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. — 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!Endercase (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? Endercase (talk)
Stealth banning
I 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)
- Trivialist The enforcement of an illegitimate ban on users that didn't participate in your discussion to ban is a clear violation of NPOV. Please see the talk page I referred you too. I do not understand why you would refuse to revert. The sources were reliable in context. Endercase (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand your comments. I removed the Breitbart and Infowars material because they are not considered reliable sources. I don't care who added them. If there are more reliable sources for that information, that's fine. Trivialist (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am saying that "not considered reliable sources" is POV. As such, no general ban on those sources may occur. Endercase (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I take it you haven't heard about the recent Daily Mail thing? Trivialist (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please just read the links I left on your talk page. I don't want to have to copy and paste everything. Just because a thing happened don't mean it was justified. Their discussion had clear logical errors that I point out in the discussion. Endercase (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I take it you haven't heard about the recent Daily Mail thing? Trivialist (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am saying that "not considered reliable sources" is POV. As such, no general ban on those sources may occur. Endercase (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand your comments. I removed the Breitbart and Infowars material because they are not considered reliable sources. I don't care who added them. If there are more reliable sources for that information, that's fine. Trivialist (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Who are you? Also re: your comments on RSN
Sorry 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)
- wp:RS makes no mention of banning sources and says that context must be considered. That is not occurring. I didn't notice the problem until my reliable sources in a minor edit were removed with the information that I had added, with no reason given but a "ban" . That was out of order and I wanted to know why it had happened. Found out the "ban" wasn't created following protocol, and I chose to stand up for my right to add accurate and valuable information to Wikipedia. You don't need to be "someone" to fix a problem. Endercase (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Again, that's a red herring; no one is arguing that certain sources should be banned -- they are arguing that your use of Breitbart is inappropriate. And I was not even referring to the main thread you apparently showed up on RSN to open (I hadn't read it before coming here) -- I'm referring to your activity throughout the many threads you have posted in. On the FRC thread, for example, you said that the discussion belonged on the talk page of the relevant article, as though the reliability of the FRC for factual claims was completely tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I also notice you dodged the question as to whether you have used other accounts. I was assuming good faith (hence my asking you outright rather than doing research and opening and SPI), but if you twist my question into somehow being about the right of nobodies to edit Wikipedia rather than answering it straight ... well, I'll ask it again: have you used any other accounts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- By the way: another reason I'm asking about this rather (other than your unusual edit history) is that your user page links to the deletion log and calls it
a list of our fallen articles
, but you yourself have never edited a page that was deleted.[1] This either shows a pretty offensive disrespect for the Wikipedia community's deletion process, or a bitterness that some article you worked on under another name was deleted at some point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)- I have never used another account, why would I? It seems as if the use of one account throughout all time would earn more respect. Additionally, I believe in transparency and honesty and would not misrepresent myself to you. Our in that reference refers to all of Wikipedia. I don't see how that is disrespectful. Also, deletion is a misnomer, they are hidden (fallen). I don't understand why someone would have strong feelings about the hiding of their articles (I mean they could/should just post it on their blog or whatever) If no-one is arguing for a ban then why are they banned? Requiring a special exemption for use is a ban. There is no personal bitterness toward our processes, I just like to use strong/poetic wording because it is prettier and demonstrates my honesty though the apparent strength of my beliefs. I haven't upset you is some way have I? You are beginning to sound a bit hostile. Not a single user (other than you) has actually spoken to my specific use of that source thus far actually. Endercase (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, what does FRC and SPI mean? I didn't mean to "twist" your words. I just think a bit differently. 2 weeks ago I was not even aware that Wikipedia deleted articles other than the really dumb ones about people's dogs. Endercase (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I know what SPI means now. Sock Puppet Investigation. Right? I don't believe in using of sock puppets, I don't like that sort of manipulation. Of course, you shouldn't just trust me on that. But why would I switch to my real username for all the drama? A quick search of that username will show you James P.S. Case. If you would like you can hit me up outside at some other account for verification. I still haven't found FRC yet. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRC is not helpful in this case (from your context). It might need updated. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You twisted my words by changing my question about whether you have used other accounts to a question about whether you are someone important (a question I don't generally ask Wikipedians who don't have clear COI problems), and you answered the latter question even though I had not asked it.
