User talk:Doc9871

AE

Per the consensus at AE, the one month ban Bishonen implemented is affirmed. In addition, there was consensus to issue a warning that any disruption under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban. I thought I had left this notice immediately after closing the discussion, but I was having some connection issues and it apparently didn't go through; my apologies for the delay. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I ever expected it to be overturned! "Disruptive" is a very subjective description. If I was truly disruptive I would have been blocked, per the eager recommendations. Dang. Maybe borderline disruptive? Meh. My only real choice is to stop editing Trump stuff altogether, not out of fear of laughable sanctions, but with the knowledge that NPOV is totally out the window there. I've only ever been blocked in my tenure here very recently, and only over this subject, not because I've suddenly become "disruptive". Since the topic is under discretionary sanctions any admin can swoop in and issue decisions that will not be overturned. Not the most ideal system, but it is what it is. I've edited other things under sanction and never experienced anything close to the backlash like I have with this topic. So... you win! I seriously doubt I will revisit that topic after the month expired.

As far as the "American politics 2", or whatever, warning? Never had a problem except for with the anti-Trump set, so the assumption that I would "disrupt" the broader field is simply ABF backslapping cronyism. Don't expect me to "disrupt" American politics 2. Yeesh... Cheers... Doc talk 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't even read the remainder of the AE until just now. Predictably, SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) was the most "vocal" and determined critic. "Behavior patterns" - ugh. Get over it. "Herding" me? Interesting choice of terms. I pray that you never even try to make admin. I really do. Doc talk 04:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment, I have been watching the proceedings myself, however, and I think your characterization of SMcCandlish is inaccurate/unjust/unfair. He may have been your most vocal critic, but, he aimed to address the "behaviour pattern" he perceives without a punitive punishment. Keep in mind, he looked towards keeping you focused on WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and not, towards WP:TBANning you from Donald Trump. He did also compare his own behaviour to yours, rather than just point the finger at you and say "bad dog" he took the time to reflect and say "I used to do that". Now, whether or not that was sincere is a matter of WP:AGF, in other words if it was sincere, assume it was sincere, and if it was not, assume that it was anyway. I honestly am more inclined to agree with parts of what SMcCandlish said than any other person on that thread (though parts also seem quite ludicrous to me, a fan club at AN/I? perhaps from some editors, but, there's those who look at issues with objectivity as well), comparatively Volunteer Marek specifically chased for a punitive punishment and the rest just agreed to it, I noted also that at least one editor brought up their issue with the WP:AGF compliance ban being that it can be manipulated unduly. Perhaps that is the case, and yes, it could put undue pressure on you to watch your every word, but, at least it looks towards a resolution to a "problem" and not a punishment. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That's really swell of SMcCandlish to compare his behavior to mine (which he certainly did not). Because:

"I suggest prohibiting Doc9871 from:

• Namecalling or questioning the good faith of other editors
• Menacing other editors on the basis of their administrative enforcement history regarding matters unrelated to the topic
• Trying to hound other editors out of a topic
• Threatening any editor with harassment, battleground, or editwar tactics, or issuing 'you can't do anything about me'-type challenges."

So, you see, my behavior must be "herded", whereas he has learned far more about that. Anything else? Doc talk 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may respond to "which he certainly did not"; 1."I was once subject to a "not questioning good faith" sanction myself, and it markedly changed my approach to other editors away from my habitual Usenet-style "verbal combat" tactics", 2. " I also speak from experience here, having been twice subjected to short-term TBs, in ways that effectively supervoted in favor of the other party and gave them free reign..." and 3. "I think the cases [Yours and His] are parallel; there's a good chance that the underlying NPoV issues that Doc is trying, intemperately, to address are legitimate." It's not all about behaviour and comparison, I'll freely admit, part of it is just their own experience (with you and with others). I don't have your experience, as you would say "mileage may vary", just my own perspective. I could be wrong, I am not infallible after all (except when challenged), and I only have my own kilometrage (a far cry from a mile) to speak from. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen so many editors come and go. Analyses of my "behavior patterns", as well as judgements pronounced by admins that truly think they speak for all, I really put very little stock in. One can attempt to lump me into a disruptive pattern if one chooses, but I may just surprise you! The lesson I have learned from this is: don't edit discretionary sanctioned topics. If you do dare to edit them, expect that the determination of "disruption" is going to be based on the most CONLIMITED interpretations. Doc talk 05:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The remedies I suggested are things that Doc should not be doing anyway. A "restriction" to abide by the same rules and behavioral norms as everyone else is not exactly much of a restriction, and considerably less restrictive than a topic ban. I don't like topic bans being issued for behavior-pattern problems when they are not connected to the topic. It's a confusion of correlation and causation, like banning someone from 4th Street, or from driving a Toyota, after they were caught speeding in a Toyota on 4th street, instead of issuing them a speeding ticket. Such a Tban has a strong tendency to cause the recipient of it to react with outrage, claim bias on the part of the issuer, perceive a cabal, and decry Wikipedia administration as corrupt/broken, instead of focusing on why they were "pulled over" at AE, ANI, or whatever the dramaboard in question was. I've seen it happen again and again, and if anything was "predictable" it was that this would happen again in this case, and sure enough it did. What I meant by Doc having a fan club at ANI was that at ANI no action had been taken, solely on an "aw, but he's been here a long time and is usually such a constructive content editor" excuse; that's fandom getting in the way of critical thinking. Or you could call it an "ends justify the means" attitude, or "cronyism and a good-ol'-boys' club"; there are a million forms of this fallacy, but it comes down to the same error.

