User talk:JzG/Archive 207

Archive 200

←

Archive 205

Archive 206

Archive 207

Archive 208

Archive 209

Archive 210

Note

Hey, I just closed this. When you get back I hope you'll take a few minutes to read over some of the feedback there. Not all of it was helpful obviously, but the common thread I noticed is that nearly everybody, including the people defending you, wants you to modify your approach. Because multiple people there had noted that others on the article's talk page were behaving poorly, I took some time the other day to look at it and collapse some of the worst of it. I found that it was most often your own comments that typically sent the discussion spinning off the rails. (Inedible Hulk was second worst, joining in each time.) I don't need to preach to you about what article talk pages are for. You know. But please consider whether you have a "blind spot" when it comes to this subject. ~Awilley (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Not speaking for Guy at all, obviously, but to my viewpoint, the difference between him and his opponents is that many of the latter come to articles and their talk pages with the express purpose of skewing the article to match their anti-rational non-fact-based viewpoints, whereas Guy comes to maintain the factuality of articles and keep them attached to what the reliable sources say. (That his opponents often don't even accept the sources as reliable is telling.) That is a distinction that indeed makes a difference, and why equating Guy's commentary with that of the other side is a classic case of false balance: one is protecting Wikipedia, the other is attempting to use it for their own purposes.

I'm not trying to re-litigate the discussion or undo your close, just to make it clear that "a pox on both their houses" is not really appropriate here, if we really wish to keep Wikipedia as a neutral purveyor of facts and information and not an outlet for propaganda, misinformation and political fantasy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with BMK's analysis, but that is not at all incompatible with Awilley's good advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I just think it's counter-productive for someone trying to protect Wikipedia to derail talkpage discussions with comments about Nazis and cults. Insulting your opponents and making them feel persecuted is a good way to confirm their biases and encourage them to dig in their heels and fight harder. ~Awilley (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 —valereee (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In actuality anything you say to them other than "Sure, go ahead, do what you like" will make them "dig in their heels and fight harder". That's because they come with an agenda, and that agenda is not to improve the encyclpedia, it's to subvert it. Playing nice-nice with them isn't going to make things any easier, because our goals are not at all the same. This is a harsh fact that needs to be faced and not waved away. It's one thing to be accommodating to fellow editors who are playing by the same rules as everyone else, and another thing entirely to encourage those who are hell-bent on eating away at our core values and using our policies to neutralize our defenses.

This is the age-old problem of how open societies such as democracies deal with those who use the political system in order to destroy it from the inside -- and in this case it's not at all theoretical, it happened in real-life in real-time and was reported and commented on while it was happening, and we all saw it go down. Given that, when we see the same damn thing occurring in our little corner of the word, turning a blind eye and tsk-tsking at those who at least attempt to hold the line is counter-productive, and, in fact, dangerous, at least in my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Classic WP:1Q at play. WP:NONAZI is a thing. We should equally have WP:NOQANONS and WP:NO2+2=5. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"If we really wish to keep Wikipedia as a neutral purveyor of facts and information and not an outlet for propaganda, misinformation and political fantasy." Beyond My Ken, perhaps the editors who are convinced that they know what the facts are, what is neutral and which the reliable sources are, having no inkling of how their prejudices affect their vision of what reality is, are the very ones who should be prevented from dicatating what is "the truth" on Wikipedia. [Anaïs Nin: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."]     ←   ZScarpia   10:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's highly unlikely when the fact-based viewpoint is congruent with reality and supported by all known reliable sources.

We're not talking about differences of opinion here -- those are normal and to be expected -- we're talking about the unwillingness or inability on the part of some people to perceive reality as it actually exists. Cloaking it as a difference of opinion is just as wrong as saying "both sides do it". Yes, both sides can at times be inaccurate, deceptive or corrupt, but only one side refuses or is unable to admit to feeling the pain when they stub their toe on a rock, they'd rather continue to believe that there is no rock. That's a worldview based on what one wishes were true, and not on what is actually there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to note here that I also have read all of the comments as well, and I hope everyone has taken the criticisms laid against them into consideration. I'm not sure who Beyond My Ken is referring to with this "them", but if there are editors that people think are coming with an agenda to subvert the encyclopedia, I encourage them to report to AE and get them out of the topic area. Awilley's comment that it's not just one person is on the nose. Nothing will be solved by casting aspersions at unnamed editors here though - if there are other editors that someone believes they can show evidence of not being here to improve the encyclopedia in the topic area, then please let's start doing something about those editors so that those of us who are actually trying to improve those articles in line with policies and guidelines can do so without all of these distractions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Mine was an analysis of a systemic problem which needs to be more widely known and accepted. It's not something that can be "fixed" by taking this or that editor to AE or AN/I, it's a much broader problem than that. It requires understanding the situation we find ourselves in, and the development of new tools and techniques to protect the encyclopedia while at the same time maintaining our character as an open project. That's difficult, but doable -- but first more editors need to accept that there's a problem in the first place, one that can't be solved with business as usual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

