User talk:Endercase: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:54, 27 March 2017

Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could

You may leave any and all messages here you want. If I don't like it (it is inappropriate) I might remove it though. (I have never done so though)Endercase (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skip to the bottom

mostly inactive-consensus achieved-Manual archive

Headings and links

Welcome back to Wikipedia! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See MOS:HEAD. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I take it you haven't heard about the recent Daily Mail thing? Trivialist (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Busy now reply later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Revision deletion --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mentorship-consensus achieved?

Moved from David Tornheim's talk page

from here: They can try to ban me if they wish. I have openly called for it in Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. What I am doing is bringing back original policy and attempting to enforce current policy. Please see my user page as well. Please stop using the term "rules" as it is inaccurate. I will not stand for their attempts to censure and burn down portions of Wikipedia. What they are doing is why we lose so many editors each year. This all started with User talk:Mx. Granger which as you can see from their talk page has just today caused one user to quit. Endercase (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you banned. I looked at your user history when I first encountered you and saw that you had created an account long ago but really didn't start editing until two or three months ago. That's why I identify you as new user, even though you have had an account much longer that a good portion of the editors, I imagine. I agree there is a problem with retention and there are new problems that did not exist when I first started. When people disagree, they can get really nasty. I would like to discuss that further with you, but I need to take a Wiki-Break. Good luck. I recommend walking away from the keyboard if you get too angry and come back when you cool off. Saying anything nasty in anger is the easiest way to get into trouble. Editors collect diffs and can dump them all at once at AN/I to make an editor who has been provoked look out of control. Seen it many times. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. Thanks for the warning. We can talk anytime anywhere. If I don't respond try to tag me in other mediums if you want. My stuff isn't hard to find with James P.S. Case and endercase. I'll chill. Endercase (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Endercase: Done. I defended you. That said, I hope you re-read some of the things I said back at WP:RS/N. You might want to get a mentor. I can explain. --David Tornheim (talk)

@David Tornheim You didn't have to defend me, I did ping users I knew would state their case against me to maintain neutrality. I do thank you for it though. I agree I need a mentor. I appear to have upset a very active Cabal of users.

I did attempt to chill. I just shouldn't have responded on Jimbo's page when that one peer asked for context?

Peers here seem to really not like being disagreed with. I personally love it the another person has a grounded and cited argument as I can learn from it and change my POV. They appear to me to mistake debate for soapboxing and aggression here. Additionally, some of them seem to fight dirty.

Maybe I should also ping the two users whom I ended a disagreement with? As they are the only additional users [who aren't involved (edit)] I really interacted with, other than the ones in Stealth Banning. Everyone else was closer to two trains passing in the night.

I still don't understand how the source bans are reconciled with the issues I have brought up, but I guess I don't need to understand why I can't use X source before I finish helping make that stub into a real article (if I don't get banned from it). I also don't understand why we use the terminology "delete" and "rules" as both are not technically correct. "Hide" and "policy" are more correct in my view. I apparently do not understand the difference between soapboxing and discussing here although I have read all available material on the issues I have encountered. And I don't understand why people call canvassing, forum shopping as I was very careful to follow the guidelines. I don't understand quite a few things I guess.

Thank you again, you are always welcome to comment on any of my actions of course, and if agreeable I will likely show up here for advice on Wikipedia more often than you would like and you may tell me to "fuck off" at any point. If you would like, you make use the masculine gender pronouns in reference to me, as it is often simpler. Other pronouns definitely do not bother me in the slightest. I feel like neutral ones are more appropriate generally as I don't want my current apparent gender to affect others judgments. Endercase (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: Thanks for your reply. Since you are open to mentoring I suggest you go to the AN/I and say that. Also, just say you are sorry you were not trying to cause trouble and that you want to learn the rules, and tell them you are open to advice--and def. listen. You might even talk about which rules you read and which ones were confusing, but keep it *short*. I wouldn't try to defend your behavior--you made mistakes and if you can acknowledge that and learn from the mistakes, that will likely to be taken well. I think they were right to question some of what you were doing, but I think that AN/I filing went overboard and was avoidable, which is why I responded as I did. However, as I said at Project Editor Retention, I knew it was coming, which is why I tried to warn you about it when I first met you. So hopefully you learn from it.

I do think posting at WP:NPOV after going to WP:RS/N was probably not a good idea and that's why they claim you were forum shopping. I agree with them that your question about reliability of sources is an WP:RS issue and not an WP:NPOV, but I do see why you might think that excluding particular sources with a particular bias/slant might create a POV bias, but that's just not really what NPOV is about. I would read NPOV again--it's one of the most important policies IMHO, as is WP:RS. I made some mistakes like this when I had fewer edits under my belt. One thing to keep in mind is that many of the same editors watch and comment at all the forums, so that posting at NPOV was not really going to get any more eyes than posting at RS/N: Rookie mistake.

Another thing to do is make your comment and then not argue with people. It's often a waste of time, and if they don't agree, there is little chance you can convince them they are wrong. Asking them questions about why they take the position they do might be helpful, but accusing them is generally not recommended. If you lash back at them for arguing with you, they can use it against you at AN/I, as I knew would happen with some of the your edits when I first met you. You didn't know, but I know from experience that's what happens to new editors who get mad when they feel they are being unfairly argued with. For example this diff. You probably didn't know that would be used against you, but I knew one of those would. That's why I had advised you spend some time looking at what happens to editors at WP:AN/I.

Editors often go to Jimbo's page to address a big audience. I honestly don't see a problem with that since it is a general place for discussion, but as a less experienced editor, they might give you a hard time, sort of like a pecking order. In fact, your question about whether certain sources should be entirely be avoided is a big topic for discussion--including on Jimbo's page--because recently there was an WP:RfC that determined that a certain U.K. source (I think it was Daily Mail) was pretty much always unreliable, and a number of long term editors strongly disagreed that it should be banned. There was even mainstream news cover from other mainstream media sources about that banning of the news source, and questions about whether enough people were involved in the WP:RfC: See for example [2]. That's another reason I really didn't see that much harm with your question about banning a particular source in general. It's a good question--especially for a new editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also tagging @Nocturnalnow: . I can see now how my specific issue is more a reliability discussion than a NPOV one. However, the discussion of banning in general is one that should take place there so that POV balancing measures such as a public list with active discussion may be put into place. I'm used to trying to convince others of the validity of my arguments, particularly online, and thought it to be normal. But, then again, I'm also used to a karma system that tells you when you have lost the audience, a more clear reply and notification system, and comment weighting that hides unpopular views. In those cases (where you don't defend your POV) how is consensus reached? I read WP:DEMOCRACY and I thought voting was pretty clearly discouraged when debate or discussion can be had, yet voting appears to be the normal method when more than 3-4 users are involved.

I'd like to see more controversial RfC in the wild. I also think I should likely close my various posts, as I may have been out of order by opening them. The same concept would have been better addressed by more experienced users.

