{u|Johnuniq}} - Of course it was a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. It is my error and I admit it. When I made the edit I knew that SPS can be used as sources in the articles about SPS when they describe themselves and their activity. But I did not know the exception about the third parties at that moment. It is a serious violation because: The WP:BLP says For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured - Therefore my violation of the Wikipedia is a serious one. It was also a violation of the WP:SPS (item 2 - "it does not involve claims about third parties;" - of which I was not aware at that moment). In the rest of my replies here I answered to the accusations against me, which in my view, most of them are baseless. The justification for opening this section/reporting incident was that I somehow "don't get it" after I declared that I understand the policy and I am willing to respect it - therefore an outlandish accusation. Also I exposed the origin of this incident to be somewhere else - the personal dislike certain editors have against me. I also exposed the reasons of that dislike (it started with my disagreement that Glenn Greenwald is a traitor working for Rusia and having no credibility at all). I edited this section to be more specific. {u|Johnuniq}} - Please observe the fact that {u|Alexbrn}} called for banning me and for opening this incident because the OP is just not getting it - which is a absolutely false and absurd, since I already left that conversation (at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability) saying that I understand and I am willing to respect the rule. {u|Valjean}} stated that I claim to understand the policy and then deliberately violated it - which is false because I made the wrong edit before better knowing that policy and not after that. And {u|Lmharding}} claims that I am doing forum shopping because I was asking clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (which I got and where I actually got the point) and based on a previous false and absurd accusation that I was forum shopping - at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on Glenn Greenwald the editors ignored my call for stopping the conversation there and for starting a RfC and they kept pouring messages there. Because I answered and kept calling for stopping that conversation, after that I was accused of extensive debate even though it was me asking for closing that debate. I honestly believe that piling on a previous false accusation should not count as a valid accusation. Because repeated lies should not count as the truth. -- Barecode (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC) -- Barecode (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Johnuniq}} - please also consider the later behavior of {u|Lmharding}} - After opening this incident based on fabrications, he keeps fabricating stuff saying that I am a an obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet of {u|Ivan VA}}, and he is rushing everyone to ban both of us, he claims that I support fringe theories without any trace of indication for such a thing. I did not repeat claims of QAnon or Alex Jones, I don't claim the Earth is flat, what is he talking about? It doesn't matter, his point is to throw as many accusations as possible, to make it look like there is a serious issue here and wants to burry all this garbage as quick as possible. He provided a link to an nonexisting section - this to "prove" that I am pushing for a site ban. After the reply to {u|Ivan VA}} he said That is a personal attack which is also not allowed. Maybe you aren't here to build an encyclopedia since you seem to keep being uncivil Barecode. - so it's not even clear if he talks to Ivan VA or to me or maybe he thinks that by talking to Ivan VA he is talking to me. He said that I admitted that me and Ivan AV are a pair of socks of each other, which I never admitted. I knew that Ivan AV has the same point as me about Glenn Greenwald, he asked me before to call him if I talk about this topic therefore I asked him to come comment the discussion about blocking me so I won't be alone against editors who dislike me. Unfortunately Ivan VA's comments were not helpful at all. What is wrong to notify someone else that you actually feel harassed? Isn't this just another attempt to intimidate and to bully? If you feel harassed and you ask someone else for support then you are guilty of sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting - in the view of this distinguished editor. This horrible show based on fabrications makes me remember the phrase "Manufacturing consent". -- Barecode (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Johnuniq}} - Until now, the editors who accused me either came with false and absurd accusations or they just repeated a previous false accusation of forum shopping or they simply ask for banning me without actually bothering to mention any reason. Nobody called for blocking me for the only valid accusation about my reverted edit at Project Veritas - for which I already admitted that I was wrong. If that's a good reason for banning me - so be it. But they built a lot of noise on top of that in the hope of making it look like it's far worse just one error. I moved the rest of my answers to the accusations other editors made about me at User talk:Barecode/AE -- Barecode (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Lmharding}} - please