Welcome back to Wikipedia! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See MOS:HEAD. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even in a talk page? Man y'all are hardcore. I mean I guess it is here forever. Thanks for the heads-up!Endercase (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how removing references to Breitbart and Infowars violates NPOV. Neither is considered a reliable source. I will not revert my edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivialist The enforcement of an illegitimate ban on users that didn't participate in your discussion to ban is a clear violation of NPOV. Please see the talk page I referred you too. I do not understand why you would refuse to revert. The sources were reliable in context. Endercase (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your comments. I removed the Breitbart and Infowars material because they are not considered reliable sources. I don't care who added them. If there are more reliable sources for that information, that's fine. Trivialist (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that "not considered reliable sources" is POV. As such, no general ban on those sources may occur. Endercase (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you haven't heard about the recent Daily Mail thing? Trivialist (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please just read the links I left on your talk page. I don't want to have to copy and paste everything. Just because a thing happened don't mean it was justified. Their discussion had clear logical errors that I point out in the discussion. Endercase (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this seems confrontational, but I'm just curious if you have used any other accounts or been editing logged out.

It's pretty unusual for an account to make five edits, disappear for half a decade, and then come back and become relatively prolific on two talk pages and a noticeboard, and I'm noticing that a significant number of your opinions on said noticeboard appear to be somewhat extreme.

Have you read WP:RS? Being a dissenting voice is fine (I usually try to give some alternative point of view on matters brought up there that attract my attention), but if you regularly post things that are not supported by community consensus, there's a small chance no one else will post and your opinion could mislead someone.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wp:RS makes no mention of banning sources and says that context must be considered. That is not occurring. I didn't notice the problem until my reliable sources in a minor edit were removed with the information that I had added, with no reason given but a "ban" . That was out of order and I wanted to know why it had happened. Found out the "ban" wasn't created following protocol, and I chose to stand up for my right to add accurate and valuable information to Wikipedia. You don't need to be "someone" to fix a problem. Endercase (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's a red herring; no one is arguing that certain sources should be banned -- they are arguing that your use of Breitbart is inappropriate. And I was not even referring to the main thread you apparently showed up on RSN to open (I hadn't read it before coming here) -- I'm referring to your activity throughout the many threads you have posted in. On the FRC thread, for example, you said that the discussion belonged on the talk page of the relevant article, as though the reliability of the FRC for factual claims was completely tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice you dodged the question as to whether you have used other accounts. I was assuming good faith (hence my asking you outright rather than doing research and opening and SPI), but if you twist my question into somehow being about the right of nobodies to edit Wikipedia rather than answering it straight ... well, I'll ask it again: have you used any other accounts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: another reason I'm asking about this rather (other than your unusual edit history) is that your user page links to the deletion log and calls it a list of our fallen articles, but you yourself have never edited a page that was deleted.[1] This either shows a pretty offensive disrespect for the Wikipedia community's deletion process, or a bitterness that some article you worked on under another name was deleted at some point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used another account, why would I? It seems as if the use of one account throughout all time would earn more respect. Additionally, I believe in transparency and honesty and would not misrepresent myself to you. Our in that reference refers to all of Wikipedia. I don't see how that is disrespectful. Also, deletion is a misnomer, they are hidden (fallen). I don't understand why someone would have strong feelings about the hiding of their articles (I mean they could/should just post it on their blog or whatever) If no-one is arguing for a ban then why are they banned? Requiring a special exemption for use is a ban. There is no personal bitterness toward our processes, I just like to use strong/poetic wording because it is prettier and demonstrates my honesty though the apparent strength of my beliefs. I haven't upset you is some way have I? You are beginning to sound a bit hostile. Not a single user (other than you) has actually spoken to my specific use of that source thus far actually. Endercase (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does FRC and SPI mean? I didn't mean to "twist" your words. I just think a bit differently. 2 weeks ago I was not even aware that Wikipedia deleted articles other than the really dumb ones about people's dogs. Endercase (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I know what SPI means now. Sock Puppet Investigation. Right? I don't believe in using of sock puppets, I don't like that sort of manipulation. Of course, you shouldn't just trust me on that. But why would I switch to my real username for all the drama? A quick search of that username will show you James P.S. Case. If you would like you can hit me up outside at some other account for verification. I still haven't found FRC yet. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRC is not helpful in this case (from your context). It might need updated. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You twisted my words by changing my question about whether you have used other accounts to a question about whether you are someone important (a question I don't generally ask Wikipedians who don't have clear COI problems), and you answered the latter question even though I had not asked it.

For what it's worth, the vast, vast majority of mainspace pages that get deleted probably are either about people's dogs or other trivial matters like that. That is why linking to the list of all of them and apparently lamenting their status as "fallen articles" could be seen as an offensive jab at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The other possible explanation, though, is that you edited some articles in the past that got deleted, but your edit history doesn't bare that out.

