User talk:Azeranth

Feedback Requested

This section is a list of people I've interacted with recently that I'd like feedback from on what I've began working on so far. I want to get a more complete description of what I see as the challenge with writing about certain topics and especially the way certain sources get used. I also want it to be less disruptive to the pages about the topics. I would appreciate if you followed along as I worked on this. @Valjean @Muboshgu @Generalrelative @Objective3000 @Dumuzid

January 2023

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Clinton Body Count. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! That very non-neutral tilting to give more weight to a baseless and malicious conspiracy theory is so wrong. See my comment on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced edits have been cited using sources already present on the cite, which were previously considered RS, which does not add information not present in the sources. Additionally, the source added is a reference to a Washington Post article. The facts extracted from the article consist primarily of investigative findings and testimony on the part of the perpetrator. The article referenced is used primarily as a summary of information provided over a complex and iterative series of official releases and statements pertaining to a decades old police investigation, and thus these primary sources are infeasible to cite directly in any coherent way. The Washington Post is of sufficient repute as to have no reason to suspect they have materially altered fact, quotations, or events as described in the corpus of official releases that the article summarizes.

@Valjean @Muboshgu --Azeranth (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Clinton Body Count 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard you should keep your hands off the revert button as well and make detailed and explained item by item changes of precisely what about the article that you find to be an issue, and to change those items one at a time because the body in which they occur is not completely unsalvagable.

Its almost like I explained that this is both convention and best practice is in my explanation for the edit. Also, your original reversion did not feature an explanation. You are the one in violation of policy at the moment. Azeranth (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how this works. You have tried to insert three edits into the article today. Another attempt will be a brightline WP:3RR violation. Exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP)", which this certainly is. Another attempt and you're blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself said it wasn't a BLP violation on the talk page though so.... Azeranth (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP also applies to talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well good thing its been well established to not be a violation of BLP, including byu the admission of the person who orignally lodged the BLP complaint.

@Valjean Azeranth (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the exact wording makes it hard for me to say more. Whether something is a BLP violation is sometimes a judgment call. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps its prudent to withhold judgement without the benefit of the transcript. What specifically are you claiming was a BLP, I could probably find or reproduce it for you. Azeranth (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd appreciate that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were two parts to my original edit of the introduction paragraph.

Part one standardized the use of the word "alleged", "has been debunked in articles" and "baseless claim" were removed because that opinionated language. They were replaced with "articles created for the purpose of debunking" to be more tonally neutral.

Quick reminder, I still think that debunked is probably a suboptimal word. It implies additional information came out after the fact, rather than just restating the findings of the original investigation. This is a semantic change.

I added a sentence about how the motivation of the alleged murders is frequently connected with the coverup of a larger criminal conspiracy involving bribery and child sex trafficking.

I added a sentence at the end stating that identifying disinformation and refuting allegations of fraud (ie Big Like propaganda) is made more difficult by real examples of fraud and corruption, like those which notably occurred in Jeffery Epstein's death.

In hindsight, I think the oringal confusion may have been that my statement that fraud and corruption did occur in relation to Jeffery Epstein's death was misconstrued that I was saying the Clintons had committed fraud? That would be a complete overreading into what I said, but I suppose that makes the most sense. Azeranth (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without very good sourcing in multiple RS, we can't imply that either Epstein's death was a murder (but we document that there are conspiracy theories to that effect) or that the Clintons committed fraud. BLP is pretty firm about that. There are two BLP standards, one for ordinary people (they are protected very strongly) and one for public figures (who are not protected as strongly). BLP applies everywhere at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean OK but I didn't do any of those thing. there was fraud and corruption related to the death of Jeffery Epstein. full stop. no question. completely accurate and well sourced fact.

there was no "therefore the clintons" there was no "therefore he was murdered" just "there was fraud and corruption" which there was.

that's what was frustrating about the Mary Mohane paragraph. I never included "therefore the conspiracy theorists are right" or "therefore clintons murdered them" or any implication of that fact either.

I wrote "according to the snopes article, the way the robbery was carried out and the money wasn't taken is suspicious" "according to the wapo article, Carl Cooper was a hardened and expereince serial armed robber who frequently and callously murders people. according to his testimony he was overwhelmed by the murder of Mary Mohane and thus fled the scene"

I understand that if I included article "but" or "however" or "and yet" that would be pushing it, but just putting the two facts from the source there doesn't seem slanderous or unverifiable Azeranth (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is how Tucker Carlson, and others, work. They talk about one thing. They then talk about suspicious something. Then add: "I'm just saying". The connections are assumed by the listener because they are in the same discussion. If they're sued, they claim they never outright made an accusation. We're not going to do anything close to that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then how are you supposed to have a conversation about the following set of facts:

1.) There are conspiracy theories about the Clintons

2.) Conspiracy theories are made more confusing to navigate by actual conspiracies and fraud

3.) Jeffery Epstein's death is an example of the intersection between Clinton conspiracies and actual events of fraud

I made a point elsewhere about how overselection bias is a real problem for countering wrongthink, and it contributes to the durability and proliferation of disinformation. If you respond to something like conspiracies about Epstein's death with "There was nothing wrong or suspicious and it was unequivocally definitely a suicide and anyone who says otherwise is a lying moron who doesn't know anything" you're an idiot and you will only make things worse. Azeranth (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]