User talk:Stefania0

Stefania0, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Stefania0! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Jen Perelman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jen Perelman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Perelman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "controversy" section that you added to the article is a classic example of WP:COATRACK, hyperinflating some topic minimally relevant to an article as a way to attack someone else. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange I appreciate your perspective, but I disagree. Controversy doesn't imply that the focus person was accused of something. Perelman accused her rival of doing something illegal. Further, a police report was filed in the shoving of minor case and it was reported by national media. Both indicate that this is not WP:COATRACK as you have suggested. Stefania0 (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The teen sensibly refused to press any claim for the "shoving," which turned out to be DWS trying to talk to voters the teen wanted to monopolize. When you say national media, you mean Fox? This was utterly trivial per WP:BALASP and had zero effect on the careers of either Perelman or DWS. It doesn't belong in either article. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a [police report]. By national media, I mean MSN, Fox News and Law & Crime. Whether the controversy has an impact on the outcome of an election or not is immaterial. The controversy is relevant to the article as it relates to the topic (Perelman and her campaign), was serious (allegation of illegality and police report), and was covered by news media. Saying it's trivial is like saying Trump's transgressions with respect to emoluments clause are trivial because they had no affect on his career.Stefania0 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALASP says nothing about impacting the outcome. WP:BALASP is not about suppressing information, but rather presenting it in a balanced and neutral way, free of WP:POV. The text has zero POV.Stefania0 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALASP is about achieving balance in the article, not by "suppressing information" but by giving more weight to important topics, and less weight or no weight to events that had little significance to the topic of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Stefania0! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Request content advice from seniors re. AfD, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy concerning editors who have a relationship to people or businesses they write about[edit]

Do you have a personal or professional connection to Jen Perelman or her campaign organization? You uploaded an image of Perelman to WikiMedia commons giving the source as "Jen Perelman campaign." Wikipedia's policy on "conflict of interest" says: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." But disclosure, when COI exists, is required. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relationship of any kind with Jen Perelman, her family or her campaign. The only interaction I've had with her campaign is an email I wrote to her campaign yesterday to request a photo of hers be released in public domain for uploading on Wikimedia Commons.Stefania0 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear and civil response. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stefania0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wrote to WP:AC immediately upon finding I was blocked but haven't heard back with any decision either favoring or against me, so I am writing an appeal. Reason for block that I've been given: Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. This is a rather broad claim and not specific enough for me to either counter or admit culpability. All I can say is that looking at my contribs I struggle to see where/how I have abused Wikipedia. My most "contentious" edit, as far as I know, is creation of Jen Perelman. DGG, you nominated the article for deletion, and are also a member of the Arbitration Committee, do you feel my creation of the article or participation in the deletion discussion was abusive? My so called [| abuse log] says my creation of 2 pages triggered filter 867, Large creations by inexperienced user. So, apparently, my offense is that I created good quality pages despite being a new user. Well, I am not a new user: I have been using Wikipedia since its inception, and know what a Wikipedia page is supposed to look like. Also, as you can see from contribs, the edits in question weren't even my first edits - I practiced with the [| onboarding edits suggested by Wikipedia]. Further, I don't know what proportion of the editors here is female, and would appreciate input from one of the female admins: we don't jump into doing stuff. We like to understand the ins and outs first. Consequently, I consulted and studied the Missing Manual before and during participation. Finally, I have access to a Wikipedia editor in real life (to whom I am related) and can ask him questions in a hurry, as needed. In fact, it was a discussion with him that encouraged me to create my account. Stefania0 (talk) 8:35 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Nowhere in your unblock statement have you addressed the reason for your block: the fact that checkuser evidence shows that you are the same as User:Viktorpp (who, interestingly, also made an unblock request within an hour of this account making an unblock request). only (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stefania0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