I have no interest in off-wiki contact with you, and if you want to blank your own edit and get this rev-delled, as you appear to have (accidentally?) outed yourself, I will understand. I am just concerned that you

A little over two days ago, you posted in a thread on RSN about the Family Research Council, which is the only place you and I had interacted before I posted here, and is clearly already listed on FRC. "Ctrl+F"ing "FRC" on RSN would have revealed this pretty quickly, although if you were more careful about looking into each thread you comment in perhaps misunderstandings like this could be avoided. Looking a bit more carefully at your comments than I did earlier, I notice you cited BOLD in 6 out of 11 threads you commented in; AGF is unclear on whether it would be better to assume you are not posting in a bunch of threads without reading them first or to assume you are not posting based on a personal opinion that conflicts with policy; I chose the latter in this case, but if the former would have been correct, then I'll end this by saying you really should be more careful.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am used to a significantly faster paced social media and may have posted may too much in various locations for that reason. I don't know what is normal here. This is a very strange experience compared to other forms of social media. Yes, I will call this a social media. Admittedly, one with a significantly different focus. Endercase (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you are editing Wikipedia because you are upset that your Twitter account got stealth-banned? Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to stay away from articles on social media and right-wing politics for a while. Wikipedia tends to be kinder to users who are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and single-purpose accounts that start causing problems get in trouble quite quickly. You should also be more careful when commenting in multiple threads on the same noticeboard. If your comments are out of line with policy, they can be quite disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have definitely upset you. I do not know the Jargon you are using. I did not mean to upset anyone. I'm sorry. I don't really have strong feelings about stealth-bans but I do think the phenomena should be documented. Would you please leave me alone until you calm down? Consider that I really am just trying to maintain transparency in Wikipedia. Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Endercase (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ahhhhhahhahahaaaa Please excuse. What is funny? I have definitely upset you. Not really. I'm just offering you some advice. Take it or leave it. I do not know the Jargon you are using. Why I carefully linked all of it so you would not misunderstand. I did not mean to upset anyone. Good. I'm sorry. No need to apologize. I don't really have strong feelings about stealth-bans but I do think the phenomena should be documented. Well, you should not cite fringe sources like Breitbart to do so, and if you only edit the one page while citing fringe far-right sources it makes you look like you are not here. Would you please leave me alone until you calm down? I'd be glad to leave you alone if you don't want to listen to my advice, but I don't know what gave you the impression that I am not already calm -- could you elaborate? Consider that I really am just trying to maintain transparency in Wikipedia. Aren't we all. Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Neither did I, but I am not American, and I'm sure there are lots of American extreme rightists who think Trump is too much of a progressive; not voting for Trump doesn't say anything about one's political views, nor about whether one is here to build an encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FRC is Family Research Council in this context (Oh). Ok, that is why you are upset? My understanding of policy is that reliability discussions about specific sources should be first made on the article's talk page and if no consensus can be reached there then escalated to the noticeboard. I don't understand why the fact that the specific reference was attributed was irrelevant as that is the protocol for less reliable sources. Additionally, the discussion made no reference to specific context or about specific information that source provided. There was no supplying of secondary sources to counter the information provided by the first source, which while maybe normal here is really strange (can get you fired) in research. I have a working history in research and the entire behavior in that discussion seemed ad hominem and strange. The evaluations were made about the source and not at all about the information. It seemed as if the users hated that source, and did not care about the information at all. I don't even know what that source is, I've never heard of them before. That is definitely not my area of expertise. Endercase (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Busy now reply later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rev-delled is the main term I don't understand, although you also have some formatting issues. I paniced a bit because it seemed like you were really mad (but trying not to say anything that could get you in trouble) Your comments keep having this undercurrent of "if you say one 'wrong' thing you get banned, MUHAHAHAHAH!" Breitbart isn't fringe, although a good number of their articles are. That is due to the vast number of their paying readers being (well I don't know how to say it politely)... But sometimes they publish accurate things, and sometimes they document things that have happened. And some of their authors were sniped from "reliable" sources and continue to produce verifiable content. Anyway, a general discussion on Breitbart isn't the point. Anyway, I'm done for the night. Endercase (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Revision deletion --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the fallen thing was really just poetic license; I thought it sounded good. Like fallen angels or something. Idk it was something I thought about for less than a minute. As far as I know you are the only user that has even read it. Although you are a bit fixated on it. If it really bothers you I can remove it. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking me to Wikipedia:NOTHERE I had not seen that one before. *Insert finger pointing comments about everyone I have interacted with* I didn't know that calling Wikipedia a social media site was such a touchy subject. Goodnight. (I'm not a right leaning person, not that that should matter) Endercase (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, I'm here build an encyclopedia. Otherwise I'd be somewhere else. If I wanted to soapbox this would be a terrible place for it. (this place is a bit addicting though) Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase, I can't answer at AN/I, but your question deserves a response. It's an American euphemism. During the Civil War, the Confederacy (south) issued its own money. According to American law, and certainly after the war, it had no value; thus a comment that crackles (the sound crisp paper bills make) like Confederate money means it's valueless, phony or fake. We usually use it when someone says something that sounds like what another wants to hear, but they don't really mean what they say, or variations on that scenario. --Drmargi (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I saw your comment on Winklevi's talk page. If comments are hostile (and mine weren't, just honest), you have to ask yourself where that hostility is coming from. W gave us plenty of reason to feel as we do. --Drmargi (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmargi: It is just an observation of the color of the conversation at the AN/I, the vast majority of the comments were not attempting to sympathize or communicate consensus effectively to the user in question as such it was more like a swarm of angry bees who been disturbed than a mother bear teaching its young. Additionally, I deleted the comment you refer to.

