InverseZebra

Wiki Reliability in an Age of Lies

Personal manifesto
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Today we're consistently seeing political interference with Wikipedia's core principles. I'll leave the notices below, as an indicator of the communities that have been captured and what users are central to the problem. Note that all of my crimes I'm warned about were *talk page discussions*. Simply showing someone's source to be incorrect is now Vandalism. In both cases, the "correct" viewpoint censored articles and played Wiki games (mostly definitions around ReliableSources and OriginalResearch) to literally lie in the articles and prevent factual cleanup by stigmatizing discussion. In the case of Covid, we were told that simple discussion of a lab leak was a trump-invented lie and we were directed to WP:NOLABLEAK to be educated. In that essay many of the reliable sources quoted were either not making a strong claim about a lab leak, or were speaking of things that their research/lab-setting would not inform them of - in other words, they weren't reliable in those areas. People calling this out were slandered, falsely accused of wikicrime, and blocked. In the gender issue "reliable sources" are saying tautologically ridiculous things - things that if true would invalidate the entire article. If Dr Levine is female then Dr Levine isn't a transwomen and thus the whole article is meaningless. If a source says something that is tautologically incorrect because it's incoherent or self-contradictory it's not right to use that source for that topic. Today's politically motivated editors want to use Reliable Sources as a way to remove any source that isn't politically reliable, not that isn't factually correct, and they'll shift the goalposts, claiming that any examination of the quality of a source is Original Research. Join me in standing against these scolds, these discussion killers, who say that to challenge them is unacceptable. InverseZebra (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) I comment here because I saw this. The "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument is something we're used to hear advocates say on Wikipedia, but from a scientific point of view it's not practical and from that of an encyclopedia that must just reflect the best sources on a topic, it's never useful. The above rants about reliable sources not being reliable etc... If you have a specific source that you believe should urgently be discussed, I suggest WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise this only sounds like evidence of WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE... Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for personal editor opinions, there are blogs for that and WP editing is a privilege, not a right (WP:FREE). —PaleoNeonate – 05:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) As for _Not There to Build an Encyclopedia_, that's my entire point - to call out inappropriate editorial behavior. In editing many articles over the years here and there I'd bump into an article, usually in the news, where people were devious and wiki abusing to advance their cause, and after much harassment trying to bring it up in the organic course of editing I created this account to discuss it. Most instances of harassment I receive look like the ones below, where people have weaponized false reports and threaten great consequences for nothing at all. There's no topic that I specifically care about beyond wiki editors gaming "reliable sources" in contexts where they clearly aren't reliable or where they're outright wrong (self-contradictory, or clearly not speaking with authority). In areas where editors don't have agendas (generally anything not in the news) and don't wikipolitic everything you can have a decent discussion where you explain why a reliable source isn't in a particular case, and if verified, people agree and other sources are sought. Hell, maybe I'm wrong about the source myself, but I'm receiving ban warnings for simply trying to point out logical flaws, to editors, on talk pages. Bans are for vandalism, not repeating arguments someone is bored of or tired of dodging. InverseZebra (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Competence_is_required - What is meant by "Competence is required"? the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles. Is this what you meant to refer to? InverseZebra (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Adding: it's sources like these that you would have to challenge using sources that are considered to be as reliable, not Wikipedia, its processes and policies... If you believe that those sources are produced via corruption, it's also not WP's problem. This particular one agrees with you about "a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations" but also makes clear "As a conclusion, there is no evidence to support the Mojiang mine origin of SARS-CoV-2 and any of the laboratory leak theories. ... These narratives are not evidence-based scientific conclusions." When editors pointed at NOLEAK it's because there are more of the best sources there with a summary of their conclusions, it's indeed a good reference to have an overview of the topic. —PaleoNeonate – 02:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) References I'm not really here to argue COVID stuff so I didn't touch on that from your first message. My point in that post was that you can't call on evidence that doesn't exist because it just leads to that "lack of evidence..." discussion. I was not calling any source corrupted there, or calling any reliable source unreliable in a general sense. I was pointing out that Shibbolethink was actually the editor who was first flippant, because Novem had missed the byplay. It's not really relevant to my page here. I also didn't say anything about any source being corrupted. Sources like the one you posted, while "reliable", simply don't claim to address the issue they're cited for. The paper just claims there isn't enough evidence. It's a reliable source for the question of "is enough known to judge the lab-leak hypothesis", and it answered "No". It, by its own admission, is not a reliable source for the factuality of the actual events. That doesn't feel like original research, it just feels like common editorial sense - believe the source when it says it isn't reliable. It doesn't prove or disprove the hypothesis, it simply says to look elsewhere. My beef with the NOLABLEAK article is that is was presenting those sources that literally said they didn't know as if they proved the issue. For all of last year the correct answer was simply "We don't and can't know". If the article was corrected to only use sources that actually claimed to have information on the issue it would have been nearly empty and much less impressive. It's a perfect example of gaming sources to actually perform original research. InverseZebra (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Funcrunch (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Your recent edit at Talk:Rachel Levine could be seen as disruptive enough to result in a block per this discretionary-sanctions standard. I suggest you find some other topic-area. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

