If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard .
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at South Park (Not Suitable for Children), you may be blocked from editing. You have repeatedly tried to revert/remove the opinion statement from Daily Caller when it has been shown to you repeatedly that WP:RSOPINION allows for clearly defined editorials to be permitted even if they are from a deprecated source. Please either take this up with an admin. Continuing to remove this will result in a report.SanAnMan (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at South Park (Not Suitable for Children) 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. SanAnMan (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to edit-war in a link to the Daily Caller, a deprecated source. Saying "RSOPINION" doesn't cut it. Me removing a deprecated link is unlikely to lead to a block; you are making spurious threats to other editors. You are going to need an actual justification if you think a Daily Caller review of a South Park special is so important as to override deprecation. As I said on the talk page, you will need to take this one up at RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits without examples or evidence to justify or support any claims
I want to acknowledge your role as an admin on Wikipedia and express my serious concerns about the recent changes made to the ERC-721 page. While I respect your dedication to maintaining article quality, I must address some issues that have arisen during your review.
Your assertion that the article is primarily sourced from "unreliable crypto blogs" is, unfounded, easily disproven, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever in the talk page. The majority of the articles cited originate from reputable mainstream outlets and scholarly journals, providing substantial credibility to the content. Other editors have viewed the page and have not apparently come to the same drastic conclusions as you meriting removal of entire sections and subsections. Moreover, the subject's notability has been thoroughly contextualized in the talk page, which appears to have been overlooked as you proceeded to flag its notability anyway without even acknowledging or addressing it.
I respectfully insist that you engage with the community on the talk page and provide specific examples of sources you find unreliable before proceeding with further substantive edits or reversions. This collaborative approach will enable us to address any concerns effectively and improve the article while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Proceeding to continue making these substantive edits without providing evidence, examples or engaging in any discussion of your claims in the talk page may constitute disruptive editing.
As an admin, your actions carry significant weight within the Wikipedia community, and I hope we can work together to maintain a fair, respectful, and principled approach to content editing. I urge you to reconsider your approach, ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines, to set a positive example for others in the community.
If these issues persist without a constructive resolution, we may need to consider escalating the matter to formal resolution procedures within Wikipedia for further review. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You previously asserted your right to use bizarre non-MOS referencing, almost all of which was to primary sources and crypto blogs. Then you cut and pasted more of it back into the article. I would suggest you review WP:OWN in the first instance. I must note also the strong sanctions on the entire subject area of cryptocurrency and blockchain, which are detailed at WP:GS/Crypto - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style does not address how to use citations, therefore it is not an "non-MOS referencing" issue as you just stated. Grouping multiple citations into single footnotes is not "bizarre", it does not read weirdly, and it is a function that the Wikipedia editing system allows (as I have stated before). I am not the first editor to use it nor is it in any way a violation of policy or guidelines, in fact inclusion of them can be found in this guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations .
"almost all of which was to primary sources and crypto blogs." I expect you are going to run into some problems making unfounded claims like this if we escalate the issue for a formal dispute resolution. Initially, there were some crypto news outlets in the Entriken article, you affirmed that BLP's are held to a higher standard and so they should be removed; they have been removed and I ceased including any others. After noticing others also avoid using crypto outlets in sourcing in BLP and non-BLP, I've made an effort to avoid including them in general. In the ERC-721 article, while there are some primary sources cited and perhaps also some crypto news outlets, for you to say "almost all" of them are, that is factually false. It is in fact the opposite of what you say for most of what I added. Count them yourself and see if I'm wrong. Make a good faith effort to prove your point and back it up if you're going to lean on it to justify your decisions.
I was aware that the original editor who created the ERC-721 page did use solely unreliable and primary sources; I then inserted reliable outside sources from academic journals and credible institutions to replace most of them. Of course, you can question the reliability of some of these, maybe some could be reconsidered and removed in good faith, point them out and we'll see. But the reality is that it is NOT cut and dry as you say where it warrants mass deletion without discussion or consideration.
You are an admin subject to the rules like the rest of us. You do not own Wikipedia WP:OWN and get to do whatever you want by making blanketed claims and bypassing discussions and avoiding justifying your actions based on sound evidence and reasoning that you can share with others.Codeconjurer777 (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My call to action in the form of a question is: Are you going to make a good faith effort to actually engage in discussions and share actual evidence and examples to support your positions, or are you just 100% right, it's case-closed, no need to discuss or justify anything because such standards don't apply to you? Codeconjurer777 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section I cut is sourced almost entirely to self-sources, preprints and crypto blogs. You need to bluster less and use solid RSes more - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted several sections.
One of the sections (the shortest one) "Legacy" has no primary sources whatsoever and is exclusively cited by scholarly sources, including from well-known journals. There are no crypto outlets in there either. Do you contest this being the case? Have you actually examined the sources in that section? Codeconjurer777 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the reverted version, I've noted it has several instances of crypto media sources from cointelegraph, coindesk, and decrypt. I counted no more than 5 instances of such sources in total, quite contrary to your statement about it being filled with mostly unreliable sources. The rest of the sources seem to be safe and reliable unless you can demonstrate otherwise. I am going to revert the version and edit to remove those crypto sources out and either replace them if an RS can be provided to verify or remove the content. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have examples of specific sources being preprints?
As for primary sources, subject's notability is established through RS; I don't believe primary sources are being used frequently, in an extensive manner, or to verify any information considered contentious. If it's verifying information not considered to be contentious, as I believe is the case, they should be fine to use. Unless you have any specific instances of primary sources not being used appropriately, I don't see a problem or violation of policy. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the original creator of the ERC-721 page was relying very heavily on primary sources to verify much of the technical information about it. I replaced those with scholarly sources that delve into the subject. Unless you see an issue with those sources that you would like to point out specifically, I think they are suitable. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard you said "preprints" here I thought you meant like preprints of peer reviewed sources prior to publication but maybe you meant "reprints" as in the yahoo articles as you mentioned in the log. I intended to remove all the crypto sources but I did overlook all the yahoo reprints, so I do appreciate your thoroughness in that regard, and I apologize for the oversight on my part for not including them in the edit I intended Codeconjurer777 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the notability tag you applied, I don't think that's the appropriate tag to include for the concerns your raising regarding use of sources. If notability is sufficiently established by certain RSs that are not disputed, concerns about the use of other sources that don't contribute to establishing its notability is a separate matter about sources and is outside the scope of that particular tag.
