User talk:Endercase/mentor-garden

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)

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)

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)

I have upset a number of users with my actions. I stand accused of being WP:NOTHERE on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm really sure what to do about it. If I actually am in violation I think the process should play out. However, the only users who seem to think I'm in violation so far are also the ones that have been the most offended by audacity and arguments. As you are a user whom I have interacted with, your input on either side of the issue would be helpful. Thank you for your time. Endercase (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: 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)

@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 [1]. 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)

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)

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

@Endercase: I'm going to move this discussion over to your talk page. Is that okay with you? I think it makes more sense there, since the advice is for you, and it will help others see the discussion who might be watching you and might want to add more. It will also be easier for you to find the advice in the future. So I will respond there. I will also try to add subsections on specific topics for ease of searching. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Also Hey Did you see this? [2] 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

Update. @71.198.247.231: 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

--START OF DISCUSSION--

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

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)

The revert was this, reverting [3]. 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

--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)

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)

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:

{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=21 |units=days }}

{{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)

Also to collapse a discussion add:

{{cot|Title}} Collapsed stuff

{{cob}}

Which will look like this:

Title
Collapsed stuff

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

^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)

Also, I do have some concerns about some of Endercase's recent contributions, e.g. [4] from [5]. 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."[6] 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Your final comment at RSN

I saw it, read it and appreciate it. It takes more than a little moxie to admit to doing anything wrong. For what it's worth, I think you might have admitted to more wrongdoing than you committed (and to someone who was not particularly non confrontational with you). There are, of course, no hard feelings. I hope this has been a bit of a learning experience, and I hope to see your edit count grow and grow. Happy editing! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I'm not quite sure what you mean here "you might have admitted to more wrongdoing than you committed". At my AN/I you said ",in this case, it's generally more constructive to assume they acted in bad faith" as such I am attempting to go through my comments and determine the worse possible reading of them. I have found this mildly difficult, yet also very enlightening. Your interactions with me were entirely done in good faith (as far as I can tell), yet I responded with sarcasm as battlefield like behavior. Admittedly, your comment on demeaning did need some clarification. However, my response post-clarification was as if you had reinforced the idea that debate here was more about total warfare than about building an encyclopedia. Whereas you, in fact, backed down on that (not that you ever supported that idea in the first place) and clarified the dreaming nature was aimed only at "your opponent's argument" and not your opponent and is intended only for situations where one justifies the claim with evidence allowing for a statistical syllogism. Now, while I may have apologized for more than I committed in a good faith reading, in a bad faith reading I have committed more than I have yet apologized for. As you are a far more experienced editor I defer to your suggestion and will continue reviewing my comments, and learning more about criminally disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Endercase (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that sarcasm is both quite common here, and not as disruptive as many other behaviors reported at ANI. Also, I didn't feel personally that your comments rose to the level of requiring a complaint at ANI (hence why I didn't start the thread), though to be fair, I seem to be one of the editors more reticent to report someone there. My comments at ANI were meant to point out that assuming you lashed in frustration out was more constructive than assuming you 1) honestly felt you were completely in the right and backed unambiguously by policy; and 2) honestly couldn't grasp what I was saying. People who lash out can calm down, but people who can't wrap their heads around policy or the concept of being wrong are generally lost causes. The former is caused by a decision, whereas the latter caused by incompetence.

I really don't have much more to say beyond some basic advice: watch the way the wind blows. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and things which have gotten broad support here (such as the decision to strongly discourage the use of The Daily Mail or the less formal decision to strongly discourage the use of Breitbart) are, by definition, enshrined in policy, because our only core rule is that consensus is our policy. When 70% of editors want to do X and 30% want to do Y, we expect that 30% to do X until they can convince enough of the rest of us to form a new consensus, not to just go ahead and do Y. At the end of the day this is a collaborative project more so than it is a open project. We must all work together to produce something which is, occasionally, quite wonderful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I may not understand, but if 30% of your populace doesn't consent to doing X you don't have any consensus as far as I know. Your usage appears to misuse the term consensus and conflates it with majoritarian processes and voting, as far as I can tell anyway. How does Wikipedia measure consensus? Endercase (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

See Consensus is not unanimity. See the rest of the page for a good breakdown of how consensus works. The usual heuristic I go by: whichever side of a debate convinces some members of the other side, unless there's a large majority on the other side. The "real" meaning here on WP according to WP:CON can be summarized as: whichever side has the greater balance of expressed support and solid arguments. One example would be the case where one side has been using emotional and fallacious arguments, disagreeing with each other, and not citing much in the way of policy. Even if they have a slight majority of !voters, they don't have consensus.

The vast majority of the time however, when one side has more than twice as much support as the other, it's going to be fairly clear to everyone but those on the minority side that they have the consensus. Wikipedians are, on the whole, honest, thoughtful and intelligent folks and we don't tend to support a position without giving it some thought. So the side of a discussion with the very large majority (of 70% for example) is almost certainly the side that put more thought into their decision. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: So consensus is determined solely by the closer? Or is it determined by homeostasis? I just don't understand how that is done practically.

Per Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY: "But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action." What exactly does that mean?

It is good that you have such faith in the citizenry of Wikipedia, I am slowly starting to gain a similar respect. However, it is difficult when I am literally told that I should not express my opinions due to my number of edits. I find that number of edits is an arbitrary metric, of course it is easy for me to say that given that I have very few. Endercase (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So consensus is determined solely by the closer? Or is it determined by homeostasis? Well, the closer is supposed to use their judgement, yes. But most of the time, a consensus is pretty clear. And a discussion can always be closed as "No consensus," which -when the discussion is about some sort of proposed change- is effectively the same as closing with a "no" consensus, except that anyone claiming there was a "no" consensus later on will be quickly proven wrong.

I just don't understand how that is done practically. To be perfectly honest, this is something which is far simpler in practice than it is to describe. The best thing you can do is look for closed RfCs, closed AfDs and closed RMs, read through a bunch of them (honestly, you can skim the actual discussion, just read the closing comments carefully) and try to see how that works.

Per Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY: "But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action." What exactly does that mean? It means exactly what I described above: we expect the "losers" of such a discussion to consent to the winning position, and even to enforce it when other editors go against it. Think of a law which you don't agree with. Speed limits, the prohibition on marijuana, polygamy or gambling, or something like that. It's the same thing. You don't need to agree with a rule in order to understand it and abide by it. Now, some people can't wrap their brains around this, and just can't bring themselves to do something they don't agree with. Those people simply don't belong here.

However, it is difficult when I am literally told that I should not express my opinions due to my number of edits. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you're an adult in your mid-30's or older. Imagine, in your career, if you had hired (or your boss had hired) a new guy, right out of college to come be your assistant. On that new guy's first day, he starts telling you what he thinks you're doing wrong, and when you try to explain to him the very good reasons you have for doing things that way, he argues with you. When a new editor shows up and starts complaining about long-standing practices here, that's pretty much the same situation. We understand that new editors have opinions, and we respect them for what they're worth. But there's a very good chance that your opinions will change as you get more experience, assuming that you turn out to be a productive member of our group. So we're not really interested in hearing how someone who doesn't know how to do this work wants to tell us how to do this work, because it's not a useful opinion to us. When you have a little more experience, and if you still feel the same way, you will find that most editors are at least willing to hear you out.

