User talk:Gill is trash

Suggestion

Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and take it to heart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've read it. Now a question for you - Are there or are there not people that are only known or notable for negative things? And if there are, is it "tendentious editing" to accurately report or contribute content to an article about them that detail these negative things? To be blunt, I'd challenge you to do something that I already have done (believe it or not) which is google him and see if you can find anything positive that could be used to contribute to his article. If you can, I'll gladly eat crow and accept whatever you seem to be implying here RE: tendentious editing. Gill is trash (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course there are people who are known for negative things and their Wikipedia biographies reflect that. As for me searching for stuff to reflect a more positive light, I am not going to do that because I am an uninvolved administrator with regards to that article. On July 23, you added content about "rage quitting" and I did not revert because you accurately summarized the source. I am monitoring that article to enforce BLP policy as an administrator because even the most negative living person you can think of is protected by that policy and the article in question has repeatedly been subject to severe vandalism and trolling. I do not care about the person and I do not care about livestreaming. I am interested in many things and watching aggressive people play video games is not among my interests. I watch that article to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've read over it again and had another view of it. If you're alluding to me rehashing, well I simply disagree. Or, perhaps I am rehashing, but it doesn't mean that I'm necessarily wrong when it comes to the rehashed arguments. I admit that I am repeatedly referencing one or two policies, but I'm doing so because I feel like these two policies are the entire basis of my argument, and others are trying to apply different rules from different policies that are not applicable in this specific usage context. As far as I'm aware there is no judge or higher power that I can appeal to about this, so please - if nothing else, will YOU at least consider for a moment that I'm correct when I say that from everything I have read, the typical rules around sources or verifiability are either satisfied or inapplicable in this usage case - a statement about a subject made by the subject, in an article about the subject, provided the 5 criteria about it not being an exceptional claim or about third parties or events are all satisfied? Can you please spend one or two minutes just on that specific question and come back to me with a direct answer? And if you are going to say "the information can't be verified", my response is yes, it can - by viewing an archive of the content, which is arguably fair use, but if it isn't, nothing in COPYVIOEL states that an archive of an otherwise unavailable source cannot be a copyright violation, or that it cannot be used for the purpose of verifying the information contained within, so again I fail to see why that would disqualify the information that is otherwise adherent to the WP:SELFSOURCE policy. Gill is trash (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

After thinking about it more, I think maybe part of the problem comes down to our differing definitions of "archive". Please read Archive for a description of the type of institution that qualifies. Perhaps the policy language can be tweaked to clarify with a footnote that we are referring to an actual professional institution and not a Dropbox snippet. That may well be useful. But hoping to change the policy to allow the Dropbox snippet to be considered an actual archive is almost certain to be unsuccessful and a waste of everyone's time.

We do not have judges or higher powers in the traditional sense, but if you think that I am abusing my powers as an administrator or that Drmies abused his admin powers by closing the thread at WP:RSN, then you have the right to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, I should let you know that it is a roughhouse place, and you may well encounter a hostile reception. There are administrators who are less patient than I am.

I recommend to you a couple of essays which are not policy but do reflect the thinking of many experienced editors: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)