User talk:Stefania0

Nomination of Jen Perelman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jen Perelman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jen Perelman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the "controversy" section that you added to the article is a classic example of WP:COATRACK, hyperinflating some topic minimally relevant to an article as a way to attack someone else. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * HouseOfChange I appreciate your perspective, but I disagree. Controversy doesn't imply that the focus person was accused of something. Perelman accused her rival of doing something illegal. Further, a police report was filed in the shoving of minor case and it was reported by national media. Both indicate that this is not WP:COATRACK as you have suggested. Stefania0 (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The teen sensibly refused to press any claim for the "shoving," which turned out to be DWS trying to talk to voters the teen wanted to monopolize. When you say national media, you mean Fox? This was utterly trivial per WP:BALASP and had zero effect on the careers of either Perelman or DWS. It doesn't belong in either article. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a [police report]. By national media, I mean MSN, Fox News and Law & Crime. Whether the controversy has an impact on the outcome of an election or not is immaterial. The controversy is relevant to the article as it relates to the topic (Perelman and her campaign), was serious (allegation of illegality and police report), and was covered by news media. Saying it's trivial is like saying Trump's transgressions with respect to emoluments clause are trivial because they had no affect on his career.Stefania0 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BALASP says nothing about impacting the outcome. WP:BALASP is not about suppressing information, but rather presenting it in a balanced and neutral way, free of WP:POV. The text has zero POV.Stefania0 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BALASP is about achieving balance in the article, not by "suppressing information" but by giving more weight to important topics, and less weight or no weight to events that had little significance to the topic of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy concerning editors who have a relationship to people or businesses they write about
Do you have a personal or professional connection to Jen Perelman or her campaign organization? You uploaded an to WikiMedia commons giving the source as "Jen Perelman campaign." Wikipedia's policy on "conflict of interest" says: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." But disclosure, when COI exists, is required. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no relationship of any kind with Jen Perelman, her family or her campaign. The only interaction I've had with her campaign is an email I wrote to her campaign yesterday to request a photo of hers be released in public domain for uploading on Wikimedia Commons.Stefania0 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clear and civil response. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

 * Your take on that? Can you comment on devices used? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * People who live in the same house are generally going to be indistinguishable. I found two accounts through behavioral evidence while randomly skimming through pages on Wikipedia.  That happens occasionally because I have a memory for sock puppets and am good at pattern matching.  However, it seems a bit unlikely that I'd behaviorally identify Victorpp's spouse and friend at random, unless they're meat puppets who share a hive mind.  I'm good, but I'm not a mentalist.  It also seems bit suspicious that Victorpp encouraged her to create an account three hours after he was blocked, after which I suppose he coached her on how to start RFCs on topics of interest to him.  Come on, a few hours after he's blocked for nominating articles for deletion, his wife shows up and starts nominating articles for deletion? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek NinjaRobotPirate Allow me to explain the situation:


 * How did I come to be on Wikipedia: I have been using Wikipedia since inception, and been studying it through various means, including following discussions and the Missing Maual and thought about becoming an editor for a few years. I didn't know Viktorpp was editing, till on 6 Aug he told me that he was blocked. I will admit that's what reminded me that I have wanted to be an editor for far longer than he ever did, and inspired me to finally take the plunge. He did not encourage me to join, nor did I join to do his bidding - I wouldn't do that...have not in the past, and will not in the future. Further, in the future, if I find people in a discussion that I know IRL, I'll disclose that for full transparency.


 * My edits - As mentioned above, I didn't join Wikipedia completely green. I had been studying it for a few years. Since you are senior editors and admins who have been on Wikipedia for years if not decades, not sure how familiar with new user onboarding you are, but basically Wikipedia suggests "random" articles to edit. Those were my first few contribs. Ghulam Qadir Ganipuri was one such article for editing suggested by Wikipedia onboarding and the version shown to me was exceptionally bad, as you can check yourself, and therefore I submitted it for deletion - it was later replaced/reverted with a decently good article. The only other article I submitted for deletion was on 27 Aug - Ghazi Hur Mujahid Faqeer Arbelo Katpar, which is still pretty sketchy.


 * IDK if the abuse log is what alerted you to a potential issue, but if you check it, the issue raised is not my deletions, but my 2 created pages that triggered filter 867, Large creations by inexperienced user. As I have explained, while a new editor, I put in effort into understanding Wikipedia before joining as an editor. I am not brash like Viktorpp. And while you may agree or disagree with my two created pages (heck, one was deleted/redirected by consensus, so I was wrong about it), you will notice that these are a far cry from Viktorpp's edits.


 * Meatpuppet You just have to compare my contrib page to Viktorpp's, to see there's ZERO similarity between our editing patterns or interests. I don't believe I have joined any of Viktorpp's "causes". The two articles I nominated for deletion have never been edited by Viktorpp and are not similar to any topics edited by him nor nominated for deletion by him, and are not even on the topics/domains similar to the articles he nominated for deletion.


 * Mea culpa - When a page created by me Jen Perelman was nominated for deletion, I invited an editor 130.226.41.9 who I know IRL to comment in the discussion. I didn't know his Wiki ID etc, just asked him in person. Since then, we have both been blocked and he has advised me that what I did is stealth canvassing which is not permitted. For that I apologize and pledge never to do again.


 * Stefania0 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * OhNo itsJamie Did you compare my contrib page to Viktorpp's? Stefania0 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I have; your account was created immediately after Viktorpp's was blocked, similar edit summary idiosyncracies,  . OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Adoption
Worm That Trains If and when my block is lifted, I'd like to be adopted, so that I can learn good practices, and avoid jams such as the one I find myself in now. Stefania0 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)