There are reasons why we do things the way that we do, and while some editors are willing to explain, all of us with experience know that it's actually faster and more reliable to let you learn on your own. I never got any mentoring myself, and I can't honestly recall a single instance of me asking someone for advice about policy and getting a detailed answer. (I can't even recall ever asking anyone about policy to begin with, to be honest.) But, having edited now for several years and several thousand edits, I have a grasp of policy good enough that I am almost always right when I hear of a new policy or guideline and take a guess at what it says. This is because I've gotten familiar with the logic that tends to hold sway here. I don't know how to describe that logic, so asking me about it is not going to do you much good. But dealing with other wikipedians and seeing the results in articles and closed discussions is a sure-fire way to familiarize yourself with it, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

^I agree with all of this advice. The last two paragraphs in particular are what I have been trying to get across. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. I would add that while the last two paragraphs are especially useful relative to the rest of the comment (and, honestly, most of what David and I have said here), the last sentence is especially useful relative to the rest of the last two paragraphs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

71.198.247.231 (and related snark)

I have observed Bishonen in a number of discussions and disputes, and would conclude she is experienced enough to be able to distinguish when somebody is editing in good faith but struggling, and when somebody is just screwing around. So if she says the IP is an obvious sock (and the editing pattern and ANI report suggests it probably is), I will believe them unless I have clear and obvious evidence to the contrary (which I don't). Similarly, while I don't agree with everything Bbb23 does, they wouldn't issue blocks without being certain they can be backed up with policy. You are correct that the WP:CIVIL policy still applies when talking to obvious trolls (as does Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals and Wikipedia:Deny recognition), and I do apologise for venting a little more than I would normally do on unblock requests. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Absolutely, no problem, I just feel slightly invested in this case as the user was banned for defending me at my AN/I, admittedly in a disruptive fashion. I haven't looked at their other posts yet. I'm not challenging your judgment in any way. I think it is very likely correct. I'm just trying to understand the process. I have seen several sock judgments and this one did not look like any of those, as such, it would be considered an edge case. Such cases are extremely valuable in refining a model, or in understanding a system. I am currently under mentorship (see above) but my mentors are a bit time constrained. I don't mind asking for an explanation from other users. You are of course under no obligation to respond to my questions. And just saying "I don't want to talk about it" would be fine, and would not hurt my feelings. Endercase (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I was under the impression that " An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted."

You have by your own admission not done so, but having simply taken another user's word on the matter: [|"I didn't see any reason to question it."]. In addition, you cite an AN/I report that did not take place as far as I can currently tell, could you link me to it and explain your statements and actions? I'm sure I must be missing something.

"by convention, administrators don't usually review more than one unblock request regarding the same block." I find it is remarkable that 3 reviews took place over the course of 5 hours, without any public discussion taking place. Is this the norm?

In any case, you may want to update or review Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Endercase (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You have by your own admission not done so, but having simply taken another user's word on the matter I agree with Richie on this: Bishonen has always shown very good judgement IMHO and I trust her to be correct until proven wrong on most administrative matters. Also, I have seen for myself that Ritchie has good judgement, and the fact that he shares my estimation of Bish's judgement reinforces that. There is a principle here, often cited in cases of sockpuppetry and POV pushing called the Duck test, which relates to the old aphorism "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

At the end of the day, two things remain true

1. 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.
2. 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: [7] [8] [9] 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)

@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: , calling someone a "little shit" is nothing compared to referencing them a wood louse with an aggressive bear imagery. I may also be worth considering that they aren't even the blocking admin as that honor belongs to Bbb23, who did so without citation of policy or discussion, and as far as I can tell they also have a history of IP user discrimination and "sock" blocks without hard evidence. If you have time, I really would love a real explanation. I'll stick to my talk page mostly from now on, as I don't want to cause any trouble or upset anyone. Endercase (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

don't they use the IRC chat, and email? They do, but if you look at the vast majority of issues which involve multiple admins, you will find quite a bit of communication on-wiki about it. Hell, hit up a couple of admin talk pages and Ctrl+f for "IRC" and "email" and half of what you'll find is admins mentioning that they know these things exist but don't use them, and the other half is mostly the admins that do use it complaining that the IRC channel and mailing lists are ghost towns. The rest will be admins admitting to using it for specific cases, cases in which privacy matters and off-wiki communication was required. On-wiki communication is preferred because it's easier and more transparent.

n addion the IP did not "suggested someone should be blocked because of their apparent political ideology", They did. You have to take their comments in the entirety, in which the IP complained about Hijiri saying that certain right-wing sources shouldn't be used. Not to mention the fact that the second quote you provided was the IP saying Hijiri should be blocked for "enforc[ing] partisan purity" which is pretty much exactly what I said. Context matters, and just because we have lots of rules doesn't mean we're expected to not use our own best judgement.

It is worth noting that Hijiri88 did attempt to paint me a right wing ideologue at every turn initially Because the alternative was to presume that you were so utterly incompetent as to not be able to understand anything that was said to you thus far by myself and others. As I said before, the former is correctable, the latter not. To put it another way, the former can be corrected by mentoring and trying hard to correct it. The latter is just a long, winding path to an indefinite block.

calling someone a "little shit" is nothing compared to referencing them a wood louse with an aggressive bear imagery. That's because you're assuming she wrote that comment in anger. Imagine her laughing and winking as she said it to the IP with a knowing shake of her head, instead. That's a much different picture, isn't it? The posting of the image is a clincher: angry people don't generally find illustrative images and post them with captions, they generally make short, declarative statements with lots of adjectives.

Also, Bish's block was how long ago, again? A lot of admins have a tangible block log. Running into the meat grinder of ANI can, for some people, be a learning experience, and it's experienced editors who are most likely to become admins. Hell, I have a block log. I was blocked by Ritchie, as a matter of fact. It was a bit of a hasty block and was reversed (with a most gracious apology and no hesitation to accept responsibility, I might add), but still. Are you so sure that Bish's block from Jimbo wasn't quickly overturned as well? I'm not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants:The point there was that saying X peers don't have many interactions together on-wiki doesn't mean they don't have interactions off-wiki. In addition, we both know that IP/MAC addresses don't mean a single thing if the users really know what they are doing.

At least you and the IP agree then, there shouldn't be partisan politics or censure on Wikipedia, ideas must be cited and "provable", and the expression of such ideas in a public forum isn't grounds for a block.

I never said Bishonen was angry, I implied Bishonen wasn't civil. The bock was 3hrs by design, and not removed early. Odd that you would so willingly question Jimbo's judgment and yet not Bishonen's.

You imply that you agree with the idea that a reviewing editor does not need to act independently or review evidence if they trust another editor's judgement. In fact, I'd go as so far as to say that you don't even care if the editor knows exactly what they are going along with as long as their actions are based on trust. While this is seemingly contradictory to your stance on partisan politics and dangerously close to meatpuppetry in my eyes, it is very likely however that you could make a wonderful case for it. I suggest you do so at Wikipedia:Blocking policy, as far as I can tell anyway that would be the proper forum for such assertions. (Did I make a good argument this time? (please give feedback on this))

Well, I defended them better than they defended me. My debt is paid in that regard. Endercase (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The point there was that saying X peers don't have many interactions together on-wiki doesn't mean they don't have interactions off-wiki. The point of my response was to explain to you why it actually does mean that they almost certainly don't communicate off-wiki. The suggestions that the admins, or that a certain group of admins are all friends and deliberately keep it hidden, is quite literally a conspiracy theory. The original point of me showing you that they don't communicate much was to make it clear that three separate people independently came to the same conclusion about something. This relates to your question about consensus, above. When three (actually four that I can attest to) all are in lockstep agreement about something, they're almost certainly right. As thoughtful as we can be, we're also very opinionated, in case you hadn't noticed.

I never said Bishonen was angry, I implied Bishonen wasn't civil. Joking around with someone instead of getting angry with them when they step out of line is a hallmark of civility.

ou imply that you agree with the idea that a reviewing editor does not need to act independently or review evidence if they trust another editor's judgement. No, I do not. I directly stated that, in the absence of evidence, it's perfectly reasonable to trust another person's judgement on a matter.

(Did I make a good argument this time? (please give feedback on this)) I know you probably think you're being very subtle, but this isn't the first time I've typed out that your sarcasm is and has been extremely obvious, it's just the first time I haven't erased it. I'm telling you now: It's not going to help you at all to keep it up. And don't bother to deny it, because I'm not the only one who's noticed that you are still every bit as sarcastic as you ever were. The only difference is that now, you're asking questions and claiming to want to understand, instead of simply telling me that I'm wrong.

Take my advice: Stop worrying about anything to do with any "meta" aspect of Wikipedia, including whether this IP's block was just or not, and just focus on working on articles. I and many others are here to help when you need it. But if other editors constantly feel unwelcome in trying to help you, it's only going to hurt you in the end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

@David Tornheim: Thank you. I just don't know what to do here. Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted." MjolnirPants saying that isn't quite true and so is Ritchie333. While I am trying my very best to assume they are correct, this is an explicit policy at is directly at odds with what they are saying. Now, I am not saying that they are wrong, which is why I suggested that they change the policy. If the policy is wrong then they should change it. I don't want to try to tell them that they are wrong or aren't using Wikipedia properly, which is why I don't go there and ask myself if they are correct, and why I am not challenging them in an AN/I. MjolnirPants's suggestion that I "Stop worrying about anything to do with any 'meta' aspect of Wikipedia" and that I make other's feel "unwelcome" while they are trying to "help" me (because I question them?), is very odd. In a consensus based society, they are effectively saying that my !vote carries no merit simply because I disagree with them or their actions, and admittedly based on what I've seen they are likely right in this regard. While their complete dismissal of my logical argument as a "a conspiracy theory", with the implication that it should therefore not be considered is disheartening. In addition, their accusation of sarcasm with my statement "(Did I make a good argument this time? (please give feedback on this))" fails to assume good faith, and moreover is incorrect. That was an honest question, no sarcasm intended at all. I can understand how it can read that way though, if you assume I am actually upset at their actions anyway. However, the fact is I don't really care if they violated some arcane policy, as I mentioned above I was simply paying a debt. If I were an admin I'd likely care, but as it is I do not. I do however care about being a better editor and my method of argument is apparently central to that, as such I asked for feedback. Luckily you stepped in and gave me some. Endercase (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

My advice continues to be the same: Humility. Cross-examining admins like they are on trial and telling them they are breaking policy and must change it is not going to gain you much love here unless other editors are seeing the same problem. (Again today [10].) 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 [11]. Add new material to articles based on good RS. That behavior will be looked at far more fondly than telling other users they are breaking rules or that you know the rules (both explicit and implicit) better than they do. Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to repeat this message. And FYI, I did not look at the policy you referred to or the record of that editor you are defending: I deferred to the admin's judgment on that, as I am saying you should. I was just looking at what you said and found it a continuation of a pattern that is troubling that I have been warning you about since I first encountered you at WP:RS/N. Also, I think the reason your AN/I has not closed is people are watching and looking to see if there is improvement. Unfortunately, I am not seeing it and am considering changing my !vote at your WP:AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the above comment are very much correct, and they don't apply only to admins either. By the way, Endercase: It's been like a week since I suggested you work on building articles, and now David is agreeing with me, and yet you've barely touched an article except the one that got you into this mess in the first place. If you want to demonstrate your good faith at this point, I suggest you stay as far away from the Stealth banning article as possible. You really, really should go and improve Wikipedia's coverage of doughnuts or something; stay away from politics, religion and online media for the time being, as it's not doing you any favours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

^I agree. Yes, it does apply to non-admins. You don't have to work on a subject like doughnuts that does not interest you. But I agree that choosing to work on highly contentious articles in some of the areas named by Hijiri88 is probably not a good idea until you get used to how things work here, especially given that you were advocating the use of Breitbart and InfoWars as WP:RS. You might *watch* those articles to see how highly charged disputes get resolves as mentioned by MjolnirPants. For example you might review the vigorous debate over the language of the lawsuits by Melanie Trump, some of which were settled without anyone going to AN/I (at least as far as I know): Talk:Melania_Trump#Libel_suit_against_Daily_Mail, Talk:Melania_Trump#RfC:_Melanie_Trump_libel_suits, Talk:Melania_Trump#Proposed_wording_of_libel_text, Talk:Melania_Trump#RfC_about_Melania_Trump.27s_lawsuit, Talk:Melania_Trump#Erroneous_closing_of_RfC, Talk:Melania_Trump#The_Daily_Mail_lawsuit.

Instead of working on controversial stuff, get your hands dirty and learn the ropes by picking something that interests you that is *not* controversial. Look into a subject that you might have special knowledge of that others here might not, where there is no article or the article is very weak. If you name some interests, I might be able to give some suggestions on this. Take a look at Wikiprojects, and you can see work that needs to be done in all sort of topics. Maybe it will give you ideas on interesting subjects. I use Wikipedia all the time for my own interests, and when I see a weak article on something that interests me I try to improve it if I have time. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel the need to emphasize what David implies in the above post but does not state directly: watch those disputes, but (for the love of god) don't comment in them. The point is to read them in order to get a better understanding of how things are done here. Neiher the above comment by David nor my present one is meant to give you a list of topics it would be good to contribute to (you did that yourself a few sections up). We are also not trying to "censor" you or literally [tell you] that [you] should not express [your] opinions due to [your] number of edits. We are giving you advice on the best way not to get blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

^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)

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)

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)

@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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Wise

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

... 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Hijiri88 I mean it wasn't tagged with the category but it was an RfC (it was in the title) and it was a request for comment. Mpants did, I think it was a good experience for me. Even if the motion wasn't passed I really enjoyed how each peer showed thier own opinion and supported, while at the same time many of they had slight disagreements but they did not fight each other. It was very peaceful for a Wikipedia discussion.

What I mean is that if you had an ordered list for how you evaluated others choices the relevant experience of the individual making the choices would be toward the top of the important factors.

"it's a bad idea for you to edit WP: pages" I agree that it is dangerous to my account, as it attracts the attention of other experienced editors who tend to ban peers they don't like. But, I do not understand why it simply should not be done. Endercase (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No

@Endercase: This is not appropriate. You should know better than to use an ad hominem argument of calling someone names. When you talk like this, they take you to WP:AN/I for incivility and you get blocked, etc. Stop. You are still new. After seeing this, I am not surprised an admin showed up to warn you. You do know that admins can block you for disruption and various other offenses, don't you? Don't push it. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page for Mentoring Suggested

I think it would be better if you created a separate subpage for mentoring. That would make it easier for us to create new sections, a problem noted by Hijiri88 . It would also avoid the confusion about the archiving you did last time mentioned in section (4) of this post

I would help you with archiving, but I don't know much about it. Maybe Hijiri88 or MjolnirPants can help with proper archiving?

Also, it allows us to watch list the mentor page as separate from the talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV thoughts

What is the definition here for a valid point of view? Should NPOV ever be used to remove cited "oppressive" points of view? Endercase (talk)

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)

@Hijiri88: This is a really old question. Before you took me to AN/I. Is there a way to make invisible comments show up all the time (like invisible categories)?