excuse me, I don't know exactly if I'm allowed to post here and if yes, then where can I post. Please move my message where necessary - or remove it if that's the case. This is a clear attempt to shut down editors who dare to disagree with the political views of other editors. In my view, there is a liberal bias at Wikipedia, there is a liberal bias in the media and there is a liberal bias against Glenn Greenwald. Simply because I dared to talk about it, a lot of editors got upset. Especially one editor reacted very aggressive. I answered before on my talk page about the forum shopping accusation: on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The bias of the liberal media - it's already stopped. On Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Independent_journalists - this is where I started to talk about Greenwald then I moved to WP:RSN. The people kept pinging me there and I assumed I can answer them. At Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Reliability_and_Credibility I asked for helping me to understand - I asked the difference between reliability and credibility. And at WP:RSN#RfC on Glenn Greenwald I was struggling to close that conversation and to start a RfC. I'm sorry to disagree but I wasn't forum shopping. If you mean that by answering to people's pings in a conversation that was not closed is WP:DROPTHESTICK then either you are wrong, or that policy is completely wrong. At Wikipedia talk:Verifiability I was asking why certain statements can't be added in the articles about WP:SPS. Is that wrong? I wasn't asking for a revert, I wasn't asking to change the policy, I was asking for clarifications and I suggested to add more clarifications in the policy or a guide or an essay. Again that aggressive editor tried to bully. I understood why this policy is that way, I made that clear, I lost interest to continue, I also made it clear and I left the conversation before it was closed, I didn't even bothered to check the last three replies. I made it clear that I am ready to respect the rule. Then {u|Alexbrn}} decided that there is actually a problem, that somehow I don't get it. I don't get what? Can anyone explain? It's not enough that I want to respect the policy? What else is required? What else do I have to get? Do I have to inoculate deep in my mind and in my soul a strong belief in that policy? Maybe I have to even worship Wikipedia? Is that what I'm doing wrong? And then he asked if there is any admin to "put me on a better path" - which I suppose means banning me. Again: I wasn't asking for a revert, I wasn't asking to change the policy and I did not open a closed discussion I posted until certain editors made it all clear and then I left. This is a clear attempt of bullying and an attempt to shut down the editors who dare to think different. -- Barecode (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Lmharding}} - What kind of fringe theories you think I am trying to promote? The claim that Wikipedia has a liberal bias? Is that a fringe theory? Or maybe you mean one single wrong edit at Project Veritas is already a proof that I am promoting fringe theories? In that case, you just want to make sure and therefore to ban an editor for making a single error? -- Barecode (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Lmharding}} claims that I am gulity of "shifting the blame" simply because I dared to answer to accusations and to set the record straight. Yes, kafkaesque indeed. Throwing all kind of absurd accusations at someone who dared to say that Wikipedia is president-friendly. -- Barecode (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Hemiauchenia}} suggests that my claim of liberal bias in the media is somewhat fringe and toxic when actually respectable sources talk about such a bias. Then they suggest that the fact that I disagree with something at Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory means some kind of toxic complaining. Then they falsely claim that I want Glenn Greenwald's work to be considered a reliable source. In reality I wanted a RFC for deciding if indeed Glenn Greenwald is totally unreliable and having zero credibility as was claimed before. And then then my fatal error is the fact that I made an error at Project Veritas and then I dared to ask clarifications at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability - which they describe as "involved" like it was something wrong to ask questions. It's impossible not to note the how quickly some editors jump on lambasting me. And all that because I dared to say Wikipedia and the media is too friendly with the "dear leader". Their reaction is indeed exactly the kind of reaction you can expect from the people who love the "dear leader". Intimidation, bullying plus absurd and fuzzy claims. Indeed, distinguished colleagues, that's how things work in North Korea - you are "toxic" and you should be removed if you dare to disagree with those who love the "dear leader" -- Barecode (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Alexbrn}} claims the problem is not the way I act, but the problem is deep inside my mind - "I simply don't get it" and therefore I have to be banned for what I think, not for my edits. I wasn't warned at WT:V (except by him trying to bully), other editors explained me the policy and then I understood and I then I left that conversation. After I left, he came to claim that "I