Jump to content

User talk:K155566543

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, K155566543! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Roxy the dog. wooF 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

DS Alerts[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jorm (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Jack Posobiec, you may be blocked from editing. Seriously you need to read WP:NOTFORUM. Jorm (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Jack Posobiec. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jorm (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Jack Posobiec, you may be blocked from editing. ——Serial 17:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not engage in disruptive editing, nor did I use Wikipedia as a forum. My post contained paragraph upon paragraph of salient information relating to the topic at hand.

As such, I will continue to uphold my right to contribute to the discourse at hand. K155566543 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOFREESPEECH. HTH! ——Serial 18:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have "Free speech" here. You do not have any rights here at all. Wikipedia is not a government. It is an encyclopedia. You cannot use it to push a political agenda. You are absolutely engaged in disruptive editing. Your post contained zero useful elements.
You may continue down your path of obstinance but you will almost certainly be blocked if you continue. Personally, the number of fucks I give about you and your agenda is equal to the number of times I have been in space, but kindness requires that I warn you that you're on a bad direction and I've been trying to be a better person lately. Jorm (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a free speech argument. I am making the argument that my post contains information directly relevant to the topic at hand and should therefore not be subject to unjust removal K155566543 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Talk:Jack Posobiec 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Jorm (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was no free speech argument, it was an evidence free rant. WP:NOTFORUM certainly applies. Discuss your concerns politely, showing why you think this way, and perhaps provide some WP:RS reliable sources that support your (admittedly very wild) claims. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to the article passing op-eds off as reliable sources, violating Wikipedia's own guidelines on which publications are considered reliable sources, citing pieces whose headlines don't match their content, and engaging in inappropriate and unfounded editorialization. I provided evidence for all of these allegations. You thought it would be easier to press backspace on everything I wrote than to engage with my posts, which brings us to where we are now.K155566543 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're accusing an editor of censorship, you make blanket statements without proof of a cabal working to defame a person, and violate AGF. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is AGF? I did accuse an editor of censorship, a charge he did not deny. Instead, he continues to try to intimidate me on false grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K155566543 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. It was what I was probably extending too much of when I wrote this reply to you, which you may still find useful. Comment on content, not contributors, and perhaps also familiarize yourself a bit more with Wikipedia policy—you are demanding changes that are not grounded in policy or reliable sources, which will not get you very far. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I adequately addressed the paragraph you keep copy-pasting in response to everyone else. The article attempts to hide behind a tortured, distorted, and inconsistent application of "reliable sources" to abet what could be perceived as the defamation of a living person. The Daily Beast op-ed by Obeidallah obviously goes against both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's RS policy. According to Wiki's own guidelines, the SPLC piece must be treated as an op-ed rather than as a reliable source. There are numerous other problems of this nature. You can shut me up all you want, but that won't make the problems go away. This really is a physician, heal thyself moment. If you yourself gave Wikipedia's guidelines a good look, you would realize that dozens of sources in this article are either improperly used or should not be used at all. Fixing this problem would require rewriting most of the article.K155566543 (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can take out Obeidallah and have the exact same article left. And no, the SPLC does not count as an op-ed piece. And you could have proposed taking that one reference out--but you had to go and yell at the editors and make totally unacceptable accusations. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you take him-- and numerous other improperly used sources, including the Vanity Fair, Chicago Sun Times, Playboy, and Philadelphia Magazine op-eds-- out, rather than clutching your pearls at the one pointing out the problem? According to the rules, the views conveyed in the SPLC article must be treated as "statements of opinion." As per Wikipedia's guidelines, "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION." The guidelines add that it is "is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion" when dealing with such sources, which the article did not do. If you were to properly qualify the SPLC source and remove all the improper sources to stay in compliance with Wiki rules, you'd have to re-write large sections of the article, especially the stuff about white supremacy and alt-right beliefs. Sorry, but it's awfully hard not to infer some degree of bad faith when I'm being threatened to follow the rules-- or else-- by the very same group that is violating them with impunity.K155566543 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance is "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION." Take a look at how the SPLC sources are being used. Citations 30 and 36 are for simple statements of fact, not views held by the SPLC or its writers. Citation 37 is used along three other sources and the portion of the statement that is a view rather than simple statement of fact ("[Posobeic] supports the use of the [1488] slogan") is shared by others besides the SPLC. Citation 52 is more than a simple statement of fact, and so is attributed in-text per the guidance at RSP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of problems here. We have four sources slapped onto one sentence. There needs to be a clarification of how exactly the two SPLC articles are being used in that sentence. The allegation in that sentence is one that he denies, and one that has not been externally verified beyond reasonable doubt. The SPLC relies on archived tweets allegedly uncovered by Hatewatch, but, again, these tweets have not been independently verified beyond a reasonable doubt and are denied by Posobiec. To present these tweets as fact is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry on a living person. You can improve this sentence by rephrasing it as an allegation, citing Hayden by name, and clarifying that Posobiec denies the allegation. This is the bare minimum of what neutrality entails. An encyclopedic entry written from a neutral standpoint cannot point blankly accuse someone of "promoting many falsehoods" because there is no universal, widely accepted standard of "many falsehoods." If he was, say, convicted by a court of spreading "many