If you review the talk page, in the topic "Establishing Subject's Notability" there's a spread of RSs about the subject (explicitly by name) including the NYT, Forbes, TheVerge, Mashable, ArtReview and more, alongside major academic journals that also explicitly discuss the subject. The threshold of notability has its basis in those sources which are included in the article, unless you or someone else might dispute them as being sufficient. But if they are sufficient, then your concern about the use of sources is no longer relevant to whether it has notability, despite what the tag indicates. Thus the notability tag would be misleading to include.
As I said in talk, first thing to do is remove every reference that does not explicitly name "ERC-721". Quite a lot of the text is just about the effects of NFTs, and we already have an article about that. Your text - and I call it "your text" because you're pushing so hard to have your version of events in article space, against multiple other editors' objections - seems largely to be a redundant content fork - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yet again, you ignore the point I raise and change the subject. You applied the notability tag yet the issue you raise is not about sources validating its notability. This is a misleading and incorrect use of the tag, unless you can demonstrate that the baseline of sources used for the purpose of establishing notability is insufficient. I invited you to the talk page to discuss this and laid out what the sources are, you have ignored this.
(2) You keep making verifiably false claims without demonstrating evidence. "Quite a lot of the text is just about the effects of NFTs". Do you have examples of a significant number of sources included where ERC-721 is not involved?
I did mention one to Jagged Hamster in Wired magazine regarding use of the word NFT that didn't include ERC-721 that seemed to fit with other sources over a certain point, and the "crypto sources" about using block explorers to verify some of the projects involving ERC-721 that don't specify it explicitly, but that was for clarification purposes and was removed in the prior edit. Besides that, I believe the rest of the sources cited involve ERC-721 projects or the ERC-721 document itself. To say that there is such an extensive use of such sources that it constitutes a redundant fork demands evidence, which you have not provided. Not everything you say is false, but much of what you say you have not or cannot back it up with proof.
(3) Is there any alternative version of events being presented by other editors that I am rejecting, as you claim? Please point out these examples. Are there any instances where I have arbitrarily, without merit, reason or discussion, overrode another editor's contribution or ignored the opportunity for them to provide their input or a reply? Please point out examples and specify how my conduct was inappropriate and/or lacked a constructive basis.
You are an admin, you are held to a higher standard than the average editor. If you are going to make negative assertions about content or other users, please back it up with evidence and share it publicly here. No one is stopping you. You seem more inclined to question my competence than to demonstrate what competent conduct looks like. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the logic of what you're doing for much of the time, this is you in effect:
You: "This person has committed the crimes of murder and larceny!" *You don't point to any victim who was murdered or anything being stolen*
Me: "Who did I murder or steal from, and do you have proof?" *I actively seek verification of your claims and give you the opportunity to make your case rather than outright deny it*
You: "The murder was gruesome and horrible, the victims screamed in agony as he executed them, and he also stole items of high value including gold and silver and those victims want their things back" *You continue to push the claims and act as if they are true but still don't point out who the victims are, what was stolen or any evidence of the crimes being committed.
Me: "Here's my alibi, and here's documents demonstrating where I have been the past few days and what I've been doing, this should prove that I could not be the murderer or thief you claim. Do you have any proof against my position, and can you identity whom died or what was stolen" *This is me offering rationale and pointing to verifiable information that addresses your claims*
You: "This person used great cunning to murder his victim with a sharpened blade (doesn't provide evidence sharpened blade exists) and he hid his stolen items in a cave in the mountains somewhere. (doesn't provide evidence of stolen items existing or any indication they are hidden in the mountains)" *This is you completely ignoring the evidence and rationale presented in my responses, instead you continue to make assertions and negative inferences without demonstrating an evidential basis for your claims grounded in reality*
-------
Again, not EVERYTHING you say is false, but much of how you have been approaching discussions and criticisms of me and my contributions have followed along the above logic. I expect you to ignore this message and its main point, so this is mostly for entertainment and for other ppl to look at :D Codeconjurer777 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Codeconjurer777, in the light of your answer above, I wonder whether you could point to me the sources of the following information that you included in this revision:
Entriker's exact date of birth
The fact that Entriker was "top scorer in the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition"
the fact that Entriker "programmed control modules" for the U.S. Navy
details of what you termed "Manila incident", including what Entriker thought and noticed at the time
Not sure what you are asking about clarification for regarding the names William and Will. That his name is William is evident in various sources cited. The name Will doesn't appear to be used as frequently in press but it is found on his site referring to himself as it.
He also vandalized the page i created about FDUSD by removing content without reason and tagging it for speedy deletion. Maybe he has a conflict of interest, since he is cockily advertising his book on his user page (the links take you to a page that thenlinks to Amazon). This and his actions warrant a report. Itemirus (talk)07:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dash Wikipedia revert into non-spam version
Good afternoon, can you clarify why you counted the version as spam and rolled back to the previous one? | Dash (cryptocurrency)
Yes, the article has been heavily revised, but it clearly describes the current state of Dash. And at the same time, in my opinion, it did not violate the rules of Wikipedia. Everything is written in a neutral style, there are sources everywhere. Vonnu (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look out of curiosity. I think I understand the basis of why he did it, and I'd have to agree in this case. Your sources are mostly either primary sources (from within Dash) or crypto outlets that are generally speaking not considered reliable sources (RS). The content of your article is NOT "spam" as he describes it, it looks like good coverage of the subject and I don't find it promotional in nature (it seems sufficiently neutral-ish), but you haven't sourced the content appropriately to the standards of Wikipedia that many other editors within cryptocurrency topics would find acceptable.
If you look at the "History" section, the sources come from mainstream outlets like Wired magazine. The sources you cited are not likely to be considered of sufficient reliable quality even though there is little reason to doubt the accuracy and truthfulness of them.
I'd suggest you find more mainstream recognizable sources to verify information and replace yours. Perhaps investigate on Google Scholar if some articles exist that cover Dash. Find some reliable sources that can attest to the technical information that you cited with primary sources and replace them. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for the reply. I'll try to find more appropriate sources. But I've just come across the fact that there are very few RS's that have up-to-date information about the Dash and certain technical aspects. So I tried to give the best quality sources available.