The main point of this question was to ask how do we deal with toxic opinions. Sometimes they even have been published. I notice you tried to deal with some of the ones from infowars and Breitbart just by banning them as a source (that is a valid approach), it did cause me some trouble as they are still sources that met the standards of RS as outlined (even if they are terrible they do have editorial boards and published corrections). But I know they also won't publish a correction unless there is a 100% inconversaial proof that they are wrong (much like CNN and their whole "It's illegal to read Wikileaks" BS that they still haven't published a correction for). An example of a toxic opinion would be like any racial superiority BS that any one group is attempting to claim, which I imagine does sometimes happen. I have even read published papers speaking to the superiority of X group, generally they go with cancer rates or IQ or crime rates but their methods seem to be not rigorous and their data within the true margins of error. How do we deal with these (sometimes cited) POV? Endercase (talk)

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)

By the way: you constantly believe that you are right and try to convince everyone else with little to no evidence[12] 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)

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)

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)

Threaten users because of their expressed POV Umm ... citation needed? demand (with threats) they change it Example with diff, please. All in all I helped you there way more than you seem to realize. Thank you, I guess? I don't see how making bizarre accusations like "You have a history of edit warring and demeaning behavior [...] you are also a rampant POV pusher and constantly and consistently fail to observe good faith" is "helping me", though, and I frankly don't think I need your help. I am supposed to be mentoring you, not the other way round. They can't really go the AN/I without the comments you have directed at me So, you and your two friends are talking about ANI, but I am the one issuing threats? I said above that if you kept up like you have been you probably would be brought to ANI, but I specifically stated elsewhere that I didn't want to be the one to bring you there.

instead of convincing them to change it Wait, is this about me giving you mentor advice without explicitly telling you why my advice is good and should be followed? Because that's not about changing "point of view" -- that's about changing behaviour, to protect you from being blocked. If you don't want to get blocked, you should follow my advice. That's not a threat (I don't have the power to block you one way or the other). It's just a statement of fact.

I'm sorry if I'm misreading you here and this has nothing to do with me and my stupid advice; it's very difficult to understand what you are talking about, as your present comment has next to no apparent connection to the one I am asking you to retract.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: There is an example right in this chat/sub/whatever we call these

They aren't my friend, though I do watch their talkpage... I watch a lot of talk pages. I also don't think you should go to AN/I, as I expressed in my statement on their page. Though they may think differently, they haven't responded to my post.

Behaviour is based on POV, x behaviour is almost always what that user thought was best at the time for their own reasons and rational. While their logic may be fallacious you should still address it by asking why they think X or do X. And when a user tells you why they think X (and you disagree with them), like is the case with Vfrickey, maybe you should read it?

Also saying things like "It's just a statement of fact." is also pretty authoritarian. That view is an opinion, the only real facts (provable/shareable) are historical ones. Everything else is [head cannon]. Endercase (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(This is just a general remark, not in specific response to your above comment) You understand that I'm mentoring you on a voluntary basis, right? If you make it unpleasant for me, I have no obligation whatsoever to continue with it. And if one of your mentors got so frustrated with you attacking them that they gave up, that will look really, really bad next time some incident involving you winds up on ANI. This is not a threat. It's just a request that you show a little more humility and WP:STRIKE (with <del></del>) your offensive comments about me.

They aren't my friend, though I do watch their talkpage... I watch a lot of talk pages. I don't have access to your watchlist, but I don't know why on earth you would have that user's page on your watchlist. But it doesn't matter, since you were definitely monitoring my edits, per this, and your comments were inappropriate, regardless of how you happened across the "discussion".

Behaviour is based on POV, x behaviour is almost always what that user thought was best at the time for their own reasons and rational. Yeah, and I'm telling you that your behaviour needs to reform or you will likely be blocked. It doesn't matter what your POV is or what your behaviour was based on; it will lead to you being blocked regardless. While their logic may be fallacious you should still address it by asking why they think X or do X. Did you read my thread title or initial comment? I asked them a clear, pointed question, and they didn't answer it. Maybe somewhere in that 11,000+ byte comment was something loosely related to my question, but if I had actually admitted to being focused on right wing news media, that would be super-easy to prove (just link to the place where I said that). The fact that he posted 11,000+ bytes is fairly good evidence that he didn't give an answer to my question. The reason is that there is no answer. I never said that. But both he and you kept pointing to WIAPA and claiming that I was making false accusations against the two of you. (You should also read WP:KETTLE, by the way.)

Anyway I had already stricken my question before he even responded, as I was sick of talking to him about that nonsense, and I don't know why you are now talking to me about him. Just drop it already. Go write articles. I have not been looking at your recent edits very closely, but MjolnirPants tells me you haven't been improving much. There are millions of articles, most of which have spelling/grammatical/formatting errors in abundance, factual errors, important information missing ... there are millions of things you could be doing on Wikipedia rather than creating/perpetuating drama, so why aren't you? This is the best and most important advice I have given you so far, and was also, if I recall correctly, the first bit of advice I gave you, but you apparently have not taken it to heart yet. Fix that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 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. Endercase (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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. Part of the reason they "get away" with so much is that they're almost always right. They both have tons of experience, and have seen it all and done it all before. Their judgement is thus respected by the community as a whole. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: So you are saying they are experts in Wikipedia (more than equals?)? I thought that was a violation of policy. Even Admin are just meant to be users who have passed a confirmation hearing, they have no real additional "rights" they just just have access to more tools. The person who removed those citations in the first place hasn't ever been to an AN/I or anything and does not tend engage in the community discussion (except to template), in addition their account looks very socklike (their first edits being experienced ones). Endercase (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of (and would be absolutely shocked to learn of it) any policy which even subtly implies that every editor is to be considered just as accomplished and knowledgeable about WP policies and guidelines or the customs, practices and traditions of the WP community as every other editor. I strongly suggest you re-read relevant policy with the clear understanding that, all principles aside, at the end of the day the goal of this project is to provide accurate, verifiable summaries of notable topics in a large number of languages. Skill and expertise can, do and absolutely should play a very large role in this. See WP:CIR for an essay which directly contradicts your assertion, and understand that while it may not be a policy, numerous editors have been blocked or banned by the community, or (without controversy) by an individual admin who cited that essay as the explicit reason for the sanction. It might as well be a policy, and the only reason it's not become one is to prevent it from being used as a bludgeon with which to smash editors who make a single mistake outside of their field of expertise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Endercase, for this, but you really should strike the whole comment. I have not failed to assume good faith anywhere in my interactions with you, Vfrickey or David Tornheim. If I was the kind of user who didn't take AGF to suicidal levels, I would have noticed your canvassing of David, David's having only recently come off an IDHT block, your edits to the argument from authority page not necessarily being on the up-and-up, and so much more, long before JzG, MP and so on had to tell me. And you still have not stricken your insistence that I take seriously the claim that I admitted to being focused on right-wing media. The only reason I'm still talking about this when I really should get back to articles on Chinese poetry is because you and your amazing friends keep dragging me back to it. I have no interest whatsoever in right-wing news media. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Except to say over and over again that no-one should ever cite it. Endercase (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No. I have never said "no-one should ever cite it". I don't even know what you mean by "it". And in fact for the past two weeks virtually everything I have said to you was advice aimed specifically at you, now; I have not been speaking in generalities ("no-one", "ever") as you still seem to think. The only reason I am still talking about this is because you keep insisting on bringing it up.

Please stop nitpicking, questioning and undermining everything I say. If you are not going to take my advice to heart, and are going to continue attacking me as you did in that comment, I do not want to mentor you anymore. I will simply ignore you. If I ignore you and you keep following me around as you have been ... well, do I really need to explain to you what will happen then? I wouldn't even need to do anything -- I could just ask one of the countless other users who have been saying the same thing you to open the discussion. As [MjolnirPants] said at ANI: If this continues, the next discussion will be much shorter (and with much fewer options being discussed).[13] [Y]ou make [...] insensitive comments about other people, and you cherry-pick [...] policies in defence of yourself. [Don't do that.] Put your listening ears on instead. If you don't, you'll end up blocked.[14]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Hijiri88:I know the blog is not considered a RS by the community, even if it is written by an expert in their topic of expertise and in this case is being used to talk about the authors own personal history. I just moved that to drafts so when I am able to work on it I can cite that information in a better manner. I do have some good sources (published papers) that need to be integrated into the article, I just can't do that in the article-space at this time. As 1) It is an apparently controversial topic 2)Guy is deleting everything (even more than I added). 3) you told me not to. This move is also to show Guy that he can't really delete things and that adding a citation needed tag would have worked better.

