This is an archive of past discussions with User:Woodroar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Exmor".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
why did you remove the very true happenings that (Redacted)? i think that's VERY important information to include, victim of gamergate or not Xchan100 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Xchan100! I've removed your claims above, and also left some important information about Wikipedia (in general) and our policies regarding content about living persons (in specific) on your Talk page. I suggest taking the time to read those links (and the ones below) in full.
Content on Wikipedia should summarize claims made by reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We have to be strict when it comes to negative or controversial claims about living persons, and we also require top-quality sources for those claims. (I suggest reading our guidelines on reliable sources and also browsing through WP:RSP for details on which sources we consider reliable or unreliable.) We're not here to spread gossip or say whatever we want—in articles, on Talk pages, or anywhere on Wikipedia. So, to answer your question, those claims were removed because they're not supported by reliable sources. It's that simple. Please let me know if you have any other questions! Woodroar (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Manveer Heir
Hey there! I've been having some difficulty making edits to this page, particularly to remove some strange editorial choices and to add highly relevant (and in my opinion, extremely important) counterbalance to the person's comments on race and diversity. You seem to be interested in keeping a bit of a stranglehold on even word-choice edits, which I'd like to get some sort of explanation on so that those edits might cease to be regularly undone. I've done my best to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies on the matter and tailoring the edits accordingly, but it maybe I'm missing something. For instance, my reference (17) is taken directly from the subject's own Twitter posts, identical to reference 3 which you have evidently accepted into the article. Kindly advise what differentiates these references. I don't believe the subject should be able to use Wikipedia for flattery or promotion - as it appears might be happening here (extremely positively-slanted wording is being vigorously defended whereas more neutral (though of course unflattering) wording is not) - I'm unsure why and would like to avoid a battle of edits here by understanding. Thanks WhereIsFibonacci (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @WhereIsFibonacci, welcome to Wikipedia! We have intentionally high standards for content about living persons, particularly when it comes to claims that are negative or controversial. Such claims should always be directly supported by citations to reliable, secondary sources—ideally, multiple sources. (You can read more about this policy at WP:BLP and WP:V.) On the other hand, primary sources like reference 3 can be used for some basic, non-controversial claims (like leaving a job), as outlined at WP:ABOUTSELF. Claims like "criticized for some comments" and "criticized by the video game community" would need to be cited to reliable, secondary sources discussing that criticism. I'm no expert on Manveer Heir—I only found out about him and this reoccurring issue when it was mentioned on a noticeboard—but I think it's pretty clear that he's being sarcastic with hot takes on a nuanced, controversial subject (structural/societal racism vs. individual racism). That limits how we can use those primary sources to...pretty much nothing. There's also the fact that half of the tweets are photoshopped and not even his. (Which is why we don't consider Know Your Meme a reliable source.)
For what it's worth, I agree with some of your other changes. The article has some puffery that should be removed. But that doesn't mean that we can introduce unsourced or poorly-sourced claims as some kind of parity. Wikipedia does have a Neutral Point of View policy, which (contrary to how it may sound) requires that we (as editors) neutrally summarize what reliable sources say without inserting our own interpretations or maintaining a false balance. If reliable sources are overwhelmingly positive (or negative) about a subject, our articles should reflect that.
Thanks for the points of clarification! So the source I cited was Manveer himself stating that he stands by "all of" those tweets he made. Now, they may have been collated in that KnowYourMeme page on the tweet he replied to, but I believe every single one of them (and more) are available directly on archive.today as links to his previous (now-deleted) Twitter account. Would it be better to provide these direct links as references? Or am I to understand correctly that, simply: flattering primary sources about a subject are accepted, but unflattering primary sources aren't? For example, I couldn't even get some of the puffery removed until now. This makes me question whether the article was read at all by those undoing the edits, as half of it was dedicated to specific slides on a presentation he once gave. For crying out loud, the article read that he was named "one of the top 50 people in the video game industry" which is simply wrong. Further, the links to Wikipedia policies you provided seem to focus a lot on the fact that primary sources should be considered unreliable unless it was made by the subject directly. Perhaps an article from OneAngryGamer (https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/03/mass-effect-andromedas-racist-game-designer-no-longer-works-for-bioware/) would be more suitable as a source, since that blog has been used in other articles....
Now, you and I can argue whether he is "being sarcastic with hot takes" (respectfully, it is not "pretty clear" at all), but I encourage you to go and actually read some of his old tweets if you sincerely believe that - as, though I don't know you, I wager that were the comments directed at any other race, you would likely have a different opinion (for example: [1]https://archive.is/RODcy or https://archive.is/t3b9w (which I'd hope would give you pause)). The fact remains that a huge percentage of this article is dedicated to his comments on race, and whether you personally think it to be "sarcasm" or not, the comments made huge waves at the time, resulted in, arguably, his removal from the company, caused him to delete his account altogether, and are relevant to keeping the article balanced. Now, I'm not making those claims in the edits, only to you now as someone who followed it at the time, and only drawing attention that those comments exist and are pertinent. Nowhere in my language did it state he was a racist, nor that his comments weren't sarcasm, or anything else. Only that he made them, and they are related to his views for an entire section dedicated to them (or, why not just remove that section altogether?). If he has admitted to standing by those comments and you yourself don't view them as serious or racially charged, then why the panic to hide them from his article at all?