- For what it's worth, the vast, vast majority of mainspace pages that get deleted probably are either about people's dogs or other trivial matters like that. That is why linking to the list of all of them and apparently lamenting their status as "fallen articles" could be seen as an offensive jab at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The other possible explanation, though, is that you edited some articles in the past that got deleted, but your edit history doesn't bare that out.
- I have no interest in off-wiki contact with you, and if you want to blank your own edit and get this rev-delled, as you appear to have (accidentally?) outed yourself, I will understand. I am just concerned that you
- A little over two days ago, you posted in a thread on RSN about the Family Research Council, which is the only place you and I had interacted before I posted here, and is clearly already listed on FRC. "Ctrl+F"ing "FRC" on RSN would have revealed this pretty quickly, although if you were more careful about looking into each thread you comment in perhaps misunderstandings like this could be avoided. Looking a bit more carefully at your comments than I did earlier, I notice you cited BOLD in 6 out of 11 threads you commented in; AGF is unclear on whether it would be better to assume you are not posting in a bunch of threads without reading them first or to assume you are not posting based on a personal opinion that conflicts with policy; I chose the latter in this case, but if the former would have been correct, then I'll end this by saying you really should be more careful.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRC is not helpful in this case (from your context). It might need updated. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I know what SPI means now. Sock Puppet Investigation. Right? I don't believe in using of sock puppets, I don't like that sort of manipulation. Of course, you shouldn't just trust me on that. But why would I switch to my real username for all the drama? A quick search of that username will show you James P.S. Case. If you would like you can hit me up outside at some other account for verification. I still haven't found FRC yet. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, what does FRC and SPI mean? I didn't mean to "twist" your words. I just think a bit differently. 2 weeks ago I was not even aware that Wikipedia deleted articles other than the really dumb ones about people's dogs. Endercase (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have never used another account, why would I? It seems as if the use of one account throughout all time would earn more respect. Additionally, I believe in transparency and honesty and would not misrepresent myself to you. Our in that reference refers to all of Wikipedia. I don't see how that is disrespectful. Also, deletion is a misnomer, they are hidden (fallen). I don't understand why someone would have strong feelings about the hiding of their articles (I mean they could/should just post it on their blog or whatever) If no-one is arguing for a ban then why are they banned? Requiring a special exemption for use is a ban. There is no personal bitterness toward our processes, I just like to use strong/poetic wording because it is prettier and demonstrates my honesty though the apparent strength of my beliefs. I haven't upset you is some way have I? You are beginning to sound a bit hostile. Not a single user (other than you) has actually spoken to my specific use of that source thus far actually. Endercase (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Again, that's a red herring; no one is arguing that certain sources should be banned -- they are arguing that your use of Breitbart is inappropriate. And I was not even referring to the main thread you apparently showed up on RSN to open (I hadn't read it before coming here) -- I'm referring to your activity throughout the many threads you have posted in. On the FRC thread, for example, you said that the discussion belonged on the talk page of the relevant article, as though the reliability of the FRC for factual claims was completely tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am used to a significantly faster paced social media and may have posted may too much in various locations for that reason. I don't know what is normal here. This is a very strange experience compared to other forms of social media. Yes, I will call this a social media. Admittedly, one with a significantly different focus. Endercase (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Are you saying you are editing Wikipedia because you are upset that your Twitter account got stealth-banned? Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to stay away from articles on social media and right-wing politics for a while. Wikipedia tends to be kinder to users who are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and single-purpose accounts that start causing problems get in trouble quite quickly. You should also be more careful when commenting in multiple threads on the same noticeboard. If your comments are out of line with policy, they can be quite disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have definitely upset you. I do not know the Jargon you are using. I did not mean to upset anyone. I'm sorry. I don't really have strong feelings about stealth-bans but I do think the phenomena should be documented. Would you please leave me alone until you calm down? Consider that I really am just trying to maintain transparency in Wikipedia. Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Endercase (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
Ahhhhhahhahahaaaa
Please excuse. What is funny?I have definitely upset you.
