when declining the drafts you declined. Levivich (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You felt the need to say this, despite my ready acknowledgement of systemic bias in my OP and elsewhere in the thread. If you felt the need to reiterate it, why?

Ok, so we agree that the fact that an article is a merge candidate does not mean it should be declined at AFC! is wrong. Also, you're right–I didn't chose mergeto in my two declines because there were other rationales. I was discussing another article entirely–one that fully embodies the mergeto rationale. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Because despite saying we should mind systemic bias, you're not doing it.

I'm not wrong. Just because an article is a merge candidate does not mean it should be declined for that reason. Read what WP:AFCR says about when to decline as mergeto. Anyway, since that's not the reason you chose, I'm not sure why we're talking about it.

I just took a spin through your declines from today:

• Draft:Kishor Helmar Sridhar is a notable, award-winning author. I don't know why you declined for notability and for lack of inline citations. You wrote, "please remember provide inline citations for every claim in a biography of a living person," but that's not what WP:MINREF or WP:BLP says; inline cites are only needed for contentious BLP claims, not for "every claim" in a BLP. (Meanwhile, AFCR says explicitly not to do this.)
• Draft:Code of Everand - not supported by RS? What? And not notable? Double what? . OK, not all of those were in the article, but there's enough in the article, and a quick Google Scholar search , how many video games have 67 hits in GScholar?
• Draft:Zirid campaign in Illyria - not supported by RS? There's three academic sources there. Yes, two are over 100 years old. Not a reason to decline. Actually, I'd have declined this as mergeto.

After looking at these three, I now believe more than I did before that you are being too strict in your declines, and not helpful enough in your decline rationales. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of evidence of...nothing? Declining a draft that didn't cite claim he was a college graduate (accreditation is a contentious claim) and was primarily based his own website? Declined a draft that lacked sourcing to demonstrate its notability (something another editor immediately declined it for after me)? Declined a draft with sources variously primary, old, and limited? And not a thing to support your claim of systemic bias. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi Levivich, I realize the irony that lasted only half an hour lol, but I added that clarification due to advice from Licks-rocks that I was throwing fuel on the fire by asking for more evidence so I tried to narrow the scope of my comment so the conversation didn't blow up again. If you did raise previously raise concerns about specific GENSEX edits/articles that didn't overlap with BLP/BLPGROUP, please by all means prove me a fool there and link/quote them. Otherwise, please post a clarification that you hadn't raised them and your issues had thus far been with my conduct on BLP/BLPGROUP - GENSEX intersections. Either way, you can have the final word there, I just want this to be over with. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to eat breakfast. Levivich (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Enough

Slandering the reputation of Poland and lying about Jewish communist crimes is punishable by 3 years in prison.

Stop what you are doing. We have friends here and around the world. We are watching. We will act. 199.7.159.46 (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)