It is quite a colorful metaphor, fiat currency are strange in that way, valued by some and not valued at all by others. I may use that metaphor in the future.

Could you take a look at User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction and provide criticism? I'd like get that LEDE finished and installed. Endercase (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a little while, but I definitely will take a look. I'm flying out the door shortly. --Drmargi (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world are you welcoming obvious vandals/socks as well as editors who have been around for years? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil: The welcomes are standard order for new or apparently new users particularly to those they may not understand !policy. Many of the welcomes are just intended to convey the attached policies. As you mention several of them demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of consensus (vandals) and may benefit from the links. I did not mean to welcome any users "who have been around for years", that may have been a mistake on my part. I will review my edits. Endercase (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the edit you refer to about welcoming any so called "regulars". The template that I used with vandals was that created for such cases. The major exception being the Burger King related accounts, those I attempted to create a personal message for. Endercase (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil: Ah, that user is young and prior to the welcome was chatting (social media style) on their talk page. They were warned by Dane and I figured they may have missed other !rules mentioned in the welcome, as such I used the belated welcome template. Endercase (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would think more before posting such silliness. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil: To me that just sounds like belittling a fellow editor. I'm really not sure what you were attempting to do with that comment. Endercase (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that essay will almost certainly be userfied, so that's a thing, but I really think you should just forget about it and move on to writing more articles. 13/210 of your edits this month have been to the mainspace, and I can't see one of them because you reinserted something that an admin, User:Diannaa, had removed as a copyvio.

You also are currently proposing a "boomerang" for another admin on ANI, but ... think about that for a second. What boomerang would be appropriate for User:Beeblebrox? I don't even know if admins can be blocked (as I suspect they would probably have the technical ability to unblock themselves), and there's no way a stronger sanction could be in order. You attributed the "boomerang" idea to User:EEng, but he doesn't appear to have used that word. Anyway, regardless of whether you or EEng think the ANI thread has merit, I would strongly caution you against proposing sanctions against other users, particularly admins, given your own recent history. I had an emotional reaction to your attack against me a few weeks back, and I was biased in that case, but I honestly can't see how your comments about Beeblebrox and his supposed "battleground" behaviour could be any different, and if I have any bias regarding Beeblebrox it would be against him (it's none of your business and it's not something I want to discuss, but he screwed up something royal earlier in the year and that indirectly led to a lot of grief for me).

I am limiting my ANI activity in order to focus more on content than I already have been, but the only outside parties who have advised me to do so were doing so informally and as friends; I find it really weird that you appear to be doing the opposite, especially considering an admin recently threatened to block you if you didn't stop making comments like your recent comment on a certain user talk page (and, again, your comment about Beeblebrox honestly looks exactly the same, at least to my eyes).

Seriously, why not just stay the heck away from the WP: namespace and write articles? I feel like I've said this to you about eight million times.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of the above. User:Opabinia regalis was blocked last year as a joke. I am not sure if she would have technically had the power to unblock herself if her block had been longer and had been put in place for some kind of disruptive behaviour. Another admin (BU Rob13) recently told me that the Arbitration Committee refuses to desysop bad admins unless they do something that would get a non-admin blocked or banned, and sometimes still refuses then (emphasis mine) which implied to me that there was some kind of technical restriction or strong traditional tendency against placing bans or blocks on admins as the standard response would be to desysop. That's really all I was basing it on. But still, your boomerang proposal will not pass, and I strongly urge you to strike it, as it is not likely to end well for you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "call for" a boomerang, I simply suggested that if that AN/I (that was started in response to a content dispute) stays open a boomerang is likely. The only attributed portion to EEng was that the AN/I was not needed, and that proper communication could have avoided this entirely. As to the copyvio, I was working with Diannaa to help fix a content dispute in a contentious article, the portion of text that was removed came from a deleted article. We were trying to figure out how the attribute the original authors properly. Diannaa later decided that that portion of text was not properly cited and wasn't worth the trouble of adding it. Endercase (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you specifically brought up "boomerang" when no one else had. You should not do that on ANI unless it is your intention to "call for" one. I know what I'm talking about since I've done it myself.

And no, you reverted an edit whose summary read remove content copied from deleted article Libertarian perspectives on natural resources without attribution (emphasis added). It was removed as a copyvio, and you re-added it. Despite what you seem to think, "citations" of external reliable sources have nothing to do with it -- the concern was about Wikipedians' copyright on text they wrote. Please read WP:ATTREQ.