falsehoods," you could certainly cite that conviction, but the phrase as it stands is a statement of opinion on the part of a Wikipedia editor. The broader problem is the framing. As I mentioned, this article is structured, worded, and argued like an indictment rather than an encyclopedia entry. The editors saw fit to include every allegation ever made against Posobiec, but not the contents of his three books, empirical descriptions of his political activism over the years, his foreign policy activity and analysis, and a deeper look at his many business dealings. This is not a coherent, level-headed, or holistic biographical entry-- it's the opposite of those things. I'm clearly not getting through to you, but just try to take a step back and look at the bigger context: there is something clearly wrong when the Wiki entries of humanity's worst tyrants and mass-murderers are phrased, arranged, and framed more neutrally and more dispassionately than that of Jack Posobiec. People are looking at this piece in its totality and interpreting it as a hit job-- the talk page suggests I am far from the only one that sees an issue with this.K155566543 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are still waiting for you to provide sources supporting these refutations, and any concrete suggestions for changes or additions to the page (also with sources). We do not write biographies about people based on books they have written, see WP:ABOUTSELF. As for "empirical descriptions of his political activism over the years, his foreign policy activity and analysis, and a deeper look at his many business dealings", that sounds great—please show us the sources and suggest your changes. This can happen over on the article talk page, please just ensure you include your sources and exclude your aspersions. You may find the guidance at User:GorillaWarfare/Primer useful as far as asking for changes or removal of existing claims in the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking for. We are both using the same source-- I am simply telling you that the 1488 allegation in Hayden's SPLC piece was not parsed in accordance with the Wiki guidelines that I shared. Hayden's own article admits that he lifted the alleged screenshots and secondhand archived twitter posts directly from the "Hatewatch" blog without any further corroboration or independent verification. Thus, you cannot present the 1488 allegation as fact. You must phrase it as an allegation that Posobiec denies, because that's what it currently is. I am not asking you to write a biography on Posobiec based on his books (which are not even about him), but to omit the contents of his three books entirely is a colossal oversight when writing an encyclopedic entry on him. To your point about aspersions, the current article reads as one big aspersion from beginning to end. This clearly is not the way that encyclopedic entries are written, whether on Wiki or any other respected source K155566543 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hayden's own article admits that he lifted the alleged screenshots and secondhand archived twitter posts directly from the "Hatewatch" blog without any further corroboration or independent verification. Hatewatch is the SPLC, and Hayden has simply cross-linked another article he himself wrote (also cited in the Posobeic article in #36). The other article includes several archive links of Posobeic tweeting references to 1488 that anyone can verify, unless they believe that the archive links have somehow been forged (a claim I have not seen in any reporting on this). Where in the source is Posobeic denying this allegation? Regardless, you may want to read WP:MANDY on the idea that we must include that a person has refuted claims that are made in RS.
I am not asking you to write a biography on Posobiec based on his books (which are not even about him), but to omit the contents of his three books entirely is a colossal oversight when writing an encyclopedic entry on him. Again, please suggest specific changes with sources that you feel ought to be added. Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers such as yourself, and so coming into an article and asking that other volunteers find these sources and add details that you apparently know a lot about is not likely to be as successful as doing this research and suggesting a change yourself. WP:SOFIXIT. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Hayden's source is research allegedly conducted by Hayden. But the authenticity of those archived tweets has never been independently verified. There are allegations that Wayback Machine can be manipulated-- that's precisely what MSNBC claimed to prove when defending anchor Joy Reid from offensive blog posts she supposedly wrote and then deleted in the 2000's. So, there is at least some degree of ambiguity when it comes to allegedly archived tweets. The 1488 incident meets the verifiability threshold to be included as an allegation in the biography of a living person, but not as a statement of fact. As to your second point-- I don't have to be a chef to critique food, or a director to write movie reviews. I suppose a good place to start would be fleshing out the section on his career and political views with more than just damaging assertions, which is currently almost 100% of what the article consists of. For example, I think it's quite relevant for biographical purposes to convey the ideas in 4D Warfare: A Doctrine for a New Generation of Politics as a kind of summa of his political views and a roadmap of how he approaches politics, bridging his military experience and political activism. His other book, Citizens for Trump, offers not only a window into his understanding of his political activities surrounding the 2016 election, but a broader look into political cyber networks that the Trump campaign tapped into. The book on Antifa offers a framework for how he and some other rightwing populists see the right-left struggle in historical context. It's worth acknowledging for biographical purposes that the latter made a large splash in conservative media, and has consistently been near the top of Amazon's best seller list in books on Anarchism.K155566543 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever needs to be written up about those books will have to come from reliable secondary sources--who, I assume, will point out that one is self-published, and the other two are published by right-wing outfits whose editorial oversight and quality is highly doubtful, judging from their websites and the bio of the person who runs one of them. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, it's wholly acceptable for editors to directly cite books written by their subjects without being forced to rely solely on secondary interpretations. The second part is exactly the kind of attempt to poison the well that compelled me to create an account on this site and speak up in the first place. The political leanings of a publishing house have no bearing on the quality of a book, "quality" itself being an entirely subjective concept when evaluating political literature.K155566543 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable only in very limited circumstances: WP:ABOUTSELF. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is rich precedent for this for pretty much any living person with an extensive bibliography. I'm not making this guy out to be Hegel (whose Wiki page is, as it happens, awash in direct citations of his works), but there is something clearly wrong with the notion that a person's published works are irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry on said person.K155566543 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K155566543&oldid=1057331827"