→cmon man: fixes Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
::::::Jfc, are we back to the 15 editors again? For the love of anything you hold dear, stop conflating different issues. You have done it several times now, nothing that was said about the title is related to the alternate name. And, again, there was an overwhelming consensus for inclusion of the alternate name. So reinstating what has an overwhelming consensus for is very much not edit-warring. And if you are going to continue making shit up like 15 editors and "the normal editing process" which, if you bothered to read the first line of it you would see calls itself "an optional method", then this was a bigger waste of time than I thought it would be when we started. And no, I was not edit-warring, and there is no definition that a single revert of material is edit-warring. But since I no longer feel that this is an honest discussion, since you continue to portray what Ive said in ways that no logical reading of what I actually wrote can support, I think I will indeed take my leave. Toodles, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)</small> |
::::::Jfc, are we back to the 15 editors again? For the love of anything you hold dear, stop conflating different issues. You have done it several times now, nothing that was said about the title is related to the alternate name. And, again, there was an overwhelming consensus for inclusion of the alternate name. So reinstating what has an overwhelming consensus for is very much not edit-warring. And if you are going to continue making shit up like 15 editors and "the normal editing process" which, if you bothered to read the first line of it you would see calls itself "an optional method", then this was a bigger waste of time than I thought it would be when we started. And no, I was not edit-warring, and there is no definition that a single revert of material is edit-warring. But since I no longer feel that this is an honest discussion, since you continue to portray what Ive said in ways that no logical reading of what I actually wrote can support, I think I will indeed take my leave. Toodles, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)</small> |
||
:::::::You'd rather run away than answer the question, ok. You said "how" can be dealt with via the "normal editing process" (your words not mine), which you now say is optional. 15 editors expressed NPOV concerns about the word "massacre" in one way or another, I diff'd each one. Some of them were talking about the title but most of them were not. You can't ignore them. You can't pretend that their interpretation of NPOV must take a back seat to yours. You can't go on repeatedly reinserting your bold additions across multiple articles, and justify it to yourself that it's not edit warring or that the normal editing process (aka discussion) is optional. There's enough recent diffs in this conversation already for an AE report. If you keep reinstating bold edits over NPOV objections, someone will eventually haul you there for it. Honestly it might be me. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::You'd rather run away than answer the question, ok. You said "how" can be dealt with via the "normal editing process" (your words not mine), which you now say is optional. 15 editors expressed NPOV concerns about the word "massacre" in one way or another, I diff'd each one. Some of them were talking about the title but most of them were not. You can't ignore them. You can't pretend that their interpretation of NPOV must take a back seat to yours. You can't go on repeatedly reinserting your bold additions across multiple articles, and justify it to yourself that it's not edit warring or that the normal editing process (aka discussion) is optional. There's enough recent diffs in this conversation already for an AE report. If you keep reinstating bold edits over NPOV objections, someone will eventually haul you there for it. Honestly it might be me. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Refusing to engage with somebody who continues to make shit up is not running away (eg me saying that the normal editing process is optional. No Sherlock, I said BRD is optional. I said BRD says BRD is optional. And if you would just read [[WP:BRD]] you would see that BRD is indeed optional. You said BRD is the "normal editing process", not me). Go right ahead lol, and yes I can. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
== FFS == |
== FFS == |
Revision as of 17:38, 14 October 2021
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
thanks
i tried to remove that, failed because i'm an idiot, and then got e/c'd twice while trying to fix my mistake. sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Thank you for doing the same. Great minds think alike... and ours do, too. Levivich 15:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Once is a coincidence, but agreeing with each other twice? We're obviously socks of one another. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Must be the fool moon. Levivich 15:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Once is a coincidence, but agreeing with each other twice? We're obviously socks of one another. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on James Flynn (academic)
Thanks for all the work you're doing on the article. Sometimes clicking "thank" isn't enough, and everyone likes to hear their work is appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks ScottishFinnishRadish! You're right, appreciation is appreciated :-) Levivich 19:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
YOU!
make it damn hard for me to stay on Wikibreak. I wish we could make you an admin. Better yet, seat you on ArbCom. I'll be addin' that bit to my user page, cause damn. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For insisting on integrity in the way we treat BLP subjects on Wikipedia-- even for those who don't seem to like Wikipedia very much, and even when the feeling might be mutual. For upholding the core values of WP:BLP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
- ❤️ Thanks DFO! You've made my Monday suck a lot less! Levivich 18:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Advice
Hi Levivich,
You appear to have a cool and experienced head in regards to these matters, so I was hoping to get your guidance. Over at Wehda Street airstrikes a recent RfC closed as no consensus, and in line with this I reverted the relevant section back to the "last stable version", although such a lack of inclusion is liked by no-one. Shortly after, however, another user came along and restored something very close to the version in the article while the RfC was progressing, and very close to their preferred version of "unattributed", replacing "known in Arabic as" with "sometimes known as".
This attempt at a compromise doesn't address the specific concerns raised in the RfC, whether attribution is required under MOS:LABEL for an alt-name as a "value-laden label". Attempts to find a compromise that is a genuine compromise have been rejected, as have requests to self-revert, and so I find myself with the option of either letting it stand, or escalating to WP:ANI or WP:AE as the "disruptive editing" that I believe that it is. (No one seems interested in opening a new RfC at the present time, and even if they were we would need to find where the article should stand while the RfC is ongoing).
As a more experienced editor, I was hoping you would be willing to give some guidance whether you believe it is something that should be escalated, and if so where to?
BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: "last stable version" is usually a rabbit hole. WP:ONUS (a policy) and WP:BRD (not a policy but might as well be) are usually clearer. I'm on mobile so not gonna provide any diffs but it took me five minutes to figure out that "massacre" was boldly added on Aug 25 and reverted in the next edit on the same day; on Sep 2, an RFC was launched asking "Should the phrase 'Wehda Street Massacre' be included or referenced, and if so where and how?" The result was "no consensus". That means "massacre" should not be in the article, and any editor reinstating it is violating policy. Seems very clear cut to me. That said, an WP:AE report for one edit seems like overkill, and the closer is an admin who is already aware of this but hasn't taken action. To be honest, I myself never know what to do in these situations: a clear-cut edit against policy, admins and other editors are aware, no one takes action. And I know from experience if you escalate it with an AE report, you'll be criticized for using AE to win a content dispute. It's a no-win situation, basically an example of WP:FAITACCOMPLI editing, and one of my perennial pet peeves on this website. Sorry, I wish I had better advice, but your options, in my opinion, are: take it to ANI where it'll be kicked to AE; take it to AE where there is a strong risk of boomerang; wait the requisite time and revert it again yourself, which is edit warring and probably the worst of all options as it is likely to get you reported to a noticeboard; do nothing about the mainspace edit and continue discussion, although if it never leads to consensus, the content remains in the mainspace article anyway, thus the fait accompli. As an interim measure you could tag it as {{dubious}} or {{disputed}} or some other inline tag. Hope this helps, Levivich 16:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Very much untrue that it is a clear cut edit against policy and that any editor reinstating it is violating policy. Any editor removing it is violating our content policies, namely ALTNAME and NPOV. This fetishizing of votes over substance is one of my pet peeves, in which editors who make arguments that are diametrically opposed by our policies and cant even explain the policy basis for it beyond pointing at letters feel as though they have veto power based on their votes. They do not, and no policy of Wikipedia supports that. And adding dubious to something supported by a number of sources is, well, dubious. But whatever floats your boat. nableezy - 17:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your guidance; it seems like the "least-bad option" is to take it to ANI in the hope that it can be handled there without needing to be kicked upstairs to AE, so I have taken it there, and we will see what happens. BilledMammal (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
cmon man
What are anyone's motives here? Really? You really think the involved parties here have motives as pure as the driven snow? The pile on COI and OUTING accusations were just totally made for the benefit of Wikipedia, not to remove an editor whose edits they opposed? Cmon man. Your motives? I have thoughts, but I dont think they are particularly partisan, just misguided. nableezy - 15:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Their motives are no different than your motives or mine: accuracy in the encyclopedia. They just have a different idea of what that means than you do. For me, I think it means reliable sources. You won't find me quoting or citing anything that's yellow at RSP, or a blog. I also think it means following BLP and civility policy. You won't find me saying a BLP subject "trades in insult and libel". And when others do these things, you will find me endlessly speaking out about it. But I don't find you speaking out about any of this. Ever. Levivich 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I very much disagree with you. I call for following BLP without fail, my initial comment said Yes they should use reliable sources when doing so. Here, I'll be more explicit, negative content should not be discussed about a BLP without a reliable source accompanying it, in articles, in talk pages, anywhere in the wikipedia.org domain. Though this BLP subject has called me and others actual "terrorists". So forgive me for not berating somebody for saying he trades in insult and libel. nableezy - 20:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your initial comment was:
That's not what I would describe as calling for following BLP without fail. There is not a word about the "insults and libel" comment, and your comment "Yes they should use reliable sources when doing so" is preceded and followed by defense/excuse, which waters it down. Also on the StandWithUs talk page, there are some folks defending citing a press release that was republished in a yellow-at-RSP source, and calling it an RS, and I couldn't help but notice your silence on that though you're active elsewhere on that talk page. I think it's because of who is trying to use this unreliable source. If we're really cutting through it snd talking about our own respective tribalism, I can point to times when I've gone against the side you think I'm on, for example when I supported sanctions against SJ. Can you point to one time that you've ever criticized anything that, say, Zero or Nish have done, or anyone else on the side I think you're on? And I don't mean disagreed on content; I mean called them out for conduct. Frankly I think if we compared the evidence, I come out a lot less biased than you. Levivich 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)The idea that because some living person is upset with the coverage of them on Wikipedia means that they get to disparage our editors and in so doing so veto who may discuss them is asinine. That a living person makes things up about an editor does not make it so that editor has a conflict of interest, and no Zero nor ZScarpia do not need to stop discussing said person. Yes they should use reliable sources when doing so, but somebody making bullshit claims on their blog about an editor does not make it so that this editor has a COI. That is beyond stupid and would allow any person to disqualify any editor they choose from editing their biography. The lockstep support for such an absurd report is also a bit concerning imo.
- Your initial comment was:
- I very specifically said that they should use reliable sources when discussing BLPs. I think that is a fairly obvious inference that the sources they were using were not reliable and so should not have been used. Again, I dont really find fault with "insults and libel" because the mans blog is filled with insults and what are plainly false charges against others including me. So meh on that. No, yes they should use reliable sources is not preceded by defense, it is preceded by a response to one of the bullshit things thrown at the board; that because somebody calls me, the Wikipedia editor, a terrorist on their blog I have a conflict of interest on their biography. And I may not then participate in editing that topic. That is plainly bullshit. I have no idea what youre talking about with SWU, I can honestly tell you I aint paying that much attention to that article, just what I see being changed in my watchlist and why, and only saw it to begin with cus of NPOVN (or some noticeboard). But as to tribalism, I have not once defended any use of poor sources, blp or otherwise. I didnt defend ZScarpia at all at AE except against the add on crap that came from the people whose motives you imagine to be nobler than I do. nableezy - 21:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- As far as your request: here. And here a smidge. nableezy - 21:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's one and a smidge. No one in that AE report that I can see argued that you have a COI because the BLP subject called you names (and I agree such an argument would be bullshit). The OP in one line said they think two other editors have a COI not because of what the BLP subject wrote about them, but because of what they wrote about the BLP subject, over a number of years (I tend to agree, particularly after reading what they wrote about the BLP subject after the AE thread started). As for motives, I still think that the division of editors into those with "good motives" and those with "bad motives" is at the root of the problem here. I don't know what you imagine your motives to be, or their motives to be (whoever "they" are), or how those motives are different, but I'm sure they think they have the same pure motives as anyone else: accuracy in the encyclopedia. "They" write about (some) editors in the same way (some) editors write about them: with deep suspicion and lots of assumption. Suicide bombers and the drone pilots both think that they're saving lives; they both think they're honorable, it's just a matter of perspective (my perspective: neither are honorable). Same with editors. We get into content disputes all the time, and everyone thinks they're arguing on the side of what's right. So yeah, I took some strong offense at uninvolved reviewing admins at AE just broadsiding editors' "motives"... the argument, which you haven't made but which has been made at AE by a number of other editors, admin and non-admin, is that the BLP vios, despite going on for years, are not a big deal, because (a) we agree with the criticism of the BLP, (b) we don't think the criticism is "that bad", (c) the BLP said unkind things about editors, or (d) we don't like or trust the editors who are raising this complaint. All four of those are bullshit arguments. Editors' motives are irrelevant to upholding BLP (and V, NPOV, OR, etc.). Levivich 15:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- They (GB) didnt argue that about me specifically, they argued that about ZS and Zero, and no that was based on nothing but the subjects rantings and their WP edits, and the same would apply to me. Neither of which create a conflict of interest. Again, I very much disagree with you on motives. They were plainly there to remove an opposing editor, and they offered BS reasons for it. And I felt compelled to call it BS. Perhaps I should have come up with a more polite way of phrasing it, but for the quality of argument presented I felt horseshit was an appropriate response. And I cleaned it up from there. nableezy - 15:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why is removing an editor from a topic area an improper motive? You, too, have tried to remove editors from the topic area. You and I could each come up with a short list of editors who we think should not be in the topic area, and we would both say that removing those editors would improve the encyclopedia. What is improper about that?Second question: what is your basis for saying the motive was to remove an editor from a topic area, and not to simply get Z to stop the BLP vios? Nowhere in the OP is there a request for a TBAN or any sanction. Third question: when people in the past called for me to be removed from the topic area, was that an improper motive or a proper motive? :-) Levivich 16:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- It isnt, if a reasonable complaint is brought. Saying he outed a twitter account is not that. Saying he has a COI because of what this person said about him is likewise not that. What is my basis for saying that the motive was removing ZS and not stopping BLP vios? Because their arguments arent about BLP vios. One is about an imaginary COI, and one is about OUTING something that isnt a Wikipedia account. If somebody wanted to stop BLP violations, the first thing would be to say hey ZS, these sources are subpar and our policy on BLP requires better sources when discussing living people. Nobody said that, did they? They removed the comments, and then without once engaging anybody went to AE. I routinely offer people an opportunity to correct their errors before reporting them. I *think* there was a couple editors who were just so terrible IMO that I was like eff it first blatant reason they give to show them the door Ill bring up, but generally no. Idk who has called for you to be removed from the topic area. I said you should have been blocked for a 1RR, and you should have been as you were plainly in violation and refused to self-revert. Was that motive improper? I dont think so, you have to play by the same rules as all of us, and fair is fair. nableezy - 16:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why is removing an editor from a topic area an improper motive? You, too, have tried to remove editors from the topic area. You and I could each come up with a short list of editors who we think should not be in the topic area, and we would both say that removing those editors would improve the encyclopedia. What is improper about that?Second question: what is your basis for saying the motive was to remove an editor from a topic area, and not to simply get Z to stop the BLP vios? Nowhere in the OP is there a request for a TBAN or any sanction. Third question: when people in the past called for me to be removed from the topic area, was that an improper motive or a proper motive? :-) Levivich 16:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- They (GB) didnt argue that about me specifically, they argued that about ZS and Zero, and no that was based on nothing but the subjects rantings and their WP edits, and the same would apply to me. Neither of which create a conflict of interest. Again, I very much disagree with you on motives. They were plainly there to remove an opposing editor, and they offered BS reasons for it. And I felt compelled to call it BS. Perhaps I should have come up with a more polite way of phrasing it, but for the quality of argument presented I felt horseshit was an appropriate response. And I cleaned it up from there. nableezy - 15:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's one and a smidge. No one in that AE report that I can see argued that you have a COI because the BLP subject called you names (and I agree such an argument would be bullshit). The OP in one line said they think two other editors have a COI not because of what the BLP subject wrote about them, but because of what they wrote about the BLP subject, over a number of years (I tend to agree, particularly after reading what they wrote about the BLP subject after the AE thread started). As for motives, I still think that the division of editors into those with "good motives" and those with "bad motives" is at the root of the problem here. I don't know what you imagine your motives to be, or their motives to be (whoever "they" are), or how those motives are different, but I'm sure they think they have the same pure motives as anyone else: accuracy in the encyclopedia. "They" write about (some) editors in the same way (some) editors write about them: with deep suspicion and lots of assumption. Suicide bombers and the drone pilots both think that they're saving lives; they both think they're honorable, it's just a matter of perspective (my perspective: neither are honorable). Same with editors. We get into content disputes all the time, and everyone thinks they're arguing on the side of what's right. So yeah, I took some strong offense at uninvolved reviewing admins at AE just broadsiding editors' "motives"... the argument, which you haven't made but which has been made at AE by a number of other editors, admin and non-admin, is that the BLP vios, despite going on for years, are not a big deal, because (a) we agree with the criticism of the BLP, (b) we don't think the criticism is "that bad", (c) the BLP said unkind things about editors, or (d) we don't like or trust the editors who are raising this complaint. All four of those are bullshit arguments. Editors' motives are irrelevant to upholding BLP (and V, NPOV, OR, etc.). Levivich 15:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I very much disagree with you. I call for following BLP without fail, my initial comment said Yes they should use reliable sources when doing so. Here, I'll be more explicit, negative content should not be discussed about a BLP without a reliable source accompanying it, in articles, in talk pages, anywhere in the wikipedia.org domain. Though this BLP subject has called me and others actual "terrorists". So forgive me for not berating somebody for saying he trades in insult and libel. nableezy - 20:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Um, that explanation doesn't match the AE report. Check it again, or maybe I'm the one who is not reading it correctly. The OP did not mention any outing or any COI, it was about smeared him on a Wikipedia talk page using extremely dubious sources
. The COI thing was said by another editor, and the outing claim was also made by another editor. I don't see that outing or COI gives you any basis for claiming bad motives against the OP of that AE report, since the OP's arguments are about BLP vios, and those arguments were from other editors.
The 1RR thing reminds me of something else I'd like to discuss with you. Do you agree with ONUS and BRD? In the 1RR debacle, as you may recall, an editor made a bold addition, I reverted it, they reinstated it, I reverted it again. You didn't come out on the side of ONUS/BRD: you thought I should be blocked for a 1RR violation (and I was!), but you didn't say shit about the other editor who was also edit warring, citing that wonderful, common explanation that the bold edit is not a revert, so someone reinstating a bold edit isn't edit warring. In my mind, that is bullshit. Under what circumstances can an editor reinstate a bold addition that was reverted? Can we come to a statement of principle that everyone in this topic area will abide by on that point?
Today, you still take this, in my view, questionable approach to the application of editing policy. As discussed in the thread just above this one, at Wehda Street airstrikes, you boldly added "massacre" on Aug 24, after the page was moved from "massacre" to "airstrikes". Your bold edit was reverted, and the person reverting it was participating in an ongoing talk page discussion about it, which they referenced in the edit. You reinstated it. How wsa that not edit warring? It was removed again, and another editor reinstated it, and then nobody removed it again, instead an RFC was launched which came back "no consensus". It was removed, and another editor reinstated it, again.
At the ANI thread about this, you wrote: "Claiming what has been in the article for over two months is not the most recent stable version also seems to be a curious definition of the words most, recent, and stable." That's totally not kosher man. It was reverted right away: the fact that one "side" of the dispute didn't continue the edit war and instead took it to the talk page does not make the article stable. It's ridiculous to make that claim. It's a "gotcha!" tactic: if you remove it, it's edit warring; if you don't remove it, then we're going to say it's the stable version and now you need affirmative consensus to remove it. And forget that people who want "massacre" in the article are edit warring, we don't need to mention that at all. How is your position on this dispute in line with the principles of ONUS and BRD and just basic fairness really? In the thread above, you wrote, "Any editor removing it is violating our content policies, namely ALTNAME and NPOV." Seriously? You make a bold edit and any editor removing it is violating policies?
It was always obvious that "massacre" was going to be in the article in some form: the only question was how. Why was it so important that it stay in the article while the matter was being discussed? If I were to ABF, I'd say it's because you wanted the mirrors to pick it up and repeat it ASAP, before it might be "watered down" by consensus. I would say that you don't care about our editing policies, you only care that the content you want in the article gets into the article. I'd say your motives were impure, POV pushing even. I don't think you have bad motives or any of that, but I am struggling to see this from your point of view.
For me, this comes back to the theme of compromising principles. What is the principle you agree with? When someone makes a bold edit and it's reverted, under what circumstances can the editor who made the bold edit reinstate it, as you did at Wehda Street airstrikes, and as the other editor did in that 1RR debacle with me? Under what circumstances can I make a bold edit, and then reinstate it, after you or someone else reverts it, without being accused of violating policy? Levivich 03:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- One more time, I never wrote anything about the original complaint on AE. Besides ZS should use reliable sources. The end. My comments were directed at the pile on crap.