I guess the use of the term rules is not meant to convey a top-down nature of organization but to convey the severity and seriousness of their use.

I feel like I got typecast for my apparent defense of right-wing news sources. I tried to explain to users that were the most upset at this, that I agreed that these sources were less reputable that others and that I was not a right wing ideologue. I suggest you read my edits to Talk:Arian controversy where I attempted to use historical jesus in place of jesus and ended up with God the Son, which was an improvement. I'm fairly certain that can not be described as a normal right wing behavior even if, as I now realize, some may label it disruptive (I got lucky that the users there assumed good faith).

I believe that taking on stealth banning as my first real article improvement campaign was a bit ambitious as it is an under-documented phenomena (see my list of questionable sources on the talk page). Although, if nothing else an stub article that had zero active users now has 3-4 and some IPs due to my controversy.

I'm not really sure what to say at the AN/I, I'm trying to avoid saying something else there that may be considered disruptive.

Also, an explanation for why we use the term delete as opposed to hide would be extremely helpful.

Maybe we should move this all to my talk page under the heading "mentorship" as I don't want to take up valuable space on yours. Additionally, is there a 'legal' way to collapse discussions on my page (using the same method I used to collapse sources on the stealth banning page?)? Endercase (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy on "stickening" ones old posts? It seems dishonest to me. Endercase (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Also Hey Did you see this? [3] 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your actions were adversarial and my IN/A was not an appropriate location for such claims. However, they should have addressed your concerns instead of hunting you down. I guess IP bans don't require discussion and consensus? Endercase (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. @71.198.247.231: ^[1] IP user has been blocked from it's own talk page. Is this normal? @David Tornheim: @Hijiri88: Endercase (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A71.198.247.231&type=block

In cases of extreme disruption, yes. If you ever get blocked, don't post a string of attacks against the blocking admin and various other parties on your talk page. That is a really terrible idea. If you want to appeal a block, please read WP:GAB. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy at Wikipedia?

@Endercase: I read WP:DEMOCRACY and I thought voting was pretty clearly discouraged when debate or discussion can be had, yet voting appears to be the normal method when more than 3-4 users are involved. I have not read the section recently but I know from experience, that few decisions are based on democratic votes, which is why people call "votes" as ivotes or !votes. The decision is based on the merits of the argument. In a recent WP:AfD, of four people who voted, I was the only one to say "keep". Because I provided WP:RS, that carried more weight than the three editors who said "delete--no RS". In fact, I have seen it said many times that a simple vote in one direction is of essentially no value if no reason is given. Ultimately, following policies and guidelines carries the most weight in a discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: So users that vote giving little or no reason to support their vote are engaging in fruitless activities? Odd. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. As I said before, there is much room for interpretation. Decision are made by consensus, so having more !votes help see what the community consensus is, but the merits are really what matters most. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That really does change things quite a bit. Thank you so much. Endercase (talk)

No rules -- Ignore the Rules?

I guess the use of the term rules is not meant to convey a top-down nature of organization but to convey the severity and seriousness of their use. As I have said before, despite WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD, Wikipedia is filled with rules, and even more unfortunate is that many of them are vague and/or contradictory and leave much to interpretation. Unlike American law, we don't rely on stare decisis, or carefully argued decision by judges, and you'll see editors referring to "rules" or past decisions without giving you a link to what they are talking about. You could spend an hour looking for it--I know I have--and the search results are often far less definitive than what they lead you to believe. They themselves may not even remember where they saw the "rule", past decision, behavior, etc. For example, the person who said something to you indicating that Breitbart is never reliable didn't provide you with a reference. They probably didn't feel like spending the half hour trying to prove it--instead they leave that task in your hands. As a new editor, you probably wouldn't even know where to search to check if the claim was legit or not. So, I'm really not surprised you went to WP:RS/N to ask whether we really do ban sources. It's a reasonable question. I think your biggest mistake was not asking the question, but the way you asked it. Experienced editors find it odd for a new editor to ask for sweeping changes in the way we do WP:RS. More humility was in order.

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)[reply]

I agree I didn't take audacity into consideration. I read that all peers are equal and went for the gold: question everything. That was reckless. I really hope the list proposal gets some traction in the proper forum as it really would be helpful to easily know which sources cause other editors grief. Endercase (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typecast

I feel like I got typecast for my apparent defense of right-wing news sources. I tried to explain to users that were the most upset at this, that I agreed that these sources were less reputable that others and that I was not a right wing ideologue. I suggest you read my edits to Talk:Arian controversy where I attempted to use historical jesus in place of jesus and ended up with God the Son, which was an improvement. I'm fairly certain that can not be described as a normal right wing behavior even if, as I now realize, some may label it disruptive (I got lucky that the users there assumed good faith).

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)[reply]

Striking old posts

striking one's own post: You can strike your old post using <s>striken</s> which comes out as ~~stricken~~. I have seen that when people have changed their mind about what they wrote. Given some of the things said at AN/I regarding sourcing, you would likely be seen as learning if you struck thing you had previously wrote that you now feel were in error.

striking someone else's post I would advise against striking other editors' posts. I don't think I have ever done it. I have seen it on WP:RfC's where it was claimed that the person was canvassed, a WP:sockpuppet, topic-banned editor, etc. In fact, sometimes they not only strike the comment but entirely remove it from the discussion--especially if it really nasty. If someone else removes or strikes a comment you make, politely ask what grounds they had to do so.

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)[reply]

Striking someone else's post is out of the question. Sometimes when an experienced editor sees obvious trolling, clear personal attakcs and the like, they will blank the posts in question, but that is not a decision new editors should be making regarding comments by long-term contributors. Striking, however, is normally for when you retract something you previously said. Doing it to someone else's comment implies to those who don't check the history that the user struck their own comment, and is very misleading. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of your post

I believe that taking on stealth banning as my first real article improvement campaign was a bit ambitious as it is an under-documented phenomena (see my list of questionable sources on the talk page).

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.

