Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:41, 16 July 2018

User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources

Delete as per WP:POLEMIC, the page speaks disparagingly of editors that may support Donald Trump. To be fair, the page has been questioned in the past and its creator defended it here The defense was based on the mistaken belief that policies and guidelines do not apply to user pages. WP:NPOV may not apply but WP:SOAPBOX does. Despite the fact that it does not call out any specific editor, it refers to an entire group of editors, and borderlines on WP:ATTACKPAGE. Rusf10 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A close call this one, but I am falling on the side of "keep" because: (1) reasonable leeway, this is a userpage of a prolific respected contributor; (2) project related, although a close call, the intent of the userpage is in support of encyclopedia editing/maintenance; (3) "the page speaks disparagingly of editors", no not badly, and most importantly it does not target individuals, not naming them certainly, and not even alluding to specific other editors (I may be wrong, but I read it is referring to drive-by newcomers). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: It doesn't have to target individuals, WP:POLEMIC refers to "vilifying groups of editors" and the bigger problem may actually be ATTACKPAGE, with statements making assertions that the president is engaged in illegal behavior such as "With all-things-Trump, all the evidence and intelligence reports tend to show that the Trump administration is hiding a whole lot of activities, lying a lot, holding lots of secretive meetings with Russians, and when it's revealed, it often turns out to be illegal and/or shady activities, at times bordering on treasonous." I believe BLP applies to userpages too--Rusf10 (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, I have read your post and reread the userpage. It is not vilifying. It is not attacking specific groups, but speaking to debating tactics for use against generic/hypothetical POV RS-disbelieving editors. It reasonably asserts that such editors exist but does not define any individual or group. That makes it ok. A number of things I would not word that way, but I disagree that there is a BLP violation. It is fair comment, and as a userpage it represents the opinion of an individual. I think it is fair, Not exemplary, but not unacceptable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start reading. Our own articles are filled with RS for every statement:

You're way behind the curve and need to get caught up. The essay describes editors who get their information from unreliable sources, and such editors would be ignorant of what's in these articles. Start reading. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my point. It has not been proven that Donald Trump has done anything illegal. Clear WP:BLP violation. If you want to start an "impeach Trump" blog, this is not the place to do it.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This essay describes a common behavior of many pro-Trump editors instead of all pro-Trump editors. It identifies a specific behavior: citing unreliable sources. Any editor who feels offended should simply avoid citing unreliable sources as references. The essay will then not apply to them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rusf10, you do realize that this revenge act (it only took a little over an hour to act!) is about a private essay in my userspace, don't you? In fact, most of the essay is directly from very properly-sourced articles. Are you going to AfD them because their RS make Trump supporters look bad? That you feel offended by it says a lot about your POV and how right the essay is. The RS don't lie. Methinks thou dost protest too much. Awilley should know about this behavior of yours. It's beyond tendentious and smacks of harassment/revenge. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:consider striking that per WP:ADHOM and if you really want to push the issue you are WP:Casting aspersions--Rusf10 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I have a lot of respect for BullRangifer as an opinionated but collegial editor. However this essay clearly fails WP:POLEMIC and WP:ATTACK, it assumes bad faith of a group of editors who happen to hold a particular POV opposite to the author's, and Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a soapbox. Were this essay framed as guidance against bad sources of any political leaning, I would approve of it; its partisan nature makes it unacceptable in a neutral encyclopedia, yes even in personal user space. — JFG ^talk 08:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mostly per Cullen^328's arguments. I have become very concerned about some of the behavior that this essay addresses. Most alarming, is the recent trend of editors distorting facts to such an extent that they would call an apple a banana. This post-truth manipulation driven by far-right infotainment is an imminent threat to Wikipedia's integrity. I am a strong believer in the principle that sunshine is the best disinfectant. - Mr X 🖋 16:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: does not rise to the level of WP:POLEMIC; a reasonable user-space essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Something that should probably remain in userspace rather than projectspace, but it's talking about a phenomenon that's well documented enough such that we could probably even have a mainspace article on it (and we touch on these very subjects in our existing articles). That we are in a messy time for concepts like truth and fact is not a controversial idea, and it has implications for our policies and their application. This seems like a reasonable application to wikipolicy for an essay. It would also be a fine basis for a counter-essay, so long as it didn't conflict with our policies. When I saw the title and that it was at MfD, I assumed it was going to be a list of people who add problematic sources. It's not that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets the first point of WP:POLEMIC crystal clear. The first sentence of the "essay" is just not divisive, it's dumb. BullRangifer is saying that "many" people who believe Trump are unfit to edit political articles. Alright. Trump had 62 million voters in the 2016 elections and you are saying "many" of them are unfit to edit political articles? You are knee-deep in the political WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I understand that Trump is intensively disliked by a lot of people, but that's not a reason to cause further division with polemic essays. --Pudeo (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The first sentence of the "essay" is just not divisive, it's dumb" <-- Uhh, "Gosh darn it I disagree with this essay!!!" is not a valid reason for deletion (and yeah, "many" of them are unfit to edit these articles. To be fair, "many" people who voted for Clinton are also unfit).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo:Sorry to call you out, but you're wrong. Very few people actually voted for Trump because everyone knows that the Russians rigged the election. In fact Trump is on his way to meet with Putin just so he can thank him.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch WP:POINT. Because you know, sarcasm works sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo well in written form.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand WP:POINT, it says " However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." Just because I said something you don't like (sarcastically or otherwise), does not mean you get to accuse me of violating a policy.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to add according to BullRangifer's essay, if you believe the "the Trump–Russia dossier to be "fake" or spurious"" then you are a "fringe editor". If this is true we must add the Washington Post to the list of unreliable right-wing sources because even they say "It’s critical to note that these claims are for the most part not verified, and should not be considered as such." [1]--Rusf10 (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, "for most part not verified" (i.e. partially verified) is not the same as "fake". Not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't call me dude. Second, just because one or two things have been verified doesn't give any credibility to the rest of the dossier and some of the outrageous claims it makes which have not been verified. For someone, who challenges things on the basis of reliable sources all the time, you should know this. When something cannot be verified, there is always a pretty good chance it contains false information and to call someone a "fringe editor" just for questioning its veracity is absurd.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pudeo: If you're going to criticize, don't attack a straw man and put words in my mouth which are not in the essay. Your statement is downright false and should be discounted and considered casting aspersions. You write:

"The first sentence of the "essay" is just not divisive, it's dumb. BullRangifer is saying that "many" people who believe Trump are unfit to edit political articles."

Compare that to what the essay actually says:

"Many editors who believe Trump cause disruption because they fail to distance themselves from unreliable sources, and that makes them unfit to edit American political subjects. If an editor can't vet sources and know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources in real life, they should stick to gnomish edits and non-controversial topics."

You make a broad statement about people and voters in general and try to bring the whole vote into this matter, when I'm being very specific about a particular type of editor here who depends on unreliable sources.

I don't think anyone will deny that editors who use unreliable sources lack competence and cause problems. The issue is the use of such sources, not their belief in Trump. So why do I also make this about some Trump supporting editors? Because the parts of the essay taken directly from our articles make it clear that these editors more often tend to be victims of fake news from Trump and fall for Trump's numerous falsehoods. Fact checkers prove that this is a very serious problem. Unfortunate experience here shows that these editors get their information from unreliable sources and then bring that here. Editors who "can't vet sources" or "know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources" should stay away from controversial articles.

The essay also repeatedly makes it clear that it's not referring to all editors who like Trump, but those who !vote against the essay conveniently ignore that fact. By doing so they are defending these very editors who "can't vet sources" or "know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources".

Please come to the essay talk page and quote the exact wordings which you find most problematic and I'll work on improving them. I don't want misunderstandings to cause more problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needlessly combative, clearly meets point one of WP:POLEMIC as pointed out by others, and an indication of battleground behavior. Perhaps they should consider Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. PackMecEng (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's the new lead which makes much clearer what the essay is about:

A subset of editors here often cause disruption because they fail to distance themselves from unreliable sources, and that makes them unfit to edit American political subjects. This seems to be a special problem for a subset of editors who support Trump because these editors more often tend to be victims of "fake news", as our article on Fake news makes plain. They also tend to believe Trump's numerous proven falsehoods and his constant labeling of reliable sources as "fake news". This subset of editors does not trust reliable sources and get their POV from unreliable sources, most of which are not allowed here. Fact checkers prove that these are very serious problems.