As far as Wehda, again, I have my views on your motivations and while I do not think they are partisan I think they are incredibly misguided. You have this idea that comity matters more than content. That we all just need to. get along. And if somebody says "no", no matter why, then they have to be listened to and coddled. Sorry, but this is not a social media site, and absent a reason I will not listen to somebody who just says "no". Don't add this because there is not consensus is a bullshit reason, and no WP:ONUS does not allow for that to be used to censor content. Consensus requires policy based reasons, and there were not any. You, and nobody else, gets to just remove content because they disagree with it. And that is what the immediate removal was. I dont give a shit how many users stand up and say I dont want something or I dont like something. That has never factored in to the consensus model we have here. Why did it need to be in the article while being discussed. Because there was never a good reason why it should not be. If somebody had offered some policy based reason, and no WP:ONUS by itself is not that because again consensus is not determined by agreement with people who dont offer policy based reasons, then I would not have reinstated it. But somebody saying there is no consensus for this because I dont want it will always be ignored by me. Nobody gets to just censor out the things they find uncomfortable on this website. Consensus on this webpage does not mean, and has never meant, that partisan editors get to filibuster out material they dislike. You cant just say no no no I dont agree. And if you think so because of WP:ONUS, please, ffs, read WP:CON. Read where it says The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. And the revert removing the altname within minutes that you speak of was just that. Policy called for the inclusion of that material, and the only answer to that was "my reading of ALTNAME is different" without ever once explaining what was different about the reading of ALTNAME. And yes, the removal very much violated policy because there was no policy basis to remove it. So yes, I reverted it quickly. And when I see similar bs I will likely have a similar reaction. Do I beliee in ONUS? Sure, but again, consensus requires actual policy based reasons. Not just your or anybody elses agreement. Do I agree with BRD? Depends. If it is just a tactic used to try to remove well sourced material because one side has the upper hand? Not especially. In general as a way to avoid edit-wars, usually yes. Do I always follow it? Obviously no. nableezy - 11:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, you're kind of dodging the question. "Massacre" was removed because of NPOV, which is a policy, and it was removed by multiple editors for that reason, and the NPOV discussion lasted months on the talk page, through an RM and subsequent RFC, so let's not pretend like it was removed with no reason given, since that's just not true. (And not for nothing but the title of this thread is "come on man", so come on man: when it comes to calling something a "massacre", that the relevant policy is NPOV is really fucking obvious; don't pretend for a second like there was no policy based objection raised.) So, I make a bold addition, you remove it because you feel it's not NPOV. Under what circumstances may I reinstate the edit? Give me a statement of principle that you and I could both abide by. Give me a statement of principle that justifies your actions there. And what about that "stable" argument you made at ANI? What makes it stable if multiple editors are challenging it and there's an ongoing RfC? Should they have removed it during the RfC to avoid the "stable" argument? I think you understand why I described it as a "gotcha" argument. What about it? Levivich 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, it was not removed because of NPOV. It was removed because of a lack of consensus. Yes, the article title was changed on NPOV grounds, but that has not one thing to do with an alternate title. Yes, including massacre as a common English name would have been a POV issue. But discussions about its name in English have nothing to do with its name in Arabic among the local population. And I'm sorry, but for how fucking obvious NPOV is to you I'd have guessed you would have read it. Where it says NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant POVs. Not that a Wikipedia editor gets to decide what is "neutral" and on that basis veto what they cant even pretend is not a significant viewpoint. Even the user arguing against including the term agreed that NPOV required it be included ("to meet WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL we need to include the term in the article"), which made its wholesale removal tendentious. The other users, whose motives I dare not speak ill of, just wanted it removed because they disliked something Israel did being called a massacre. And I have a low threshold for dealing with such a bullshit argument with a revert. Was the cause of my first topic ban years and years ago actually. I didnt actually make a stable argument at ANI. I answered the others stable argument. There was widespread agreement for including massacre in some form in the RFC. The wholesale removal was tendentious, and the my way or the highway approach on display there, which in my mind ended regrettably with the user who almost nobody agreed with getting his way by attrition, is the problem there. A statement of principle we both can rely on? If somebody else had reverted the removal I would have cautioned anybody from reinstating it without going to NPOV/N first. But one user throwing up an IJDLI revert is not something that I give much weight to in my decision making process. Yes, I do indeed look at the quality of an argument and not the number of hands raised. And arguments like "you cant have an Arabic name if theres no Hebrew name" (never mind if a Hebrew name even exists), or that NPOVNAME (about titles) has anything at all to do with the content (note, not the title) of an article are given the weight they deserve. None. nableezy - 15:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Was actually similar to the bantustans argument, in which the argument was but the sources arent right. Which to me is among the most garbage arguments on Wikipedia (no offense). Though there I was pleasantly surprised at the close taking in to account our arguments weighed against policy. It's happened a few times in the past, was shocked this wasn't a keep or no consensus, was literally amazed at this close too. Too often these things get closed as "no consensus" because of the vote split, as happened here. And honestly I would have liked to have challenged that close, I think there are clearly arguments that were so far from our policies they should have been ignored and that there was indeed a consensus in that RFC. That or extended. nableezy - 15:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- And while we talking NPOV, here are some of what I find to be Wikipedia policy's greatest hits:
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources
I invite you to show me where a group of editors may use some other policy or guideline to trump that non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia and suppress material they find "non-neutral". nableezy - 19:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just to pick up on one point: "no consensus as to how to include 'massacre' and there's an active discussion about it on the talk page" seems to me like a good reason to revert the insertion of "massacre". No? Why is it so important that the word be in the article while editors discuss how to put the word in the article? You describe its removal as censorship and suppression... isn't that just hyperbolic? I agree this is exactly like the "bantustan" dispute, and many others as well (my 1RR thing), and I struggle to understand in all those cases why editors reinstate bold edits during discussions. Levivich 06:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Very much disagree, especially given the consensus to include it in the first place. That is there was a plain consensus against its wholesale removal. I think on this webpage there is a low tolerance for censorship. And when people identify as, sorry to be uncouth with you, bullshit arguments such as, obviously completely hypothetical, even though these five unimpeachably reliable sources say something I still think they are wrong and so I am against including it, they tend to say nah and restore it. I saw the removal here with no consensus to include it and my reading is different as about the same level of argument. It was a stalling tactic, one that did not address the reasons for inclusion that were offered. One that did not even attempt to dispute the accuracy, one that tried to use some unrelated discussion as though it allowed for the wholesale removal of a significant view (and yes I call that censorship, idk what else you would prefer to call it), so I restored it. If I address the reasons for the removal (eg it isnt widely known and I provide sources saying it is widely known) and you remove it on the basis of "no consensus" then yes I think you are simply filibustering and yes I think that is tendentious and yes I will probably revert you. You cannot use your disagreement as a reason to remove something. Or you can, but you cant expect me not to use my disagreement to restore it. I think I am a thoroughly reasonable person, I do not make edits that are not supported by policy. And if you're going to challenge them I expect there to be some policy that we can then take it to a noticeboard and see who actually has the correct view. Consensus, as I have understood the term here, requires as much. Not the personal approval of somebody who just says WP:ONUS. nableezy - 17:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It was a stalling tactic
seems really implausible to me. Stalling for what? What does a delay in including "massacre" gain anyone? Stalling makes sense when there's a deadline, like if it's legislation that's being stalled until the end of the legislative session, but on Wikipedia, it doesn't make sense to stall. Think about how long it took to move Yoghurt to Yogurt or Kiev to Kyiv, but in retrospect, it doesn't matter at all that those moves took years to form consensus. The delay didn't harm anyone, didn't gain anyone anything. Once the change is made, most readers won't even know that it was ever different. If the addition of "massacre" is delayed by months in a Wikipedia article, it doesn't change what happened in May, it doesn't change whether RSes call it a "massacre". It seems unlikely anyone is trying to stall because stalling is pointless. It also wasn't a binary choice: not whether or not to include "massacre", but how (should it be attributed, and if so, to whom). (Same with "bantustan".) The article talk page has been edited by more than a couple dozen editors; most of the threads are about "massacre"; the word appears 139 times on the page right now. There was also an AFD with over a dozen editors, also largely about the "massacre" (title, at that time). So, it wasn't a 1AM situation; it was a legit content dispute with a number of editors participating in good faith. You don't actually dispute that there was a good-faith content dispute about "massacre" at that article, do you? So, what's wrong with this as a principle:if I make a bold addition, and it's reverted for NPOV grounds, while there is a good-faith discussion on the talk page about how to include it in an NPOV way, I should not reinstate it.