Had AE taken the tactic I suggested, then, yes, Doc would have to watch what he says pretty carefully, exactly as I did. For a while. After enough exercise in thinking and moderating before you click "Save page", it becomes second nature to stay within civility limits. You use more cogent techniques to get someone to show their hand and how weak it is on a sourcing and/or policy level. I learned the hard way that being right about something will not at all save you from unfair and sometimes content-harmful topic bans if you're a WP:JERK about being right, and that AN/AE/ARBCOM will not do jack-squat for you if they think you've been being a jerk, no matter how obvious is it that some admin is out for your blood. (And, Doc, you know damned well you act like a jerk – you display an enormous amount of pride in it, challenging all comers to do anything about it, so you're not in a position to play the shocked and hurt, innocent little victim when they finally do so. No one likes a bully, and no one is fooled when the bully pouts and claims he's being picked on when he gets busted.) The present admin crowd care far, far more about bopping people on the head punitively than they do about prevention by adjusting behavior; it's just easier to sit someone on the bench or kick them off the team than to train them to be a better player. The only tool they seem to ever want to use is preventing a particular editor from editing in a particular topic, or at all, with topic bans and blocks, instead of making it difficult to keep engaging in the same behavior across multiple topics. The current admin strategy for dealing with inter-editor conflicts is to apply a "fit in or fuck off" rule, in effect, without regard to the meat of the content dispute at hand and no matter how otherwise competent the editor is (generally, or in relation to the other party/parties in the dispute). I try to dissuade that trend when I can, but get little traction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to act the way you think they should act here. Nor will they get punished just because you think they should. That's why you probably get little traction when recommending ways to implement things that aren't going to work. You can tell the community til you're blue in the face what should be done about "jerks" like me, but you can't make them listen. It's not my fault you can't prove that I need major behavioral restrictions. You're simply wrong about that. I don't break any major rules or I would have a mile-long block log by now. Doc talk 08:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this pure innocence of yours if why you are not under a Tban, under a hair-trigger warning about the entire scope of American politics, and have multiple admins chomping at the bit to give you a broader topic ban, plus an admonition to avoid conflict with the editor who opened that AE request. That's basically a whole series of pit traps in your path, all dug because of your unnecessarily hostile style of response (I'm avoiding calling it a behavior pattern since that irritates you). This is not an "argument" I need to "win". You can either believe me and try a different tactic, or not; it's entirely your choice. When they guy with the burn scars tells you what happens when you open the furnace door, it might be worth listening, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Check out this response.[1] This is this type of measured, professional response that I can respect. Your smarmy analyses are very hard to stomach. I can't take behavior "advice" from an editor like you. You're not one who practices what they preach. You have a very condescending tone that is disengenuous to me. Read and re-read the response above a few times, especially in light of my comments. Your analogies of furnace doors etc. are less clever than you think. Doc talk 05:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a fair amount of subjective opinion going on here, it's rather difficult to get traction to make a change when everyone has a differing opinion of what does and does not constitute violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. There are those who would have you believe that swearing is a violation of the above, those who think that context dictates the situation, those who WP:DGAF either way, those who hate the rules because they just get in the way (there's an essay on this topic I think, ignore all rules?) and many more interpretations on top of that. Consider for example; Volunteer Marek believed him being told to shut up was a WP:NPA violation, Doc thought it was ridiculous to try to claim it as such, and myself who thinks that at most it can violate the spirit of WP:CIVIL (and that only applies when it affects the ability to resolve a dispute, which, admittedly it did in this case). Another example; I was called a c**t by an editor in the right context and it by no means violated WP:NPA (it was used to explain a difference in Slavic languages, where in one it means c**t and in another it means "to coddle"), yet, to someone else, this may have been an egregious