So I would like to ask if there are ways to publish correct and up-to-date information without having fully wikipedia-compliant sources. At least something very technical, like the current block reward, etc., which is all available on the blockchain. Vonnu (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much "wikipedia-compliant" per se, it's more about consensus, and in this case it may involve consensus in a grey area which may lead you to an alternate course.
Obviously you need to have compliance in having Reliable Sources (RS) for establishing notability (which Dash apparently already does), and needs to be written in a neutral point of view which it seems to be with your edit and prior to it for the most part. Since RSs seem to have sufficiently established notability already, it becomes a grey area considering using sources that may fall outside the scope of RS in order to provide up to date technical information.
Wikipedia does have a policy called Ignoring All Rules policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules where it simply states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If you are unable to find more Reliable Sources, you could potentially make a case in Dash's talk page that the RS rule is preventing you from keeping up to date technical information about the topic. It wouldn't make sense to have out of date information on Dash be present because some older RS cited now-obsolete information, but not being able to correct or update it because no new RSs have cited recent information about it. The problem being: Dash is famous enough to have a Wikipedia page, but perhaps not famous even to have well-known RSs keep up with its technical information on a consistent basis, thus having obsolete information creates a misleading page that contradicts Dash's current state of affairs.
You would want to first seek consensus on what specific sources and what information might be okay to include. Primary sources are technically okay to include primarily if the information is not contentious (unlikely to be challenged) and there is little doubt of its accuracy, you might apply the same standards to non-primary sources. I would be weary about (1) including many "on-chain" links as sources without context present as it may constitute original research, and (2) including commentary from an non-RS (crypto sources often provide sensationalization of a topic which is why they are not trusted as RS, so you would likely only stick to including technical information and not perspective around it, i.e NOT including that the article states "it's the greatest innovation in blockchain ever!") but that would be something for you to discuss and build consensus around. You would want to have a talk page for Dash where this is discussed with specifics for consensus to be established by multiple other persons. If you're going to ignore certain rules, you need to be very very clear about how you intend to do it, the necessity and purpose for why you propose it, and what the limits are for doing so... and have other people agreeing that this is acceptable to apply in this case (consensus)
I have explained this EXACT issue in a talk page on ERC-721 (section 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ERC-721 . I welcome you to check it out and comment on it for discussion, or to even use something like this on the Dash page. It just so happens that its initially less of an issue for ERC-721 as it has MANY scholarly sources discussing it it since it is considered a breakthrough in a specific crypto topic (NFTs), but it may becomes more of an issue as new developments emerge in the space and attention moves elsewhere. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would of course assume good faith! Possibly a solid discussion is required to nail it down. But it's a pretty terrible news outlet, and the original discussion was unanimous on its unreliability - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated by whom. As I said the facts in that CGTN article are true, common knowledge known to be true. I suppose those who deem/decide which sources are reliable or not are biased in some way. Anyhow, I found another reliable source saying the exact same thing. So it is common sense that CGTN is reliable for this. Ear-phone (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated by whom.WP:CGTN - they are given to fabrication. Any true information should be considered an accident. A source given to fabrication is really not usable for any sort of medical claim - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious, to me, what is going on here. Just a clash of 'ideologies' and who gets to control the narrative. Some so-called reputable sites like CNN(Cable News Network) have been labelled by some as Fake News, with good reason. Then you delete information instead of finding an alternative reliable source, by your standards, resulting in diminished content on a pertinent African-related topic. Ear-phone (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tragedy is this, bias, inadvertently affects those who push it. Then they act surprised when a pandemic arrives and affects them. Good luck in your Administrative activities. I ask that you now leave me alone. Ear-phone (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard I have no interest in the last word or even think in those terms. I was minding my own business, editing Wikipedia, when you deleted my edits I asked you about your deletion on your talk page, which I believe is allowed. Now you're calling me "dude". Ear-phone (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you moved this article back to drafts (thanks for that), might it not have been a good idea to restore the prior AFC decline templates and comments, for future reviewers to have access to? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edits were removing a trashy tabloid reference to the New York Post, not the NY Daily News. The NY Post is indeed not deprecated! It is, however, a Generally Unreliable source, found to be such in a broad general RFC of editors. It is not a Reliable Source, as required by WP:V. Please do not deliberately add (or re-add) unreliable sources to Wikipedia, as you did.
A source not being completely deprecated is insufficient to make it usable in Wikipedia. If you're going to add a Generally Unreliable source anyway, I'm baffled that you seem to think a tabloid trash article called "The craziest baby name trends of 2022" is any sort of Wikipedia-suitable source. This doesn't show the editorial judgement I'd think could be reasonably expected - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re this: I would think that this comes under RSOPINION, since that's what was the intent in citing it. I certainly wasn't using it to establish a fact beyond that opinion. A publication by a leading think tank associated with a political ideology should certainly be considered reliable in expressing representative opinion of adherents of that ideology with respect to actions of other adherents of that ideology, one would think. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RSOPINION presumes an RS, though. What you're describing sounds a bit like compiling primary sources - which the article already does rather a lot of. This risks WP:SYNTH from primary sources in article space - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the wake of the talk page discussion we had, I will be opening an RS/N discussion on Fox Business specifically (I would agree that we probably shouldn't use any science or politically-themed content, anything clearly recycled from Fox News, and certainly nothing from post-2016 Maria Bartiromo or (now a former FBN personality) Lou Dobbs) ... but nothing in the archives I looked through really addressed FBN as a whole. Just so we have clarity on it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is fraught and the RSN discussions tend to get flooded with circular discussion, so if you file a discussion make it a good one that cites the many past discussions and why this one is different! Perhaps we will have a discussion that goes anywhere this time ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious tagging the article for speedy deletion? You claim you have written a book on cryptocurrencies and now you don't acknowledge that FDUSD is just behind Tether as the second most traded stablecoin in circulation? Half a million google search results, tracked by all major exchanges, $3+ billion in daily trading volume. Isn't that enough for notability? You tagged the article for being written as an advertisement, and your user page is just and advertisement for your book, urging people to buy it? Lol what a joke. Itemirus (talk)06:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Does Standard and Poors ring a bell? The fact they bothered to release a report on FDUSD means it is a notable coin? I noticed by reading your talk page that you keep on vandalizing pages related to cryptocurrencies. You have a hidden agenda in relation to your books which you advertise on Wikipedia? Are you even fit to be a Wikipedia admin? maybe you should resign you post and give it to someone without conflicts of interest. Itemirus (talk)07:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey if you're really all sincere and actually care about making good articles, here's a stub I just created.
