→RfC Break: update |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message: new section Tag: |
||
(326 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could== |
|||
You may leave any and all messages here you want. If I don't like it (it is inappropriate) I might remove it though. (I have never done so though)[[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 07:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
All subpages are linked on my userpage. Please join any conversation and edit at will. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{button|[[#footer|Skip to the bottom]]}} |
{{button|[[#footer|Skip to the bottom]]}} |
||
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
||
{{cot|Embedded Archive}} |
|||
== Headings and links == |
|||
Welcome back to Wikipedia! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See [[MOS:HEAD]]. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — [[User:Jpacobb|Jpacobb]] ([[User_talk:Jpacobb|talk]]) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: Even in a talk page? Man y'all are hardcore. I mean I guess it is here forever. Thanks for the heads-up![[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==NPOV thoughts== |
|||
What is the definition here for a valid point of view? |
|||
Should NPOV ever be used to remove cited "oppressive" points of view? |
|||
[[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) |
|||
== Headings and links == |
|||
Welcome back to Wikipedia! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See [[MOS:HEAD]]. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — [[User:Jpacobb|Jpacobb]] ([[User_talk:Jpacobb|talk]]) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: Even in a talk page? Man y'all are hardcore. I mean I guess it is here forever. Thanks for the heads-up![[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Stealth banning == |
== Stealth banning == |
||
Line 66: | Line 69: | ||
== Confederate money == |
|||
{{cot|Mentorship|expand=true}} |
|||
Endercase, I can't answer at AN/I, but your question deserves a response. It's an American euphemism. During the Civil War, the Confederacy (south) issued its own money. According to American law, and certainly after the war, it had no value; thus a comment that crackles (the sound crisp paper bills make) like Confederate money means it's valueless, phony or fake. We usually use it when someone says something that sounds like what another wants to hear, but they don't really mean what they say, or variations on that scenario. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 20:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: BTW, I saw your comment on Winklevi's talk page. If comments are hostile (and mine weren't, just honest), you have to ask yourself where that hostility is coming from. W gave us plenty of reason to feel as we do. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 20:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Yo|Drmargi}} It is just an observation of the color of the conversation at the AN/I, the vast majority of the comments were not attempting to sympathize or communicate consensus effectively to the user in question as such it was more like a swarm of angry bees who been disturbed than a mother bear teaching its young. Additionally, I deleted the comment you refer to. |
|||
:It is quite a colorful metaphor, fiat currency are strange in that way, valued by some and not valued at all by others. I may use that metaphor in the future. |
|||
: Could you take a look at [[User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction]] and provide criticism? I'd like get that LEDE finished and installed. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: It will take me a little while, but I definitely will take a look. I'm flying out the door shortly. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 20:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Your templated welcomes == |
|||
Why in the world are you welcoming obvious vandals/socks as well as editors who have been around for years? --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Moved from {{u|David Tornheim}}'s talk page== |
|||
:{{yo|Neil}} The welcomes are standard order for new or apparently new users particularly to those they may not understand !policy. Many of the welcomes are just intended to convey the attached policies. As you mention several of them demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of consensus (vandals) and may benefit from the links. I did not mean to welcome any users "who have been around for years", that may have been a mistake on my part. I will review my edits. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I do not see the edit you refer to about welcoming any so called "regulars". The template that I used with vandals was that created for such cases. The major exception being the Burger King related accounts, those I attempted to create a personal message for. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Great_Catholic_Person&diff=prev&oldid=775743021 This]. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{yo|Neil}} Ah, that user is young and prior to the welcome was chatting (social media style) on their talk page. They were warned by Dane and I figured they may have missed other !rules mentioned in the welcome, as such I used the belated welcome template. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I wish you would think more before posting such silliness. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::<s>{{yo|Neil}} To me that just sounds like belittling a fellow editor. I'm really not sure what you were attempting to do with that comment. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)</s> |
|||
== I notice you're still working on pages in the WP: namespace... == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Popbitch_as_a_RS.3F|from here]]: They can try to ban me if they wish. I have openly called for it in [[Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva]]. What I am doing is bringing back original policy and attempting to enforce current policy. Please see my user page as well. Please stop using the term "rules" as it is inaccurate. I will not stand for their attempts to censure and burn down portions of Wikipedia. What they are doing is why we lose so many editors each year. This all started with [[User talk:Mx. Granger]] which as you can see from their talk page has just today caused one user to quit. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't want you banned. I looked at your user history when I first encountered you and saw that you had created an account long ago but really didn't start editing until two or three months ago. That's why I identify you as new user, even though you have had an account much longer that a good portion of the editors, I imagine. I agree there is a problem with retention and there are new problems that did not exist when I first started. When people disagree, they can get really nasty. I would like to discuss that further with you, but I need to take a Wiki-Break. Good luck. I recommend walking away from the keyboard if you get too angry and come back when you cool off. Saying anything nasty in anger is the easiest way to get into trouble. Editors collect diffs and can dump them all at once at AN/I to make an editor who has been provoked look out of control. Seen it many times. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I guess. Thanks for the warning. We can talk anytime anywhere. If I don't respond try to tag me in other mediums if you want. My stuff isn't hard to find with James P.S. Case and endercase. I'll chill. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 23:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Now, that essay will almost certainly be userfied, so that's a thing, but I really think you should just forget about it and move on to writing more articles. 13/210 of your edits this month have been to the mainspace, and I can't see one of them because you reinserted something that an admin, [[User:Diannaa]], had removed as a copyvio. |
|||
I have upset a number of users with my actions. I stand accused of being [[WP:NOTHERE]] on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. I'm really sure what to do about it. If I actually am in violation I think the process should play out. However, the only users who seem to think I'm in violation so far are also the ones that have been the most offended by audacity and arguments. As you are a user whom I have interacted with, your input on either side of the issue would be helpful. Thank you for your time. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
You also are currently proposing a "boomerang" for another admin on ANI, but ... think about that for a second. What boomerang would be appropriate for [[User:Beeblebrox]]? <s>I don't even know if admins can be blocked (as I suspect they would probably have the technical ability to unblock themselves), and there's no way a stronger sanction could be in order.</s> You attributed the "boomerang" idea to [[User:EEng]], but he doesn't appear to have used that word. Anyway, regardless of whether you or EEng think the ANI thread has merit, I would strongly caution you against proposing sanctions against other users, particularly admins, given your own recent history. I had an emotional reaction to your attack against me a few weeks back, and I was biased in that case, but I honestly can't see how your comments about Beeblebrox and his supposed "battleground" behaviour could be any different, and if I have any bias regarding Beeblebrox it would be against him (it's none of your business and it's not something I want to discuss, but he screwed up something royal earlier in the year and that indirectly led to a lot of grief for me). |
|||
:{{ping|Endercase}} Done. I defended you. That said, I hope you re-read some of the things I said back at [[WP:RS/N]]. You might want to get a mentor. I can explain. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) |
|||
::@David Tornheim You didn't have to defend me, I did ping users I knew would state their case against me to maintain neutrality. I do thank you for it though. I agree I need a mentor. I appear to have upset a very active Cabal of users. |
|||
I am limiting my ANI activity in order to focus more on content than I already have been, but the only outside parties who have advised me to do so were doing so informally and as friends; I find it really weird that you appear to be doing the opposite, especially considering an admin recently threatened to block you if you didn't stop making comments like your recent comment on a certain user talk page (and, again, your comment about Beeblebrox honestly looks exactly the same, at least to my eyes). |
|||
::I did attempt to chill. I just shouldn't have responded on Jimbo's page when that one peer asked for context? |
|||
Seriously, why not just stay the heck away from the WP: namespace and write articles? I feel like I've said this to you about [http://tangorin.com/general/八百万 eight million times]. |
|||
::Peers here seem to really not like being disagreed with. I personally love it the another person has a grounded and cited argument as I can learn from it and change my POV. They appear to me to mistake debate for soapboxing and aggression here. Additionally, some of them seem to fight dirty. |
|||
[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe I should also ping the two users whom I ended a disagreement with? As they are the only additional users [who aren't involved (edit)] I really interacted with, other than the ones in Stealth Banning. Everyone else was closer to two trains passing in the night. |
|||
:Struck part of the above. [[User:Opabinia regalis]] was blocked last year as a joke. I am not sure if she would have technically had the power to unblock herself if her block had been longer and had been put in place for some kind of disruptive behaviour. Another admin ({{noping|BU Rob13}}) recently told me that {{tq|the Arbitration Committee refuses to desysop bad admins unless they do '''something that would get a non-admin blocked or banned''', and sometimes still refuses then}} (emphasis mine) which implied to me that there was some kind of technical restriction or strong traditional tendency against placing bans or blocks on admins as the standard response would be to desysop. That's really all I was basing it on. But still, your boomerang proposal will not pass, and I strongly urge you to strike it, as it is not likely to end well for you. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 12:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I didn't "call for" a boomerang, I simply suggested that if that AN/I (that was started in response to a content dispute) stays open a boomerang is likely. The only attributed portion to EEng was that the AN/I was not needed, and that proper communication could have avoided this entirely. As to the copyvio, I was working with Diannaa to help fix a content dispute in a contentious article, the portion of text that was removed came from a deleted article. We were trying to figure out how the attribute the original authors properly. Diannaa later decided that that portion of text was not properly cited and wasn't worth the trouble of adding it. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, you specifically brought up "boomerang" when no one else had. You should not do that on ANI unless it is your intention to "call for" one. I know what I'm talking about since I've done it myself. |
|||
:::And no, you reverted an edit whose summary read {{tq|remove content '''copied''' from deleted article Libertarian perspectives on natural resources '''without attribution'''}} (emphasis added). It was removed as a copyvio, and you re-added it. Despite what you seem to think, "citations" of external reliable sources have nothing to do with it -- the concern was about Wikipedians' copyright on text they wrote. Please read [[WP:ATTREQ]]. |
|||
:::But you're completely missing the point. You need to write more articles. Don't join in other users' edit wars and content disputes. Don't fight over WP: namespace pages. Don't do any of that. Just write articles. Seriously. |
|||
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
By the way -- being blocked is part of being a Wikipedian, and you would be hard-pressed to find a long-term contributor with a clean block log. People who are not able to emotionally deal with being blocked are not the kond of people who should be editing Wikipedia, because it would not be fair on the rest of us if they didn't get blocked for the same behaviour that the rest of us get blocked for. Saying that such users need to "grow a pair" is essentially the same as this, and demanding that someone strike it as "ad hominem" completely misses the point. But I can't possibly understand why you are fixating on that page given how you ''haven't'' been blocked. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I still don't understand how the source bans are reconciled with the issues I have brought up, but I guess I don't need to understand why I can't use X source before I finish helping make that stub into a real article (if I don't get banned from it). I also don't understand why we use the terminology "delete" and "rules" as both are not technically correct. "Hide" and "policy" are more correct in my view. I apparently do not understand the difference between soapboxing and discussing here although I have read all available material on the issues I have encountered. And I don't understand why people call canvassing, forum shopping as I was very careful to follow the guidelines. I don't understand quite a few things I guess. |
|||
:I still have this page on my watchlist, and I want to interject with a couple of comments. First, admins can be blocked, but you're right that they have the technical ability to unblock themselves, so blocking them is fairly symbolic. Second, I disagree that "being blocked is part of being a Wikipedian" – if you are careful to follow the rules, it's not that hard to avoid being blocked. I am a long-term contributor who has never been blocked, for example. But maybe I'm an exception. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 12:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|Mx. Granger}} {{tq|if you are careful to follow the rules, it's not that hard to avoid being blocked}} Nope. I have not had a clear block log since 2013, and in 2013 I did ''nothing'' that was not in accordance with the "rules" to merit my first block. Admins can be tricked into blocking users (and the users can be so shocked/weirded-out that it messes up their block appeals and their block expires before anyone notices); users can be blocked because of a bogus ANEW report when they were acting in accordance with BLP and/or BURDEN but the report conveniently failed to mention that; similarly, if two users tag-team and open a GAME-y ANEW report they can get a user blocked for "edit-warring" when actually the latter user was the one who was trying to use the talk page (you'd be surprised how many 3RR-blocks seem to get repealed because of misunderstandings like these last two -- I don't know how often the TE editors on the other side of the edit-war get blocked); users can be blocked based on accidentally editing under the wrong (declared, legitimate) alternate account after saying they wouldn't but forgetting they were automatically logged in (admittedly, that' not "careful", but still). There are a million ways people can get blocked, and having been blocked at some point in the past is not what either Endercase or the author of that essay seem to think it is. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{yo|Hijiri88}} I think you have missed the point of the article, this is easy to do as it does need some work. It is not that banning isn't necessary or that is shouldn't be done it is simply that a modicum of empathy on the part of the banning admin is extremely helpful for editor retention. Banning is inherently violent as it is to imposition of an outside will on another person, sometimes without their explicit consent. Editor retention is an issue for Wikipedia, as such banning should be done after communication not in place of or as a method of except in extremely disruptive cases. I am also not "fixated" on it, I spent less than a day farting around it. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::No, ''you'' have missed the point, because (once again!) you have misunderstood the difference between "blocks" and "bans". Having never been either blocked or banned, I don't see how you would have a better understanding than me. The same essentially applies to the user who wrote the essay, who has only been blocked once for a day or so for edit-warring. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{yo|Hijiri88}} It should be noted that I struck a portion of your post at the RfC, you once again referred to the mentorship as mandatory while demeaning my !vote, as I have already shown to you the close was "No Consensus". I highly suggest that you read [[Wp:civil]] again and the comments that I made that caused you to end your mentorship with me. I would also request that you stop harassing/hounding me is various locations throughout Wikipedia as you have done since we first encountered each other. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:You may not strike or refactor in any way other editors' comments. In my opinion, you would do well to discontinue editing in WP space or participating in such discussions. It might be best that you take a break from Wikipedia, altogether. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Yo|Chris troutman}} Same goes for you buddy. You removed my comment, you didn't just undo the strike. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ender, you are not allowed strike portions of my comments, as that makes it look like I retracted them. I think I told you this before, but I may be thinking of someone else. And you are wrong. If MP hadn't closed the thread as "mentor", you would have either been blocked or TBANned. That is mandatory mentoring. As soon as your mentor(s) thinks it's not working, you will be brought back to ANI to be blocked. That's why you '''''really''''' should have listened to my advice rather than insulting me. I have better things to do with my life than open a new ANI thread about you, and your other mentor(s) haven't given up yet, it seems, but you '''''really''''' need to start paying attention to other users' advice. Go write articles. Now. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Conversation about Essay== |
|||
::Thank you again, you are always welcome to comment on any of my actions of course, and if agreeable I will likely show up here for advice on Wikipedia more often than you would like and you may tell me to "fuck off" at any point. If you would like, you make use the masculine gender pronouns in reference to me, as it is often simpler. Other pronouns definitely do not bother me in the slightest. I feel like neutral ones are more appropriate generally as I don't want my current apparent gender to affect others judgments. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 07:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I'm sorry, but I can't even take the essay seriously after "For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life." Not only that, but it masks the damage of vandalism and disruptive editing by pulling on the heart strings of readers with this line, "This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified." Such blocks ''more than likely only happen when an editor is being extremely disruptive, and the administrator has no other choice.'' Our administrators understand that blocks are not meant to be punishment, but a preventative safeguard to protect Wikipedia, since anybody can edit it. [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup>[[User talk:Boomer Vial|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Holla! We gonna ball!</span>]]</sup> 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Yo|Boomer Vial}} For editors that are not neurotypical or have been "good" their entire lives a societal based rejection that masquerades as consensus can be very harmful and can even result is suicide. If you have spent enough time on the internet then you are likely aware of this phenomenon. An essay that suggests that Admin should be careful and considerate when banning other users is in the vain of making Wikipedia a more friendly place as suggested in the 2017 RfC on the future of Wikipedia (I'll find the link later). I agree that the essay needs work, but it does not need userfied IMO. --[[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::What utter bolognese. If they were blocked with no warning, it was a 95% chance that it's likely their behavior caused the block to be implemented. All I see in your "explanation", or "rationale" is enabling editors to not be accountable for their own behavior. As an anti-vandal editor, I can certainly attest to this, and this a large part of why I object to the essay. It undermines all the work myself, as well as so many other editors have done to keep Wikipedia free of clutter, crap, and, yes, vandalism. Yes, the article does more than certainly need to be userfied, as the creator seems has a [[WP:OWN|difficult time]] understanding the [[WP:CONSENSUS|concept of collaboration.]] [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup>[[User talk:Boomer Vial|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Holla! We gonna ball!</span>]]</sup> 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Yo|Boomer Vial}} The creators personal behavior has nothing to do with the essay nor should it. Sometimes the banning process is abused, this essay helps to provide a basis for dealing with such abuses. The essay never says that banning is not necessary nor does it demean the banning process. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Except it provides no information on how to '''actually deal with such blocks'''. All it does is pad disruptive behavior. Let's go over it. |
|||
"Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. Anybody can edit it (normally). Being blocked from editing it is distressing. This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified." |
|||
:::{{ping|Endercase}} Thanks for your reply. Since you are open to mentoring I suggest you go to the AN/I and say that. Also, just say you are sorry you were not trying to cause trouble and that you want to learn the rules, and tell them you are open to advice--and def. listen. You might even talk about which rules you read and which ones were confusing, but keep it *short*. I wouldn't try to defend your behavior--you made mistakes and if you can acknowledge that and learn from the mistakes, that will likely to be taken well. I think they were right to question some of what you were doing, but I think that AN/I filing went overboard and was avoidable, which is why I responded as I did. However, as I said at Project Editor Retention, I knew it was coming, which is why I tried to warn you about it when I first met you. So hopefully you learn from it. |
|||
:As I said, padding disruptive editing. Makes no mention of "bad blocks", it only victimizes the editor receiving a block. |
|||
::: |
|||
:::I do think posting at [[WP:NPOV]] after going to [[WP:RS/N]] was probably not a good idea and that's why they claim you were forum shopping. I agree with them that your question about reliability of sources is an [[WP:RS]] issue and not an [[WP:NPOV]], but I do see why you might think that excluding particular sources with a particular bias/slant might create a POV bias, but that's just not really what NPOV is about. I would read NPOV again--it's one of the most important policies IMHO, as is [[WP:RS]]. I made some mistakes like this when I had fewer edits under my belt. One thing to keep in mind is that many of the same editors watch and comment at all the forums, so that posting at NPOV was not really going to get any more eyes than posting at RS/N: Rookie mistake. |
|||
::: |
|||
:::Another thing to do is make your comment and then not argue with people. It's often a waste of time, and if they don't agree, there is little chance you can convince them they are wrong. Asking them questions about why they take the position they do might be helpful, but accusing them is generally not recommended. If you lash back at them for arguing with you, they can use it against you at AN/I, as I knew would happen with some of the your edits when I first met you. You didn't know, but I know from experience that's what happens to new editors who get mad when they feel they are being unfairly argued with. For example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=769466849 this diff]. You probably didn't know that would be used against you, but I knew one of those would. That's why I had advised you spend some time looking at what happens to editors at [[WP:AN/I]]. |
|||
::: |
|||
:::Editors often go to Jimbo's page to address a big audience. I honestly don't see a problem with that since it is a general place for discussion, but as a less experienced editor, they might give you a hard time, sort of like a pecking order. In fact, your question about whether certain sources should be entirely be avoided is a big topic for discussion--including on Jimbo's page--because recently there was an [[WP:RfC]] that determined that a certain U.K. source (I think it was Daily Mail) was pretty much always unreliable, and a number of long term editors strongly disagreed that it should be banned. There was even mainstream news cover from other mainstream media sources about that banning of the news source, and questions about whether enough people were involved in the [[WP:RfC]]: See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_217#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard_and_the_Daily_Mail]. That's another reason I really didn't see that much harm with your question about banning a particular source in general. It's a good question--especially for a new editor. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am also tagging {{ping|Nocturnalnow}} . I can see now how my specific issue is more a reliability discussion than a NPOV one. However, the discussion of banning in general is one that should take place there so that POV balancing measures such as a public list with active discussion may be put into place. I'm used to trying to convince others of the validity of my arguments, particularly online, and thought it to be normal. But, then again, I'm also used to a karma system that tells you when you have lost the audience, a more clear reply and notification system, and comment weighting that hides unpopular views. In those cases (where you don't defend your POV) how is consensus reached? I read [[WP:DEMOCRACY]] and I thought voting was pretty clearly discouraged when debate or discussion can be had, yet voting appears to be the normal method when more than 3-4 users are involved. |
|||
::::I'd like to see more controversial RfC in the wild. I also think I should likely close my various posts, as I may have been out of order by opening them. The same concept would have been better addressed by more experienced users. |
|||
::::I guess the use of the term rules is not meant to convey a top-down nature of organization but to convey the severity and seriousness of their use. |
|||
::::I feel like I got typecast for my apparent defense of right-wing news sources. I tried to explain to users that were the most upset at this, that I agreed that these sources were less reputable that others and that I was not a right wing ideologue. I suggest you read my edits to [[Talk:Arian controversy]] where I attempted to use [[historical jesus]] in place of [[jesus]] and ended up with [[God the Son]], which was an improvement. I'm fairly certain that can not be described as a normal right wing behavior even if, as I now realize, some may label it disruptive (I got lucky that the users there assumed good faith). |
|||
::::I believe that taking on [[stealth banning]] as my first real article improvement campaign was a bit ambitious as it is an under-documented phenomena (see my list of questionable sources on the talk page). Although, if nothing else an stub article that had zero active users now has 3-4 and some IPs due to my controversy. |
|||
::::I'm not really sure what to say at the AN/I, I'm trying to avoid saying something else there that may be considered disruptive. |
|||
::::Also, an explanation for why we use the term delete as opposed to hide would be extremely helpful. |
|||
:::: Maybe we should move this all to my talk page under the heading "mentorship" as I don't want to take up valuable space on yours. Additionally, is there a 'legal' way to collapse discussions on my page (using the same method I used to collapse sources on the stealth banning page?)? [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Is there a policy on "stickening" ones old posts? It seems dishonest to me. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 21:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Endercase}} I'm going to move this discussion over to your talk page. Is that okay with you? I think it makes more sense there, since the advice is for you, and it will help others see the discussion who might be watching you and might want to add more. It will also be easier for you to find the advice in the future. So I will respond there. I will also try to add subsections on specific topics for ease of searching. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
"Of course many blocks are necessary and we're not saying they're not, but there's an emotional toll. Consider that some people, or a few people at any rate, |
|||
'''Also Hey''' Did you see this? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.198.247.231&oldid=769792570] [[Special:Contributions/71.198.247.231|71.198.247.231]] ([[User talk:71.198.247.231|talk]]) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, your actions were adversarial and my IN/A was not an appropriate location for such claims. However, they should have addressed your concerns instead of hunting you down. I guess IP bans don't require discussion and consensus? [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::<b>Update</b>. {{re|71.198.247.231}} <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A71.198.247.231&type=block</ref> IP user has been blocked from it's own talk page. Is this normal? {{ping|David Tornheim}} {{ping|Hijiri88}} [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 23:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
:::In cases of extreme disruption, yes. If you ever get blocked, don't post a string of attacks against the blocking admin and various other parties on your talk page. That is a really terrible idea. If you want to appeal a block, please read [[WP:GAB]]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
have never been in jail (or even arrested). |
|||
== Democracy at Wikipedia? == |
|||
have never been sued. |
|||
have never been suspended from school (or even had detention, or failed a class). |
|||
have never been fired from a job for cause (or even called on the carpet for a serous dressing down by their boss). |
|||
have never been in a physical fight (or even shouting verbal confrontation (except maybe as a schoolchild or maybe a lover's quarrel)). |
|||
have never been kicked out of their house or come home to find the locks changed. |
|||
We know that a lot of people have had some (or, God forbid, all) of these things happen to them, but the average person – you can call them goody-goodies if you want to – tries to follow the rules and takes sanctions by authorities very much to heart. For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life. This is the first time someone has said to them "You've broken the rules, and badly, and you're in a lot of trouble here". Or one of the few times. And that certainly is the message one takes from being blocked, regardless of how we try to gild that. It's a pretty hard thing to hear, for a few people." |
|||
:Being blocked is the worst punishment one has ever received... Seriously? Do I really need to go into how asinine that is? |
|||
"We know for a lot of experienced Wikipedians (which includes all admins), "Under the spreading chestnut tree / I blocked you and you blocked me" is all part of the WP:MMORPG. But most of our editors, particularly new editors, come from a place called "real life"." |
|||
{{ping|Endercase}} {{tq| I read WP:DEMOCRACY and I thought voting was pretty clearly discouraged when debate or discussion can be had, yet voting appears to be the normal method when more than 3-4 users are involved.}} I have not read the section recently but I know from experience, that few decisions are based on democratic votes, which is why people call "votes" as ivotes or !votes. The decision is based on the merits of the argument. In a recent [[WP:AfD]], of four people who voted, I was the only one to say "keep". Because I provided [[WP:RS]], that carried more weight than the three editors who said "delete--no RS". |
|||
:Misinterpretation of an humorous essay. |
|||
In fact, I have seen it said many times that a simple vote in one direction is of essentially no value if no reason is given. |
|||
Ultimately, following [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines]] carries the most weight in a discussion. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|David Tornheim}} So users that vote giving little or no reason to support their vote are engaging in fruitless activities? Odd. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Short answer: no. As I said before, there is much room for interpretation. Decision are made by consensus, so having more !votes help see what the community consensus is, but the merits are really what matters most. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::That really does change things quite a bit. Thank you so much. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) |
|||
"A person, particularly a new user, on being blocked is not likely to say "Oh, well, here is part of the functioning of this site. I'll just put in this template, formatted properly, and enter litigation on this matter, all in good fun". The person is likely to be appalled, horrified, angry, sad, alarmed, and disgusted. They'll likely close the page at once and never come back (but they'll have a story about what a screwup the Wikipedia is). So whether its a new user or not, any block of any duration has a non-trivial chance of being permanent, in that the user is likely to just throw up his hands and walk away. |
|||
== No rules -- Ignore the Rules? == |
|||
Again, lots of blocks are necessary, and we thank our volunteer administrators for enhancing the functioning of the Wikipedia in this way. But, you know, we want to be careful here." |
|||
{{tq|I guess the use of the term rules is not meant to convey a top-down nature of organization but to convey the severity and seriousness of their use.}} As I have said before, despite [[WP:IGNORE]] and [[WP:BOLD]], Wikipedia is filled with rules, and even more unfortunate is that many of them are vague and/or contradictory and leave much to interpretation. Unlike American law, we don't rely on [[stare decisis]], or carefully argued decision by judges, and you'll see editors referring to "rules" or past decisions without giving you a link to what they are talking about. You could spend an hour looking for it--I know I have--and the search results are often far less definitive than what they lead you to believe. They themselves may not even remember where they saw the "rule", past decision, behavior, etc. For example, the person who said something to you indicating that Breitbart is never reliable didn't provide you with a reference. They probably didn't feel like spending the half hour trying to prove it--instead they leave that task in your hands. As a new editor, you probably wouldn't even know where to search to check if the claim was legit or not. So, I'm really not surprised you went to [[WP:RS/N]] to ask whether we really do ban sources. It's a reasonable question. I think your biggest mistake was not asking the question, but the way you asked it. Experienced editors find it odd for a new editor to ask for sweeping changes in the way we do [[WP:RS]]. More humility was in order. |
|||
<p>I believe many rules are implicit rather than expressed and the only way to really learn them is by experience. One of the implicit rules is that [[WP:IGNORE]] and [[WP:BOLD]] should not be taken too seriously if you don't want to be blocked or banned. Those "rules" do not trump all the others, even though they are written as if they do. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree I didn't take audacity into consideration. I read that all peers are equal and went for the gold: question everything. That was reckless. I really hope the list proposal gets some traction in the proper forum as it really would be helpful to easily know which sources cause other editors grief. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
This entire essay is basically saying that administrators should be more lenient when blocking new editors, regardless of if their behavior is disruptive, due to a risk to the editor retention rate, as well as victimizing those who are reaping what they sown as a fruit of their behavior. [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup>[[User talk:Boomer Vial|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Holla! We gonna ball!</span>]]</sup> 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Typecast == |
|||
