User talk:Chrisvacc

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) LOL Chrisvacc (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Don't add comments in a closed discussion.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't close a discussion where we're adding comments. Chrisvacc (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your third opinion request
Hello Chrisvacc. I saw your request for a third opinion for Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Unfortunately I had to decline the request because more than two editors are involved. You might want to try other dispute resolution processes, which are detailed here. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy Chrisvacc (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC hasn't started yet
Hello! Just saw your comment, but the RFC hasn't started yet, the point of the thread is to come to an agreement on the formulation of the question before we actually start (and list) an RFC. Make sense? :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry! Thanks – Chrisvacc (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I say we just vote. I dont think anyone will object to that phrasing. It's too confusing and everyone is just voting anyway lol. – Chrisvacc (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're eager to get started, I can certainly appreciate that (glancing at the threads up the page, it's obvious people feel passionate about this issue). But the best way to resolve disputes is to work methodically towards shared understand, agreement, consensus to support inclusion/exclusion, etc.  The first step is to make sure we get a simple, logical, neutral, fair, reasonable question set up as the base of the RFC.  This is because some RFCs start out with too narrow, too board, malformed, slanted, or otherwise defectively formulated questions, and then as editors pile on with their comments, you see accusations that the RFC wasn't done properly.  Don't worry, the formulation will get tamped down quickly enough and then people can add their support/oppose !vote comments.  It's the Wikipedia way... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial Block
Following your rant about "leaking the page to the press" and "bullying Social Justice Warriors" it is clear that you do not have the ability to approach the issue sensibly and so I have blocked you from editing the article. This does not affect your ability to edit the rest of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below this section on your talk page:  I have only needed to block one IP from the article so far, and have unblocked them after they indicated they understood the issues they were causing. I hope the same will be the case here. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't include the Talk page (my error) - I have now.  If you're calling other editors "bullying SJWs" and threatening to go to the press then you are actually being disruptive.  As I said, if you can promise to control your annoyance (and, by the sounds of the SJW comment, your biases) when editing, then any other admin who answers this may unblock; but I don't see that at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well now this is a much bigger problem than I thought. I just went through your edits and now I realize it's not just the power users, but administration are involved too. We were actually just on the verge of resolving the original issue via RfC, and was going to drop it anyway but a ban just makes my case for me. That ban encouraged me to go into your edit history and now I see this isn't just a problem among power users, but administrators too. You supressed information on the basis of "BLP violation", but there were no BLP violations. BLP clearly states:

''For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent '''until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction'

There are NO violations of Wikipedia's rules. Tthe SJW comment isn't a bias. I'm a moderate liberal myself and have never voted for a Republican candidate in my life - but that's not an excuse to use a neutral Encyclopedia as an outlet for your beliefs or unconscious biases. This is about Journalistic integrity, not some ulterior motives. Regarding the priors it's completely relevant and there are no BLP violations:

This is completely relevant to the controversy because McMichael stated he recognized him which is why almost every outlet are reporting on it (except Wikipedia, of course.) This just shows that administrators are using their power to slant articles. So this is actually a bigger problem than I thought. When it's powerusers, that's one thing - but when Administrators are doing it too that's a whole nother ballgame. How is showing the press a 'threat.' If there are no attempts to whitewash information then nobody has anything to worry about. Journalists would just look it over and say 'nothing to see here.' You have deleted perfectly valid comments saying "BLP" but there were no BLP violations. It says it right there. If there's a conviction - it's allowed. BLP rules are there for Wikipedia to avoid Libel.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral Point of View

Now that I look into your edits you actually deleted comments citing "BLP" when there were no BLP violations. Like this one:

You deleted this and cited "BLP" as the reason for deletion. But there was no BLP violation. Now it's clear which side you're on, and I hadn't even noticed until you applied a ban. I would have never noticed. He was convicted. It's relevant to the case, so what's the issue? Because this really appears like an attempt to suppress relevant information.

Then there's this comment:

''For one, we certainly don't need WP:UNDUE laundry lists of people trying to attempt to paint Arbery in a bad light for previous issues that are irrelevant to his shooting; some have been removed today. Basically, if you're going down that route, it's best not to post. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)''

''If reliable sources cover it in a biography then that may not be UNDUE, however this isn't a biography, it's about a single event. We aren't going to point out that the victim had a conviction for a minor offence X years ago, because it's not relevant. And I think we know the direction from which most of the (mostly new) accounts who are pushing to add this stuff are coming from. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)''

Dude, this isn't some Alt-right conspiracy to paint some kid in a bad light. This isn't some racist Stormfront plot. This is upholding the standards of journalistic integrety by presenting all the information and letting people decide for themselves. But of course it's easier to resort to the "he's a racist!" witch-hunt and supress. Where's the BLP violation? Where's the DUE violation. All I see is Ad Hominem reasoning accusing people of being conservatives

The goal is to fix this this Neutrality problem. There are systemic Neutrality issues on Wikipedia. This issue isn't controversial. Ideological bias on Wikipedia Often exposing issues to journalistic scrutany holds orginizations accountable. What do you suggest? How do you suggest fixing this systemic neutrality issue? Of power users, and now administrators using their position to push a non-neutral POV? If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. For now, an article on this seems like a good plan: "Systemic Bias in Wikipedia: how bias among Power Users and Administrators affects free information" citing how relevant information was supressed by Power Users and Administrators.

