To talk to Justin Knapp himself, please go to his own talk page. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Am I overlooking why this category has been added? I don't see privacy mentioned in the prose. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 07:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Scientist of material: Why do you add so many categories to the page when they are not reflected in the text? DSCrowned( talk) 07:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I added that fact in this edit using Wikipedia as a source. In this case, I think it is a good source. It was removed in this edit by the subject of this article. Koavf, you are COI and shouldn't be editing this article, especially if that involves removing negative content. Furthermore, removing that content because the source is Wikipedia doesn't seem fair. Why not just remove the source and leave the content? I have restored the fact without the source. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Govindaharihari, Johnuniq, Malerooster, and Jo-Jo Eumerus:
I promise I'll drop this stick. And I always follow community wishes. I would just like to understand what this article should contain.
As this subject is notable for, and almost entirely about, his Wikipedia involvement, please help me understand what this article should contain regarding that. Right now, it has:
Those chronicle his Wikicareer, are positive, and possibly even trivial. I just don't see how two RfAs should be excluded because of the outcome or being trivial. At Wikipedia, an RfA is not a trivial thing. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Consider an article for a politician. I could examine speeches made by the politician, or that mention the politician, and extract quotes to add to the article. Sometimes that might be reasonable where the information is straightforward and uncontentious. But what if I pick items that, in isolation, present the person in a manner that many readers would interpret negatively? That would be highly undesrirable, and the cure for such cherry picking is to require due material from secondary sources for things which are not simple statements of fact. For example, it may be a fact that the politician supported an oil pipeline, and in context, that may look negative with implications of disregard for the environment. However, a secondary source might have pointed out that the support was a political compromise to avoid an outcome that would have been worse for the environment. Just stating the "fact" would be misleading. Translating that to this article, a reader unacquainted with Wikipedia's strange internals would probably assume that the RfA information showed some negative characteristic of the subject who must be very bad in some sense. However, we know that is not necessarily the case. I have not looked at the RfAs in question, but there are a host of reasons why an RfA may be unsuccessful, for example, "no reason given to have the tools" or "not enough time spent in disputes for a judgment of temperament to be made". Articles about Wikipedians are awkward and the best way to handle them is to stick to information from external secondary sources. Failing that, stick to noncontentious material that is unlikely to convey impressions that may be misleading. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed where the subject is from in the lede since this doesn't belong there. Also, the categories should be removed unless they are sourced in the body of the article. Also, the subject of this bio really shouldn't be editing it but Ill let others decide that. -- Malerooster ( talk) 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There's currently a Reddit thread that mentions Knapp, which is how I came here and frankly I disbelieve it. The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, etc... One million edits? 385 edits a day? Sorry, but no. I disbelieve, and if any Administrator saw an account doing 385 edits a day for even 3 days, there'd be an investigation. Not exactly sure what that might be in terms of the technical details, but one thing I'd wonder is if all the edits are coming from the same IP Address/IP Address range, if the times of the edits are from the same time zone, if the timing of the edits allow for sleep, if the quality of the edits indicate that someone is doing something constructive (vs. making edits for the sake of making edits), if there isn't some kind of bias or agenda that might be implied or intimated by the topics being edited and the general "slant" or bias of the edits, if the edits are "vanilla" in the sense that they are firmly in the center of Wikipedia Policies, or if there is a constant attempt at pushing envelopes, boundaries, definitions, etc..., if the "writing style" of the Editor(s?) is consistent, and who knows what all else. But I'm reasonably certain that "Rainman" doesn't exist and that a single person isn't constructively editing Wikipedia at a rate of 385 per day, or 16 edits an hour, 24 hours a day, etc... Mostly I'm curious if it's been investigated, who did the investigation, and what the results were. I'm posting this as a serious question about abuse and/or vandalism.
