User:Azertygod/2035 Protests Talk

Fact Checkers and citing

Remember that factcheckers, while great sources, should still be cited! Big Kudos to sleipner for getting this page up so quickly, it definitely is gonna be notable haha! I added a citation for the politifact one, and changed the language for everything else (I couldn't find any other fact-checkers that had reviewed it yet, those deepfakes take time!). -- metatron 23:45, 5 October 2035 (UTC)

Hey sleipnir I noticed you reverted metatron's and was just wondering what happened there, because it still doesn't have the right citations. I reverted it back to metatron's -- NChamberlain 00:31 6 October 2035

Sorry about that, I was dealing with a spat of vandalism and reverted back too far. I've added citations for the other fact checkers, sorry about that. -- sleipnir 06:51 6 October 2035

hey yo so I was checking out this page and sleipnir (or sleipnir, idk how to do names i'm new to this, your sources for all these factcheckers that have found those videos to be deepfakes aren't real--just the politifact one. I don't have an account so I can't fix that cause of that stupid semiprotect but I think you may have messed up?? idk --68.194.18.59 12:02, 15 October 2035

Semi-Protect status and vandalism

There has been some pretty heavy vandalism of this page, presumably by the rabid anti-gov protestors, and I seem to be the only admin with an eye on this page so I've put WP:SEMI across the whole thing. -- sleipnir 16:22 8 October 2035

so i got autoconfirmed or whatever and i fixed it the citation thing but there are a bunch of other problems with this. i mean, what's with calling the protesters rioters and shit? none of the media is saying that, it's just the president and the white house? sure, maybe we should be including that perspective, but like, say something like 'oh hey this is how the white house is describing this, but xyz say different?? idk. even the 9th circuit is siding with the public on this --Adrestia 20:41 16 October 2035

I don't know whether we need to be talking about "sides" on this--I mean this seems like a non-issue that is receiving attention because someone "blew a whistle" but I think your criticism is fair. Feel free to change as you will. -- sleipnir 21:13 16 October 2035

I think it's actually pretty fair to talk about sides. And what do you mean "blow a whistle"?. Calypso pretty obviously creatively bent the rules of their Privacy Policy at the behest of of the US Government. That isn't really legal. On that note, I've added the infobox civil conflict to the page. -- NChamberlain 08:00 17 October

Do what you think you need to do. -- sleipnir 8:24 17 October

Health Terrorists

Something should be added to the article to mention that these protestors are terrorists trying to halt the progress of science. They've committed a great crime against the progress of science. Thoughts? Ergzay (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2035 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Human civilization is an exercise in negotiating the conflicts between groups. These people don't seem to realize that our "holy ground" is progress, although they're apparently happy with all the benefits of it.

They have western medicine, air travel, the Internet, and bluejeans because of sacrifices made by everyone else. Protesting the health data collection is naked selfishness—very human, but not very civilized. Ylem (talk) 12:32 11 October 2035 (UTC)

Full Protection

Vandalism (of the country and of the page) continues, including by actual users. I propose putting the page under WP:FULL until Jan 1 of 2036. Sooner rather than later to deal with all these vandals. -- sleipnir 13:31 18 October 2035

Following no comments, it's been done. sleipnir 14:31 18 October 2035

what you fuckface?? this page is not so problematic that you have to block everyone one out from editing! the last thing you reverted was my edit talking about how the police massively undercounted number for the protests on the 9th. I have [[1]] that [[2]] about how the police numbers may have undercounted the protestors by several million, not to mention the literal fucking aclu who organized the damn thing estimating at least 10 million across the US, not 2-3. what are you smoking?? -- Adrestia 21:55 18 October

I hate to side with sleipnir here, but lets refrain from ad hominem attacks on our fellow editors . We must assume good faith from our fellows. However, it does seem a bit shifty to ask for consensus on a full protection move, and then do it 1 hour after you ask. Also, why didn't you move it to extended protection first? -- NChamberlain 23:33 18 October