My deleted message: If a "Reliable Source" said up was down would you correct the Gravity page or question the source? Female is a biological term.

No, it could not. You're lying because it offends *you*. You're the one who deleted my edit. If you don't like what I said it's because you're committed to promoting bad sources as reliable. InverseZebra (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:Rachel Levine. It is a blockable offense. And this is not the first time you've been warned about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Accusations aren't warnings, they were lies from people like you who intentionally conflate counter-examples with vandalism. Nobody has actually credibly warned me about anything because that would require an example of actual misbehavior. Your post is another example, you come rolling up as if I vandalized a page by changing references when I merely questioned the reliability of a source on the talk page. You and your cadre of false accusers are making Wikipedia a dangerous place, where I don't feel safe.

It's the talk page that's supposed to be used to determine what's a good source and what's not. A reliable source on one topic isn't on another. How would you expect a source to be questioned if not by showing an example of where it's wrong? If you're complaining about a factual comment on a talk page then *you* are the problem, arguing in bad faith and abusing wiki processes. InverseZebra (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

actually BLP violations and vandalism are two different things on wikipedia. I never said a single word about the latter. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And you don't care at all, you just pick a WP:CRIME and accuse people of it, threatening bans for simply stating an opinion. I didn't add any information, poorly referenced or not, to the RL:Talk page. I only called for people to examine their sources for consistency and coherence. If your source says up is down it's not a useful source even if it's "Reliable". If your source about a transwoman says they aren't a transwoman, stop and think. InverseZebra (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts - gender and sexuality, biographies of living people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is InverseZebra. Thank you. RAN1 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Points never addressed, finally banned

Retrospective attempt at self-justification
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was indefinitely banned today for pointing out weak sources. What was funny was the projection. Nobody made a factual claim backed by words I actually posted. I was called out for original research while following the instructions for editors on the reliable sources page. I was attacked as NOT THERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA by people who objected to improving sources, or claimed that sources could not even be questioned. I was lied about being transphobic for not having called out "non-trans" males properly when discussing male violence, despite doing so explicitly. And this by an editor who lied at every step about wiki rules. I was called transphobic because I raised the topic of the existence of a person without a strongly-felt gender identity, while other people preferred to misgender them with the label 'cis'. (Generally Wiki labels people as they want, but not when they want the "Wrong" thing.) I was repeatedly called out for editing in a topic I'm too interested in, but when I say that to one of the other editors they claim it was a hateful attack, as if I questioned their very existence - not simply the reason they chose this fight versus another. The thing is, nobody could answer how the LGBA's views on sex-based rights could even be brought up without being labelled transphobic here. That's what's being used to justify calling them TERFs and a hate group and thus to misrepresent the points they're making to demonize them in the first place. I was accused of being against people's gender identity because I noted that Rachel Levine is a transgender woman (this is Rachel's desired terminology), not a transexual female as one source mistakenly said. As long as sources say that there's a difference between sex and gender why is it wrong to note that and correct an article? I was accused of posting a covid denial screed for again simply trying to clean up sources. I pointed out that a source which says "a lab leak was not investigated" is not making a lab-leak claim either way. Nobody is willing to address the problem with editors holding topics and sources hostage and blocking reasonable questions - because they're the people who vote to ban you for questioning them. Most importantly, nobody is willing to address the casual reader's experience with Wiki articles, reading poorly thought out criticism ill-supported by hateful and demonizing sources which don't even address the subject's actual words. Or with a COVID article that misused sources, claiming they conclusively and scientifically prove things that they never even addressed. And then when they go into the talk page to see why they find a long political rant about why keeping biased sources is proper and those who disagree are -ists and -phobes. Every page I've discussed has been one I found through non-partisan news aggregators and after reading, investigated the talk page of. My only motive is pointing out improvements and the people stymying them - usually by rules-lawyering, often by outright lying. InverseZebra (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)