Talk:Anonymous for the Voiceless

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

There is one piece of vandalism that wasn't corrected before being protected. In the article it says that outreachers "steak" to people and it should say "talk" to people. Josh2316 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed?

Since the article is currently under an attack by a user named the phantom 24 (changed a link to a google-drive source that attacks the founders and likewise actions), can this IP or account be blocked from editing or can the article become semi-protected? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominik Wiki (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you saw the google doc then you would have seen the website that proves Anonymous For The Voiceless to be a registered business rather than a non profit. When the change was reverted back. I didn’t include the doc and only provided the page by the Australian gov’t that proves it is a business. I am not fabricating anything. So let the changes be made. Thephantom24 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article, not because I think it's being vandalized, but because two users, both very new, are edit warring on it. I've asked them to discuss the disagreement here on this talkpage instead. Thank you for starting the discussion, Thephantom24. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC).

So changing a source, that should lead to a "the guardian" newspaper article to a google drive document that is a collection of accusations against the organisation and it´s cofounders is not vandalizing? Please check that User:Bishonen. I´m new to this, too, but i cannot imagine that this is regarded a legit action, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominik Wiki (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

And if you looked at the wiki article that you hid links to personal Google Drive folders in, it would become clear to you that Anonymous for the Voiceless has been a registered Nonprofit Organisation since 2018, according to reference 10 (https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/774df2336450879820ca344a292f1bbe),Thephantom24. Larshalt | talk 20:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC).

Just to also bring the points raised on Thephantom24s talk here: Anonymous for the Voiceless being registerd as a business is not mutually exclusive to it being a nonprofit organisation. Reference 10 from the article is in my opinion clear evidence that we are in fact looking at a nonprofit organisation. I apologize for engaging in an edit war, but all my first changes were only reverting clear vandalism (hiding links to Google drive folders in what looks like a Guardian newspaper article). I should not have made the last edit, but instead open this talk myself. I'll make sure to go through the guidelines for Wikipedia editors before making further edits on articles. Nonetheless, I think semi-protection for this article is needed taking into account that this is not the first time that vandalist changes have been made to it. Larshalt (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't engage in edit wars, ever. It muddies the waters and leaves you as open to sanction as the editor you are reverting. The exemption from our rules on edit-warring apply only to blatant and incontrovertible vandalism. The moment you have to explain why it's vandalism, you're on shaky ground to claim exemption, because an editor only commits vandalism when they have intent to harm the encyclopedia; simply being wrong doesn't make it vandalism. Go to talk after the first revert (WP:BRD) and you won't get into trouble. Because the majority of edits are made by unregistered editors, we only semi-protect articles when they are having problems caused by multiple unconfirmed/unregistered editors. If it's just one editor, we'll simply block them until they get the message. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

But in this case, it actually was vandalism, wasn´t it? The change of the source as described in the previos comment of me is not only "beeing wrong". It´s misleading users, that want to get to the newspaper article to somewhere completly different. Please PM me or write here if i´m wrong and this was indeed no vandalism. Thank you! Dominik Wiki (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dominik Wiki: there aren't any PMs on Wikipedia, but I have no problem expanding on this page. WP:Vandalism is defined here like this:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, ... Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. ... If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism ... avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia

I hope you are wiling to assume that Thephantom24's edits were made in good-faith, and not with a deliberate, malicious intent to harm the article. In the long run, disagreements on Wikipedia are best solved collegiately, by thinking the best (not the worst) of our fellow editors. If you do, it improves the chances that they will think the best of you if you make a mistake in the future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is thinking the worst if I say that making a link that should lead to a newspaper article instead lead to a self-fabricated PDF document on a Google drive folder is vandalism, though. Larshalt (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And also changing the membership from "none" to "your soul" might be considered funny, but clearly is an attack on the page. If i get it right, vandalism does not mean you intend to destroy the whole wiki (-project), but is indeed if you are editing one article in a way an encyclopedia does not stand for. So i´m still at the point of view that most of the discussion here was not productive/constructive but only a good load of timewaste of all of us. Never the less, thanks for all who reacted *thumbsup* Dominik Wiki (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Larshalt: it's not vandalism if the intention was not to harm Wikipedia. As we cannot know the editor's intention in these sort of cases, we are obliged to WP:assume good faith and assume that they thought they were linking to the newspaper source, albeit indirectly. If they had fabricated a source itself, you would have a point.

@Dominik Wiki: changing the membership from "none" to "your soul" damages the article and would likely be considered vandalism, as it cannot be construed as an attempt to improve it. I'm sorry you found that my attempts to help you all unconstructive and a waste of time. I won't make the same mistake again. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I am not making an assumption when saying that Thephantom24 hid a Google drive folder in that source on purpose, as they admitted doing that themselves on their talk: "My edits? Oh, so the google doc.". As we have now established that the edits were indeed vandalism, could we now either ban the mentioned user or semi-protect this wiki article? Thanks for all your contributions and your patience! Larshalt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Larshalt: we have widely accepted guidance on "Righting great wrongs". It appears that Thephantom24 was engaging in that by linking to their Google doc. However, that still isn't vandalism: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Wile blocking can be performed by any admin, to ban a user would require consensus in a debate at the Administrator's noticeboard. Considering that Thephantom24 hasn't edited the article since Bishonen intervened, I seriously doubt that a case could be made. I'm afraid that semi-protection wouldn't be helpful; it would prevent editors like Dominik Wiki from editing the article, while leaving Thephantom24 able to edit. I suspect that is the very opposite of what you intended. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Argh, RexxS, i even said "thank you" for your effort in my comment. Wasting time was not meant for your actions taken, but that it became necessary. I don´t think that there were any chance of an improvement for the article through discussion here, thereby a "waste of time". That all of you did react and also the outcome is a sign of a well working structure, in matters of "protecting the policies" it was about the opposite of a timewaste. Sorry if my words were not clear at that before, i´m not a native speaker. It all made sense in my head ;) Dominik Wiki (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No affiliation to Anonymous (hacktivists)

AV has no affiliation to the hacktivists at all, describing it as "not directly affiliated to" gives the impression there is an indirect affiliation. Therefor i cut out "directly". Dominik Wiki (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)