@David Tornheim: I didn't back down because they hadn't even read the article in question, they appear to have just assumed that particular article was bad, their reference to that consensus is irrelevant as RS/N can only make determinations in context (as far as I understand) and not generally. They didn't even mention the author which I knew they would have also had a problem with had they even once clicked the link (Milo). Additionally, they removed 'shadow banning effects right leaning sources disproportionately' without leaving a citation need tag after they removed my source. Even after I provided other sources ( on the talk page that included that same information. There is tons of evidence on this particular bit of information, just very few write-ups by other major media sources. That's how I "knew" they were politically and not encyclopedically motivated. I definitely don't identify with the right, yet because of my seeming defense of the right, my argument for using the source on the talk page and the addition of information that makes it look like the right has been mistreated in some locations on the internet. People made assumptions, I really don't like assumptions in general. They assumed that my list request was just one meant to foul up the system, they assumed that me calling them out on making bans without first having a general discussion on bans was aggression and not legitimate, they assumed I was avoiding talking about the source I used was some sort of trick to allow me to use the source and not because I fundamentally agreed with them about that source. I really didn't care very much about the source or the information, I cared about the way it was removed. I didn't back down because they were not following protocol as I understood it and thus were irrelevant. They found someone who was trying to build the article and make an article relevant, that included factual information they apparently didn't want known, and they tried to silence me by attacking my character and not my arguments, treated Wikipedia like a battleground instead of like a community, assumed I was troll and treated me like a sub-human whose POV didn't matter (hence the attacks on my character), fallaciously closed one of my discussions citing a rule that didn't apply without any explanation on how they thought it applied. I cited chilling effects multiple times for good reason, one of the editors in question actually appears to regularly get people to quit Wikipedia (if their talk page is any indication) by acting extremely authoritarian. What should I have done in response to this? I felt as if I was required to stand my ground. Endercase (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: Please note that when I said you had not backed down and that was a problem, I was just referring to the discussion Talk:Stealth_banning#revert. I will make a new subsection to comment on your responses and other editor's responses to help you understand why I think you pushed too hard (Please be patient; I will ping you when that is done).

Regarding the rest of what happened, I'd say you'll have to get used to what you call #Chilling Effects. Experienced editors often get away with treating others--especially new--editors unfairly or badly, and complaining about it can make things worse because of WP:Boomerang. I hope you take a look at my writing about this here. I don't think we prepare new editors for what happens when they break explicit and implicit rules. I don't think you knew you'd be treated the way you were and be taken to AN/I, but I knew that was going to happen. I think if you knew you would have used more precaution and not advocated "bold", etc. Many of the things you did were breaking various implicit and explicit rules and unfortunately, you might think WP:Bold is a defense, but as you can see now, it isn't. And please remember, many rules contradict each other. You need to learn which rules are held in highest esteem. It takes time. Working on less controversial articles and articles you don't feel invested in will help you learn that. It will also show others that you are here to help build the encyclopedia, rather than continue to have the appearance of advancing a particular ideology or defending certain sources. Doing this other work is held in high esteem. Take a look at WP:backlog. Maybe there is something there that interests you that you could work on without it having anything to do with right-wing politics. --David Tornheim (talk)

I'm not really sure what to say at the AN/I, I'm trying to avoid saying something else there that may be considered disruptive.

I gave you advice on that already. Still the same.

Also, an explanation for why we use the term delete as opposed to hide would be extremely helpful.

Can you show me what you are talking about?

Nothing is ever "deleted" here, it is archived, kept in history, and or at best hidden from the public. Deletion would require complete removal from the hard-drives. Endercase (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: I see what you mean. It's deleted from the visible page. I see it like editing a book. You make a draft and then decide to delete a sentence before publishing, but you keep a copy of the draft on your computer. In published "official" copy the sentence is "deleted", even if you publish the draft later. Hidden is more like the "collapse" thing, where it is more or less part of the "official" record, but you have to hit a button to "unhide" it. I hope that helps.

Wait, do you just mean delete as in articles of deletion WP:AfD? I do agree with you that the archives keep a record of virtually everything. However, as you observed articles (and their history) that are deleted in such a way that ordinary users have no ability to see them or access them. I can see what you mean by how their history is "hidden". I honestly don't know much about what exactly happens to "deleted" articles. You may know more than I. The one thing that is true about the deleted articles is that they won't come up on Google--that might be part of the goal. If you find an answer to why the history is no longer accessible to ordinary users, I would like to know what you find. I actually did not know that articles were delete this way until recently. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should move this all to my talk page under the heading "mentorship" as I don't want to take up valuable space on yours.

Thanks. Yes. I'll do it soon.

Done with this. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Stealth Banning

Copied 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)[reply]

--START OF DISCUSSION--

I reverted following the 1RR policy. See WP:PGBOLD.Endercase (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was countered by User:Trivialist without discussion. They were following the "Ban" and were not aware that it is being challenged. Hopefully, they will revert their changes and bring their POV here or elsewhere in the discussion. Endercase (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was this, reverting [4]. As we have discussed, neither Breitbart nor InfoWars are considered WP:RS, so it's no surprise the response you get next.

I was removing sources generally considered unreliable. Per WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards. Trivialist (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards." is POV and does not reference context. Please try again. Endercase (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the trouble begins. The statement "Please try again" is needlessly confrontational.

I would add that you shouldn't refer to other users' talk page standards as "POV". Users are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong, and as long as they stay focused on content (in the case of article talk pages, specifically improving those articles) and don't violate our policy regarding living people, they are allowed express those opinions. WP:NPOV generally applies to article text, not talk page comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, past RSN discussions demonstrate clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for statements of fact, and the idea of calling Infowars a reliable source is absurd. Please stop adding them to this article unless you can get consensus for their inclusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When experienced editors talk like this, then stop arguing ASAP. Do your research. Find out if they are correct.

Agree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not currently have the right to ban sources out of context. If you would like that right I suggest you try to change policy. Endercase (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digging in your heels and saying you know what policy is when you are new is definitely not a good idea. Saying things like this might be why you were accused of not being a new user. Be more humble. If editors say you don't know what you are talking about, there's a good chance they are right.

Also, in case it hasn't already made clear: don't talk about "banning" sources. It doesn't help. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that calling a source reliable or unreliable constitutes a violation of NPOV? Trivialist (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSN "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Any consensus there must be made in context this likely stems from NPOV. Trivialist the consensus your refer to comes from WP:RSN. Endercase (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any consensus there must be made in context this likely stems from NPOV doesn't make sense. Of course no source can be reliable for all claims in all contexts. This has nothing to do with NPOV. Breitbart is only theoretically reliable in certain very limited contexts, when it happens to agree with more reliable sources. This means that it can be cited for uncontroversial statements, but where possible should be replaced with a more reliable source. Some users, like me, are exceptionally obsessive and want citations for everything, even really obvious points that don't need sources. Such really obvious claims that don't need sources can be attributed to generally unreliable sources, but even there reliable sources are preferable. Using Breitbart for factual claims, when you can't find other sources, is problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--END OF DISCUSSION--

@Endercase: See above comments in bold. What you could have done instead if you truly believed the two sources were sufficient is to take the entire statement and sources to WP:RS/N and ask there. And then accept the answer, which would have very likely have been no. Instead, when you got to WP:RS/N you started telling people to be WP:bold. Instead be more humble. I welcome any further advice to you on the matter including from Hijiri88. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, David's advice here is good, and I added some of my own. I wanted to add one thing to my last comment, but it was getting a bit long. On Talk:Stealth banning, you wrote things like Once I find more documentation on Twitter that should become very obvious. and I'll go find sources. This is not how editing Wikipedia works. You shouldn't write what you want (or even decide what you want to write and draft it on the talk page) and then look for sources retroactively. You need to find reliable sources, and accurately summarize what they say. Generally, if sufficient reliable sources do not exist, the article gets deleted or merged. If you do not have access to reliable sources on a particular topic, then you shouldn't edit articles on that topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Additionally, is there a 'legal' way to collapse discussions on my page (using the same method I used to collapse sources on the stealth banning page?)? Endercase (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot III |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}}

Here is another example from a user's talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 19

|minthreadsleft = 0

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(60d)

|archive = User talk:USERNAME/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}}

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)[reply]

Also to collapse a discussion add:

{{cot|Title}} Collapsed stuff

Which will look like this:

Title
Collapsed stuff

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another bit of advice

While trying to find the "Endercase" thread on ANI just now, I "Ctrl+F"ed your name, and I gotta say ... I think it might be a good idea for you to refrain from offering opinions in ANI threads that don't involve you. Using words like "war" (as in "war on paid edits") is unlikely to cool situations down, and inexperienced editors to be contributing to ANI discussions is almost as bad as contributing to RSN discussions. I might even say it's worse.

