User talk:Azeranth

Feedback Requested

This section is a list of people I've interacted with recently that I'd like feedback from on what I've began working on so far. I want to get a more complete description of what I see as the challenge with writing about certain topics and especially the way certain sources get used. I also want it to be less disruptive to the pages about the topics. I would appreciate if you followed along as I worked on this. @Valjean @Muboshgu @Generalrelative @Objective3000 @Dumuzid

January 2023

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Clinton Body Count. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! That very non-neutral tilting to give more weight to a baseless and malicious conspiracy theory is so wrong. See my comment on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced edits have been cited using sources already present on the cite, which were previously considered RS, which does not add information not present in the sources. Additionally, the source added is a reference to a Washington Post article. The facts extracted from the article consist primarily of investigative findings and testimony on the part of the perpetrator. The article referenced is used primarily as a summary of information provided over a complex and iterative series of official releases and statements pertaining to a decades old police investigation, and thus these primary sources are infeasible to cite directly in any coherent way. The Washington Post is of sufficient repute as to have no reason to suspect they have materially altered fact, quotations, or events as described in the corpus of official releases that the article summarizes.

@Valjean @Muboshgu --Azeranth (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Clinton Body Count shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard you should keep your hands off the revert button as well and make detailed and explained item by item changes of precisely what about the article that you find to be an issue, and to change those items one at a time because the body in which they occur is not completely unsalvagable.

Its almost like I explained that this is both convention and best practice is in my explanation for the edit. Also, your original reversion did not feature an explanation. You are the one in violation of policy at the moment. Azeranth (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how this works. You have tried to insert three edits into the article today. Another attempt will be a brightline WP:3RR violation. Exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP)", which this certainly is. Another attempt and you're blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself said it wasn't a BLP violation on the talk page though so.... Azeranth (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP also applies to talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well good thing its been well established to not be a violation of BLP, including byu the admission of the person who orignally lodged the BLP complaint.

@Valjean Azeranth (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the exact wording makes it hard for me to say more. Whether something is a BLP violation is sometimes a judgment call. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps its prudent to withhold judgement without the benefit of the transcript. What specifically are you claiming was a BLP, I could probably find or reproduce it for you. Azeranth (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd appreciate that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were two parts to my original edit of the introduction paragraph.

Part one standardized the use of the word "alleged", "has been debunked in articles" and "baseless claim" were removed because that opinionated language. They were replaced with "articles created for the purpose of debunking" to be more tonally neutral.

Quick reminder, I still think that debunked is probably a suboptimal word. It implies additional information came out after the fact, rather than just restating the findings of the original investigation. This is a semantic change.

I added a sentence about how the motivation of the alleged murders is frequently connected with the coverup of a larger criminal conspiracy involving bribery and child sex trafficking.

I added a sentence at the end stating that identifying disinformation and refuting allegations of fraud (ie Big Like propaganda) is made more difficult by real examples of fraud and corruption, like those which notably occurred in Jeffery Epstein's death.

In hindsight, I think the oringal confusion may have been that my statement that fraud and corruption did occur in relation to Jeffery Epstein's death was misconstrued that I was saying the Clintons had committed fraud? That would be a complete overreading into what I said, but I suppose that makes the most sense. Azeranth (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without very good sourcing in multiple RS, we can't imply that either Epstein's death was a murder (but we document that there are conspiracy theories to that effect) or that the Clintons committed fraud. BLP is pretty firm about that. There are two BLP standards, one for ordinary people (they are protected very strongly) and one for public figures (who are not protected as strongly). BLP applies everywhere at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean OK but I didn't do any of those thing. there was fraud and corruption related to the death of Jeffery Epstein. full stop. no question. completely accurate and well sourced fact.

there was no "therefore the clintons" there was no "therefore he was murdered" just "there was fraud and corruption" which there was.

that's what was frustrating about the Mary Mohane paragraph. I never included "therefore the conspiracy theorists are right" or "therefore clintons murdered them" or any implication of that fact either.