AE is broken. No experienced editor wants to go to the trouble of fully documenting an airtight case against NOTHERE BATTLEGROUND editors who will contest and confuse the issues until the Admins give up, as they did in this case which should have resulted in a boomerang warning and in other sanctions for the editors who openly denied RS mainstream sourcing rubriks. I find it more than a bit strange that @DGG: recently got an AE slap on the wrist for discussing such issues, whereas editors in this thread who openly renoucned the mainstream were overlooked in the close. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

But it's not fair! "Reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is to say the virtually entirely left wing mainstream media .... [means] the political articles will always be biased to the left because of the mostly TRASH sources which are relied upon. Sad."[1] If an author is "an angry black woman", it "does raise the question of whether she's reliable for the purpose of exploring white supremacist men's views on their own secret responses to words". It's useful to be carefully polite in discussions, or sometimes just stop arguing That's my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I'm afraid that I don't understand your post or why it is posted as a response to mine above, if that was your intention. But at any rate, you cite an opinion piece by a non-notable columnist. I don't see how that's relevant to discussion of editors who cite conspiracy theories from right-wing media as fact while rejecting the presentation of facts as published in mainstream media and rejecting notable analysts' and academcics' discussion of fact and significance -- which we attribute in article text to the notable authors. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, that wasn't a response to your points, just a couple of recent interactions I've had. My feeling was that the opinion piece discussed Trump's dog-whistles (or maybe bullhorn bellows) encouraging white supremacists, but as a mere opinion piece not a very useful source. My real point here was that in a battlefield discussion, politeness gives an advantage. But I think we're all human (bots excepted). . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I partly agree with the sentiments of a few editors here. This is not a congruent and equal form of "POV editing". My main purpose on Wikipedia is to keep articles reflecting reliable sources, and being as factual as possible. To that end, the first time I've ever invoked Guy was in a pseudoscience article (by saying his username three times in front of a mirror, of course). But because I knew he was well practiced in dealing with spurious edit requests in the subject area, I invoked his help, without knowing his actual POV. Admittedly, I'm much less acerbic and far more neutral when dealing with these issues, including with AP edits; most of my edits to mainspace are mainly copy-editing and non-controversial, but I read all the talk pages. I don't have a "side", aside from wanting articles to reflect reliable sources. It's rather silly though to maintain the fiction that both "sides" are equal in this topic area, and that half of the editors aren't just trying to suppress information, and polish a proverbial turd of a newsworthy event concerning Trump, as best they can. I've seen this literally hundreds of times. AGF means editors spend countless hours dealing with these non-issues that should be covered by basic policy, but these become actual issues when conservative editors circle the wagons. It's a huge time sink. Granted, I have no doubt that most of these editors will eventually be blocked, at least from the topic area. Some of them already are. Or some were, but were unblocked, and continue the same behavior, albeit much more sporadically to avoid sanctions in the topic area. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

My experience is that the very worst and most blatant of the PoV warriors get blocked, but much less often the civil PoV pushers, who avoid being blocked by being relentlessly polite even as they continue to attempt to skew articles away from verifiable facts and toward the ideological fantasies they hold dear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The best response is to be equally relentlessly polite while relentlessly demanding WP:V as well as due weight. The best isn't always achieved, alas. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Though like the both of you, I realize that such patient practices aren't effective in dealing with most civil POV pushers. Including those who incidentally write an essay essentially saying "suck up to the administrators who will be most likely block you". This is a damned serious issue within the AP topic area (as well as others, like Eastern Europe and Israel/Palestine), and it's something we shouldn't be shy about tackling as a community. Many of these individuals have proven they can edit constructively in other topic areas, and contribute to Wikipedia in other constructive ways, all for the better. My main concern is that it's an extremely exhausting time sink for most other editors to address their non-issues. And that's largely the point of raising these issues, or questioning sources they know are reliable. They think the other editors will concede. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