If your issue is that we avoid terms like "criticized", then this can be done. There is no desire to paint the man as a monster, only to dedicate a measly 5% of the article to drawing attention to the fact that these comments were made and are relevant to the remaining 95% of the article that was biased enough that the man could - let's be honest - add it to his résumé. WhereIsFibonacci (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@WhereIsFibonacci, Heir's tweets are still a primary source, so unusable for claims that are negative or controversial. It doesn't matter if we avoid the word "criticized" or take a "drawing attention" approach, it's still controversial. Ultimately, we're not here to perform our own analysis or interpretation of sources or add our own point of view or opinions into articles—which it sounds like you're trying to do. We do sometimes fill in basic details from primary sources, though there are limitations. Nothing negative or controversial as mentioned, but also no puffery because that type of content is usually considered "exceptional" or "self-serving" or simply isn't a statement of fact. (See WP:PRIMARY and (again) WP:ABOUTSELF for the full policies.) However, keep in mind that almost everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer and we have 6.6 million articles, so not every article can or will be perfect. A few other comments:
One Angry Gamer is considered an unreliable source because their staff largely lacks training and experience in journalism (or related fields), they don't differentiate between opinion and fact-based content, they've misrepresented sources, and so on. You can read more about specific sources at WP:RSP (for general sources) and WP:VG/S (for video game-specific sources).
If the screenshot in that article is real, Heir had written more than 76 thousand tweets at the time it was published. I'm guessing he wrote a few more before deleting his account. Cherry-picking the dozen or two tweets that you disagree with is exactly why we don't do our own analysis and instead rely on what reliable sources have published.
As for why that didn't happen before, my guess is that your logged-out edits were seen as Living Person policy violations and edit warring. BLP-violating content is almost always reverted, even if there are incidental good edits, because the policy is that [c]ontentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I'm glad that you created an account and you're willing to discuss it now. If you have further concerns about the article, I suggest bringing them to Talk:Manveer Heir for a wider discussion. Woodroar (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Understood! Then it seems I understood correctly in saying that primary sources are good for flattering comments on a subject but not for unflattering ones! Thanks kindly for the clarification. I indeed would have agreed that One Angry Gamer might be a questionable source, but then I saw him in other articles (which I'm sure you've been quick to remove now after our discussion ;)). I'm glad to see some measure of consistency from yourself in that regard, even if I do have to say I'm disappointed that the fact he might have made 76,000 tweets at the time of his deletion is considered grounds for dismissing the validity of a great handful of others (except, again, in the case that such tweets are complimentary to him).
Anyway, it seems there's not going to be much progress to made here, and I admit I have been a little dissuaded from even attempting to fix things like puffery or unusual language as a result of this experience, and while you have been perfectly cordial (if a little accusatory) I can only hope that other aspiring editors get a more welcoming experience. Thanks for your time, and I hope enjoy the rest of your weekend! WhereIsFibonacci (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
My name is Siddhartha, I help to look after the online presence for Mooji, and I've recently been having a look at Mooji's wikipedia page and some of the history behind it.
Thank you for the work you've put into looking after this page and moderating some of the edits.
I wanted to ask your advice for improving the page, as I would rather not make edits only to find out they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. However, I do have two main concerns with the article as it stands now, and I'm very keen to get your feedback and suggestions for how to address them.
1. There seems to be a strong emphasis on the monetary aspect of Mooji's satsangs
I find this emphasis a bit suggestive in a negative way, insinuating that Mooji's teachings are just about making money. I'm not sure why it is relevant to list the number of people coming to retreats, how much they are paying, the number of hectares of Mooji's retreat center, the annual income of the organisation, etc.
I feel some implicit bias in the way this information is highlighted, but I'd be happy to hear what you think about it.
2. Poor and vague representation of Mooji's teachings
I find that most of the descriptions of Mooji's teachings revolve around journalists' subjective experiences of attending a talk. For example, it's attended mainly by "mostly well-off whites", it's a "riff on faith", his focus is totally on you "making you feel like you really matter"... and so on.
It's reasonable to include impressions and experiences, but seems misleading to present these opinions as a description of Mooji's teachings.
With so much of Mooji's teachings publicly available on YouTube or succinctly explained in his books, it feels to me that Wikipedia should give a clearer overview of what Mooji's teachings actually are.
I found the page of Gangaji, a comparable teacher, to be a good example of what I would expect to see on the Wikipedia page of a well known spiritual teacher.
I'm happy to draft an overview of Mooji's core teachings that references source material, if that could help.
Again, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about these points. I feel the article could give a deeper insight into who Mooji is and what he is sharing without losing its objectivity. Would be very grateful for any help along these lines.
I'm sorry if this is a bit much, but I'm hoping that asking for help from someone experienced in editing and moderating Wikipedia pages would be more effective than trying to make or fight for changes on my own.