offence because the context would have flown right over their head (or they could be a feminist and this word is an insult against all women even though it had nothing to do with them, both valid options). I again repeat, I agree that a TBAN was stupid, (what a waste of power to accomplish diddly squat except slight an editor) but, I also note cautiously that the alternative, may not have changed a thing either. Doc feels (I speculate) he was in the right, telling him he's wrong won't change a thing, showing him, that's a matter of whether he's willing to look and if he does, will he see what you do? Now, however, we enter the realm of speculation (and possibly hindsight). I haven't personally had any unfortunate run-ins with Doc, he's a bit stiff in wording and can come across rather blunt but, in-so-far as my experience dictates, he's not vindictive or spiteful, just direct. I haven't much of a filter either, I re-read each of my messages at least two or three times and have occasionally managed to avoid an especially nasty breach of WP:NPA because my annoyance had been heightened. No clue how much attention Doc pays to his messages, or if he writes out his thoughts exactly as they are and pastes them. I guess, on the one hand, even if it's rude, at least it's an honest reflection of what he's thinking. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The source of Doc's trouble is that he's certain that he has an unlimited right on WP to always express his opinion, even when it constitutes an insult or accusation (see further up this page), and this incorrect. The way around this problem, as I've learned the hard way, is to recast "you are a ...", "you are doing ...", "you had better ...", "you are so full of ..." flaming into statements of subjective personal opinion ("that comes off as ..", "how is that not a case of ...?", "that seems like ... to me", "wouldn't it be better to ...?"), or neutral statements of fact ("policy X says not to ...", "there's already a consensus against ...", "see WP:XYX", "not according to sources A, B, and C", "that's fallacious because ...", etc.). A good rule of thumb is "would you say this to someone in a face-to-face discussion?".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I take the majority of your points and they are indeed a way to avoid coming into unnecessary conflict and stop yourself attacking the editor, rather than content. That said, on your last point with the rule of thumb, in my case for example that would be a terrible rule of thumb for me to follow. Again, I lack the filter to avoid saying certain things. I can take a very blunt approach in saying exactly what I think, I police it carefully on Wikipedia and occasionally self-revert even after having read my comment multiple times on the grounds that it may violate one of NPA, CIVIL or AGF. I think it may also be prudent to note, that after a certain amount of time and a certain amount of instances of meeting different editors with a similar propensity to push certain things (their POV, their interpretation of policy, or whatever else) that one may fall into the trap of having an automated response to those things. It's rather easy to violate NPA by making an unfounded accusation after you've more carefully made that accusation multiple times and been correct. Perhaps Doc thinks his rope has grown to become infinitely long, or, perhaps he has an automated response to certain stimuli after that response has been confirmed many times before by many different editors. You'd be grumpy too if you had ten different editors approach you with the same attitude, it wears you down, so much so that you stop caring about the editor. Perhaps the lines have been blurred, the content now reflects the editor, poor content and therefore poor editor. Snap judgement, snap response, possibly accurate judgement, but, poor response. Or perhaps I'm delving far off-topic and reading into many books that have not been written, either or. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have looked over the year-old "American politics 2" page. No mention of Donald Trump, no mention of Hillary Clinton. Instead, "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." It is astonishing that you people feel that such a sanction would be appropriate in this case. Anything post-1932?! Shame on you for even suggesting it. Doc talk 08:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's also a discretionary sanction for any article that has anything to do with Islam, quite a bit broader than post-1932 politics in the U.S. I'm tempted to assume that they picked '32 due Roosevelt from '33-'45. Also, if you're under TBAN shouldn't someone update WP:EDR, so that there's no confusion? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The loss of Joy

Am alive. Miss you dearly. Dead hero son, Broken heart etc. Chemo brain.= diabetes/. No Susan. SAD. Have tried to change my email several times to no avail. Help? It is joydiamondprez@gmail.com "My noble partner...Look into the seeds of time..." Love — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)