But you're completely missing the point. You need to write more articles. Don't join in other users' edit wars and content disputes. Don't fight over WP: namespace pages. Don't do any of that. Just write articles. Seriously.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way -- being blocked is part of being a Wikipedian, and you would be hard-pressed to find a long-term contributor with a clean block log. People who are not able to emotionally deal with being blocked are not the kond of people who should be editing Wikipedia, because it would not be fair on the rest of us if they didn't get blocked for the same behaviour that the rest of us get blocked for. Saying that such users need to "grow a pair" is essentially the same as this, and demanding that someone strike it as "ad hominem" completely misses the point. But I can't possibly understand why you are fixating on that page given how you haven't been blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still have this page on my watchlist, and I want to interject with a couple of comments. First, admins can be blocked, but you're right that they have the technical ability to unblock themselves, so blocking them is fairly symbolic. Second, I disagree that "being blocked is part of being a Wikipedian" – if you are careful to follow the rules, it's not that hard to avoid being blocked. I am a long-term contributor who has never been blocked, for example. But maybe I'm an exception. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: if you are careful to follow the rules, it's not that hard to avoid being blocked Nope. I have not had a clear block log since 2013, and in 2013 I did nothing that was not in accordance with the "rules" to merit my first block. Admins can be tricked into blocking users (and the users can be so shocked/weirded-out that it messes up their block appeals and their block expires before anyone notices); users can be blocked because of a bogus ANEW report when they were acting in accordance with BLP and/or BURDEN but the report conveniently failed to mention that; similarly, if two users tag-team and open a GAME-y ANEW report they can get a user blocked for "edit-warring" when actually the latter user was the one who was trying to use the talk page (you'd be surprised how many 3RR-blocks seem to get repealed because of misunderstandings like these last two -- I don't know how often the TE editors on the other side of the edit-war get blocked); users can be blocked based on accidentally editing under the wrong (declared, legitimate) alternate account after saying they wouldn't but forgetting they were automatically logged in (admittedly, that' not "careful", but still). There are a million ways people can get blocked, and having been blocked at some point in the past is not what either Endercase or the author of that essay seem to think it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I think you have missed the point of the article, this is easy to do as it does need some work. It is not that banning isn't necessary or that is shouldn't be done it is simply that a modicum of empathy on the part of the banning admin is extremely helpful for editor retention. Banning is inherently violent as it is to imposition of an outside will on another person, sometimes without their explicit consent. Editor retention is an issue for Wikipedia, as such banning should be done after communication not in place of or as a method of except in extremely disruptive cases. I am also not "fixated" on it, I spent less than a day farting around it. Endercase (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have missed the point, because (once again!) you have misunderstood the difference between "blocks" and "bans". Having never been either blocked or banned, I don't see how you would have a better understanding than me. The same essentially applies to the user who wrote the essay, who has only been blocked once for a day or so for edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: It should be noted that I struck a portion of your post at the RfC, you once again referred to the mentorship as mandatory while demeaning my !vote, as I have already shown to you the close was "No Consensus". I highly suggest that you read Wp:civil again and the comments that I made that caused you to end your mentorship with me. I would also request that you stop harassing/hounding me is various locations throughout Wikipedia as you have done since we first encountered each other. Endercase (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not strike or refactor in any way other editors' comments. In my opinion, you would do well to discontinue editing in WP space or participating in such discussions. It might be best that you take a break from Wikipedia, altogether. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Same goes for you buddy. You removed my comment, you didn't just undo the strike. Endercase (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ender, you are not allowed strike portions of my comments, as that makes it look like I retracted them. I think I told you this before, but I may be thinking of someone else. And you are wrong. If MP hadn't closed the thread as "mentor", you would have either been blocked or TBANned. That is mandatory mentoring. As soon as your mentor(s) thinks it's not working, you will be brought back to ANI to be blocked. That's why you really should have listened to my advice rather than insulting me. I have better things to do with my life than open a new ANI thread about you, and your other mentor(s) haven't given up yet, it seems, but you really need to start paying attention to other users' advice. Go write articles. Now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't even take the essay seriously after "For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life." Not only that, but it masks the damage of vandalism and disruptive editing by pulling on the heart strings of readers with this line, "This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified." Such blocks more than likely only happen when an editor is being extremely disruptive, and the administrator has no other choice. Our administrators understand that blocks are not meant to be punishment, but a preventative safeguard to protect Wikipedia, since anybody can edit it. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: For editors that are not neurotypical or have been "good" their entire lives a societal based rejection that masquerades as consensus can be very harmful and can even result is suicide. If you have spent enough time on the internet then you are likely aware of this phenomenon. An essay that suggests that Admin should be careful and considerate when banning other users is in the vain of making Wikipedia a more friendly place as suggested in the 2017 RfC on the future of Wikipedia (I'll find the link later). I agree that the essay needs work, but it does not need userfied IMO. --Endercase (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What utter bolognese. If they were blocked with no warning, it was a 95% chance that it's likely their behavior caused the block to be implemented. All I see in your "explanation", or "rationale" is enabling editors to not be accountable for their own behavior. As an anti-vandal editor, I can certainly attest to this, and this a large part of why I object to the essay. It undermines all the work myself, as well as so many other editors have done to keep Wikipedia free of clutter, crap, and, yes, vandalism. Yes, the article does more than certainly need to be userfied, as the creator seems has a difficult time understanding the concept of collaboration. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: The creators personal behavior has nothing to do with the essay nor should it. Sometimes the banning process is abused, this essay helps to provide a basis for dealing with such abuses. The essay never says that banning is not necessary nor does it demean the banning process. Endercase (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. Anybody can edit it (normally). Being blocked from editing it is distressing. This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified."

As I said, padding disruptive editing. Makes no mention of "bad blocks", it only victimizes the editor receiving a block.

"Of course many blocks are necessary and we're not saying they're not, but there's an emotional toll. Consider that some people, or a few people at any rate,

have never been in jail (or even arrested). have never been sued. have never been suspended from school (or even had detention, or failed a class). have never been fired from a job for cause (or even called on the carpet for a serous dressing down by their boss). have never been in a physical fight (or even shouting verbal confrontation (except maybe as a schoolchild or maybe a lover's quarrel)). have never been kicked out of their house or come home to find the locks changed. We know that a lot of people have had some (or, God forbid, all) of these things happen to them, but the average person – you can call them goody-goodies if you want to – tries to follow the rules and takes sanctions by authorities very much to heart. For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life. This is the first time someone has said to them "You've broken the rules, and badly, and you're in a lot of trouble here". Or one of the few times. And that certainly is the message one takes from being blocked, regardless of how we try to gild that. It's a pretty hard thing to hear, for a few people."

Being blocked is the worst punishment one has ever received... Seriously? Do I really need to go into how asinine that is?

"We know for a lot of experienced Wikipedians (which includes all admins), "Under the spreading chestnut tree / I blocked you and you blocked me" is all part of the WP:MMORPG. But most of our editors, particularly new editors, come from a place called "real life"."

Misinterpretation of an humorous essay.

"A person, particularly a new user, on being blocked is not likely to say "Oh, well, here is part of the functioning of this site. I'll just put in this template, formatted properly, and enter litigation on this matter, all in good fun". The person is likely to be appalled, horrified, angry, sad, alarmed, and disgusted. They'll likely close the page at once and never come back (but they'll have a story about what a screwup the Wikipedia is). So whether its a new user or not, any block of any duration has a non-trivial chance of being permanent, in that the user is likely to just throw up his hands and walk away.

Again, lots of blocks are necessary, and we thank our volunteer administrators for enhancing the functioning of the Wikipedia in this way. But, you know, we want to be careful here."