:{{Yo|Boomer Vial}} Quite right, it points out that not all users react to banning the same and urges caution on the part of the blocking Admin and consideration of their other options. The wording does needs worked on, how about you take a whack at it? Additionally, that "humorous" essay you refer to is the way some admin operate. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Endercase}} [[WP:IDHT|I've already explained to you ''in detail'']] how the essay masks the impact of disruptive editing by victimizing those who commit said disruptive editing. There is no need to work on it, as it has no place in Wikipedia, whatsoever. Please stop pinging me. [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup>[[User talk:Boomer Vial|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Holla! We gonna ball!</span>]]</sup> 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== April 2017 == |
|||
{{tq|I feel like I got typecast for my apparent defense of right-wing news sources. I tried to explain to users that were the most upset at this, that I agreed that these sources were less reputable that others and that I was not a right wing ideologue. I suggest you read my edits to Talk:Arian controversy where I attempted to use historical jesus in place of jesus and ended up with God the Son, which was an improvement. I'm fairly certain that can not be described as a normal right wing behavior even if, as I now realize, some may label it disruptive (I got lucky that the users there assumed good faith).}} |
|||
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments|delete or edit]] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at [[:Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts]]. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 16:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Yo|Chris troutman}} I am not subject to mandatory mentorship. The comment/attack is fallacious. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable|delete or edit]] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at [[:Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. ''I was mistaken in removing your comments; I only saw the strikes you introduced and your edit summary didn't indicate a separate comment. That does not excuse your behavior.''<!-- Template:uw-tpv3 --> <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
If an editor calls you names or uses other [[ad hominem]] attacks, respond by saying: [[WP:AGF]], focus on content rather than editor. Try not to take it too personally and keep a cool head and not lash back. Often just ignoring personal accusations can focus thing back on the content issue. I think I have said that before. If someone says something particularly rude or provocative, save it as a diff. You can see the way various editors used diffs--including me--at your AN/I. |
|||
: Per [[Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages]] <b>Pruning text – should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy.:Removing, striking or hiding personal attacks.</b>. It constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::We disagree that those comments were a personal attack. Honestly, if you thought it was, you would be best served by taking it to a dramaboard. If you strike the comments again I will revert and issue your final warning, after which I will take you to ANI and you can expect the audience there to be less forgiving of your behavior. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Yo|Chris troutman}} Well then, I guess it is a matter of opinion, I thought is was clearly visible as an attack. The statement is at the very least bearing false witness with the intent of demeaning a !vote, I hope we can both agree on that. I am not subject to mandatory mentorship per [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive949#Endercase]]. Is this what you refer to [[wp:dramaboard]], are you suggesting that I take my old mentor to AN/I? --[[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::We cannot agree on that. The result of that thread was {{tq|"Endercase has accepted responsibility for what disruption they've cause, and they are getting the needed mentoring."}} and from what I've read many Wikipedians were willing to attribute your bad editing to inexperience and preferred you coming to heel. You accepting mentorship was the exchange for not getting topic banned. You did not have an option to refuse mentorship. Perhaps you need a topic ban, after all. Yes, that's what I meant by "drama board" (such as AN, ANI, ANEW, etc.). If you feel wronged, by all means get that [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]]. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{Yo|Chris troutman}} Yes, the close stated that the problem was handled, or in the process of being handled voluntarily and no Administrative or required actions were needed. I do not wish to use an appeal to an outside authority to take care of personal problems, I can handle any wronged feelings myself. Thank you for the offer though. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Editing another editor's comment to remove a personal attack (and not by striking it, but by replacing it with {{tl|rpa}} so that it's clear that it wasn't the original editor changing it) is something that should '''only''' be done when the personal attack is completely unambiguous. E.g. "Fuck you, asshole" would be an acceptable one. In this case, it's completely debatable whether your mentorship was mandatory or not. A number of editors changed their !votes to TBAN you because of the offer of mentorship, and a number !voted for mentorship instead of a TBAN only because it was an option. So while there may not have been anything official stating that you were required to get mentorship, it's very easy to argue that it was nonetheless mandatory. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{yo|MjolnirPants}} Ah, thank you for the clarification on the consensus that surrounds that policy. It is also worth noting that I did not defend myself at the AN/I, I would have if it looked like the consensus was swaying closer to the mandatory side of things. I can not guarantee that would have swayed the !vote, but I would have made an attempt. It is worth noting that the vast majority of the diffs provided there were out of context or incomplete. Given the interrogation at my talk page and the other behaviors of the editors calling for a ban, I had IMO significant ground to work with. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Endercase, you ''are'' subject to mandatory mentoring. The thread was closed as (essentially) "mentoring to see if that works instead of a block". MP didn't "save you from a block" by closing when he did, and if he hadn't closed it the thread could have remained open indefinitely (there are tools to prevent auto-archiving) until there was a serious close. If you don't accept the mentoring, you will be blocked. Virtually any uninvolved admin would read it that way. I am not even sure who you mentor is at this point, but if you continue to completely ignore the advice everyone else is giving you you ''will'' be blocked. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, I saw what you did at Aryan controversies. I admit, I too wondered if you were defending Aryan ideologies until I saw your edits there. Don't expect other editors to look that deep. Your edits do give a certain appearance. If you spend more time on non-political articles, especially ones that you have no investment in, it might help you to understand better how decisions are made and resolved and how you might appear in one of these discussions. When you are not the hot seat, you might see more objectively how you appear to others in a similar dispute. For example, there was a very heated discussion at [[Terrence Malik]] about how to describe the initial reception of his films. (Discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrence_Malick#RfC:_Is_it_misleading_to_say_that_The_Tree_of_Life_initially_divided_critics.3F here]). Two editors really dug in their heals about how to describe their positions. I found it amazing at the amount of text provided to defend the two positions and the amount of animosity between the two editors. |
|||
::{{yo|Hijiri88}} Everyone who is involved already knows your POV on the issue. I have already requested that you stop hounding me. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 20:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{yo|Hijiri88}} 75% of the editors at the AN/I Directly opposed a T-ban, and several responding users said they didn't see any problems with my actions at all. In addition, the proposed T-ban was just for RS/N whereas you made the claim that I would not be able to edit any non-article space. Admitally, you did harass every single user who expressed an opinion that you disagreed with at the AN/I and that may have decreased the number of users responding in my favor. The fact of the matter is that if you do attempt to repeat a display of that type of action or demean my !vote again I will have to attempt to mentor you. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 23:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't know who those "75%" are. David specifically said he was opposing it because mentoring should be tried first, and so could be reasonably expected to support the ban if you had made it clear at that time that you were not open to mentoring. Ditto MjolnirPants. Even if we did a simple !vote tally on the "Topic ban" [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive949#Proposal: Topic ban|subthread]] (and that's not how it works) it was 6-3 against, not 75% against. Of those six, two explicitly did so based on faulty premises, and in a proper close would have had their !votes discounted (one was even threatened with a block because his !vote was an off-topic personal attack), one more was super-fishy (it came from someone who hadn't edited in years) and of the other three two explicitly stated ''in their !votes'' that they were opposed to the TBAN based solely on the assumption that you would be mentored. The only one left who formally cast an "oppose" !vote was David (and on that point see below). The closer explicitly stated, both in the close and immediately above here, that the reason you weren't getting topic-banned was because you appeared to be amenable to mentoring. So yes, you are subject to mandatory mentoring, and it is way out of line for you to ignore what you are told by your mentor(s). |
|||
::::{{ping|David Tornheim}} (since as far as I can tell you are the only one Endercase would be willing to name as his mentor at this point) Could you tell Endercase the following: |
|||
::::# he should focus on writing articles; |
|||
::::# his recent behaviour (barely touching the mainspace and continuing to argue over policies/guidelines/essays in the WP: namespace) is inappropriate; |
|||
::::# he is subject to mentoring as a result of last month's ANI thread, and he is not at liberty to ignore the advice of more experienced editors; |
|||
::::# he should stop casting aspersions on other editors (Ctrl+F this page for "personal attack" or "hound", or the currently-live version of ANI for "battleground", or [[User talk:Herostratus]] for "harass")? |
|||
::::I'm sorry to ask this of you, and if someone else has since taken up the Endercase's mentor mantel without me noticing that apology is double. |
|||
::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{u|Hijiri88}} Honestly this looks like a tempest in a tea pot. All this drama over an essay that "being blocked hurts"? Seriously? I have no idea what striking of comments you all are talking about. As I told you before, if you have an issue, please provide diffs. I did CTRL-F and I didn't see anything disturbing--{{u|Endercase}} said he felt a comment was a personal attack. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. I have no idea what he thought was a personal attack, since he has no diff either, so I can't judge. But I do know I saw one recently (see [[User_talk:Endercase/mentor-garden#Ad_hominem]]) an <i>ad hominem</i> attack on anyone who agreed with the essay (including Endercase), so it seems there may be a little of [[WP:Kettle]] going on here. Either way, I suggest both of you just drop it. If you have a problem, you need to bring diffs; then I will look at it. I'm not going on a wild goose chase trying to figure out what you are complaining about, who started what and why everyone is all in rage about this essay and discussions about the essay. I was so disgusted by all the behavior regarding that essay, that I never responded to the pings to that page and took it off my watchlist. Feel free to raise the issue with {{u|Bishonen}}. I doubt she'll be any more impressed than I am. Again, my advise: <b>Everyone--including Endercase--walk away from this pointless drama.</b> --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I think that is enough advice for today. |
|||
== Welcoming blocked user? == |
|||
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N_I_H_I_L_I_S_T_I_C&diff=774745183&oldid=774744357]? It seems ... well, not in keeping with community spirit. - [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Striking old posts == |
|||
:{{Yo|Bri}}Users are blocked to prevent disruptive editing; in order to prevent local consensus I'm willing to moderate my own talk page. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 23:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh, sorry, thought that was a response to my welcome at the top of my talk page. Didn't check link. That was because the unwelcomed user posted on my talk page and may not understand community consensus. I do not mind working with such users. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Endercase, the user was blocked as on obvious sockpuppet. The reason we know it is a sockpuppet is that it very clearly already knows it's way around this site. Additionally, referring to a blocked sockpuppet as an "unwelcomed user" is highly inappropriate, as you are insinuating that the users who participated in the discussion that led to the block were somehow "unwelcoming" rather than simply carrying out the proper procedures mandated by policy. As Bri said above, it's not in keeping with community spirit. (Just to clarify, I did check to see if by "unwelcomed" you meant that you had removed your own inapproriate message.) [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::By the way: I looked at your other comments on the page in question. Please read [[WP:BEANS]] and refrain from elaborating on methods blocked users can use to get around their blocks. |
|||
:::Also (while this is unrelated): stop referring to blocks as "bans". I have already gone over this with you multiple times before. If you want the links again they are [[WP:BLOCK|here]] and [[WP:BAN|here]]. |
|||
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{Yo|Hijiri88}} If the user is a sock-puppet then they don't understand consensus, as using a sock-puppet is not logical (if the community consensus is correct). Therefore welcoming them and opening a dialog is the proper form and in in the spirit of the community. Consensus is logical and can not regress due to input from outside parties. If the user is logical (and they appear to be) then sharing consensus with them can only help the encyclopedia and help allow the user to positively interact with the community. |
|||
::::As to Beans, it is already suggested that the user is Sock ergo pointing out that banning doesn't work in these cases because socking naturally evades banning can't hurt the encyclopedia. I'm not adding any information that that user doesn't already have. Additionally, all of the methods I've mentioned are clearly laid out and easily accessible online. Though, I am aware of other easier methods that I have not shared and that are less accessible online. |
|||
::::"Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." "A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages." They are effectively the same IMO despite your continuing insistence that they are not. Please clearly explain the difference. Maybe I should suggest that the two articles should be merged, as a block is just an administrative enforcement method for a ban (an ineffective one at that) and may not be notable in and of itself. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Regarding community consensus and the like: Yeah, I'm basically in agreement with MP et al below. |
|||
:::::::Regarding BEANS: Just stop talking about it. If you don't know which comment of yours I'm referring to, I'm not going to link it, but you definitely said more than {{tq|information that that user [...] already ha[s]}}. You specifically elaborated on methods one can use to evade CU. Stop it. |
|||
:::::::Regarding bans and blocks: They are '''''not''''' the same. Both David Tornheim and I are subject to indefinite bans, but neither of us have been blocked from editing since at least last summer. The only "ban" that is functionally similar to a "block" is what is called a [[WP:SBAN|site-ban]], and those bans are relatively rare. The vast majority of blocks can be unilaterally overturned by any admin, which is not the case for site-bans, and the vast majority of bans are not site-bans (clearly, neither David nor I is subject to a site-ban). Bans also apply to real-world individuals, not accounts, while a block only applies to the account on which it is imposed. I used a bunch of alternate accounts back in 2013, and all of them were blocked on my request. They were not "banned", as a ban that applied to any one of my accounts would automatically apply to ''me'', and I have only requested that I be banned under certain very specific circumstances. Conversely, the bans to which I am subject also apply to my other accounts. I am currently not allowed to discuss two other users on English Wikipedia per the terms of my mutual IBANs with them: if I logged into one of my old socks and started talking about those users (even if just on my own talk page), I would be considered in violation of my ban, and would be subject to sanctions. If I was doing it because, say, I forgot the password to my main account, but had a legitimate grievance against the other user, my "violation" would be disregarded as covered under [[WP:BANEX]]; if I was annoyed and wanted to vent, but wanted to evade scrutiny by doing it under an account that's been blocked for years, my main account might be blocked for any length of time, but I could appeal at any time and if i convinced an admin that I would not repeat my offense that admin could freely unblock me; if I was clearly doing it for the specific purpose of trolling, and had demonstrated my lack of interest in building the encyclopedia, my limited IBAN might by upgraded to a site-ban. I hope this clearly demonstrates for you the difference between a block and a ban. |
|||
:::::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{tq|If the user is a sock-puppet then they don't understand consensus,}} Ender, you are stating the obvious here. I'm not faulting you at all, just pointing out that you are so on point with this that I think you might be missing the point. An editor who doesn't understand consensus is an editor we '''don't''' want working on the project. I'm not faulting you for the welcome, either. I believe it was made in good faith. But I do notice that you seem to constantly imply that blocked editors are 'victims' and the truth is that the vast majority are victims of their own choices. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 15:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|MjolnirPants}} I agree, which is why consensus should be shared with such users. A block is simply trying to catch mice with a raccoon trap, or trying to keep a goat in with a buffalo fence (widely spaced wires small animal). It doesn't make any real sense at all even if it does seem appropriate to some. If the user is a "puppet master" we already know they know how to get around bans, banning the account only makes it more difficult to track the user. In this case the ban of the account is basically just a very mild suggestion to the user that they leave. They likely have at least a dozen other accounts, it's just completely illogical IMO. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::The logical conclusion of the argument you just presented is to entirely stop enforcing policies against sockpuppets. Which is nonsensical, as the reason people sock is that it works (in arguments; not in general as I'll get to in a second), and socking is damaging to the project. Also, you're assuming that a determined enough sock master is capable of pushing their POV or whatever else they've set out to do, over time. They're not. [[WP:LTA]] is a list of editors who use socking to evade blocks and get caught. [[WP:checkuser]]s are editors who can actually pull detailed technical information about a connection to determine the likelihood of two or more accounts being socks. WP automatically blocks connections from proxy servers, and a look through the history of [[WP:ANI]] will show that editors who happen to have an internet connection with a widely variant dynamic IP (the editors most difficult to enforce a block against) are generally spotted whenever they make a disruptive edit within seconds and reverted. And again: do you '''really''' want to edit an encyclopedia where people aren't held to a certain minimum standard of behavior? I sure don't. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{yo|MjolnirPants}} That is a list of SOCK editors that got caught. There are many who have not. I have interacted with a few of them (who have admitted to being socks). Additionally, that list only shows certain aspects of their behavior once listed these aspects can be easily avoided. There are also editors that edit solely using a dynamic IP, these can not be blocked and are very difficult to track. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*I agree with {{u|MjolnirPants}} and disagree with Endercase's strange position about socks. I explained it here: [[User_talk:Endercase/mentor-garden#Policy_discussions]]. I'm not planning on repeating myself, as I felt I was getting nowhere trying to explain to him the various problems with his position. {{pb}} Also, I agree the welcoming was [[WP:AGF]], especially given Endercase's strange belief about socks. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 17:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{yo|MjolnirPants|David Tornheim}} I'm not saying that they shouldn't be held to same standards as everyone else I just think that engaging experienced socks in discussion about their actions is better than just blocking accounts whenever they are noticed. Obviously, the "best/worst" socks just follow the rules and don't get caught while pushing POV or creating paid pages. I a willing to bet my account that there are quite a few socks that are now Admin. After reviewing the first edits of quite a few admin and comparing them to known socks I am very certain that this is the case. An "ideal" sock account is never caught nor does it use a dynamic IP. Though this does increase cost they would use identity specific VPN's to use the same IP's/fonts/cookies/apparent browser/other throughout the account's history to minimize evidence of socking. There are several "identity management" softwares that would automatically do this for you and help you keep personal stories and previous interactions straight. Likely some software has been created just for Wikipedia that would automate certain types of simplistic edits (vandalism reversion, Prod or afd of articles with no sources etc, remove sources from a premade list), so that individuals working for powerful entities can push POV while seeming to be constructive. The more complex the sock the less likely it is to be caught. A sock is simply a separate ("misleading") identity while the "Master" likely has other accounts. Quite frankly this sock could have been intended to be caught simply to mislead admin into thinking they were actually having an effect or to extort more money from the entity that paid them to create the articles in the first place(as has been noted in the past). There can be nothing truly known when it comes to socks as their entire purpose is to mislead. Blocking known persistent Socks is as ineffectual as giving North Korea billions of dollars in exchange for a promise to not make nuclear arms. Active monitoring (until a full list of socks is made) or even shadowbanning such accounts would be far more effective. The only thing one gets is at best the removal of one account and maybe a temporary stop to the problem. All in all engaging the user in discussion and discovering their motivations is the best (if time consuming) method. If you think the community should be really sock hunting then we should start requiring more "are you human" checks, not blocking pseudo-random accounts. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tq|I just think that engaging experienced socks in discussion about their actions is better than just blocking accounts whenever they are noticed.}} The problem with that is that the vast majority of sockmasters are either blatant POV pushers or trolls. Neither group is amenable to civil discourse, and will continue their behavior no matter what is said to them. Listen, I know this doesn't make much sense, but as one aspie to a (self-diagnosed, but still) other: I am speaking from experience here. It's utterly mind boggling that a person could look at clear evidence that they're not engaging productively and still not even consider that they might have done something wrong, but it's just the way it is. Hell, just the other day I witnesses an otherwise good editor post a porn image (linked from a porn website) on another user's talk page ''while berating them for using the word "boobies"'''. As if that weren't enough, when I pointed out that that was hypocritical; ''they claimed the image was a medical image from wikipedia.'' The vast majority of people regularly do utterly irrational things, it's just a fact. And a large number of people are almost entirely irrational. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 18:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{yo|MjolnirPants}}Discourse should always be attempted in a good faith manner prior to a ban longer than a ~week where the user not actively harassing (stalking or abusive posting) other users or engaging in obvious and malignant edit-warring IMO. I am a hardliner on this, even if the editor is assumed to be paid. |
|||
::::::As to the editor that posted inappropriate unrelated images on another user's page, sounds bit like harassment to me. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{tq|Discourse should always be attempted in a good faith manner prior to a ban}} See, now you're missing the obvious: a block for socking means the editor has previously been blocked for either socking or something else, meaning discussion has already taken place. |
|||
:::::::{{tq|As to the editor that posted inappropriate unrelated images on another user's page, sounds bit like harassment to me.}} No, their actual reasons for posting that image were perfectly appropriate (academic, even) and quite irrelevant to my point. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{yo|MjolnirPants}} That is true when the account in question is connected to previous accounts but in this case it was blocked per [[wp:duck]] with only circumstantial evidence. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 20:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::See [[WP:LAWYER|Wikilawyering]] because that's what you're doing here. People don't get off on technicalities. Also, [[WP:DUCK]] exists for a reason. You should read [[circumstantial evidence]], because when you say "only circumstantial evidence" you're conflating that term with "weak evidence", and they are very much not the same. For example, DNA evidence is circumstantial. Fingerprints are circumstantial. Meanwhile, a crackhead "witness" who tells the cops he saw the whole thing in exchange for twenty bucks and a ride to a crackhouse has provided direct evidence. Regardless, even if you were absolutely right, that wouldn't refute my point. Once again, WP is run on editor's judgements, not by strictly following a proscribed set of rules. In the judgements of those who participated in the ANI case and who interacted with this editor elsewhere, they were a sock. Since that judgement was near-unanimous, and since only one newer editor bothered to refute it... Well, you should be able to see where I'm going here. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 21:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::You make valid points, the account was <b>likely</b> a sock though clean start also explains the behavior as pointed out at the AN/I (though, not the lack of defence). The issue with circumstantial evidence (CE) is that it only adds to a pre-built case, in this case, CE is the entire case. No DA acting in good faith would prosecute solely on a small amount of CE (the user has knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia), admin should be held to similar standards IMO. Often peers will not defend each other here for fear of being dragged into the whole mess themselves (a valid fear IMO). [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Just remember that making a clean start is only acceptable for editors in good standing. |
|||
::::::::::{{tq|No DA acting in good faith would prosecute solely on a small amount of CE}} Oh, you'd be surprised. I personally know a guy who stood court martial for battery charges based entirely on the fact that the JAGs found his fingerprints on a bottle that had been used to hit the victim. He was acquitted, but only ''after'' a witness came forward. As to the qualities of the circumstantial evidence in this case, ask yourself how well ''you'' know WP policy, and you've been here for months, with multiple experienced editors trying to help you grasp it. |
|||
::::::::::{{tq|Often peers will not defend each other here for fear of being dragged into the whole mess themselves (a valid fear IMO)}} Wrong, and right. Wikipedians tend to be outspoken. Only once in my entire tenure here has someone expressed any sympathy for me, while refusing to engage. I was involved in an Arbcom case a while back in which a dozen or more editors who'd never even interacted with me jumped to my defense against an admin engaging in harassing behavior against me, simply because they thought he was wrong. But you are correct about it being a valid fear. I've seen admins block editors who were never named in an ANI complaint because the admin in question found something blockable that editor had recently done while looking into it. While it makes for a rather shitty principle in actual law enforcement, the old idiom "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" is very applicable here. WP has a purpose which is external to any and all editors, and anyone who's not focused on that simply doesn't belong. Our behavioral guidelines aren't intended to be fair or just, ''and they shouldn't be''. Our behavioral guidelines are intended to eliminate problems, regardless of the fairness or unfairness of that, and regardless of the offense or sense of injustice it may instill in anyone. I think that's where you keep going wrong in behavioral issues: You think we should do everything we can to be fair and just. But we really shouldn't, because we're not society at large, we're an encyclopedia. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 00:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} {{yo|MjolnirPants}} Military courts have different burdens of proof, are we closer to that? I think this encyclopedia is a society, things don't have to be fair or just but they should benefit the encyclopedia. We do need a better solution to Socks, maybe emoji recognition (South Park reff). Anyway, thank you for the discussion, I will temper my defence of peers I feel have not been given a fair shake and try preventive measures instead (as I am doing with BulbAtop (who has odd contribs)). [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 18:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|Military courts have different burdens of proof, are we closer to that?}} No, actually it doesn't. US service members are citizen soldiers and have all the same constitutional protections, except where those protections would interfere with national defense and the cohesiveness of the US armed forces. In total, soldiers actually have '''more''' rights than normal citizens, including broader protections in terms of a right to legal counsel and rights during questioning by law enforcement, though there is a difference in character. For example, as a private citizen, you absolutely have the right to refuse to perform any public service requested* of you by the government. As a soldier, you would not have that right, even if the service would almost certainly result in your death. If you're curious, you can read more about that [http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/rights_of_military_mbrs.pdf here]. The burden of proof in a criminal trial and a court martial is the same: The accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|||
:<nowiki>*</nowiki><small><small>This does not apply to circumstances in which the government is statutorily permitted to ''order'' you to perform some service, such as court orders, except where such service is very likely to result in harm or death. But there's an exception that that exception, too. Namely, the draft. </small></small> |
|||
:However, we do have a different standard here. It's essentially the same standard which is used in civil law: guilt or innocence is decided by the side with the preponderance of evidence. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{yo|MjolnirPants}} I think we may have gotten a bit off track. I do not think that "a block for socking means the editor has previously been blocked for either socking or something else, meaning discussion has already taken place." I think the only thing a block for socking only means is that some Admin thought they were socking (or hit the wrong button). Many blocks that I have witnessed did not provide discussion and in some cases cited policies that did not even apply in that case. This may be due the the problems with RfA that Jimbo has mentioned. I think we may be at a turning point for that though. In the future I think more Admin will have to understand why policy says what it does not just what it says. This was seen at the most recent RfA. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User talk:N I H I L I S T I C]] == |
|||
* '''striking one's own post''': You can strike your old post using <nowiki><s>striken</s></nowiki> which comes out as <s>stricken</s>. I have seen that when people have changed their mind about what they wrote. Given some of the things said at AN/I regarding sourcing, you would likely be seen as learning if you struck thing you had previously wrote that you now feel were in error. |
|||
If you revert again or otherwise comment at this account's Talk page, I will block you for your disruption and your disruptive attitude.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* '''striking someone else's post''' I would advise against striking other editors' posts. I don't think I have ever done it. I have seen it on [[WP:RfC]]'s where it was claimed that the person was canvassed, a [[WP:sockpuppet]], topic-banned editor, etc. In fact, sometimes they not only strike the comment but entirely remove it from the discussion--especially if it really nasty. If someone else removes or strikes a comment you make, politely ask what grounds they had to do so. |
|||
:{{Yo|Bbb23}} You violated explicit policy by removing my comment without proving a policy based reason. If you take punitive action in this case I suspect your adminship may be removed. What was given may be taken away. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Much more likely that any ANI thread would result in further sanctions for you. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I have to agree with the sentiment, though I'm hoping you won't end up blocked over it. Your comments there were prolonging an argument that should have been long over, and your continued discussion with the editor is not going to accomplish anything except convincing both of you even more that you're right. It's become a classic [[Echo chamber (media)|echo chamber]]. |
|||
::Also, there are a number of policies Bbb23 could cite, from [[WP:NOTHERE]] to [[WP:NOTSOCIAL]] to the [[WP:DISRUPT|sheer disruption of encouraging a blocked editor]]. Remember, [[WP:IAR|our rules are not legalistic]] and admins are expected to use their best judgement. If, in Bbb23's judgement, you need to be blocked, the worst that will happen if the community disagrees is that another admin will unblock and Bbb23 will acknowledge that is was a bad block. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 15:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Yo|MjolnirPants}} Have you reviewed their action in this case? I am allowed per policy to voice my disagreement with administrative actions. Admin, per policy, are required to answer questions relating to their Admin Actions. The admin in question instead reverted said disagreement even after I cited [[Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages]] (which IMO clearly says that my comment should not be removed), without citing policy even after I specifically requested they provide reasoning [[User talk:N I H I L I S T I C]]. I wonder what Jimbo or Bish would think about all this (other than: "all of us should be editing articles"). [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I can't speak for either Jimbo or Bish, but personally, I find that your editing at the blocked sock's talk page has been disruptive for some time. Do not return there. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{yo|DoRD}} Could you explain how you found it "disruptive"? It did not harm the encyclopedia as far as I am aware nor did it violate any policy (as were were discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia) [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Has it happened to any of your posts? You can ask me about it if it happens in the future. |
|||
::::::Okay, off the top of my head there are [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:POINT]], and after consulting [[WP:DE]], I see that [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS]] #5 applies. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Endercase, I don't think anyone is saying you can't voice your disagreement with administrative actions. That talk page is not the place to discuss your disagreement. You should discuss it directly with the admin on their talk page. If that does not satisfy your concerns then at a Noticeboard. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 15:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{yo|GB fan}} Actually, my changes to Bbb23's talk page were reverted. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=778167394 diff]] [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That wan't an attempt to discuss your concerns. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 15:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{yo|GB fan}} Yes it was, I thought they were violating explicit policy as such I used the normal methods of letting them know. I would have loved to engage in discussion about that. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Leaving a templated warning message is not an attempt to discuss anything. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{yo|GB fan}} Then why do Admin use them so often? They must be an effective method of communication. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::There is a difference between effective communication to inform someone of something and effective communication to discuss something with someone. The template message you left may be an effective communication to tell Bbb23 that you reverted and a general reason (disruptive) but it wasn't effective in communicating your exact concern or your willingness to discuss your concerns. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have, indeed reviewed the case. That editor was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, a violation that was confirmed with technical information. A Checkuser block is very different from, and much more reliable than a [[WP:DUCK]] block. When asked what other accounts this editor was using, they responded that answering that question would result in consequences they did not wish to face. This is another way of admitting to having even more sockpuppets that they don't want blocked. |