only thank you for pointing out - I missed it as it wasn't mentioned in the block notice. I see that a notice on my userpage says so. My response: I am not a sock puppet for Viktorpp or anyone else. I know Viktorpp in real life, and in fact, live with him. We share 60-70% of our politics, 30-40% of interest in films, and 100% of our tastes in music. And home network. Not surprisingly, our "me time"s also often overlap. That said, I am not Viktorpp's lackey by any stretch of the imagination. I am my own person, with my own views. Even when we have similar views, e.g. we both share progressive politics, he is interested in the bigger picture while I am passionate about female and non-binary progressive candidates. In fact, if you compare my contrib page to his, there are no similarities at all. Bescause while our viewpoints align, our interests don't. For other issues, please see my 1st unblock request. Stefania0 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC) I do, however, apologize for an issue not mentioned in the block notice (or anywhere else). When a page created by me Jen Perelman was nominated for deletion, I invited an editor 130.226.41.9 who I know IRL to comment in the discussion. I didn't know his Wiki ID etc, just asked him in person. Since then, we have both been blocked and he has advised me that what I did is stealth canvassing which is not permitted. For that I unreservedly apologize and pledge never to do again. Further, in the future, if I find people in a discussion that I know IRL, I'll disclose that for full transparency. Stefania0 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but this sounds like an elaborate spin on WP:BROTHER. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Your take on that? Can you comment on devices used? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People who live in the same house are generally going to be indistinguishable. I found two accounts through behavioral evidence while randomly skimming through pages on Wikipedia. That happens occasionally because I have a memory for sock puppets and am good at pattern matching. However, it seems a bit unlikely that I'd behaviorally identify Victorpp's spouse and friend at random, unless they're meat puppets who share a hive mind. I'm good, but I'm not a mentalist. It also seems bit suspicious that Victorpp encouraged her to create an account three hours after he was blocked, after which I suppose he coached her on how to start RFCs on topics of interest to him. Come on, a few hours after he's blocked for nominating articles for deletion, his wife shows up and starts nominating articles for deletion? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek NinjaRobotPirate Allow me to explain the situation:

How did I come to be on Wikipedia: I have been using Wikipedia since inception, and been studying it through various means, including following discussions and the Missing Maual and thought about becoming an editor for a few years. I didn't know Viktorpp was editing, till on 6 Aug he told me that he was blocked. I will admit that's what reminded me that I have wanted to be an editor for far longer than he ever did, and inspired me to finally take the plunge. He did not encourage me to join, nor did I join to do his bidding - I wouldn't do that...have not in the past, and will not in the future. Further, in the future, if I find people in a discussion that I know IRL, I'll disclose that for full transparency.

My edits - As mentioned above, I didn't join Wikipedia completely green. I had been studying it for a few years. Since you are senior editors and admins who have been on Wikipedia for years if not decades, not sure how familiar with new user onboarding you are, but basically Wikipedia suggests "random" articles to edit. Those were my first few contribs. Ghulam Qadir Ganipuri was one such article for editing suggested by Wikipedia onboarding and the version shown to me was exceptionally bad, as you can check yourself, and therefore I submitted it for deletion - it was later replaced/reverted with a decently good article. The only other article I submitted for deletion was on 27 Aug - Ghazi Hur Mujahid Faqeer Arbelo Katpar, which is still pretty sketchy.

IDK if the abuse log is what alerted you to a potential issue, but if you check it, the issue raised is not my deletions, but my 2 created pages that triggered filter 867, Large creations by inexperienced user. As I have explained, while a new editor, I put in effort into understanding Wikipedia before joining as an editor. I am not brash like Viktorpp. And while you may agree or disagree with my two created pages (heck, one was deleted/redirected by consensus, so I was wrong about it), you will notice that these are a far cry from Viktorpp's edits.

Meatpuppet You just have to compare my contrib page to Viktorpp's, to see there's ZERO similarity between our editing patterns or interests. I don't believe I have joined any of Viktorpp's "causes". The two articles I nominated for deletion have never been edited by Viktorpp and are not similar to any topics edited by him nor nominated for deletion by him, and are not even on the topics/domains similar to the articles he nominated for deletion.

Mea culpa - When a page created by me Jen Perelman was nominated for deletion, I invited an editor 130.226.41.9 who I know IRL to comment in the discussion. I didn't know his Wiki ID etc, just asked him in person. Since then, we have both been blocked and he has advised me that what I did is stealth canvassing which is not permitted. For that I apologize and pledge never to do again.

Stefania0 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OhNoitsJamie Did you compare my contrib page to Viktorpp's? Stefania0 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have; your account was created immediately after Viktorpp's was blocked, similar edit summary idiosyncracies, [1] [2]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption[edit]

Worm That Trains If and when my block is lifted, I'd like to be adopted, so that I can learn good practices, and avoid jams such as the one I find myself in now. Stefania0 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]