So ban me from whatever you'd like. It reminds me of this recent video from CNN. In a speech a valedictorian accused the administration of being autharitarian so they cut off his mic. “How dare he call us authoritative? We don’t restrict rights. Cut his mic!” It's funny - I had already dropped this but now the issue is actually bigger. – Chrisvacc (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Chrisvacc, please calm down. Your threat of going to the press was block-worthy. We are seeing opposition to the prior offense being mentioned, but yet we are also proceeding towards an RFC. It's not helpful to keep crying out bias when we are trying to settle this with an RfC. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "power users", are any powers being used here?  starship .paint  (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's alright - I'm just an activist for Neutrality in Journalism. - Chrisvacc (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And you're right... if the thing comes to a vote and the community comes to a consensus.. I think that will be fair. It's when people go around reversing edits that there's an issue. - Chrisvacc (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that this is obscene. I'm a new editor with almost no experience and am completely discouraged and disheartened by the way this sausage gets made. I was participating in an open, good-faith discussion on the Talk page about whether criminal history was relevant, WP:DUE, etc. I was redacted and given a "final warning" (and first one) for supposedly posting unsourced facts. I had cited the sources before, so I re-cited them — literally nothing but a quote from the Daily Beast that sourced the fact I'd claimed — and that was redacted. Then I was blocked for again having the temerity to participate in a Talk page discussion of whether criminal history is WP:DUE. It's impossible to explain why criminal history is WP:DUE without stating what that criminal history is—but stating the history, even when simply quoting directly from a mainstream source, gets one blocked for supposedly violating WP:DUE. It's utterly Orwellian.

The fact is that ONE OF THE GUYS HELPED PROSECUTE THE GUY HE'S ACCUSED OF MURDERING TWO YEARS BEFORE. In what world is that not relevant? But I literally had people telling me that was WP:UNDUE because I couldn't prove that McMichael recognized Arbery at the time he was chasing him—something I had never claimed and which no one could prove. McMichael claims he recognized Arbery from prior security footage—does that "prove" he did? Of course not—but the fact that he claims it is all that can ever be proven, and that's obviously "relevant" too, since it may well be the backbone of his defense.

One of the people who has most eagerly attacked me is claiming on the Talk page that there is no evidence Arbery had a criminal record—after making sure I was redacted and blocked for citing and sourcing that information:


 * ''What criminal record? I've looked at RS and can't find any indication that he has been convicted of a parking violation. Even if there is a record, clearly nothing should be included unless it is directly relevant. We don't normally go after the person killed like this. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how can you discuss his criminal record when no one has shown that he has one or what it is if it exists? O3000 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)''

He's also commenting on the fact that you "emailed" me:


 * "Incidentally, FYI, one of those you blocked just emailed the other you blocked.[17] Haven't seen that before. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)" Who do these people think they are? 

I strongly believe that we have both been blocked and our well-sourced information on Arbery's record redacted in order to swing the Priors RfC taking place on the Talk page. This is how they censor Wikipedia – by harassing, insulting, redacting, and blocking people right before they "build "consensus". Tambourine60 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, he's watching your page that closely?! – Chrisvacc (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting. I work in the Social Science and if you study psychology people are soo transparant. Our unconsusness controls so much of our behavior. For example the Bill Clinton impeachment. Almost 100% of Democrats found him 'innocent' and almost 100% of republicans found him 'guilty'... might that suggest that their motivations are not to actually prove guilt or innocence? It's more likely that Democrats wanted to keep him and Republicans wanted to throw him out. Humans, most of the time, actually don't use their reasoning ability to find the truth. They use it to find evidence for what they already believe. So people on here are actually cheating and to anyone who studies psychology it's way obvious that people are saying "BLP violation" for things they just don't like, so they pull out a rule that will help them accomplish their goals. Their goals aren't really BLP... it's just that they want to paint a narrative and will use whatver rules they can find to further that cause.

