User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives
[megabytes]

1, 2, 3

Tech News: 2021-42

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Toolhub is a catalogue to make it easier to find software tools that can be used for working on the Wikimedia projects. You can read more.

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 October. It will be on all wikis from 21 October (calendar).

Future changes

The developers of the Wikipedia Android app are working on communication in the app. You can now answer questions in survey to help the development.
3–5% of editors may be blocked in the next few months. This is because of a new service in Safari, which is similar to a proxy or a VPN. It is called iCloud Private Relay. There is a discussion about this on Meta. The goal is to learn what iCloud Private Relay could mean for the communities.
Wikimedia Enterprise is a new API for those who use a lot of information from the Wikimedia projects on other sites. It is a way to get big commercial users to pay for the data. There will soon be a copy of the Wikimedia Enterprise dataset. You can read more. You can also ask the team questions on Zoom on 22 October 15:00 UTC.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

JesseRafe's disruptive removal of well-referenced material

As summarized here and here, user JesseRafe has been repeatedly removing well-referenced material from the article Brian Sims without justification. No other user has objected to this material. The only reason JesseRafe has given is that they think it "makes the subject look bad", which is not a valid reason per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

JesseRafe is engaging in ownership behavior, including the following:

An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.

An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions.

JesseRafe also violated WP:NPA when I linked to the talk page discussion on their user page. They have also failed to respond to this invitation.

How do you suggest proceeding? 2001:569:7F68:BF00:A575:7727:DB21:8992 (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your current approach is at the "Responding to tone" section of this pyramid, which is suboptimal.

Hi 2001:569:7F68:BF00:A575:7727:DB21:8992, Thanks for asking.

Both the discussion "invitation" (titled "Your disruptive removal of well-referenced material on Brian Sims")^[1] and the discussion's introduction (directed at one specific editor, demanding them to answer questions about their behavior)^[2] are combative and unpleasant; I can understand why someone would refuse to even answer such an "invitation". It's not an invitation to a neutral content-based discussion, it's an invitation to an unproductive fight.

Please re-write the section on the article's talk page entirely. Tips for doing so in a way that actually creates a productive discussion about the article content:

Describe which content you would like to add or replace, exactly, with a quotation. Describe why you would like to do so, ideally citing relevant policies (ensuring neutrality, and how so? Correcting a misquotation for verifiability, and using which source?).
Do not mention any specific user's name, or worse, their alleged behavior, on the article's talk page. Article talk pages are not for the discussion of user behavior; please restrict your message to the content of the article.
Keep the invitation message completely neutral. Use {{Please see}} without adding custom text.
If after all these attempts you do have a complaint about the user's behavior, the only two places you can reasonably voice them are User talk:JesseRafe and WP:ANI. Instead of focusing on the user's behavior, if the discussion fails, you should attempt inviting a formal third opinion about the content matter, or you could ask for a moderated dispute resolution at WP:DRN.

Two very helpful pages I can recommend are: WP:Dispute resolution, and the essay Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss.

If you have genuinely followed the tips above and still face silence and a refusal to discuss the content, please notify me again.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]