Welcome EducatedRedneck!

Fantastic user name, btw. :) S0091 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm still new, so didn't want to make a post on Ani if it'd be a waste of time. Similarly, I didn't want to issue any warnings in case I'm mistaken.

I noticed that User:Veverve has, despite being blocked from editing, sternly instructing other editors on how to edit on their talk page. Aside from the tone of it, which is rude but not worth raising a complaint, it seems like they're trying to effect edits while they're still blocked, which sounds to me like asking for the other users to effectively edit on Veverve's behalf. I'm hoping an experienced editor can either confirm that this is worth broader community attention, in which case advice on what I should do next is appreciated, or if this isn't WP:PROXYING, to let me know so I can make a note and avoid wasting more time.

Thank you for your time and attention! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a complaint against Veverve, either file it at WP:ANI or contact the blocking administrator. Using the adminhelp template is not the way to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. It wasn't intended as a complaint, just trying to figure out if I understood policy enough to make one, but I see that it ends up being functionally the same. Thank you for the help! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For having the courage to file an SPI report. Identifying sock-puppets and meat-puppets is invisible to the readers and often invisible to many editors. And yet, your efforts help protect both the wiki and the integrity of blocks being circumvented in this manner. Please don't be too afraid of being mistaken. I didn't file because I bought the plausible cover story. Had you done as I did, the puppet would still be on the loose. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I felt a little bad after the explanation was posted, but I guess I was right for the wrong reasons? I appreciate the props; thank you! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ANI, my username was on the list over that Timo Werner affair. I archived what was on my talk page earlier. Anyway, I feel as if I can trust you more. Please look after the Werner article. Peace, happy editing, Govvy (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me get it into my head once and for all not to make any cosmetic edits? JackkBrown (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown If I can help, I'd love to! I do agree that the way Wikipedia's markup interprets things can be weird. Most of the templates I still have to use the "preview" button 3 to 5 times to make sure it displays correctly. (And even then, I usually have to look up the template instructions.) So I can understand wanting to add or remove whitespace to make the code look better. I guess where I ended up on it is, if I can't tell that something changed after I edited it, it's probably better not to change it. Does that help? Or, if you were asking for something else, then my apologies, and please let me know what would be more helpful! EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck: or, if I think I'm about to save a cosmetic edit, I can check for missing commas in the text, so that there are no problems if I save the edit. JackkBrown (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown Oh, I think I may have misspoken. While it is better to have some substantive change in an edit rather than not, what I'm getting at is that edits which change any whitespace (that is, parts which don't change how something is displayed) might be better to be avoided. For instance, in this edit, even if the change of redirects was good, there was no reason to also add all that extra whitespace. So if you have a choice between making an edit that A) adds some necessary commas, or B) adds some necessary commas AND changes whitespace, just skip the whitespace parts and do only edit A. Does that make more sense? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, of course! Please point me to the pages where I wrote "recognised", so that I can correct. Thank you in advance. The Jack (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Thanks! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck: hi, feel free to delete these two edits of mine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baccal%C3%A0_mantecato&diff=prev&oldid=1212951854, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarde_in_saor&diff=1212957542&oldid=1212957360&variant=en. I thought these two articles were written in British English, and honestly I would have preferred it (no offence, but I like British English better). The Jack (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think both those edits were improvements, so no need to delete them! I did change the spelling (appetiser -> appetizer) in the first link, to be consistent with the infobox, but for the second one, I saw nothing to suggest one variety of English over the other. Unless someone else objects, that article is now in British English! Thank you again for your help, and for being so ready to change course as you learn new things; that's an admirable quality! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck: thank you for the compliment! So, since you didn't edit the second article, I assume it's written entirely in British English. The Jack (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my assumption as well. :) EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with ANI and other forums is that in general they consider behaviour or rather how behaviour is presented, they don't consider content. Thomas happens to be very familiar with the Tim Hunt controversy and identified a number of issues related to WP:NPOV. This is one of those cases, where familiarity with content makes the whole picture clearer.

To summarise the controversy in a nutshell, Tim Hunt was asked at short notice to make an impromptu speech at a conference, the speech was actually fairly well received but although a prominent scientist he is less than worldly and a rather awkward speaker. His remarks were misreported, accusations of sexism being amplified by false claims ie the controversy was sparked by the reporting not his speech. Another reason the controversy took hold was an infamous "telephone" interview on Radio 4, in which Tim Hunt appeared to confirm the allegations made against him. Except it wasn't really an interview, he was ambushed boarding a plane and recorded a brief message. The message taken out of context was then broadcast. Later a leaked report essentially confirmed his version of events, which were also confirmed by another journalist present. The general consensus now is that he was a fairly naive victim of a social media controversy but as a prominent scientist has always been an ally of women in science. This is why many prominent feminist writers were amongst his strongest supporters.