|||
::::Furthermore, their argument presupposes that they were a productive editor, while a quick look at their talk page shows that a good number of their contributions were not productive. In fact, the first edit to their talk page was a notification that they'd created an attack page. Your own argument boils down to "we can't stamp out sockpuppetry, so we shouldn't do anything about it." I understand that you may believe that everyone can be reasoned with, but I will tell you from experience that you are wrong. Especially on the internet. If you have a proposal for how to deal with sockpuppets, I would suggest you outline it on your talk page or in your sandbox and invite a few editors with whom you have a good rapport to comment on it. If they agree that it's a good proposal, you can then make an RfC out of it and get input from the wider community. But arguing your case at the talk page of a blocked user isn't helping. It's actively hurting your reputation here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 15:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== May 2017 == |
|||
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> |
|||
To prevent further disruption by your attempts at "discussion". --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Striking someone else's post is out of the question. Sometimes when an experienced editor sees [[WP:DENY|obvious trolling]], [[WP:RPA|clear personal attakcs]] and the like, they will ''blank'' the posts in question, but that is not a decision new editors should be making regarding comments by long-term contributors. Striking, however, is normally for when you retract something you previously said. Doing it to someone else's comment implies to those who don't check the history that the user struck their own comment, and is very misleading. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Yo|NeilN}} Please cite the specific portion of the [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]] policy to which you refer. There is nothing there that I can see that applies in this case. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Remainder of your post == |
|||
:::{{Yo|NeilN}}Especially when reviewing [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption]] where the types of Disruption that are usually cited for blocks it laid out. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ender, you are standing in a hole, and the first rule of holes is that once you find yourself in one, stop digging. Please stop. Just wait this out. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 15:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::You think putting warning templates on talk pages is "discussion". It's not. Your attempts at "discussion" are disruptive. You are, of course, free to appeal this block. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
My most recent attempt at communication via template with an admin was ineffective. I know know that templating the regulars may result in a block (once unblocked I will leave a note at the relevant essay (or make a list) that specific regulars may not be templated without consequences (anyone may sign that (list?))). I will work on conveying my ideas about socks and COI into an essay or addendum to current policy, such that I can effectively communicate my views on the issue. To be clear I do think that socks should be regulated or blocked or banned in an effective preventive manner. |
|||
It should now be obvious to all parties involved that templates are not effective communication or discussion starting tools. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Your second sentence is completely missing the point. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Your plans for when this block expire are likely to lead to another block. You should stay completely away from these subjects and focus on improving the encyclopedia content. Your record since you started editing here demonstrates that you do not have the knowledge or judgment in matters of policy or administrative matters. I haven't reviewed the few edits you've made to main space. Hopefully, your skills there are better. --[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Bbb23}} They are. And your advice has been given, almost word for word, before. It's good advice, and me and others who are somewhat fond of Ender are all praying he will take it. |
|||
::{{ping|Endercase}}Templates are, as was pointed out above, to ''inform''. When dealing with an experienced editor, the presumption is that they already know whatever information is contained within the template. Hence the essay [[WP:DTR|Don't template the regulars]]. When one templates an admin for a disruptive edit, that doesn't, in any way, come across as an attempt to inform, but an attempt to berate. The clear implication of every such template is "I know better than you, and this is what you did wrong." When a new editor is templated by an experienced editor, that's an acceptable implication. It's generally true, and it conveys valuable information. Not so when a comparatively new editor templates an admin. So I suggest that you take from this that ''your manner of communicating'' is what needs work. We all understand that you intended to start a discussion. But you did so in a manner that was insulting and disruptive. The most important advice I can give you (you personally, not just anyone) is as follows: Take it for granted that the admins know what they're doing, and know better than you, unless and until proven otherwise. There are bad admins, and admins have had their mops taken away. But the vast majority of admins are good ones, even when they disagree with you. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let me be clearer. '''Adding a template is not discussion.''' Just like edit summaries are not discussion. It does not matter who you template. If you think templating a newbie is a valid way to start a discussion then you're going to be quickly disabused of that idea. Templates are used to ''inform'' editors of policies and guidelines and some will warn of the consequences of not following policies and guidelines. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{yo|NeilN}} You know that using a software defined ban (block) is a template right? [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ender, actually there's this thing called "[[jargon]]" which gets used here, just like everywhere else. What that means is that a template is actually [[HELP:Template|...a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages.]] Also, this block isn't a part of a discussion. It was to prevent you from causing disruption. Please let it work. Arguing with the admins over the proper way to handle socks to the point of disruption, then arguing with them over how to handle you is a ''really'' ineffective way to do anything except fill out your block log. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 19:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{Yo|MjolnirPants}} You make a great point: their behavior is not in question here, mine is. Do you also believe that I should not talk to socks ever? I personally feel this is a case of "untouchables". The learned Gandhi had a lot to add to consensus about that. Maybe I should write an essay with that bend. Apparently, a good number of admin and check users consider my interactions with a sock in and of themselves disruptive. I consider those interactions as part of the motivation behind this block, though that has not been explicitly stated. I wonder if they would also consider writing an essay that quotes Gandhi disruptive. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::As far as I'm concerned, if a sock's talk page access has not been revoked, and you want to converse with them at their talk page, that's fine ''in and of itself'' (it can still cause disruption if you're encouraging them to continue socking or endlessly complaining about the block, and that's not cool). Think of WP as a business with you as an employee. WP can 'fire' you at any time, if you break any one of the arbitrary rules. The good news is that WP has some pretty common sense rules that all boil down to two things: Add accurate, verifiable information to the project and don't cause a disruption. Remember that we're here to 'make money' (read: make good articles), not to socialize or advocate or reform. You've been doing some article work, which is good, but you're still pushing to try to "fix the system" which is not so good. WP had over a decade to figure out how to run itself before you came along. The notion that you're going to upset the system and make a more perfect one without a decade of experience yourself is a little arrogant, don't you think? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ender, yes that is a template. In this case it is the appropriate form of communication. This wasn't about trying to discuss your block with you it was about informing you of the block. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
The sheer ''idiocy'' of comparing sockmasters to a class of people historically discriminated against leaves me breathless. {{ping|GB fan|Bbb23|DoRD}} I will be recusing myself from taking any future admin actions with regards to this editor. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{tq|I believe that taking on stealth banning as my first real article improvement campaign was a bit ambitious as it is an under-documented phenomena (see my list of questionable sources on the talk page).}} |
|||
*{{ec}} Endercase, your comments are not constructive. You're rehashing your contention that you're entitled to disruptively comment on sock Talk pages. I've therefore revoked your access to this page. See [[WP:UTRS]] for appeals.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 20:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|18181|May 02, 2017 23:01:38|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{Yo|NeilN|Bbb23|Just Chilling}} I would like to continue discussion on the above topics until I have a full understanding. But, I fear doing so would be deemed disruptive. May I archive these two discussions to help remove the temptation? [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 00:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know choosing that was necessarily a problem (I' don't know the subject matter). I think the bigger concern was the choice of sources. I think you stuck to your guns too much in this discussion: [[Talk:Stealth_banning#revert]]. Editors said Breitbart is no good, but you didn't back down. That's the issue of the AN/I. |
|||
:As far as I'm concerned, sure.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|David Tornheim}} I didn't back down because they hadn't even read the article in question, they appear to have just assumed that particular article was bad, their reference to that consensus is irrelevant as RS/N can only make determinations in context (as far as I understand) and not generally. They didn't even mention the author which I knew they would have also had a problem with had they even once clicked the link (Milo). Additionally, they removed 'shadow banning effects right leaning sources disproportionately' without leaving a citation need tag after they removed my source. Even after I provided other sources ( on the talk page that included that same information. There is tons of evidence on this particular bit of information, just very few write-ups by other major media sources. That's how I "knew" they were politically and not encyclopedically motivated. I definitely don't identify with the right, yet because of my seeming defense of the right, my argument for using the source on the talk page and the addition of information that makes it look like the right has been mistreated in some locations on the internet. People made assumptions, I really don't like assumptions in general. They assumed that my list request was just one meant to foul up the system, they assumed that me calling them out on making bans without first having a general discussion on bans was aggression and not legitimate, they assumed I was avoiding talking about the source I used was some sort of trick to allow me to use the source and not because I fundamentally agreed with them about that source. I really didn't care very much about the source or the information, I cared about the way it was removed. I didn't back down because they were not following protocol as I understood it and thus were irrelevant. They found someone who was trying to build the article and make an article relevant, that included factual information they apparently didn't want known, and they tried to silence me by attacking my character and not my arguments, treated Wikipedia like a battleground instead of like a community, assumed I was troll and treated me like a sub-human whose POV didn't matter (hence the attacks on my character), fallaciously closed one of my discussions citing a rule that didn't apply without any explanation on how they thought it applied. I cited chilling effects multiple times for good reason, one of the editors in question actually appears to regularly get people to quit Wikipedia (if their talk page is any indication) by acting extremely authoritarian. What should I have done in response to this? I felt as if I was required to stand my ground. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Endercase}} Please note that when I said you had not backed down and that was a problem, I was just referring to the discussion [[Talk:Stealth_banning#revert]]. I will make a new subsection to comment on your responses and other editor's responses to help you understand why I think you pushed too hard (Please be patient; I will ping you when that is done). |
|||
::Regarding the rest of what happened, I'd say you'll have to get used to what you call #Chilling Effects. Experienced editors often get away with treating others--especially new--editors unfairly or badly, and complaining about it can make things worse because of [[WP:Boomerang]]. I hope you take a look at my writing about this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#New_Editors_who_cite_to_BOLD_.2B_IGNORE_all_the_rules_-.3E_entrapment.3F here]. I don't think we prepare new editors for what happens when they break explicit and implicit rules. I don't think you knew you'd be treated the way you were and be taken to AN/I, but I knew that was going to happen. I think if you knew you would have used more precaution and not advocated "bold", etc. Many of the things you did were breaking various implicit and explicit rules and unfortunately, you might think [[WP:Bold]] is a defense, but as you can see now, it isn't. And please remember, many rules contradict each other. You need to learn which rules are held in highest esteem. It takes time. Working on less controversial articles and articles you don't feel invested in will help you learn that. It will also show others that you are here to help build the encyclopedia, rather than continue to have the appearance of advancing a particular ideology or defending certain sources. Doing this other work is held in high esteem. Take a look at [[WP:backlog]]. Maybe there is something there that interests you that you could work on without it having anything to do with right-wing politics. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) |
|||
{{tq|I'm not really sure what to say at the AN/I, I'm trying to avoid saying something else there that may be considered disruptive.}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
I gave you advice on that already. Still the same. |
|||
[[/mentor-garden]] |
|||
{{tq|Also, an explanation for why we use the term delete as opposed to hide would be extremely helpful.}} |
|||
==Advice and warning== |
|||
Can you show me what you are talking about? |
|||
I've been looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive949#Endercase this WP:ANI discussion], which was closed as recently as 20 March. You were quite strongly criticized by experienced editors and admins there, and a topic ban from [[WP:RSN]] gained considerable support. It looks like you escaped sanctions for two reasons: 1) because the idea of mentoring was broached, and you yourself appeared to accept mentoring by the two people who offered, though the way it would work was left a little vague both by you and the closer of the thread,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=771257739] and 2) because you seemed at least somewhat ready to accept responsibility for the disruption you had caused. |
|||
:Nothing is ever "deleted" here, it is archived, kept in history, and or at best hidden from the public. Deletion would require complete removal from the hard-drives. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
After the ANI thread was closed, I looked to see how you were doing, alerted by a post on [[User talk:MjolnirPants]], which I watch. I was a little taken aback to note your passive-aggressive and condescending comment about Hijiri88 — one of your mentors at that time, no less — on Vfrickey's talkpage, in a fake 'defence' of them against Vfrickey's lengthy wikilawyering: "''..I do not feel like Hijiri 88 is beyond help in these matters. If you (=Vfrickey) are able to convince them that their specific actions were harmful to the encyclopedia I am certain that they would change their behavior moving forward''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vfrickey&diff=prev&oldid=772314132] followed the next day by an actual attack on the same page: "''You have a history of edit warring and demeaning behavior. In addition, you are also a rampant POV pusher and constantly and consistently fail to observe good faith. .. While I do appreciate you and your efforts to make me a better editor, you are kinda a [[wp:dick]]..''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vfrickey&diff=prev&oldid=772401389] |
|||
::{{ping|Endercase}} I see what you mean. It's deleted from the visible page. I see it like editing a book. You make a draft and then decide to delete a sentence before publishing, but you keep a copy of the draft on your computer. In published "official" copy the sentence is "deleted", even if you publish the draft later. Hidden is more like the "collapse" thing, where it is more or less part of the "official" record, but you have to hit a button to "unhide" it. I hope that helps. |
|||
Having noticed these highly personal comments and others, such as an utterly irrelevant attack on Guy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Endercase&diff=prev&oldid=772471642 here], followed by MjolnirPants's reply that Guy has tons of experience and is widely respected, then followed by egregious [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyering]] by you: "So you are saying they are experts in Wikipedia (more than equals?)? I thought that was a violation of policy." Have you noticed how conversation stops when you go into that mode..? Believe me, it's not because the other person has been convinced. |
|||
::Wait, do you just mean delete as in articles of deletion [[WP:AfD]]? I do agree with you that the archives keep a record of virtually everything. However, as you observed articles (and their history) that are deleted in such a way that ordinary users have no ability to see them or access them. I can see what you mean by how their history is "hidden". I honestly don't know much about what exactly happens to "deleted" articles. You may know more than I. The one thing that is true about the deleted articles is that they won't come up on Google--that might be part of the goal. If you find an answer to why the history is no longer accessible to ordinary users, I would like to know what you find. I actually did not know that articles were delete this way until recently. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I considered blocking you, specifically for talking in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vfrickey&diff=prev&oldid=772401389 this way] to somebody who had spent time trying to help you, but I think you may not realize how your manner affects others. Therefore I'll give you some advice instead: 1) please don't comment on other people ''at all'' (because I really don't think you have much sense for how it affects them, perhaps even when you're trying to be nice) and 2) please try to read policies for their spirit, not for finding policy fragments that prove how right you are. People will soon get tired of trying to explain things to you, simply because you make so many insensitive comments about other people, and you cherry-pick so many policies in defence of yourself. Both these approaches are fundamentally wrong. Put your listening ears on instead. If you don't, you'll end up blocked. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC). |
|||
{{tq|Maybe we should move this all to my talk page under the heading "mentorship" as I don't want to take up valuable space on yours.}} |
|||
:Adding: I just noticed that you changed the post I particularly objected to while I was writing up the above[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vfrickey&diff=prev&oldid=772495418] (writing it rather slowly, as I do, and with RL interruptions). I'm very glad to see you did. Those changes show good sense, even if they took you 15 hours. Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking "save". [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC). |
|||
Thanks. Yes. I'll do it soon. |
|||
::{{u|Bishonen}} TL;DR:I'm weird and I apologize when I cause harm. I do things for reasons though. Even if those reasons need lots of work. |
|||
:{{done}} with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Endercase&diff=prev&oldid=770078300 this]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I accept any punitive actions supported by Bishonen or Hijiri88(who I had already given permission to, to remove any and all of my posts), or my other uninvolved (in this case) mentors, or by public consensus. |
|||
:::Thank you, you are a very well respected admin, I have have seen the loyalty you inspire in others. Guy gets under my skin to be honest, though I probably also get under theirs (particularly when I fixed that AGF link on their talk page). |
|||
==Discussion at Stealth Banning== |
|||
:::"Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking 'save'." this is something that I am working on, I have been getting better in that regard if you believe that. It is just difficult to balance respectfulness and pure honesty about my feelings. I would like your take on expression in regards to consensus, I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings. This leads to ignoring peers even when they are being problematic which in turn leads to peers being banned. I don't want to contribute to that cycle, I would much rather speak my mind and if I can help them be aware of how they come across. It is a fine balance though, one I have nowhere near mastered. |
|||
:::[[WP:LAWYER]] is another difficult point, I believe in the fundamentals, I don't mean to do any damage to the encyclopedia. This type of behavior is meant to gain a personal greater understanding of policy not to prove a point. I am not being sarcastic when I make these types of comments. These are legitimate questions, often questions that have been left unanswered by shared public consensus. I am trying very hard to understand this society. I also refrained from making direct comments at my AN/I, which may be worth noting. |
|||
:::Consensus is a difficult term for me, as it at once is meant to mean the most logical position while also somehow the majority opinion. I find that often these are not one in the same and some modification could be made. In order to do that some disruption is necessary, else you get a particular type of stagnation that leads to cascade failure of power structures. That sort of failure leads to dark ages, I would like to avoid that (though my personal input would never really change anything by myself). |
|||
:::I find it odd that peers don't often take issue with my questions or arguments in and of themselves, but with my audacity. That is something I don't know how to change, I speak my mind. Should I not speak my mind? |
|||
:::It did take me longer than it should to change that post, I agree. If you would like to ban me for that, I believe that would be in order and supported by consensus. In addition, I still left the post in a state where I am criticizing my mentor, which is not my place. But, I do not believe in dishonesty, even when the expression of my ideas may harm me. Ideas and views should be proportionally and honestly expressed. No editor is perfect nor should any editor be above reproach. Criticism is how things improve. Stagnation is death to online communities, and to many individuals. Though I understand I come across as abrupt often I am also very patient (despite my impression). I am OK with incremental changes, 2 steps forward 3 steps back. I just want people to know that the average when taken in sum will always be forward (across a large enough time frame). We may not know what the near future holds, I could die tomorrow, I would rather be honest today. |
|||
:::To be clear I am extremely grateful to my mentors, their guidance has been honestly expressed and done without malice. I am a very difficult student, I understand that, if they are successful in their mission they are in my opinion more than worthy of being admin. if they can handle me they can handle just about anyone. But I will logically criticize those who criticize me, if you can't handle it then you should get out of kitchen as the saying goes. Something about glass houses and those without sin. The vast majority of the peers I encounter want to help the encyclopedia, without fair criticism those same peers will end up in a AN/I and banned over enough time. Criticism is an important part of the consensus possess, even if I was personally out of place and should be punished for my sins. |
|||
:::Based on the loyalty that others have shone they have for you I would accept your judgement without personal criticism. I would like that you also consult with Hijiri88 on this as they are the injured party, I would also accept any position they currently take, an eye for an eye and all that. They may take up to one pound of flesh. Though I would prefer not to die for my comments, I would accept that fate should the injured party so choose. Though that might be because I have a pretty high confidence that they won't go the pound of flesh route. I do also like life quite a bit and my sub-conscious may take over at that point and defend myself, but I would cooperate to the best of my ability. I know no-one is asking for that amount of cooperation but that is how far I would go to make things right. I might not take back my feelings (my first wording was harsher than I truly feel), but I would go though hell to make things equal. |
|||
::: I believe in this project and if you feel the project is better off without me than so be it. I am not a one-man army here to change the way things are done, I do however want the participate in consensus, hence my questioning and challenging behavior. I feel like my mind does work differently than most peers', and as such my particular POV is often not seen. It is not necessary for the project though, eventually another like me will add their POV (like mine) as some tiny footnote in history. |
|||
::::Wow, this has gotten really long. I'm sorry, there is just a lot of data to convey. The TL;DR at the top does summarize it pretty well though. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* Everything Bishonen said above is good advice. Listen. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:David Tornheim|David]], you should have given the same advice when I asked you to yesterday. What you did was post a string of attacks on my talk page, which almost certainly made the problem worse. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I visited this page to see how the subpage issue I mentioned above is going. The section is [[#Argument from authority/New introduction]] but that link will not work until the collapsed box under [[#Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could]] is expanded. As a side note, wishing blocked users could post here is inappropriate as it tells the community that core procedures involving disruptive users are invalid. The issue I raised (about a [[Argument from authority/New introduction|draft in article space]]) is trivial, but the fact that even after the discussion, Endercase could still not comprehend what [[WP:Subpages#Allowed uses]] says ([[Special:Diff/772169063|diff]] mentions "Allowed uses" #8, but that allows subpages under <u>talk</u>). The advice I gave (to copy the content to talk) was valid since no one else had edited it at the time. I don't care about the subpage, but I am concerned about the lack of understanding and the desire to look for snippets that might permit the page (see "please try to read policies for their spirit" from Bishonen above). However, one issue about leaving the subpage is that now that another editor has joined in, the future of the page becomes problematic. A solution would be to move it to [[User:Endercase/sandbox]] where anyone can continue editing (lowercase "s" is correct). The beauty of that is that in the future the sandbox can be reused for unrelated purposes and no clean up would be needed. An inferior solution would be to move the page to [[Talk:Argument from authority/Temp]] where it could languish when unwanted. Using "Temp" as the name would be better as the page might be used for other temporary purposes in the future (or use "Draft"). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{yo|Johnuniq}} I've already given you full permission to move the article, If you think it is a problem then move it. That is my understanding of consensus. My reading of the rules only strongly suggests that is should be moved, primarily, it states, to avoid a permanent residence. The article(temporary sub-page) will be moved whenever someone moves it. There will be no opposition to the move. I have already asked for consensus for a move on the talk page, I will move it after that discussion (and more reading about the process). There is no real problem with the page, unless you think there is, I have read very little about harms to the encyclopedia in such a case. You are the only editor that has expressed strong opinions about the move, as such I invite you, once again, to move it. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 06:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::As mentioned, the issue is not so much the page. The difficulty is that you have again avoided an opportunity to acknowledge what the guidelines say about subpages. More than that, the "My reading of the rules only strongly suggests" comment dodges and weaves around the fact that the guideline is crystal clear—no subpages in article space. Fixing the page later is fine by me, but why the wikilawyering? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{yo|Johnuniq}} Why not debate policy, I thought that was how consensus works. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'll leave it up to your mentors to explain where proposals to change policy or guideline pages should be debated. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{yo|Johnuniq}} Policy suggests that(the proper location for debate) is everywhere(talk pages) where someone disagrees. In addition, you came here pointing out my mistakes. Errors you had already pointed out. Then when I ask if there is really a problem with the page you back down, and say there is no real problem. Meaning your entire intent here is to try to make me look bad("wikilawyer"), you do not care about the page what-so ever or even about improving my behavior. This does appear to be NOTHERE(civil, hound, that sort of thing), much like you are accusing me of(wikilawyering for the sake of self interest). Something about a pot and a kettle is in order I think. Please don't notify me or my mentors about that page again, either fix it yourself or let it go. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Endercase, are we seriously still talking about this? ''Seriously?'' '''Everyone''' has been telling you to drop it. '''Go write articles.''' Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages. Now. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This is terribly ironic as I was just telling them the same thing. I need to write out wp:stick by hand a few hundred times. See y'all when I'm done, after I sleep and stuff. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 07:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} Endercase, in your long reply, you project a conviction that it's necessarily a virtue to 'speak your mind' and be frank at all times. No, it isn't. I see you constructing a theory that it's a good thing to tell people how they "come across" (to you), otherwise they're not going to improve and will end up at AN/I. But I think it's a flawed theory. "Honesty" is overrated when it comes to telling people what you think of them. I'm not asking you to be ''dis''honest, but there's nothing dishonest about keeping your mouth shut at the right times. Speech is for communication, it's not for expressing your feelings and never mind the cost or the result or the impression it makes on the other person. Telling people they're a dick and so on doesn't ''communicate'' or help anybody to improve, it only offends. I understand you find the Wikipedia culture in this regard overly reserved ("I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings"), and you want to improve that culture. ''You don't want to adjust to it''. Now I agree with what Hijiri says just above: "Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages," and I would add, stop trying to change the culture, be more open to adjusting to it. The typical somewhat cautious Wikipedia discourse, codified in policies like [[WP:CIV]], is unlikely to change because one person behaves in the opposite way and is devastatingly frank at all times, under the banner of "Should I not speak my mind?" Please instead follow my simple advice above and don't comment on other people ''at all'' — go edit articles. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 11:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC). |
|||
== °°^°° == |
|||
--START OF DISCUSSION-- |
|||
Thank you @Endercase!😀😀😃😄 |
|||
I reverted following the 1RR policy. See [[WP:PGBOLD]].[[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:My revert was countered by [[User:Trivialist]] without discussion. They were following the "Ban" and were not aware that it is being challenged. Hopefully, they will revert their changes and bring their POV here or elsewhere in the discussion. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''The revert was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stealth_banning&diff=next&oldid=767965227 this], reverting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stealth_banning&diff=prev&oldid=767965227]. As we have discussed, neither Breitbart nor InfoWars are considered [[WP:RS]], so it's no surprise the response you get next.''' |
|||
:: I was removing sources generally considered unreliable. Per [[WP:RS]]: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards. [[User:Trivialist|Trivialist]] ([[User talk:Trivialist|talk]]) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards." is POV and does not reference context. Please try again. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::'''This is where the trouble begins. The statement "Please try again" is needlessly confrontational.''' |
|||
::::::<u>I would add that you shouldn't refer to other users' talk page standards as "POV". Users are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong, and as long as they stay focused on content (in the case of article talk pages, specifically improving those articles) and don't violate [[WP:BLP|our policy regarding living people]], they are allowed express those opinions. [[WP:NPOV]] generally applies to article text, not talk page comments.</u> [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::As I said above, past RSN discussions demonstrate clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for statements of fact, and the idea of calling Infowars a reliable source is absurd. Please stop adding them to this article unless you can get consensus for their inclusion. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 21:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::'''When experienced editors talk like this, then stop arguing ASAP. Do your research. Find out if they are correct.''' |
|||
:::::::::<u>Agree.</u> [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You do not currently have the right to ban sources out of context. If you would like that right I suggest you try to change policy. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::'''Digging in your heels and saying you know what policy is when you are new is definitely not a good idea. Saying things like this might be why you were accused of not being a new user. Be more humble. If editors say you don't know what you are talking about, there's a good chance they are right.''' |
|||
::::::::::<u>Also, in case it hasn't already made clear: don't talk about "banning" sources. It doesn't help.</u> [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Are you suggesting that calling a source reliable or unreliable constitutes a violation of NPOV? [[User:Trivialist|Trivialist]] ([[User talk:Trivialist|talk]]) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Per [[WP:RSN]] "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Any consensus there must be made in context this likely stems from NPOV. [[User:Trivialist|Trivialist]] the consensus your refer to comes from [[WP:RSN]]. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 00:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::<u>{{tq|Any consensus there must be made in context this likely stems from NPOV}} doesn't make sense. Of course no source can be reliable for all claims in all contexts. This has nothing to do with NPOV. Breitbart is only theoretically reliable in certain very limited contexts, when it happens to agree with more reliable sources. This means that it can be cited for uncontroversial statements, but where possible should be replaced with a more reliable source. Some users, like me, are exceptionally obsessive and want citations for everything, even [[WP:BLUE|really obvious points that don't need sources]]. Such really obvious claims that don't need sources can be attributed to generally unreliable sources, but even there reliable sources are preferable. Using Breitbart for factual claims, when you can't find other sources, is problematic.</u> [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Still finding my way around and the tips were helpful. Thank you. [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
--END OF DISCUSSION-- |
|||