Blockchain and NFT pioneer Dieter Shirley. I left a bunch of RSs and brief treatment on his accomplishments that should establish notability though the citations could be organized better, it's not hard to piece together how. No crypto sources. No bundled list citations (yet).
I wanted to make a nice comprehensive treatment for this subject, but I don't even think it's worth the effort for me at this point if you're just going to make excuses to disruptively edit and hate on my contributions, so I left it pretty foundational. You can do the heavy-lifting.
Looks like it was moved to draft already, which I concur on - passing mentions don't do the job for a BLP when mostly the sources are acctually about the companies - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you were the administrator who placed the protection for the mainspace article. Was wondering if you would be able to unprotect it so I can move it.
Please feel free to review the sourcing/wording and all, I tried my best to steer away from non reliable sources and promotional material, which was a driving topic behind the past AfDs. Thanks. TLAtlak02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have enough proper sources that it would pass at AFC, so I've moved it into place for you. My opinion as an editor is that it could do with more sources about Bitget, if those exist in RSes. But this'll do for a start, sure. Note that I can't promise that nobody will nominate it again - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it, and yes, sourcing could be better. I'll improve on it in a bit, there is some Forbes sourcing available online but it's unclear if the content is reliable (some is labelled "Staff Contributor" or is on international editions of Forbes). Found a couple more sources as well. I'll add it to the talk page for discussion. Best, TLAtlak01:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NYPost film reviews
I never said WP:GUNREL needs to be updated, and posting passive-agressive notices at all of the talk pages is not a WP:GOODFAITH approach to discussion. The wording at WP:NYPOST specifically calls it generally unreliable for reporting on New York City politics, so I don't think that justifies blanket removal of film reviews from multiple articles without discussion. WP:GUNREL does already include exceptions for subject-matter experts, which the authors are in these three cases. Publishing their reviews in an unreliable newspaper doesn't mean their film opinions are somehow "unreliable". - adamstom97 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it said it was generally unreliable and especially for New York politics. "Generally" means this is not a Reliable Source.
Is it WP:DUE though? Would it violate NPOV not to include it? I'd think you'd need a bit more than "well it's NOT FORBIDDEN," given you don't want it discussed. If you claim to be making a substantive sourcing argument, that should not be done on a user talk page - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one deleting long-accepted content from articles. The question is, is it REQUIRED to remove this content without discussion, and the answer to that is no. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but the crappy content has been there a long time" has never been regarded as a good or convincing argument for keeping crappy content. If you claim to be making a substantive sourcing argument, that should not be done on a user talk page - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you deleted content from multiple articles that did not need to be deleted and are not interested in having a good faith discussion about it. Nice. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I need to point out to you that GUNREL already supports my position. There is no discussion to have at RSN, and I am not "having a sourcing argument" at your talk page. The issue under discussion here is your behaviour. You deleted content without justification and reverted me when I restored it. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your reading is incorrect, and you're stretching to find an excuse to include a GUNREL source in Wikipedia, for unclear reasons. This is literally a sourcing discussion. If you're sure of your position, you should take it to the appropriate venue and not insist on continuing to hammer it in an inappropriate one - David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about keeping these sources in the articles at all. I just feel strongly about editors randomly deleting content for no good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Smith wrote in a RS, that'd be one thing. If he wrote in his Forbes blog, would we include it? I'm pretty sure we would not - this question has come up at RSN, when someone who has some notability goes from writing in a high-quality source to writing in a low-quality source and someone wants to justify using the low-quality source because the person used to write for better outlets. This usually doesn't convince, as the writer could have not done that - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MikeAllen: David Gerard is also removing reviews from book articles. So I think the discussion applies even further from WP:FILM if they plan on spamming edits across the entire Wiki in some inane crusade to remove basic review criticism. We're not talking about articles on Hunter Biden's laptop. We're talking about what Kyle Smith said about Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. This is fatuous watchlist spam. Οἶδα (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting everyone's time without improving the encyclopedia. Yeah, you are a spammer. I guess it gives you purpose in your life. Οἶδα (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the source of reviews is like removing what makes things more encyclopedic. You have blatantly removing that information with no other reasons other than your so-called beliefs behind the removal. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these deletions are excessive and do not reflect the issues with NYP. David, will you restore the content or should we have a conversation elsewhere? Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said repeatedly above that WP:RSN would be an excellent start, but nobody who objects seems to want to have a sourcing discussion on the sourcing noticeboard. If you can make a case there, that would get more eyeballs on the discussion in an actually appropriate venue - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sourcing issues not addressed. Too many primary sources, too many cryptocurrency sources. Strongly suggest you write a version entirely based only on mainstream RSes with no cryptocurrency media - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, Appreciate your input related to my draft of the Pulsechain blockchain. What you mean with mainstream "RSes" exactly? Couldn't find any clue. Do you have an example or reference? Happy to meet the WP quality requirements and change it accordingly. Mgloor (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got it. I will remove some of the primary sources and do a deep dive to understrand WP:RS better prior to updating. Mgloor (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David, not to bother you too much on a Sunday but I am keen to get this article approved in order getting things done. I changed the draft after studying the links that you shared with me above and reduced to only most necessary primary references. I enriched the article with quality secondary references (e.g. FORBES, IEEE, CNBC, US SEC, SENS Research) which was the toughest part as Web3 is still so new and agile. In addition, I removed all crypto news centric and related references. I feel that now the secondary references are reliable and crypto agnostic (independent of the subject) and even qualify the in-depth criteria (as the Investopia reference article is very comprehensive). Do you think I could risk it to re-submit that version? --Mgloor — Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to ask what, precisely, the rush is. Is this article a paid commission of any sort? If an article has been rejected twice at AFC for the same reason, that's a strong signal to take your time - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No rush at all apart from personal ambitions to utilize my spare time efficiently. However, I clearly agree to meet quality quidelines, irrelevant of time needed. I am not paid and neither a social influencer nor on any payroll related to any online or crypto topic, as evidence I highlight a long WP trackrecord of ~1000 edits since 2005 in the German Wikipedia covering any topic and many new pages created. I develop OpenSource software since 30 years which shows my intrinsic non-commercial motivation as well. --Mgloor (talk) - 17:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. Can I seek for your advice? I requested official assistance on AfC submission 5 days ago through the official process and consequently re-engineered the article to be compliant with Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Cryptocurrencies after the initial rejections. User GPL93 marked the article for deletion with a reference to advertisment/promotion. Can you assist me on how to deal with this? Destroying is easier than contributing. I would rather have expected to join a fair dialogue in order to improve the article than speedy destruction of my work. Any hint? --Mgloor (talk) - 17:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again vandalizing pages
