Admins: If you think an admin action I've taken recently is wrong or unhelpful, or one I've taken in the past is no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first. An explanation in the edit summary is always helpful, but I trust your judgement.
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Scam Watch
Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. No ethical Wikipedia editor or administrator will offer to create an article for money. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.
Hello Valereee. I noticed that you recently worked on the
Clementine cake article. This is a neutrally-worded notice to advise you that the article has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, you can participate by adding your comments to the
reassessment page. North America1000 05:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.
Translations are available.
You can
nominate your favorite tools for the fifth edition of the Coolest Tool Award. Nominations will be open until May 10.
Changes later this week
The
new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 April. It will be on all wikis from 25 April (
calendar).
[2][3]
Future changes
This is the last warning that by the end of May 2024 the Vector 2022 skin will no longer share site and user scripts/styles with old Vector. For user-scripts that you want to keep using on Vector 2022, copy the contents of
Special:MyPage/vector.js to
Special:MyPage/vector-2022.js. There are
more technical details available. Interface administrators who foresee this leading to lots of technical support questions may wish to send a mass message to your community, as was done on French Wikipedia.
[4]
@
AlexAndrews, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of vandalism which is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. You can find more information at
WP:vandalism.
You have edit-warred to insist upon the addition of content for which you have not been able to get consensus, and you have been casting aspersions on highly-experienced and long-trusted editors who have been pretty darn patient with you while you've done that. Despite the fact several of them have tried to explain the applicable policies to you multiple times, you are apparently unable to or unwilling to understand those policies. This is not serving you well.
Valereee (
talk) 11:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
... editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia ...
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide facts that are informative and educational. The content I have added is not only factual but informative and educational. That informative and educational material has then been deliberately removed (repeatedly), thereby obstructing the project's purpose. Ergo, according to the definition you have quoted that is vandalism. You and the other editors on the article have vandalised it by removing the informative and educational factual material I have added.
.
I should like to know why?
.
My guess is that there is a chronic case of
Groupthink where the article is concerned:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome ... The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup").
The repeated removal of my informative and educational factual material from the article is wholly irrational given the stated purpose of Wikipedia.
.
So again I ask: why have you vandalised the Merchant of Venice article? Is it because the consensus of the editors on the article is the irrational decision to vandalise it?AlexAndrews (
talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
AlexAndrews, I did not vandalize the article. I protected it from someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia but thinks they do, and because of that is editing disruptively. But you're certainly free to report me to
WP:AIV if you think I'm a vandal or to
WP:XRV if you believe my admin action needs scrutiny.
Valereee (
talk) 23:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As I clearly explained, you did vandalise the article given the stated purpose of Wikipedia that you yourself quoted. You are contradicting yourself and trying to explain away your irrational decision-making by falsely accusing me of editing disruptively (which is, in fact, what the other editors are doing) which I believe is called
casting aspersions.
.
So that is first vandalism, then denial of that vandalism through its false rationalisation, and now casting aspersions.
(
talk page watcher) (Non-administrator comment)
AlexAndrews, you have been pointed to the explanation on
WP:VANDALISM. You need to never bring it up again in contexts that don't apply or you risk being blocked for a lack of
civility or of
competence. The same applies to accusations of co-ordinated editing, irrationality, inconsistency, aspersions, groupthink and whatever other terminologies you have been throwing around in attacking and trying to discredit other editors. You're being given some leeway because you're new but you should expect people's patience to run out soon. — Usedtobecool☎️ 11:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Encyclopedic content is non-contentious material that is informative and educational.
The additions I have made to the article are non-contentious material that is informative and educational; in other words, encyclopedic content.
Yet that encyclopedic content I have added has been repeatedly removed - that is the definition of vandalism:
... editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia ...
So please don't falsely accuse me of using the term incorrectly, otherwise you risk being blocked for casting aspersions.
AlexAndrews (
talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
lol...well, she certainly seems to be experienced, and she understands the whole "we're all volunteers, make this easy for us" thing. There's been a similar paid editor at
Bob McDonald (businessman) for years. We had to limit their requests, as the urge to polish became absurd. I finally just removed the section on board work as every time he went on or off a board, there was an edit request to update that section.
Valereee (
talk) 10:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply