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)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A71.198.247.231&type=block

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

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages; 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, as far as I can tell anyway that would be the proper forum for such assertions." 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Do not insult the vandals and Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition), and I do apologise for venting a little more than I would normally do on unblock requests. Ritchie333 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages: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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291466598&oldid=291465740

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

n addion the IP did not "suggested someone should be blocked because of their apparent political ideology", They did. You have to take their comments in the entirety, in which the IP complained about Hijiri saying that certain right-wing sources shouldn't be used. Not to mention the fact that the second quote you provided was the IP saying Hijiri should be blocked for "enforc 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages" 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 .) 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 that should not express opinions due to 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. (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 Misplaced Pages into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—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) Misplaced Pages'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)