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)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I enjoy any philosophy, biology, organic chemistry or engineering work generally. I am also fairly good at conflict resolution when I'm not involved and find it enjoyable. All in all, I like fixing problems.

Generally, we (people I have interacted with) just refer to "Ctrl+F'ed" as searched, your repeated usage is slightly jarring, but I could get used to it.

I used "war on paid edits" with (meme) afterward, context is important in this case; as with (meme) afterward it shouldn't heat to many situations up. In that context, it just refers to the concept of an unwinnable war: One that could often have been avoided entirely just by taking less inherently violent measures. In this case "the war on paid edits" most closely resembles "the war on drugs". However this would also be a hyperbole as "the war on drugs" is much more severe and much more disastrous, as is often the case in memes (see my previous usage of #LiterallyHitler with you I believe).

If you would like I can strike that portion (or the whole thing), as I would not like to escalate the situation in any way.

I wouldn't mind hearing your take on the use of paid edits. I don't really care if I get involved in the real debate (I've stayed off "Jimbo's" wall (where it is going on now)), but I would like talking about it.

Were my edits problematic after the AN/I started? You (and others) brought up some good points there and I have tried to adjust my behavior accordingly.

Admitally, I have not seen a WP on meme usage here, I wonder if there is an essay or something. Endercase (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I won't say "don't post on ANI" then, but I think you should really focus on writing articles for the moment. Articles on the physical sciences (especially, but not exclusively, those related to medicine) are controversy-magnets, so if possible I would suggest you avoid those as well. Philosophy articles maybe? I'm ashamed to admit I don't know that much about "philosophy" except what one would come across in reading the cultural histories of China and Japan, so I can't offer any specific advice on articles in that topic area that are in need of improvement.

Your use of "(meme)" was unfamiliar to me, and likely to many others who read your comment, so I would advise against it.

Maybe a good way to learn about rhetoric used in the WP: namespace would be to read discussions like that for a few months before posting? I don't know. I posted in a bunch of discussions that involved me directly between 2012 and 2014 before finally making it a habit of offering opinions in other discussions.

Another point of concern is that when you refer to there being an unwinnable war on paid edits, you make it look like you have been involved in this war before, and invite sockpuppetry allegations. I no longer think you are socking, but your edit history is very unusual, and you should be conscious of that when joining writing things that make it look like you've been editing here for years.

No, I don't think your edits (as far as I have seen) have been problematic since your first comment in the ANI thread. I do think your edits immediately after ANI thread opened were problematic (see WP:CANVAS). Do you understand why those messages you left on the talk pages of David Tornheim, Nocturnalnow and Orange Mike (and one other who apparently didn't respond) were inappropriate?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I am still a bit confused on the canvassing honestly, I pinged all users I could remember having a semi-significant interaction with (where we actually conversed) who had not already been pinged with a neutrally worded message in the open. I'm fairly certain those actions followed the appropriate notification guidelines. I was not attempting to single out a partisan audience, nor was I attempting to be secret, my message was neutrally worded, and I did not mass post. Further explanation would be helpful on this topic. I can understand how emailing or meatpuppeting would have been inappropriate. I think IRL friends being involved would have been problematic, but as it is I might need further explanation. Endercase (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I did not ping two user who seemed the most appreciative of my input in the NPOV/noticeboard. Becuase, I feared they would be biased. Endercase (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ping anyone. Pinging is when you mention someone and link their user page so they get an automatic notification. What you did was notify them on their talk pages.

You are not supposed to notify anyone unless there is a very clear, specific reason why you chose to notify those specific users. You didn't leave messages on the talk pages of JzG, Only in death or MjolnirPants, so it seemed very much like you were cherry-picking users who would be sympathetic, with Orange Mike thrown into the mix to give the false impression of neutrality.

If you do not understand why this is inappropriate, I suggest you refrain from notifying specific users of discussions. Depending on the context, posting on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject might be appropriate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Ping: To send a short message expecting a simplistic response. In this case, the response would be Yes: I will interact with your AN/I or No: I will not interact with your AN/I.

You had already pinged the users you mention above, as such I had no reason to. Maybe your pinging of them was not appropriate as you did not ping all of the involved parties, just ones (the case could easily be made) that you thought I had angered; (you already addressed this).

You have not explained how my behavior was any different from your own in this case, expecting to assume bad faith and publicly and repeatedly claim bias (which I have not once done to you). And then you also claim that my pinging of Orange Mike was either a mistake, incompetence or a red herring; to explain away my good faith behavior.

Could you please reference a policy or even essay that shows that my canvassing actions, in this case, were not appropriate in comparison to your own.

I'm am not claiming that my actions in this case were appropriate, I am clarifying why I need further explanation on the issue. Endercase (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said on ANI, the reason I pinged them was because I was opening the ANI thread based on their testimony more than my own research. I did not notify every user you had ever interacted with (and neither did you) since that would be pointless. The relevant guideline is WP:CANVAS. Like all Wikipedia guidelines, there is some wiggle room between what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate". Generally, linking a person's username so they get a notification that you mentioned them (this is what "ping" means on Wikipedia; what you did was not pinging) is more acceptable than posting a message specifically addressed to certain, apparently cherry-picked, users saying, essentially, "some users have been offended by stuff I did; you were apparently not as offended by stuff I did; could you please comment on this ANI thread?", the latter of which is almost always inappropriate. And yes, it does look very much like, with the exception of OrangeMike, your messages were specifically targeted at users who had already been sympathetic to you (you even said as much in your messages to them), which makes your contacting OrangeMike along with them look very much like a red herring. If you were making a good-faith attempt to contact all the editors you had interacted with, then there would have been messages to Collect, Nishidani, Lommes, CaroleHenson, McGeddon, Trivialist, Granger... Anyway, please stop attempting to justify your past actions. If you are serious about this mentoring thing, you should just accept that what you did was wrong, learn from your mistakes, and move on. No one is trying to punish you for canvassing (Softlavender is just trying to counteract it by leaving notes below the comments of canvassed users), so you have no reason to be so defensive about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^I mostly agree with this, except I do not know if the editors were "hand-picked" based on whether they were going to write favorable responses. Some that were notified, were not exactly sympathetic. Even though I said, "I don't want you banned," the fact that I even had to say that strongly suggests that I thought that past behavior was going to be a problem if not corrected. I'm not interested in looking at evidence to see whether I think the individuals were cherry-picked or not: maybe they were. I will admit that when I saw the notice on my talk page asking me to comment at AN/I, although it seemed neutrally worded, I did not think it would be viewed favorably and I was not surprised by the reaction at AN/I over it. It seems like another rookie mistake and as long as Endercase has learned the WP:Canvass rules and promises to follow them from now on that is sufficient for me. I agree with Hijiri88 that trying to justify having done it at AN/I does not look good. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@David Tornheim: So I shouldn't even question other users? I mean I already know I shouldn't tell them they are wrong (I'm working on it, but that Teahouse deletion was pretty out there), but to not even question them? I mean it isn't like I am forcing them to respond to my questions, below I made it very clear they didn't have to respond to me. Endercase (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let someone else try to answer that. I feel like I already have answered it. Just re-read what I wrote immediately above. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What did "End of Discussion" mean?