? Levivich 05:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)- Editing by attrition. Waste people's time so they give up and move on. And yes, I do dispute that there was good faith dispute about whether to include it in the lead as an alternative name. There may have been a dispute about the type of attribution, but about including it? No, very much no. The people arguing for removing it entirely were doing so on blatantly specious grounds with, as another person said in another issue you found fault with (and you know how I like to needle), with barely a fig leaf of pretense as to what people's motives are. They just didnt like having something Israel did called in to question in any way. But stalling is not pointless, it very much is a tactic to maintain the status quo at any cost. Once some editors think they have the upper hand, the only thing that matters is maintaining it. And when they cannot keep their favored version based on the content policies, they fall back to WP:ONUS. And attempt to obstruct any progress and in so doing get people to abandon any effort to edit. nableezy - 15:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- And actually, I think it does sometimes matter how long things take. You know some of the leading proponents for keeping Myanmar Burma, well after the usage in sources had shifted, made arguments like I am from the UK, where the official name of the country in English is 'Burma', the historical name is 'Burma', the Government uses the name 'Burma', the Media use the name 'Burma', and the Burmese people here use the name 'Burma.' Enough Myanmarification please. That is because we white people, former colonial masters of this brown people's land, want to maintain our preferred colonial name on their country that Wikipedia must do so. I think that it took Wikipedia that long to move from Burma to Myanmar reflected incredibly poorly on the project as a whole. Is this in the same league? No. But does it matter when somebody reads about some topic and only sees a dominant viewpoint to the exclusion of all others? Yes, it does. nableezy - 15:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hey now, no straw man-ing...
I do dispute that there was good faith dispute about whether to include it in the lead as an alternative name.
That's not the question. Not whether to include it in the lead:, I saidhow to include it in an NPOV way
. I count over 30 editors participating in those discussions over three months. Do you dispute there was a good-faith dispute amongst those 30 editors about how to include it in an NPOV way? (Not about whether to include it at all.) This is a very key point, and you're dodging it. This is all about how to include, not whether to include. And it changes your whole analysis. Because stalling whether to include might make sense, but stalling how to include does not. If the dispute were about whether to include it at all, accusations of bad faith might make sense. But given the dispute was about how to include it, accusations of bad faith don't seem to have any basis. In other words, the editors who took a position different from your own were not arguing for excluding the word at all, they were arguing for including it in a different way (e.g., with different attribution). And editors arguing for including the word with different attribution or in a different way, cannot be fairly described as "censoring" or "suppressing" anything. Your arguments only make sense if you were faced with people trying to remove the word, but that's not what you were faced with. Levivich 17:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)- The discussions about the title have jack shit to do with the inclusion as an alternate name. And when users trying to use that as though it were relevant made such an argument I analyzed it and gave it the consideration it deserved. Nil. As far as Your arguments only make sense if you were faced with people trying to remove the word, but that's not what you were faced with, come on man. nableezy - 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hey now, no straw man-ing...
- Very much disagree, especially given the consensus to include it in the first place. That is there was a plain consensus against its wholesale removal. I think on this webpage there is a low tolerance for censorship. And when people identify as, sorry to be uncouth with you, bullshit arguments such as, obviously completely hypothetical, even though these five unimpeachably reliable sources say something I still think they are wrong and so I am against including it, they tend to say nah and restore it. I saw the removal here with no consensus to include it and my reading is different as about the same level of argument. It was a stalling tactic, one that did not address the reasons for inclusion that were offered. One that did not even attempt to dispute the accuracy, one that tried to use some unrelated discussion as though it allowed for the wholesale removal of a significant view (and yes I call that censorship, idk what else you would prefer to call it), so I restored it. If I address the reasons for the removal (eg it isnt widely known and I provide sources saying it is widely known) and you remove it on the basis of "no consensus" then yes I think you are simply filibustering and yes I think that is tendentious and yes I will probably revert you. You cannot use your disagreement as a reason to remove something. Or you can, but you cant expect me not to use my disagreement to restore it. I think I am a thoroughly reasonable person, I do not make edits that are not supported by policy. And if you're going to challenge them I expect there to be some policy that we can then take it to a noticeboard and see who actually has the correct view. Consensus, as I have understood the term here, requires as much. Not the personal approval of somebody who just says WP:ONUS. nableezy - 17:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just to pick up on one point: "no consensus as to how to include 'massacre' and there's an active discussion about it on the talk page" seems to me like a good reason to revert the insertion of "massacre". No? Why is it so important that the word be in the article while editors discuss how to put the word in the article? You describe its removal as censorship and suppression... isn't that just hyperbolic? I agree this is exactly like the "bantustan" dispute, and many others as well (my 1RR thing), and I struggle to understand in all those cases why editors reinstate bold edits during discussions. Levivich 06:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, you're kind of dodging the question. "Massacre" was removed because of NPOV, which is a policy, and it was removed by multiple editors for that reason, and the NPOV discussion lasted months on the talk page, through an RM and subsequent RFC, so let's not pretend like it was removed with no reason given, since that's just not true. (And not for nothing but the title of this thread is "come on man", so come on man: when it comes to calling something a "massacre", that the relevant policy is NPOV is really fucking obvious; don't pretend for a second like there was no policy based objection raised.) So, I make a bold addition, you remove it because you feel it's not NPOV. Under what circumstances may I reinstate the edit? Give me a statement of principle that you and I could both abide by. Give me a statement of principle that justifies your actions there. And what about that "stable" argument you made at ANI? What makes it stable if multiple editors are challenging it and there's an ongoing RfC? Should they have removed it during the RfC to avoid the "stable" argument? I think you understand why I described it as a "gotcha" argument. What about it? Levivich 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
And as an example of the abuse of ONUS to attempt to maintain a preferred version, I present to you this horseshit edit, in which an RFC that was never closed and was about changes to the lead of an article is claimed as justification to remove material in the body of the article. There is no attempt to address the content at all. It is simply an editing by attrition tactic. And yes, I reverted it, because it is indeed horseshit. nableezy - 17:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- The three links you gave of
people trying to remove the word
are from two editors: Editor 1, Editor 2, and Editor 1 again. Neither were trying to remove the word. Just because they removed certain formulations, even repeatedly, doesn't mean they were opposed to inclusion of the word altogether. And I know this because they said so:- Editor 1 opposed including the Arabic name without the Hebrew name, as they said in the edit summary and on the talk page. Indeed, including both is the compromise that has stuck for the past week, so Editor 1's view turned out to be the consensus, it seems.
- Editor 2 favored "known in Palestine" or similar, as they said here on Aug 24 and Aug 25.
- Editor 2 said to you in that convo:
There are two questions contained within. Should an altname be used (at the moment, yes from me), and should it be qualified (at the moment, also a yes from me).
and asked of youHold off, lets get a consensus for such a change first; my interpretation of WP:ALTNAME differs.
, but you didn't hold off, you added "known in Arabic" without the Hebrew.
- Editor 2 said to you in that convo:
- And it's not like these were the only two. Let's recall that, going back to July, there was:
- Editor 3:
...the word "massacre" in the page name is POV.
- Editor 3:
- And at the AFD:
- Editor 4:
Rename to Wehda Street Bombing, or similar – the word massacre is highly loaded, and this really stretched the definition. WP:RS sources don't call it a massacre, unlike a number of other articles related to the conflict.
- Editor 5:
Keep, but the word "massacre" might need replacing with something that is most commonly used in sourced.
- Editor 4:
- And in the RM:
- Editor 6:
The term "massacre" is a loaded one in the English language are is very rarely used by those seeking to describe something neutrally.
- Editor 7:
"Massacre" is a loaded term and implies malice.
- Editor 6:
- And in the RFC:
- Editor 2's "known in Palestine" suggestion was also supported by Editor 8, Editor 9, and Editor 10
- Unattributed was supported by Editor 11, Editor 12, and Editor 13
- Anything but unattributed was supported by Editor 14, and
- "Described in Palestine", or omitting it altogether from the lead was supported by Editor 15, who was literally the only editor to say that it should be omitted from the lead (AFAICS). (This is ironic, given that Editor 15 is the one who made the compromise edit that has stuck for the past week.)
