User talk:Chrisvacc

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me?

Hi Chrisvacc. I'm guessing you're going to be uninterested in seeing this, but I'm extremely concerned with your behavior regarding the Jonathan Haidt article.

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me? If you're not familiar with Wikipedia's behavioral policies, then this may be a good time to do so, starting with WP:CIVIL. Much of the behavior that is common across the Internet is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Editors are expected to work collaboratively with respect and civility. "Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,892,682 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss." --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me?

Yes

Chrisvacc (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't really getting anywhere, but to be honest I thought at first you were just tagging and running. But we'll figure this out in the AM since it's almost 12 here, and try to figure out what the issues are and what can be done to resolve them. And I'm being a little tongue in cheek with some of my comments on the Talk page.

Chrisvacc (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

I ran across this article soon after it was created, as you can see in the edit history. I've not kept up with it, nor been involved with addressing the questionable editing around it.

Given our interactions so far, being "tongue in cheek" doesn't help, not that I think it an accurate description.

COI problems are touchy. I don't have enough evidence at this point to write up a COIN report. If you'll look a the editing history and page statistics, the potential coi-editors appear obvious to me: @Corianna:, @Ethical user nyc:. (Corianna hasn't edited in years. I'm awaiting a response from Ethical user nyc.) There are related accounts, and lots of SPA editing. Problems with the articles about Haidt's books appear worse, but I've only glanced at them, noticing the sockpuppetry which appears to be in check. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I'll open a new discussion on the Talk page and see what we can do about the citations.

Chrisvacc (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

For now:

The multiple issues tag was a good idea and I’m mad I didn’t even think of that.



So my thoughts Re: WP:BLP, I think we can work to find some good third party citations. But I also think most of the WP:BLP rules were made to avoid Libel and sensationalism. So to me, “The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule” and WP:IAR. The spirit of those rules was to avoid sensationalist content. But I agree that if a statement is contentious, it should be deleted. Regarding some of the content in the article (ie Areas of Research and The Coddling of the American Mind,) we should just find better citations as The Coddling is a very popular book, and I believe is listed as a NYT Notable book.

May I ask, 
what were the issues you had with with the citations I provided? As far as I can tell they’re legitimate papers from psychology journals. But then again, I’m more used to writing papers than I am with Wikipedia’s citation policy. But those citations would have been appropriate. 

But regardless, we’ll find good citations for those as it will improve the article.
 The statement about to The Coddling has to be in there because there are three books, and taking it out makes it seem like the article hasn’t been updated in a few years, but I'm not sure how you would cite a book's existence other than just citing the book itself.

Thanks for the response

Re BLP - high quality sources are required. The rule here is that we're striving to create a serious encyclopedia. Use of Wikipedia for soapboxing and promotion undermine Wikipedia's main goal.

The new review for Coddling had criticisms and context that belong in the article for the book, which is a poor article almost certainly created by an undeclared paid editor. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Coddling page yet. I'm talking about the deletion of the line His third book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), was written with Greg Lukianoff from the Intro. The claim is essentially that the book exists. I feel like the best way to cite it is simply the ISBN.

Chrisvacc (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. We're getting into discussion that belongs on the article talk page, so briefly:

That puts us into notability, lede, and weight issues.

He wrote a third book. Is it important enough that it deserves mention in the lede? As the articles about him and the book are now, I'm saying that it doesn't deserve mention (and is rather promotional for the book). --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I Absolutely think so. It was a New York Times bestseller and listed as Bloombergs #1 Book of the year:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-best-books/

The Best Books of 2018

Our annual list of what some of the most powerful people in finance were reading this year is heavy on the drawbacks of technology.

Technology has already infiltrated every human interaction, but 2018 may be remembered as the year we truly started to grapple with the consequences. So perhaps it's no surprise that when Bloomberg asked dozens of business leaders to name the best book they read this year, The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, received the most votes.

I'll copy and paste this discussion to the talk page

Chrisvacc (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved to this to the Talk page, but wanted reply to the advert stuff.