:{{yo|BulbAtop}} Ok, what the heck is °°^°°? I've seen it before. Is it like your personal symbol? Various searches don't show a thing, which is a little odd. I mean no hits? 0. Don't see that very often anymore. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh, sorry, it is indeed a personal symbol. It is used as a header for the appreciation. 😶😶 [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::So it is like your version of a barnstar?? What if I "steal"/copy/meme it? °°^°° [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::While we are on about it, what is with all the emogjie[sic] here?? Are you really on mobile? Or is that like a custom OS with a touch keyboard or something?? [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::BTW you RESEARCHED IT?? [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well yeah °°^°°, then I made a weird video where my mind was blown, never really thought about how much search engines leave out of the internet. I mean this even breaks Wikipedia's Search engine. None of the comments even show up. I guess it must be rare. How do you know when someone has used it? °°^°° You say on your page that you can use that like a ping. But it breaks the search engines... do you have a custom internet search? Like what the actually heck? And also I only mentioned coffee one on Wikipedia (I think: other than some IP edits I made when I first got here, maybe), did you read all of my messages? Like if I use this anywhere would you get a ping?? Like a custom social media all in one search? Is that even real? Anyway, I need sleep, still human. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 03:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yeah, sure. Do what you want with it...I don't mind! Just promise me a review, okay? Aaaand yes, I'm 101% mobile, hence the emojies (sick) [sic]. Maybe the °°^°° is, like, extraterrestrial, who knows? Looks cool to me. But I never would havc known that your research could have so much results though. What video? What's it about? Anyways, just feel free to use my sign, okay? And BTW do you know any programming? 😥 |
|||
::::::And I pity you for being human. [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Sorry, automatically switched to turning test mode. You are human. Or at least you have limited resources. Sorry. Be back later. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 04:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm not too sure about that. [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Assuming you are responding about being human. Well, sure, we could be in a simulation. Everything could be fake, but even if it is, we are still human. Human is whatever other human's identify it as, I have identified you as most probably human. Anyway, I've asked my question about how you knew about the coffee. You may email or use other communications if you wish. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 12:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Well, I meant BOTH being human and having limited resources. But what what other communications do you refer? [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::{{yo|BulbAtop}} What I mean is, I would understand if you feel like you can't talk freely here. I don't feel that way myself but, I would understand if you did. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::As a matter of fact, I DO feel that way. Wouldn't be long before we're being interminably banned, don't you think? [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC |
|||
:::::::::::::{{yo|BulbAtop}} As long as we are genuinely trying to help them I don't think they will permaban us. Though they may attempt to teach us a few manners. For instance you do not follow the typical reply format. This might anger some of them. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Okay, I see. Just what are these "reply formats"? I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so I just had to ask. {endercase@gmail.com} sounds good enough?😶😶 [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::{{yo|BulbAtop}} like this, looks better in desktop mode.[[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}{{yo|Endercase}} Oh okay.....but you didn't answer the question though. [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 04:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know what you mean by that. That is my email. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay then good enough.😃 I'll email you. [[User:BulbAtop|BulbAtop]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
...Guessing I got lost in junk mail lol? [[User:BulbAtop|BlbAtp]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 07:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Endercase}} See above comments in '''bold'''. What you could have done instead if you truly believed the two sources were sufficient is to take the entire statement and sources to [[WP:RS/N]] and ask there. And then accept the answer, which would have very likely have been no. Instead, when you got to [[WP:RS/N]] you started telling people to be [[WP:bold]]. Instead be more humble. I welcome any further advice to you on the matter including from {{u|Hijiri88}}. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 09:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|BulbAtop}} I guess it got lost in the interwebs. I have received a few emails that mention Wikipedia but I have responded to all of them. I guess yours was not among them. I searched my junk-mail and it was not their either (unless it had no markings of your current account). I sent you a ping, well see if you get that. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Interwebs? [[User:BulbAtop|BlbAtp]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 21:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, David's advice here is good, and I added some of my own. I wanted to add one thing to my last comment, but it was getting a bit long. On [[Talk:Stealth banning]], you wrote things like {{tq|Once I find more documentation on Twitter that should become very obvious.}} and {{tq|I'll go find sources.}} This is not how editing Wikipedia works. You shouldn't write what you want (or even decide what you want to write and draft it on the talk page) and then look for sources retroactively. You need to find reliable sources, and accurately summarize what they say. Generally, if [[WP:GNG|sufficient reliable sources]] do not exist, the article gets deleted or merged. If you do not have access to reliable sources on a particular topic, then you shouldn't edit articles on that topic. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|BulbAtop}} IMO: The so called "internet" isn't uniform nor is it "lagfree", interwebs is therfore more accurate. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh snap... |
|||
::I actually never thought about that. I'm so stupid.😞😞 |
|||
::But wow, we really need to talk more. [[User:BulbAtop|BlbAtp]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{yo|BulbAtop}}Not sure if trolling... AGF-> Stupidity has nothing to do with it IMO, our culture has adopted a uniform sounding word for a very patchwork technology. This is likely a psyop (marketing), to give the appearance of stability. I used a weird word, you questioned it. Questioning thing isn't stupid IMO. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 01:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::But don't you think it would be different, seeing that we're from two separate cultures? Just asking. [[User:BulbAtop|BlbAtp]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{yo|BulbAtop}} Guess that depends on how you define culture. We really should switch to email. I don't want to banned for this (some editors would love to try). [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Sure. But just lemme sort a few things out first, good? |
|||
== Archiving == |
|||
[[User:BulbAtop|BlbAtp]] ([[User talk:BulbAtop|talk]]) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I just read through this section, and I want to say a few things (in order in which the things they are in response to appear): |
|||
{{tq|Additionally, is there a 'legal' way to collapse discussions on my page (using the same method I used to collapse sources on the stealth banning page?)? Endercase (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
*Check out [[Deep web]]. |
|||
*I am a programmer, if anyone has questions or needs help. I also enjoy programming, so feel free to ask for favors (small favors, mind. Don't ask me to create a new OS for you.) |
|||
*Check out [[Holographic principle]]. Yes, the in-depth physics are just as the layman's explanation presents them. For that matter, check out [[Many worlds hypothesis]] and remember how you used to wish your favorite works of fiction were real when you were a kid... |
|||
*If anyone proposes a block against one or two users for having a good faith discussion on one of those user's talk page, I will be the first to excoriate them for their inability to mind their own fucking business. You guys are free to use email, but it kind of breaks my heart to think there are editors afraid to discuss anything having to do with WP on WP, unless doing so would cause a disruption. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Yo|MjolnirPants}} I know a bit about the dark and deep webs, some of it is very cool (such as P2P sites and chats) and some of it is much less cool. But I never realized there were small pieces of code that literally broke search engines, I thought you had to try a bit to not be indexed. |
|||
::Be careful about the whole offering minor programming favors, next thing you know I'll be asking you to help analyze reams of weather data to determine why global warming projections appear to drastically decrease biomass growth. Or something even worse. |
|||
::*troll face* What about dielectricity though? (see Eric Dollard, try to suspend disbelief for a bit XD). Also functionality trumps exactness, if something is functionally real it is effectively real (until it is nolonger functionally real). |
|||
::BulpAtop was warned about [[wp:social]] a little while ago by the recent RfA subject, not to mention my run-ins with my AN/I submitter. I have received a few emails from 3rd party WikiDenisons warning me to keep my head down, saying I've upset a few vengeful members, and that the emailer would like me to stick around. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 01:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Programmatically analyzing weather data is actually something I offered to do, recently. (Tidal data, to be specific). But yeah, you ask me to write 6000 lines of Fortran and I'll agree, then send you a malware that replaces every file with randomly culled beastiality/scat porn and re-associates file extensions and icons to make sure you don't notice until it's too late. Because I'm an evil lil shit sometimes. |
|||
:::If someone emailed you to let you know that you've pissed some people off, then honestly my response would be "Thank you, captain obvious!" and to christen you as a ''real'' Wikipedian because we've all pissed people off. Anyone who actively sets out to get you is more likely to discover the [[WP:BOOMERANG|aerodynamic properties of fibrous cellulose projectiles]]. That being said, if someone were socializing to the exclusion of actually editing, a vengeful party might be able to get the admins to give them a stern warning. |
|||
:::I've actually heard of Dollard before (I spent a lot of time arguing with cranks back in the day) and I think I've actually called him a shit-for-brains in a mailgroup at some point (to his cyber-face, that is). Or maybe it was a forum somewhere. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{Yo|MjolnirPants}} Dollard is crank in some respects but some of his books make mathematical sense and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods. But it is difficult sometimes to separate the BS from the actual science. Mostly just don't listen to his views on evolution at all (maybe he is a troll?). Right now, I think there may be some worth in his books anyway. |
|||
::::It is mildly difficult to find someone that knows Fortran these days. A lot of models use it though. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tq|and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods}} From what I've read, I'd have to disagree (admittedly, he's not my favorite crank so I haven't read all that much), and I suspect any decent physicist would, too. His writings might be much easier to conceptualize, but that doesn't mean they hold up to any scrutiny. |
|||
:::::I know a few people who know Fortran. I'm not one of them, to be fair. I've use it a little bit, but I'd need a reference work to do anything useful with it. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 23:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::* {{u|Endercase}} I know Fortran! Good old "Do" loops. Some of the worst variable names ever! --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== I agree == |
|||
Yes. You have wide latitude to do what you want with your talk page. Although some editors like me leave everything there--more for transparency that anything else--others delete things that upset them. Most long term editors use an archiving program--the same one that is used on the talk pages of many articles. |
|||
I wrote [[Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Issue_with_lead_wording.2C_and_possible_improvements|this]] before noticing your comment immediately above "I don't think the question is if it is Canvassing or not. I think it should be "Was it inappropriate canvassing?" ". Of course, I agree.--[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 21:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
For example, this is one on one of the talk pages of an article: |
|||
:{{yo|Sphilbrick}} I'm not sure if I am allowed to express my opinions on this (or any) policy any longer. My views and expressions are, I've been told, disruptive. I have been topic banned (apparently) from talking about a large aspect of canvassing policy. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 21:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki>{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=21 |units=days }}</nowiki> |
|||
:::I'm not familiar with your other views, but I think you are spot on with this observation.--[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki>{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot III |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}}</nowiki> |
|||
::::{{yo|Sphilbrick}} Well, thank you. You may may want to review my comments [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:CANVASS]] that I made prior to the administrative action. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Here is another example from a user's talk page: |
|||
:<nowiki>{{User:MiszaBot/config </nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>|archiveheader = {{aan}} </nowiki> |
|||
== You might be interested in... == |
|||
:<nowiki>|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>|counter = 19 |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>|algo = old(60d) |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>|archive = User talk:USERNAME/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>}} </nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}} </nowiki> |
|||
Seeing this: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere/Archive]] |
|||
The bot that does the archive was called [[User:MiszaBot]] and has been replaced by [[User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III/Archive_HowTo]]. |
|||
I'm posting here for two reasons: first, I feel you may feel vindicated as you were predicting socking while everyone else was ignoring it, and I was disagreeing with you. Second, it's a great example of the disruption socking can cause. An article was subject to a counterfactual POV shift for a year, editors were chased away from the project and projects like our formal mediation were subject to gaming and disruption. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Hope that helps. I don't really know much about exactly how these things work, but I see them archiving stuff all the time, and sometimes I have changed their parameters when archiving happened to often. I also know there is "one click archiving"--often used on the board like [[WP:AN/I]], or [[WP:AE]] when a discussion is done. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Yo|MjolnirPants}} What was the evidence that caused you to request a checkuser? They should have engaged in discussion, this would have been avoided. That POV was nothing more than a troll stance IMO. I have significant difficulty believing they believed their own arguments. I think they were testing the limits of Wikipedia's society. I also do not believe that is all of their accounts. Their disagreement with the fundamental methods by which Wikipedia determines the reliability of knowledge and their camping at what I consider a key page suggest that all of those accounts are masked. None of the accounts I see at the check user have anywhere enough edits given how quickly they respond to changes, the puppet master behind those account is not done IMO. This, I think, is a game for them. They may try to "get you back" if they are that sort, be careful. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Be careful about those spaces as the first char of a line. It messes up your formatting. |
|||
::It was a number of things, mostly between FL or Atlanta and Shroom. Shroom's way of talking was so stiffly formal, yet it fell away when they got flustered. Shroom also tried the exact same tactic FL had tried before (asking at RSN whether scientists were RSes for claims about logical fallacies, while obfuscating the fact that philosopher disagreed). There was also your suspicion: given your attitude towards socking, I felt like suspicion on your part was something to take seriously. So I did the scatter chart which I linked at the SPI, but only showing FL and Shroom. I noticed there was no overlap: they were never editing at the same time. So when Perf showed up after the block and jumped right back in, but FL didn't, I realized that there were only ever two of them active at the same time, so I threw the others in the chart. I didn't really expect the result I got (I thought Perf and Logician might be the same, and I thought FL and Shroom might be the same, but I didn't expect them all the be the same person). And while I'm confident the CU got all of the current accounts, I would not be the least bit surprised if they immediately made more accounts, and have a sock or two already active again. But as long as they don't disrupt the article again, I don't really care. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Yo|MjolnirPants}} Yeah, I am having some issues with the editor (keeps putting my cursor at the beginning when I hit shift+most other keys). I filed a bug report, it is a known issue in chrome. I might switch to notepad++. I understand that feeling but the significant lack in edit count given their knowledge of policy and other behavior suggest that these accounts are not all of them. I mean just look at their noticeboard activity, very non-standard for a "new" user. All together they have far less edits than I do. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::<s>What browser are you using?</s> I skipped over the Chrome part... Try Firefox for a while. It's what I use, and I have very very few complaints. Supposedly, Edge is even a pretty decent browser. |
|||
::::Regarding the socks, actually, they've displayed a very trivial (if expansive) knowledge of policy: they don't really understand most of it (I can show you one example of the sock really screwing up a thoroughly-documented, not-difficult-to-understand process). Look at Shrooms report of me at ANI for an example of them completely misconstruing how the community tends to respond to such things for another example. Yeah, they know their alphabet soup of policy pages, but they didn't really understand any of them. Hell, they were ideologically opposed to our most fundamental policy, lol. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:DEPROD|Deprodding]] of [[:Tahir Yahya]]== |
|||
Also to collapse a discussion add: |
|||
I have removed the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:Tahir Yahya]], which you proposed for deletion. I added a source. The subject's definitely notable and sources exist; the article needs work. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{Tlc|proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]. Thanks!<!-- [[Template:Deprod]] --> [[User:BlackcurrantTea|BlackcurrantTea]] ([[User talk:BlackcurrantTea|talk]]) 11:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:DEPROD|Deprodding]] of [[:Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna]]== |
|||
:<nowiki> {{cot|Title}} Collapsed stuff</nowiki> |
|||
I have removed the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{Tlc|proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]. Thanks!<!-- [[Template:Deprod]] --> – [[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small> • [[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]] •</small> 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki> {{cob}} </nowiki> |
|||
:{{yo|Johan Elisson}} In my opinion (since you are active) you should add sources as well as merge with the tagged article, or move it back to your userspace until you have time to work on it. I have also left multiple tags. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 22:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: Please, it is in no way reasonable to move an article that has existed in mainspace for 12 years to userspace just because it lacks references. Especially an article that exists in 7 languages, with text that has not been challenged for 12 years, and contains facts that are easily verifiable with a Google search. |
|||
:: If I didn't have to contest improper PRODs with the little time I spend on Wikipedia these days, I could perhaps have had time to actually source the article. I also don't like being told how to spend my time here. Please don't waste my, or others, time with PRODs on articles that are clearly not material for PROD. – [[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small> • [[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]] •</small> 19:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{yo|Johan Elisson}} 1)There is no such thing as an "improper prod", except in cases where an article has been previously prodded. 2)The article as it currently stands is unencyclopedic (no sources), that in and of itself is grounds for deletion. 3)The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled. I can do that for you if you don't know how. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I will not waste my time with this nonsense. I suggest you do something productive rather than something destructive, like this mess. – [[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small> • [[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]] •</small> 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tps}} Bear in mind that any claims within this article may be challenged, and removed, and may not be restored without a citation, per [[WP:CHALLENGE]]. As a deletionist, I am putting this article on my list of things to do. Unsourced claims will be removed, and it will be incumbent on the editor who restores that material to provide a source. '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#306b1e">Scr<span style="background:#0404B4;border-radius:7px;color:#FFFFFF">★</span>pIron</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#6E6E6E">IV</span>]]</sup>''' 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Actually no that's definitely not standard practice. In fact since the Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna article seems to have had quite a few editors and has a long enough history that probably at least some of them are entitled to copyright, it would be quite inappropriate to delete the article and make a copy in user space. Instead if it's to be [[WP:Userfied]], the article should be moved to user space with the redirect from main space deleted. Nominally it's also possible to delete the original article but preserve the lists of editors, but that is almost never done as there's almost never a good reason. See also [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Userfication]]. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{yo|Nil Einne}} First of all I'm a bit confused about how you got here; in this conversation that is. I trust I don't need to ask for a checkuser. Second of all I'm well aware of necessary and policy based attribution requirements. The recent modifications to the article have helped quite a bit. It does not matter how many "authors" an old, uncited and unencyclopedic article has; if it is outside the guidelines the article gets deleted. If someone wants to fix it they can ask an user with the necessary tools to help userfy it after deletion or petition to bring back into standards without a deletion during discussion. That is standard practice. If you would like to disagree with me, I suggest that you spend some more time in AfD; if you want to know standard practice for articles that do not meet minimum requirements anyway. It is worth noting that nothing actually gets deleted, that is a misnomer, hidden would be a more correct term. Additionally, the user with IMO [[wp: own]] problems recently IMO violated [[wp:civil]] in their edit summary at the article in question. Calling user {{yo|ScrapIronIV}} a distasteful name and apparently failing to assume good faith or practice proper communication protocol. Of course what to do about that, if anything, is ScrapIronIV's choice. Though I was thinking about leaving a warning. As far as the article goes I won't personally pursue the deletion of anything that several users are actively working on as is now the case with this article. That is one reason why I prefer PROD deletion as it is far easier to stop by any active editors. However, that article was and still is not in state where anyone could honestly claim it was encyclopedic IMO. We are all just working to make Wikipedia as more useful and respected place. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)\ |
|||
::::::{{yo|Nil Einne}}*note some comments were removed to prevent a pointless argument* I think we are on the same page you may have misunderstood my message. The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard. If you would like to talk about a comment I left on an IP editor's talk page we may of course do so. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Individual [[WP:CHALLENGE|challenges]] need to be addressed individually, not have a single reference applied to the entire article. As for my user name, it has a very specific historical significance. What is distasteful about it? Even if you find it distasteful, what does that have to do with my contributions here? Regardless, I have removed the unsourced content from the article, and will continue to do so until appropriate inline citations have been provided. '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#306b1e">Scr<span style="background:#0404B4;border-radius:7px;color:#FFFFFF">★</span>pIron</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#6E6E6E">IV</span>]]</sup>''' 01:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I understood your comment as it was worded. You specifically said "The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled". There's no way that this can be understood to meaning anything other than delete the article than make copy on user space. Moving an article from article space to user space is not 'open a copy'. It is moving. It doesn't matter whether it was deleted and undeleted or moved straight away it's still moving it. As I said time and time again, it is the way userfication is carried out. Not via "copy"ing to user space. If you meant to say moving, please take greater care with how you word your comments in the future. Please remember while there's nothing wrong with having imperfect English, you need to make sure your comments are not so poorly phrased so as to seriously mislead other editors. Since you were advising another editor, such a comment could have easily done so (were it not for the fact I think the editor you were advising probably understands userfication better than you). As for the IP, if you want to reply to my comment, you're welcome to do so, probably on the IP's talk page. I don't really care. I'm much more concerned that you understand how userficiation is carried out and you understand the importance of clarity when advising other editors. In particular, that you do not advice other editors to do something that is '''completely unacceptable''' whatever the reason you worded your comment in that way, [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't really understand what you mean by "The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard". If you think it is acceptable to simple mention other editors in the edit summary when created a copy then please I beg you again to either read what I've said or read the links I provided or ask for help from someone else. It is '''not''' a proper way to carry out userficiation. As I've always said, this should nearly always be carried out by moving. Almost never by copying, regardless of what you say in the edit summary. The entire edit history should be preserved as far as possible. The only cases where you use the edit summary is to refer to another article you've copied the content from which is still extant. Ideally you should also add the appropriate tags to the talk page to ensure that the article you copied from can be found and is not deleted. If the article you copied the content from is deleted, and I mean actually deleted with the edit history lost not turned into a redirect which is sometimes loosely referred to as being deleted, but isn't; then there is a problem that needs to be fixed ASAP. This would nearly always be by undeleting the article, rather than by copy the editor contributor list somewhere. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{yo|Nil Einne}} I agree with the vast majority of what you say above. However, per the terms of licensing agreement listing the names of the previous editors in the edit summary or even arguably the talk page is "acceptable" even if it is a very poor practice. I agree that standard procedure needs to change as you have eloquently pointed out maintaining the true edit history is preferred by several orders of magnitude. In order to help insure that happens though several policies need to be changed and current deletion policy needs to be reviewed. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==<s>[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of</s> [[:Protocol Labs]]== |
|||
<s>[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]] |
|||
[[Template:Quote| {{Quote ]] box|quote= <p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read [[WP:Your first article|the guide to writing your first article]] . </p> <p>You may want to consider using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] to help you create articles. </p> |width=20%|align=right}} |
|||
A tag has been placed on [[:Protocol Labs]] , requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|criteria for speedy deletion]] , by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are: |
|||
* It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See [[WP:CSD#G11|section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion]] .) Please read [[Wikipedia:Spam|the guidelines on spam]] and [[wikipedia:FAQ/Business| [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Business]] ]] for more information. |
|||
* It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, '' etc. '' ), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See [[WP:CSD#A7|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]] .) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Notability|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable]] . |
|||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may ''' contest the nomination ''' by [[:Protocol Labs|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] . If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the [[Template:Querylink| {{Querylink ]] |Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Protocol+Labs|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request [[wikipedia:RFUD| [[WP:RFUD|here]] ]]. [[User:El cid, el campeador|<span style="color:black">'''‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:el cid, el campeador|<span style="color:teal">ᐐT₳LKᐬ</span>]] </sup> 13:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)</s> |
|||
: {{yo|el cid, el campeador}} The entire text is "'''Protocol Labs''' is the creator of the [[InterPlanetary File System]], and [[Filecoin]]." How is that advertising? It is covered by Techcrunch and Forbes and is thereby noteable. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Which will look like this: |
|||
:: I just became a new page reviewer last night, so there is a sort of curation side-bar that I am starting to use. If I'm being totally honest I feel a lot of pressure not to screw up on the reviewing and I guess under that pressure I kind of did screw up! I'm not normally like this haha. Sorry for the drama, and if there is ever a Wiki-favor you need just let me know. [[User:El cid, el campeador|<span style="color:black">'''‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:el cid, el campeador|<span style="color:teal">ᐐT₳LKᐬ</span>]]</sup> 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{yo|el cid, el campeador}} No big deal. Well, we'll see how the AfD turns out. I don't oppose consensus. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:ALMANAC (software model)]] == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]] |
|||
The article [[:ALMANAC (software model)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]] because of the following concern: |
|||
{{cot|Title}} Collapsed stuff |
|||
<blockquote>no evidence of notability</blockquote> |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:ALMANAC (software model)|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
== Another bit of advice == |
|||
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
While trying to find the "Endercase" thread on ANI just now, I "Ctrl+F"ed your name, and I gotta say ... I think it might be a good idea for you to refrain from offering opinions in ANI threads that don't involve you. Using words like "war" (as in "war on paid edits") is unlikely to cool situations down, and inexperienced editors to be contributing to ANI discussions is almost as bad as contributing to RSN discussions. I might even say it's worse. |
|||
:{{yo|DGG}} You are the Authority on notability so I'm sure you are right. However, you may want to consider the vast number of published whitepapers in reputable journals that have used this software and that talk about it. What is published in 'news" isn't the same as what is published in peer reviewed scientific journals as I'm sure you know. I do agree that the article needs improvement but I'm not sure deletion is the way to go. However, considering that you are far more of a regular than I am your judgement I do respect. I will not oppose your actions in this case. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==To do list in Skepticism:== |
|||
You should just focus on writing articles and citing sources. What are your interests, anyway? I notice that before you touched the "stealth banning" article you seemed to be contributing to the "Arianism" articles. Have you studied early Christianity? I have, and I can vouch for a bunch of articles in that area (particularly on non-canonical texts and heresies) needing significant work. |
|||
{{RationalSkepticismTasks}} |
|||
== [[List of organisms by chromosome count]] == |
|||
[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I reverted your change, where you said ''People with "genetic disorders" are human too. -- Changed "Humans have x" to "The vast majority of humans have x" following wp:cycl''. The list is a list of species, not of individuals. Homo Sapiens, as a species, has 46 chromosomes. This is like saying that "Zebras have stripes", which is correct for a species, and not invalidated by an example of an individual which doesn't. [[User:Tarl_N.|<span style="color:green;">'''Tarl N.'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal;">discuss</span>]]) 05:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|:Hijiri88}} I enjoy any philosophy, biology, organic chemistry or engineering work generally. I am also fairly good at conflict resolution when I'm not involved and find it enjoyable. All in all, I like fixing problems. |
|||
:{{yo|Tarl_N.}} I disagree with this, a range would be more scientifically accurate. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::It's a description of a species. You can clutter up a description with all the possible defective variations to the point where the description is meaningless. E.g., "Zebras are striped, except when they're not." That's not useful for an encyclopedia. [[User:Tarl_N.|<span style="color:green;">'''Tarl N.'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal;">discuss</span>]]) 05:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{yo|Tarl_N.}} How is it not useful for an encyclopedia to recognize that edge cases exist and that the "Truth" isn't the only way of looking at things? I changed an authoritative and incorrect statement: "Humans have 46 chromosomes." to a less authoritative but more correct statement "The vast majority of humans have 46 chromosomes." Calling those that exist outside the center of the distribution curve "defective" (because they don't fit your worldview?) is also a bit out there. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you insist on changing "has 46 chromosomes" to add disclaimers, you'll have to add disclaimers to every reference to chromosome number for every species, everywhere. ''ALL'' species have defective reproductions where anomalies crop up. At that point, might as well delete the list, because the page will be buried in disclaimers. As for objecting to the term "defect", that's the term biologists use for reproduction errors (although I've also seen "sports"). [[User:Tarl_N.|<span style="color:green;">'''Tarl N.'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal;">discuss</span>]]) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{yo|Tarl_N.}} I agree that the disclaimer solution that you propose is not viable when applied to the entire system. Including the standard deviation and some information about the distribution could be a solution but would also be a large task. However, knowingly making categorically false statements particularly about humanity is not good for the encyclopedia IMO. Maybe just a disclaimer in the LEDE should be added? [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There is no standard deviation or distribution; other than gametes, human nuclei have 46 chromosomes - all other cases are reproductive errors. Please read [[Aneuploidy]]. Anything other than 46 in a human is abnormal, or to use the term you found sensitive, a defect. There are cases of monosomy or trisomy which are survivable, but these are generally not reproductively viable. See the table at the end of the [[Aneuploidy]]. At this point, I'm done on this discussion. If you still insist of pursuing this, you'll have to pursue one of the mediation strategies - [[WP:3O]] or something like that. [[User:Tarl_N.|<span style="color:green;">'''Tarl N.'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal;">discuss</span>]]) 22:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Season's Greetings == |