I have a question about the removal of sources that are not considered reliable. Why are they removed outright? The RS specifically says that unreliable sources may be used in conjunction with more reliable sources, as such removing them seem to me to be "out of order" and harmful to the encyclopedia. Endercase (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason sources are removed outright (in some cases, at least) is that they should not be cited. They are not reliable for the claims being made. They can be cited for non-controversial statements, but should ideally be replaced with more reliable sources when such sources become available. that unreliable sources may be used in conjunction with more reliable sources is true, but think about that for a second: why would we be citing unreliable sources if reliable sources, which are already cited, say the same thing? Just remove the unreliable sources. One of a few good reasons for removing these (redundancy is not necessarily a valid reason to remove them; it's just not a reason not to remove them) is that it gives the impression of WP:SYNTH, as though Wikipedia is mirroring what the unreliable source says and falsely attributing it to the more reliable source.

One way you can avoid worrying about any of this is to do what I often do -- edit articles on topics that are usually only discussed in unquestionably reliable sources (peer-reviewed journals, books from university presses...) and random super-obscure blogs (which you have probably not read). Don't look to edit articles on particular topics (like stealth banning...) or have claims you want to make and look for sources after the fact (as you said you would do here). Just find a topic on which you have access to reliable sources, and edit articles on that topic.

I honestly think social media is a pretty terrible topic for beginners to be editing. Politics and modern American popular culture as well. You should go to the library, find a book on Guillaume Tirel, and edit our article on him based on what you read in the book; don't have things you want to write and look for sources that verify what you want them to verify.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I would much rather write about things I know or am interested it. Most of which is at least partially controversial or at least relevant (sometimes news). As you have noted I don't really like random authority figures who haven't proven themselves to me in some way and writing or expanding a biography type articles about such figures is really not my style. What do you think about my other edits? Have I at least been improving somewhat in your eyes?

And just because I have read something from a RS doesn't mean that I have access to that source at all times. Adding the information even without having a source on hand seems to be a common method here. After all not every sentence or edit is cited. As long as I do not oppose the removal of such information when it is challenged I was under the impression that I was preforming within specifications, one might say. Endercase (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Good edits

Thanks for moving the mentoring to a new page!

Also, your contribution to WP:AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_Città_di_Potenza_S.S. looks good. I am amused at how you seem to have progressed from when I met you at WP:RS/N and you told me I should not want to delete an article and asked what harm it could do.  :) I think that article will probably get deleted, but I haven't researched it yet. The proper standard is WP:NSPORT (or even better a subsection of that standard such as WP:NFOOT). You can site to that and explain why it does or doesn't meet that standard. Maybe someone who knows that particular sport better will do so... I might weigh in later when I have time to look for WP:RS on it... --David Tornheim (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As it is I wish we had some Italian English readers from the real article to clean this up. It would likely count as forum shopping or something though. Endercase (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. No, that would not be forum shopping. Forum shopping is when you lose a dispute in one forum and find another forum to re-raise the dispute that was lost, especially if no reference is given to the original case where one had lost. This actually happens in real legal cases. This is like a child who asks one parent for permission, that parent says no, so they go to the other parent and don't mention that the first parent said no. As compared to an appeal, where one is permitted to have judgment reviewed by a higher court.

In the particular case, what you are saying is more eyes could be used on the article from people who are interested in the subject matter and can read (and search) the non-English Italian sources. I don't see any problem with that since this clearly could benefit the article and is not some way to get around any dispute that anyone had lost. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Policy discussions

I would say away from comments like this and this. Rather than judge our meaning of sock at an article that is not about socks, I would ask a question for clarity at the talk page of the policy. However, you have been advised to stay away from policy discussions or focus less on that, and I agree doing so will cause less friction with long term editors such as those you were challenging at that article.

If you do want to bring it up on the sock page, how about you write a draft question here and let me review it? I'm not saying your comment about the definition of socks is wrong--I really don't know. But I felt your tone with these long term editors might be an issue...--David Tornheim (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The main issue with this is that we define socking as a punishable crime, so then to justify that we redefine socking as malignant instead of as using multiple accounts or accounts with false or misleading personas. And we use a compleatly different term for that. It is just mildly annoying, I mean look as urban dictionaries top 100 definitions, and then look at ours. It's just mildly embarrassing I guess. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I am not familiar with the various definitions you are referring to. Can you provide a link(s) to ones that you believe show a contradiction from standard use? I thought the rule about using multiple accounts was mentioned in either {{welcome}} or WP:5PILLARS, but I don't see it in either. From WP:SOCK:

Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed.

I do agree that the editor you spoke with seemed to think by default that a WP:SOCK was malignant, which seems to be go against WP:AGF and does not sound correct to me or grounded in any community consensus. However, I do understand the real concern that multiple accounts can easily be abused (to, for example, create false consensus) and editors who are banned can circumvent their bans by creating a new account or logging in from a new IP address. I have heard of numerous cases of each. I do understand that if the behavior of a new IP is questionable (and shows far too much knowledge for a brand new editor), there is a good chance it is sock that is playing games or being destructive. This is based on my long experience here. I have always only maintained just one account, abided by the rule and never saw any real need to do anything else, except for what follows.

I do know that one editor we work with uses two account--one for work; one for home--but only one at a time and clearly marked so there is not confusion. I'm not sure what need there is for that to be honest.

I do know of some other policies related to user who want a "clean start" or who want to become more "anonymous" by using an account with a whole bunch of random characters to keep distance from some previous identity they had--something I find pretty annoying and similar to misuse of socking, because you can't tell it is the same person and have to do additional homework to figure it out.

I have never cared much for the use of aliases, multiple account, etc., because for example, if someone wants to look through the user's contribution history or edit history at an article, that requires looking at each and every account they used. It also is confusing when the signature on the talk page does not match the actual user name, so I have to remember both.

Wikipedia greatly values, cherishes and protects editor's rights to anonymity. In fact, "outing" is one of the worst crimes here. I honor the rules about anonymity, but I believe the strong protection of privacy also makes it easy for COI problems. I do see the advantages of anonymity and if you are going to allow it, then it basically has to be strongly protected or you really don't have it. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim:From Wp:sock: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry" from urban dictionary:"An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously." from Sockpuppet (Internet) "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person."

Endercase (talk)

@Endercase: Seems like our definition of sock is similar from what you gave me, especially the second one--using multiple accounts for deception. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I agree the the article is in line with the definition but the Policy is not. Under current policy one is allowed to use multiple accounts (with deceptive personal information) as long as you are not being disruptive in article space, this type of use is not referred to as socking. This issue I believe with the term "improper purpose", as some types of socking is seen as proper here. Instead we should not ban socking as a term but instead ban disruptive socking. Really it just changes the term as the current Policy is misleading if you use the normal definition instead of the one they provide in the policy.

For instance if the CIA or other acronym agency were to conduct a sock or even meat puppet campaign here, they would likely not be detected, and could be described as simply doing their job and maintaining the health of Wikipedia. It is important that Wikipedia doesn't stray too far from public consensus and such paid editors do tend to help prevent that. Even if it isn't ethical it is important to remember that apparent consensus can always be bought if you know who to pay.

I only bring up agencies in this light because based of the leaks that I have seen it is very unlikely that such multinational agencies don't have a presence here. It is not definite that they do, just likely. I mean they have armies of socks on every other major platform. The KGB is one of the most publicly active in this type of information warfare. Additionally, they must insure that classified data does not leak here, of course so should everyone as Wikipedia is not intended to be a primary source of information but a accumulation of other sources. But sometimes I have heard of data breaches here, because the classified information after a small leak may become publicly available information which "goes wide" here or in other locations. As such at the bear minimum they have socks here just to clean those type of leaks up before they become over linked.