I do see a handful of SPA Accounts that are only editing only Haidt related articles (ie Heterodox, the Coddling). That said, I do know Jon through my professional career and I highly doubt he's paying Wikipedia editors. I can't speak for Penguin_Books, but do large publishers put promotional materials out on Wikipedia? My assumption would be 'no', but I've never looked into it. There's clear sockpuppetry going on, but think it's more likely fan's that are making the edits. I don't think he's even read his own Wikipedia entries, and he wouldn't approve of advert-like editing. I mean a large amount of his work was devoted to bringing neutrality back to the universities, which was the whole point of the Heterodox thing. You can see even in the video here: https://www.___tube.com/watch?v=3Bklwq2LBjI He would not apporve of biased editing, and almost certainly wouldn't pay someone to create promotional articles for him. It's more likely fan-edits.

Someone else certainly would pay given the political ramifications of some of his work. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough Chrisvacc (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving this convo to Talk. Chrisvacc (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Per this guideline we tend to stick with secondary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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

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

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

Template:Z33 NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

LOL Chrisvacc (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Don't add comments in a closed discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't close a discussion where we're adding comments. Chrisvacc (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your third opinion request

Hello Chrisvacc. I saw your request for a third opinion for Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Jogging versus running. Unfortunately I had to decline the request because more than two editors are involved. You might want to try other dispute resolution processes, which are detailed here. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks buddy Chrisvacc (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC hasn't started yet

Hello! Just saw your comment, but the RFC hasn't started yet, the point of the thread is to come to an agreement on the formulation of the question before we actually start (and list) an RFC. Make sense?  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry! Thanks – Chrisvacc (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: I say we just vote. I dont think anyone will object to that phrasing. It's too confusing and everyone is just voting anyway lol. – Chrisvacc (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're eager to get started, I can certainly appreciate that (glancing at the threads up the page, it's obvious people feel passionate about this issue). But the best way to resolve disputes is to work methodically towards shared understand, agreement, consensus to support inclusion/exclusion, etc. The first step is to make sure we get a simple, logical, neutral, fair, reasonable question set up as the base of the RFC. This is because some RFCs start out with too narrow, too board, malformed, slanted, or otherwise defectively formulated questions, and then as editors pile on with their comments, you see accusations that the RFC wasn't done properly. Don't worry, the formulation will get tamped down quickly enough and then people can add their support/oppose !vote comments. It's the Wikipedia way... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial Block

Following your rant about "leaking the page to the press" and "bullying Social Justice Warriors" it is clear that you do not have the ability to approach the issue sensibly and so I have blocked you from editing the article. This does not affect your ability to edit the rest of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below this section on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} I have only needed to block one IP from the article so far, and have unblocked them after they indicated they understood the issues they were causing. I hope the same will be the case here. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrisvacc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No, I don't think that's fair. Can you find any evidence of disruptive editing in the Article's history? Search the article history page for my edits. User Contribution Search - Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery The Talk Page is not the Article, and I'm not sure why someone. Most of the edits I've made were cleaning up punctiation and clumsy wording. You should block someone if they're actually being disruptive to an article, not because you feel they might possibly be sometime in the future - especially when the evidence actuallys points in the opposite direction. All my contributions have been positive, so I dont see a reason for a block. If you read the rest of the conversation prior to the rant, it's about Neutrality and many editors have been interjecting their political opinion into articles. Neutrality is a major pillar to Wikipedia. This is an encyclypedia - not a editorial section. But regardless - I come to consensus before I make edits and actually we've just been formulating a RfC vote to come to consensus on this issue. I don't think I'm causing any issues. The Talk page isn't the article, and I haven't been disruptive to the article whatsoever. But regardless - it appears we've come to a consensus anyway.

Decline reason:

BLP applies to all pages, not just mainspace. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I didn't include the Talk page (my error) - I have now. If you're calling other editors "bullying SJWs" and threatening to go to the press then you are actually being disruptive. As I said, if you can promise to control your annoyance (and, by the sounds of the SJW comment, your biases) when editing, then any other admin who answers this may unblock; but I don't see that at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Well now this is a much bigger problem than I thought. I just went through your edits and now I realize it's not just the power users, but administration are involved too. We were actually just on the verge of resolving the original issue via RfC, and was going to drop it anyway but a ban just makes my case for me. That ban encouraged me to go into your edit history and now I see this isn't just a problem among power users, but administrators too. You supressed information on the basis of "BLP violation", but there were no BLP violations. BLP clearly states:

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction

There are NO violations of Wikipedia's rules. Tthe SJW comment isn't a bias. I'm a moderate liberal myself and have never voted for a Republican candidate in my life - but that's not an excuse to use a neutral Encyclopedia as an outlet for your beliefs or unconscious biases. This is about Journalistic integrity, not some ulterior motives. Regarding the priors it's completely relevant and there are no BLP violations:

A new report by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Friday suggests that the father, Greg, knew Mr. Arbery from his time as a police detective and was convinced that a surveillance video of a recent burglary showed Mr. Arbery. In high school, Mr. Arbery was sentenced to five years probation on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer, the Journal-Constitution notes. He was charged with shoplifting in 2018, violating his probation, the paper adds.

