User talk:IHateAccounts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:40, 30 October 2020

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, IHateAccounts! Thank you for your contributions. I am Bradv and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|Bradv}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! – bradv🍁 03:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: ok fine, yes yes. I was bullied into making an account and I finally gave up so here it is. I'm not really feeling social right now and probably going to go to sleep in a short while. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z12

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, IHateAccounts, is framed in terms of hating something or someone.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice,.

Template:Z12 -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, this person has edited anonymously for long enough that I think it's fair to say that he probably does hate accounts, and since accounts are not a protected class I don't see why that would be an issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, I have to agree with Guy. This isn't a problematic account name, IMO. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I finally do what you say and I get bullied more for it. Big surprise. And @JzG: "they" will suffice, I'll try to put a pronoun notice on my page if I ever get treated like a human being here. IHateAccounts (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you are off to a bumpy start with this whole account thing. While I don't necessarily agree with the block, I do see where The Anome was coming from, and again I don't think it was intentional bullying (though I do see that you feel bullied as a result). Your name, while I don't believe you meant it this way, could feasibly be interpreted to mean that you hate people who edit from named accounts. The good news is that it's a softblock and you can just create an account with a different name yourself – that's probably easier than going through the rename process, since you don't have many edits with this account anyway, but if you do decide you want to do the rename we can help you with that. Hopefully ~~once the rename is done and dusted~~ we can all get back to article editing and this will become a distant memory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well nevermind, that's sorted then. Maybe you and I (and anyone else on this page, if they so wish) can pick an article to collaborate on, so we get off on a better foot. If that interests you, any suggestions? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in —valereee (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, my bad, I usually do use the singular they. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts—can you please explain why you hate accounts, assuming you hate accounts? I, for one, would be interested to know. They require me to have a driver's license. It may be an onerous procedure to get one, but I understand the public good in all drivers being required to get a license. In the interests of full disclosure, I think IP editing should be allowed but I think it should be discouraged. But maybe I have not weighed all considerations. So, I ask you for your input. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to speak for IHateAccounts, but I remember reading the (semi-humorous) essay Wikipedia:Why not create an account? in the past and finding it informative. I don't personally share the perspective, but I respect it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll repeat what I posted at BS's talk: There are any number of reasons someone would choose not to create an account. In this person's case, they seem to believe (and I completely agree with them) that it shouldn't be necessary to have an account in order to edit contructively without attracting hostile attention. It shouldn't be necessary to have a bluelinked user name, ditto. It shouldn't be necessary to have tens of thousands of edits, or an admin flag, or a talk archive. But all of these things -- IMO, unfairly -- provide some level of 'seal of approval' in the minds of other editors. —valereee (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do GorillaWarfare and Valereee agree with me that IP editing should be allowed but discouraged? Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I think IP editing should be allowed and should not be discouraged. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare—why do you opt to register your account? Do you not feel that registering an account represents advantages for you, and wouldn't those advantages be applicable to someone else? Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that there are advantages to registering accounts, but if someone is aware of them and still doesn't want to register account I see no reason to discourage them from that decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think registering an account should be encouraged, but I don't think IP editing should be discouraged. Yes, there are any number of advantages to registering an account and editing from it, not the least of which is that editing as an IP attracts scrutiny from editors who find IPs inherently suspicious. :) The vast majority of edits by IP editors are well-intentioned -- someone is reading an article, sees a typo, and fixes it. That doesn't mean the vast majority of vandalism isn't by IP editors, but by and large editing by IPs is a major net positive. —valereee (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

apology

I'm sorry, I responded to you at GW's talk before I saw you'd been blocked. Copying this from her talk:

I apologize; it was completely unintentional, and I'm sorry I came across as bullying. I didn't intend it as putting blame on you at all. I meant it as a completely non-judgemental statement: Having an account makes an editor's life easier. I think that sucks, for the record. It's not fair, and it shouldn't be true, but IMO it's just reality. There's bigotry in the world, and we here on Wikipedia aren't immune. —valereee (talk) 9:17 am, Today (UTC−4)