If information warfare is the new battle-type, one of the most public and respected battlegrounds is Wikipedia. Compared to pastebin or WikiLeaks this place is far more open and transparent. But to say that such agencies don't have socks here is almost laughable, as that would represent a major oversight error on their part. Such accounts are allowed by Policy, as such socking as a traditional term is allowed (multiple accounts with some amount of inherent deception), and in may cases help prevent disruption. Whereas the Policy definition of socking is by definition "improper", which means they claim that such agency usage isn't even socking even if it is deceptive (in regards to identity) and the use of multiple accounts. And give our policy on outing such useage is even protected to some degree. Endercase (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: For instance if the CIA or other acronym agency were to conduct a sock or even meat puppet campaign here, they would likely not be detected, and could be described as simply doing their job and maintaining the health of Wikipedia. I disagree with that statement, that is disruptive. Somewhere in there you seem to think that the various agencies having multiple accounts to bias Wikipedia to their propaganda needs is acceptable. That's certainly not the case. If I misunderstand what you meant, please explain.

That they might not be detected as so doing, doesn't mean they are not being disruptive--it just means we don't know and have not held them accountable. You might find the discussion on the COI talk board interesting. One Jimbo's page that comes up a lot too. There is a page that lists the major interferences with WIkipedia by COI editing. I have the sense you might have a different definition of what "disruption" is. As far as I am concerned, if a COI editor biases the article to their agenda, especially by using multiple socks, that would be disruptive.

So, as far as the definition of sock goes, you are saying that on WIkipedia, sock is always negative, but in other places it is not always negative? As long as you don't know it is the same person and it is used to deceive, I think that is pretty much always negative. For me, I have never used the term off-WIki and never cared much for it, but I have always assumed a sock was a bad thing, never a good thing, but maybe other places use a different definition where it is okay and not disruptive. The agency use you describe is definitely bad news IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: you seem to think that the various agencies having multiple accounts to bias Wikipedia to their propaganda needs is acceptable. well, it isn't exactly preventable, so it it isn't able to be unaccepted then it must be acceptable. There no real public outcry and other than leaks little to no proof and it appears as if almost every first world nation does a little of it, so it must be accepted. To call it truly unacceptable means you'd have to do something about it, else you are in fact accepting it. I guess I'm arguing that it is just the current state of affairs and is generally accepted. Endercase (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: You are playing games with words here. There is a difference between whether a behavior is difficult to detect or prevent and whether that that behavior is considered ethical (acceptable) or unethical (unacceptable). The second is a moral question. The first has to do with enforcement. You seem to think that poor enforcement should be equated with something being morally acceptable. I think you would quickly disagree if someone said genocide was going on and no one in the country where it was going on could stop it and therefore it is "acceptable". Or that if starvation was going on and no one could stop it, that therefore it was "acceptable." Do you see how you have used two different definitions for the word acceptable?

methods are used to prevent it, prosecute and punishment are used. So I don't see how you can argue that people at Wikipedia find it "acceptable". I certainly don't. The fact that socks are treated as they are--as you have seen--should tell you that they are not "acceptable". Look into checkuser.I was going too say more about socking, and your comments about propaganda, but I have to run... --David Tornheim (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|David Tornheim} morally acceptable =/= actually accepted; also check user doesn't work if the "puppet master" knows how to mask their IP which I assume all professionals would know how to do. Acceptable means able to be accepted, if it is accepted (allowed) then it is acceptable by definition IMO. Much the same way consensus works here, there is policy and then there is allowed behavior that has specific patterns. Even if that behavior does seem contrary to policy it is sometimes allowed. When that behavior is called into question (like with RS/N banning sources outright) if it is a long enough standing behavior the behavior trumps standing explicit policy (The in-context argument), because consensus has allowed it to exist for a long enough time that is has gained a life of itself. In my view ethics has very little to do with allowed behavior, ethics comes into play when justifying punishments. Calling something universally unacceptable is taking a hardline stance, it is akin to declaring war. It is a statement that you will personally fight, within reason, this behavior whenever encountered. Endercase (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Your definitions for acceptable and ethics do not match those in the dictionaries. Ethics is all about right and wrong conduct. I am not sure why your definitions don't match. I do agree that frequently rule enforcers observe a rule violation and do nothing, using discretion in enforcement, but I disagree that if they frequently "look the other" way that changes the behavior to being "acceptable".

It seems to me that you are trying to argue that if the rule is don't do X (i.e. X is "unacceptable") and a bunch of people do X and are either not detected and/or not punished, then X becomes "accepted" and "acceptable", and the rule don't do X should be deleted, possibly replaced with X is now acceptable. If X=murder and a bunch of people are murdered, but none caught, then according to your logic the rule against murder should be deleted and replaced with a rule that murder is now acceptable? That makes no sense to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: 1) acceptable: "able to be tolerated or allowed." If it is tolerated or allowed it is definitely acceptable, all other uses of the term are hyperbolic and intend to convey intent or personal feelings unrelated to action. This type of exaggerated or emotional usage is unverifiable and of little value IMO.

I am not arguing that it should be deleted, I just thing the term socking should be changed to "punishable forms of socking" or something along those lines. For instance I would not want MjolnirPants to be tried under the a current reading of the explicit policy, as they use 2 accounts. Endercase (talk)

@Endercase: I noticed you avoided answering my question about murder.

MjolnirPants would not be found in violation of our policy WP:SOCK, even though he has multiple accounts. It is not socking (by our definition) because there is no intent to deceive or otherwise game the system. They are obviously both his accounts. The policy does say generally to try to stick to one account. So, his behavior is tolerated per the policy as it is not disruptive and there would be no reason to change the policy to accommodate what he is doing. The other things you describe about "burner accounts" on wikipedia: I think those are a violation of the WP:SOCK policy for good reason: Even if the editor and the editors' friends may believe it is not disruptive, I think others--those that banned or topic banned the account--would reasonably disagree. The editor who has reappeared with a new account has deceived the community into the thinking the new account has no negative history attached to it. That to me violates WP:SOCK for good reason. (I will note that there is a mechanism for WP:CLEANSTART which would not violate socking, in which one abandons one account to start another, sticking with just the one account rule, but losing *some* baggage attached to the old account. But an editor can only use that if they are in good standing with no attached sanctions, and not to avoid punishment. Your burners seem to be using their burner accounts to avoid scrutiny--not acceptable.)

If the justice system is flawed and a ban or other punishment inappropriate, that is a different issue, something I have indeed raised. Our policy clearly does not support evading punishment by creating socks as described by the "burner" accounts you mentioned. I agree with that policy and hope you and your friends follow it. Just because they got away with it does not make it "acceptable". It just means they have not yet been caught.

If you want to be of great use, help the community catch such inappropriate use of "burner accounts". Like the guy in Catch me if you can who was chased by the FBI for forging checks and other documents and then changed sides to work for the FBI to help them catch the criminals who forged checks. I'm sure the protagonist believed his forging of checks for "good reasons". The FBI and public I'm pretty sure did not agree or think his behavior "acceptable" and were happy when he got caught and changed sides. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: The policy does not speak to intent directly but instead says "improper purpose", which some may argue is having a work account.

Burner accounts are extremely helpful if the information you are adding is volatile or otherwise censured. They are also helpful for people that are extremely OCD and do not what to reuse the same account longer than X amount of time or who are paranoid and don't want the data to aid in IP tracing.

I would argue that they did accept his behavior by hiring him, they just did not accept that behavior generally, his behavior was accepted though. Endercase (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

you are saying that on WIkipedia, sock is always negative, but in other places it is not always negative? In wikipedia Policy, not in our article on the subject, our article is in line with current definition but the Policy is not. But yeah, in many places it is just kinda a funny thing that happens that when you are aware of it there really isn't much you can do about it. Socking is a valid method of propagandizing, and propaganda is kinda a part of being human these days, not everyone think it is bad. Socking can also be humorous or a form of adaptation for non-neuro-typical people. It isn't always bad. Endercase (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase:Maybe we should restart. [please also see concurrent response above].