Sorry, one more thing. When you said "END OF DISCUSSION" above did you intend that I shouldn't reply to you about that? That is how I took it to mean. I had a few questions and clarification requests, for a later date. I really must sleep. Thank you again for taking your time with me in such a manner. Hopefully, we see significant improvements. Endercase (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. The formatting is a bit weird, so I wasn't sure if it was you or David who had written that. I guess it was David, so you should ask him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"End of Discussion" was the end of the excerpt I copied from Talk:Stealth_banning#revert. It was added to your talk page with this edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291466598&oldid=291465740

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI. I commented on this conversation here. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^Yep. I didn't want to say it outright: You are indeed free to comment almost anywhere you want, but based on your past record and limited experience, commenting on contentious threads is not recommended until you learn better judgment of what will and won't get you into trouble. Watch, listen, learn by good example. Your recent comment at AN/I, for example, embarrassed me. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break

By the way: Endercase, why do you even care so much about vindicating that IP? I'm not insinuating that it was you or a friend of yours (some of its edits, which I won't link per BEANS, make it really clear that it's the same person behind the IP as was trolling a bunch of unrelated ANI threads last year), but why are you so obsessed with it? And (rhetorical question) why I am I still offering to mentor someone who responds to my advicd with snark and defensiveness. WP:BITE is a good essay, but when the newbie in question bites back when others offer friendly advice, even after being called out for doing so and promising to be more humble as a prerequisite to their not being blocked or banned ... well, I'm seriously beginning to think there's nothing to help this situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@David Tornheim:@Hijiri88: As I mentioned above, I defended the IP because it was banned for defending me. But, I've paid my debt in that regard. I think y'all should write a essay on respecting your Wikipedia elders, I would like to help with that. The closest thing I can find currently is don't template the regulars, but that is significantly devalued by template the regulars and because it never defines a "regular". Endercase (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The IP wasn't banned. It was blocked. IPs can't be banned, only the people behind them. (2) It wasn't blocked for defending you. It was blocked for attacking Bishonen, after she criticized it for trolling the ANI thread. It didn't defend you at all; it was trolling. It was also clearly socking: it's absolutely implausible that it doesn't have an account. (3) Since the IP was blocked for trolling, socking and harassment, your continued insistence that it was blocked for defending you is concerning. Please accept that this was not the case. (4) I don't know what you mean by I've paid my debt. Could you elaborate? (5) I have no interest in writing such an essay. The only users who would read it are long-time contributors who read essays, and I don't have time. I've already suck enough energy into ANI in the last week or so. (In my defense, I've been busy IRL and look set to continue to be so for a while, so building articles -- which for me requires research -- has been put on the backburner, but I'd really rather not edit Wikipedia if I can't write articles.) (6) If you think the largely satyrical user essay WP:TTR (which is linked to on 98 pages has 39 watchers, and is in the user space of someone who hasn't edited in almost a year) "significantly devalues" the widely-accepted standard of WP:DTR (which has 1,459 pages linking to it and 96 watchers) then I honestly don't know what to say to you. I think you should perhaps stop reading essays and just work on writing articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: You need to resign your post when you add a ping of someone, otherwise it won't be recognized and we won't see it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 I think you mean "re-sign your post" rather than "resign your post." As I read, I was scratching my head as to what post he had already attained or assumed, which you felt he was not qualified for and needed to voluntarily resign from. LOL. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I hadn't even thought about that. From what I can tell, the "re" prefix before verbs can take a hyphen or not, with some cases ("rewrite") preferring the latter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-signed my post many times, but I've only ever resigned my post once. From what I can remember, the re- prefix is usually hyphenated whenever there is any possibility for confusion or when the verb in question wouldn't normally be modified in such a way (e.g. "That show needs to re-jump the shark so the execs will just cancel it."), such as in this case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: 1)The IP was banned (a block is just a time limited ban), any user that may be at that address was not however. 2)This not what the reviewing editor said. 3)The IP did none of those things, please provide citations (as it is this looks like a violation of Civil (belittling a fellow editor) and AGF (Saying they were trolling for saying something (logically laid out, and consistently defended) you disagree with? It was a poor attempt at a boomerang but still, they appear to have meant what they said.)(Sock: Really? there were no other accounts defending it other than myself as such it could not be said to be socking (using multiple accounts in one argument to alter the appearance of consensus))(harassment: under what definition, they did not post anywhere but the AN/I and their talk page.) 4) I have already explained this above, I'm not sure what else you want. 5)"The only users who would read it are long-time contributors who read essays" Great, I don't exist or at the very least there are no other editors like me. 6) It isn't about the number of links but the quality and substance of the argument (as consensus is defined). Endercase (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Don't lecture me on the difference between blocks and bans. You are wrong. Blocks can be placed unilaterally by a single admin, and can be removed unilaterally by a single admin. Bans can only be placed by community consensus or the Arbitration Committee, and cannot be appealed to a single admin. The only exceptions are discretionary sanctions, which have nothing to do with this. (2) Who is "the reviewing editor"? You? (3) I'm not talking about what the IP said; I'm talking about what you said. Stop defending trolls and sockpuppeteers because of your (false) belief that they were "defending you". The IP is clearly someone with an account who wanted to post disruptive trolling on ANI, and logged out to do so. They harassed both me and Bishonen. If you cannot see that from their comments ... well, I don't know what to say. (4) If you refuse to answer questions posed to you, I don't see how this mentoring thing is going to work. If you make claims that you are unwilling to explain or back up, you will likely not thrive on Wikipedia. (5) It honestly looks like you were looking for any excuse you could to ignore DTR. If you can't tell the difference between a frequently cited essay that many accept as normative, and user subpage that very few people care about it ... well, again, I don't know what to say. (6) See (5). "Essays" vary widely in how accepted they are as representing norms. WP:BRD, for example, is practically on the level of a WP:POLICY in how many contributors abide by it and will expect you to abide by it. WP:DTR is up there too. WP:TTR is clearly not on the same level, as demonstrated by the fact that it's a user subpage. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Argument from Authority