Unblocked, and an apology

@IHateAccounts, JzG, and Valereee: On review, I agree with the other editors here that your username is not a problem. I've unblocked you, and would like to offer you my apologies for the unecessary and over-zealous block. Best regards, The Anome (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: Thank you for considering and for your sincere apology. As for the rest of above, I am tired of having to have accounts for everything. Every website it seems. I can't even check the local weather without being harassed to make an account, and then I have to have software on my laptop, tied to my phone, just to try to remember what websites I already have an account on and what websites I don't. 90% of the stuff we do in the world shouldn't require an account, just like the grocery store shouldn't need to ask my phone number just so I can buy a gallon of milk and a couple boxes of cereal with cash. It irritates me. And the stuff Bus Stop wrote, pretty clearly they're totally ok with people being harassed and bullied into making accounts everywhere. I disagree fully with the idea that bullying people into creating an account is acceptable behavior, even though I finally gave in to it because apparently, eventually the whole site will be locked into "you shall make an account or you shall go away" status. Editing on wikipedia or checking the weather forecast aren't the same things as driving a car. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently now I have to wait to be "autoconfirmed". Joyeaux. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, given your long time IP contributions, I will fix that now., Guy (help! - typo?) 22:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JzG. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, thanks. I understand the instinct, this was a good faith error IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "ok with people being harassed and bullied into making accounts everywhere". The thing is user-names have greater recognizability than IP addresses. Editing here, one bumps into the same people frequently. A familiar name is someone known to you. Whereas a string of numbers is forgotten very quickly. User-pages also serve to identify individuals. Your user-page presently says "Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs". That is something that would jog my memory, assuming my brain is still functioning. Welcome to Wikipedia under your new name. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHA, I do get that -- it infuriates me, too, to have to register an account to frickin' buy a t-shirt. This is, as Bus stop points out, slightly different. Now that we know you as IHA, when we see your username on an edit, we think, "Oh, that's the trusted user I've encountered before...I probably don't need to check their edit except out of idle curiosity, it's sure to be constructive." BS, I even have a hard time distinguishing between license-plate usernames like P372K and P798Q. I'm like...is that the trusted editor I've encountered on multiple occasions, or is it someone new I need to check the edits of? The chances I'll recognize an IP...almost zero. Clearly though people like GW and Guy easily recognize this editor as a long-term trusted user. They must have some gene I'm missing. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee—there is a sense of continuity that is important. I understand the argument that discriminating against IPs is unfair. But IPs lack distinguishing characteristics, making continuity difficult. And yes, I agree the name should be tailored to recognizability—license plate-like usernames are problematic. I think it is difficult enough to remember something about usernames that we know we recognize. A problem is that ideally we are concerned with the edit, not the editor. With that in mind it could be argued that unrecognizable usernames should be preferred. But it is more enjoyable to interact with humans, even anonymous humans on the internet, because humans embody ideas and humans tend to have similar ideas from one moment to the next. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ngo talk page

IHateAccounts, the top 10 of contributors to Talk:Andy Ngo is

308 edits User:Springee

191 edits User:Wikieditor19920

168 edits User:BeŻet

136 edits User:Shinealittlelight

129 edits User:Simonm223

84 edits User:Jweiss11

74 edits User:Aquillion

66 edits User:Objective3000

52 edits User:Galestar

52 edits User:Bacondrum

That's all the contributions to that page, not just the current version. Vexations (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUNDING

You seem to have a strong interest in disputes that don't involve you, and where, frankly, you don't really have any expertise to offer. However, you have made a lot of bad-faith accusations against me personally, and I don't appreciate it. Your behavior is disruptive and unproductive. If an editor has violated 1RR, there is really no reason for you to comment if you only want to turn it into a personal dispute. Your conduct on the whole violates WP:BATTLEGROUND.