didn't get it" and I should be banned. What I exactly I didn't get, Mr. Alexbrn? Can you actually bother to explain what you mean by that? Instead of throwing fuzzy accusations can you actually articulate something intelligible? You also jump to trying to intimidate {u|Ivan VA}} because somehow "it looks like" there is a problem there too - therefore whoever you don't like must be removed. I feel disgusted that I even have to comment such a violent behavior. -- Barecode (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|PaleoNeonate}} - Sorry to disagree but I debunked the forum shopping accusation in the first message here (you can read it above). Repeating a baseless accusation does not make it true. -- Barecode (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - Sorry it was late and I misread Johnuniq's question. I read it like "if not, then why not". I understand the policy as I said from the very beginning at WP:V - what I was asking was why it is like that. I think Wikipedia is the place where you are not expected to simply obey the rules without any question. I think Wikipedia should be the place where any policy can be disseminated and a place where questions about policies are allowed. And I understand very well why the policy is like that: A media outlet is not allowed to quote an allegation about a person without publishing the other side of the story (Right of reply). This recent video explains it. Therefore Wikipedia can quote defamatory allegations only from Reliable Sources, which give a voice to both parties: to the attacker and also to the attacked. Once the accusation was published by the Reliable Sources, only then Wikipedia can quote such accusations. But quoting such accusations from unreliable sources (like for example self published sources), which do not give a voice to the other party, can put Wikipedia at risk of being sued - and therefore is a serious violation of the Wikipedia's policy - because such edits can create serious problems for Wikipedia. That is why I believe such edits are a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy. If my explanation is not good enough then please let me know and I will search into the policies and I will come with the right quotes - as I did at the very beginning when I started the whole conversation about it. -- Barecode (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Self Published Sources and their claims about third parties, before I left the conversation I said this: I mean I'm not convinced the policy should be designed this way. But I'm not going to ask for changing the policy since I'm not interested to do that and I don't believe it would be productive anyways. Every person is entitled to have an opinion. As long as you respect the rule it doesn't matter if you agree or you disagree with that rule. - I think anyone can actually understand that I want to respect the Wikipedia rules. Yet Mr. Alexbrn declared that "I don't get it" and I should be "put on a better path". I completely disagree with his absurd and violent approach. -- Barecode (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - Your question: Then why did you violate it? - Because I did not read that part of the SPS policy about third parties. Then, after the revert, I read the SPS policy more carefully and I came to WP:V and asked why the third party should be applied to articles about SPS too. I don't understand what you mean by disrupting Wikipedia by illustrating a point. Breaking the policy once is disruption? I did not ask for a revert. Asking clarification about a policy is disruption? And now you are using inflammatory language and lambasting me calling one error nothing else than an insurrection and a disruption of Wikipedia. You say that I "claim to understand the policy and then deliberately violated it". This is absurd. I said I understand the policy after I violated it, and asked clarifications. You got to the point where you deliberately fabricate facts in order to settle personal matters. In that case I believe I have to use a similar language and say: You lie without any shame, sir! and this is not the first time you do it. You lied before when you said "We've been extremely patient with you and given you far too much rope, but you're hanging yourself with it on my talk page - but I was polite enough and after debunking it to say it was an absurd accusation (it was me who was trying to stop the discussion after the closing of the RfC) and I didn't even mention it was an attempt of bullying. This is not an issue my actions being an insurrection. This is an issue you have with me personally because I claimed Wikipedia is president-friendly. And now you jump to false and absurd accusations and manufacturing "evidence" in order to ask for silencing me completely on Wikipedia. I will answer to other accusations you made in case I won't be blocked before that. Just for the record. -- Barecode (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - You say - You didn't even bother to do a basic Google search to see if actual RS mentioned the issue - and that can only mean two things:
You either have remote access to my computers, tablets and phone and record every single keystroke and mouse click.
Or your statement is actually a deliberate lie.
If you didn't lie then I invite you to please provide the evidence with with recordings of my devices yo prove that I did not bother to Google the issue.
