Talk:Jennifer Homendy

Elon Musk incitement

In case anyone is wondering why this article has been mobbed with vandalism recently, Elon Musk tweeted it out[1] in retaliation for her critical comments regarding Tesla's "full self-driving" on The Autonocast[2]. Stonkaments (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Tesla

It seems clear that this section should be included in the article, as it's relevant to the subject and has received widespread coverage in reliable sources.[3][4][5][6] Stonkaments (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Second. I am not sure why the article was set to admin-only when it's only users without accounts who are constantly vandalizing it. QRep2020 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Best not to call these removals vandalism at this stage —see what vandalism is not— though they may well end up being deemed that. Not the end of the world to pause for a few days so as to see if these users have an actual basis in policy for their removals. If not, then not, and that would be the end of that. El_C 15:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems excessive to exclude registered users - without any evidence that these users are responsible for vandalism/edit warring. --NDSteve10 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, 30/500 would have been sufficient. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:ECP to what end? Are there confirmed accounts favouring removal? Possibly I missed em. Anyhow, if you can convince an admin to adjust the protection, I've no objection, but the venue to do so is at WP:RFPP/D. El_C 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The activity strikes me more as illegitimate blanking than removal. QRep2020 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand that's your position, but I am preferring to err on the side of caution here by at least giving those users a chance to substantiate. El_C 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have requested the page protection be decreased. I don't think the IP accounts deserve any benefit of the doubt in this case, given the long string of clear disruptive vandalism. Registered editors were making constructive edits, and page protection should be lifted so they can continue to do so. Stonkaments (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Stonkaments and QRep2020. The section reported facts that have been widely reported in reliable sources. Also this level of page protection should be used with extreme care, as it prevents practically any improvement of the article, and I think in this case is clearly unjustified. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, hopefully, nothing major happens in the next 24 hours that would require urgent updating, but if so somehow: WP:ER. Otherwise, as noted at RFPP/D, any admin is free to adjust the protection in any way they see fit. I don't really have much to add beyond that at this time. El_C 14:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the lock is set to release on October 2nd though? QRep2020 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless another admin takes over the protection, my intent is to convert the full protection into a lengthy semi one if opponents fail to participate here as instructed (by tomorrow). The Oct 2 expiration was weighed with their participation in mind. Obviously, if they fail to do so, they forfeit their position (vis-à-vis proponents) and that would be the end of that, at least for a long while. El_C 16:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The content seems reasonable but needs to be written with more impartial language. Springee (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the vehemence with which all the registered users above wish to exclude unconfirmed accounts is to their discredit, and by extension, the project's. That is not a welcoming environment. WP:BITE applies. WP:OWN might also apply. El_C 17:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this vehemence you mention. I can't speak for the other editors, but I certainly don't wish to exclude anyone. I thought any page protections were premature—the obvious vandalism was being handled fine, and the substantive edits could be discussed on the talk page. That said, I think it's telling that we still haven't had any IP accounts weigh in on the talk page. Stonkaments (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless they agree with you...? Is it telling, though? If I were an IP and read all of the above, I don't know if I'd be inclined to participate. Also, ironic that you prove my point even further by calling it "vandalism," even after I had already quoted WP:NOTVAND above. El_C 17:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I don't understand what you are implying with "Unless they agree with you...?"—could you please clarify? I welcome input from all editors, with any viewpoint.

2. To make sure we're on the same page, I was referring to the diffs I provided in the WP:RFPP/D request.([7][8][9][10][11]) "Elon still likes doge" and "I DON"T KNOW WHAT I AM DOING GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT"—if that's not vandalism, then I don't know what is. Stonkaments (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What I dispute is when those instances of vandalism (obviously) get conflated with edits that may simply be awkward noob ones. Ones which may have a basis in fact. A basis that could possibly be refined further, or not. The full protection was intended to motivate those users to make their case. And if it's a zero or near-zero effort on their parts, then that, too, is something that'd be revealed soon enough. But there's so little patience, which is really par for the course on the project and not unique to this case. El_C 17:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then I think we're actually on the same page, because I agree with that :) Your point about having more patience with the noobs is well-taken. It's hard in this instance because Elon has a history of encouraging disruptive edits on WP—note the FAQ at Talk:Elon Musk has the question, Can you change "business magnate" to "business magnet"? (No.), which was added after persistent disruptive editing on that page as well. But I agree we must strive to be welcoming to well-intentioned newcomers, and give them the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Stonkaments (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Progress! This is so OT at this point, but okay, I'll try to sum up with some depth. As an admin of 17 years with nearly/over +8,000 protections/blocks, I have a metric that encompasses WP:AGF versus WP:PACT; WP:BITE/WP:OWN versus WP:VAND/WP:DE. I got the activity (projected and real) of the page in question to consider, and the length of admin actions relative to that. And, of course, there's the plain optics, which also matter.

Too often I see various unconfirmed users being tarred with the same brush. Sometime, registered users make use of that to gain an edge in a dispute. Nearly always, they already possess an edge because they know how to articulate their position far well within projects norms and nomenclature. But I want what's being espoused by the best sources to win the day. And if I my error rate is higher for that extra noob-leeway, personally, I'm content with that, not least because I feel it reflects the values of the community (accessibility). El_C 18:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Just to clarify my position, I am against any page protection that is not strictly necessary. I think that even a semi-protection of this page was premature (even though considering the mention by Musk on Twitter it may be expected) but a full protection is definitely excessive in my opinion. There was no edit warring or vandalism by registered users. The only relevant fact was the blanking of a (referenced) section by IP users, which should have been discussed in the talk page first anyway. --Ita140188 (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If even semiprotecting in response to double digits reverts in the course of less than 2 days isn't something you deem "strictly necessary," Ita140188, I'm not sure what would meet your standards. But whatever these standards may be, they're probably at odds with convention. El_C 00:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear: I would understand a semi-protection in this case (although the vandalism was still relatively low level and under control), but not a full protection. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that even a semi-protection of this page was premature seemed clear enough to me, but okay, I guess. El_C 00:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)