User talk:Ssr

Interview request

Hello, Ssr!

My name is Daniel, and I'm a senior at Harvard writing an undergraduate thesis on Wikipedia. One chapter of my thesis will center around Wikipedia's notability policy; I'm particularly curious about the inclusionism vs. deletionism debate that has played out among Wikipedia editors.

I see that you're listed among the members of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. If you see this message, would you mind if I sent you a few questions (via email or right on here) about your views on inclusionism and how you approach the question of notability?

Thanks so much!

--Dalorleon (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, Dalorleon, thank you for request! It's not the first time I participate in a Harvard Internet-related study, there's a mention of another one at my userpage, under the section "Bio and Wikipedia notes" (no need to mandatory see, just FYI). As Wikipedian Inclusionist I'd love to keep such quiz openly, not privately, so please ask right here, it's a very good way to talk about these things! Hope it's not very urgent and I will have some number of days to answer. --ssr (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Ssr! Thanks for the quick response! That's interesting that you've already participated in a Harvard study; I hadn't heard of that one until now. And yes, feel free to take your time in answering these questions. Let me know if you need any of them clarified, as well.

1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you identified as an inclusionist?

2) How would you describe your personal brand of inclusionism? Where do you draw the line between topics that are Wikipedia-worthy and topics that are not?

3) How does your belief in inclusionism impact the way you contribute to Wikipedia? (Creating new pages, editing old pages, etc.)

4) How do you feel about Wikipedia’s general notability guideline as it’s currently written? (“If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.”) As an inclusionist, would you favor changing this criteria for notability, or do you prefer to follow a broad interpretation of the existing criteria? (Also, do you happen to know when this exact guideline was formulated, and by whom?)

5) In general, as you contribute to Wikipedia, how heavily do you rely on Wikipedia’s “official” policies and guidelines for guidance? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?

6) Have you ever participated in the Articles for Deletion forum? If so, in what way? Has your belief in inclusionism ever influenced how you contribute there?

7) Has your belief in inclusionism ever brought you into disputes with other Wikipedia editors? If so, how were those disputes resolved?

Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! If I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Dalorleon, I will answer by smaller parts and I have numbered your questions, hope you don't mind? I will refer to topics by numbers. But before I start, I need to clarify: are you interested in my opinion based on experience in Russian Wikipedia or only English? There is a big layer of influence concerning international factors of Wikipedia editing. But if you interested only in English, I will base on only English Wikipedia experience. BTW my name is Sergei and I don't mind using my real identity in Wikipedia =) --ssr (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Ssr / Sergei! Thanks for numbering the questions -- that's a good idea. And I think for the sake of conciseness I'll be focusing my thesis on the English Wikipedia, so I suppose it's best if you answer based on your experiences with the English Wikipedia specifically. (But if you'd like to briefly describe the ways that the Russian Wikipedia tackles these topics differently, I'd certainly be curious to hear more about that. But that's up to you.) Thanks for clarifying. I look forward to reading your responses! Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Answers

1) I began to get interested in editing Wikipedia in early 2005 in my native Russian language and by mid-2006 I realized that I also may edit English Wikipedia. I find myself including the userbox "Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians" on 20 October 2007 in English and listing myself as inclusionist in Russian on 23 August 2008. Together with that, I see summary marks about exploring Linux operating system at that period. By that time in 2007 I already had philosophical notes about Wikipedia social value at my userpages in both languages. These notes ascend to my journalistic work back in 2004–2005 when I was writing journalistic articles and news stories about Wikipedia—so I formed a set of written opinions on that. When I was writing my "main" journalistic article about Wikipedia in January 2005, I examined the subject and interviewed a number of that-time Russian Wikipedians (some are still present, not all). I found out Linux-related (Open Source) nature of Wikipedia's basic conception, and my later Linux experiments were logically consequent to that. This looks as the way I became an Inclusionist.

2.1) I would describe my personal brand of inclusionism as a way to participate in the Free Encyclopedia because it is Free and Inclusionism is an expression of Freedom. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Collaboration, Freedom of Software and Freedom of Knowledge. It's just the way Wikipedia works and Wikipedia won't work without Inclusionism. The early history of "Wikipedia vs Academism" proves that: Larry Sanger and people like him with all their "alternatives for Wikipedia" such as Citizendium, Knol, "blockchain-encyclopedia" etc. were not based on Inclusionism, and logically failed. 2.2) Technically/socially I draw the line between topics that are Wikipedia-worthy basing on WP:Consensus. Personally I could think of including in Wikipedia as many things as possible but I understand I feel too careless with this idea and there should be some limitations. But Wikipedia is so full of people who care so much about limitations so I can feel myself relatively free of these cares. I see Wikipedia not only a website but an ideology, it's known as "wiki". It can be used (and is used) to build communities and knowledge bases outside Wikipedia based on alike principles and even may be used in "political crowdsourcing" to construct democratic processes "in real life"—because conception of enclyclopedia is universal so it can encyclopedically describe anything.

