User talk:Exonerated torturee

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Exonerated torturee. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

(some examples of bad behavior in jytDog's "welcome" message, and subsequent messaging)

-- Behavioral issues: WP:Don't Bite Newcomers I don't know how to say this, but your username.... First of all you have apparently been through some terrible things and that is a bad thing. I'm sorry about that. -- Behavioral issues: WP:Personal Attacks: ad hominem / -- Behavioral issues: WP:Personal Attacks: Abusivead hominem

But your username just, well, screams, that you have to come to Wikipedia carrying a very sharp ax -- Behavioral issues: WP:Don't Get Personal / -- Behavioral issues: WP:Casting aspersions, and your first edits bear that out -- Behavioral issue: WP:Assume Good Faith / ad hominem / -- Behavioral issues: WP:Casting aspersions.

I need to ask you to please read What Wikipedia is not. That says that we are an encyclopedia and we exist to provide the public with a free source of accepted knowledge. That's what we are.

There are a lot of things, we are not. (The shorthand for that document is WP:NOT) One section of that document, makes it really clear that we are not a platform for advocacy - see WP:NOTADVOCACY. -- Behavioral issues: WP:Assume Good Faith / -- Behavioral issues: WP:Casting aspersions / -- Behavioral issues: WP:Don't Get Personal / -- Behavioral issues: WP:Don't Bite Newcomers / -- Behavioral issues: WP:Personal Attacks: Circumstantial ad hominem

-- Behavioral issues: WP:Personal Attacks: Abusive ad hominem Your username, and your first edits, make it very clear that you have come to Wikipedia to advocate against bullying, pharmacological torture, and the like. Those are important topics, but again, it is not OK to use Wikipedia the way you intend to. -- Behavioral issues: WP:Personal Attacks: Circumstantial ad hominem

So I am trying to tell you, nicely [Are you sure?], that you need to check that stuff at the login page, and put on a Wikipedia "hat" when you start editing.

If you don't, you are going to get into a lot of really terrible arguments [with you, right? Seems so. Feels like a threat], and you will probably end up getting banned from Wikipedia [Pretty harsh for day one]. I have seen this happen a lot of times.

Again I am sorry for what you have apparently gone through, but you are not in the right place to do what you seem to want to do [jytDog is psychic, or...?] -- Behavioral issues: WP:Don't Get Personal. Jytdog (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to say that I reverted the edits you to made to Pharmacological torture. I didn't do that because I think torture is a good thing. I did that because the sources you used were not OK citation needed. We can't use sources like that in Wikipedia [sources like "that"? not much detail there]. There are lots of reasons for that, and I hope you will be open to hearing about that. Wikipedia's mission, and its policies and guidelines for content, sourcing, and behavior, are the most important things here in WP, and you need to learn about them, and let them guide you, if you want to stay here and be productive.... Jytdog (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, if you want to change your username, you can do here: Wikipedia:Changing username. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well, I don't know how to fully respond to your assertions. Your presumption on "what I intend to" do seems heavy-handed. I find it to be rather ironic that I'm being softly sanctioned for initially advocating for a more unbiased representation of the topic of bullying and Pharmacological torture. I haven't checked out the page edits you made yet, but to my recollection, a good portion of the edits I made were already vetted by Wikipedia via another article. It seems to me as though the pages have a very pro-American propaganda slant to them. There is clear evidence of the USA using such torture, and I find it odd that Wikipedia would not allow itself to be used as a reference. I guess it was a bit of an integrity check. Exonerated torturee (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alright, now I've checked out the edits you made on the Pharmacological torture, and I see that my assumption was correct. I see that you deleted the entire section regarding the United States, including the previously-vetted WP examples. This appears to me that (regardless of your user name, or previous edits, which are irrelevant, as are mine) you have "thrown out the baby with the bathwater" even in regard to your own arguments on the subject. This seems to me to be a Hasty_generalization, an ad hominem attack, and a logical fallacy. Exonerated torturee (talk)

Thanks for replying! I wasn't sure you were going to. When I describe your intentions, i am inferring from your username and your initial set of edits. As I wrote above, your username is a... shocker, and that selection was the first thing you did here, and you can only have chosen it to tell us all why you are here.

With regard to claiming validity by pointing at the use of the content or sources in another WIkipedia article - please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS [btw, this is a logical fallacy. referencing a properly-cited article is not an example of "other bad stuff exists"...it's an example of "other good stuff exists"] for the standard answer to that. The short version is - Wikipedia is full of bad content. Edits need to be evaluated based on the relevant policies and guidelines. These are explained in the welcome message I placed at the top of your page. Please do look at that stuff. The more your edits are well grounded in the content policies and guidelines, the more likely they are to "stick" and not be reverted for violating them. I reverted your edit because the sources are not reliable.

Everything in Wikipedia needs to be based on what we call "reliable sources", per the WP:VERIFY policy. What a reliable source is, is defined here: WP:RS.