On the page First Digital USD once again you removed a reliable source - an assessment from S&P global, one of the most reputable financial institutions in the world - claiming it was an unreliable crypto website; maybe you're too cocky to notice, but you keep wasting a lot of people's time with your dumb, unsolicited editing; who the **** you think you are? why don't you take a break from WP where you just have fun ruining other's people work? Itemirus (talk)09:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I've been suddenly busy of late with hopefully-paying work, hence the lack of Wikipedia edits over the past couple of weeks and not sure when I'll get back into it - David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in 2021 you salted the page Coulrophilia. I have written a well-sourced draft (Draft:Coulrophilia) about the subject that I think passes the general notability guidelines. Would you mind removing the salt so that the draft can be moved to mainspace? Thanks. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've unsalted the link, because that's certainly a collection including sufficient solid RSes. Though I hope not to see the headline "Serve Me Up a Slice of That Clussy" again any time soon - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
This fails WP: N. The first two sources are trivial mentions of the language, and the third is self-published. I couldn't find any secondary, in-depth coverage outside of these sources.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
RE Immutable Pty Ltd; this seems to be somewhat overzealous and lacking consensus. E.g. PCGamer cited decrypt.co without concern, so I don't believe there is much difference in reliable there. blockchaingamer.biz is a Steel Media site, parent of Pocket Gamer, which is reliable on WP:VG/S. Regarding the partnerships sentence, you could have found more reliable sources for those with a simple Google search, so outright deleting the sentence doesn't appear to improve the article. Regards IgelRM (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this comment. You're a terrific administrator who I've seen in action for years, but this does come across as potential personal bias on your end. It would help to request better sources, rather than wholesale deletion. BOTTO (T•C)16:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, could I inquire about this edit? Without the crypto website, it's a primary source published by Bright Star Studios. Can't they be used to a minor extent, if third-party sources are unavailable? BOTTO (T•C)16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using mainstream reliable sources and not crypto blogs, ever. This is a solid rule to apply across any claim even slightly cryptocurrency related.
Self-sourcing is usable in many cases, but if you don't have a third-party mainstream RS on a crypto article to support a claim, then the claim almost certainly shouldn't be on Wikipedia until you do.
Hey, David. So, first-party blogs surrounding cryptocurrency are no bueno, but what about, say, a first-party podcast about the game's lore? BOTTO (T•C)23:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1966 or 1967 (age 56–57)
Maddeningly inexact when we have to give the range, and pretty uncommon that I can just go ask the person on their talk page -- so I will do so here -- I would be happy to cite a tweet or a toot or a blog post or whatever to update this if you'd like. jp×g🗯️09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, for security reasons, prefer to not have my exact date of birth / year listed. Have already had people fly to my home town and show up at my work place asking to meet with me. Thankfully nursing staff / RCMP handled the situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) it would not be appropriate in this case to cite any of the other (non-deprecated) media sources that published the same facts at around the same time, because they all clearly plagiarised the Daily Mail articles I'm citing
2) the particular facts we're getting from these particular articles are likely to be reliable; other aspects of the DM's reporting in those particular are corroborated by other sources (not including the plagiarists), which improves the articles' credibility above the DM baseline, and the particular facts we're citing are from the DM's reporting of inquest testimony, which seems relatively unlikely to be fabricated (compared to say, claims the DM attributes to an anonymous witness or neighbour)
No doubt there is room for reasonable disagreement, but you didn't engage at all with the existing discussion or look into what facts we were relying on the cited articles for (and then either remove those claims from the article or find alternative citations) before removing the DM citations.
If it were just that one article, I'd leave this discussion for the talk page on the article, rather than bringing it here... but I see that today alone you removed citations of unreliable sources from something like 26 articles - on multiple occasions removing three per minute. It is hard to imagine how anyone could possibly do a good job of assessing what to do with a deprecated source citation with just 20 seconds of analysis. Sure enough, the way you're going about this appears to me to be basically following a crude algorithm: namely, if other citations appear at the exact same spot in the article, then you simply remove the citation, and otherwise, remove the citation plus all the content between it and the previous citation.
I note two points from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources: that "Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation" and that we are advised that "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately". It seems to me that the latter is precisely what you've done today and that it's problematic for several reasons:
Rapid bulk removal like this does not give you a chance to consider in context whether the particular claims or articles being cited are reliable, or whether there are special circumstances justifying the citation. Policy - at least as described by that page - gives editors the discretion to make that judgement call; bulk removal overrides it.
You cannot possibly assess at this speed which claims in the article are derived from the source you're removing the citation of. Consequently you are likely to either end up removing claims that are actually supported by other citations (which might appear at a slightly different location - e.g. at the end of the paragraph while the deprecated citation is at the end of a sentence) or - as in the case of the dog attacks page - to end up leaving claims in the article that came from the deprecated source while eliminating all evidence of their provenance, which is surely worse than them being there with a citation!
At this speed, you obviously cannot hunt for alternative, non-deprecated sources reporting the same facts, which where possible is going to be preferable to removing claims entirely.
At this speed it's also hard to ensure you don't render articles nonsensical by removing parts of them!
A quick review of your edits today quickly finds other problematic ones. A couple of examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lil%27_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1230254096, by removing a sentence citing The Sun that described actions of 50 Cent in July 2021, fundamentally changed (and made incorrect) the meaning of the subsequent sentence, which is about events later "that year". Previously, it was clear this referred to events in 2021, but due to your change the article now incorrectly places these subsequent events in 2005 (the year mentioned immediately prior to the sentence you deleted).
On net, you are doing damage with these kind of edits. Please stop making them! I will try to pick through your recent edits like this and see what I can fix, but I suspect some individual pages where you spent 20 seconds will take me an hour or more to figure out how to properly deal with. Edits deserve far more care than this and I don't see a reason for removals of deprecated sources to be a special case in that regard - especially given that the Deprecated Sources page takes care to spell out that citations of deprecated sources are not banned outright by policy, and that you therefore should not be presuming when you encounter one that it's a problem or that it's necessary or appropriate to do anything about it at all.
