Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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? 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 Misplaced Pages?

@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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

--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)

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)