User talk:Apprentice57

Welcome!

Hello, Apprentice57!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keys to the White House

Please don't revert my edit again. I'm under no obligation to "discuss" this since it is clearly a POV pushing and an uncited one at that! LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not POV just because you say it "clearly" is. And just as you aren't obligation to discuss it, I'm also not under obligation to not revert your edit.

If you want to remove it for the lack of citation, be my guest. I'll revert it with a citation added when I get a chance.

The neutral option is to bring it to the talk page. If you want to be productive, bring it there like all the other editors who have wishes on the 13 keys right now. That's why I asked you to bring it there, so it doesn't devolve into an edit war. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looks like another editor already reinstated it with a citation. Nice! Apprentice57 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard thread

The multiple violations of Wikipedia policy on The Keys to the White House have prompted me to start a thread on the BLP Noticeboard, in which I mentioned you. You can find it here: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Allan Lichtman and The Keys to the White House. JamesMLane t c 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You three repeatedly make posts attacking my conduct. I addressed this subject on the Noticeboard thread about your attempts to cite a blog in a BLP. I repeat the information here, for your convenience:

But, if you think I’ve acted improperly, you don’t need to confine yourself to your criticisms of me here and in the Talk page thread. You have recourse. Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee. It doesn’t adjudicate content disputes, but it does review charges of user misconduct (inappropriate unilateral action, bullying, undue lecturing, etc.). You might want to begin by familiarizing yourself with the dispute resolution policy. If you then conclude that arbitration, considered to be a last resort, is nevertheless in order here, a good place to start would be Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. You can then go to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Case request to see how to file the case against me.

I’m providing these links just for your convenience. I recommend against attempting to begin an arbitration, but it’s your call.

The question is whether you want to go beyond fulminations and ask the ArbCom to look at editor conduct on these pages. If you do, that's how you can go about it. JamesMLane t c 01:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I referenced bringing in an administrator for things like arbitration. I'm not sure why you're writing this on my own talk page @JamesMLane unless it is to complain more about our own complaints or imply I don't know how it works.

For the record James, you have repeatedly (and improperly) attacked our conduct as well. The difference is ours is reactive, and didn't manifest in unilateral edits nor bludgeoning the process.

My cards on the table: Even if you are right on the merits I doubt any wikipedia administrator is going to look kindly on the way you are conducting yourself here in repeatedly trying to overrule consensus (or lack thereof) and making unilateral edits and abusive talk messages. So I'll ask one last time: let the RfC play out and adhere to it, wait a reasonable time after the last comment (at least a week) or the full month. Either adhere to what it says, compromise and build consensus, or bring in an administrator. The Noticeboard thread is illegitimate for reasons I have already argued and it will not be viewed persuasively when it comes your edits being deemed unilateral.

If you don't do one of those, and we have to revert your edits repeatedly (an edit war) then I will contact the other editors of the page and begin the arbitration process. I think we all would like to avoid that and admins would appreciate us working out an amicable solution. The ball is in your court. Apprentice57 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "the full month" as if there were some 30-day rule about dispute resolution procedures. Would you please show me where in Wikipedia policy there is such a requirement?

In the Keys dispute, every experienced editor who has considered the question has concluded that the version you champion violates WP:NPOV. Your view is apparently that a violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies must nevertheless remain in place for a full month, just in case that changes. That's not how it works. If, weeks from now, there is a sudden influx of new voices, then any edit made now can be changed.

In the Noticeboard thread about the clear violation in citing Postrider, and then in the RfC, I waited a reasonable time so that more people could respond. If you think I acted improperly, you can include that in the ArbCom case against me.

As for an amicable solution, how about we start with my version, and you and your allies work to ensure that the presentation of the view you favor is fair? All I ask, as I've said repeatedly, is that neither side of the disagreement should be endorsed in Wikipedia's voice. We present both sides and let each reader decide. On that point, there can be no compromise. JamesMLane t c 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30 days is the amount of time passed before RfCs are auto closed. There is no valid rationale listed for closing one early, considering a user commented yesterday (right after you said we wouldn't get any more comments, I'd add).

The "experienced editor" thing is just no true scotsmanning. I could counter that all the editors familiar with the subject matter (those of us who have been maintaining that page for months and participated in the past consensus) feel otherwise. But I *won't* pull the same logical fallacy, I am happy to consider all opinions, and recognize that there isn't consensus created and try to find a compromise.

2 days (after getting 2 people to weigh in on the postrider) is not reasonable. This is not a good argument, and yes it would be included in any arbitration, it shows a pattern of bad faith behavior (You acted unilaterally when there was reasonable chance someone could have weighed in in the opposite direction, but by then point... oops! the page would already have been edited).

No, we will not start with your version. It was not and is not the status quo. Wikipedia does not present a false balance when the truth is clear: Lichtman nailed himself down to the popular vote here in his own voice. Apprentice57 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your post on the BLP Noticeboard: I have previously pointed out that the RfC process is not a majority vote. That's why your characterization is incorrect. As for the personal attacks on Lichtman, that was my characterization of posts you and others have made about things he has done because of his displeasure with the article. Whether those posts are called "attacks" or something else is unimportant. What matters is that, as I pointed out, such posts are completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. You consider them "[i]mportant context" but you never explain how or why this supposed "context" should influence Wikipedia's decisions about the content of the articles. The only explanation I can think of is that you mean "Allan Lichtman did some things off-Wiki that we don't like, therefore we should depart from normal WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in articles concerning him." Is that what you mean? If not, please explain why these repeated comments by you and others constitute "[i]mportant context". JamesMLane t c 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've reviewed my comments and realized that none of my own statements would reasonably constitute an "attack".

The point about the RfC is that it's a consensus reaching process, which you did not find and found more pushback than not.

I'm not going to relitigate this issue over and over with you again, especially on my own talk page. You can respond in the venue you're relying to. Apprentice57 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Keys to the White House

I have made a request for administrator intervention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPAs POV-pushing in The Keys to the White House. Your account is one of those as to which relief is requested. JamesMLane t c 20:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]