No serious wikipedian can deny that an editor who can't vet sources and doesn't know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources in real life is incompetent to edit controversial matters here. Those who deny this tend to get topic banned. This is the most basic requirement for much editing. Those editors should stick to gnomish edits and non-controversial topics. They can still do a lot of good.

The main issue is not belief in Trump, but the failure of a subset of pro-Trump activist editors to depend on reliable sources. This essay is about such activist editors, not about many pro-Trump editors who can separate their personal POV from their responsibilities as editors. Good for them! This essay is not about them.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly fine essay, which actually doesn't go far enough in characterizing the perennial problems that are caused by groups of editors who rely on nutzoid conspiracy sources for their edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add: ok, this is silly. This is a freakin' personal essay in user space, not some text in a wikipedia article. Yet somehow the "delete" !votes here are mostly of the "I disagree with this! It triggers me! It doesn't cite reliable sources!" Who cares??? Go write your own essay about how horrible anti-Trump editors are. And yeh, I'll say it - this nomination is petty payback for the fact that the author pointed out the nominator's disruptive behavior to an admin. It's Rusf10's WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: As per Wikipedia:User pages, user pages are not exempt for complying with policies. And you are now WP:Casting aspersions, so I recommend striking part of your statement.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're subject to Wikipedia policies, but those policies are different than those that apply to articles. So, like asking for sources or whatever, is just silly. Or arguing about whether the Steele Dossier is true or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have to read! According to Wikipedia:User pages, WP:NPOV and WP:OR do not apply to user pages, but all the other policies do. My rationale for deletion is based on [[[WP:POLEMIC]], WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ATTACKPAGE, it has nothing to do with being unsourced, so don't make a strawman.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT accusing you of being a sock puppet of a topic banned editor, but your behavior and similar use of a list of mostly-non-applicable wikilinks is dangerously close to that of a certain editor who is topic banned. If they could get banned for such behavior, you too could get topic banned for practicing the same behavior. Boomerang could easily apply.

It is worth noting that the last two editors who most strongly objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." Their objections were obviously not the only factors leading to their topic bans, but it was part of their bad behavior. Editors who have POV about Trump are not in danger, but when their views affect their editing or lead to improper interactions with other editors (such as attacking me for this essay), they are in a danger zone where tendentious editors can be topic banned. Don't attack mainstream editors who depend on RS, especially if your POV is the pro-Trump, minority POV, which is not backed by RS. We protect the first, and scorn the latter around here. Just sayin'... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ::::Of course they're subject to Wikipedia policies, but '''those policies are different''' than those that apply to articles. So, like asking for sources or whatever, is just silly. Or arguing about whether the Steele Dossier is true or not.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 :::::Again, you have to read! According to [[Wikipedia:User pages]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:OR]] do not apply to user pages, but all the other policies do. My rationale for deletion is based on [[[WP:POLEMIC]], [[WP:SOAPBOX]], [[WP:ATTACKPAGE]], it has nothing to do with being unsourced, so don't make a strawman.--[[User:Rusf10|Rusf10]] ([[User talk:Rusf10|talk]]) 00:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
+:::::: I am NOT accusing you of being a sock puppet of a topic banned editor, but your behavior and similar use of a list of mostly-non-applicable wikilinks is dangerously close to that of a certain editor who is topic banned. If they could get banned for such behavior, you too could get topic banned for practicing the same behavior. Boomerang could easily apply.
+:::::: It is worth noting that the last two editors who most strongly objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." Their objections were obviously not the only factors leading to their topic bans, but it was part of their bad behavior. Editors who have POV about Trump are not in danger, but when their views affect their editing or lead to improper interactions with other editors (such as attacking me for this essay), they are in a danger zone where tendentious editors can be topic banned. Don't attack mainstream editors who depend on RS, especially if your POV is the pro-Trump, minority POV, which is not backed by RS. We protect the first, and scorn the latter around here. Just sayin'... -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 03:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)