Tym Whittier ( talk) 02:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Loksmythe:, nothing on WP:COI stops me from reverting you from removing identification in this article and you ignored the question I asked in my edit summary. Please answer it here and substantiate your claim. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The indefinite block is clearly salient when he is notable completely because he is an editor on Wikipedia. DemonDays64 ( talk) 15:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Hi are you able to include spouse information on a wiki page ? Davidkovac71 ( talk) 16:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
(Redacted) 174.78.6.142 ( talk) 01:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NOR. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Given the user's extensive block history (at least 20+ times), shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? See [1] for more details. WizardGamer775 ( talk) 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
|
To talk to Justin Knapp himself, please go to his own talk page. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Am I overlooking why this category has been added? I don't see privacy mentioned in the prose. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 07:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Scientist of material: Why do you add so many categories to the page when they are not reflected in the text? DSCrowned( talk) 07:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I added that fact in this edit using Wikipedia as a source. In this case, I think it is a good source. It was removed in this edit by the subject of this article. Koavf, you are COI and shouldn't be editing this article, especially if that involves removing negative content. Furthermore, removing that content because the source is Wikipedia doesn't seem fair. Why not just remove the source and leave the content? I have restored the fact without the source. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Govindaharihari, Johnuniq, Malerooster, and Jo-Jo Eumerus:
I promise I'll drop this stick. And I always follow community wishes. I would just like to understand what this article should contain.
As this subject is notable for, and almost entirely about, his Wikipedia involvement, please help me understand what this article should contain regarding that. Right now, it has:
Those chronicle his Wikicareer, are positive, and possibly even trivial. I just don't see how two RfAs should be excluded because of the outcome or being trivial. At Wikipedia, an RfA is not a trivial thing. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Consider an article for a politician. I could examine speeches made by the politician, or that mention the politician, and extract quotes to add to the article. Sometimes that might be reasonable where the information is straightforward and uncontentious. But what if I pick items that, in isolation, present the person in a manner that many readers would interpret negatively? That would be highly undesrirable, and the cure for such cherry picking is to require due material from secondary sources for things which are not simple statements of fact. For example, it may be a fact that the politician supported an oil pipeline, and in context, that may look negative with implications of disregard for the environment. However, a secondary source might have pointed out that the support was a political compromise to avoid an outcome that would have been worse for the environment. Just stating the "fact" would be misleading. Translating that to this article, a reader unacquainted with Wikipedia's strange internals would probably assume that the RfA information showed some negative characteristic of the subject who must be very bad in some sense. However, we know that is not necessarily the case. I have not looked at the RfAs in question, but there are a host of reasons why an RfA may be unsuccessful, for example, "no reason given to have the tools" or "not enough time spent in disputes for a judgment of temperament to be made". Articles about Wikipedians are awkward and the best way to handle them is to stick to information from external secondary sources. Failing that, stick to noncontentious material that is unlikely to convey impressions that may be misleading. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed where the subject is from in the lede since this doesn't belong there. Also, the categories should be removed unless they are sourced in the body of the article. Also, the subject of this bio really shouldn't be editing it but Ill let others decide that. -- Malerooster ( talk) 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There's currently a Reddit thread that mentions Knapp, which is how I came here and frankly I disbelieve it. The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, etc... One million edits? 385 edits a day? Sorry, but no. I disbelieve, and if any Administrator saw an account doing 385 edits a day for even 3 days, there'd be an investigation. Not exactly sure what that might be in terms of the technical details, but one thing I'd wonder is if all the edits are coming from the same IP Address/IP Address range, if the times of the edits are from the same time zone, if the timing of the edits allow for sleep, if the quality of the edits indicate that someone is doing something constructive (vs. making edits for the sake of making edits), if there isn't some kind of bias or agenda that might be implied or intimated by the topics being edited and the general "slant" or bias of the edits, if the edits are "vanilla" in the sense that they are firmly in the center of Wikipedia Policies, or if there is a constant attempt at pushing envelopes, boundaries, definitions, etc..., if the "writing style" of the Editor(s?) is consistent, and who knows what all else. But I'm reasonably certain that "Rainman" doesn't exist and that a single person isn't constructively editing Wikipedia at a rate of 385 per day, or 16 edits an hour, 24 hours a day, etc... Mostly I'm curious if it's been investigated, who did the investigation, and what the results were. I'm posting this as a serious question about abuse and/or vandalism.
Tym Whittier ( talk) 02:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Loksmythe:, nothing on WP:COI stops me from reverting you from removing identification in this article and you ignored the question I asked in my edit summary. Please answer it here and substantiate your claim. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The indefinite block is clearly salient when he is notable completely because he is an editor on Wikipedia. DemonDays64 ( talk) 15:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Hi are you able to include spouse information on a wiki page ? Davidkovac71 ( talk) 16:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
(Redacted) 174.78.6.142 ( talk) 01:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NOR. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Given the user's extensive block history (at least 20+ times), shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? See [1] for more details. WizardGamer775 ( talk) 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
|