You know, it's quite embarrassing when a veteran Wikipedia editor lowers themselves to such a level where they believe they can promote lies without any shame and without consequences. It is wrong and it also makes Wikipedia look bad. -- Barecode (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - You say - You used Project Veritas as your only source. They are a horrible source. - May I kindly remind you sir that I was using the source in the very article about the source (Project Veritas) and of the WP:SPS policy that says that such horrible sources can actually be used in the articles about themselves? Quote - Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities (..) - Endquote. You know, removing the relevant context in order to frame your nothing-burger accusation as a valid accusation. Embarrasing, isn't it? Then what kind of argument is this if not trying to mount a pile on top of me in order to crush me? -- Barecode (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - Then, to make matters worse, you added content that wasn't even in the source. - The source was an article which continued an article published one day before. Anyone who follows Project Veritas could see that. It was indeed my bad that I omitted to mention the article published in the previous day but the content was correct. -- Barecode (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - Then you proceeded to attack Alexbrn when he said you "don't get it". Nothing you had done indicated that you "got it", and we don't care what you say when your actions say otherwise. Well in this case you either don't understand English or you simply lie. When I said I mean I'm not convinced the policy should be designed this way. But I'm not going to ask for changing the policy since I'm not interested to do that and I don't believe it would be productive anyways. Every person is entitled to have an opinion. As long as you respect the rule it doesn't matter if you agree or you disagree with that rule. - Everyone can see that I expressed my willing to respect the policy. In a parallel Universe, that can be interpreted as "not getting it". But back here on Earth, the fact that I am ready to respect the policy actually means "I do get it". And the last time I checked, Wikipedia existed in this reality, not somewhere out there in an imaginary world. What you don't like is the fact that at that moment I believed the rule was too restrictive. The fact that I want to respect the rule doesn't matter for you. What matters for you is my inner beliefs. You are not after my outer behavior, you are not even after my capacity or desire to understand, but you are after my "guilty thoughts". Shall I remind you of North Korea? You can't stand that an editor can actually have a different view than you. And that's dead wrong. -- Barecode (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - My conclusion about Valjean: I'm not sure it's productive to count how many times he already lied without any shame in his aggressive attempt to bully and to shut me down simply because he doesn't like me. Who knows how many other editors he didn't like he removed from Wikipedia. I think that would be a much more interesting count. In his view, your competence is not a function of your actions and your understanding of the policies. For him, your competence is a function of your inner beliefs. In my case, his deep dislike against me is the fact that I completely disagree with his statement that Glenn Greenwald is a traitor working for Russia. His actions seem to be motivated by hate. That builds up to the conclusion that his very presence at Wikipedia is not really productive. While my own and {u|Ivan VA}}'s presence and at Wikipedia are not welcome for him and others like him, his very presence at Wikipedia creates an abusive, oppressive and toxic environment. If there should be any insurrection, then there should only be an insurrection of the people he is trying to silence, an insurrection against the people like him who are seemingly trying to abuse their status as veteran editors. You know, I'm just saying that for the record. -- Barecode (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - You accuse me of not respecting AGF when you yourself started the inflammatory language. You called this "an insurrection" (oh, really?) and you accused me of attacking Alexbrn because I dared to challenge his attack on me of "not getting it" and you assume what I did know and when I did know (Appeal to motive). Your are using double standard for editors, where you see yourself free and above the rules. You don't have to use AGF, you can throw as many lies as you want, you can dictate that "defending against attacks is actually attacking (Alexbrn)", you are free to bully and to attack as much as you please while in the same time you suggest that actually answering to your fabricated evidence (lies) is an blockable offense. You are free to escalate hostilities and to use inflammatory language (insurrection) but the one you attack has no right to use language on the same level (lies instead of false), you pretend that answering to attacks is in itself an attack. You pretend that the person who is trying to close a conversation is actually abusing the patience of others. Of course you can't be bothered to answer to the lies I exposed because you actually can't deny evidence. All you do is to throw a bunch of false accusations to create outrage and justification for banning an editor who dared to defend a journalist you hate. And when the person you accuse defend themselves, you can't be bothered with "excessive arguing". If I'm not blocked in the meanwhile I will answer to your other claims. The record of this entire ship show is a lot more interesting than the result. -- Barecode (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - That's worse than I had imagined. If you were ignorant of the fact no RS had commented on it, well....ignorance could assuage a bit of your guilt, but since you knew....Wow! - What I did know at that moment is that you can use SPS as sources for SPS articles, even when they are "horrible sources". And that's what I did. At that moment I did not know about the exception about the third parties. I assumed that once I did not use the source in the article about CNN nor in the article about that person but in the very article about Project Veritas. But why to bother with such details when you actually know better than me what I did know and what I did not know at that very moment? You seem to have some kind of complete knowledge and direct accesss to the content of my mind at any given time. So I won't say "Wow!" since it's obvious that whatever you say atomagically becomes true and has to be taken for granted.
You said this is an insurrection and that actually reveals your motivation: You are against an insurrection of the editors who might raise their voice against your claim that Glenn Greenwald "carries water for the Russians" (i.e. he is a traitor). Greenwald is the enemy of The Intercept who think like you and they also call Julian Assange nothing more and nothing less than a "Russian whore". That's really hardcore. This is what bothers you. That is why you see this issue in terms of warfare and that's what you try to prevent. You take this matter personally. I didn't position myself as your enemy but you certainly positioned yourself as my enemy. All this show you are making is motivated by some righteous hate against Greenwald - and you extend it on others. That's what drives you and that's the reason why you create an embarassment - for you and for Wikipedia. We Choose Truth Over Facts and that seems to be your point since you fabricate evidence. One can only wonder: What kind of truth? Hmm.. traceroute woke_mind_virus -- Barecode (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Valjean}} - I wrote that you added content that wasn't even in the source. Your defense is that "the content was correct because it was found in another source on a different day (The source was an article which continued an article published one day before.). That's not how it works. - I know and I already said that I made an error: It was indeed my bad. Your point? You repeat the same criticism in order to "prove" a single error is actually a a case of multiple errors that amount to an insurrection?