The short answer is: stop adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia. No, you haven't come up with another clever hack to put DM links as references into Wikipedia. No, you can't use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page or arguing against multiple editors on multiple personal talk pages.
The deprecation of the DM was passed in a broad general RFC, ratified in a second broad general RFC and broadened even further in a third general RFC (the one that found that the DM are such inveterate liars that dailymail.co.uk cannot be trusted as a source for the content of the Daily Mail). You know this already.
If you really want to use DM links as references in the way you are, the place to make your pitch is the place where general RFCs on sourcing are held - that's WP:RSN.
How is this even responsive to anything I've complained about?
If you don't want the Daily Mail used as a source on Wikipedia, then why were you and @FlightTime specifically editing the article into a state in which - had I not repeatedly intervened to stop you - the Mail would have been permanently used as a source? Either actually rip out the facts that are sourced only from the Daily Mail - i.e. stop using it as a source - or, if you can't be bothered to do that, then leave the citation so that it's visible that we're using the Mail as a source and people who can be bothered can figure out a way to change that. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's directly responsive. Stop adding or re-adding Daily Mail to Wikipedia articles. If you want to carve out a new rule - and it would take a new rule - take it to WP:RSN if you're serious. Who knows, they might say we're both wrong - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll do that, then. Here's what I propose to post (either once you okay it, or in a few days if you don't reply); let me know if I'm mischaracterizing your position in any way.
IMO we have multiple points of disagreement we have, but this seems to be the most fundamental one:
Heading: Should deprecated source citations be removed while claims from the deprecated source remain in the article?
Body: Suppose an article cites (for example) the Daily Mail, and contains information taken from the Daily Mail that is not corroborated by any other cited source. Is it okay for an editor to remove only the citation of the deprecated source, while leaving the information from the source in the article (without a "citation needed" marker)? Conversely, is it okay to reintroduce such a citation following its removal, pending consensus on whether or how to rewrite the content in question, in order to accurately reflect the provenance of information in the article?
I ask this apropos of a dispute with @David Gerard about the propriety of indiscriminate bulk removal of deprecated source citations. In his view it is entirely right to do this and there is no need to engage in any careful case-by-case review when doing so; if an article is consequently left indefinitely containing claims for which the Daily Mail is the only source, then so be it.
To me, this seems backward; I took it as obvious that as long as an article contains information for which our only source is the Daily Mail, it should cite the Daily Mail so that we are at least being clear and honest about the provenance of the information in the article. They are called deprecated sources, after all, not deprecated citation targets; I would've thought that, surely, the point of deprecating the Daily Mail is that in general we don't want to include information sourced from it, not merely that we don't want to admit to having done that! Quietly removing citations while leaving content from deprecated sources in place still seems like "usage" of the deprecated source, to me - we're just hiding it and thus making it less likely it will ever be changed.
With this in mind, I objected to David's actions on his Talk page, reintroduced Daily Mail citations to an article he had edited (pending the conclusion of an existing Talk page discussion about how to proceed), and asked him to remove the content sourced from the Daily Mail if he wanted to remove the citation again. He in turn objected to this. I cannot find any guideline or policy specifically supporting either of our perspectives, and David suggested I bring the dispute to this noticeboard.
Well, then why did you not do that, and object when I insisted that if we wanted to remove the source then we should do that? Why do you bulk edit out deprecated source citations (unavoidably resulting in situations where you do exactly the thing you say here you agree shouldn't be done) if that's your view? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant indef - it looks like just a promotional account - but evidently slipped or picked the wrong preset reason. I notice the block expired and they kept right on without communicating - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
I'm certainly not going to make a fuss about this (nor do I particularly care one way or the other), however do I question your rational for this edit. As I pointed out to the editor who previously removed the information: our coverage of Bari Weiss and the The Free Press doesn't question the reliability of either (nor do we have them flagged as non-RS). Honestly, I don't see why the passage was removed – it adds nuance to the section and is kind of amusing (as well as being demonstrably true). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source doesn't specifically have to be listed on RSP to be called dubious, that's just not the case. It's an opinion site specifically created not to be a conventional NEWSORG, past RSN discussion [2][3][4] indicates its unusability in many contexts for obvious reasons. While it would need a full RFC to be listed on RSP as "Generally Unreliable", I think that discussion's quite sufficient to regard it as "dubious" and that it's unlikely to be WP:DUE. An WP:RSOPINION presumes an RS, for instance - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been to Davos? If not, Google "davos champagne". She's actually pretty close to spot-on in her assessment (opinion), which is frankly in a similar tone to the rest of that section of our article (where we cite and wikilink the Transnational Institute, etc.). We might just as well trim the whole lot for good measure. Anyhow, not looking for an argument and definitely not going to the mat for this. Plenty of other (less contentious) things to do here, though I was surprised to see this seemingly innocuous addition attract such negative attention. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your recent edits, I understand that you may be unhappy with the closure of the recent NY Post RfC. However, that does not give you license to unilaterally undo the uninvolved closure of an RfC that you participated in. If you wish to challenge the closure, I would suggest that you take a look at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which gives some guidance as to how to do so. However, I must note that I do find the closure to be fairly obvious given the discussion, and I think the closer got the decision right.
lol, you don't close an RFC by stealth-editing a "close" into an archive two months closed. The only way to take that in good faith is to assume insufficient competence to be able to close things - David Gerard (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Red-tailed hawk, you reference a close I did four years ago, at a time when WP:CR was extremely backlogged with a number of contentious discussions languishing un-closed for 100 days plus. In the circumstances it was regrettably necessary to close discussions that had long since been archived in order to resolve ongoing, unproductive conflict (that wasn't the only one I did in 2020). I might personally be more hesitant to close an archived discussion with WP:CR as it is now. I think I'd look for evidence that the close is actually needful before proceeding with it.—S MarshallT/C14:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only closed an archived discussion based on an explicit close request made before it was archived . I would not close it in the absence of such a request. If I thought an archived discussion really needed a close, I would have requested it before archival and not 2 months afterwards. (t · c) buidhe14:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged, my recollection of that close at the time was that, while not against any specific policies or guidelines, it was seen as bad manners to close an archived discussion without creating a thread on the original noticeboard announcing it was closed as such. I agree that David, being involved, should've reached the closer beforehand and, if necessary, escalated to AN if necessary, instead of undoing the close himself. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈15:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a recent expose on David's behavior on Wikipedia, alleging that, among other things, David has abused Wikipedia's rules to get false information published about people he dislikes, by providing false info to news outlets that Wikipedia has deemed to be reliable and then citing those sources in order to push his edits through.