3) So that, my belief in inclusionism impacts the way I contribute to Wikipedia in the form that I may do what I like. I am a merciful person so I don't mean to make harm to good people and with that approach I contribute using Freedom that won't cause unrest to community. I enjoy that. I used to be a journalist covering news stories about widest range of topics, so it's interesting to edit articles on the topics I find interesting while exploring everything. If an article on some topic exist, I may edit it, if not, I may create it.

4) So that, I NEVER CAREFULLY READ WP:GNG AND ALMOST ALL OTHER RULES, I just do what I like. No, I don't know who and when wrote that. This is also the point where international factor creeps in. I got used to basic conceptions of notability and reliable sources through Russian community and Russian community for several historical reasons is far more harsh in terms of setting and imposing rules, and English Wikipedia is far more soft—and therefore more logical, more effective, more humane, more popular, more collaborative, more reliable. Russian Wikipedia is the horrible place where it's hard to survive. English Wikipedia works as it should be—the important part is number of users: Russian one is the way smaller and has much higher concentration of evil people. As a journalist, I like to use journalistic sources for Wikipedia articles, especially on contemporary topics that are very important for editors and for readers (movies, politics etc). In English Wikipedia it is OK to use only 1 source for an article whilst declaring it a "stub" to develop further in future. In Russian Wikipedia community members will almost always attack you for such attempt.

5) As for 5), I feel I have already covered this in the above answers =))

6) I rarely participate in AfD, and primarily when I encounter AfD-related problems that I deal with. Usually I try to defend articles. But yes rarely I may help with deletion discussions when I see some "obvious" malicious actions such as spam, cheat or vandalism. Very rarely I may initiate AfD if I am the first who see such things. I do not go to AfD specially to talk there (this is apparently how my belief in inclusionism influence). But if I occasionally see something interesting when I happen to be at AfD I may "help" with "voting" in occasional nominations (it's not actually "vote", I'm just used to call it vote).

7) Yes, I regularly argue with other editors on Inclusionism vs Deletionism. Usual trigger for such things are of course AfDs but there may be discussions at Wiki-chats I & other editors participate in. There are Wiki Conferences in Russia, I sometimes visit them (here is English info on the latest'2020). At AfDs, disputes are usually resolved by Consensus. At chats, disputes often are poorly resolved because interlocutors often are skeptical and tend to maintain their skepticism no matter what I say. At conferences, I may find some supporters (or may not).

So, I think that's all for now, thank you Daniel / Dalorleon for your work, I am sure such studies are very useful for Wikimedia Movement and their results are usually very good for proving my grounds when talking about Wikipedia with people. Ask me more if you like! --ssr (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, ssr / Sergei! Thanks so much for your incredibly well-thought-out answers! I really appreciate the time you've given me. I'll definitely be in touch if I have any follow-up questions or if there's anything else I'm curious about. But, for now, I wish you the best of luck! --Dalorleon (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

August 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Munich speech of Vladimir Putin. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Renat 00:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Welcome to Wikipedia"? Did you read what was written in summary? --ssr (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. --Renat 11:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Renat 11:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Do not post tables at my talk page and do not "welcome" people to Wikipedia who are in Wikipedia for 16 years while you are on Wikipedia for only 2 years. I do not want to talk with you. If you want to discuss an article, use talk pages of articles. --ssr (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning this edit, you can write whatever summaries you like, but RT and Sputnik News are not valid reliable sources on the English Wikipedia and can not be used to describe anything but themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You can write whatever talk messages you like, but please read summary. --ssr (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ssr, please make sure you are aware that edit warring is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. Thank you. --Renat 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

We have to go here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ssr is edit-warring to restore deprecated propaganda sources. Please reply there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not the first time you make useless personal attack on me using administrator noticeboard while I did not make personal attacks on you using administrator noticeboard. I suggest you stop making personal attacks on me using administrator noticeboard. --ssr (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