|||
:Generally, we (people I have interacted with) just refer to "Ctrl+F'ed" as searched, your repeated usage is slightly jarring, but I could get used to it. |
|||
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);<!-- |
|||
:I used "war on paid edits" with (meme) afterward, context is important in this case; as with (meme) afterward it shouldn't heat to many situations up. In that context, it just refers to the concept of an unwinnable war: One that could often have been avoided entirely just by taking less inherently violent measures. In this case "the war on paid edits" most closely resembles "the war on drugs". However this would also be a hyperbole as "the war on drugs" is much more severe and much more disastrous, as is often the case in memes (see my previous usage of #LiterallyHitler with you I believe). |
|||
-->;" class="plainlinks">[[File:Happy Holidays (2135831016).jpg|206px|left]][[File:Arbuckle Bros. (3093003361).jpg|177px|right]][[File:Season's Greetings, Christmas Card from 320 Ranch.jpg|205px|left]]{{Center|[[File:Happy Holidays text.png|301px]]}} |
|||
'''Hello Endercase:''' Enjoy the '''[[Christmas and holiday season|holiday season]]''', and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand [[Wikipedia]]. Cheers, '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 17:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:A book of country clouds and sunshine (1897), cropped.jpg|center|500px]]{{paragraph break}}{{-}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
{{paragraph break}} |
|||
:<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings1}} to send this message}}''</div>{{-}} |
|||
== Happy New Year, Endercase! == |
|||
:If you would like I can strike that portion (or the whole thing), as I would not like to escalate the situation in any way. |
|||
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);<!-- |
|||
-->" class="plainlinks">[[File:Fuochi d'artificio.gif|left|x173px]][[File:Happy new year 01.svg|x173px|right]] |
|||
{{Paragraph break}} |
|||
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''[[New Year|Happy New Year]]!'''''}}}} |
|||
'''Endercase''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable [[New Year]], and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. |
|||
<br />'''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 23:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br /><br /> |
|||
</div> |
|||
''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}'' |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
==Multiple failed attempts to log into my account that were not me== |
|||
:I wouldn't mind hearing your take on the use of paid edits. I don't really care if I get involved in the real debate (I've stayed off "Jimbo's" wall (where it is going on now)), but I would like talking about it. |
|||
I've been getting the occasional email about how there was a failed attempt to log into my account. Today received an email claiming there had been multiple attempts that have failed recently. This notification is just in case I do lose control of my account temporarily. I have taken the proper measures with my password, but you never really know. Please email me at endercase@gmail.com in case there is a problem. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== How you doing? == |
|||
:Were my edits problematic after the AN/I started? You (and others) brought up some good points there and I have tried to adjust my behavior accordingly. |
|||
I haven't seen you popping up on my watchlist in a while. I've also looked through your contribs, and I have to say that I like what I see. So really, this is just me saying "Hi" and wishing you the best. :) <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Admitally, I have not seen a WP on meme usage here, I wonder if there is an essay or something. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 06:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|MjolnirPants]] Doing great, way less Wikipedia lots more IRL work. But, I pop in every once and a while. I wanted to thank you again, you and the others (along with wikipedia policy of course) really taught me a number of valuable lessons. Please let me know if I can help out anywhere in particular. It is great to see you here on the talk pages again. Been thinking about trying my luck writing an article about the chinese issue going on with the Uighurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minority. [[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/china-internment-camps-uighur-muslim-children/569062/ A citation here]], think it is good idea? ( there is some information [[Uyghurs#Modern_era]] but I think a separate article would be appropriate. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay, well I won't say "don't post on ANI" then, but I think you should really focus on writing articles for the moment. Articles on the physical sciences (especially, but not exclusively, those related to medicine) are controversy-magnets, so if possible I would suggest you avoid those as well. Philosophy articles maybe? I'm ashamed to admit I don't know that much about "philosophy" except what one would come across in reading the cultural histories of China and Japan, so I can't offer any ''specific'' advice on articles in that topic area that are in need of improvement. |
|||
::I think you might have hit on something that needs expanded coverage, yeah. Best advice I could offer you on that is to start a draft, work on it till it gets to a readable state, then avoid the draft for a few weeks, come back, and see if it still looks good. Also, post a link here when you do. I might pop in and help out a bit. |
|||
:::Your use of "(meme)" was unfamiliar to me, and likely to many others who read your comment, so I would advise against it. |
|||
::And I'll certainly keep you in mind if I need an extra pair of eyes at anything. I know you'll bring some valuable insight. Take care. :) <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Maybe a good way to learn about rhetoric used in the WP: namespace would be to ''read'' discussions like that for a few months before posting? I don't know. I posted in a bunch of discussions that involved me directly between 2012 and 2014 before finally making it a habit of offering opinions in other discussions. |
|||
:::Another point of concern is that when you refer to there being an unwinnable war on paid edits, you make it look like you have been involved in this war before, and invite sockpuppetry allegations. I no longer think you are socking, but your edit history ''is'' very unusual, and you should be conscious of that when joining writing things that make it look like you've been editing here for years. |
|||
:::No, I don't think your edits (as far as I have seen) have been problematic since your first comment in the ANI thread. I do think your edits immediately after ANI thread ''opened'' were problematic (see [[WP:CANVAS]]). Do you understand why those messages you left on the talk pages of David Tornheim, Nocturnalnow and Orange Mike (and one other who apparently didn't respond) were inappropriate? |
|||
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 22:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{re|Hijiri88}} I am still a bit confused on the canvassing honestly, I pinged all users I could remember having a semi-significant interaction with (where we actually conversed) who had not already been pinged with a neutrally worded message in the open. I'm fairly certain those actions followed the appropriate notification guidelines. I was not attempting to single out a partisan audience, nor was I attempting to be secret, my message was neutrally worded, and I did not mass post. Further explanation would be helpful on this topic. I can understand how emailing or meatpuppeting would have been inappropriate. I think IRL friends being involved would have been problematic, but as it is I might need further explanation. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Also I did not ping two user who seemed the most appreciative of my input in the NPOV/noticeboard. Becuase, I feared they would be biased. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You didn't ping anyone. Pinging is when you mention someone and link their user page so they get an automatic notification. What you did was notify them on their talk pages. |
|||
::::::You are not supposed to notify anyone unless there is a very clear, specific reason why you chose to notify those specific users. You didn't leave messages on the talk pages of JzG, Only in death or MjolnirPants, so it seemed very much like you were cherry-picking users who would be sympathetic, with Orange Mike thrown into the mix to give the false impression of neutrality. |
|||
::::::If you do not understand why this is inappropriate, I suggest you refrain from notifying specific users of discussions. Depending on the context, posting on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject might be appropriate. |
|||
::::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{re|Hijiri88}} Ping: To send a short message expecting a simplistic response. In this case, the response would be Yes: I will interact with your AN/I or No: I will not interact with your AN/I. |
|||
:::::::You had already pinged the users you mention above, as such I had no reason to. Maybe your pinging of them was not appropriate as you did not ping all of the involved parties, just ones (the case could easily be made) that you thought I had angered; ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=769718222&oldid=769717554 you already addressed this]). |
|||
:::::::You have not explained how my behavior was any different from your own in this case, expecting to assume bad faith and publicly and repeatedly claim bias (which I have not once done to you). And then you also claim that my pinging of Orange Mike was either a mistake, incompetence or a red herring; to explain away my good faith behavior. |
|||
:::::::Could you please reference a policy or even essay that shows that my canvassing actions, in this case, were not appropriate in comparison to your own. |
|||
:::::::I'm am not claiming that my actions in this case were appropriate, I am clarifying why I need further explanation on the issue. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::No, as I said on ANI, the reason I pinged them was because I was opening the ANI thread based on their testimony more than my own research. I did not notify every user you had ever interacted with (and neither did you) since that would be pointless. The relevant guideline is [[WP:CANVAS]]. Like all Wikipedia guidelines, there is some wiggle room between what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate". Generally, linking a person's username so they get a notification that you mentioned them ([[WP:PING|this is what "ping" means on Wikipedia]]; what you did was not pinging) is more acceptable than posting a message specifically addressed to certain, apparently cherry-picked, users saying, essentially, "some users have been offended by stuff I did; you were apparently not as offended by stuff I did; could you please comment on this ANI thread?", the latter of which is almost always inappropriate. And yes, it does look very much like, with the exception of OrangeMike, your messages were specifically targeted at users who had already been sympathetic to you (you even said as much in your messages to them), which makes your contacting OrangeMike along with them look very much like a red herring. If you were making a good-faith attempt to contact all the editors you had interacted with, then there would have been messages to Collect, Nishidani, Lommes, CaroleHenson, McGeddon, Trivialist, Granger... Anyway, please stop attempting to justify your past actions. If you are serious about this mentoring thing, you should just accept that what you did was wrong, learn from your mistakes, and move on. No one is trying to punish you for canvassing (Softlavender is just trying to counteract it by leaving notes below the comments of canvassed users), so you have no reason to be so defensive about it. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Reliable sources == |
|||
::::::::::^I mostly agree with this, except I do not know if the editors were "hand-picked" based on whether they were going to write favorable responses. Some that were notified, were not exactly sympathetic. Even though I said, "I don't want you banned," the fact that I even had to say that strongly suggests that I thought that past behavior was going to be a problem if not corrected. I'm not interested in looking at evidence to see whether I think the individuals were cherry-picked or not: maybe they were. I will admit that when I saw the notice on my talk page asking me to comment at AN/I, although it seemed neutrally worded, I did not think it would be viewed favorably and I was not surprised by the reaction at AN/I over it. It seems like another rookie mistake and as long as Endercase has learned the [[WP:Canvass]] rules and promises to follow them from now on that is sufficient for me. I agree with Hijiri88 that trying to justify having done it at AN/I does not look good. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Other editors at [[Talk:PragerU]] have given you good advice regarding the reliability of WorldNetDaily and Breitbart. You would be wise to follow it. As you know these sources have been discussed and rejected at RSN many times, and continuing to push for their inclusion is disruptive. |
|||
As for Preston Business Review, a quick scan of their homepage reveals that the site is nothing more than a collection of stories copied from other sources and attributed to Caroline Biscotti. The [https://prestonbusinessreview.com/facebook-censors-videos-on-masculine-men-moderate-muslims/7707/ story in question] was in fact copied from WND. Did you examine the source before advocating for its reliability? |
|||
I hope you consider this and stop the disruption before it becomes necessary to pursue sanctions. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 14:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|Dlthewave}} The current open discussions at RSN in which both of us have expressed an opinion [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=858674473&oldid=858674397&title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diffmode=source 1]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=858633850&oldid=858629864&title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diffmode=source 2]] is extremely relevant to to final actions that should be taken on the PragerU article. Simply contributing to consensus and expressing an opinion you disagree with is not "disruptive", as you put it, but a fundamental part of what makes Wikipedia work. However, if you so wish you can of course start up a discussion in the admin noticeboard for review of my conduct. It is also worth noting that I have not "pushed for the inclusion" of any specific source particularly not Preston Business Review. Having already said that if it was to be used at all it would require additional citations for verification and that it is not generally a reliable source. I have simply disagreed with the method of removing it and the other "disagreeable" sources in question, specifically reverting an edit, that you admit, added at least one reliable source. As I have said in the PragerU talk page it would have been more appropriate to simply remove the "offending" sources separately, an action which I would have not even disagreed with and likely would have even done by myself. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 15:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Request == |
|||
{{od}}Also, I do have some concerns about some of Endercase's recent contributions, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ice_Gonelevu&diff=prev&oldid=771003386] from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ice_Gonelevu#Contested_deletion]. Even though Endercase's comments appear be correct, I think challenging long-term users by saying, "Your deletion was out of order", like this is not a good idea for a novice editor. You come off as more an authority on the rules than seems appropriate to me. I have encouraged more humility. Rather than accuse the editor of breaking a rule, ask it as a question, "Is it not premature to delete the article by the new editor that asked at Tea House?" This would have been better, but still I think it is premature to be taking such a position. <p> I have a similar feeling about the long discussion below [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Endercase#71.198.247.231_.28and_related_snark.29 71.198.247.231 and related snark]. I suggest focusing on content rather than other editor's behavior and judgment, or changing policy. As Hijiri88 says, the focus should be on improving the encyclopedia. Yes, we have plenty of problem editors, etc., but I think it is unwise to make accusations or give the appearance you are an expert at the rules. For example, saying "While this is seemingly contridictory to your stance on partisan politics and dangerously close to meatpuppetry in my eyes, it is very likey that you could make a wonderful case for it. I suggest you do so at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]], as far as I can tell anyway that would be the proper forum for such assertions."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Endercase&diff=prev&oldid=770946934] does not show the proper humility. Comments like this is what landed you at at [[WP:AN/I]]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|David Tornheim}} So I shouldn't even question other users? I mean I already know I shouldn't tell them they are wrong (I'm working on it, but that Teahouse deletion was pretty out there), but to not even question them? I mean it isn't like I am forcing them to respond to my questions, below I made it very clear they didn't have to respond to me. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I'll let someone else try to answer that. I feel like I already have answered it. Just re-read what I wrote immediately above. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeff at ODEM|Jeff at ODEM]] ([[User talk:Jeff at ODEM#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeff at ODEM|contribs]]) 07:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==What did "End of Discussion" mean?== |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:STORJ]] == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]] |
|||
The article [[:STORJ]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]] because of the following concern: |
|||
::Sorry, one more thing. When you said "END OF DISCUSSION" above did you intend that I shouldn't reply to you about that? That is how I took it to mean. I had a few questions and clarification requests, for a later date. I really must sleep. Thank you again for taking your time with me in such a manner. Hopefully, we see significant improvements. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 06:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: <br /><span class="plainlinks">[https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=STORJ&num=50 STORJ]</span> – <span class="plainlinks">[https://www.google.com/search?q=STORJ&tbm=nws news], [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=STORJ books], [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22STORJ%22 scholar]</span><br /> Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the [[WP:42|plain-language summary]] of our notability guidelines.</blockquote> |
|||
:::I didn't say that. The formatting is a bit weird, so I wasn't sure if it was you or David who had written that. I guess it was David, so you should ask him. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 22:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::"End of Discussion" was the end of the excerpt I copied from [[Talk:Stealth_banning#revert]]. It was added to your talk page with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEndercase&type=revision&diff=770078917&oldid=770078300 this edit]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
== Your final comment at RSN == |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:STORJ|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
I saw it, read it and appreciate it. It takes more than a little moxie to admit to doing anything wrong. For what it's worth, I think you might have admitted to more wrongdoing than you committed (and to someone who was not particularly non confrontational with you). There are, of course, no hard feelings. I hope this has been a bit of a learning experience, and I hope to see your edit count grow and grow. Happy editing! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 17:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|MjolnirPants}} I'm not quite sure what you mean here "you might have admitted to more wrongdoing than you committed". At my AN/I you said ",in this case, it's generally more constructive to assume they acted in bad faith" as such I am attempting to go through my comments and determine the worse possible reading of them. I have found this mildly difficult, yet also very enlightening. Your interactions with me were entirely done in good faith (as far as I can tell), yet I responded with sarcasm as battlefield like behavior. Admittedly, your comment on demeaning did need some clarification. However, my response post-clarification was as if you had reinforced the idea that debate here was more about total warfare than about building an encyclopedia. Whereas you, in fact, backed down on that (not that you ever supported that idea in the first place) and clarified the dreaming nature was aimed only at "your opponent's argument" and not your opponent and is intended only for situations where one justifies the claim with evidence allowing for a statistical syllogism. Now, while I may have apologized for more than I committed in a good faith reading, in a bad faith reading I have committed more than I have yet apologized for. As you are a far more experienced editor I defer to your suggestion and will continue reviewing my comments, and learning more about criminally disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::What I meant was that sarcasm is both quite common here, and not as disruptive as many other behaviors reported at ANI. Also, I didn't feel personally that your comments rose to the level of requiring a complaint at ANI (hence why I didn't start the thread), though to be fair, I seem to be one of the editors more reticent to report someone there. My comments at ANI were meant to point out that assuming you lashed in frustration out was more constructive than assuming you 1) honestly felt you were completely in the right and backed unambiguously by policy; and 2) honestly couldn't grasp what I was saying. People who lash out can calm down, but people who can't wrap their heads around policy or the concept of being wrong are generally lost causes. The former is caused by a decision, whereas the latter caused by [[WP:CIR|incompetence]]. |
|||
::I really don't have much more to say beyond some basic advice: watch the way the wind blows. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and things which have gotten broad support here (such as the decision to strongly discourage the use of The Daily Mail or the less formal decision to strongly discourage the use of Breitbart) are, by definition, enshrined in policy, because our only core rule is that consensus '''is''' our policy. When 70% of editors want to do X and 30% want to do Y, we expect that 30% to do X until they can convince enough of the rest of us to form a new consensus, not to just go ahead and do Y. At the end of the day this is a collaborative project more so than it is a open project. We must all work together to produce something which is, occasionally, quite wonderful. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 05:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|MjolnirPants}} I may not understand, but if 30% of your populace doesn't consent to doing X you don't have any [[consensus]] as far as I know. Your usage appears to misuse the term consensus and conflates it with majoritarian processes and voting, as far as I can tell anyway. How does Wikipedia measure consensus? [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 18:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::See [[Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY|Consensus is not unanimity]]. See the rest of the page for a good breakdown of how consensus works. The usual heuristic I go by: whichever side of a debate convinces some members of the other side, unless there's a large majority on the other side. The "real" meaning here on WP according to [[WP:CON]] can be summarized as: whichever side has the greater balance of expressed support and solid arguments. One example would be the case where one side has been using emotional and fallacious arguments, disagreeing with each other, and not citing much in the way of policy. Even if they have a slight majority of !voters, they don't have consensus. |
|||
:::::The vast majority of the time however, when one side has more than twice as much support as the other, it's going to be fairly clear to everyone but those on the minority side that they have the consensus. Wikipedians are, on the whole, honest, thoughtful and intelligent folks and we don't tend to support a position without giving it some thought. So the side of a discussion with the very large majority (of 70% for example) is almost certainly the side that put more thought into their decision. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 02:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{re|MjolnirPants}} So consensus is determined solely by the closer? Or is it determined by homeostasis? I just don't understand how that is done practically. |
|||
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Balkywrest|Balkywrest]] ([[User talk:Balkywrest|talk]]) 13:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY]]: "But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party <b>must consent to move forward</b> even if they disagree with the specific course of action." What exactly does that mean? |
|||
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == |
|||
::::::It is good that you have such faith in the citizenry of Wikipedia, I am slowly starting to gain a similar respect. However, it is difficult when I am literally told that I should not express my opinions due to my number of edits. I find that number of edits is an arbitrary metric, of course it is easy for me to say that given that I have very few. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{tq|So consensus is determined solely by the closer? Or is it determined by homeostasis?}} Well, the closer is supposed to use their judgement, yes. But most of the time, a consensus is pretty clear. And a discussion can always be closed as "No consensus," which -when the discussion is about some sort of proposed change- is effectively the same as closing with a "no" consensus, except that anyone claiming there was a "no" consensus later on will be quickly proven wrong. |
|||
:::::::{{tq|I just don't understand how that is done practically.}} To be perfectly honest, this is something which is far simpler in practice than it is to describe. The best thing you can do is look for closed RfCs, closed AfDs and closed RMs, read through a bunch of them (honestly, you can skim the actual discussion, just read the closing comments carefully) and try to see how that works. |
|||
:::::::{{tq|Per [[Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY]]: "But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party <b>must consent to move forward</b> even if they disagree with the specific course of action." What exactly does that mean?}} It means exactly what I described above: we expect the "losers" of such a discussion to consent to the winning position, and even to enforce it when other editors go against it. Think of a law which you don't agree with. Speed limits, the prohibition on marijuana, polygamy or gambling, or something like that. It's the same thing. You don't need to agree with a rule in order to understand it and abide by it. Now, some people can't wrap their brains around this, and just can't bring themselves to do something they don't agree with. Those people simply don't belong here. |
|||
:::::::{{tq|However, it is difficult when I am literally told that I should not express my opinions due to my number of edits.}} I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you're an adult in your mid-30's or older. Imagine, in your career, if you had hired (or your boss had hired) a new guy, right out of college to come be your assistant. On that new guy's first day, he starts telling you what he thinks you're doing wrong, and when you try to explain to him the very good reasons you have for doing things that way, he argues with you. When a new editor shows up and starts complaining about long-standing practices here, that's pretty much the same situation. We understand that new editors have opinions, and we respect them for what they're worth. But there's a very good chance that your opinions will change as you get more experience, assuming that you turn out to be a productive member of our group. So we're not really interested in hearing how someone who doesn't know how to do this work wants to tell us how to do this work, because it's not a useful opinion to us. When you have a little more experience, and if you still feel the same way, you will find that most editors are at least willing to hear you out. |
|||
:::::::There are reasons why we do things the way that we do, and while some editors are willing to explain, all of us with experience know that it's actually faster and more reliable to let you learn on your own. I never got any mentoring myself, and I can't honestly recall a single instance of me asking someone for advice about policy and getting a detailed answer. (I can't even recall ever asking anyone about policy to begin with, to be honest.) But, having edited now for several years and several thousand edits, I have a grasp of policy good enough that I am almost always right when I hear of a new policy or guideline and take a guess at what it says. This is because I've gotten familiar with the logic that tends to hold sway here. I don't know how to describe that logic, so asking me about it is not going to do you much good. But dealing with other wikipedians and seeing the results in articles and closed discussions is a sure-fire way to familiarize yourself with it, as well. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 22:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|||
::::::::^I agree with all of this advice. The last two paragraphs in particular are what I have been trying to get across. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div> |
|||
:::::::::Ditto. I would add that while the last two paragraphs are especially useful relative to the rest of the comment (and, honestly, most of what David and I have said here), the last sentence is especially useful relative to the rest of the last two paragraphs. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|||
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
== 71.198.247.231 (and related snark) == |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
I have observed {{u|Bishonen}} in a number of discussions and disputes, and would conclude she is experienced enough to be able to distinguish when somebody is editing in good faith but struggling, and when somebody is just screwing around. So if she says the IP is an obvious sock (and the editing pattern and ANI report suggests it probably is), I will believe them unless I have clear and obvious evidence to the contrary (which I don't). Similarly, while I don't agree with everything {{u|Bbb23}} does, they wouldn't issue blocks without being certain they can be backed up with policy. You are correct that the [[WP:CIVIL]] policy still applies when talking to obvious trolls (as does [[Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals]] and [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition]]), and I do apologise for venting a little more than I would normally do on unblock requests. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Ritchie333}} Absolutely, no problem, I just feel slightly invested in this case as the user was banned for defending me at my AN/I, admittedly in a disruptive fashion. I haven't looked at their other posts yet. I'm not challenging your judgment in any way. I think it is very likely correct. I'm just trying to understand the process. I have seen several sock judgments and this one did not look like any of those, as such, it would be considered an edge case. Such cases are extremely valuable in refining a model, or in understanding a system. I am currently under mentorship (see above) but my mentors are a bit time constrained. I don't mind asking for an explanation from other users. You are of course under no obligation to respond to my questions. And just saying "I don't want to talk about it" would be fine, and would not hurt my feelings. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 18:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
::{{re|Ritchie333}} I was under the impression that " An uninvolved administrator <b>acting independently</b> reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, <b>and</b> other relevant evidence, <b>along with</b> any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted." |
|||
</div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1187132125 --> |
|||
::You have by your own admission not done so, but having simply taken another user's word on the matter: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.198.247.231&oldid=770477254 |"I didn't see any reason to question it."]]. In addition, you cite an AN/I report that did not take place as far as I can currently tell, could you link me to it and explain your statements and actions? I'm sure I must be missing something. |
|||
:: "by convention, administrators don't usually review more than one unblock request regarding the same block." I find it is remarkable that 3 reviews took place over the course of 5 hours, without any public discussion taking place. Is this the norm? |
|||
::In any case, you may want to update or review [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tq|You have by your own admission not done so, but having simply taken another user's word on the matter}} I agree with Richie on this: {{u|Bishonen}} has always shown very good judgement IMHO and I trust her to be correct until proven wrong on most administrative matters. Also, I have seen for myself that Ritchie has good judgement, and the fact that he shares my estimation of Bish's judgement reinforces that. There is a principle here, often cited in cases of sockpuppetry and POV pushing called [[WP:DUCK|the Duck test]], which relates to the old aphorism "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." |
|||
:::At the end of the day, two things remain true |
|||
:::#The IP editor suggested someone should be blocked because of their apparent political ideology, which the IP 'determined' based on that editor's citing of long-standing WP practices. |
|||
:::#The IP almost certainly '''is''' a registered editor. I saw their original comment at ANI and thought the same thing. I was actually surprised that Hijiri responded to it. The fact that Bishonen agrees with me is just further evidence, IMHO. |
|||
:::{{tq|"by convention, administrators don't usually review more than one unblock request regarding the same block." I find it is remarkable that 3 reviews took place over the course of 5 hours, without any public discussion taking place. Is this the norm?}} I've seen it happen before. But it is not the norm. However, I can tell you that there's nothing untoward going on here based on these three links: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Ritchie333&prefix=User+talk%3AYamla%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=crzr98esbfb7gms8yn9im7qh] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Ritchie333&prefix=User+talk%3AThe+Blade+of+the+Northern+Lights%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=6l94rqyd7yd3eh3cc796im892] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Yamla&prefix=User+talk%3AThe+Blade+of+the+Northern+Lights%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=bzt5n7itqg71wuznc6z5kkbeu] which are search results of archived user talk page discussions for Yamla and The Blade of the Northern Lights, showing that between the three declining admins, there has been very little contact in user space (there was one result for Ritchie on Blade's talk page) between them. This is exactly what it looks like: Four different admins coming to the exact same conclusion about a blocked IP editor. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{re|MjolnirPants}} I could be incorrect here but don't they use the IRC chat, and email? In addition the IP did not "suggested someone should be blocked because of their apparent political ideology", but in fact said "that another editor should be topic-banned from American politics for being incapable of collaborating with editors who have different political viewpoints." and "Anyone who tries to enforce partisan purity on Wikipedia should be blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]]." As far as I can see anyway, maybe you have access to information I do not. The IP appears to be concerned that Hijiri88 attempted/attempting to block me while citing my apparent (incorrectly, as I have noted) political ideology by my use of Breitbart as a source. The IP cited a witch hunt and brought up concerns that were in order (if very likely incorrect). It is worth noting that Hijiri88 did attempt to paint me a right wing ideologue at every turn initially, incorrectly and without citation. Stating that I "kept mentioning Trump" without citation and that I was attempting to get Breitbart accepted as a reliable source (no doubt why the IP defended me), despite the fact that I have not been doing so. I have asked for a list of banned sources and suggested that RS/N can't currently make blanket bans, which no-one has directly addressed yet, and maintained that my particular usage was in order. The IP did not "troll" (I'm fairly certain they were serious), which is no doubt why there have been no diffs provided. There are a number of users that no longer use their accounts at all and utilize an IP masking services. I suspect this is the case here, and current policy does allow for this (as far as I can tell). It has been discussed a few times on Jimbo's talk page anyway. The IP did not receive a warning, nor did they have AN/I as far as I can tell (despite Ritchie's assertion to the contrary). Bish's usage of the term "woodlice" when in reference to IP users is very disconcerting, while they may be a wonderful admin nearly all of the time. They have been blocked due to incivility by Jimbo himself for a case that is more civil than this one: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291466598&oldid=291465740</ref>, calling someone a "little shit" is nothing compared to referencing them a wood louse with an aggressive bear imagery. I may also be worth considering that they aren't even the blocking admin as that honor belongs to Bbb23, who did so without citation of policy or discussion, and as far as I can tell they also have a history of IP user discrimination and "sock" blocks without hard evidence. If you have time, I really would love a real explanation. I'll stick to my talk page mostly from now on, as I don't want to cause any trouble or upset anyone. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