Hi Siddcorsus, thanks for reaching out, and for mentioning your own conflict of interest on this subject. (Many editors don't!) In general, articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, independent, secondary sources. That means news articles, scientific journals, books from reputable publishers, and so on. We can use primary sources—for example, the subject's verified social media posts or interviews—to fill in very basic details, like their birthdate or gender identity. If what the subject claims is different from what reliable secondary sources claim—say, conflicts over a birth year/age—we generally trust those secondary sources. What we, as editors, can't do is analyze or synthesize primary materials like the subject's teachings. Unfortunately, if secondary sources tend to focus on the monetary side of things or they misunderstand some teachings, that's not something we can fix. In that case, your best course of action would be to reach out to those news outlets, or perhaps request coverage from other reliable sources.
You mentioned our article on Gangaji, which I've never seen before. I'll be honest, it's pretty bad. It's largely based on primary sources, and plenty of claims aren't sourced at all. The article's history shows a great deal of promotional editing, too. That's essentially the opposite of what a Wikipedia article should be. Our article on Mooji, on the other hand, has been mentioned at high-profile discussion pages like our noticeboard on articles about living persons and the consensus among seasoned editors has been that it meets our standards.
I've left a welcome message on your User Talk page. You can click on "Learn more about editing" for an introduction to why we do what we do, but please let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
(Note: I'm aware you've received these notifications before for other areas, and apologize for the additional talk page clutter but the filter does not indicate that you've received it for the GG area yet. As a reminder, you can always use the Ctopics/aware template mentioned above to indicate your awareness of various contentions topics, if you do not wish to be notified of them in the future). ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi 2600, her Instagram can only be used for basic claims about herself, and cannot be used for claims involving third parties. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for more about that. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @Xoomia:, thank you for the message, but I have to ask: why me? I've never edited that article before and I'm not a member of WikiProject Football. In fact, I don't even watch football. Woodroar (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I can easily find other sources for O'Neill's views regarding freedom of speech. However, the student papers seem to have been the only ones covering the protests over his 2018 visit. I am not using them to make controversial claims - I am using them to verify that Oxford students protested O'Neill's 2018 visit. This should not be an issue.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
It is an issue, as protesting someone for their views is inherently controversial. We need high-quality sources to support such a claim regarding living persons. Additionally, if only one source is reporting on the situation, that's a sign that it's an undue or minority viewpoint. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
If reliable, secondary, independent sources—that is, not the student newspapers but reputable sources reporting on them—have covered this situation, that might be fine. But it would really have to be widely reported, by several sources at least, to be DUE. Considering the number of reverts you're currently at, I would strongly suggest trying to workshop any phrasing on the Talk page rather than adding it yourself—which would likely be seen as further reverts. Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I noticed that you just removed a large amount of content from the article because it used "primarily sources". You are aware that linking to primary sources is perfectly fine when it's used to reference the subject's stated views, right? Those links were citing op-eds when talking about the subject's point-of-view, which is the only time that it's acceptable to cite op-eds. Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views? From reliable, secondary, independent sources. Coverage from reliable sources is what makes a person's views worth mentioning here. In most other cases, we don't care. See WP:SPS, for example. If O'Neill were a subject matter expert on homosexuality, racism, religion, environmentalism, etc., then we might care. But he's a pundit. And keep in mind that, per policies like WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can never use his self-published sources to support claims about other living persons. Woodroar (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Look, I get it. You wish there wasn't an article about O'Neill at all. In reality, however, Wikipedia includes articles about people that you don't like. I already discussed this on the talk page and no objections were raised - not even from you. At this point, it's obvious that you are going to revert my revisions no matter what, even though I have reliable sources to back them up and good reason to include them.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, I'd never heard of Brendan O'Neill until I saw the recent thread on RSN. He does appear to meet our notability requirements so I'm glad that the article exists. What I care about most is that the article complies with all of our policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to claims about living persons. That includes requiring top-tier sources for claims that are controversial or negative, balancing the weight of sources, and fairly summarizing what reliable sources say. I have no problem removing poorly-sourced controversial/negative claims from articles about people I dislike, or, for that matter, removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles about people I like. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
One of the sources that I cited literally has O'Neill saying "Free speech is absolute" IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, so the claim that none of the sources say that he takes a free speech absolutist position is completely false. There is also no just cause for claiming that the source on abortion is a "misrepresentation" (in what possible way is it?). I have tried to work this out with you on the talk page and you have refused to do so.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
Too confusing with the YouTube source on the Alexa Nikolas page
I was bummed when you reverted my edit on the Alexa Nikolas page when I said I had proof that Alexa's middle name is Helen. If you reverted my edits, then why are there YouTube sources on that page. Go check them out on that page. Chidie345 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Never mind. I found out that it had nothing to do with the sources. It was the documents. Technically, Alexa just censored her home address on her restraining order document to keep it private. Chidie345 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
For our purposes, it really doesn't matter if she censored one thing and not another. On Wikipedia, we simply can't use documents like that to support claims about living persons. I urge you to read through our policy on content about living persons if you're going to be editing articles about them. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