I put some comments and suggestions for you at Argument from authority. I have advised you to try to avoid joining in conflict. Watch how conflict is resolved instead. Joining the other editors in multiple edit reverts does not look good. That's not collaboration, but a form of edit-warring. Worse putting that you are on a "side" opens you up to the accusation of WP:Battleground. If you want to make edits like this you can--obviously other editors think are doing it--but I advise against it. Everyone who is doing those reverts--including you--can be taken to task for not trying harder to collaborate. Take the high ground. I'm not going to censor you from doing that, but do so at your own risk. I have been advising you to watch how conflict is resolved rather than join in it. Good luck. If anything I put on the talk page of the articles seems too much about your behavior rather than edits, please let me know and I can move it here to your talk page... --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FACTION:

In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: If you spent 5 min looking at my posts at the talk page it is obvious that I was not edit warring. I was trying to prevent an edit war. I opened discussion and pinged all the accounts. In addition, I was AGF on the part of ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, who claimed consensus first, by reverting the edit of another account that I may have accidentally encouraged. Endercase (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is pretty clear that you're trying to help, not 'taking a side'. This would be a (really) bad case to do that in (see below), but it's pretty clear you're trying to help settle the dispute. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two other editors you pinged there are both of the opinion that an argument from authority is always a fallacy, despite me providing them a list of something like 17 impeccable RSes explicitly saying it is not, and despite Original Position (who is a philosophy major) explaining why to them multiple times. Both of them have been on the receiving end of WP:CIR/WP:EW blocks for their editing on that page. I argued with them for something like two months before I got sick of it and unwatchlisted the page. To give you an example of what I'm talking about: They've taken sources which explicitly state that a certain wrong conclusion in cellular biology was due to technological limitations of the time to conclude that the wrong conclusion was due to scientists all appealing to the authority of another scientist (whose 'authority' stemmed in no small part from having published the most widely cited paper advancing that wrong conclusion), because there's a passing mention in it of the scientist's "authority" and the suggestion that some may have not questioned it due to that. They've argued that a martial artist with a bachelor's degree in history (a profession which relies almost entirely upon trusting the conclusions of authorities, ironically enough) who makes his living making Youtube videos is a better source for the definition of a philosophical term than philosophers and philosophy textbooks. They've argued that their own personal views on the subject are obviously more correct than the RSes. They've argued that a popular press book of dubious reliability on the history of science which makes demonstrably wrong claims is a reliable source for the definition of a philosophical term.

If you think I'm wading back into that mess full bore, you're sadly mistaken. The POV those two are pushing is wrong and runs counter to our principles here, however they've both learned how to avoid bad behavior which is unambiguous enough to warrant a topic ban or block, and settled for quietly and slowly pushing their own views onto the article. I am about the 8th editor to have given up watching that page in disgust, due to these two and a few (read:3 or 4 at most) others over the years and to have accepted that article is going to contain OR, bad sources and a general level of ignorance which would otherwise not pass muster. Every once in a while, I'll come across it and make a minor edit.

In this case, I reverted the deletion of material by an IP address. FL or Atlanta then opined that I was wrong based on the ludicrously bad logic that a declarative statement (a tautology no less!) can somehow be a logical fallacy (it actually gives me a headache to think about trying to identify all the misconceptions that would go into making that sort of error). I reverted again only because I got the notice that I was reverted and the reason given was so unbelievably ignorant. Orange then came along and reverted again giving another shockingly ignorant reason by suggesting that a tautology is somehow a bad thing (at least they recognized that it was a tautology) for an encyclopedia to state, and that they were somehow restoring a consensus version. At this point, I'm simply done. I'm not wasting my time trying to edit when there are two editors dedicated to pushing a demonstrably wrong POV, and I'm not wasting my time compiling the giant wall of diffs and text that would make it clear to the admins what they're doing while being way too long for me to reasonably expect anyone to read it.

Take my advice: Unwatch that page and stop editing in the talk. Just let them have it. The vast majority of links to that page are from editors (incorrectly) citing it as an unambiguous fallacy. Aside from argumentative neckbeards who think they know a thing or two about logic because the internets told them so, there's little to no interest in that article. It's not worth the aggravation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wise

Your last edit to self-revert was very wise! I think you are learning. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... but on that subject, please refrain from directly editing policy pages to conform to your point of view in a dispute. Your interpretation, and belief that those three words need to be emphasized about the rest of the paragraph, may be common, but you need prior consensus for that, and I would discourage you from arguing that point on the talk page anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hijiri88 here and with this edit. Changing that policy page was a very bad idea. Editing a policy page is like trying to go change the U.S. constitution. You have to have consensus support for that. Before doing anything like that, please go to the talk page and make sure there is a consensus for any proposed change. I know we have the guideline WP:BOLD, but when it comes to areas of likely dispute or policy, go to the talk page and get consensus before making such a major change--which may seem minor to you--it isn't. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it was just a bold and I specifically asked other users to revert it if it went against consensus? I did not make any wording changes or anything that changed the meaning at all. If you disagree with my changes change them back. I was under the impression that is how consensus building takes place. My actions were based on WP:CYCLE which I was under the impression was well accepted. Endercase (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this is that big of a deal, because it's not. I agree that your edit was relatively minor and not a disruption or any sort of malfeasance on your part. However, you should be aware that policy and guideline pages are generally not considered subject to WP:BRD, but require one to gain consensus before editing, except for grammar and spelling (and even with grammar, it's still best to gain consensus first). And to be fair: I don't think that's documented anywhere, even though it's very well accepted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MP that this is not a big deal. But you really should avoid doing that again. WP:BOLD applies to article edits; it does not obligate anyone to amend policy pages. And someone who is currently being mentored as an alternative to a block because their inexperience has caused disruption should not be amending policy pages anyway. I wasn't even going to bring it up here until I saw that DT praised you for something you did in the discussion that led to the edit in question. Pro-tip: never edit policy or guideline pages based on one dispute you had with one user on one article, even when you are considered an experienced editor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with everything said above. This is again one of those things you learn from experience. I remember a couple of cases where editors have disagreed with someone at an article page and said the editor broke some policy. Then when we looked at the policy, we discovered that the accusing editor had changed the policy immediately before accusing the other editor of breaking it. It looks really fishy to everyone as controlling and autocratic--even if most editors ultimately are okay with the policy change. It would be like if you were going down the road at the speed limit and a police officer posted a sign right after you passed him lowering the speed limit and then chased you down saying you were speeding and told you to go look at the sign he had just posted. That's the kind of situation you don't want to get into. I think most of us who are experienced have seen this kind of thing done and it looks bad, even if the accusation occurs first and then the change is made after (especially if the change is made without seeking consensus on the talk page first).