What if these editors with an agenda already have practically subverted the encyclopedia? And reporting them will get you headfirst out? Hypothetically, of course. Terjen (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is burnout, in my eyes, and it's a symptom, not the underlying problem itself. Both sides are right: there is foruming, and there is POV pushing, but I think it's the POV pushing that leads to burnout that leads to foruming. Asking editors to have infinite patience is unrealistic. Asking editors to work in this topic area then leave it before burning out is more realistic, but counterproductive for the project. We need a way for editors to keep doing the productive editing we all appreciate without eventually burning out and basically losing their patience and ranting (which we call foruming). One way to do that is to do what we do in PIA and ECP AP2. Levivich 02:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with this analysis, except that I would add that the problem is at least to some extent inherent to the way WP works. It comes with the anyone can edit. WP seems to be founded on the mistaken belief that as long as you have enough different editors with differing POVs, they will balance each other out and eventually reach a NPOV. It's like a Heraclitean system where co-present opposites are constantly at war, and it's precisely the struggle for dominance between them that results in a harmonious though ever-changing whole. War is the father of all things. In that system, editors are like soldiers, needed in large numbers but individually expendable. It's arduous, but it also doesn't work: it presumes that the distribution of various POVs among editors roughly resembles their distribution in reliable sources. But of course those who choose to edit WP (as those who actively participate in the creation of user-generated web content more generally) have a very different distribution of POVs, which also tend to be more extreme and agenda-driven. WP editors generally like struggle. Of course, we have policies on things like battleground behavior, edit warring, righting great wrongs, etc., but that's just to ensure that the struggle doesn't get too heated and something productive can result from the meeting of opposites (think chemistry here). Underneath these guidelines, we're actually expected to but heads, just in a civil and constructive way. What helps to make this work is AGF, though it's a time sink indeed. As for the content (the only reason I choose to endure this 'strife is justice' regime), it can largely be saved by strictly separating NPOV from individual editors' POVs. The way to lessen the burden of strife is to do away with the illusion that our own POVs are relevant in any way. We should insist on discussing sources' POVs rather than our own. I know it's a cliché, but you only know you're good when other editors aren't able to divine what your own POV actually is. It's a way both to have better content and to save yourself from exhaustion. Away with Heraclitus! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Also take into account WP:POVRAILROAD which may have corrupted any resemblance of balance beyond the point of no return. Terjen (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• JzG hasn't edited for over a week, perhaps we should respect his break and hold this discussion elsewhere. — Ched (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • . Agreed. I think the normal place for start a discussion about a close is the talk page of the admin who made the close. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I started this discussion, and as I noted above, it is not about the close, it's about a systemic Wikipedia problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
      • It's now about both. ARCA would work. SPECIFICO talk 10:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I believe you are the only one disputing the close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
          • You called it inappropriate. As indeed it was. SPECIFICO talk 10:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
            • No, I said "a pox on both their houses" was an inappropriate tack to take in response to the systemic problems we face. I went out of my way to say "I'm not trying to re-litigate the discussion or undo your close". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• I am also disputing the close, for it should not t have been closed by awiley, and I have said so on his user talk page. The closer is far too much involved in AP to be a neutral or uninvolved admin in this manner.In particular, A great deal of his DS and related work has been in this field, and nobody can do this and still be uninvolved. See WP:INVOLVED. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." There is indeed an exception for "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, " I don't see how repeated use of admin power at DR (and especially at AE) in the field can be so characterized. (I do not greatly disagree with what was actually said in the close--I would have closed with the same sort of admonishment, only considerably stronger--but of course I would never imaginably have closed in this area) DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• As a long-standing admin, you very well know that this is not an appropriate place to litigate Awilley's close. You taken the correct first step, writing directly to the closer, further steps take place elsewhere, but not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Chill pill time, BMK. Nobody's "litigating" here. Talk page discussions are free-wheeling and this one is pretty clear, calm and considered. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, DGG's comment directly above is specifically a rationale for undoing the close. That is indeed "litigating", and it's not appropriate for this page, as JzG was not the closer. DGG knows that, I'm sure.

There is nothing wrong with attempting to keep a discussion on track and trying to stop it veering off into tangents. If you have more thoughts about the systemic problem I outlined above, please share them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Look, you're an experienced and respected editor. Just trying to remind you that OP does not OWN any discussion thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Never thought I did. Just trying to keep things focused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI

This points at you; see my note on User talk:BananaYesterday. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello JzG:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Hello

Just saying hello, happy break and that I hope to see you around again eventually, —PaleoNeonate – 19:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)