- Your preferred version, "known in Arabic", was not supported as a first choice by anyone AFAICS
- So I say again:
Your arguments only make sense if you were faced with people trying to remove the word, but that's not what you were faced with.
And I think the above diffs prove that to be true: there was no censorship or suppression going on here. And I ask again: do you still dispute that there was a good faith content dispute about how (not whether) to include the word "massacre"? - The "horseshit edit" at Israel looks to be following the same pattern: there is an ongoing talk page discussion about how to change the lead's coverage of settlements (beginning here and continuing down the page, and referencing this unclosed RFC from last year), and while that's ongoing, you make a bold edit, which is great, but then it's reverted, and later while the discussion is still ongoing, you reinstated it and when it's reverted again, you reinstate it again. This, too, is ironic, given that when the POV tag you added (with an edit summary mentioning "repeated suppression") was reverted, you reinstated it, and when it was reverted again by a different editor, you reinstated it again with the edit summary "discussion continuing". Lulz :-) Levivich 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maintenance tags have rules, they are not to be removed when discussion is ongoing. And when an editor says WP:ONUS is not met for changes to the lead and then remove material NOT IN THE LEAD then yes that is a horseshit edit that is made to obstruct. As far as massacre, nobody ever opposed including a Hebrew name, that was just one more excuse used to remove the Arabic name. I very clearly supported including a Hebrew name that any sourcing supported. I however dont speak or read Hebrew, so I had no idea what such a name would be, and in fact there is a dispute if such a name even exists, but I dont actually give a shit about that and have never supported not including a relevant foreign title. The idea that one cannot include an Arabic name because a Hebrew one does not exist or is not included is bullshit though, and any editor could have, you know, added a Hebrew name. But wait just a second, nobody wanted to remove it? Because they said so? Both users who edited to exclude it from the lead said they wanted to exclude it in the lead. Idk if there is a point in treating this as a serious conversation if youre just going to make things up about motives when the diffs directly contradict you (F1S and GB both argued against including it in the lead, without any policy basis for it, and then edited to that effect). The handwaving towards but there's no Hebrew name is just that, handwaving meant to obfuscate the obvious intentions. Maybe here there was a bit of a fig leaf over them, but not really. And again, nothing about the title is at all relevant to the alternate name, so continuing to harp on those discussions like they were relevant after the title was changed is just silly. And see how nobody has opposed including a Hebrew name if one exists? Because the other side here is not trying to censor material they dislike. That is, over and over, the game of exactly one set of editors here. Also, pay attention to the diffs, no I did not reinstate the edit multiple times. I made an edit to the lead, it was reverted. The first "reinstatement" is an edit to the body of the article, and when an editor removed that on plainly horseshit grounds (that ONUS has not been met for edits to the lead), I did indeed revert that. Besides the tags, I think that is my only revert at that article in some time. nableezy - 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- So if you're ignoring 15 editors and saying none of them had good faith objections and dismissing all of their stated objections as "handwaving meant to obfuscate the obvious intentions" or similar, then you're the bad-faith POV pusher in this story. 15 editors had bad motives? Now that's horseshit. Come back to me when you're willing to admit facts, such as: the above dispute was a good faith content dispute involving over a dozen editors lasting over three months. If you're not willing to admit that, you're just not being honest with yourself (or me). Levivich 16:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, what I am saying is objections about the title of the article have nothing to do with inclusion of an alternate name (ie not the title). What 15 editors said anything about inclusion of significant foreign language name? Because this game about the title of the article was rejected so now it cant be included as not the title is just that, a game. A dishonest one at that. That was the same game that was tried on the bantustans argument. Oh, this was rejected as the title, and that means that it cannot be included as an alternate name. Which is, as it was there, horseshit. And pretending that the editors that rejected something as the title likewise agreed that their argument can be manipulated in to something not about the title is, once again, dishonest. nableezy - 16:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Editors 8-15 were not talking about the title: I specifically split up the diffs in this way for this reason. Again, come back when you're willing to admit plain facts: Editors 8-15 (and Editors 1 and 2) were engaged in a good-faith content dispute about how, not whether, to include the word "massacre" in the article (not the title). The diffs I posted prove it to be true, without doubt. The "title" argument is yet another straw man argument. I don't know why you're so unwilling to admit this basic truth: it was a good-faith content dispute. Oh, wait, I do know why: because once you admit that, you have no excuse for re-instating the disputed content. I know, it's tough to admit you were wrong :-) Levivich 16:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- So then maybe not say I said 15 editors has bad motives? And yes, in the discussion about an alternate name, there was an overwhelming consensus to include it. I am glad you agree with that. Maybe we can agree now that the editors who wholesale removed the material which had an overwhelming consensus to include maybe were not making the correct move? I already said there was a good faith dispute about how to include it. Here, I'll quote myself: There may have been a dispute about the type of attribution, but about including it? No, very much no. The people arguing for removing it entirely were doing so on blatantly specious grounds. The title argument is indeed a straw man, but not in the way you imagine it. It is a straw man when you include arguments of editors 1-7 as though they back up your belief here. They dont. So maybe stop bringing up irrelevant stuff? nableezy - 17:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Editors 8-15 were not talking about the title: I specifically split up the diffs in this way for this reason. Again, come back when you're willing to admit plain facts: Editors 8-15 (and Editors 1 and 2) were engaged in a good-faith content dispute about how, not whether, to include the word "massacre" in the article (not the title). The diffs I posted prove it to be true, without doubt. The "title" argument is yet another straw man argument. I don't know why you're so unwilling to admit this basic truth: it was a good-faith content dispute. Oh, wait, I do know why: because once you admit that, you have no excuse for re-instating the disputed content. I know, it's tough to admit you were wrong :-) Levivich 16:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, what I am saying is objections about the title of the article have nothing to do with inclusion of an alternate name (ie not the title). What 15 editors said anything about inclusion of significant foreign language name? Because this game about the title of the article was rejected so now it cant be included as not the title is just that, a game. A dishonest one at that. That was the same game that was tried on the bantustans argument. Oh, this was rejected as the title, and that means that it cannot be included as an alternate name. Which is, as it was there, horseshit. And pretending that the editors that rejected something as the title likewise agreed that their argument can be manipulated in to something not about the title is, once again, dishonest. nableezy - 16:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- So if you're ignoring 15 editors and saying none of them had good faith objections and dismissing all of their stated objections as "handwaving meant to obfuscate the obvious intentions" or similar, then you're the bad-faith POV pusher in this story. 15 editors had bad motives? Now that's horseshit. Come back to me when you're willing to admit facts, such as: the above dispute was a good faith content dispute involving over a dozen editors lasting over three months. If you're not willing to admit that, you're just not being honest with yourself (or me). Levivich 16:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maintenance tags have rules, they are not to be removed when discussion is ongoing. And when an editor says WP:ONUS is not met for changes to the lead and then remove material NOT IN THE LEAD then yes that is a horseshit edit that is made to obstruct. As far as massacre, nobody ever opposed including a Hebrew name, that was just one more excuse used to remove the Arabic name. I very clearly supported including a Hebrew name that any sourcing supported. I however dont speak or read Hebrew, so I had no idea what such a name would be, and in fact there is a dispute if such a name even exists, but I dont actually give a shit about that and have never supported not including a relevant foreign title. The idea that one cannot include an Arabic name because a Hebrew one does not exist or is not included is bullshit though, and any editor could have, you know, added a Hebrew name. But wait just a second, nobody wanted to remove it? Because they said so? Both users who edited to exclude it from the lead said they wanted to exclude it in the lead. Idk if there is a point in treating this as a serious conversation if youre just going to make things up about motives when the diffs directly contradict you (F1S and GB both argued against including it in the lead, without any policy basis for it, and then edited to that effect). The handwaving towards but there's no Hebrew name is just that, handwaving meant to obfuscate the obvious intentions. Maybe here there was a bit of a fig leaf over them, but not really. And again, nothing about the title is at all relevant to the alternate name, so continuing to harp on those discussions like they were relevant after the title was changed is just silly. And see how nobody has opposed including a Hebrew name if one exists? Because the other side here is not trying to censor material they dislike. That is, over and over, the game of exactly one set of editors here. Also, pay attention to the diffs, no I did not reinstate the edit multiple times. I made an edit to the lead, it was reverted. The first "reinstatement" is an edit to the body of the article, and when an editor removed that on plainly horseshit grounds (that ONUS has not been met for edits to the lead), I did indeed revert that. Besides the tags, I think that is my only revert at that article in some time. nableezy - 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