Also, regarding policy changes, those can often be a really big deal. Look at the COI discussions for example at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Investigating_COI_policy. One thing you start to learn is that when there are big disputes, they are usually resolved by new voices bringing a consensus decision to one side or the other. When you have only been here for a month or two and don't watch the article, you would not notice that often things can settle down as time passes and more ideas are considered and more editors throw their opinion in the ring. This is something you often don't see if you watch politics on TV, with for example the Republicans seeking to repeal the ACA and other long simmering disputes--we do have those, but when it comes to the content of the articles, they often do stabilize from what I have seen. It's an interesting model for decision-making over representative politics or autocratic systems (like at-will employment where if you disagree with the boss you might be fired).

Anyway, when it comes to changing any key policy, seeking input and consensus first and being patient waiting for more people to participate is more important than ever. I don't think your change in emphasis by bolding is necessarily a huge change, but in some cases even that could be, so start on the talk page for sure. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from authority/New introduction

Argument from authority/New introduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses. The above page should be deleted (add {{db-user}} to it, after copying the content somewhere). Its content could easily be at the article talk page (Talk:Argument from authority). Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Ah, thank you for letting me know. Can you help me move both pages to my userspace? I'm not sure how to move history. Endercase (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq:It is also worth noting that it may be allowed under Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary_subpages. But if you take issue with it (and it looks like you do), I would consent to the move to my userspace. Endercase (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking issue, I'm just reporting that the main namespace (articles) is not used for subpages. My reading of the link you gave confirms that—it just adds a rider that onlookers should consider whether a page that might appear to be a POV fork was in fact accidentally created in article space. I'm not worried, but in due course the page must be deleted or moved to userspace. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I was aware, thank you. It was meant for several users to edit. Some didn't show up to the party. You can help work on it if you would like, so we can get this into the article faster. It would likely be faster with a larger quorum. Want to avoid local consensus and all that. Endercase (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point that this would likely be better at Draft:Argument from authority - please don't copy the content there and then request deletion as mentioned above, as this will remove the history and thus attribution, but instead do a page move -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: That is a good point, if I had located it there in the first place this likely would have been avoided. However I would prefer to stick with a temporary subpage as laid out as number 8 on the allowable sub-pages list. But, if you would like to move it because its current location bothers you that would be fine though, as long as I can share the link with the other invested editors. Endercase (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done!

just a `keep this in mind the next time` - thank you for all your contributions here and happy editing -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

RfC Break

@MjolnirPants, David Tornheim, and Hijiri88: Should we add that to WP:BRD we could do a RfC there. I think it would be helpful. That:"That policy and guideline pages are generally not considered subject to WP:CYCLE. With them it is generally accepted that one should gain explicit consensus on the talk page before editing, except for spelling fixes." (if we truly required it the page would be protected, or at the very least there would be an edit warning) Endercase (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add that to WP:BRD we could do a RfC there. I think it would be helpful. That actually sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not sure if it will get much support, but personally, I think that the biggest problem with unwritten rules is that they're unwritten. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done per: this ---Endercase (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the problem of unwritten rules. I am shocked at how he was treated at WP:BRD. I have been thinking about saying something there, but I feel like there is already too much drama. I wrote a draft of what I was going to post there, but not sure I will post. Here is the draft:

Interesting: I am going to WP:AGF with regard to what Endercase has suggested here. I think he came here to make a suggestion for changing the text, because as a new user, he may have found confusing or even mislead and he wants other users not to be confused in the same way. I know that Hijiri88 and I both advised him not to boldly change policy without first discussing. It seems to me an implicit rule that experienced users know that changing policy has much more serious implications to the project than an article on an obscure insect, and its generally better to discuss first, although I would hope that would be obvious to new users as well.

I think the policies of WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE are confusing to new editors, as I explained in my essay here.

Thoughts? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim They seemed pretty convinced over at WP:BRD, that the reason why they wouldn't include it was not really Creep but because they didn't agree with it. Consensus on this issue appears to be divided. Uniting consensus is a very difficult task. While I agree that (new) users are often punished for their behavior particularly while citing BOLD, Bold is actually pretty entrenched in consensus. It just looks like the same logic that protects Bold does not seem to protect those users. Odd. Maybe we should try including it in various editor edicate guides as a suggestion not as a rule?

Good edit

This is the best edit I have seen you do in a while: drama-free. Do more edits like that. -- (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim Thank you, I will try. Just doing the "drama" edits is always tempting. Endercase (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amending "Wikipedia:" namespace pages

Endercase, I think I told you this before, but trying to amend pages in the WP: namespace is not going to help you become a better Wikipedian.

WP:CREEP is a thing, so there's no reason for those "rule" pages to cover every eventuality. I'm honestly not sure at this point if you meant well, but your last comment on the BRD talk page honestly made it look like you were trying to put the advice DT, MP and I gave you to the test by attempting to enshrine it in BRD page. If this is the case, you should stop. None of the advice I have been giving you (I can't speak for the others) is meant to be a general summary of the "rules" on English Wikipedia. It is meant to help you, and only you, learn to be a better Wikipedia editor. I will not attempt to get any of it enshrined in or policy, guideline, essay or process pages, and you should not either.

I probably should have told you this earlier, but attempting to amend those kind of pages (in terms of what they actually say -- minor technical fixes, and reverting other editors' unilateral amendments, are different), even for experienced editors, is generally a bad idea. Ironically, if you were here long enough, you'd probably have come to this conclusion yourself even without me telling you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that "experience" was what existed at the top of your values for arguments. It was suggested that I make that RfC by a user that is far more locally experienced than both of us combined, as such I did so.

Policy and consensus are what governors my behavior, not any logical fallacies. Please read the argument I left defending you, and also apply it to me moving forward. Endercase (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually opened an RFC, but I may have missed that. Anyway, who advised you to do that? I would have disagreed. I am fairly certain that I told you that attempting to amend WP: pages was something to be avoided. I don't know what you mean by "experience" was what existed at the top of [my] values for arguments -- could you elaborate? I also don't have any idea what your second paragraph refers to. I am simply telling you that it's a bad idea for you to edit WP: pages (and this includes requesting that others do it and attempting to discuss the viability of doing it); nothing to do with logical fallacies, concensus or governors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)

I'm assuming you're talking about the article space? Some of your recent edits imply you think NPOV applies to users expressing their own opinions on talk pages (just so we're clear, it doesn't). In the article space, cited points of view are allowed, but you should be careful not to overemphasize fringe points of view. WP:WEIGHT is the relevant section of the policy here. You should also be careful about the difference between putting something in "Wikipedia's voice" and having an inline citation and attributing the point of view to a particular author inline. Generally, don't attribute a POV to "some authors". (If you have a reliable source that says that, it is sometimes acceptable to do so, at least in the short term. I usually leave an invisible WP:COMMENT inline if I feel that violating the letter of WP:WEASEL while staying true to its spirit, but that requires care, and I know some users don't like my invisible comments.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your comment on Vfrickey's talk page

I asked where I had "admitted" that I was focused exclusively on right wing news media, and then I struck my comment and said I was no longer interested in discussing it either way. Vfrickey then posted 11,000 bytes of what at first glance looks like the same either accidental or deliberate misinterpretation of my comments. I probably wasn't going to read it even if it was a brief explanation of why he thought I had admitted to being focused on right wing news media when I've barely touched this topic, but there was no way in hell I was going to read that monster post.