While I can't speak to the veracity of everything it claims, it is itself a very well-cited article, including extensive links to specific Wikipedia edits and other statements and actions by David Gerard that appear to show a clear pattern of conflicts of interest, abuse of admin privileges, and general bad faith editing. KingSupernova (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a “nothing burger?” I am not trying to be a jerk but Mr Gerard was very much given a sanction for his editing of a BLP and this article (I can’t call it Doxxing as Mr Gerard is a real person who uses his real name and identity, which I respect), and if even half of it is true the claims make me concerned for the Wikipedia institution. It would vindicate the biggest claims that are showing up in mainstream media - Wikipedia is vulnerable to (usually male) power users who can control the system and bully their way into power, and who can use the site to potentially slander BLPs (as someone who patrolled speedy delete BLP articles are so problamatic we have many many essays and policies on them). I would like a simple “this is a slanderous article” or at least “these claims are not true. As someone who has fused Wikipedia into the 21st century this is a concerning expose. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not sound like the appropriate venue, based on that page's first sentence: "This page is intended for reports of usernames that are blatant and serious violations of the username policyrequiring an immediate block".
His violations do not pertain to the username policy. Read the report. I've used other wikipedia reporting mechanisms, but I'm not sure which ones might actually escape his ability to control/suppress, and thus won't be listing the ones I've already tried here. Caseythezahima (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not kowtowing to the delusions of the far-right" isn't a punishable offence on Wikipedia, much to the chagrin of many of our veteran editors. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's rather disingenuous. I for one, simply read the expose, and, being new to Wikipedia editing, hopped over to see what was going on. What's to say that isn't what's also happening here? Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's various calls to action from aggrieved LessWrong readers on social media, hence new accounts filing admin complaints as their very first edits or their first edits in six to twelve months. Not sure what the precise local technical definition of "coordinated offsite attack" is, so I won't call it that, but it's at the least a stochastic version of that, based on a really long beatup claiming that conservative sources are being suppressed on Wikipedia. And that apparently I ghostwrote Elizabeth Sandifer's book as part of this attack - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a little disingenuous, as the expose goes far beyond that. I won't disagree with y'all that it's horrible that it seems people are jumping here for the first time (or the first time in a long time) to join a flame war, but I can't say I disagree with their concerns either.
I'm not going to try to abstract a clear Wikipedia-formatted claim out from that thing for them, nor can you reasonably expect me to have the burden of abstracting out their claim for them. You know the drill: policy, diffs, checkable evidence, keep it short - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a really obvious question: why isn't TracingWoodgrains making the claims in a usable format, instead of standing back from doing so and sending out proxies? Is TracingWoodgrains in fact able to edit at all? (It appears he is.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, David. I can edit, but I rarely do. I have an obvious conflict of interest in disputes involving you and I have no interest in bringing those disputes on-wiki. If others are inclined to do so, they are welcome to do so, and I think it would be wise of them, but I don't see it as my place to continue off-wiki disputes on-wiki. All the best. TracingWoodgrains (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"to continue off-wiki disputes on-wiki." ??? You are doing the opposite by taking your disagreements with what's allegedly happening here off-wiki. David doesn't have a dispute with you off-wiki, AFAIK. You aren't playing fairly. THIS is where it should be happening. Make your case, with diffs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an outsider to Wikipedia culture, a writer who focuses on cultural issues, who happened to turn my attention to a local issue. I have made a single-digit number of edits to Wikipedia. Gerard and I know of each other from off-wiki; I am a member of communities he monitors and disapproves of, and he has sparred with me off-wiki. My article was about his behavior as a whole, not a formal petition to your website for a policy change. I'm flattered that people here are taking interest in my article, but you're asking me to learn the ropes of a site I don't participate in, in an adversarial position, to summarize my own journalism—particularly when much of the thrust of my journalism was focused around Gerard continuing off-Wikipedia disputes on-Wikipedia. If you'd like to point me to the location and methods you think I should be using to bring my journalism onto this site, I'm happy (time permitting) to take a look, but the expectation that a writer focusing on issues in a subculture he is not a member of ought to do so within that subculture is one I do not share. TracingWoodgrains (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You are doing the opposite by taking your disagreements with what's allegedly happening here off-wiki."
That's rich, given that David Gerard has a history of taking conflicts off-site, including using Wikipedia, as well as the press, to fight out conflicts when he doesn't get his way on certain forums. But whenever David and his friends come around, rules for thee, but not for me, seems to make an appearance as well. Aapjes (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller Nobody asked to me to come here. I use Wikipedia frequently, even as I edit infrequently. I've donated money in the past. When there's a high profile expose on how the platform is being abused, that brings the lowly normies like me out of the woodwork to make sure my investments (in time and money) are worth it. Netparrot (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aapjes As I somewhat suspected, you have indeed come here to talk. But unsupported comments aimed at the peanut gallery are not the way. If you have a legit issue with David, you need to support that with WP:DIFFS and work in good faith with him to try to bridge the gap. If you can't have a meaningful conversation with David, then what are you really achieving by posting on his page? CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓06:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek I have tried very hard to have meaningful conversations with David in the past, but I have concluded that this is impossible. He had a constant tendency to steer conversations into unproductive directions. Others have also tried it in vain. For example, there is a long history of Gerard abusing WP:RS to remove certain sources completely from Wikipedia, even when the community consensus is that poor sources can be used for certain things. His edits have been repeatedly challenged for violating community consensus, but he consistently refuses to change his editing to match the community consensus on WP:RS. It is also clear to me that due to his high level of contributions, he gets to violate rules to a far greater extent than other editors. You and I are having a discussion about Dax who was blocked from editing for doing a fraction of the things that Gerard has done. I notice these things.