Following a change in consensus, I have downgraded the article to WP:ECP -- sleipnir 06:21 19 October

one person isn't a change in consensus. see? i didn't swear, even tho i still can't edit the article because i'm not "extended confirmed", or what ever that means. -- Adrestia 12:02 19 October 2035

Critique of Article

While I believe this is a significant controversy, one must not lose sight of the fact that this article should not be implicitly infused with bias. For one, the sources of the article are questionable to say the least; this is clearly seen when examining notes 1, 3, and 4. These sources are not credible sources, especially when considering the information they are being used to convey. In fact, these references appear to be trying to paint the police officers involved in a negative light. In general, I would also question whether or not this article is in fact the neutral source it is intended to be. I say this because nearly all of the sources used in this article are from online newspapers or media sites that appear to be presenting information with a certain political agenda. Many of the sources used are from more liberal media outlets such as CNN and the Huffington Post. While obviously it would be unwise/unfair to discredit all of the information from these sources, I think the article would gain more credibility if the article included sources from across the entire ideological spectrum - if not from more independent and credible sources. Also, one could look into obtaining the police reports from the rioting as well as any credible eye witness testimonies regarding the shooting. This would paint a clearer picture of what might have happened on the day of the shooting; furthermore, it could shed light on any inconsistencies regarding the incident. Ultimately, finding these inconsistencies through credible sources is crucial to understanding what exactly happened in Atlanta and explaining the subsequent unrest stemming from the shooting. In addition to the article lacking both credible and independent resource. Instead, there are very brief sections that discuss looting. The article should also cover the conduct of the protesters, as well as the actions that perhaps provoked the police officers. After all, some of the protesters were acting in a way that was not conducive to getting their point across. Privacy is important. However, this does not justify some of the actions that were taken by a few protesters - if anything, it only made matters worse at such a divisive time. Nonetheless, the actions of the protesters (both peaceful and hostile) should be more thoroughly covered in this story. This way people will know that the article is presenting the incident in a truly neutral light, and thus, make come to their own conscientious conclusion on the matter. -- Newton3254 15:50, 18 October 2035

Influence of Bias (on editors, admin, and article)

So, it is currently oct 23, and there is NO information in the article about the NUMEROUS (!!!) events of the weekend. people got shot in Chicago! The police used tear gas on children! Then protesters started throwing molotovs to stop hostile police advances! The only thing we have is a little bit about how there were "marches on city halls" across america. Yeah, there were. what about the beatings of travellers suspected as "rioters" in the NYC subways? what about the unlawful detainment of school kids who where traveling to join in PEACEFUL protests across the west? what about the protest outside of Alphabet in california where the police used DRONES to pepper spray the crowd?? What about the protester in aatlanta who got shot in the eye with a rubber bullet? There were soooo many things that happened this weekend and since this page is under stupid extended protection by you-know-who editors can't actually talk about it! I know metatron is an admin, could you revert this protection order? -- Adrestia 16:44 23 October 2035

I've added your suggestions, thanks. Please don't personally attack me again. -- sleipnir 17:13 23 October 2035

Hey Adrestia, you should know that I generally agree with you but I would ask you to check out dispute resolution because it's getting kinda heated on this. -- NChamberlain 22:43 23 October 2035

I concur on that. Adrestia, you are very close to being blocked for personal attacks (and possibly the disruptive editing at RFPP). Administrators will almost never override the administrative actions of another admin based on the same or similar evidence. You need to discuss this with the protecting admin. -- metatron 00:12 24 October 2035

Name Change

Following the events of Oct 19th, I am proposing that the article name be changed to "2035 Calypso Riots". By all accounts, protests have devolved into riots, and opportunistic rioters are using the protests as way to destabilize our country (Why they want to destabilize our country when China is so obviously gunning for one of their allies to become a permanent member of the Security Council, I don't know). For further actions of rioters, I think calling them what they are makes sense. --sleipnir 16:44 23 October 2035

no -- Adrestia 16:45 23 October 2035

That isn't constructive debate, as outlined extensively in DR. Care to elaborate? -- sleipnir 22:51 23 October 2035

seriously fuck you -- Adrestia 01:21 24 October 2035

I've taken the step of bringing Adrestia's adversarial behavior to the arbitration boards, hopefully we can resolve this. --sleipnir 06:59 24 October 2035