If you keep this up I will report it to ANI. You cannot keep doing what you're doing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: can you look at this? This seems to be very uncivil and threatening behavior in retaliation because I commented on a thread here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_and_battleground_behavior_from_Wikieditor19920 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, a bit rich, from that particular editor, to be sure. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far you've commented on a now-closed thread at WP:ANI where you've made a bunch of bad-faith accusations towards me, and now at WP:AN3 where you are continuing the same pattern and bickering about matters unrelated to that noticeboard. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I am asking you to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: they came back. I have just noted this in the complaint they left against Bacondrum here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring) because I think it's relevant, their complaint seems to be entirely just forum-shopping or retaliation behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a brand new account, you seem very involved at multiple conduct-related threads. I don't know why that is, but I suggest starting by trying to improve the encyclopedia rather than weighing in as uninvolved user to get a word in every dispute. Those are my two cents. Happy editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: and they've continued. I'm starting to feel like this is a "playing the refs" gambit, they're trying to get a rise out of me so that they can claim my good-faith observations are because they managed to cause a conflict? Maybe that's what they are doing with Bacondrum too? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Since you were the admin who warned Wikieditor19920, I guess I should reply to you here too so you are aware of this. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody involved seems prepared to provide any diffs, which makes it difficult for me as admin to take stock of what's going on, short of a lot of detective work. Since Wikieditor19920 is the one who's complaining on your page, IHateAccounts, I'll warn them about making accusations without offering evidence or examples, because such accusations are simply aspersions. Bishonen | tålk 18:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: after you warned them, Wikieditor19920 filed what appears to be a retaliatory or vexatious claim against Bacondrum here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bacondrum_reported_by_User:Wikieditor19920_(Result:_)

They left this threat on my talk page in apparent retaliation, or to try to scare me away from commenting, for my observing that the links they provided on that page did not match the claims they were making. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle this?

@JzG: @GorillaWarfare: sorry to ask you yet another thing but what's the proper reporting way to have something like this completely stricken? It's DEFINITELY a violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=985377627 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: @GorillaWarfare: and the day gets weirder and weirder. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikieditor19920&type=revision&diff=985396420&oldid=985029505

I told them they had left a wall of text, and they left something that looked like trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIHateAccounts&type=revision&diff=985395734&oldid=985392856

Then I pointed out that they left a literal wall of text (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden&diff=next&oldid=985395583) and they went running to Wikieditor19920. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the diff above has already been handled. Regarding how to have such things removed in the future, see the advice at WP:REVDELREQUEST. I'm not sure how comfortable you are with off-wiki communication via IRC or email, but you're always welcome to contact me via either one (though email is the most reliable way to reach me by far) if you see something concerning in the future that needs either revision deletion or oversight.

Wikieditor did manage to sneak in a bit of good advice amidst all the other stuff above. It is often wise, especially as a new user but also for very experienced editors, to avoid conflicts with other users as much as possible and participate at the dispute resolution noticeboards only when absolutely necessary. I still try to follow that philosophy (at least regarding participation as a reporter at those noticeboards, I do sometimes weigh in or handle issues there as an admin).

In my opinion all of our time is best spent trying to improve the encyclopedia, be it by editing articles or discussing article content on talk pages, and so unless someone is being quite disruptive I generally try to just move on. I also find it's best to try to accommodate other editors when possible; for example, instead of saying "This wall of text makes my eyes bleed. It's completely unreadable." you could have gone in and adjusted the text to make it more readable and then hit "preview" (but not saved—editors often don't appreciate others modifying their comments, even when it's just formatting) so you could read it more clearly.

Your mileage may vary, and certainly not everyone agrees with my approach, but that's my 2¢ on conduct issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, no offense, but I was not trolling you. Seriously. Read my points. Hope they are easy enough for you. I will avoid bold text when writing what follows, as you requested. This message is shorter by the one by GorillaWarfare so I hope you can handle it.

Number 1: I was following a strategy to de-escalate the conflict after you began addressing what you called my WoT with what was actually lack of civility and what appeared to me as a knee-jerk reaction. So I posted privately on your page not to take an issue in the talk page.

Number 2: Even if I tried to bring it in your talk page, the entire section of the talk shifted from my 9 statements to... me doing a WoT. Topic was completely derailed afterwards by people too concerned by me writing a WoT than by the actual points I made. Not sure if this teaches me more about WoTs or more about people.

Number 3: Honestly, that entire talk page is full of WoTs so mine pales when compared to the previous ones full of conspiracy theories.

Number 4: Anyway, I edited everything and now you see 9 lines... 9 paragraphs of one or two sentences each that state my policy points.