::::::{{tq|don't they use the IRC chat, and email?}} They do, but if you look at the vast majority of issues which involve multiple admins, you will find quite a bit of communication on-wiki about it. Hell, hit up a couple of admin talk pages and Ctrl+f for "IRC" and "email" and half of what you'll find is admins mentioning that they know these things exist but don't use them, and the other half is mostly the admins that do use it complaining that the IRC channel and mailing lists are ghost towns. The rest will be admins admitting to using it for specific cases, cases in which privacy matters and off-wiki communication was required. On-wiki communication is preferred because it's easier and more transparent. |
|||
::::::{{tq|n addion the IP did not "suggested someone should be blocked because of their apparent political ideology",}} They did. You have to take their comments in the entirety, in which the IP complained about Hijiri saying that certain right-wing sources shouldn't be used. Not to mention the fact that the second quote you provided was the IP saying Hijiri should be blocked for "enforc[ing] partisan purity" which is pretty much exactly what I said. Context matters, and just because we have lots of rules doesn't mean we're expected to not use our own best judgement. |
|||
::::::{{tq|It is worth noting that Hijiri88 did attempt to paint me a right wing ideologue at every turn initially}} Because the alternative was to presume that you were so utterly incompetent as to not be able to understand anything that was said to you thus far by myself and others. As I said before, the former is correctable, the latter not. To put it another way, the former can be corrected by mentoring and trying hard to correct it. The latter is just a long, winding path to an indefinite block. |
|||
::::::{{tq|calling someone a "little shit" is nothing compared to referencing them a wood louse with an aggressive bear imagery.}} That's because you're assuming she wrote that comment in anger. Imagine her laughing and winking as she said it to the IP with a knowing shake of her head, instead. That's a much different picture, isn't it? The posting of the image is a clincher: angry people don't generally find illustrative images and post them with captions, they generally make short, declarative statements with lots of adjectives. |
|||
::::::Also, Bish's block was how long ago, again? A '''lot''' of admins have a tangible block log. Running into the meat grinder of ANI can, for some people, be a learning experience, and it's experienced editors who are most likely to become admins. Hell, I have a block log. I was blocked by Ritchie, as a matter of fact. It was a bit of a hasty block and was reversed (with a most gracious apology and no hesitation to accept responsibility, I might add), but still. Are you so sure that Bish's block from Jimbo wasn't quickly overturned as well? I'm not. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 22:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{re|MjolnirPants}}The point there was that saying X peers don't have many interactions together on-wiki doesn't mean they don't have interactions off-wiki. In addition, we both know that IP/MAC addresses don't mean a single thing if the users really know what they are doing. |
|||
:::::::At least you and the IP agree then, there shouldn't be partisan politics or censure on Wikipedia, ideas must be cited and "provable", and the expression of such ideas in a public forum isn't grounds for a block. |
|||
:::::::I never said Bishonen was angry, I implied Bishonen wasn't civil. The bock was 3hrs by design, and not removed early. Odd that you would so willingly question Jimbo's judgment and yet not Bishonen's. |
|||
:::::::You imply that you agree with the idea that a reviewing editor does not need to act independently or review evidence if they trust another editor's judgement. In fact, I'd go as so far as to say that you don't even care if the editor knows exactly what they are going along with as long as their actions are based on trust. While this is seemingly contradictory to your stance on partisan politics and dangerously close to meatpuppetry in my eyes, it is very likely however that you could make a wonderful case for it. I suggest you do so at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]], as far as I can tell anyway that would be the proper forum for such assertions. (Did I make a good argument this time? (please give feedback on this)) |
|||
:::::::Well, I defended them better than they defended me. My debt is paid in that regard. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 16:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::::}}{{tq|The point there was that saying X peers don't have many interactions together on-wiki doesn't mean they don't have interactions off-wiki.}} The point of my response was to explain to you ''why'' it actually ''does'' mean that they almost certainly don't communicate off-wiki. The suggestions that the admins, or that a certain group of admins are all friends and deliberately keep it hidden, is quite literally a conspiracy theory. The ''original'' point of me showing you that they don't communicate much was to make it clear that three separate people independently came to the same conclusion about something. This relates to your question about consensus, above. When three (actually four that I can attest to) all are in lockstep agreement about something, they're almost certainly right. As thoughtful as we can be, we're also ''very'' opinionated, in case you hadn't noticed. |
|||
{{tq|I never said Bishonen was angry, I implied Bishonen wasn't civil.}} Joking around with someone instead of getting angry with them when they step out of line is a hallmark of civility. |
|||
{{tq|ou imply that you agree with the idea that a reviewing editor does not need to act independently or review evidence if they trust another editor's judgement.}} No, I do not. I directly stated that, in the absence of evidence, it's perfectly reasonable to trust another person's judgement on a matter. |
|||
{{tq|(Did I make a good argument this time? (please give feedback on this))}} I know you probably ''think'' you're being very subtle, but this isn't the first time I've typed out that your sarcasm is and has been extremely obvious, it's just the first time I haven't erased it. I'm telling you now: It's not going to help you at all to keep it up. And don't bother to deny it, because I'm not the only one who's noticed that you are still every bit as sarcastic as you ever were. The only difference is that now, you're asking questions and claiming to want to understand, instead of simply telling me that I'm wrong. |
|||
Take my advice: Stop worrying about anything to do with any "meta" aspect of Wikipedia, including whether this IP's block was just or not, and just focus on working on articles. I and many others are here to help when you need it. But if other editors constantly feel unwelcome in trying to help you, it's only going to hurt you in the end. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:FYI. I commented on this conversation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEndercase&type=revision&diff=771030250&oldid=771028485 here]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|David Tornheim}} Thank you. I just don't know what to do here. Per [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]: "An uninvolved administrator <b>acting independently</b> reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, <b>and</b> other relevant evidence, <b>along with</b> any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted." MjolnirPants saying that isn't quite true and so is Ritchie333. While I am trying my very best to assume they are correct, this is an explicit policy at is directly at odds with what they are saying. Now, I am not saying that they are wrong, which is why I suggested that they change the policy. If the policy is wrong then they should change it. I don't want to try to tell them that they are wrong or aren't using Wikipedia properly, which is why I don't go there and ask myself if they are correct, and why I am not challenging them in an AN/I. MjolnirPants's suggestion that I "Stop worrying about anything to do with any 'meta' aspect of Wikipedia" and that I make other's feel "unwelcome" while they are trying to "help" me (because I question them?), is very odd. In a consensus based society, they are effectively saying that my !vote carries no merit simply because I disagree with them or their actions, and admittedly based on what I've seen they are likely right in this regard. While their complete dismissal of my logical argument as a "a conspiracy theory", with the implication that it should therefore not be considered is disheartening. In addition, their accusation of sarcasm with my statement "(Did I make a good argument this time? (please give feedback on this))" fails to assume good faith, and moreover is incorrect. That was an honest question, no sarcasm intended at all. I can understand how it can read that way though, if you assume I am actually upset at their actions anyway. However, the fact is I don't really care if they violated some arcane policy, as I mentioned above I was simply paying a debt. If I were an admin I'd likely care, but as it is I do not. I do however care about being a better editor and my method of argument is apparently central to that, as such I asked for feedback. Luckily you stepped in and gave me some. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::My advice continues to be the same: Humility. Cross-examining admins like they are on trial and telling them they are breaking policy and must change it is not going to gain you much love here unless other editors are seeing the same problem. (Again today [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWinkelvi&type=revision&diff=771134052&oldid=770940966].) You are often standing alone arguing a position as if there is only one proper way to look at it, often against far more experienced editors, and you are not giving these experienced editors enough respect and deferring to their interpretation of the rules and/or the situation. Focus on reviewing high quality RS and making sure our encyclopedia matches the material in it rather than focusing on other editor's behavior [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=771154360&oldid=771153803]. Add new material to articles based on good RS. That behavior will be looked at far more fondly than telling other users they are breaking rules or that you know the rules (both explicit and implicit) better than they do. Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to repeat this message. And FYI, I did not look at the policy you referred to or the record of that editor you are defending: I deferred to the admin's judgment on that, as I am saying you should. I was just looking at what you said and found it a continuation of a pattern that is troubling that I have been warning you about since I first encountered you at [[WP:RS/N]]. Also, I think the reason your AN/I has not closed is people are watching and looking to see if there is improvement. Unfortunately, I am not seeing it and am considering changing my !vote at your [[WP:AN/I]]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::The first two sentences of the above comment are very much correct, and they don't apply only to admins either. By the way, Endercase: It's been like a week since I suggested you work on building articles, and now David is agreeing with me, and yet you've barely touched an article except the one that got you into this mess in the first place. If you want to demonstrate your good faith at this point, I suggest you stay as far away from the [[Stealth banning]] article as possible. You really, really should go and improve Wikipedia's coverage of [[doughnut]]s or something; stay away from politics, religion and online media for the time being, as it's not doing you any favours. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::^I agree. Yes, it does apply to non-admins. You don't have to work on a subject like [[doughnut]]s that does not interest you. But I agree that choosing to work on highly contentious articles in some of the areas named by {{u|Hijiri88}} is probably not a good idea until you get used to how things work here, especially given that you were advocating the use of Breitbart and InfoWars as [[WP:RS]]. You might *watch* those articles to see how highly charged disputes get resolves as mentioned by {{u|MjolnirPants}}. For example you might review the vigorous debate over the language of the lawsuits by [[Melanie Trump]], some of which were settled without anyone going to AN/I (at least as far as I know): [[Talk:Melania_Trump#Libel_suit_against_Daily_Mail]], [[Talk:Melania_Trump#RfC:_Melanie_Trump_libel_suits]], [[Talk:Melania_Trump#Proposed_wording_of_libel_text]], [[Talk:Melania_Trump#RfC_about_Melania_Trump.27s_lawsuit]], [[Talk:Melania_Trump#Erroneous_closing_of_RfC]], [[Talk:Melania_Trump#The_Daily_Mail_lawsuit]]. |
|||
:::::Instead of working on controversial stuff, get your hands dirty and learn the ropes by picking something that interests you that is *not* controversial. Look into a subject that you might have special knowledge of that others here might not, where there is no article or the article is very weak. If you name some interests, I might be able to give some suggestions on this. Take a look at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory|Wikiprojects]], and you can see work that needs to be done in all sort of topics. Maybe it will give you ideas on interesting subjects. I use Wikipedia all the time for my own interests, and when I see a weak article on something that interests me I try to improve it if I have time. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 09:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I feel the need to emphasize what [[User:David Tornheim|David]] implies in the above post but does not state directly: watch those disputes, but (for the love of god) '''don't comment in them'''. The point is to read them in order to get a better understanding of how things are done here. Neiher the above comment by David nor my present one is meant to give you a list of topics it would be good to contribute to (you did that yourself a few sections up). We are also not trying to "censor" you or {{tq|literally [tell you] that [you] should not express [your] opinions due to [your] number of edits}}. We are giving you advice on the best way not to get blocked. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::^Yep. I didn't want to say it outright: You are indeed free to comment almost anywhere you want, but based on your past record and limited experience, commenting on contentious threads is not recommended until you learn better judgment of what will and won't get you into trouble. Watch, listen, learn by good example. Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=771154360 recent comment] at AN/I, for example, embarrassed me. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 10:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Break=== |
|||
::::By the way: Endercase, why do you even care so much about vindicating that IP? I'm not insinuating that it was you or a friend of yours (some of its edits, which I won't link per BEANS, make it really clear that it's the same person behind the IP as was trolling a bunch of unrelated ANI threads last year), but why are you so obsessed with it? And (rhetorical question) why I am I still offering to mentor someone who responds to my advicd with snark and defensiveness. [[WP:BITE]] is a good essay, but when the newbie in question bites back when others offer friendly advice, even after being called out for doing so and promising to be more humble as a prerequisite to their not being blocked or banned ... well, I'm seriously beginning to think there's nothing to help this situation. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I also did not take much interest in the IP editor, and like {{u|Hijiri88}} wonder why you would either. This is the kind of thing that you learn with experience. Admins know fishy behavior, and maybe they have seen the specific editor before or recognize the IP address as Hijiri88 seems to. Admittedly, I think a couple of accusations against you saying you were a sock were unwarranted, but I believe that was because you acted like you knew all the rules already, which is what a sock would do. So I can see why you might be afraid that other new editors get falsely or unfairly accused. But it's not your trial, and you are too new to really know for sure when someone is unfairly accused. The amount of time it takes to look into the record of the accused and the accuser, and possibly years of drama, is often just not worth the trouble: It's easier to let those who have been around and know the years of drama figure out how to deal with it. So instead, just let the admins do their job, until you understand what their job is and appreciate when they do their job well. In the future, they might help you deal with someone who is vandalizing an article that you put a lot of effort into. Maybe you appreciated that I defended you and you wanted to help others in a similar situation. You can, but I suggest you wait until you have 2,000 edits under your belt without major drama and really know the difference. I recommend against commenting on AN/I threads other than when you are a party -or- you were at the article in question and saw what was going on and feel like you can give some background that might not be obvious. Observing [[WP:AN/I]] or any of the noticeboards without interjecting will help you see how things work and are settled as MjolnirPants said... --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 10:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{yo|David Tornheim}}{{yo|Hijiri88}} As I mentioned above, I defended the IP because it was banned for defending me. But, I've paid my debt in that regard. I think y'all should write a essay on respecting your Wikipedia elders, I would like to help with that. The closest thing I can find currently is <i>don't template the regulars</i>, but that is significantly devalued by <i>template the regulars</i> and because it never defines a "regular". [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 14:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::(1) The IP wasn't banned. It was blocked. IPs can't be banned, only the people behind them. (2) It wasn't blocked for defending you. It was blocked for attacking Bishonen, after she criticized it for trolling the ANI thread. It didn't defend you at all; it was trolling. It was also clearly socking: it's absolutely implausible that it doesn't have an account. (3) Since the IP was blocked for trolling, socking and harassment, your continued insistence that it was blocked for defending you is concerning. Please accept that this was not the case. (4) I don't know what you mean by {{tq|I've paid my debt}}. Could you elaborate? (5) I have no interest in writing such an essay. The only users who would read it are long-time contributors who read essays, and I don't have time. I've already suck enough energy into ANI in the last week or so. (In my defense, I've been busy IRL and look set to continue to be so for a while, so building articles -- which for me requires research -- has been put on the backburner, but I'd really rather not edit Wikipedia if I can't write articles.) (6) If you think the largely satyrical user essay [[WP:TTR]] (which is linked to on 98 pages has 39 watchers, and is in the user space of someone who hasn't edited in almost a year) "significantly devalues" the widely-accepted standard of [[WP:DTR]] (which has 1,459 pages linking to it and 96 watchers) then I honestly don't know what to say to you. I think you should perhaps stop reading essays and just work on writing articles. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::BTW: You need to resign your post when you add a ping of someone, otherwise it won't be recognized and we won't see it. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{u|Hijiri88}} I think you mean "re-sign your post" rather than "resign your post." As I read, I was scratching my head as to what post he had already attained or assumed, which you felt he was not qualified for and needed to voluntarily resign from. LOL. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 09:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Ha! I hadn't even thought about that. From what I can tell, the "re" prefix before verbs can take a hyphen or not, with some cases ("rewrite") preferring the latter. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I've re-signed my post many times, but I've only ever resigned my post once. From what I can remember, the re- prefix is usually hyphenated whenever there is any possibility for confusion or when the verb in question wouldn't normally be modified in such a way (e.g. "That show needs to [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark re-jump the shark] so the execs will just cancel it."), such as in this case. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{yo|Hijiri88}} 1)The IP was banned (a block is just a time limited ban), any user that may be at that address was not however. 2)This not what the reviewing editor said. 3)The IP did none of those things, please provide citations (as it is this looks like a violation of Civil (belittling a fellow editor) and AGF (Saying they were trolling for saying something (logically laid out, and consistently defended) you disagree with? It was a poor attempt at a boomerang but still, they appear to have meant what they said.)(Sock: Really? there were no other accounts defending it other than myself as such it could not be said to be socking (using multiple accounts in one argument to alter the appearance of consensus))(harassment: under what definition, they did not post anywhere but the AN/I and their talk page.) 4) I have already explained this above, I'm not sure what else you want. 5)"The only users who would read it are long-time contributors who read essays" Great, I don't exist or at the very least there are no other editors like me. 6) It isn't about the number of links but the quality and substance of the argument (as consensus is defined). [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 12:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::(1) Don't lecture me on the difference between blocks and bans. You are wrong. Blocks can be placed unilaterally by a single admin, and can be removed unilaterally by a single admin. Bans can only be placed by community consensus or the Arbitration Committee, and cannot be appealed to a single admin. The only exceptions are [[WP:DS|discretionary sanctions]], which have nothing to do with this. (2) Who is "the reviewing editor"? You? (3) I'm not talking about what the IP said; I'm talking about what ''you'' said. Stop defending trolls and sockpuppeteers because of your (false) belief that they were "defending you". The IP is ''clearly'' someone with an account who wanted to post disruptive trolling on ANI, and logged out to do so. They harassed both me and Bishonen. If you cannot see that from their comments ... well, I don't know what to say. (4) If you refuse to answer questions posed to you, I don't see how this mentoring thing is going to work. If you make claims that you are unwilling to explain or back up, you will likely not thrive on Wikipedia. (5) It honestly looks like you were looking for any excuse you could to ignore DTR. If you can't tell the difference between a frequently cited essay that many accept as normative, and user subpage that very few people care about it ... well, again, I don't know what to say. (6) See (5). "Essays" vary ''widely'' in how accepted they are as representing norms. [[WP:BRD]], for example, is practically on the level of a [[WP:POLICY]] in how many contributors abide by it and will expect you to abide by it. [[WP:DTR]] is up there too. [[WP:TTR]] is ''clearly'' not on the same level, as demonstrated by the fact that it's a user subpage. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Useful Templates == |
|||
In reviewing your recent edits, I did find [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Endercase/Notes_and_work&diff=prev&oldid=771173768 this one] to be useful and I copied it for my own use as well. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Argument from Authority == |
|||
I put some comments and suggestions for you at [[Argument from authority]]. I have advised you to try to avoid joining in conflict. Watch how conflict is <i>resolved</i> instead. Joining the other editors in multiple edit reverts does not look good. That's not collaboration, but a form of edit-warring. Worse putting that you are on a "side" opens you up to the accusation of [[WP:Battleground]]. If you want to make edits like this you can--obviously other editors think are doing it--but I advise against it. Everyone who is doing those reverts--including you--can be taken to task for not trying harder to collaborate. Take the high ground. I'm not going to censor you from doing that, but do so at your own risk. I have been advising you to watch how conflict is resolved rather than join in it. Good luck. If anything I put on the talk page of the articles seems too much about your behavior rather than edits, please let me know and I can move it here to your talk page... --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Quote from [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], [[WP:FACTION]]: |
|||
::In [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|large disputes]], resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not [[WP:CANVASSING|organize a faction]] that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints. |
|||
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|David Tornheim}} If you spent 5 min looking at my posts at the talk page it is obvious that I was not edit warring. I was trying to prevent an edit war. I opened discussion and pinged all the accounts. In addition, I was AGF on the part of [[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]], who claimed consensus first, by reverting the edit of another account that I may have accidentally encouraged. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 12:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah, it '''is''' pretty clear that you're trying to help, not 'taking a side'. This would be a (really) bad case to do that in (see below), but it's pretty clear you're trying to help settle the dispute. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::The two other editors you pinged there are both of the opinion that an argument from authority is '''always''' a fallacy, despite me providing them a list of something like 17 impeccable RSes explicitly saying it is not, and despite Original Position (who is a philosophy major) explaining why to them multiple times. Both of them have been on the receiving end of [[WP:CIR]]/[[WP:EW]] blocks for their editing on that page. I argued with them for something like two months before I got sick of it and unwatchlisted the page. To give you an example of what I'm talking about: They've taken sources which explicitly state that a certain wrong conclusion in cellular biology was due to technological limitations of the time to conclude that the wrong conclusion was due to scientists all appealing to the authority of another scientist (whose 'authority' stemmed in no small part from having published the most widely cited paper advancing that wrong conclusion), because there's a passing mention in it of the scientist's "authority" and the suggestion that some may have not questioned it due to that. They've argued that a martial artist with a bachelor's degree in history (a profession which relies almost entirely upon trusting the conclusions of authorities, ironically enough) who makes his living making Youtube videos is a better source for the definition of a philosophical term than philosophers and philosophy textbooks. They've argued that their own [[WP:OR|personal views on the subject]] are ''obviously'' more correct than the RSes. They've argued that a popular press book of dubious reliability on the history of science which makes demonstrably wrong claims is a reliable source for the definition of a philosophical term. |
|||
::If you think I'm wading back into that mess full bore, you're sadly mistaken. The POV those two are pushing is wrong and runs counter to our principles here, however they've both learned how to avoid bad behavior which is unambiguous enough to warrant a topic ban or block, and settled for [[WP:CRUSH|quietly and slowly pushing their own views onto the article]]. I am about the 8th editor to have given up watching that page in disgust, due to these two and a few (read:3 or 4 at most) others over the years and to have accepted that article is going to contain OR, bad sources and a general level of ignorance which would otherwise not pass muster. Every once in a while, I'll come across it and make a minor edit. |
|||
::In this case, I reverted the deletion of material by an IP address. FL or Atlanta then opined that I was wrong based on the ludicrously bad logic that a declarative statement (a tautology no less!) can somehow be a logical fallacy (it actually gives me a headache to think about trying to identify all the misconceptions that would go into making that sort of error). I reverted again only because I got the notice that I was reverted and the reason given was so unbelievably ignorant. Orange then came along and reverted again giving another shockingly ignorant reason by suggesting that a tautology is somehow a bad thing (at least they recognized that it was a tautology) for an encyclopedia to state, and that '''they''' were somehow restoring a consensus version. At this point, I'm simply done. I'm not wasting my time trying to edit when there are two editors dedicated to pushing a demonstrably wrong POV, and I'm not wasting my time compiling the giant wall of diffs and text that would make it clear to the admins what they're doing while being way too long for me to reasonably expect anyone to read it. |
|||
::Take my advice: Unwatch that page and stop editing in the talk. Just let them have it. The vast majority of links to that page are from editors (incorrectly) citing it as an unambiguous fallacy. Aside from argumentative neckbeards who think they know a thing or two about logic because the internets told them so, there's little to no interest in that article. It's not worth the aggravation. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Wise== |
|||
Your last edit to self-revert was very wise! I think you are learning. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:... but on that subject, please refrain from directly editing policy pages to conform to your point of view in a dispute. Your interpretation, and belief that those three words need to be emphasized about the rest of the paragraph, may be common, but you need prior consensus for that, and I would discourage you from arguing that point on the talk page anyway. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 08:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with {{u|Hijiri88}} here and with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVerifiability&type=revision&diff=771925096&oldid=771800265 this edit]. Changing that policy page was a very bad idea. Editing a policy page is like trying to go change the U.S. constitution. You have to have consensus support for that. Before doing anything like that, please go to the talk page and make sure there is a consensus for any proposed change. I know we have the guideline [[WP:BOLD]], but when it comes to areas of likely dispute or policy, go to the talk page and get consensus before making such a major change--which may seem minor to you--it isn't. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 16:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::: Even though it was just a <b>bold</b> and I specifically asked other users to revert it if it went against consensus? I did not make any wording changes or anything that changed the meaning at all. If you disagree with my changes change them back. I was under the impression that is how consensus building takes place. My actions were based on [[WP:CYCLE]] which I was under the impression was well accepted. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 17:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Don't think this is that big of a deal, because it's not. I agree that your edit was relatively minor and not a disruption or any sort of malfeasance on your part. However, you should be aware that policy and guideline pages are generally not considered subject to [[WP:BRD]], but require one to gain consensus ''before'' editing, except for grammar and spelling (and even with grammar, it's still best to gain consensus first). And to be fair: I don't think that's documented anywhere, even though it's very well accepted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==RfC Break== |
|||
::::: {{yo|MjolnirPants|David Tornheim|Hijiri88}} Should we add that to [[WP:BRD]] we could do a RfC there. I think it would be helpful. That:"That policy and guideline pages are generally not considered subject to [[WP:CYCLE]]. With them it is generally accepted that one should gain explicit consensus on the talk page before editing, except for spelling fixes." (if we truly required it the page would be protected, or at the very least there would be an edit warning) [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 19:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{tq|Should we add that to [[WP:BRD]] we could do a RfC there. I think it would be helpful.}} That actually sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not sure if it will get much support, but personally, I think that the biggest problem with unwritten rules is that they're unwritten. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{done}} per: [[Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle| this]] [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 21:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
Latest revision as of 00:35, 28 November 2023
Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could
You may leave any and all messages here you want. If I don't like it (it is inappropriate) I might remove it though. (I have never done so though)Endercase (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
All subpages are linked on my userpage. Please join any conversation and edit at will. Endercase (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Embedded Archive
|
---|
Headings and linksWelcome back to Wikipedia! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See MOS:HEAD. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Stealth banningI fail to see how removing references to Breitbart and Infowars violates NPOV. Neither is considered a reliable source. I will not revert my edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Who are you? Also re: your comments on RSNSorry if this seems confrontational, but I'm just curious if you have used any other accounts or been editing logged out. It's pretty unusual for an account to make five edits, disappear for half a decade, and then come back and become relatively prolific on two talk pages and a noticeboard, and I'm noticing that a significant number of your opinions on said noticeboard appear to be somewhat extreme. Have you read WP:RS? Being a dissenting voice is fine (I usually try to give some alternative point of view on matters brought up there that attract my attention), but if you regularly post things that are not supported by community consensus, there's a small chance no one else will post and your opinion could mislead someone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Confederate moneyEndercase, I can't answer at AN/I, but your question deserves a response. It's an American euphemism. During the Civil War, the Confederacy (south) issued its own money. According to American law, and certainly after the war, it had no value; thus a comment that crackles (the sound crisp paper bills make) like Confederate money means it's valueless, phony or fake. We usually use it when someone says something that sounds like what another wants to hear, but they don't really mean what they say, or variations on that scenario. --Drmargi (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Your templated welcomesWhy in the world are you welcoming obvious vandals/socks as well as editors who have been around for years? --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I notice you're still working on pages in the WP: namespace...Now, that essay will almost certainly be userfied, so that's a thing, but I really think you should just forget about it and move on to writing more articles. 13/210 of your edits this month have been to the mainspace, and I can't see one of them because you reinserted something that an admin, User:Diannaa, had removed as a copyvio. You also are currently proposing a "boomerang" for another admin on ANI, but ... think about that for a second. What boomerang would be appropriate for User:Beeblebrox? I am limiting my ANI activity in order to focus more on content than I already have been, but the only outside parties who have advised me to do so were doing so informally and as friends; I find it really weird that you appear to be doing the opposite, especially considering an admin recently threatened to block you if you didn't stop making comments like your recent comment on a certain user talk page (and, again, your comment about Beeblebrox honestly looks exactly the same, at least to my eyes). Seriously, why not just stay the heck away from the WP: namespace and write articles? I feel like I've said this to you about eight million times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way -- being blocked is part of being a Wikipedian, and you would be hard-pressed to find a long-term contributor with a clean block log. People who are not able to emotionally deal with being blocked are not the kond of people who should be editing Wikipedia, because it would not be fair on the rest of us if they didn't get blocked for the same behaviour that the rest of us get blocked for. Saying that such users need to "grow a pair" is essentially the same as this, and demanding that someone strike it as "ad hominem" completely misses the point. But I can't possibly understand why you are fixating on that page given how you haven't been blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: It should be noted that I struck a portion of your post at the RfC, you once again referred to the mentorship as mandatory while demeaning my !vote, as I have already shown to you the close was "No Consensus". I highly suggest that you read Wp:civil again and the comments that I made that caused you to end your mentorship with me. I would also request that you stop harassing/hounding me is various locations throughout Wikipedia as you have done since we first encountered each other. Endercase (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Conversation about EssayI'm sorry, but I can't even take the essay seriously after "For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life." Not only that, but it masks the damage of vandalism and disruptive editing by pulling on the heart strings of readers with this line, "This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified." Such blocks more than likely only happen when an editor is being extremely disruptive, and the administrator has no other choice. Our administrators understand that blocks are not meant to be punishment, but a preventative safeguard to protect Wikipedia, since anybody can edit it. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Except it provides no information on how to actually deal with such blocks. All it does is pad disruptive behavior. Let's go over it.
"Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. Anybody can edit it (normally). Being blocked from editing it is distressing. This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified."
"Of course many blocks are necessary and we're not saying they're not, but there's an emotional toll. Consider that some people, or a few people at any rate, have never been in jail (or even arrested). have never been sued. have never been suspended from school (or even had detention, or failed a class). have never been fired from a job for cause (or even called on the carpet for a serous dressing down by their boss). have never been in a physical fight (or even shouting verbal confrontation (except maybe as a schoolchild or maybe a lover's quarrel)). have never been kicked out of their house or come home to find the locks changed. We know that a lot of people have had some (or, God forbid, all) of these things happen to them, but the average person – you can call them goody-goodies if you want to – tries to follow the rules and takes sanctions by authorities very much to heart. For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life. This is the first time someone has said to them "You've broken the rules, and badly, and you're in a lot of trouble here". Or one of the few times. And that certainly is the message one takes from being blocked, regardless of how we try to gild that. It's a pretty hard thing to hear, for a few people."
"We know for a lot of experienced Wikipedians (which includes all admins), "Under the spreading chestnut tree / I blocked you and you blocked me" is all part of the WP:MMORPG. But most of our editors, particularly new editors, come from a place called "real life"."
"A person, particularly a new user, on being blocked is not likely to say "Oh, well, here is part of the functioning of this site. I'll just put in this template, formatted properly, and enter litigation on this matter, all in good fun". The person is likely to be appalled, horrified, angry, sad, alarmed, and disgusted. They'll likely close the page at once and never come back (but they'll have a story about what a screwup the Wikipedia is). So whether its a new user or not, any block of any duration has a non-trivial chance of being permanent, in that the user is likely to just throw up his hands and walk away. Again, lots of blocks are necessary, and we thank our volunteer administrators for enhancing the functioning of the Wikipedia in this way. But, you know, we want to be careful here." This entire essay is basically saying that administrators should be more lenient when blocking new editors, regardless of if their behavior is disruptive, due to a risk to the editor retention rate, as well as victimizing those who are reaping what they sown as a fruit of their behavior. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
Welcoming blocked user?Why [2]? It seems ... well, not in keeping with community spirit. - Bri (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Military courts have different burdens of proof, are we closer to that? I think this encyclopedia is a society, things don't have to be fair or just but they should benefit the encyclopedia. We do need a better solution to Socks, maybe emoji recognition (South Park reff). Anyway, thank you for the discussion, I will temper my defence of peers I feel have not been given a fair shake and try preventive measures instead (as I am doing with BulbAtop (who has odd contribs)). Endercase (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
If you revert again or otherwise comment at this account's Talk page, I will block you for your disruption and your disruptive attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017![]() {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} . NeilN talk to me 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)To prevent further disruption by your attempts at "discussion". --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
My most recent attempt at communication via template with an admin was ineffective. I know know that templating the regulars may result in a block (once unblocked I will leave a note at the relevant essay (or make a list) that specific regulars may not be templated without consequences (anyone may sign that (list?))). I will work on conveying my ideas about socks and COI into an essay or addendum to current policy, such that I can effectively communicate my views on the issue. To be clear I do think that socks should be regulated or blocked or banned in an effective preventive manner. It should now be obvious to all parties involved that templates are not effective communication or discussion starting tools. Endercase (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The sheer idiocy of comparing sockmasters to a class of people historically discriminated against leaves me breathless. @GB fan, Bbb23, and DoRD: I will be recusing myself from taking any future admin actions with regards to this editor. --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() Endercase (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #18181 was submitted on May 02, 2017 23:01:38. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC) @NeilN, Bbb23, and Just Chilling: I would like to continue discussion on the above topics until I have a full understanding. But, I fear doing so would be deemed disruptive. May I archive these two discussions to help remove the temptation? Endercase (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Advice and warning
I've been looking at this WP:ANI discussion, which was closed as recently as 20 March. You were quite strongly criticized by experienced editors and admins there, and a topic ban from WP:RSN gained considerable support. It looks like you escaped sanctions for two reasons: 1) because the idea of mentoring was broached, and you yourself appeared to accept mentoring by the two people who offered, though the way it would work was left a little vague both by you and the closer of the thread,[3] and 2) because you seemed at least somewhat ready to accept responsibility for the disruption you had caused.
After the ANI thread was closed, I looked to see how you were doing, alerted by a post on User talk:MjolnirPants, which I watch. I was a little taken aback to note your passive-aggressive and condescending comment about Hijiri88 — one of your mentors at that time, no less — on Vfrickey's talkpage, in a fake 'defence' of them against Vfrickey's lengthy wikilawyering: "..I do not feel like Hijiri 88 is beyond help in these matters. If you (=Vfrickey) are able to convince them that their specific actions were harmful to the encyclopedia I am certain that they would change their behavior moving forward"[4] followed the next day by an actual attack on the same page: "You have a history of edit warring and demeaning behavior. In addition, you are also a rampant POV pusher and constantly and consistently fail to observe good faith. .. While I do appreciate you and your efforts to make me a better editor, you are kinda a wp:dick.."[5]
Having noticed these highly personal comments and others, such as an utterly irrelevant attack on Guy here, followed by MjolnirPants's reply that Guy has tons of experience and is widely respected, then followed by egregious wikilawyering by you: "So you are saying they are experts in Wikipedia (more than equals?)? I thought that was a violation of policy." Have you noticed how conversation stops when you go into that mode..? Believe me, it's not because the other person has been convinced.
I considered blocking you, specifically for talking in this way to somebody who had spent time trying to help you, but I think you may not realize how your manner affects others. Therefore I'll give you some advice instead: 1) please don't comment on other people at all (because I really don't think you have much sense for how it affects them, perhaps even when you're trying to be nice) and 2) please try to read policies for their spirit, not for finding policy fragments that prove how right you are. People will soon get tired of trying to explain things to you, simply because you make so many insensitive comments about other people, and you cherry-pick so many policies in defence of yourself. Both these approaches are fundamentally wrong. Put your listening ears on instead. If you don't, you'll end up blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC).
- Adding: I just noticed that you changed the post I particularly objected to while I was writing up the above[6] (writing it rather slowly, as I do, and with RL interruptions). I'm very glad to see you did. Those changes show good sense, even if they took you 15 hours. Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking "save". Bishonen | talk 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC).
- Bishonen TL;DR:I'm weird and I apologize when I cause harm. I do things for reasons though. Even if those reasons need lots of work.
- I accept any punitive actions supported by Bishonen or Hijiri88(who I had already given permission to, to remove any and all of my posts), or my other uninvolved (in this case) mentors, or by public consensus.
- Bishonen TL;DR:I'm weird and I apologize when I cause harm. I do things for reasons though. Even if those reasons need lots of work.
- Thank you, you are a very well respected admin, I have have seen the loyalty you inspire in others. Guy gets under my skin to be honest, though I probably also get under theirs (particularly when I fixed that AGF link on their talk page).
- "Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking 'save'." this is something that I am working on, I have been getting better in that regard if you believe that. It is just difficult to balance respectfulness and pure honesty about my feelings. I would like your take on expression in regards to consensus, I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings. This leads to ignoring peers even when they are being problematic which in turn leads to peers being banned. I don't want to contribute to that cycle, I would much rather speak my mind and if I can help them be aware of how they come across. It is a fine balance though, one I have nowhere near mastered.
- WP:LAWYER is another difficult point, I believe in the fundamentals, I don't mean to do any damage to the encyclopedia. This type of behavior is meant to gain a personal greater understanding of policy not to prove a point. I am not being sarcastic when I make these types of comments. These are legitimate questions, often questions that have been left unanswered by shared public consensus. I am trying very hard to understand this society. I also refrained from making direct comments at my AN/I, which may be worth noting.
- Consensus is a difficult term for me, as it at once is meant to mean the most logical position while also somehow the majority opinion. I find that often these are not one in the same and some modification could be made. In order to do that some disruption is necessary, else you get a particular type of stagnation that leads to cascade failure of power structures. That sort of failure leads to dark ages, I would like to avoid that (though my personal input would never really change anything by myself).
- I find it odd that peers don't often take issue with my questions or arguments in and of themselves, but with my audacity. That is something I don't know how to change, I speak my mind. Should I not speak my mind?
- It did take me longer than it should to change that post, I agree. If you would like to ban me for that, I believe that would be in order and supported by consensus. In addition, I still left the post in a state where I am criticizing my mentor, which is not my place. But, I do not believe in dishonesty, even when the expression of my ideas may harm me. Ideas and views should be proportionally and honestly expressed. No editor is perfect nor should any editor be above reproach. Criticism is how things improve. Stagnation is death to online communities, and to many individuals. Though I understand I come across as abrupt often I am also very patient (despite my impression). I am OK with incremental changes, 2 steps forward 3 steps back. I just want people to know that the average when taken in sum will always be forward (across a large enough time frame). We may not know what the near future holds, I could die tomorrow, I would rather be honest today.
- To be clear I am extremely grateful to my mentors, their guidance has been honestly expressed and done without malice. I am a very difficult student, I understand that, if they are successful in their mission they are in my opinion more than worthy of being admin. if they can handle me they can handle just about anyone. But I will logically criticize those who criticize me, if you can't handle it then you should get out of kitchen as the saying goes. Something about glass houses and those without sin. The vast majority of the peers I encounter want to help the encyclopedia, without fair criticism those same peers will end up in a AN/I and banned over enough time. Criticism is an important part of the consensus possess, even if I was personally out of place and should be punished for my sins.
- Based on the loyalty that others have shone they have for you I would accept your judgement without personal criticism. I would like that you also consult with Hijiri88 on this as they are the injured party, I would also accept any position they currently take, an eye for an eye and all that. They may take up to one pound of flesh. Though I would prefer not to die for my comments, I would accept that fate should the injured party so choose. Though that might be because I have a pretty high confidence that they won't go the pound of flesh route. I do also like life quite a bit and my sub-conscious may take over at that point and defend myself, but I would cooperate to the best of my ability. I know no-one is asking for that amount of cooperation but that is how far I would go to make things right. I might not take back my feelings (my first wording was harsher than I truly feel), but I would go though hell to make things equal.
- I believe in this project and if you feel the project is better off without me than so be it. I am not a one-man army here to change the way things are done, I do however want the participate in consensus, hence my questioning and challenging behavior. I feel like my mind does work differently than most peers', and as such my particular POV is often not seen. It is not necessary for the project though, eventually another like me will add their POV (like mine) as some tiny footnote in history.
- Wow, this has gotten really long. I'm sorry, there is just a lot of data to convey. The TL;DR at the top does summarize it pretty well though. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Everything Bishonen said above is good advice. Listen. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- David, you should have given the same advice when I asked you to yesterday. What you did was post a string of attacks on my talk page, which almost certainly made the problem worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I visited this page to see how the subpage issue I mentioned above is going. The section is #Argument from authority/New introduction but that link will not work until the collapsed box under #Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could is expanded. As a side note, wishing blocked users could post here is inappropriate as it tells the community that core procedures involving disruptive users are invalid. The issue I raised (about a draft in article space) is trivial, but the fact that even after the discussion, Endercase could still not comprehend what WP:Subpages#Allowed uses says (diff mentions "Allowed uses" #8, but that allows subpages under talk). The advice I gave (to copy the content to talk) was valid since no one else had edited it at the time. I don't care about the subpage, but I am concerned about the lack of understanding and the desire to look for snippets that might permit the page (see "please try to read policies for their spirit" from Bishonen above). However, one issue about leaving the subpage is that now that another editor has joined in, the future of the page becomes problematic. A solution would be to move it to User:Endercase/sandbox where anyone can continue editing (lowercase "s" is correct). The beauty of that is that in the future the sandbox can be reused for unrelated purposes and no clean up would be needed. An inferior solution would be to move the page to Talk:Argument from authority/Temp where it could languish when unwanted. Using "Temp" as the name would be better as the page might be used for other temporary purposes in the future (or use "Draft"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I've already given you full permission to move the article, If you think it is a problem then move it. That is my understanding of consensus. My reading of the rules only strongly suggests that is should be moved, primarily, it states, to avoid a permanent residence. The article(temporary sub-page) will be moved whenever someone moves it. There will be no opposition to the move. I have already asked for consensus for a move on the talk page, I will move it after that discussion (and more reading about the process). There is no real problem with the page, unless you think there is, I have read very little about harms to the encyclopedia in such a case. You are the only editor that has expressed strong opinions about the move, as such I invite you, once again, to move it. Endercase (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned, the issue is not so much the page. The difficulty is that you have again avoided an opportunity to acknowledge what the guidelines say about subpages. More than that, the "My reading of the rules only strongly suggests" comment dodges and weaves around the fact that the guideline is crystal clear—no subpages in article space. Fixing the page later is fine by me, but why the wikilawyering? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Why not debate policy, I thought that was how consensus works. Endercase (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll leave it up to your mentors to explain where proposals to change policy or guideline pages should be debated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Policy suggests that(the proper location for debate) is everywhere(talk pages) where someone disagrees. In addition, you came here pointing out my mistakes. Errors you had already pointed out. Then when I ask if there is really a problem with the page you back down, and say there is no real problem. Meaning your entire intent here is to try to make me look bad("wikilawyer"), you do not care about the page what-so ever or even about improving my behavior. This does appear to be NOTHERE(civil, hound, that sort of thing), much like you are accusing me of(wikilawyering for the sake of self interest). Something about a pot and a kettle is in order I think. Please don't notify me or my mentors about that page again, either fix it yourself or let it go. Endercase (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Endercase, are we seriously still talking about this? Seriously? Everyone has been telling you to drop it. Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages. Now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is terribly ironic as I was just telling them the same thing. I need to write out wp:stick by hand a few hundred times. See y'all when I'm done, after I sleep and stuff. Endercase (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Endercase, are we seriously still talking about this? Seriously? Everyone has been telling you to drop it. Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages. Now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Policy suggests that(the proper location for debate) is everywhere(talk pages) where someone disagrees. In addition, you came here pointing out my mistakes. Errors you had already pointed out. Then when I ask if there is really a problem with the page you back down, and say there is no real problem. Meaning your entire intent here is to try to make me look bad("wikilawyer"), you do not care about the page what-so ever or even about improving my behavior. This does appear to be NOTHERE(civil, hound, that sort of thing), much like you are accusing me of(wikilawyering for the sake of self interest). Something about a pot and a kettle is in order I think. Please don't notify me or my mentors about that page again, either fix it yourself or let it go. Endercase (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll leave it up to your mentors to explain where proposals to change policy or guideline pages should be debated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Why not debate policy, I thought that was how consensus works. Endercase (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned, the issue is not so much the page. The difficulty is that you have again avoided an opportunity to acknowledge what the guidelines say about subpages. More than that, the "My reading of the rules only strongly suggests" comment dodges and weaves around the fact that the guideline is crystal clear—no subpages in article space. Fixing the page later is fine by me, but why the wikilawyering? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I've already given you full permission to move the article, If you think it is a problem then move it. That is my understanding of consensus. My reading of the rules only strongly suggests that is should be moved, primarily, it states, to avoid a permanent residence. The article(temporary sub-page) will be moved whenever someone moves it. There will be no opposition to the move. I have already asked for consensus for a move on the talk page, I will move it after that discussion (and more reading about the process). There is no real problem with the page, unless you think there is, I have read very little about harms to the encyclopedia in such a case. You are the only editor that has expressed strong opinions about the move, as such I invite you, once again, to move it. Endercase (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Endercase, in your long reply, you project a conviction that it's necessarily a virtue to 'speak your mind' and be frank at all times. No, it isn't. I see you constructing a theory that it's a good thing to tell people how they "come across" (to you), otherwise they're not going to improve and will end up at AN/I. But I think it's a flawed theory. "Honesty" is overrated when it comes to telling people what you think of them. I'm not asking you to be dishonest, but there's nothing dishonest about keeping your mouth shut at the right times. Speech is for communication, it's not for expressing your feelings and never mind the cost or the result or the impression it makes on the other person. Telling people they're a dick and so on doesn't communicate or help anybody to improve, it only offends. I understand you find the Wikipedia culture in this regard overly reserved ("I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings"), and you want to improve that culture. You don't want to adjust to it. Now I agree with what Hijiri says just above: "Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages," and I would add, stop trying to change the culture, be more open to adjusting to it. The typical somewhat cautious Wikipedia discourse, codified in policies like WP:CIV, is unlikely to change because one person behaves in the opposite way and is devastatingly frank at all times, under the banner of "Should I not speak my mind?" Please instead follow my simple advice above and don't comment on other people at all — go edit articles. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
°°^°°
Thank you @Endercase!😀😀😃😄
Still finding my way around and the tips were helpful. Thank you. BulbAtop (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: Ok, what the heck is °°^°°? I've seen it before. Is it like your personal symbol? Various searches don't show a thing, which is a little odd. I mean no hits? 0. Don't see that very often anymore. Endercase (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, it is indeed a personal symbol. It is used as a header for the appreciation. 😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- So it is like your version of a barnstar?? What if I "steal"/copy/meme it? °°^°° Endercase (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- While we are on about it, what is with all the emogjie[sic] here?? Are you really on mobile? Or is that like a custom OS with a touch keyboard or something?? Endercase (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- BTW you RESEARCHED IT?? BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well yeah °°^°°, then I made a weird video where my mind was blown, never really thought about how much search engines leave out of the internet. I mean this even breaks Wikipedia's Search engine. None of the comments even show up. I guess it must be rare. How do you know when someone has used it? °°^°° You say on your page that you can use that like a ping. But it breaks the search engines... do you have a custom internet search? Like what the actually heck? And also I only mentioned coffee one on Wikipedia (I think: other than some IP edits I made when I first got here, maybe), did you read all of my messages? Like if I use this anywhere would you get a ping?? Like a custom social media all in one search? Is that even real? Anyway, I need sleep, still human. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Do what you want with it...I don't mind! Just promise me a review, okay? Aaaand yes, I'm 101% mobile, hence the emojies (sick) [sic]. Maybe the °°^°° is, like, extraterrestrial, who knows? Looks cool to me. But I never would havc known that your research could have so much results though. What video? What's it about? Anyways, just feel free to use my sign, okay? And BTW do you know any programming? 😥
- And I pity you for being human. BulbAtop (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, automatically switched to turning test mode. You are human. Or at least you have limited resources. Sorry. Be back later. Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about that. BulbAtop (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming you are responding about being human. Well, sure, we could be in a simulation. Everything could be fake, but even if it is, we are still human. Human is whatever other human's identify it as, I have identified you as most probably human. Anyway, I've asked my question about how you knew about the coffee. You may email or use other communications if you wish. Endercase (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I meant BOTH being human and having limited resources. But what what other communications do you refer? BulbAtop (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: What I mean is, I would understand if you feel like you can't talk freely here. I don't feel that way myself but, I would understand if you did. Endercase (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I DO feel that way. Wouldn't be long before we're being interminably banned, don't you think? BulbAtop (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC
- @BulbAtop: As long as we are genuinely trying to help them I don't think they will permaban us. Though they may attempt to teach us a few manners. For instance you do not follow the typical reply format. This might anger some of them. Endercase (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Just what are these "reply formats"? I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so I just had to ask. {endercase@gmail.com} sounds good enough?😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: like this, looks better in desktop mode.Endercase (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Just what are these "reply formats"? I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so I just had to ask. {endercase@gmail.com} sounds good enough?😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: As long as we are genuinely trying to help them I don't think they will permaban us. Though they may attempt to teach us a few manners. For instance you do not follow the typical reply format. This might anger some of them. Endercase (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I DO feel that way. Wouldn't be long before we're being interminably banned, don't you think? BulbAtop (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC
- @BulbAtop: What I mean is, I would understand if you feel like you can't talk freely here. I don't feel that way myself but, I would understand if you did. Endercase (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I meant BOTH being human and having limited resources. But what what other communications do you refer? BulbAtop (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming you are responding about being human. Well, sure, we could be in a simulation. Everything could be fake, but even if it is, we are still human. Human is whatever other human's identify it as, I have identified you as most probably human. Anyway, I've asked my question about how you knew about the coffee. You may email or use other communications if you wish. Endercase (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about that. BulbAtop (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, automatically switched to turning test mode. You are human. Or at least you have limited resources. Sorry. Be back later. Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well yeah °°^°°, then I made a weird video where my mind was blown, never really thought about how much search engines leave out of the internet. I mean this even breaks Wikipedia's Search engine. None of the comments even show up. I guess it must be rare. How do you know when someone has used it? °°^°° You say on your page that you can use that like a ping. But it breaks the search engines... do you have a custom internet search? Like what the actually heck? And also I only mentioned coffee one on Wikipedia (I think: other than some IP edits I made when I first got here, maybe), did you read all of my messages? Like if I use this anywhere would you get a ping?? Like a custom social media all in one search? Is that even real? Anyway, I need sleep, still human. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- BTW you RESEARCHED IT?? BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, it is indeed a personal symbol. It is used as a header for the appreciation. 😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: Oh okay.....but you didn't answer the question though. BulbAtop (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by that. That is my email. Endercase (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay then good enough.😃 I'll email you. BulbAtop (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
...Guessing I got lost in junk mail lol? BlbAtp (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: I guess it got lost in the interwebs. I have received a few emails that mention Wikipedia but I have responded to all of them. I guess yours was not among them. I searched my junk-mail and it was not their either (unless it had no markings of your current account). I sent you a ping, well see if you get that. Endercase (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Interwebs? BlbAtp (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: IMO: The so called "internet" isn't uniform nor is it "lagfree", interwebs is therfore more accurate. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh snap...