Not really. I'm just offering you some advice. Take it or leave it.I do not know the Jargon you are using.
Why I carefully linked all of it so you would not misunderstand.I did not mean to upset anyone.
Good.I'm sorry.
No need to apologize.I don't really have strong feelings about stealth-bans but I do think the phenomena should be documented.
Well, you should not cite fringe sources like Breitbart to do so, and if you only edit the one page while citing fringe far-right sources it makes you look like you are not here.Would you please leave me alone until you calm down?
I'd be glad to leave you alone if you don't want to listen to my advice, but I don't know what gave you the impression that I am not already calm -- could you elaborate?Consider that I really am just trying to maintain transparency in Wikipedia.
Aren't we all.Also, I didn't vote for Trump.
Neither did I, but I am not American, and I'm sure there are lots of American extreme rightists who think Trump is too much of a progressive; not voting for Trump doesn't say anything about one's political views, nor about whether one is here to build an encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- I am used to a significantly faster paced social media and may have posted may too much in various locations for that reason. I don't know what is normal here. This is a very strange experience compared to other forms of social media. Yes, I will call this a social media. Admittedly, one with a significantly different focus. Endercase (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- FRC is Family Research Council in this context (Oh). Ok, that is why you are upset? My understanding of policy is that reliability discussions about specific sources should be first made on the article's talk page and if no consensus can be reached there then escalated to the noticeboard. I don't understand why the fact that the specific reference was attributed was irrelevant as that is the protocol for less reliable sources. Additionally, the discussion made no reference to specific context or about specific information that source provided. There was no supplying of secondary sources to counter the information provided by the first source, which while maybe normal here is really strange (can get you fired) in research. I have a working history in research and the entire behavior in that discussion seemed ad hominem and strange. The evaluations were made about the source and not at all about the information. It seemed as if the users hated that source, and did not care about the information at all. I don't even know what that source is, I've never heard of them before. That is definitely not my area of expertise. Endercase (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Busy now reply later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- rev-delled is the main term I don't understand, although you also have some formatting issues. I paniced a bit because it seemed like you were really mad (but trying not to say anything that could get you in trouble) Your comments keep having this undercurrent of "if you say one 'wrong' thing you get banned, MUHAHAHAHAH!" Breitbart isn't fringe, although a good number of their articles are. That is due to the vast number of their paying readers being (well I don't know how to say it politely)... But sometimes they publish accurate things, and sometimes they document things that have happened. And some of their authors were sniped from "reliable" sources and continue to produce verifiable content. Anyway, a general discussion on Breitbart isn't the point. Anyway, I'm done for the night. Endercase (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Busy now reply later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- FRC is Family Research Council in this context (Oh). Ok, that is why you are upset? My understanding of policy is that reliability discussions about specific sources should be first made on the article's talk page and if no consensus can be reached there then escalated to the noticeboard. I don't understand why the fact that the specific reference was attributed was irrelevant as that is the protocol for less reliable sources. Additionally, the discussion made no reference to specific context or about specific information that source provided. There was no supplying of secondary sources to counter the information provided by the first source, which while maybe normal here is really strange (can get you fired) in research. I have a working history in research and the entire behavior in that discussion seemed ad hominem and strange. The evaluations were made about the source and not at all about the information. It seemed as if the users hated that source, and did not care about the information at all. I don't even know what that source is, I've never heard of them before. That is definitely not my area of expertise. Endercase (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, the fallen thing was really just poetic license; I thought it sounded good. Like fallen angels or something. Idk it was something I thought about for less than a minute. As far as I know you are the only user that has even read it. Although you are a bit fixated on it. If it really bothers you I can remove it. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking me to Wikipedia:NOTHERE I had not seen that one before. *Insert finger pointing comments about everyone I have interacted with* I didn't know that calling Wikipedia a social media site was such a touchy subject. Goodnight. (I'm not a right leaning person, not that that should matter) Endercase (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- And of course, I'm here build an encyclopedia. Otherwise I'd be somewhere else. If I wanted to soapbox this would be a terrible place for it. (this place is a bit addicting though) Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking me to Wikipedia:NOTHERE I had not seen that one before. *Insert finger pointing comments about everyone I have interacted with* I didn't know that calling Wikipedia a social media site was such a touchy subject. Goodnight. (I'm not a right leaning person, not that that should matter) Endercase (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Mentorship
| ||
---|---|---|
Moved from David Tornheim's talk pagefrom 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. Endercase (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
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. Endercase (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@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. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Also Hey Did you see this? [3] 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Democracy at Wikipedia?@Endercase:
No rules -- Ignore the Rules?