I wrote "according to the snopes article, the way the robbery was carried out and the money wasn't taken is suspicious" "according to the wapo article, Carl Cooper was a hardened and expereince serial armed robber who frequently and callously murders people. according to his testimony he was overwhelmed by the murder of Mary Mohane and thus fled the scene"

I understand that if I included article "but" or "however" or "and yet" that would be pushing it, but just putting the two facts from the source there doesn't seem slanderous or unverifiable Azeranth (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is how Tucker Carlson, and others, work. They talk about one thing. They then talk about suspicious something. Then add: "I'm just saying". The connections are assumed by the listener because they are in the same discussion. If they're sued, they claim they never outright made an accusation. We're not going to do anything close to that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then how are you supposed to have a conversation about the following set of facts:

1.) There are conspiracy theories about the Clintons

2.) Conspiracy theories are made more confusing to navigate by actual conspiracies and fraud

3.) Jeffery Epstein's death is an example of the intersection between Clinton conspiracies and actual events of fraud

I made a point elsewhere about how overselection bias is a real problem for countering wrongthink, and it contributes to the durability and proliferation of disinformation. If you respond to something like conspiracies about Epstein's death with "There was nothing wrong or suspicious and it was unequivocally definitely a suicide and anyone who says otherwise is a lying moron who doesn't know anything" you're an idiot and you will only make things worse. Azeranth (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 08:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller sorry, I just want to clarify does this same adjusted policy apply to making edits and contributions to talk pages? I don't believe I edited the page source Azeranth (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any page including user talk pages. Just follow our policies and guidelines and you will be ok. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which you have failed to do. I won't block or topic ban you as I'm involved, but don't be surprised if me or someone like User:Binksternet takes you to WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Yeah, idk what you're talking about. putting one comment on the original post to notify a thread which was being cited in an active conversation that they had become a direct subject of conversation does not meet the definition of canvassing. Azeranth (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manosphere trolling

Stop trolling the community, wasting everybody's time at Talk:Manosphere. If you are actively seeking friction with others here, you are in violation of WP:Tendentious editing. Try proposing actionable changes instead. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet This is the most escalators bad faith nonsense I've ever seen. actually get bent you tool and get off my personal page. I gave edit recommendation. I addressed every claim, I had evidence, clarified, made the distinctions, specified my point within the rules, and didn't make an edit. I went to collect consensus about which way to remediate it, by-election a different articulation, or framing. but no. no matter how many times I clearly made the point about the problem of expertise scope, category error, fallacy of composition, reasoning by analogy. And every time a gang of harpies coming back with shitty attitudes and bad faith. you know where to shove it. Azeranth (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Manosphere. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Ironically, BeyondHalf's edit was the only one they ever made. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Yeah I didn't, I necroed the existing post on the existing topic that became relevant to an ongoing discussion, it felt appropriate to ensure those being talked about were made aware and had an opportunity to post. such obvious straight up a lie but thanks bud. Azeranth (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely canvassing. Read the link, if you still disagree, ask on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't necro the thread, you pinged a participant that might be on your side. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller I replied to the first post on the thread, which had been cited previously in the conversation. it wasn't out of thin air or any nonsense like that. also, getting an additional opinion from someone who's obviously expressed interested isn't recruiting brigadier or meat puppeting it's you having bad faith Azeranth (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller OK, I just double checked the canvassing article to make absolutely certain. I pinged the only thread on the talk page about the same topic, it wasn't put of scope, the ping wasn't selective, it went out to everyone who was subbed to the last time it was discussed. I can accept that maybe pinging on the thread itself instead of individual user messages is not how you're supposed to do it, but if pinging individual users and discretionary judgement in user pages is acceptable, than pinging a public thread js absolutely transparent unbiased and relevant like canvassing says is acveptable Azeranth (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot ping a thread, you can only ping editors (not IP addresses). Selecting just one in a thread is canvassing, pinging them all would not be. But as this was a misunderstanding on your part and the editor never edited again, no harm. Just avoid doing it again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]