Caseythezahima

"Reporting" other editors

Generally, we don't accept things like your linking to an outside "article" as legit ways to resolve a dispute. Nor do we look kindly on creating a new account to get another account in trouble. Nor do we allow reports at AN or ANI where you don't notify the target of the report. Nor is it reasonable to demand that editors jump thru a bunch of your hoops. And finally, something tells me that you're already trashing WP to your circle, so I doubt that threat is going to be effective. If you have evidence that should be private, send an email to ArbCom. Otherwise, make your case here. Succinctly, directly, on-wiki. Support it with diffs. And don't be a coward, use your real WP account name. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

was going to email you but im rate limited. here is fine i guess. the report has legitimate citations and what I gather you are calling diffs on articles he has edited. wikipedia is a maze to an outsider, so of course i don't know the exact right link/email/contact to hit, so of course I hit multiple. and of course I just created an account because I am motivated by the malfeasance of this one actor, and had little reason for a wikipedia account prior to this (just like the majority of wikipedia's users). the fact that all of this wasn't obvious to you isn't a good sign. (or, if it was obvious, and you assumed I am a bad actor and are responding in kind). finally, coward? I'm sincerely confused: I've done everything through this recently created account, which I'm taking as what you mean by my "real WP account name" (real wikipedia account name?). I just have this account? what other real account name are you referring to? Caseythezahima (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

for posterity and ease of linking I guess: the report in question Caseythezahima (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you realize you are linking to the opinion of someone on the internet? That article is not a reliable source. Wikipedia editors write their opinions on the internet. So what? If they want to make a case that will count, they don't need your help. Instead, they should write their opinions, with evidence, in a reliable source like The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, etc. Their own Substack or blog doesn't count here. If Tracing Woodgrains is another editor here, they should collect their evidence and open a case. That they don't do that, but instead write a blog post, is telling. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

your incorrigibility is an instance of the whole problem here. did you read the article? are you capable of thinking unless snopes or the NYT sanctions it? Caseythezahima (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry, i reveal my wiki-noob nature as we speak. I had meant for this reply to go to @Valjean, not @Floquenbeam. while I could edit the page directly it seems, I'll just do this for now, lest I mess up this tree more. Caseythezahima (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(I fixed your indents. I wrote the following before reading your clarification.) Floquenbeam is right and wise. Heed their message. Also, if it's not in a RS, we don't really care. If you want us to care, then "do the work" by collecting the evidence, except that it's not your battle. Don't be a proxy. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, and don't pick up the axe someone else is grinding. Let them fight their own battles, which, in this case, I don't see them doing here at Wikipedia. It's so easy to criticize, and even slander, someone on the internet. It's another matter entirely to "do the work" right here. Also, assume good faith in Gerard and other editors. If you can't do that, then just leave. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

this will be my last reply for a while.

is not the collation and reporting and effort that went into the article itself a nonzero amount of "the work"? Are you not an interested wikipedia member? look at my clumsy wiki-noob fumbling on display right here, and see the extra amount of effort I or Trace would have to invest to operate within the wikipedia maze (which I'm sincerely sure has its reasons). look at why we are here in the first place; how the subject of the article IS this very maze. If correction of the magnitude required in this case can only happen from those who learn the maze, then correction will not happen. read that sentence again. If I was helping maintaining a site, and knew its ins and outs, as it seems like you or perhaps floquenbeam do, then I would take that seriously?

but, whatever. I am done with this. Caseythezahima (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I did read most of the article. It is the business of Tracing Woodgrains to make their case here. If you want to get involved, then you will have to do the work. Don't just assume that everything Tracing Woodgrains wrote is accurate. Find the evidence and make your own case. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I am not taking sides in this. I would need to see the evidence, so find it and present it properly, without any personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The article starts off whining about conservatives being suppressed on Wikipedia and lambasting "liberals" and "the left." It's a propaganda piece written by someone who is angry that reality itself disagrees with their opinions. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you 208.*, that also explains the odd "snopes or the NYT" phrase above. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I just read the entirety of the article and though I would personally describe it as a mixed bag, I think I can also categorically say that the IP's description is 'uncharitable' at best, and probably their take is better described as a hasty misrepresentation based on a few buzzwords at the outset. While the article starts out feeling like it is going to be a Greatest Hits list of typical complaints about Wikipedia by casual critics, by the end I found it had shed a non-trivial amount of additional light on a handful of our notable controversies. The reader is clearly not an outsider: I'd guess they are a 5-10 year veteran of at least observing our processes, if not an actual member of the community. It's worth a read. It's a little "flavourful" in its efforts to inject sardonic wit into the subject matter, and while it celebrates some of David's qualities and does seem to be attempting to create a bit of a micro-biography, there can be no doubt that it is a bit of a takedown effort on someone the author considers to be a bit of an online menace. That said, it does appear largely intellectually honest, if possessed of some bias. I suspect there's a great many things I would not see eye-to-eye about with the author, but I did not get the sense of a pure idealogue. It's definitely got an objective, but I don't think it's the one the IP ascribes to it. Not that any of this leitimizes the activities of the user behind this account, mind you. I just felt it would be a disservice to you to leave you with the IP's description. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Whose sock?

It appears you have created this account purely for the purpose of attacking David Gerard — it has made no other edits, which is a little ridiculous. Whose sock are you, please? (Please don't bother to repeat the claims above that you're a complete outsider who doesn't understand Wikipedia. I've read them, I've got it, and I don't believe it for a moment.) Bishonen | tålk 19:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC).

Not here?

Is there any reason not to block this account under WP:NOTHERE? This account is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, just to attempt to bring charges against another editor. This isn't a valid use of an encyclopaedic account. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

No, no reason that I can see, Tail. Bishonen | tålk 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC).

I've blocked the account indefinitely, and I've also removed their talk page access. Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Per discussion at WP:ANI, I'm unblocking this account. @Caseythezahima: If you're actually interested in improving the encyclopedia, there are some important policies and guidelines you should be aware of. Please see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:AGF. As a brief summary: remember that on the other side of the screen is a real person who probably believes they're doing the right thing just as much as you do. Even if you believe they don't, treat them as if they do anyway. Keep your discussions polite, focused on the issue rather than your personal opinions, and always support them with specific evidence.

I can't speak on behalf of the community or admin corps, but I will say that those policies (especially WP:AGF) are something we could all be better at. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock, especially after reading SnowRise's assessment of this off-wiki post. Blocking them just reinforces the presumption of "mods" as some kind of gatekeepers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)