The article as now written bears no resemblance to this narrative, retreating back to the narrative he made a sexist speech and that he himself confirmed it. Its like someone turned the clock back to when the controversy erupted. Anyone who simply points this out is shouted down, a noisy group of editors claim they have a consensus for how they've rewritten the article.

So as ANI considers only behaviour, when you have a lone editor trying to raise an issue, its actually pretty easy to make it look problematic. And Thomas has not been alone, I count at least 5 editors who've raised concerns about the content there, myself included, and all have basically walked away because of the toxic environment. WCM_email 19:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster First, thank you so much for taking the time to try to explain; while there are a few bad actors around, I feel like the vast majority of conflicts could be solved by people just talking to each other, so you choosing to do just that makes me happy.

It sounds like you've found quite a few sources that don't line up with the narrative in the current article. I haven't seen them, so I can't comment on their overall impact, and I won't ask you to dig them up and present them here, because your history seems to indicate that you do, indeed, have sources if you say you do. Given all the hubub around the article itself, what if we started by sorting out the linked and more detailed summary at Online shaming#Tim Hunt controversy?

I suggest this for two reasons. First: For good or ill, it does seem that there's a consensus at this time for the inclusion of the controversy. The chief objection to it seems to be (and rightly is) that it's undue to have almost as much about three minutes of talking from him as his Nobel prize and other achievements. Add more into the controversy section to clarify would run counter to this purpose, further inflating that section. The alternative, of changing it entirely to the new narrative, seems to go against the very recently established consensus. (Even if the consensus is wrong.) Therefore, I don't think adding to the current article's controversy section is likely to succeed.

Second: As far as I'm aware, there's no RFC for the Online shaming article, and it has no such constraints for balance and due. That makes it an excellent place to clarify what happened. Strategically, once the Tim Hunt section of that article has been brought in line with what the sources say, it will be FAR easier to come back and say, "See what this other article says? See how it has sources? We should make our discussion of the controversy like that one." There will still be a fight, I expect (you're right in that there are definitely some editors who are more interested in proving themselves right rather than becoming right) but it will be from a much stronger position of, "Here's a viable alternative which is already accepted elsewhere."

Do you think this is a viable way forward? I'm highly reluctant to act counter to an incorrect consensus because, well, if it goes against me I usually think it's wrong, but that doesn't always make it so! So I'm hoping we can find a way that an accurate reading of WP:RS can make its way into Wikipedia without putting any more editors through unnecessary unpleasantness.

Thank you again for taking the time to explain what's going on to me; you were in no way obligated to, so I'm very grateful you took the time to anyway! EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that the way to resolve conflicts it to discuss things in a calm and rational manner. You are right in that now the issue is there are entrenched camps looking to sources to confirm their opinions rather than looking to sources to guide content. I already had it mind to disengage and write an article on the controversy itself; there is already a great deal of material upon which an article could be based. But that would be six months down the line.

I would take you up on that suggestion, the problem being that any edit I would make - even on this related article would be reverted on sight at the moment. The content would be immaterial, I would simply be tag teamed and in an impossible situation.

BTW I differ from Thomas B in that I don't oppose mention of the controversy and never have. My concerns has always been that the topic is treated in accordance with our WP:BLP policy and written from a neutral view point. I am walking away mainly because I see this headed toward an arbcom case and I really don't wish to go there. The problem with Wikipedia's approach to conflict resolution is that it long ago gave up looking at content to look at behavioural issues. And that is why conflict is rarely resolved without everyone involved feeling bruised and victimised. WCM_email 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster I'm sorry to hear that your edits are likely to be reverted out of turn. That'd be against policy, but I can also see how "but they were wrong!" wouldn't land you in less hot water for edit warring, so there's not really a path to success for you at this moment.

With that in mind, would you be willing to share your sources with me? I doubt I'd be as effective an advocate as you would be, but I am (more or less) uninvolved, so perhaps I could prime other editors for a useful discussion rather than a fight.

If you'd rather just stay away, I completely understand; this whole thing seems very stressful for those going through it, and as nice a project as Wikipedia is, it's not worth anyone's mental health, so I certainly won't gainsay you if you decide it's not worth it.

Thank you again for the conversation; it's interactions like this that give me faith that Wikipedia can continue. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, I may take you up on that at some point but not for now as my every edit is being scrutinised. [1] WCM_email 22:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than fair; I'm a bit flummoxed that talking to another editor on their talk page about sourcing is being considered a black mark, but there's no rush, anyway. Best of luck, and when you feel ready, I'd be happy to have a task I can help with to better the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]