So I hope it is enough. We spent more e-mails debating form than content. This is the worst crime in Wikipedia, but I see it happening all day (to the point I had quit contributing until yesterday). I am aware there are forums on-line and image boards targeting Hunter Biden's page during the election and my concern was to have Wikipedia stop being an electoral battleground. At all. Was it for me, I would have locked all US accounts before the elections to ensure petty debates do not rise out of recent news and unverified claims.

Can we call it a day and start over? Shake hands maybe? MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcelloPapirio: Thank you for finally fixing the format so that I can read what you wrote. I will look at it. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hi, IHA. I noticed that you made a comment and then a second one on the page Talk:Hunter Biden that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I think your discussion with JzG is relevant. For my part, Atsme was not being truthful, and I was being as polite as I could be in the circumstances. Between their previously demanding that I leave an article and make proxy edits for them at Donald Trump, and their habit of publicly proclaiming they "muted" people, I am unimpressed with them. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse people of not being truthful; that also is a violation of AGF. You can argue that a statement is not true, but saying someone is not being truthful implies intent. You don't have to be impressed with everyone you work with here, but in the interest of collaboration, keep it to yourself. —valereee (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to template you also, but see Valereee beat me to it. Please be respectful and AGF. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this after warnings. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I'd like an explanation of how a current event and an observation of Atsme's reluctance or refusal to provide real sources to back up their claims constitutes a "personal attack". I don't think I made one and I think you're being overzealous because you and Atsme are friends https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtsme&type=revision&diff=986095543&oldid=986093783. Maybe I just need to ask advice from @JzG: who has made the same observations about Atsme's behavior before. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: After re-reading it twice more and the policy and everything else again I think you're just picking on me because I'm new and therefore an easy target, because I'm not the first person (Soibangla, Muboshgu, JzG, and Valjean all have observed similar) to observe Atsme's lack of bothering to source their (what I would consider to be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violating) claims. I think I deserve an explanation as to how you think you're not doing so. I'm also including @GorillaWarfare: on this reply since this isn't the first time someone decided to pick on me and I'm not a fan of being bullied. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, I'll point out that the section above the one you cite is me asking Atsme to cool her own jets at the page in question. Calling me "overzealous because (Atsme and I) are friends" is another assumption of bad faith. I try to maintain a civil, and whenever possible, cordial relationship with other editors, even when I disagree with them. Look, I just want you to stop sniping and making snarky remarks. It's counterproductive to a collaborative project. —valereee (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would be another instance of not assuming good faith: I think you're just picking on me because I'm new and therefore an easy target. Also: this isn't the first time someone decided to pick on me and I'm not a fan of being bullied. —valereee (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: Valereee is not picking on you. She and another user already warned you that your participation in conversations on that page was getting more heated than is appropriate, and snipes at other editors like the one you made towards Atsme only contribute towards a hostile and extremely unpleasant editing environment. It can be frustrating working with editors with whom you disagree, but we all must try to be as civil as we can be towards one another. It's one thing to ask another user to please provide sources to support their points, but jabs about another editor's sources getting "lost in the mail" like Tucker Carlson's credibility are not acceptable, and are certainly closer to "bullying" than a block after fair warning that your behavior was not acceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Valereee: No, your comment feels to me like victim blaming since I am on the receiving end of behavior that makes no sense and doesn't match the policy. I know perfectly well what being singled out as a target looks and feels like, I've had to endure it enough of my life just for not looking heteronormal. Again I'll ask how a current event and an observation of Atsme's reluctance or refusal to provide real sources to back up their claims constitutes a "personal attack", since you did not answer that question and deflected instead. I'm not even going to bother asking for an unblock because the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks page reads like one giant block of victim blaming, and I am not going to say I did something wrong when I've read the policy multiple times and I don't think I made a personal attack. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHA, I'm sorry you've been singled out because you don't look heteronormal. That should never happen to anyone. What I read was a comparison between your colleague, Atsme, with whom you disagree, and a Trump-slurping pandering toadie. That is what I objected to. I want you to deal with colleagues with whom you disagree with respectful disagreement. If you wouldn't say it in the workplace, you shouldn't say it here. —valereee (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I noted the problem with Carlson because Atsme had referenced Carlson in that very thread https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=985915681&oldid=985915154. I don't think your representation is correct in the slightest and it was NOT a personal attack no matter how you try to twist my words. I did not say "a Trump-slurping pandering toadie", and I fully reject that attempt to put words into my mouth. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~My mistake. That's how I see Carlson; YMMV.~~. I apologize for using hyperbolic language to describe Carlson. What you actually said was maybe Atsme's sources just got "lost in the mail" like Tucker Carlson's credibility?, which made it clear you were comparing her to someone you don't respect. Just stop talking about other editors. Talk about edits. It's really as simple as that. —valereee (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "my mistake" but I'm sitting here with proverbial ice on a black eye for 31 hours because you decided to twist my words and declare a "personal attack" where one wasn't made and where Tucker Carlson had been referenced by Atsme just a couple comments before. To hell with this Outer Worlds is out and I'm going to go play that. Wikipedia has shown me what it is and I should have believed it the first time to paraphrase Maya Angelou. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: So you're back to twisting my words so you can justify bullying me for your friend. Thanks for making it 100% clear that you won't treat me fairly and exactly where you stand. I'm more than used to seeing bullies play with pretexts to justify how they mistreat me. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm a bit disappointed to see you blocked, but do understand where Valereee is coming from. I haven't been following that talk page closely so can't comment on the specific cause of the block, but have noticed a pattern of sometimes confrontational edits, such as the one here. I've appreciated your contributions and I hope you use this as an opportunity to reflect a bit – nobody 'wins' in contentious debates on current affairs talkpages. It's often worth stepping back and leaving points you disagree with unanswered, even if they're in response to your comments, especially when another rebuttal won't add anything new to the discussion. Trust other editors' judgements (or the closer's judgement in RfCs). Related to this, characterising others' arguments or views is neither respectful nor a good launching point for valuable discussion. It's worth remembering that regular editors are probably well aware of our policies, so dispute is more likely to be the result of differing, valid interpretations of broad policies, rather than ignorance of them. These aren't easy things to do, and I make these mistakes myself, especially when I'm convinced I'm right. WP:SPADE doesn't overrule WP:AGF. To some degree we're all better off pulling back from current affairs and 'culture wars' and redirecting our energy to more productive topics. I hope to see you back shortly, Jr8825 • Talk 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I got THANKED for my comment too. I'll wear the bruise on my eye with pride the way John Lewis wore his scar from the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It wasn't a personal attack, I do not recognize that as a legitimate claim. @Valereee: I consider your action wrong. Simple statement. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit consists of a BLP violation "Johnaton Turley, an arch-conservative hack" (it didn't link as neither you or Atsme spelled the name correctly Jonathan Turley), followed by your hyperlinking Washington Times as the Moonie Times adds only heat to the fire. Wikipedia is not a battleground and I'd say from my experience you got off here on the wrong foot so now would be a good time to relax and regroup.--MONGO (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC

If you think the block was a mistake, then appeal it. The process isn't stacked against you, it will come down to the judgement of uninvolved admins. The problem is I don't think you're approaching this with the right attitude. A bit of humility and self-recognition is needed – acknowledge there have been a number of instances where your abruptness and lack of civility have been problematic, and work from there. Accept what hasn't worked, apologise if necessary for any jibes sent in haste. Then make your case that you did not intend to engage in a personal attack, and you will be cautious to avoid a similar situation in the future. Jr8825 • Talk 20:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825:, @Valereee: has already admitted making a mistake. Either they will fix their mistake as a measure of good faith or they won't, I don't acknowledge the old "well you have to admit you were in the wrong too" victim-blaming that always hits targets who speak up for themselves from people playing at a false middle ground. It made no sense when I was bullied and told I had to "admit" that I was "making myself a target" by supposedly not trying hard enough to appear more heteronormal and less nonbinary than I am, and it doesn't make sense to me now either. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: the rest of what I've seen and read tonight has made it clear there's no such thing as an unstacked deck here. Therefore there's no point, the tone policing and other bullying behavior will be all I'll see. Tone policing is how people like me are gaslit out of existence when we stand up for ourselves and after seeing garbage like this and the people who wrote it apparently having had no sanction I'm not fucking surprised that's the wikipedia way. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour&oldid=884194176 IHateAccounts (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, Wikipedia's civility standards are higher than that of most social media websites and forums. To participate in a controversial topic area, such as post-1932 American politics, an editor needs to show respect to other editors. While I was not aware of the comments that Valereee had pointed out, comments like Special:Diff/985102737, in which you accuse another editor of "lack[ing] media literacy skills", certainly fall short of the standards of civility required by Wikipedia. Please focus on content instead of other contributors. Focusing on content allows your arguments to be more impactful, and makes the discussion less adversarial, which allows article writing to be more pleasant and expeditious for everyone involved. — Newslinger talk 02:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Wikipedia:Competence is required, "Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:...the ability to read sources and assess their reliability." The person in question had repeatedly been trying to get completely unreliable material inserted by that point, and made multiple comments completely failing to understand the difference between news coverage and opinion columns. Someone who had a functional ability to read sources and assess their reliability oughtn't do that. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is indeed required, but there are better ways of making your point without needing to post negative personal comments against another editor. For example, it would suffice to attack the quality of the available sources or the plausibility/provenance of the discussed claims. Personally attacking other editors is off-limits. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Koncorde