- I actually never thought about that. I'm so stupid.😞😞
- But wow, we really need to talk more. BlbAtp (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop:Not sure if trolling... AGF-> Stupidity has nothing to do with it IMO, our culture has adopted a uniform sounding word for a very patchwork technology. This is likely a psyop (marketing), to give the appearance of stability. I used a weird word, you questioned it. Questioning thing isn't stupid IMO. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- But don't you think it would be different, seeing that we're from two separate cultures? Just asking. BlbAtp (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: Guess that depends on how you define culture. We really should switch to email. I don't want to banned for this (some editors would love to try). Endercase (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- But don't you think it would be different, seeing that we're from two separate cultures? Just asking. BlbAtp (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop:Not sure if trolling... AGF-> Stupidity has nothing to do with it IMO, our culture has adopted a uniform sounding word for a very patchwork technology. This is likely a psyop (marketing), to give the appearance of stability. I used a weird word, you questioned it. Questioning thing isn't stupid IMO. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. But just lemme sort a few things out first, good?
BlbAtp (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I just read through this section, and I want to say a few things (in order in which the things they are in response to appear):
- Check out Deep web.
- I am a programmer, if anyone has questions or needs help. I also enjoy programming, so feel free to ask for favors (small favors, mind. Don't ask me to create a new OS for you.)
- Check out Holographic principle. Yes, the in-depth physics are just as the layman's explanation presents them. For that matter, check out Many worlds hypothesis and remember how you used to wish your favorite works of fiction were real when you were a kid...
- If anyone proposes a block against one or two users for having a good faith discussion on one of those user's talk page, I will be the first to excoriate them for their inability to mind their own fucking business. You guys are free to use email, but it kind of breaks my heart to think there are editors afraid to discuss anything having to do with WP on WP, unless doing so would cause a disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: I know a bit about the dark and deep webs, some of it is very cool (such as P2P sites and chats) and some of it is much less cool. But I never realized there were small pieces of code that literally broke search engines, I thought you had to try a bit to not be indexed.
- Be careful about the whole offering minor programming favors, next thing you know I'll be asking you to help analyze reams of weather data to determine why global warming projections appear to drastically decrease biomass growth. Or something even worse.
- troll face* What about dielectricity though? (see Eric Dollard, try to suspend disbelief for a bit XD). Also functionality trumps exactness, if something is functionally real it is effectively real (until it is nolonger functionally real).
- BulpAtop was warned about wp:social a little while ago by the recent RfA subject, not to mention my run-ins with my AN/I submitter. I have received a few emails from 3rd party WikiDenisons warning me to keep my head down, saying I've upset a few vengeful members, and that the emailer would like me to stick around. Endercase (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Programmatically analyzing weather data is actually something I offered to do, recently. (Tidal data, to be specific). But yeah, you ask me to write 6000 lines of Fortran and I'll agree, then send you a malware that replaces every file with randomly culled beastiality/scat porn and re-associates file extensions and icons to make sure you don't notice until it's too late. Because I'm an evil lil shit sometimes.
- If someone emailed you to let you know that you've pissed some people off, then honestly my response would be "Thank you, captain obvious!" and to christen you as a real Wikipedian because we've all pissed people off. Anyone who actively sets out to get you is more likely to discover the aerodynamic properties of fibrous cellulose projectiles. That being said, if someone were socializing to the exclusion of actually editing, a vengeful party might be able to get the admins to give them a stern warning.
- I've actually heard of Dollard before (I spent a lot of time arguing with cranks back in the day) and I think I've actually called him a shit-for-brains in a mailgroup at some point (to his cyber-face, that is). Or maybe it was a forum somewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Dollard is crank in some respects but some of his books make mathematical sense and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods. But it is difficult sometimes to separate the BS from the actual science. Mostly just don't listen to his views on evolution at all (maybe he is a troll?). Right now, I think there may be some worth in his books anyway.
- It is mildly difficult to find someone that knows Fortran these days. A lot of models use it though. Endercase (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods
From what I've read, I'd have to disagree (admittedly, he's not my favorite crank so I haven't read all that much), and I suspect any decent physicist would, too. His writings might be much easier to conceptualize, but that doesn't mean they hold up to any scrutiny.- I know a few people who know Fortran. I'm not one of them, to be fair. I've use it a little bit, but I'd need a reference work to do anything useful with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Endercase I know Fortran! Good old "Do" loops. Some of the worst variable names ever! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree
I wrote this before noticing your comment immediately above "I don't think the question is if it is Canvassing or not. I think it should be "Was it inappropriate canvassing?" ". Of course, I agree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: I'm not sure if I am allowed to express my opinions on this (or any) policy any longer. My views and expressions are, I've been told, disruptive. I have been topic banned (apparently) from talking about a large aspect of canvassing policy. Endercase (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with your other views, but I think you are spot on with this observation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: Well, thank you. You may may want to review my comments Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:CANVASS that I made prior to the administrative action. Endercase (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in...
Seeing this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere/Archive
I'm posting here for two reasons: first, I feel you may feel vindicated as you were predicting socking while everyone else was ignoring it, and I was disagreeing with you. Second, it's a great example of the disruption socking can cause. An article was subject to a counterfactual POV shift for a year, editors were chased away from the project and projects like our formal mediation were subject to gaming and disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: What was the evidence that caused you to request a checkuser? They should have engaged in discussion, this would have been avoided. That POV was nothing more than a troll stance IMO. I have significant difficulty believing they believed their own arguments. I think they were testing the limits of Wikipedia's society. I also do not believe that is all of their accounts. Their disagreement with the fundamental methods by which Wikipedia determines the reliability of knowledge and their camping at what I consider a key page suggest that all of those accounts are masked. None of the accounts I see at the check user have anywhere enough edits given how quickly they respond to changes, the puppet master behind those account is not done IMO. This, I think, is a game for them. They may try to "get you back" if they are that sort, be careful. Endercase (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Be careful about those spaces as the first char of a line. It messes up your formatting.
- It was a number of things, mostly between FL or Atlanta and Shroom. Shroom's way of talking was so stiffly formal, yet it fell away when they got flustered. Shroom also tried the exact same tactic FL had tried before (asking at RSN whether scientists were RSes for claims about logical fallacies, while obfuscating the fact that philosopher disagreed). There was also your suspicion: given your attitude towards socking, I felt like suspicion on your part was something to take seriously. So I did the scatter chart which I linked at the SPI, but only showing FL and Shroom. I noticed there was no overlap: they were never editing at the same time. So when Perf showed up after the block and jumped right back in, but FL didn't, I realized that there were only ever two of them active at the same time, so I threw the others in the chart. I didn't really expect the result I got (I thought Perf and Logician might be the same, and I thought FL and Shroom might be the same, but I didn't expect them all the be the same person). And while I'm confident the CU got all of the current accounts, I would not be the least bit surprised if they immediately made more accounts, and have a sock or two already active again. But as long as they don't disrupt the article again, I don't really care. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Yeah, I am having some issues with the editor (keeps putting my cursor at the beginning when I hit shift+most other keys). I filed a bug report, it is a known issue in chrome. I might switch to notepad++. I understand that feeling but the significant lack in edit count given their knowledge of policy and other behavior suggest that these accounts are not all of them. I mean just look at their noticeboard activity, very non-standard for a "new" user. All together they have far less edits than I do. Endercase (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
What browser are you using?I skipped over the Chrome part... Try Firefox for a while. It's what I use, and I have very very few complaints. Supposedly, Edge is even a pretty decent browser.- Regarding the socks, actually, they've displayed a very trivial (if expansive) knowledge of policy: they don't really understand most of it (I can show you one example of the sock really screwing up a thoroughly-documented, not-difficult-to-understand process). Look at Shrooms report of me at ANI for an example of them completely misconstruing how the community tends to respond to such things for another example. Yeah, they know their alphabet soup of policy pages, but they didn't really understand any of them. Hell, they were ideologically opposed to our most fundamental policy, lol. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Yeah, I am having some issues with the editor (keeps putting my cursor at the beginning when I hit shift+most other keys). I filed a bug report, it is a known issue in chrome. I might switch to notepad++. I understand that feeling but the significant lack in edit count given their knowledge of policy and other behavior suggest that these accounts are not all of them. I mean just look at their noticeboard activity, very non-standard for a "new" user. All together they have far less edits than I do. Endercase (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Tahir Yahya, which you proposed for deletion. I added a source. The subject's definitely notable and sources exist; the article needs work. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! – Elisson • T • C • 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Johan Elisson: In my opinion (since you are active) you should add sources as well as merge with the tagged article, or move it back to your userspace until you have time to work on it. I have also left multiple tags. Endercase (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please, it is in no way reasonable to move an article that has existed in mainspace for 12 years to userspace just because it lacks references. Especially an article that exists in 7 languages, with text that has not been challenged for 12 years, and contains facts that are easily verifiable with a Google search.
- If I didn't have to contest improper PRODs with the little time I spend on Wikipedia these days, I could perhaps have had time to actually source the article. I also don't like being told how to spend my time here. Please don't waste my, or others, time with PRODs on articles that are clearly not material for PROD. – Elisson • T • C • 19:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Johan Elisson: 1)There is no such thing as an "improper prod", except in cases where an article has been previously prodded. 2)The article as it currently stands is unencyclopedic (no sources), that in and of itself is grounds for deletion. 3)The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled. I can do that for you if you don't know how. Endercase (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I will not waste my time with this nonsense. I suggest you do something productive rather than something destructive, like this mess. – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Bear in mind that any claims within this article may be challenged, and removed, and may not be restored without a citation, per WP:CHALLENGE. As a deletionist, I am putting this article on my list of things to do. Unsourced claims will be removed, and it will be incumbent on the editor who restores that material to provide a source. Scr★pIronIV 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Actually no that's definitely not standard practice. In fact since the Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna article seems to have had quite a few editors and has a long enough history that probably at least some of them are entitled to copyright, it would be quite inappropriate to delete the article and make a copy in user space. Instead if it's to be WP:Userfied, the article should be moved to user space with the redirect from main space deleted. Nominally it's also possible to delete the original article but preserve the lists of editors, but that is almost never done as there's almost never a good reason. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Userfication. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: First of all I'm a bit confused about how you got here; in this conversation that is. I trust I don't need to ask for a checkuser. Second of all I'm well aware of necessary and policy based attribution requirements. The recent modifications to the article have helped quite a bit. It does not matter how many "authors" an old, uncited and unencyclopedic article has; if it is outside the guidelines the article gets deleted. If someone wants to fix it they can ask an user with the necessary tools to help userfy it after deletion or petition to bring back into standards without a deletion during discussion. That is standard practice. If you would like to disagree with me, I suggest that you spend some more time in AfD; if you want to know standard practice for articles that do not meet minimum requirements anyway. It is worth noting that nothing actually gets deleted, that is a misnomer, hidden would be a more correct term. Additionally, the user with IMO wp: own problems recently IMO violated wp:civil in their edit summary at the article in question. Calling user @ScrapIronIV: a distasteful name and apparently failing to assume good faith or practice proper communication protocol. Of course what to do about that, if anything, is ScrapIronIV's choice. Though I was thinking about leaving a warning. As far as the article goes I won't personally pursue the deletion of anything that several users are actively working on as is now the case with this article. That is one reason why I prefer PROD deletion as it is far easier to stop by any active editors. However, that article was and still is not in state where anyone could honestly claim it was encyclopedic IMO. We are all just working to make Wikipedia as more useful and respected place. Endercase (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)\
- @Nil Einne:*note some comments were removed to prevent a pointless argument* I think we are on the same page you may have misunderstood my message. The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard. If you would like to talk about a comment I left on an IP editor's talk page we may of course do so. Endercase (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Individual challenges need to be addressed individually, not have a single reference applied to the entire article. As for my user name, it has a very specific historical significance. What is distasteful about it? Even if you find it distasteful, what does that have to do with my contributions here? Regardless, I have removed the unsourced content from the article, and will continue to do so until appropriate inline citations have been provided. Scr★pIronIV 01:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understood your comment as it was worded. You specifically said "The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled". There's no way that this can be understood to meaning anything other than delete the article than make copy on user space. Moving an article from article space to user space is not 'open a copy'. It is moving. It doesn't matter whether it was deleted and undeleted or moved straight away it's still moving it. As I said time and time again, it is the way userfication is carried out. Not via "copy"ing to user space. If you meant to say moving, please take greater care with how you word your comments in the future. Please remember while there's nothing wrong with having imperfect English, you need to make sure your comments are not so poorly phrased so as to seriously mislead other editors. Since you were advising another editor, such a comment could have easily done so (were it not for the fact I think the editor you were advising probably understands userfication better than you). As for the IP, if you want to reply to my comment, you're welcome to do so, probably on the IP's talk page. I don't really care. I'm much more concerned that you understand how userficiation is carried out and you understand the importance of clarity when advising other editors. In particular, that you do not advice other editors to do something that is completely unacceptable whatever the reason you worded your comment in that way, Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what you mean by "The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard". If you think it is acceptable to simple mention other editors in the edit summary when created a copy then please I beg you again to either read what I've said or read the links I provided or ask for help from someone else. It is not a proper way to carry out userficiation. As I've always said, this should nearly always be carried out by moving. Almost never by copying, regardless of what you say in the edit summary. The entire edit history should be preserved as far as possible. The only cases where you use the edit summary is to refer to another article you've copied the content from which is still extant. Ideally you should also add the appropriate tags to the talk page to ensure that the article you copied from can be found and is not deleted. If the article you copied the content from is deleted, and I mean actually deleted with the edit history lost not turned into a redirect which is sometimes loosely referred to as being deleted, but isn't; then there is a problem that needs to be fixed ASAP. This would nearly always be by undeleting the article, rather than by copy the editor contributor list somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne:*note some comments were removed to prevent a pointless argument* I think we are on the same page you may have misunderstood my message. The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard. If you would like to talk about a comment I left on an IP editor's talk page we may of course do so. Endercase (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: First of all I'm a bit confused about how you got here; in this conversation that is. I trust I don't need to ask for a checkuser. Second of all I'm well aware of necessary and policy based attribution requirements. The recent modifications to the article have helped quite a bit. It does not matter how many "authors" an old, uncited and unencyclopedic article has; if it is outside the guidelines the article gets deleted. If someone wants to fix it they can ask an user with the necessary tools to help userfy it after deletion or petition to bring back into standards without a deletion during discussion. That is standard practice. If you would like to disagree with me, I suggest that you spend some more time in AfD; if you want to know standard practice for articles that do not meet minimum requirements anyway. It is worth noting that nothing actually gets deleted, that is a misnomer, hidden would be a more correct term. Additionally, the user with IMO wp: own problems recently IMO violated wp:civil in their edit summary at the article in question. Calling user @ScrapIronIV: a distasteful name and apparently failing to assume good faith or practice proper communication protocol. Of course what to do about that, if anything, is ScrapIronIV's choice. Though I was thinking about leaving a warning. As far as the article goes I won't personally pursue the deletion of anything that several users are actively working on as is now the case with this article. That is one reason why I prefer PROD deletion as it is far easier to stop by any active editors. However, that article was and still is not in state where anyone could honestly claim it was encyclopedic IMO. We are all just working to make Wikipedia as more useful and respected place. Endercase (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)\
- I will not waste my time with this nonsense. I suggest you do something productive rather than something destructive, like this mess. – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Johan Elisson: 1)There is no such thing as an "improper prod", except in cases where an article has been previously prodded. 2)The article as it currently stands is unencyclopedic (no sources), that in and of itself is grounds for deletion. 3)The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled. I can do that for you if you don't know how. Endercase (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I agree with the vast majority of what you say above. However, per the terms of licensing agreement listing the names of the previous editors in the edit summary or even arguably the talk page is "acceptable" even if it is a very poor practice. I agree that standard procedure needs to change as you have eloquently pointed out maintaining the true edit history is preferred by several orders of magnitude. In order to help insure that happens though several policies need to be changed and current deletion policy needs to be reviewed. Endercase (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Protocol Labs
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
{{Quote box|quote=
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article .
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on Protocol Labs , requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion , by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
* It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion .) Please read the guidelines on spam and [[wikipedia:FAQ/Business| Wikipedia:FAQ/Business ]] for more information. * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc. ), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion .) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable .
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines . If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink |Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Protocol+Labs|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request [[wikipedia:RFUD| here ]]. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @El cid, el campeador: The entire text is "Protocol Labs is the creator of the InterPlanetary File System, and Filecoin." How is that advertising? It is covered by Techcrunch and Forbes and is thereby noteable. Endercase (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just became a new page reviewer last night, so there is a sort of curation side-bar that I am starting to use. If I'm being totally honest I feel a lot of pressure not to screw up on the reviewing and I guess under that pressure I kind of did screw up! I'm not normally like this haha. Sorry for the drama, and if there is ever a Wiki-favor you need just let me know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @El cid, el campeador: No big deal. Well, we'll see how the AfD turns out. I don't oppose consensus. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Endercase (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just became a new page reviewer last night, so there is a sort of curation side-bar that I am starting to use. If I'm being totally honest I feel a lot of pressure not to screw up on the reviewing and I guess under that pressure I kind of did screw up! I'm not normally like this haha. Sorry for the drama, and if there is ever a Wiki-favor you need just let me know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article ALMANAC (software model) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
no evidence of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- @DGG: You are the Authority on notability so I'm sure you are right. However, you may want to consider the vast number of published whitepapers in reputable journals that have used this software and that talk about it. What is published in 'news" isn't the same as what is published in peer reviewed scientific journals as I'm sure you know. I do agree that the article needs improvement but I'm not sure deletion is the way to go. However, considering that you are far more of a regular than I am your judgement I do respect. I will not oppose your actions in this case. Endercase (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
To do list in Skepticism:
![]() |
Wikiproject:Skepticism ( or discuss this box) |
- Open tasks:
Remove pseudoscience from the articles needing immediate attention.
Turn our Good Articles into Feature Articles.
- Monitor the Fringe theories noticeboard.
- Improve our top-importance articles and high-importance articles.
- Improve:
- Subliminal stimuli - Includes some pseudoscience but no mention of such for WP:PSCI
- Illusion - Currently listed at article for improvement (WP:TAFI)
- Objections to evolution - From Good Article to Feature Article
- Correlation does not imply causation - Improve
- Allopathic medicine - Improve or merge (has been considered POV fork)
- Second sight - Has been proposed as mostly Celtic/Gaelic context of extrasensory perception but suggestions to merge in it have also been made. Recently called to attention via WP:FTN.
- Chris Kilham - BLP: Promotional tone and unbalanced pseudomedical claims
- Dosha - Needs mostly rewriting
- Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health - WP:PSCI
- Items inactive for too long can be removed
I reverted your change, where you said People with "genetic disorders" are human too. -- Changed "Humans have x" to "The vast majority of humans have x" following wp:cycl. The list is a list of species, not of individuals. Homo Sapiens, as a species, has 46 chromosomes. This is like saying that "Zebras have stripes", which is correct for a species, and not invalidated by an example of an individual which doesn't. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: I disagree with this, a range would be more scientifically accurate. Endercase (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's a description of a species. You can clutter up a description with all the possible defective variations to the point where the description is meaningless. E.g., "Zebras are striped, except when they're not." That's not useful for an encyclopedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: How is it not useful for an encyclopedia to recognize that edge cases exist and that the "Truth" isn't the only way of looking at things? I changed an authoritative and incorrect statement: "Humans have 46 chromosomes." to a less authoritative but more correct statement "The vast majority of humans have 46 chromosomes." Calling those that exist outside the center of the distribution curve "defective" (because they don't fit your worldview?) is also a bit out there. Endercase (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you insist on changing "has 46 chromosomes" to add disclaimers, you'll have to add disclaimers to every reference to chromosome number for every species, everywhere. ALL species have defective reproductions where anomalies crop up. At that point, might as well delete the list, because the page will be buried in disclaimers. As for objecting to the term "defect", that's the term biologists use for reproduction errors (although I've also seen "sports"). Tarl N. (discuss) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: I agree that the disclaimer solution that you propose is not viable when applied to the entire system. Including the standard deviation and some information about the distribution could be a solution but would also be a large task. However, knowingly making categorically false statements particularly about humanity is not good for the encyclopedia IMO. Maybe just a disclaimer in the LEDE should be added? Endercase (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- There is no standard deviation or distribution; other than gametes, human nuclei have 46 chromosomes - all other cases are reproductive errors. Please read Aneuploidy. Anything other than 46 in a human is abnormal, or to use the term you found sensitive, a defect. There are cases of monosomy or trisomy which are survivable, but these are generally not reproductively viable. See the table at the end of the Aneuploidy. At this point, I'm done on this discussion. If you still insist of pursuing this, you'll have to pursue one of the mediation strategies - WP:3O or something like that. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: I agree that the disclaimer solution that you propose is not viable when applied to the entire system. Including the standard deviation and some information about the distribution could be a solution but would also be a large task. However, knowingly making categorically false statements particularly about humanity is not good for the encyclopedia IMO. Maybe just a disclaimer in the LEDE should be added? Endercase (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you insist on changing "has 46 chromosomes" to add disclaimers, you'll have to add disclaimers to every reference to chromosome number for every species, everywhere. ALL species have defective reproductions where anomalies crop up. At that point, might as well delete the list, because the page will be buried in disclaimers. As for objecting to the term "defect", that's the term biologists use for reproduction errors (although I've also seen "sports"). Tarl N. (discuss) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: How is it not useful for an encyclopedia to recognize that edge cases exist and that the "Truth" isn't the only way of looking at things? I changed an authoritative and incorrect statement: "Humans have 46 chromosomes." to a less authoritative but more correct statement "The vast majority of humans have 46 chromosomes." Calling those that exist outside the center of the distribution curve "defective" (because they don't fit your worldview?) is also a bit out there. Endercase (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's a description of a species. You can clutter up a description with all the possible defective variations to the point where the description is meaningless. E.g., "Zebras are striped, except when they're not." That's not useful for an encyclopedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Happy New Year, Endercase!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Multiple failed attempts to log into my account that were not me
I've been getting the occasional email about how there was a failed attempt to log into my account. Today received an email claiming there had been multiple attempts that have failed recently. This notification is just in case I do lose control of my account temporarily. I have taken the proper measures with my password, but you never really know. Please email me at endercase@gmail.com in case there is a problem. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately. Endercase (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
How you doing?
I haven't seen you popping up on my watchlist in a while. I've also looked through your contribs, and I have to say that I like what I see. So really, this is just me saying "Hi" and wishing you the best. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- {{yo|MjolnirPants]] Doing great, way less Wikipedia lots more IRL work. But, I pop in every once and a while. I wanted to thank you again, you and the others (along with wikipedia policy of course) really taught me a number of valuable lessons. Please let me know if I can help out anywhere in particular. It is great to see you here on the talk pages again. Been thinking about trying my luck writing an article about the chinese issue going on with the Uighurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minority. [A citation here], think it is good idea? ( there is some information Uyghurs#Modern_era but I think a separate article would be appropriate. Endercase (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you might have hit on something that needs expanded coverage, yeah. Best advice I could offer you on that is to start a draft, work on it till it gets to a readable state, then avoid the draft for a few weeks, come back, and see if it still looks good. Also, post a link here when you do. I might pop in and help out a bit.
- And I'll certainly keep you in mind if I need an extra pair of eyes at anything. I know you'll bring some valuable insight. Take care. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Other editors at Talk:PragerU have given you good advice regarding the reliability of WorldNetDaily and Breitbart. You would be wise to follow it. As you know these sources have been discussed and rejected at RSN many times, and continuing to push for their inclusion is disruptive. As for Preston Business Review, a quick scan of their homepage reveals that the site is nothing more than a collection of stories copied from other sources and attributed to Caroline Biscotti. The story in question was in fact copied from WND. Did you examine the source before advocating for its reliability? I hope you consider this and stop the disruption before it becomes necessary to pursue sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: The current open discussions at RSN in which both of us have expressed an opinion [1] [2] is extremely relevant to to final actions that should be taken on the PragerU article. Simply contributing to consensus and expressing an opinion you disagree with is not "disruptive", as you put it, but a fundamental part of what makes Wikipedia work. However, if you so wish you can of course start up a discussion in the admin noticeboard for review of my conduct. It is also worth noting that I have not "pushed for the inclusion" of any specific source particularly not Preston Business Review. Having already said that if it was to be used at all it would require additional citations for verification and that it is not generally a reliable source. I have simply disagreed with the method of removing it and the other "disagreeable" sources in question, specifically reverting an edit, that you admit, added at least one reliable source. As I have said in the PragerU talk page it would have been more appropriate to simply remove the "offending" sources separately, an action which I would have not even disagreed with and likely would have even done by myself. Endercase (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Request
Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
![Notice](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article STORJ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
STORJ – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Balkywrest (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)