(1) It seems to me that the definition of sock at WP:SOCK, Sockpuppet_(Internet) and the definitions on-line all seem to agree that a "sock" is a form of deception by creating multiple accounts with the purpose of confusing the reader into believe the posts are from two different people, when, in fact, they are just one person. Do you agree?

(2) It seems clear that our policy says this is "bad" and "disruptive". I agree with that assessment. All the other sources seem to agree as far as I can tell. Deception rarely seems like a "good" thing. Are you saying deception through socking is sometimes a "good" thing. If so, when? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I do disagree with 1) because the sock accounts do not have to post in the same online location or in the same thread or even about the same thing to be socks. A sock, strictly speaking, is just an account operated or controlled by a "puppet master". For instance some editors have "burner accounts" they use solely for controversial topics as editing those topics can sometime lead to a quick and sudden death even if operating in good faith. These users are experienced and often avoid checkusers, though their IP's are likely masked or at least an open wifi zone. I personally know a couple of these operators IRL, though they are unaware of my wikipedia interactions. Oddly enough the ones I know mostly hang out in math articles and avoid policy discussions. Anyway using a burner account is the same as using a sock, with the exception that under some definitions a puppet master must have a main account.

with the purpose of confusing the reader into believe the posts are from two different people First of all I really don't think we can accurately guess the motivations of other people. But even if they do this type of behavior intending to convince others that they are multiple peers instead of one this is not banned in policy. Instead a tag is added to the discussion calling for people to evaluate the discussion not on the number of !votes but on the logic of the arguments. It is important to understand that when done properly socking is undetectable. There are several software for managing socks, each sock gets a separate fully maintained personality and their own typical IP address that shift much like a normal user. Sometimes controlled use is masked by AI managed edits to hide the true purpose of the account, sometimes that function is built right into the software. Management tools often contain memory aids about the behavior of the particular personality or false personal stories. introductory link

The real deception that is inherent in sock puppets is that the user has multiple accounts in a place where normally peers only have one and often (not always) has a deceptive identity. Everything else is fair game.

For instance if you see a few accounts that claim to be marvel superheroes arguing online they are very likely socks. In addition they are likely violating copyright. Yet, this type of behavior is generally accepted and in many cases encouraged.

Socking is also a method often used by individuals that identify as anonymous, they claim it helps free speech and individual evaluation of actions. They claim that ideas are more important than people and that the use of socks help shift the focus away from Who said what to the ideas themselves. The comparison has been made online between using a sock and a condom, as a sock helps protect your identity both IRL and online. While I personally think that using a sock in such a way is a bit yellow bellied it has in the past likely saved some more extreme commentator's lives. Endercase (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding whether socking is "accepted" at Wikipedia, suggested reading this entire article: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

key excerpts:

Wiki-PR

Main article: Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

In 2012, Wikipedia launched possibly one of the largest sock puppets investigations in its history after editors on its website reported suspicious activity suggesting a number of accounts were used to subvert Wikipedia's policies. After almost a year of investigation, over 250 sockpuppet accounts were allegedly found, operated by two independent networks of users. Wikipedia traced the edits and sockpuppetry back to a firm known as Wiki-PR, leading to a cease and desist letter by Sue Gardner issued to the founders of the organization. The accounts were banned. On 25 October 2013, a community ban was further placed on Wiki-PR and any of its contractors.

break

Orangemoody

Main article: Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia

In 2015 Wikipedia blocked 381 accounts, many of them suspected sock puppets of the same people, after a two-month investigation, Operation Orangemoody, revealed they had been used to blackmail firms "struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia." These businesses had been told by Wikipedia users that articles about them had been "rejected due to concerns of excessive promotional content." In a few cases, the users asking for money were the same accounts that had earlier rejected the articles for publication.

The scammers asked for hundreds of pounds to "protect or promote" the firms' interests. Wikipedia deleted 210 articles related to UK businesses, most of them of middle size. Individuals were also targeted. The investigation was named OrangeMoody by Wikipedia editors after the name of the first identified account. An unnamed Wikipedia spokesperson stated that "undisclosed paid advocacy editing may represent a serious conflict of interest and could compromise the quality of content on Wikipedia."

This one was interesting: Owens, Simon (8 October 2013). "The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 20 October 2013. Many man-hours spent investigating those and blocking them. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

All of these cases are also paid editors, none of them are pushing their own specific ideologies. Just because someone is using a sock doesn't mean they are paid. Many of them also abused the very policies that seem to be held most dear. This argument about the lack of reliability is a common theme to suppress information for one reason or another. In this case it was to get funds from the targeted party. But in other cases socks could use this policy to suppress information for reasons of propaganda. Information that say makes one or more governments look bad. Endercase (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-English Sources

@Endercase: FYI. With regard to non-English sources, take a look at WP:NONENG, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation, Wikipedia:Translation#Avoid_machine_translations and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_130#Links_to_Google_Translate. if you have not read these. That other editor is correct that we do not link to non-English Wikipedia articles, so I am glad you didn't push that at the article. Because the translations are so good, I am starting to wonder if that policy will eventually change, so that there is an easy way to get to the non-English article that we presently have. I do understand the concerns mentioned in the links I have provided above that often the machine-translations make very serious mistakes like leaving out a negative.

If you do decide to read all of the places I mentioned above, I can show you a little more that might interest you in the topic of foreign sources and citing to them. I find the topic interesting, so I am glad you picked an article for WP:AfD that happened to have non-Enlgish sources and a better non-English wikipedia entry.

That's why I responded as I did at the article. If you have other thoughts about the policy and what is said above, you can discuss with me here, and maybe some of it can be discussed somewhere else, since obviously that other editor does not seem very open to what you had to say about these kinds of past discussions.

P.S. when I say "policy" it is really short-hand for WP:PAG plus essays and other consensus decisions, closer to what one calls law or precedent in American law via stare decisis.

P.P.S. Have you been seeing the other comments above in the "mentor garden"?

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I agree, it is just that their article is so much better than ours. Why not just link to theirs? Policy doesn't say we can't do that, just says we shouldn't really link to one particular translation service. But I don't really care, I picked that article because of its odd position wanted to see what would happen when I poked it really. Kinda wanted to do a prod deletion but that's a little too odd I think. Haven't see one done before. Endercase (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I suggest you read WP:POINT. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have, my actions were not to make a point, though I admit I do sound like they are often. 1) I saw a problem (no sources for several years.) 2)I wasn't entirely sure what to do 3)I poked it to see what others thought (nominated for deletion)

" If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics." I do sick to this but it is a good point to apply to socks. As socking to prove that your argument is logical and with enough "support" from other accounts your ideas will be applied. That type of application is disruptive. Endercase (talk)

Indeed. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem

FYI. I saw this comment to you by Davey2010 telling you to "grow a pair". You are fully within your rights to put a warning on his talk page (making sure to include the diff) that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate, uncivil, harassing or whatever way you want to say it. A diff showing the warning (and the diff of the behavior) can be used later as evidence if the behavior continues.

I urge you *not* to take it to AN/I at this time.

I would do the warning for you, but this is something worth learning to do on your own, when other editors are unquestionably out of line. But I strongly urge you to not overdo warnings: only make them if they are as blatant as this, or you will be accused of harassment. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear!, Again I was talking about people in general and not actually Endercase themselves....... How about we stop making a mountain out of molehills......, I'm entitled to my opinions and saying "people need to grow a pair isn't something to get all offended over, Warnings should be used when comments are clear breaches of wp:uncivil - saying the above doesn't even come close!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just waiting on all this. I feel like that essay should be in place, but the amount of apparent resistance to that essay is troubling IMO. The userfied essay is being developed slowly and should end up getting deployed in time. Civil is one of the most important policies we have, along with AGF (Despite the assertions by some leading users that AGF is pointless (and a suicide pact) and should be removed). Endercase (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Something to look at JFK assassination

@Endercase: I think this might interest you. I believe there will be some new activity at:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory
• CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory
• Talk:CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory

and some of the other pages related to JFK assassination.