This is completely relevant to the controversy because McMichael stated he recognized him which is why almost every outlet are reporting on it (except Wikipedia, of course.) Articles that have reported on his priors: News 4 Jacksonville, NY Daily News, The Atlanta Journal Constitution Article, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor CSM, KDRV News. This just shows that administrators are using their power to slant articles. So this is actually a bigger problem than I thought. When it's powerusers, that's one thing - but when Administrators are doing it too that's a whole nother ballgame. How is showing the press a 'threat.' If there are no attempts to whitewash information then nobody has anything to worry about. Journalists would just look it over and say 'nothing to see here.' You have deleted perfectly valid comments saying "BLP" but there were no BLP violations. It says it right there. If there's a conviction - it's allowed. BLP rules are there for Wikipedia to avoid Libel.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral Point of View

Now that I look into your edits you actually deleted comments citing "BLP" when there were no BLP violations. Like this one:

:Arbery's reported priors include bringing a firearm to a high school basketball game, "The man ran through the parking lot. I tried to get him to stop as well. He would not stop for us," said Glynn County Schools Chief of Police, Rod Ellis. "We ended up chasing him to the back of the school were other officers helped us apprehend him." So readers can understand he had a history of evading arrest. Breaking of probation for aforementioned crime by "stealing a television from Walmart in 2017." So readers can see he was a convicted thief. To anyone being objective this information is more relevant than "He was a linebacker on the school's football team and played in the Georgia/Florida all-star game in his senior year." What does that have to do with anything? If this article is going to be censored at least remove the entirety of >People involved >Ahmaud Arbery instead of just specific relevant and reported points that go against a narrative. Basilcivil (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You deleted this and cited "BLP" as the reason for deletion. But there was no BLP violation. Now it's clear which side you're on, and I hadn't even noticed until you applied a ban. I would have never noticed. He was convicted. It's relevant to the case, so what's the issue? Because this really appears like an attempt to suppress relevant information.

Then there's this comment:

For one, we certainly don't need WP:UNDUE laundry lists of people trying to attempt to paint Arbery in a bad light for previous issues that are irrelevant to his shooting; some have been removed today. Basically, if you're going down that route, it's best not to post. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources cover it in a biography then that may not be UNDUE, however this isn't a biography, it's about a single event. We aren't going to point out that the victim had a conviction for a minor offence X years ago, because it's not relevant. And I think we know the direction from which most of the (mostly new) accounts who are pushing to add this stuff are coming from. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't some Alt-right conspiracy to paint some kid in a bad light. This isn't some racist Stormfront plot. This is upholding the standards of journalistic integrety by presenting all the information and letting people decide for themselves. But of course it's easier to resort to the "he's a racist!" witch-hunt and supress. Where's the BLP violation? Where's the DUE violation. All I see is Ad Hominem reasoning accusing people of being conservatives

The goal is to fix this this Neutrality problem. There are systemic Neutrality issues on Wikipedia. This issue isn't controversial. Ideological bias on Wikipedia Often exposing issues to journalistic scrutany holds orginizations accountable. What do you suggest? How do you suggest fixing this systemic neutrality issue? Of power users, and now administrators using their position to push a non-neutral POV? If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. For now, an article on this seems like a good plan: "Systemic Bias in Wikipedia: how bias among Power Users and Administrators affects free information" citing how relevant information was supressed by Power Users and Administrators.

So ban me from whatever you'd like. It reminds me of this recent video from CNN. In a speech a valedictorian accused the administration of being autharitarian so they cut off his mic. “How dare he call us authoritative? We don’t restrict rights. Cut his mic!” It's funny - I had already dropped this but now the issue is actually bigger. – Chrisvacc (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalisim

Someone named Kadenvandalized your comment on Galendia's talk page. I just wanted to let you know. Wale18 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)