User talk:HighKing/Archives/2020/November

SNG's

I don't know if you have noticed but the "G" in SNG stands for Guideline. So SNG's are guidelines too. They are not policies and I am not stupid. I follow the five pillars of Wikipedia which are the spirit of its policies. You can follow whatever guidelines you want. I will point to the end of WP:N which states "For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." That is all Wikipedia says about its policies for inclusion. As you will notice, "Content" is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I never said we are to ignore SNG's but I am saying that GNG (the guideline) is equal to it and in most cases SNG's state that subjects can still be included if they pass GNG. You choose to follow SNG's and completely ignore GNG as having relevance so don't come at me with that nonsense. I have never treated you with disrespect the way you have with me. I have no issue with a differing point of view but I will not be treated like a child by you or anyone else. I can read and form my own opinions just like you and that is ALL you have spewed on every AfD you have been involved with of late, YOUR own personal subjective opinion based on YOUR interpretation of a guideline or guidelines. You are entitled to it and if you get enough editors to side with you then you can get any article deleted that comes up for AfD. But make no mistake, I can do the same based on my own interpretation. This is all I will say on this. You can respond however you want but if you address me directly in another AfD like this again, even though I have never directly addressed you, then I will approach an Admin. I expect we will come into contact with one another, possibly. I expect you will conduct yourself with the highest degree of respect towards me when those situations occur, as I have with you. Good day. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska, we're encouraged to cut new editors a break because it can usually take new editors a little while to understand policies and guidelines and how to interpret and apply them, but more importantly it can take new editors a little time to bed in, to understand that sometimes comments can appear personal (but are not) and that disagreeing with another editor isn't a personal attack. So for that reason, I'm going to cut you a break and not respond in detail to your comments here. If you think I was "disrespectful" and you react in this combative manner on my Talk page, then you're gonna need to watch your blood pressure when somebody really gets in your face. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearing the air

Hi HighKing: I'm checking in because of your message on the App Academy deletion discussion. It sounds like you're angry with me personally, and I'm curious if you want to talk about it. You and I disagree on how to interpret NCORP and ORGIND and what "churnalism" means, and I know that we both got frustrated on the Brewery Collectibles Club discussion. Still, saying that I have a "Trump-like propensity for promoting a false reality" is over-reacting significantly to a one-sentence Keep vote. I know you edited that message to cool it down a bit, but "bad-faith editing and disruptive behavior" also feels overblown. Do you feel like talking about it? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toughpigs, I appreciate you reaching out to discuss civilly. Yes, I got carried away, unfairly to you, with the "Trump-like" comment which I didn't intend to post. A tad melodramatic. I'm not "angry" with you, but I am frustrated with your conduct and comments at AfD and especially the way you appear to ignore NCORP and CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. You say we "disagree" on how to interpret NCORP and ORGIND. For me, there's very little interpretation on ORGIND's definition where it says Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So when you say, for example, the Wired article demonstrates notability, it is disingenuous and forces other editors to rebut your statement which in turn leads to long and drawn-out AfDs or accusations of Bludgeoning the process. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. My interpretation of ORGIND is based on the examples given of dependent coverage: republishing of press releases and public relations material, advertising, sponsored articles, vanity press, and material written and published by the organization or sources closely associated with it. That is what ORGIND is intended to prevent.

As I've seen in the AfD discussions, your interpretation is that articles in well-recognized reliable independent sources are invalid, if they're based on interviews with people involved in the organization. You consider information provided in interviews to be inherently tainted, and fact-checking done by reputable news organizations cannot overcome that deficit.

I think that your interpretation is an over-reach that negates obviously independent sources like The New York Times (in the Brewery Collectibles discussion), Wired and The Wall Street Journal (App Academy), and NBC News (Miami New Drama). These news outlets do their own analysis, investigation and fact checking before publishing their articles; they do not credulously publish public relations materials. I believe that the key phrase is "any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly" (emphasis mine). The people interviewed are members of the organization, but the articles are written and published by the news outlet. The New York Times may publish listings or calendar items for things like museum exhibits, but they do not engage in churnalism in their long-form articles.

It is okay that you and I have different opinions on this question of policy, and it is not necessary for either of us to try to debunk each other's interpretation in every AfD discussion. I believe that the best way to handle an AfD discussion is for each person to post their thoughts, respond to a question or two, and then step back, so that we let other editors look at the article and the sources, and make their own judgment. If you post that my interpretation is incorrect, and I respond to clarify why I think that it's correct, then that's pretty much all that we have to do. Other editors will see that exchange, and decide for themselves. On the whole, I don't think that I've seen enough people in these discussions agreeing with your interpretation to accept it as a consensus view. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toughpigs, I think you're just choosing to ignore the sentence I highlighted on "Independent Content" and picking other parts of the guideline that suits your narrative, nor have you explained your interpretation or position in light of the comment I highlighted. Is there another interpretation or are you ignoring it? ALso just to point out, under "Dependent Coverage" it says that "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people" is regarded as Dependent. An "interview" or an article based on one or littered with "quotations" is not "Independent Content", it is material created by the company. The only fact-checking that is done by the respected news outlet is to ensure that they accurately report what was said, not the veracity of what was said. Its probably better to open a discussion on the NCORP Talk page to discuss and reach a community consensus though, but I'm happy to continue here also if you prefer. Again, I appreciate you opening the discussion though and the request to discuss. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And hey, what do you know. Barkeep just posted this at the NCORP Talk page - There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Serendipity or what? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, HighKing, the bottom line for me is that a full article in The New York Times about a given topic is obviously a notability-conferring independent source. I think that any interpretation of policy that says that The New York Times publishes churnalism because they interview the subject of the article is simply incorrect. I haven't seen any evidence that there's a consensus for that idea, and in the three deletion discussions where you and I have talked about this, I can't think of anyone who has agreed with your interpretation. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not providing an honest/accurate summary of those discussions. I do not equate all interviews with churnalism and I cannot recall in any of our discussions saying that the NYT article was churnalism. At the AfD for the Brewery Club of America, I invited you to remove all of the information provided by company sources from a NYT article and to highlight from what remained those pieces relevant to establish notability. Notably, you declined/ignored that request. There are some publications that I describe as churnalism for particular reasons, mainly when the article is entirely promotional and it is clearly so. Again, I note that you refuse to provide any context for the "Independent Content" requirement of NCORP/ORGIND for article entirely based on interviews and your opinion that any article in the NYT automatically confers notability is wide of the mark of NCORP. I am glad we have had this opportunity to discuss each of our points of view. In my opinion, you have not managed to justify your position in face of the requirement for Independent Content as per ORGIND and sadly you do not appear to be open to addressing this lack in your viewpoint. As a final note, you have questioned why I appear to feel the need to rebut your !vote at every AfD. I 100% agree with you that this should be unnecessary but, from experience, a closing admin will assume that an unchallenged !vote is accepted by both sides and should be given weight when closing an AfD. Again, from my experience, if there is no discussion and just a list of "Keep/Delete" comments, most closing admins do a quick !vote count, discounting any obviously silly/invalid !votes and closes according to the majority without any regard to guidelines. You might appreciate that it takes considerably more time to read each reference in order to show why those references fail the criteria for establishing notability than to simply assume that any article in a "reliable source" must automatically confer notability. We can disagree and remain friendly and civil. You can accept, I'm sure, that I'm applying the guidelines and not misinterpreting what they say and that when I comment on your !vote, I will simply point out which parts of the NCORP guidelines you are deciding to ignore. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)