Focus on what we said you did wrong; don't try to divert attention to something no one found fault with. To quote you: "Embarrasing, isn't it?" - My point was that using a horrible source is not always wrong and that's why I made the error of using it. But sure I will admit that indeed I embarrassed myself. Now I would like to kindly ask you to support your accusation that "you claim to understand the policy and then deliberately violated it" - which you used as a ramp to declare that what I am doing is nothing else than an insurrection. Also please prove the accusation that I didn't get it. I'm all ears.
Sorry but you are motivated by hate and you make this your personal war. It doesn't matter that in your own safe space you defeat me. The price for your pathetic "victory" was to embarrass yourself and Wikipedia. Such motivations, such results. Barecode (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Ivan VA}} - Thanks a lot for your support! Yet by insisting Glenn Greenwald should be formally considered a reliable source you make things worse for me. That's not exactly what I claimed. My point is that Wikipedia silences all those media outlets who give Glenn Greenwald a voice and also another point is that Glenn Greenwald is a credible as a journalist and as a person - which is technically different from Wikipedia's reliability requirements. According to Wikipedia policies, Glenn Greenwald doesn't meet the requirements to be considered RS. To consider him RS Wikipedia would have to make an exception for him. Therefore Greenwald is a reliable source for me as a person but not as an editor. The fact that he is not RS according to WP policy is something very different than attacking Glenn Greenwald and portraying him as having no credibility, as many editors here do - and to which I disagree. I think you make a confusion by not separating these two issues: It's one thing to stand against those who claim Greenwald has no credibility and it's another thing to ask for an exception to be made for Greenwald. I support the first but I don't believe asking for an exception is worth since the problem is somewhere else - Wikipedia is president-friendly. For those who find such a claim outrageous I can say: if I try to prove it, you try to silence me before I can even show the facts. What you are doing is to try to silence the people who dare to disagree. You transform Wikipedia into a North-Korea-like place, in your woke fight for righteous justice. -- Barecode (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Generalrelative}} - This edit looks pretty wild to me. He also claimed that I game the system and that I don't get it and I should be banned for that. Which looks pretty much like a violent approach. I'm not sure that comparing Wikipedia's culture to the government of North Korea can do any harm. It can surely enrage certain parties but from the point of view of policies I'm not sure that's wrong. When they get enraged for claiming that Wikipedia is president-friendly and they fabricate evidence and they become agggresive and bully in order to shut you down I don't find it too disconnected from reality to compare Wikipedia with NK. -- Barecode (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|ValarianB}} - I was showing where this issue originates from. To be more specific, why {u|Alexbrn}} and {u|Valjean}} dislike me (and {u|Ivan VA}}) so much. It was Alexbrn falsely claiming that "I don't get" in order to get me banned. He dislikes me from a previous debate where I was talking about Wikipedia bias. And Valjean dislikes me mainly because I disagree with him calling Glenn Greenwald as "carries water for the Russians" (traitor) and for talking about Wikipedia bias. This error that I made at Project Veritas is their best opportunity to settle personal scores against me. I wasn't trying to create a blog, but I was answering these people (and others like them) who are angry for mentioning the Wikipedia bias. -- Barecode (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Guerillero}} - {u|Doug Weller}} - {u|RegentsPark}} - Can I ask if you think it's ok to throw lies against me as {u|Alexbrn}} and {u|Valjean}} did? Can a pile of lies and repeated baseless accusations count for banning an editor? This whole show was started from the false accusation that "I don't get it" - which is a big, fat, huge lie - and I proved it above with evidence. Is that ok with you? Thank you. -- Barecode (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|Dtobias}} - {u|WaltCip}} - I completely disagree that by answering to numerous false accusations is a long rant. If you throw 20 accusations against a person then you should expect that person to write 20 paragraphs for addressing every single accusation. If you disagree with that then your point is that a person has no right to defend and throwing a big enough amount of accusation on top of that person is already a proof that person should be banned. In that case Wikipedia becomes a place where defending yourself against multiple and repeated accusations is not allowed. -- Barecode (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|WaltCip}} - If you claim that debunking false accusations is "so little" then I will have to respectfully disagree with you. --- Barecode (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