Additionally, if you don't retract your bizarre accusation that I am a rampant POV pusher and constantly and consistently fail to observe good faith, I am no longer interested in mentoring you. Take it back now, or we're done.

Also, stop following me. You clearly do not have Vfrickey's talk page on your watchlist (why would you?), and your comment in that other random ANI thread a while back about how you agree with me because I am smart and awesome and cool ... well, I took if as a misplaced comment, but I would really appreciate it if you didn't monitor my edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: you constantly believe that you are right and try to convince everyone else with little to no evidence[13] is another really terrible thing to say to someone who is offering to mentor you and help you learn the ropes on Wikipedia, and is made all the worse by the fact that it simply isn't true -- even in my brief interactions with you, I have admitted my mistakes and changed my opinions accordingly multiple times.

Anyway, if that is how you feel about my advice, then fine: I will not give it any more. Your refusal to accept mentoring, and your unprovoked attack on the one offering you the mentoring, may well be used against you next time there is a discussion involving you on ANI, mind you, so I strongly urge you to retract pretty much everything in that comment.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait ... I just noticed this -- did you post that criticism of me and my stupid advice because you believed the mentoring to be "over" now that "consensus" has been achieved? I am afraid that is not how it works. You were assigned mentorship by community consensus, as a substitute to a block or a limited TBAN, in concession to the users who believed that the disruption you caused was a result of your inexperience and could be cured by mentoring. There was no set time limit or specific end conditions to the mentoring (another reason I now kinda wish User:MjolnirPants had been a bit more careful with his close...), but it definitely can't end after one week based on the unilateral decision of the mentee. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I just moved that stuff there because it appeared to have reached a stable point. You may remove anything you want from that folder and add addional information of course. You can even edit my userpage if you want.

The main reason I made that post is because you do things like you have done here: Threaten users because of their expressed POV and demand (with threats) they change it, instead of convincing them to change it. It really is poor form.

I know I need mentorship, but you aren't perfect either, even if you a better editor than myself. You method of mentorship is very authoritarian, you demand respect and authority. Even when your views are not with consensus you bluster and claim that I shouldn't have checked consensus anyway. It is very discouraging.

All in all I helped you there way more than you seem to realize. They can't really go the AN/I without the comments you have directed at me, or at the very least it has severely weakened their case. Endercase (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri has a very good point: You find a lot of 'new' paged to edit by searching contributions from me and others (including Ponyo, which is a red flag considering how you know them), and your comments have a habit of being highly opinionated and more than a little uncivil.

Hijir has another point in noting that the discussion did not stop because the problem seemed to have been solved, but because a solution by which the problem seems likely to be solved had been found. That is an important distinction. I'm trying to help you here, and so is Hijiri. I'm sure you don't believe that, but I've known them for longer than you, and the way I see them treating you is different from the way I see them treating editors whom they believe just need to be banned. So seriously: Knock it off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend any harm (see how I didn't take them to AN/I?). My actions while being in need of mentorship are not significantly outside the norms of editor behavior based on the data I have. I mean look at the stuff JzG(Guy) gets away with or even the editor that removed the original Infowars and Breitbart citation, I am nowhere near their level. Endercase (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, you shouldn't cite blogs

I took a look at User:Endercase/draft, and ... well, I find it disheartening that you appear to be ignoring my advice fo stay away from that article, but since I can't unilaterally TBAN you I'll just tell you that, per WP:BLOGS, you probably shouldn't cite this, this or this. (I am aware that the current live version of the article cites the latter, and it doesn't advertise as a blog, but I'm pretty sure it is; it's powered by WordPress. I really wish I didn't keep having to specify this, but I'm not here to criticize you because I hate you and you are a terrible person; I'm just telling you what the policy is. It doesn't matter to me who added the blog citation, where, and when.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A71.198.247.231&type=block

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291466598&oldid=291465740

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 500: / Line 500: @@
 ::Wait ... I just noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Endercase&diff=772320176&oldid=772318773 this] -- did you post that criticism of me and my stupid advice because you believed the mentoring to be "over" now that "consensus" has been achieved? I am afraid that is not how it works. You were assigned mentorship by community consensus, as a substitute to a block or a limited TBAN, in concession to the users who believed that the disruption you caused was a result of your inexperience and could be cured by mentoring. There was no set time limit or specific end conditions to the mentoring (another reason I now kinda wish [[User:MjolnirPants]] had been a bit more careful with his close...), but it definitely can't end after one week based on the unilateral decision of the mentee. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
+:::Nope, I just moved that stuff there because it appeared to have reached a stable point. You may remove anything you want from that folder and add addional information of course. You can even edit my userpage if you want.
+:::The main reason I made that post is because you do things like you have done here: Threaten users because of their expressed POV and demand (with threats) they change it, instead of convincing them to change it. It really is poor form.
+:::I know I need mentorship, but you aren't perfect either, even if you a better editor than myself. You method of mentorship is very authoritarian, you demand respect and authority. Even when your views are not with consensus you bluster and claim that I shouldn't have checked consensus anyway. It is very discouraging.
+:::All in all I helped you there way more than you seem to realize. They can't really go the AN/I without the comments you have directed at me, or at the very least it has severely weakened their case. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 *Hijiri has a very good point: You find a lot of 'new' paged to edit by searching contributions from me and others (including Ponyo, which is a red flag considering how you know them), and your comments have a habit of being highly opinionated and more than a little uncivil.
 :Hijir has another point in noting that the discussion did not stop because the problem seemed to have been solved, but because ''a solution by which the problem seems likely to be solved had been found''. That is an important distinction. I'm trying to help you here, and so is Hijiri. I'm sure you don't believe that, but I've known them for longer than you, and the way I see them treating you is different from the way I see them treating editors whom they believe just need to be banned. So seriously: Knock it off. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 12:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
+::I did not intend any harm (see how I didn't take them to AN/I?).  My actions while being in need of mentorship are not significantly outside the norms of editor behavior based on the data I have. I mean look at the stuff JzG(Guy) gets away with or even the editor that removed the original Infowars and Breitbart citation, I am nowhere near their level. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase#top|talk]]) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 == Generally speaking, you shouldn't cite blogs ==