October 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Burlakov case and Oleg Burlakov multiple rules violation. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I have replied there. -- ssr (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please, reply me

Hello. Please, reply me here. Джонни Уокер (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Пошёл нахуй. --ssr (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is not optional

We are two editors who disagree about the content of an article. Please begin a discussion on the talk page to avoid an edit war - simply reverting one another back and forth is unproductive. I was about to add some material back into the article from the best sources you cited (the Guardian, BBC), but then I found the whole thing undone once more. Please read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR for a guideline to our next steps. Per WP:ONUS, you need to seek consensus to include the disputed content in the article. I'm sure we can come to consensus with a bit of discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Simply reverting one another back and forth is unproductive" — exactly. That's what you did. And that's what I prevented. You you deleted 27,880 bytes of sourced content an replaced it with a piece of lies—that's not how Wikipedia should be written. So that I undid your actions to protect Wikipedia from disruption. -- ssr (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:ONUS - "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Let's discuss what should be included on the article's talk page. I'll open a discussion there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy when someone copyedits the page. Welcome! But not deleting 27,880 bytes of sourced content and replacing it with a piece of lies. That's not how Wikipedia should be written. -- ssr (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edits at Akademset

Your recent editing history at Akademset shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please refrain from re-introducing unreferenced material. If you need help with the referencing errors you keep creating, just ask. I can't help proactively because I don't know what sources you meant to cite. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I have answered at Talk:Akademset. --ssr (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd better stop working and not write anymore. Let you and your companions write. If writing becomes a disruption, then it's better for me not to write and feel well instead of feeling bad while trying to write the valid sourced content. --ssr (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: you recognized yourself that 3RR rule was not violated by me. More over, at the deleted page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ssr admin Ingenuity recognized that it was actually Mikeblas who violated 3RR rule. I cannot provide diff because the evidence page was deleted. Later, Mikeblas stalked and oppressed me, using his admin status, and made false accusation of serious crime, which was supported by admin Ingenuity — without any checks, just to oppress more. Thank God, WP:SPIRIT and Spicy, my innocence was confirmed by CU.

So that, it was Mikeblas who portrayed "violation of rules and battleground mentality", not me. But you harmed me, not him.

So that, it turns out that you punished innocent man and praised the guilty man. Who is an your admin-collegue with martial authority. More over, you appeared to be a part of admin oppression campaign. More over, the work on the valid article was disrupted and stopped. Thanks to you.

Do you feel well about this, @Daniel Case:? How often you do such things? -- ssr (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you didn't violate 3RR, but as stated quite clearly at WP:EW: "it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". And I have blocked many other editors for the very similar behavior of spacing their reverts out, as well as combative talk page posts indicating an unwillingness to compromise if that's the solution. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the good userbox though, I will use it now. --ssr (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please be Civil

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please define in your words what the article is about. Please say something on the subject of the article and do not say anything about "admin", "blocking", "order", "undo". Please answer: what scientific institution was the central node of article's subject? When was this institution formed and when was it closed? Which source mentions these dates? --ssr (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this edit in particular among your pattern of interaction with other editors. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a real and heavy sockpuppet of Bodiadub that SPI did not notice besides many warnings. Instead, they were blocking normal editors like Ingenuity did. As a summary: heavy sockpuppets are allowed to edit. Normal users are blocked. And you act in favor of this. --ssr (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FALSELY Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ssr. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}.  —Ingenuity (t • c) 04:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not do it!!! --ssr (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not my sock, check the IPs immediately!!! --ssr (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: this appears as an arranged attack. I did not create any socks and as I stated above I won't edit this article any more and anyone may now do anything with it. But SPI was apparently made without the checkuser procedure, and now I suspect future socks may be used while I don't and won't use any socks, as well as edit article at all. Please use the checkuser procedure to determine that I did not violate any rules. And please be aware of future socks pretending to be me. Where should I now go to prevent further attacks? --ssr (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

CU data indicates that the two accounts are  Unrelated to each other. Ozone Bond is  Likely to a troll who likes to impersonate people and cause drama. I've unblocked Ssr. It's probably a good idea to ask for CU confirmation before assuming that someone who's been here for nearly a decade would sock in such an obvious manner. Spicy (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely an oversight on my part - I should've suspected something was up. Thanks for the check @Spicy, and apologies for the block, Ssr. —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am still awaiting apologies from Mikeblas. Instead, the evidence page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ssr was deleted by another admin. For what? To cover traces? To avoid apologies? -- ssr (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)