This entire essay is basically saying that administrators should be more lenient when blocking new editors, regardless of if their behavior is disruptive, due to a risk to the editor retention rate, as well as victimizing those who are reaping what they sown as a fruit of their behavior. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: Quite right, it points out that not all users react to banning the same and urges caution on the part of the blocking Admin and consideration of their other options. The wording does needs worked on, how about you take a whack at it? Additionally, that "humorous" essay you refer to is the way some admin operate. Endercase (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase I've already explained to you in detail how the essay masks the impact of disruptive editing by victimizing those who commit said disruptive editing. There is no need to work on it, as it has no place in Wikipedia, whatsoever. Please stop pinging me. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I am not subject to mandatory mentorship. The comment/attack is fallacious. Endercase (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts, you may be blocked from editing. I was mistaken in removing your comments; I only saw the strikes you introduced and your edit summary didn't indicate a separate comment. That does not excuse your behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages Pruning text – should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy.:Removing, striking or hiding personal attacks.. It constitutes a personal attack. Endercase (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree that those comments were a personal attack. Honestly, if you thought it was, you would be best served by taking it to a dramaboard. If you strike the comments again I will revert and issue your final warning, after which I will take you to ANI and you can expect the audience there to be less forgiving of your behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Well then, I guess it is a matter of opinion, I thought is was clearly visible as an attack. The statement is at the very least bearing false witness with the intent of demeaning a !vote, I hope we can both agree on that. I am not subject to mandatory mentorship per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive949#Endercase. Is this what you refer to wp:dramaboard, are you suggesting that I take my old mentor to AN/I? --Endercase (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot agree on that. The result of that thread was "Endercase has accepted responsibility for what disruption they've cause, and they are getting the needed mentoring." and from what I've read many Wikipedians were willing to attribute your bad editing to inexperience and preferred you coming to heel. You accepting mentorship was the exchange for not getting topic banned. You did not have an option to refuse mentorship. Perhaps you need a topic ban, after all. Yes, that's what I meant by "drama board" (such as AN, ANI, ANEW, etc.). If you feel wronged, by all means get that boomerang. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Yes, the close stated that the problem was handled, or in the process of being handled voluntarily and no Administrative or required actions were needed. I do not wish to use an appeal to an outside authority to take care of personal problems, I can handle any wronged feelings myself. Thank you for the offer though. Endercase (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing another editor's comment to remove a personal attack (and not by striking it, but by replacing it with {{rpa}} so that it's clear that it wasn't the original editor changing it) is something that should only be done when the personal attack is completely unambiguous. E.g. "Fuck you, asshole" would be an acceptable one. In this case, it's completely debatable whether your mentorship was mandatory or not. A number of editors changed their !votes to TBAN you because of the offer of mentorship, and a number !voted for mentorship instead of a TBAN only because it was an option. So while there may not have been anything official stating that you were required to get mentorship, it's very easy to argue that it was nonetheless mandatory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Ah, thank you for the clarification on the consensus that surrounds that policy. It is also worth noting that I did not defend myself at the AN/I, I would have if it looked like the consensus was swaying closer to the mandatory side of things. I can not guarantee that would have swayed the !vote, but I would have made an attempt. It is worth noting that the vast majority of the diffs provided there were out of context or incomplete. Given the interrogation at my talk page and the other behaviors of the editors calling for a ban, I had IMO significant ground to work with. Endercase (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endercase, you are subject to mandatory mentoring. The thread was closed as (essentially) "mentoring to see if that works instead of a block". MP didn't "save you from a block" by closing when he did, and if he hadn't closed it the thread could have remained open indefinitely (there are tools to prevent auto-archiving) until there was a serious close. If you don't accept the mentoring, you will be blocked. Virtually any uninvolved admin would read it that way. I am not even sure who you mentor is at this point, but if you continue to completely ignore the advice everyone else is giving you you will be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Everyone who is involved already knows your POV on the issue. I have already requested that you stop hounding me. Endercase (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: 75% of the editors at the AN/I Directly opposed a T-ban, and several responding users said they didn't see any problems with my actions at all. In addition, the proposed T-ban was just for RS/N whereas you made the claim that I would not be able to edit any non-article space. Admitally, you did harass every single user who expressed an opinion that you disagreed with at the AN/I and that may have decreased the number of users responding in my favor. The fact of the matter is that if you do attempt to repeat a display of that type of action or demean my !vote again I will have to attempt to mentor you. Endercase (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who those "75%" are. David specifically said he was opposing it because mentoring should be tried first, and so could be reasonably expected to support the ban if you had made it clear at that time that you were not open to mentoring. Ditto MjolnirPants. Even if we did a simple !vote tally on the "Topic ban" subthread (and that's not how it works) it was 6-3 against, not 75% against. Of those six, two explicitly did so based on faulty premises, and in a proper close would have had their !votes discounted (one was even threatened with a block because his !vote was an off-topic personal attack), one more was super-fishy (it came from someone who hadn't edited in years) and of the other three two explicitly stated in their !votes that they were opposed to the TBAN based solely on the assumption that you would be mentored. The only one left who formally cast an "oppose" !vote was David (and on that point see below). The closer explicitly stated, both in the close and immediately above here, that the reason you weren't getting topic-banned was because you appeared to be amenable to mentoring. So yes, you are subject to mandatory mentoring, and it is way out of line for you to ignore what you are told by your mentor(s).

@David Tornheim: (since as far as I can tell you are the only one Endercase would be willing to name as his mentor at this point) Could you tell Endercase the following:

1. he should focus on writing articles;
2. his recent behaviour (barely touching the mainspace and continuing to argue over policies/guidelines/essays in the WP: namespace) is inappropriate;
3. he is subject to mentoring as a result of last month's ANI thread, and he is not at liberty to ignore the advice of more experienced editors;
4. he should stop casting aspersions on other editors (Ctrl+F this page for "personal attack" or "hound", or the currently-live version of ANI for "battleground", or User talk:Herostratus for "harass")?