RE: name change, I would say no. Most news orgs are still referring to it as protests, not riots. In fact, that describing them as riots has mostly been the line from the White House. -- Swissmiss 07:13 26 October 2035

I must agree with Swissmiss above. I think a name change is at this point, quite unwarranted. -- NChamberlain 23:02 26 October 20

Extended Protection Edit Request

Change "Protests have been spearheaded by several groups, most notably the ACLU. " into "The protests have been described as "leaderless"" I know that the ACLU and other groups were among the first to organize the protests, but at this point its become much more crowd organized, and online -- Swissmiss 07:46 26 October 2035

Do you have any WP:RS for that? I can also add a citation-needed to the article itself]] -- sleipnir 06:34 27 October 2035

Of course--[this CNN article] acutally goes quite into depth about how protestors are using the internet to organize. -- Swissmiss 18:20 27 October 2035

Seems all good. Will also combine it into next sentance "The protests have been largely described as "leaderless" and protesters have used various intimidation tactics to pressure the government." I will mark request as answered. -- sleipnir 07:21 28 October 2035

Does this even matter?

Like Srsly does it? we knew this stuff was going on for Ffoever!--like look at this new York Times aritcle From 2019 !!! 2019!!! (idk how to uppercase numbers loll). WHats the Diference between a cellphone and the fricking "calypso braclet" and all That cal. Do people Even Care? -- Azertygod 02:31 1 November 2035

i care. why can't that be enough? Rhamnousia 18:37 7 November 2035

Changing to Semi-protection (again)

i still don't think that WP:ECP is the right protection level for this page. we had 10 days of WP:SEMI and there were barely any edit reverts, which is explicitly a condition mentioned in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Extended_confirmed_protection. so it seems like admins *cough cough* have been using WP:ECP as "preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred" which is not cool. we just need more editor's on this. this article is massively lacking a TON of info on things that happened over the last several days like being so incredibly bare on the massive PROTESTS (not riots) on election day. extended-confirmed protect is too far for the amount of info that needs to be added -- Rhamnousia 18:32 7 November 2035

@Adrestia/Rhamnousia May I remind you that following your ban, you are not allowed to operate sockpuppets. At least use a name that is not so obviously a call back to your previous. I've submitted a socking report to CheckUser WP:SPI. -- sleipnir 7:14 9 November 2035

I actually agree with this, sockpuppet or not. It sometimes feels like sleipnir and myself are the only extended-confirmed editors paying attention to it. Things are developing so fast we need more editors. -- NChamberlain 21:44 9 November 2035

Well go and find some, or go home! -- sleipnir 6:39 10 November 2035

21/12/2035 Update on 2035 Protests

Following several complaints to the Arbitration Committee regarding administrator sleipnir and biases, the arbitration committee has decided to temporarily block sleipnir from editing pages in the English Wikipedia. Part of the motivation for this block (not ban)was how sleipnir, as managing editor, failed to include the proper warning regarding discretionary blocking WP:ARBAP2. Other concerns included the high number of reverts by sleipnir, even to extended-confirmed editors, and a widespread pattern of combative edit wars, aided by sleipnir's admin role, across a wide range of articles about contemporary politics. Ultimately, sleipnir's actions showed a high degree of personal bias, and more importantly, attempts to seriously degrade or shape what information Wikipedia provides to users. Additionally, the Arbitration Committee has also taken the step of changing protection back down to WP:SEMI--vandalism remains a concern, but the need to expand this article is evident. Questions on this ruling can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases, or can be directed to the talk pages of the judges in this case: machina, Deus, or myself. Thank you for your patience. -- EX 23:53 21 December 2035