@Koncorde: since I'm being bullied currently, here, information: "News Channel 9" aka newschannel9.com is WTVC Chattanooga. Contents "© 2020 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc." per the bottom of their pages. Everything under the "by Sinclair Broadcast Group" byline appears to be one of the Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Must-run_segments propaganda pieces they are well known for. Do what you want with it, I may or may not bother signing in again any more. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the above. However a bias is not a reason for exclusion and they are not dealt with on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page at all so there is no definite outcome regarding their reliability. Koncorde (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 :::::::<s>My mistake. That's how I see Carlson; YMMV.</s>. <u>I apologize for using hyperbolic language to describe Carlson. What you actually said was {{xt|maybe Atsme's sources just got "lost in the mail" like Tucker Carlson's credibility?}}, which made it clear you were comparing her to someone you don't respect.</u> Just stop talking about other editors. Talk about ''edits''. It's really as simple as that. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::::You say "my mistake" but I'm sitting here with proverbial ice on a black eye for 31 hours because you decided to twist my words and declare a "personal attack" where one wasn't made and where Tucker Carlson had been referenced by Atsme just a couple comments before. To hell with this Outer Worlds is out and I'm going to go play that. Wikipedia has shown me what it is and I should have believed it the first time to paraphrase [[Maya Angelou]]. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts#top|talk]]) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::{{reply|Valereee}} So you're back to twisting my words so you can justify bullying me for your friend. Thanks for making it 100% clear that you won't treat me fairly and exactly where you stand. I'm more than used to seeing bullies play with pretexts to justify how they mistreat me. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts#top|talk]]) 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 {{tps}} I'm a bit disappointed to see you blocked, but do understand where {{u|Valereee}} is coming from. I haven't been following that talk page closely so can't comment on the specific cause of the block, but have noticed a pattern of sometimes confrontational edits, such as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABiden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=986044809&oldid=986044176 one here]. I've appreciated your contributions and I hope you use this as an opportunity to reflect a bit – nobody 'wins' in contentious debates on current affairs talkpages. It's often worth stepping back and leaving points you disagree with unanswered, even if they're in response to your comments, especially when another rebuttal won't add anything new to the discussion. Trust other editors' judgements (or the closer's judgement in RfCs). Related to this, characterising others' arguments or views is neither respectful nor a good launching point for valuable discussion. It's worth remembering that regular editors are probably well aware of our policies, so dispute is more likely to be the result of differing, valid interpretations of broad policies, rather than ignorance of them. These aren't easy things to do, and I make these mistakes myself, especially when I'm convinced I'm right. [[WP:SPADE]] doesn't overrule [[WP:AGF]]. To some degree we're all better off pulling back from current affairs and 'culture wars' and redirecting our energy to more productive topics. I hope to see you back shortly, [[User:Jr8825|<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#6F0000">Jr8825</font>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#4682B4">Talk</font>]] 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 :And I got THANKED for my comment too. I'll wear the bruise on my eye with pride the way John Lewis wore his scar from the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It wasn't a personal attack, I do not recognize that as a legitimate claim. {{reply|Valereee}} I consider your action wrong. Simple statement. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts#top|talk]]) 20:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)