To explain a bit about how this place works and why I keep talking about policies and guidelines... decisions here are based on consensus, by editors talking to one another. The same kind of issues come up over and over, and over the past 15 years the community itself eventually "codifed" the standard answers to these issues. Answers that have really strong, deep, and broad agreement are "policies"; answers to questions about policy in turn, that have broad and deep and strong consensus are called "guidelines". These policies and guidelines are the foundation for everything we do here. (the past consensus matters too!) That is why people talk about them all the time. Hope that makese sense. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you suggesting that the monstrous article full of references on MK Ultra is an example of bad content? It's derived from declassified documents. Also, my name, and choice of edits, should have nothing to do with the way in which my content is judged. Reference to MK Ultra is not "bad content", it's well-vetted, and common knowledge, with tons or reliable references available. I find your arguments and tone to be insulting and condescending.

I've never looked at that article, so I can't judge it. I am sorry you are insulted. This is a community, and there are norms here. If you want to stay (and I hope you do) you do need to engage with the policies and guidelines and be willing and able to talk about your edits in light of them. That is actually part of the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, as well as being community policy itself. If you want to ignore the policies and guidelines - here is what will happen. You will get in lots of arguments. Those arguments will end up one of the various dramaboards, and eventually at the main one, called "ANI" You will end up blocked, for short times at first, then longer, and then indefinitely blocked. (I have seen this happen lots and lots of times - some people just won't deal with the WIkipedia that actually exists, and want to treat this place like whatever their idea of it is - some kind of blog or something). And you will be angry and unhappy and think this place sucks. And for you, it will have sucked. But that would be a beast of your own making, since you never engaged with the community and its norms, policies, and guidelines. The path you follow will be your choice, of course.

I'll add here, that the reason I initially reached out to you, is that it clear that you are really passionate about bullying and psych drugs and your first edits used poor sources. People who come here all fired up about something, tend to want to rush past the the policies and guidelines... and it generally doesn't end well. I was - and am - hoping to save you a lot of trouble (and the community too, because the arguments, and the dramaboards are upsetting and time-consuming for everybody) It's all avoidable. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources you used were an internet archive capture of psychlaws.org and chrusp.org/home/psychiatric_torture - neither of those sources are used in MK Ultra so I don't know why you are bringing that up. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're intentionally avoiding the obvious, when you reference those examples, but not this one: Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Psychological_and_torture_experiments Exonerated torturee (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am dealing with the edit you actually made - here is the dif - those are the sources that you used there. I am responding to the edit you made.

The two things you give in your comment are wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. This is discussed really clearly in WP:RS. So this is what I meant. You haven't taken the time to read the policy and guidelines I am pointing you to, but are just pressing your argument. This is what generally happens when passionate editors first come here, as I described above.
Do you see what I mean, about what you are doing?
Would you please slow down, and read what I wrote to you above? I really am trying to save you a lot of trouble. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC) -- Behavioral issues: WP:Harassment: Wikihounding[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Pharmacological torture". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mediation request

Exonerated torturee the request for mediation is so surprising! This is what I meant above. Instead of engaging with the policies and guidelines that are relevant, you have personalized this and accused me of some bad motivation. If you edit according to the policies and guidelines, engaging with them and basing your work on them, things would be going differently. You are doing that thing I discussed above - trying to blow past the policies and guidelines to achieve whatever it is that you came here to do. This is not going to end up happily for you. I have seen this a zillion times. This is the last time I will try to give you a heads up - I don't want to beat a dead horse. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC) -- Behavioral issues: WP:Harassment: Wikihounding[reply]

I really wish you'd stop harassing me. It's becoming clear that this site is a sham and a clique. I'd love it if you'd stop giving me "head's up". It's sort of like how the mafia tells a shop owner that they should be careful in the neighborhood because things get broken. Please stop threatening me. You're breaking every policy related to courtesy, but I guess since you're in the clique, it's OK. You're just a cyber-bully to me, and it's clear that the mediators don't care. Exonerated torturee (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK so this is the direction you are going. That does seem like a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do hope at some point that with regard to content you want to add, you engage with the policies and guidelines, and be sure that the content you want to add accurately reflects the underlying sources. I will leave your talk page alone going forward, except for formal notices. (btw, again, you are not paying attention to the place where you actually are. The mediators told you that they only work on content issues, and you are raising a behavioral issue. It is not that they don't care - it is that you are asking them to deal with something they don't deal with. The link to that explanation, is in the notice that they gave you, which you deleted. Again, this is what I mean, about you being wrapped up in your issues, and not paying attention to how Wikipedia actually works. I really wish you could see that. But that is enough of trying to help you) Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change templates

Either remove them, which is your right for most templates, or leave them alone. Editing them so that they appear to say something different, not a good idea. I'm not saying this to be helpful. I just don't like you, and I'm a bit of an a-hole.Doug Weller talk 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]