And to answer your question, I responded to point out that Valjean accused Tracing of being unfair to Gerard, in a way that Gerard himself has done repeatedly in the past. That seemed like a useful fact to add, to prevent people from being misinformed. Aapjes (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation of RSN consensus
Please avoid misrepresenting RSN consensus as you've done here. There were 5 editors who said the source could be used for this article and 3 who said it shouldn't (and one of those three editors wrote that "Weiss' ventures have been uniformly propagandistic for years" without providing any evidence whatsoever). Alaexis¿question?21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim or imply that FP was found in that discussion to be a reliable enough source to pass WP:BLP muster, then you have greatly misunderstood BLP and its requirement for solid RSes - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of ANI thread
Hi David, as you may already be aware, yesterday a new user opened a discussion which concerns you at ANI. It was speedily closed and the user indeffed, which I assume is why no one bothered to inform you when the OP failed to do so as recquired. However, there is now an open question as to whether the closure and the block were appropriately handled, so I felt someone had better let you know, just in case the matter had not already grabbed your attention. The thread is WP:ANI#I want to report a moderator/editor who I fear has the power to intercept messages such as these.. SnowRise let's rap07:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully David, I also have around three decades of experience with dealing with trolls online, and for a fair number of reasons, I don't think that's what we're looking at here. One can never be certain, of course, but all the evidence would tend to suggest that this is exactly what it appears to be: someone outraged at your reported actions coming here to try to hold you accountable, but being so ham-fisted in their approach that they got themselves blocked almost instantaneously. Mind you, I here make no judgment on the veracity of the claims in the article, nor am I inclined to defend this person's righteous indignation/come out swinging approach. Rather I am merely saying that the allegations in the piece and a desire for what this new user perceived to be accountability (rather than disruption or drama for their own sake) seem to have genuinely been the inciting motivation. Still, I hope this is the last of such unfocused and unproductive accusations we get on the matter. SnowRise let's rap19:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's assuming good faith, and then there's the bit where it's literally an offsite coordinated attack being run and iterated upon by TracingWoodgrains, which is why the onslaught of WP:MEATpuppets while TW stands back and professes noninvolvement. A small slice, including TW encouraging attempts to launder his original post into RSes as part of the attack, like a very inept Gamergate - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm no more impressed with the effort to try to petition for RS coverage than you are. Indeed, I doubt many experienced Wikipedians in good standing would be. That said, I'd be shocked to see the effort succeed--and even if it did, good luck to them with getting the resulting source past a WEIGHT test to support content seeking to further dramatize these matters.
That said, the rest of the external thread you post there, if anything, seems to confirm that the ANI thread was not coordinated by Tracingwoodgrains (who specifically highlighted it as an example of something not to do in the circumstances) but rather was Caseythezahima's ineptly executed effort to send up a flare here.
If you will forgive me speaking bluntly with you, as someone who does not really know you and has only after-the-fact familiarity with the Scott Alexander affair, you're not exactly being at the height of self-awareness in grousing about the willingness of the community to spend time handling that thread in as visibly above-board a fashion as possible. Whether one credits your version of events or those of Tracingwoodgrains as the more accurate or possessed of perspective, the issue only came here because of your overlapping relationships with their and our communities. No one is thrilled with needing to spend the time to laboriously engage with the topic of how to handle such a posting and the new user who made it. We're just trying to do our best to process the situation without abandoning core principles that our open process requires of us, AGF included.
That said, I am not unsympathetic. Even if I were to assume that the most accurate version of how the Slate Star Codex COI discussion played out is the one that is least favourable to you in every respect (which of course I don't, for the record), I would still appreciate how someone writing an op-ed summarizing your entire social history online, that attempts to virtually psycho-analyze you and paint you as a machiavellian cyberbully, would constitute a very unpleasant thing, and paint any attention given to it it here in a negative light. I don't mean to minimize that.
But that said, those who took their time to have that discussion don't deserve your ire for being careful about not closing down process to a new user just because said individual came here with the express goal of reporting the conduct of one of our oldest and most accomplished contributors, and were out of their depth in doing so. It's thankless work trying to thread the needle between our open values and restricting unnecessary acrimony, and the person who generated that work came here to take down David Gerard. And we'll look after David Gerard, to the extent it is in rectitude with our policies. But we also can't reflexively bury criticism of you in an instantaneous and cavalier fashion, even if it does come from someone outside of our community circle who arrives here with a clear agenda.
Please try to understand that and try to take pride in a community that goes to such lengths to give a fair hearing to outside perspectives. Afterall, as one of our oldest and most influential community members, it is a positive reflection on you and the other early founders of our project. SnowRise let's rap22:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the concern was that it might constitute outing of you, in some form or another. I think the party raising that concern didn't realize just how high your profile is, when it comes to being on the public faces of the movement. SnowRise let's rap22:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor bot glitch found because of TracingWoodgrains article
A year ago, I asked to see if the article of the Constitution Party of North Carolina could be restored but it was denied. Since then, the Constitution Party did gain enough signatures to be on the ballot. Although they have been certified, it actually has not been easy. In Mid-April, the party faced a technical snag that put their signature count below the necessary requirement and have regained more signatures since then. A State Board of Elections Meeting was first held on June 26 in regards to questions concerning the Constitution Party of North Carolina, Justice for All (Cornel West's Party), and We the People (RFK's Party). They were all initially denied on that meeting and another meeting was held on July 9. The Constitution Party was certified on July 9 while the other two parties are still facing delay with another meeting coming up on July 16. What has been going on to these parties have not only garnered significant attention much like in 2022 with the Green Party, but is also pushing demand to put those parties on the ballot. I can send you the sources if needed and I hope this is enough to restore the article of the Constitution Party of North Carolina. I also wouldn't mind there being separate articles for We the People NC and Justice for All NC if needed. Please get back to me soon. Average Ninja (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that the article failed on the basis of a lack of third-party coverage. If it's got that then it'd be generally notable, sure. I see there's some news coverage of the party being allowed onto the ballot. There isn't a huge amount of detail on the party in those stories, but it's multiple coverage of a balloted party, so in my opinion as an editor I'd say an article would be reasonable - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links to the sites on important dates regarding the news of this NC Affiliate.
I'm unlikely to have time myself, but if any other editor reading thinks they can do a Wikipedia-quality article that will stay ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article seems to have disappeared. I'm a little curious on why, as I recall it wasn't that bad (compared to the others I've read by the same author). Then again , it wasn't me they were writing about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, looks like the Bitcoin Cash army is back again and ready for another hype cycle. Not too bad yet, but a few 'new' editors. Maybe you could add it back to your patrol. Here the editor starting to get wound up threatening to "revert the revert" here. Nothing terrible yet, just thought I would mention as there does seem to be a couple of them chiming in. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