So, what's wrong with this as a principle: "If I make a bold addition, and it's reverted for NPOV grounds, while there is a good-faith discussion on the talk page about how to include it in an NPOV way, I should not reinstate it."? Levivich 21:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Because if whether or not to include something is settled then it should be included. The normal editing routine can deal with any "how to include it" issues. And, like WP:NPOV says, As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. How about we develop our shared principles from our (the community's) shared principle? That if somebody thinks something is "biased" the correct thing to do is add material, not delete it? nableezy - 22:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- "The normal editing routine can deal with any "how to include it" issues." ... um yeah, that would be the normal editing process, WP:BRD, that you did not follow. I'm asking you quite pointedly why you don't follow the normal editing process."...if somebody thinks something is "biased" the correct thing to do is add material, not delete it?" That's ridiculously wrong and oversimplistic. We don't correct bias by simply adding some more material. Sometimes, bias needs to be corrected by removing material. Other times, by changing words. Adding works for Editor 1 who thought that "in Hebrew" should be added. But what about the other 14 (or however many you think "count")? What about the five editors who wanted some variation of "in Palestine" instead of "in Arabic/in Hebrew"? What should they add to your edit? Or should they just change your edit? And what about the three editors who wanted no attribution? What should they add? Or should they remove any attribution? How can eight editors that don't agree with your edit "add" to it??? If they all changed it to their preferred version... that's called edit warring, and we have a normal editing process specifically to avoid that. Notice how none of the people who you think are biased are edit warring in the way you were on that article. Nobody else reinstates their bold edits, and the only people who come close to reverting as much as you are the ones who you say have bad motives. The disruptive editors are those who don't follow the normal editing process, and I'm suggesting you're one of them.You're still avoiding my basic question: what's wrong with following the normal editing process? What's wrong with not reinstating your bold edit until after (not during) the talk page discussion? What terrible thing would have happened if you simply had not reinstated your bold edit, at either of these articles? Because as far as I can see, had you not reinstated it, it would mean the word "massacre" wasn't in the article for about a month. Big deal.From what I gather, the Nableezy editing process works like this:
- Make bold edit
- If it's reverted, subjectively evaluate whether you personally respect the other editor and their stated reason for the revert
- If you don't, reinstate your bold edit
- This is a recipe for disruption. Levivich 15:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have not once said evaluate whether [I] personally respect the other editor, please dont do that. If you insist on putting words in my mouth Ill just take my leave now. I see you fail to, yet again, acknowledge that WP:NPOV, which is "non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" should not take a backseat to what you call "the normal editing process" but which itself says is an optional method of reaching consensus. I was not edit-warring at any article. Again, maybe dont make things up? Be a lot cooler if you didnt. nableezy - 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say you said that; the words I used were
From what I gather,
, which means what follows is my understanding or interpretation. And you were edit warring in the article: you reinstated your bold addition. That's edit warring. It doesn't have to be a 3RR or even a 1RR to be edit warring, as you well know. And my interpretation seems correct: you just once again said that you don't have to follow the normal editing process you only need to follow your personal interpretation of NPOV. In reality, though, the normal editing process, like talk page discussion and RFCs, are how we decide IF something is NPOV or not. But you literally want to push your personal view of NPOV over and above all else, even above the normal editing process. Still haven't answered my question: what terrible thing would have happened if you had simply not reinstated your bold edits? Or maybe I'll try rephrasing it this way: why is your interpretation of NPOV more valid than any one of the 15 other editors whose comments I linked to above, such that it's OK for you to reinstate a bold edit if you think NPOV demands it, but it's not OK for anyone else to remove the bold edit if they think that NPOV demands it? What makes you so special to be able to decide this unilaterally by reinstating your bold edits? Levivich 15:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)- Jfc, are we back to the 15 editors again? For the love of anything you hold dear, stop conflating different issues. You have done it several times now, nothing that was said about the title is related to the alternate name. And, again, there was an overwhelming consensus for inclusion of the alternate name. So reinstating what has an overwhelming consensus for is very much not edit-warring. And if you are going to continue making shit up like 15 editors and "the normal editing process" which, if you bothered to read the first line of it you would see calls itself "an optional method", then this was a bigger waste of time than I thought it would be when we started. And no, I was not edit-warring, and there is no definition that a single revert of material is edit-warring. But since I no longer feel that this is an honest discussion, since you continue to portray what Ive said in ways that no logical reading of what I actually wrote can support, I think I will indeed take my leave. Toodles, nableezy - 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- You'd rather run away than answer the question, ok. You said "how" can be dealt with via the "normal editing process" (your words not mine), which you now say is optional. 15 editors expressed NPOV concerns about the word "massacre" in one way or another, I diff'd each one. Some of them were talking about the title but most of them were not. You can't ignore them. You can't pretend that their interpretation of NPOV must take a back seat to yours. You can't go on repeatedly reinserting your bold additions across multiple articles, and justify it to yourself that it's not edit warring or that the normal editing process (aka discussion) is optional. There's enough recent diffs in this conversation already for an AE report. If you keep reinstating bold edits over NPOV objections, someone will eventually haul you there for it. Honestly it might be me. Levivich 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Refusing to engage with somebody who continues to make shit up is not running away (eg me saying that the normal editing process is optional. No Sherlock, I said BRD is optional. I said BRD says BRD is optional. And if you would just read WP:BRD you would see that BRD is indeed optional. You said BRD is the "normal editing process", not me). Go right ahead lol, and yes I can. nableezy - 17:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- You'd rather run away than answer the question, ok. You said "how" can be dealt with via the "normal editing process" (your words not mine), which you now say is optional. 15 editors expressed NPOV concerns about the word "massacre" in one way or another, I diff'd each one. Some of them were talking about the title but most of them were not. You can't ignore them. You can't pretend that their interpretation of NPOV must take a back seat to yours. You can't go on repeatedly reinserting your bold additions across multiple articles, and justify it to yourself that it's not edit warring or that the normal editing process (aka discussion) is optional. There's enough recent diffs in this conversation already for an AE report. If you keep reinstating bold edits over NPOV objections, someone will eventually haul you there for it. Honestly it might be me. Levivich 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jfc, are we back to the 15 editors again? For the love of anything you hold dear, stop conflating different issues. You have done it several times now, nothing that was said about the title is related to the alternate name. And, again, there was an overwhelming consensus for inclusion of the alternate name. So reinstating what has an overwhelming consensus for is very much not edit-warring. And if you are going to continue making shit up like 15 editors and "the normal editing process" which, if you bothered to read the first line of it you would see calls itself "an optional method", then this was a bigger waste of time than I thought it would be when we started. And no, I was not edit-warring, and there is no definition that a single revert of material is edit-warring. But since I no longer feel that this is an honest discussion, since you continue to portray what Ive said in ways that no logical reading of what I actually wrote can support, I think I will indeed take my leave. Toodles, nableezy - 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say you said that; the words I used were