I'm encouraging you to just watch, not to comment. But if you want to comment, I'm not necessarily trying to stop you either. There are no doubt some editors who have very strong entrenched feelings about certain sources, and will get very upset if something is deleted, added or changes, not to their liking. Watch and see what happens. It might prove interesting.

If you don't yourself have strong feelings about the topic and its sources, I think it will help you see from a more objective distance how topics and sources you do have strong feelings about are perceived by others who don't share your feelings. I hope that makes sense.

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been watching them, but I haven't seen anything too out of the ordinary. And nothing comparable to what got me dragged into AN/I in the first place. I will keep watching them. Endercase (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

@Endercase: Sorry, I didn't realize or forgot you were instructed not to ping you know who. I was about to strike what I said about that, but the conversation was closed before I could do that. I do think civility on Wikipedia is not respected and trying to demand it often doesn't get you anywhere. I have even seen editors get into serious trouble for pointing out when others are using ad hominem attacks. So, until you become an admin, having a thick skin is something you'll need to learn. Sorry, I can't help you. It's a problem, and why we lose many good editors, and new editors, and honestly I don't know what to do about it, since pointing it out can get you punished. I recommend being civil oneself and make sure to follow the rules. Also, the more work you do with building go content, or reverting vandalism, and doing other needed work, the more respect you get. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Per WP:PUNISH, all measures taken should be preventive. Anyone tries to punish me I will make that abundantly clear. Respect is something I am already getting here, just not by the establishment. I get email and other things that are far better than barnstars IMO. Adminship is only access to specific tools, I have not found the need to have those tools nor do I think I will have that need. Though, I am consistently surprised that you and M.Pants aren't Admin. Endercase (talk)

Method of searching revision history?

Is anyone @David Tornheim and MjolnirPants: aware if this exists as a tool? Endercase (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

At the very bottom of a contributions page, there's a couple of links; Endercase: Subpages User rights Edit count Edit summary search Articles created Global contributions / log SUL / accounts those provide some extra tools. I don't know if there's a better way of searching for edits to specific pages, but what I usually do is Ctrl+F on the contribs page (you can set it to display up to 500 edits per page, and filter time by specifying the ending month and year right on the contribs page). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Yes, there are numerous tools. They are on my user page under tools here: User:David_Tornheim#Tools. It depends on what you are looking for.

• WP:TOOLS -- you will be like a kid in a sandbox with all the interesting stuff here!
• WikiBlame -- I think this might be what you want. It looks for when certain terms and phrases were added or deleted and by whom.
• Responsible User -- or maybe this
• Interaction Analysis

To see the work of an individual user:

• [15] -- use this and change the user name.

And of course, going to their contributions works too.

Another thing you can do is go back to old versions of the article and look at them, going to revision history and picking a year and month. It's similar to doing the Bisection_method of the WikiBlame tool to track down what happened to the article over time and how certain things got added or deleted over the years.

I think as Mjpants said above, just clicking on version history gives you quite a number of excellent search tools, such as search for edits by user to the article, number of page views, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim and MjolnirPants: WikiBlame should work, I'm sorry I should have added context. There are a number of users that blank their talk pages regularly, it is difficult to form a baseline opinion on those editors. The rest of this information is also extremely helpful, but it will take me some time to fully understand all of these tools. Thank y'all. Endercase (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Vision of deleted material

@David Tornheim and MjolnirPants: I have signed the appropriate form. But I don't often see users with this ability and thus I am reluctant to apply. I want to know what y'all think about this tool and whether any of you have it. Endercase (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Endercase Sorry, I am not sure what you are talking about. Can you please provide a WP:diff or a link to the place where you "signed the appropriate form"? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: here per Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information, it is stated that signing the form is the only required qualification other than being over 18. However I do not see a user rights position that only allows for vision of deleted material, I see oversight, which allows for the removal of material from the logs while also viewing deleted material. I just want to be able to see the deleted items. Endercase (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

After you get a qualifying user right then you sign the agreement in order to access nonpublic information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am following procedure as outlined at Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information, it may need to be reviewed and/or updated. Endercase (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Endercase: I don't know where you apply. Yeah, some of those privileges are extremely hard to get, such as oversight. I think only a handful of very trusted editors have that. I don't think you have enough experience for most of those. You might want to check the list to see who has been here the shortest time and has the fewest edits to get an idea of have much work you will need to do to even be considered. NeilN might have an idea. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: NeilN and I disagree fundamentally on how to deal with COI and persistent Sock editors, I seriously doubt they want to help me in this endeavor based on that. Though I am mildly surprised by the their response here given how active they are and could be wrong. I don't want oversight rights, I only want to be able to review deleted material. I understand the responsibility and trust oversight requires. Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information suggests that there should be a way to view said material without the additional oversight privileges. But, I can not find that method (if it currently exists). Endercase (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: You are looking for something that doesn't exist. Aside from a few WMF employees, only admins and above have access to revision deleted material. Only oversighters and above have access to oversighted material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Per Wikipedia:Revision deletion I don't think I want the right to view Revision deleted material (as of now anyway), I just want the right to view Articles that have been deleted using the normal methods of deletion. Though criteria 5 and 6 of the acceptable reasons of deletion suggest that regular deletion is no longer used despite the subtopic "Misuse" suggesting that revision deletion is only intended to be used in the extreme cases. This appears to be a case of broken consensus that is standing from 2010 as the misuse subheading directly contradicts criteria 5 and 6. Maybe I should bring this up on the talk page there. Endercase (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Only admins and above have access to deleted pages. I have no idea what you're specifically reading that gives you the idea that any editor can apply to view deleted pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I think you are confusing Wikipedia:Revision deletion with WP:AfD (article deletion). If you are talking about WP:AfD, can you please make a new subsection explaining the policy with quotes and explaining where you believe it says that ordinary editors can look at deleted articles? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: There are many divergent views on COI editing. One problem is that disclosed and undisclosed COI editors can vote on policy and prevent any improvements. They can create walls-of-text and TL;DR to obscure, confuse, bore and discourage readers and commenters in order to kill any plan to address the most serious COI problems. The fact that we permit any paid editing makes no sense to me, but my vote is just as good as a paid-editor's vote, even though I am not paid to make that vote. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I have no idea what Endercase's position is on COI editing. I would like them to stop encouraging socking, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have never nor shall I encourage socking. Socking is a major problem. Doc James is slightly more familiar with my views. To put it simply I just think that current methods of dealing with persistent socking are almost completely ineffective. Endercase (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Socks

@Endercase: NeilN requested here that I advise you that the community does not look fondly on editors helping socks, and I believe based on what NeilN posted that N I H I L I S T I C has undergone an official Wikipedia Court of Inquiry and an official finding of fact has adjudicated the account a sock. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, and I will strike. I can't remember. I do know that editor is currently blocked. I also know you believe it is okay to speak to socks. I believe that the vast majority of editors here, including me, think it is unwise to communicate with socks, except as part of a judicial proceeding or judicial notice. Editing on their behalf indeed sounds like a very big no-no. Although I am not aware of any policy that says you cannot, I strongly urge you not to take advice from a sock or act on its behalf. I think the best thing to do is what I do: Ignore the sock. (and report them when you feel you have strong evidence that an editor is a sock.) --David Tornheim (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please also see discussion here with warnings, in particular about the problem of urging a sock to do something that would require evading a block. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)