We all think we're objectively observing the facts - but we're not. So unless you really make an active effort to be a truth seeker, you're really just controlled by your biases. There's a great TED talk called "Soldier vs Scout mindset." I wouldn't be discouraged. I spent a lot of time in academia and it's the same thing there. The overt liberal bias. - Chrisvacc (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalisim
Someone named Kaden vandalized your comment on Galendia's talk page. I just wanted to let you know. Wale18 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lmao, that was a somewhat odd piece of vandalism. Thanks for letting me know - I reversed it. – Chrisvacc (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible socking
If you are socking with, you are in big trouble and this is your one chance to admit it.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ??? Chrisvacc (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, Chris. I'm so disappointed. It's over. You're done. I'm afraid you chose the wrong path, twice.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It will take time for me to file a sockpuppet investigation request. Now is the time you admit it to save your ass from worse punishment.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what you're talking about. My comment was in regards to appealing the ban. Do whatver you want. – Chrisvacc (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You literally just said "you might be unblocked before the vote ends".. unless I'm misunderstaning what you said – Chrisvacc (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I wish you admitted it and didn't waste my time.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisvacc. I'm sorry that it has come to this.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - FYI.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You really are wasting your time. Read the block. User:Black Kite told me "I have only needed to block one IP from the article so far, and have unblocked them after they indicated they understood the issues they were causing. I hope the same will be the case here." and told me "I said, if you can promise to control your annoyance (and, by the sounds of the SJW comment, your biases) when editing"... I could have just responded "okay I'll chill out" but instead I posted a long rant because I'm over this article. You guys can do what you want with it. - Chrisvacc (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting expansion and update edit support
Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.


 * Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Intellectual.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at it and made a minor edit, but the article is very difficult to read. It's clear the article is written from an islamic perspective and would be difficult for someone outside of that culture to read it.
 * I would put this banner up:
 * Otherwise the article looks good at a quick glance – Chrisvacc - ✆ 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Otherwise the article looks good at a quick glance – Chrisvacc - ✆ 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your frank input that shall help us improve the article further.

Few points I do agree with you, that is why I am 'positively' scouting to get update and expansion support to improve global perspective and neutrality, and that is how I contacted you too :). I wish article becomes as inclusive and balanced as possible. So I have already shortlisted at least some sources to represent more geographies and more aspects. But subject is too big and I am alone. Since I began searching and writing from one end and rest still to be written and looking help for the same.

On ease of understanding for general reader, 1) I want to bring second para in lead to first number. 2) Though advice literature is abundant in all medias, reference sources are academic studies and intellectual books; we can add more explanatory lines about anecdotes we are talking about in the article. 3) To avoid copyright my own paraphrasing may have added upon intellectuals writing when more copy editing will take place that will get sorted out.

One more observation is academic focus seems to be more on historic times of advice literature and analysis of modern times and contemporary Islamic advice literature is comparatively lesser and one systemic bias is coming from that side and Wikipedians are dependent on readily available source we can not make much difference to it. Within four corners of freedoms Wikipedia allows from my side I am very much for, to make much inclusive. Besides for quick and better understanding of Islamic terms may be we can add more foot notes in the article.

Also please let me know If I am missing on some thing else not mentioned above.

Tnanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up a few things and added a few tags so other editors can help. Feel free to check out my edits and make sure everything I wrote is correct. – Chrisvacc - ✆ 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it was nice of you for proactive support and healthy discussion. As said earlier I have tried to invite more editors some of them too come and edit and article may not remain as I started but with positive contributions like yours will get improved only. If I feel any thing important I will keep you informed or edit, but as of now I am okay with the changes. You also keep editing whenever you come across any good reference source.

Just for record sake I mentioned this discussion on article talk page.

Thanks again and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, maybe I'll make a few more edits tomorrow – Chrisvacc - ✆ 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Apology
Given that the SPI case was closed that the evidence was not strong enough, I am going to assume that you were innocent. With that assumption, I must apologize for having wasted your time and effort, and for causing distress: sorry to you, Chrisvacc.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want my strawberry, and we're cool – Chrisvacc - ✆ 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ha. it's fine. I had honestly forgotten all about it too. Thanks – Chrisvacc - ✆ 08:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your magnanimity. Best wishes.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Far be it from me to insinuate there's a five-timin', wheelin'-dealin', egg-suckin' dog in your house, Chris, but those strawberries were mine before they were yours, whooo! April 18, 2020, I knew they were going around, I probably would have worn protection. One old dude who dipped his toe in the Battlebowl before I took it to the peak of Space Mountain wasn't even masking his secret identity, completely au naturel. So yeah, you might want to get tested for Dick the Bruiser syndrome, big man. It's not as bad as it sounds, but it is for life. One governor at our party exhibited symptoms 55 years later! Anyway, nice meeting you; the strawberry on the far left likes to be nibbled first, if you're still planning on going through with this, be gentle with Sheila (top right)! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm InedibleHulk. I wished you a safe Ides of May at Starship's page, but it was a bit late, so I understand if our first meeting was too one-sided to count. I'm sorry for my second impression, it was supposed to be Ric Flair before WrestleMania VIII, foolish of me to assume people generally remember pro wrestling's boom years. We don't need to keep talking after this third hello, but at least it's relatively straightforward and polite, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh LOL. Sup? – Chrisvacc - ✆
 * Oh, you know. Same old thing. Heard you're not a sockpuppet, so we have that in common. I once suspected our mutual business associate here of being a puppetmaster. Turns out he's a ninja! Can't judge a book by its cover, I guess. Do you, uh...read books lately? Actually, hold that thought. I'll disappear completely and ask again in a year, by then we won't be strangers so it won't be a weird question, see? Peace out, Chrisvacc! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's cool - just didn't recognize you. I readded your comment – Chrisvacc - ✆ 11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)