- I have not once said evaluate whether [I] personally respect the other editor, please dont do that. If you insist on putting words in my mouth Ill just take my leave now. I see you fail to, yet again, acknowledge that WP:NPOV, which is "non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" should not take a backseat to what you call "the normal editing process" but which itself says is an optional method of reaching consensus. I was not edit-warring at any article. Again, maybe dont make things up? Be a lot cooler if you didnt. nableezy - 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- "The normal editing routine can deal with any "how to include it" issues." ... um yeah, that would be the normal editing process, WP:BRD, that you did not follow. I'm asking you quite pointedly why you don't follow the normal editing process."...if somebody thinks something is "biased" the correct thing to do is add material, not delete it?" That's ridiculously wrong and oversimplistic. We don't correct bias by simply adding some more material. Sometimes, bias needs to be corrected by removing material. Other times, by changing words. Adding works for Editor 1 who thought that "in Hebrew" should be added. But what about the other 14 (or however many you think "count")? What about the five editors who wanted some variation of "in Palestine" instead of "in Arabic/in Hebrew"? What should they add to your edit? Or should they just change your edit? And what about the three editors who wanted no attribution? What should they add? Or should they remove any attribution? How can eight editors that don't agree with your edit "add" to it??? If they all changed it to their preferred version... that's called edit warring, and we have a normal editing process specifically to avoid that. Notice how none of the people who you think are biased are edit warring in the way you were on that article. Nobody else reinstates their bold edits, and the only people who come close to reverting as much as you are the ones who you say have bad motives. The disruptive editors are those who don't follow the normal editing process, and I'm suggesting you're one of them.You're still avoiding my basic question: what's wrong with following the normal editing process? What's wrong with not reinstating your bold edit until after (not during) the talk page discussion? What terrible thing would have happened if you simply had not reinstated your bold edit, at either of these articles? Because as far as I can see, had you not reinstated it, it would mean the word "massacre" wasn't in the article for about a month. Big deal.From what I gather, the Nableezy editing process works like this:
FFS
indeed. What a waste of time and effort. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: on the bright side, this might make it easier to stay on wiki-break ;-) Levivich 03:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yech. It does. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Can't speak for who exactly Rosguill was referring to, but I do see what he means, and don't necessarily think the reference was about you. There is a problem with editing in the I/P topic area that remains unresolved, and I think is worse than the editing quality of other topic areas, and this issue does show in article content. I feel like ArbCom should directly revisit the issue and particular editors, perhaps within a review of the effectiveness of ARBPIA4, but doubt there's appetite for that at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, my comments, (at least, the comments that dismayed Levivich) were intended to describe the general editing climate and macro trends, not really any single editor in particular and definitely not you, considering that you made the effort to distill down actual individual claims that could be evaluated out of a broad original accusation. Whatever the individual motives of each editor, as someone who deals with this subject matter almost solely as an admin, there are consistent patterns that show up over and over: whenever a case makes its way to AE or ANI, there's a slate of usual suspects: a spectrum of partisans to either side, as well as a comparatively smaller contingent of editors who at least present themselves as purely interested in honestly building Wikipedia's coverage (and in doing so, consciously or not, position themselves as kingmakers in these discussions). It's the same for the other highly contentious topic that I monitor, Nagorno-Karabakh. These are conflicts that have inspired people to commit mass atrocities; arguing in bad faith on Wikipedia is a drop in the ocean compared to what people regularly do to fight these conflicts. From a purely detached, pragmatic perspective, if any of the various states and para-states that are party to these conflicts aren't meddling in Wikipedia, they're missing an opportunity to reinforce their worldview on one of the most widely read information sources for the comparatively low cost of a few salaries. To not recognize that when discussing administrative intervention would be to indulge in an is/ought fallacy and turn AGF into a suicide pact, although I also recognize that for editors who actively contribute to our coverage of these topics, willful ignorance of these dynamics may actually be preferable as you can just stay in your lane and focus solely on improving content yourself, without needing to worry about what others are doing. P.S. ProcrastinatingReader, I appreciate the ping but they/them for me please. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- The group of partisan editors on both sides both think they're honestly building an encyclopedia, as do the non-partisan "kingmakers" in the middle. The reason we see this same group of people at all disputes is because these are the editors who regularly edit the topic area. It would be weird if we saw a different group of editors at each dispute in the same topic area: there aren't that many regulars in any given topic area. I'm pretty sure none of the editors who participated in that AE were paid state employees, and that's a crazy allegation to make without evidence. Sure, there are state actors editing on Wikipedia, but these weren't them. (Editor fanaticism is more often borne of WP:FANCRUFT than WP:PAID, generally speaking.) And even if some of the editors in the AE were paid state employees, it would have nothing to do with the issue at hand, which was one editor repeatedly posting allegations about a BLP with poor sources (plus a couple more editors joining in on the AE page, though I'm sure none of them were paid state employees). We're far better off not feeding into the paranoia that permeates this and similar topic areas, especially when this vague paranoia is used to justify disruptive editing, such BLP vios and edit warring and incivility. Just focus on the disruptive editing that's evidenced with diffs, and leave unevidenced suspicions out of it entirely. Levivich 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, my comments, (at least, the comments that dismayed Levivich) were intended to describe the general editing climate and macro trends, not really any single editor in particular and definitely not you, considering that you made the effort to distill down actual individual claims that could be evaluated out of a broad original accusation. Whatever the individual motives of each editor, as someone who deals with this subject matter almost solely as an admin, there are consistent patterns that show up over and over: whenever a case makes its way to AE or ANI, there's a slate of usual suspects: a spectrum of partisans to either side, as well as a comparatively smaller contingent of editors who at least present themselves as purely interested in honestly building Wikipedia's coverage (and in doing so, consciously or not, position themselves as kingmakers in these discussions). It's the same for the other highly contentious topic that I monitor, Nagorno-Karabakh. These are conflicts that have inspired people to commit mass atrocities; arguing in bad faith on Wikipedia is a drop in the ocean compared to what people regularly do to fight these conflicts. From a purely detached, pragmatic perspective, if any of the various states and para-states that are party to these conflicts aren't meddling in Wikipedia, they're missing an opportunity to reinforce their worldview on one of the most widely read information sources for the comparatively low cost of a few salaries. To not recognize that when discussing administrative intervention would be to indulge in an is/ought fallacy and turn AGF into a suicide pact, although I also recognize that for editors who actively contribute to our coverage of these topics, willful ignorance of these dynamics may actually be preferable as you can just stay in your lane and focus solely on improving content yourself, without needing to worry about what others are doing. P.S. ProcrastinatingReader, I appreciate the ping but they/them for me please. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Humor consultation requested
Please see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#There's no intelligent life on this planet
Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: First thing that comes to mind is that he had to take the shuttle due to a transporter malfunction. Also the flight only lasted 11 minutes because Shatner told them he would turn this thing right around if they didn't stop making Star Trek jokes, and he meant it. And, of course, the Klingon response. Levivich 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
What's going on?
My watchlist is lighting up with Smallbones adding and removing War and Peace-sized chunks of text. Has your talk page become the new sandbox for the Signpost or something? Thanks for your recent kind words by the way at the CUOS2021 talk page. Girth Summit (blether) 19:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just took out the newish "edit-conflict helper" for a spin and had the wheels fall-off 3 or 4 times. Watch out for the "copy your edit" button. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Erk - I shall remember not to try using that, if that happens to you I'll definitely make a complete mess of it. Girth Summit (blether) 05:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)