I'm sorry to ask this of you, and if someone else has since taken up the Endercase's mentor mantel without me noticing that apology is double.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 Honestly this looks like a tempest in a tea pot. All this drama over an essay that "being blocked hurts"? Seriously? I have no idea what striking of comments you all are talking about. As I told you before, if you have an issue, please provide diffs. I did CTRL-F and I didn't see anything disturbing--Endercase said he felt a comment was a personal attack. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. I have no idea what he thought was a personal attack, since he has no diff either, so I can't judge. But I do know I saw one recently (see User_talk:Endercase/mentor-garden#Ad_hominem) an ad hominem attack on anyone who agreed with the essay (including Endercase), so it seems there may be a little of WP:Kettle going on here. Either way, I suggest both of you just drop it. If you have a problem, you need to bring diffs; then I will look at it. I'm not going on a wild goose chase trying to figure out what you are complaining about, who started what and why everyone is all in rage about this essay and discussions about the essay. I was so disgusted by all the behavior regarding that essay, that I never responded to the pings to that page and took it off my watchlist. Feel free to raise the issue with Bishonen. I doubt she'll be any more impressed than I am. Again, my advise: Everyone--including Endercase--walk away from this pointless drama. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why [2]? It seems ... well, not in keeping with community spirit. - Bri (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri:Users are blocked to prevent disruptive editing; in order to prevent local consensus I'm willing to moderate my own talk page. Endercase (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, thought that was a response to my welcome at the top of my talk page. Didn't check link. That was because the unwelcomed user posted on my talk page and may not understand community consensus. I do not mind working with such users. Endercase (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase, the user was blocked as on obvious sockpuppet. The reason we know it is a sockpuppet is that it very clearly already knows it's way around this site. Additionally, referring to a blocked sockpuppet as an "unwelcomed user" is highly inappropriate, as you are insinuating that the users who participated in the discussion that led to the block were somehow "unwelcoming" rather than simply carrying out the proper procedures mandated by policy. As Bri said above, it's not in keeping with community spirit. (Just to clarify, I did check to see if by "unwelcomed" you meant that you had removed your own inapproriate message.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I looked at your other comments on the page in question. Please read WP:BEANS and refrain from elaborating on methods blocked users can use to get around their blocks.

Also (while this is unrelated): stop referring to blocks as "bans". I have already gone over this with you multiple times before. If you want the links again they are here and here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: If the user is a sock-puppet then they don't understand consensus, as using a sock-puppet is not logical (if the community consensus is correct). Therefore welcoming them and opening a dialog is the proper form and in in the spirit of the community. Consensus is logical and can not regress due to input from outside parties. If the user is logical (and they appear to be) then sharing consensus with them can only help the encyclopedia and help allow the user to positively interact with the community.

As to Beans, it is already suggested that the user is Sock ergo pointing out that banning doesn't work in these cases because socking naturally evades banning can't hurt the encyclopedia. I'm not adding any information that that user doesn't already have. Additionally, all of the methods I've mentioned are clearly laid out and easily accessible online. Though, I am aware of other easier methods that I have not shared and that are less accessible online.

"Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." "A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages." They are effectively the same IMO despite your continuing insistence that they are not. Please clearly explain the difference. Maybe I should suggest that the two articles should be merged, as a block is just an administrative enforcement method for a ban (an ineffective one at that) and may not be notable in and of itself. Endercase (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding community consensus and the like: Yeah, I'm basically in agreement with MP et al below.

Regarding BEANS: Just stop talking about it. If you don't know which comment of yours I'm referring to, I'm not going to link it, but you definitely said more than information that that user [...] already ha[s]. You specifically elaborated on methods one can use to evade CU. Stop it.

