User talk:2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498

WP:BLP mandates third-party reliable sources

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It was cited, a link to the tweet was there. Your comment is completely false. I've reinstated it with the link to the tweet in question (which I didn't add in the first place, I merely added more detail based on the cited tweet). 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(1) A link to the tweet is a primary source, which is only appropriate in limited circumstances and (2) per WP:UNDUE, there is nothing notable about Tandoh responding to a non-notable critic on Twitter; the other comments and feuds mentioned all include third-party reliable sources that have written about the exchanges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

So nobody's Wikipedia can ever include an actual quote from that person? In a section entitled Twitter disputes, which shows that a person has a history of argument on Twitter, any viral tweet is notable. You have tried to edit that section based on your opinion of what's notable when it clearly is about Twitter, not 'public disputes'. People's behaviour on social media is of legitimate interest if they choose to use it. Lastly I did not add the tweet in the first place so please apologise for your ridiculous threat to block me. 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You're also changing your reasoning for reversion from 'you provided no source' to 'I didn't like your source'

How is a tweet by the actual subject of a story a lesser source than a newspaper reporting that tweet? 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I note you don't reference your unsourced comment that says primary sources are "only appropriate in limited circumstances"

Let me help you with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources

I quote:

"In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify:

Is this source self-published or not? (If so, then see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.)

Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Independent sources.)

Is this source primary or not?

Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia."

You are wrong here and you need to politely accept it. 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Last warning before block; please read WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

How is a sentence that says 'this person tweeted xyz thing' with a link to that tweet a poor source?

Secondly, I didn't actually add the tweet in the first place so you're completely wrong on both counts. 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Please remove this warning and apologise since I did not add anything unsourced. 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

While you are blocked, please take the time to carefully read WP:BLP, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and WP:UNDUE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is a summary of your argument.

1. You said I didn't reference or source my addition. However my edit merely added more quotes from an already linked tweet, so a reference was already there. If anything was wrong with the reference it wasn't my doing.

2. You then changed your mind, and said a tweet is a primary source and this 'is not appropriate', however you didn't cite any guidance for this and it's clear from this article you're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources

What's your response to this? 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2023 (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).

2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked for actions I did not have anything to do with, as regards edits on the Ruby Tandoh Wikipedia page. I was initially given a warning for 'inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory' content, but I merely added some more quotes from a tweet that was already a source in the article. The tweet was by the person who the article was about so is an excellent source in my opinion. But regardless of this, I didn't even add it in the first place, another user did. So I can't be guilty of adding unsourced material because I was not the user who introduced it. The moderator merely assumed I was. When I pointed this out, the same moderator changed their reasoning for reverting my edit and blocking and said that 'primary sources are only appropriate in limited circumstances', however this contradicts Wikipedia's own guidance on sources, which says: "In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify: Is this source self-published or not? (If so, then see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.) Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) Is this source primary or not? Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia." Note the last two lines. It's also absurd. Why would a direct quote or tweet from the subject of a page not be appropriate for that page? If that page has a section about Twitter conflicts, based on a past history of them, why would a tweet not be a valid source? The moderator has now gone on to change a section of the article which was clearly about social media conflicts to 'public conflicts and criticism', solely so they could retrospectively justify their actions. The content in this section is still solely about Twitter conflicts, it's just the title that has become less accurate to justify overzealous moderation. I believe this person is controlling a Wikipedia page based on their own whims. But it is also really clear that I did not break any rules as they suggest because I did not edit any sources nor introduce them. I merely added content from an existing referenced source. It is also clear, based on Wikipedia's sourcing guidance that a tweet is a perfectly acceptable source, so whoever did add it is not breaking procedure either. The moderator is completely wrong here and overzealous.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this block has already expired. Yamla (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2023 (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.

As already noted above, the other exchanges documented in that section were appropriately documented with third-party sources, indicating their notability. There is no evidence to indicate that there is anything notable about Tandoh responding negatively to an anonymous Twitter user. Per WP:BLP, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to document a person's social media interactions unless reliable sources have written about those exchanges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The page already had a section about Twitter conflicts which you have now inaccurately broadened to make it seem as if it's about general public conflicts.

You're living in 1952 if you think more people read the Radio Times than a viral tweet. Also it is a reliable source because it's a direct quote from the subject of the article.

However all of this is moot because you warned me then blocked me based on a link I didn't add. Another user added it. My edit was not to add that link, but your warning and subsequent blocking both depend on its addition as the core reason. 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me with the BLP link btw. Have you read it?

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

---