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. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Typecast
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. 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 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. I think that is enough advice for today. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Striking old posts
Has it happened to any of your posts? You can ask me about it if it happens in the future. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Remainder of your post
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.
I gave you advice on that already. Still the same.
Can you show me what you are talking about?
Thanks. Yes. I'll do it soon.
Discussion at Stealth BanningCopied from Talk:Stealth_banning#revert. I will add my comments in bold or collapsible sections. I will ping you when I add more to this. I'm running out of time to discuss further. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC) --START OF DISCUSSION-- I reverted following the 1RR policy. See WP:PGBOLD.Endercase (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
--END OF DISCUSSION--
Archiving
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. For example, this is one on one of the talk pages of an article:
Here is another example from a user's talk page:
The bot that does the archive was called User:MiszaBot and has been replaced by User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III/Archive_HowTo. 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. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Also to collapse a discussion add:
--David Tornheim (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Another bit of adviceWhile 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. 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, I do have some concerns about some of Endercase's recent contributions, e.g. [5] from [6]. 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. I have a similar feeling about the long discussion below 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."[7] does not show the proper humility. Comments like this is what landed you at at WP:AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
What did "End of Discussion" mean?
|
Your final comment at RSN
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! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- @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. Endercase (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 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- @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? Endercase (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- See 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- @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.
- @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? Endercase (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY: "But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action." What exactly does that mean?
- 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. Endercase (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
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.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.Per Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY: "But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward 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.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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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. Endercase (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- ^I agree with all of this advice. The last two paragraphs in particular are what I have been trying to get across. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- ^I agree with all of this advice. The last two paragraphs in particular are what I have been trying to get across. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
71.198.247.231 (and related snark)
I have observed 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 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @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. Endercase (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I was under the impression that " An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted."
- You have by your own admission not done so, but having simply taken another user's word on the matter: [|"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. Endercase (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
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: 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 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.
"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: [8] [9] [10] 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- In any case, you may want to update or review Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Endercase (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- @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: [1], 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. Endercase (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
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.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.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.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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @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. Endercase (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
(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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- FYI. I commented on this conversation here. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Thank you. I just don't know what to do here. Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with 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. Endercase (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 [11].) 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 [12]. 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. --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 doughnuts or something; stay away from politics, religion and online media for the time being, as it's not doing you any favours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 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 doughnuts that does not interest you. But I agree that choosing to work on highly contentious articles in some of the areas named by 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 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 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. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I feel the need to emphasize what 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
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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I feel the need to emphasize what 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
- 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I also did not take much interest in the IP editor, and like 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... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 20 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 doughnuts or something; stay away from politics, religion and online media for the time being, as it's not doing you any favours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 20 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 [11].) 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 [12]. 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. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Thank you. I just don't know what to do here. Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with 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. Endercase (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Useful Templates
In reviewing your recent edits, I did find this one to be useful and I copied it for my own use as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)