Regarding bans and blocks: They are not the same. Both David Tornheim and I are subject to indefinite bans, but neither of us have been blocked from editing since at least last summer. The only "ban" that is functionally similar to a "block" is what is called a site-ban, and those bans are relatively rare. The vast majority of blocks can be unilaterally overturned by any admin, which is not the case for site-bans, and the vast majority of bans are not site-bans (clearly, neither David nor I is subject to a site-ban). Bans also apply to real-world individuals, not accounts, while a block only applies to the account on which it is imposed. I used a bunch of alternate accounts back in 2013, and all of them were blocked on my request. They were not "banned", as a ban that applied to any one of my accounts would automatically apply to me, and I have only requested that I be banned under certain very specific circumstances. Conversely, the bans to which I am subject also apply to my other accounts. I am currently not allowed to discuss two other users on English Wikipedia per the terms of my mutual IBANs with them: if I logged into one of my old socks and started talking about those users (even if just on my own talk page), I would be considered in violation of my ban, and would be subject to sanctions. If I was doing it because, say, I forgot the password to my main account, but had a legitimate grievance against the other user, my "violation" would be disregarded as covered under WP:BANEX; if I was annoyed and wanted to vent, but wanted to evade scrutiny by doing it under an account that's been blocked for years, my main account might be blocked for any length of time, but I could appeal at any time and if i convinced an admin that I would not repeat my offense that admin could freely unblock me; if I was clearly doing it for the specific purpose of trolling, and had demonstrated my lack of interest in building the encyclopedia, my limited IBAN might by upgraded to a site-ban. I hope this clearly demonstrates for you the difference between a block and a ban.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the user is a sock-puppet then they don't understand consensus, Ender, you are stating the obvious here. I'm not faulting you at all, just pointing out that you are so on point with this that I think you might be missing the point. An editor who doesn't understand consensus is an editor we don't want working on the project. I'm not faulting you for the welcome, either. I believe it was made in good faith. But I do notice that you seem to constantly imply that blocked editors are 'victims' and the truth is that the vast majority are victims of their own choices. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: I agree, which is why consensus should be shared with such users. A block is simply trying to catch mice with a raccoon trap, or trying to keep a goat in with a buffalo fence (widely spaced wires small animal). It doesn't make any real sense at all even if it does seem appropriate to some. If the user is a "puppet master" we already know they know how to get around bans, banning the account only makes it more difficult to track the user. In this case the ban of the account is basically just a very mild suggestion to the user that they leave. They likely have at least a dozen other accounts, it's just completely illogical IMO. Endercase (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The logical conclusion of the argument you just presented is to entirely stop enforcing policies against sockpuppets. Which is nonsensical, as the reason people sock is that it works (in arguments; not in general as I'll get to in a second), and socking is damaging to the project. Also, you're assuming that a determined enough sock master is capable of pushing their POV or whatever else they've set out to do, over time. They're not. WP:LTA is a list of editors who use socking to evade blocks and get caught. WP:checkusers are editors who can actually pull detailed technical information about a connection to determine the likelihood of two or more accounts being socks. WP automatically blocks connections from proxy servers, and a look through the history of WP:ANI will show that editors who happen to have an internet connection with a widely variant dynamic IP (the editors most difficult to enforce a block against) are generally spotted whenever they make a disruptive edit within seconds and reverted. And again: do you really want to edit an encyclopedia where people aren't held to a certain minimum standard of behavior? I sure don't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: That is a list of SOCK editors that got caught. There are many who have not. I have interacted with a few of them (who have admitted to being socks). Additionally, that list only shows certain aspects of their behavior once listed these aspects can be easily avoided. There are also editors that edit solely using a dynamic IP, these can not be blocked and are very difficult to track. Endercase (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with MjolnirPants and disagree with Endercase's strange position about socks. I explained it here: User_talk:Endercase/mentor-garden#Policy_discussions. I'm not planning on repeating myself, as I felt I was getting nowhere trying to explain to him the various problems with his position.
  Also, I agree the welcoming was WP:AGF, especially given Endercase's strange belief about socks. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants and David Tornheim: I'm not saying that they shouldn't be held to same standards as everyone else I just think that engaging experienced socks in discussion about their actions is better than just blocking accounts whenever they are noticed. Obviously, the "best/worst" socks just follow the rules and don't get caught while pushing POV or creating paid pages. I a willing to bet my account that there are quite a few socks that are now Admin. After reviewing the first edits of quite a few admin and comparing them to known socks I am very certain that this is the case. An "ideal" sock account is never caught nor does it use a dynamic IP. Though this does increase cost they would use identity specific VPN's to use the same IP's/fonts/cookies/apparent browser/other throughout the account's history to minimize evidence of socking. There are several "identity management" softwares that would automatically do this for you and help you keep personal stories and previous interactions straight. Likely some software has been created just for Wikipedia that would automate certain types of simplistic edits (vandalism reversion, Prod or afd of articles with no sources etc, remove sources from a premade list), so that individuals working for powerful entities can push POV while seeming to be constructive. The more complex the sock the less likely it is to be caught. A sock is simply a separate ("misleading") identity while the "Master" likely has other accounts. Quite frankly this sock could have been intended to be caught simply to mislead admin into thinking they were actually having an effect or to extort more money from the entity that paid them to create the articles in the first place(as has been noted in the past). There can be nothing truly known when it comes to socks as their entire purpose is to mislead. Blocking known persistent Socks is as ineffectual as giving North Korea billions of dollars in exchange for a promise to not make nuclear arms. Active monitoring (until a full list of socks is made) or even shadowbanning such accounts would be far more effective. The only thing one gets is at best the removal of one account and maybe a temporary stop to the problem. All in all engaging the user in discussion and discovering their motivations is the best (if time consuming) method. If you think the community should be really sock hunting then we should start requiring more "are you human" checks, not blocking pseudo-random accounts. Endercase (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that engaging experienced socks in discussion about their actions is better than just blocking accounts whenever they are noticed. The problem with that is that the vast majority of sockmasters are either blatant POV pushers or trolls. Neither group is amenable to civil discourse, and will continue their behavior no matter what is said to them. Listen, I know this doesn't make much sense, but as one aspie to a (self-diagnosed, but still) other: I am speaking from experience here. It's utterly mind boggling that a person could look at clear evidence that they're not engaging productively and still not even consider that they might have done something wrong, but it's just the way it is. Hell, just the other day I witnesses an otherwise good editor post a porn image (linked from a porn website) on another user's talk page while berating them for using the word "boobies"'. As if that weren't enough, when I pointed out that that was hypocritical; they claimed the image was a medical image from wikipedia. The vast majority of people regularly do utterly irrational things, it's just a fact. And a large number of people are almost entirely irrational. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants:Discourse should always be attempted in a good faith manner prior to a ban longer than a ~week where the user not actively harassing (stalking or abusive posting) other users or engaging in obvious and malignant edit-warring IMO. I am a hardliner on this, even if the editor is assumed to be paid.

As to the editor that posted inappropriate unrelated images on another user's page, sounds bit like harassment to me. Endercase (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse should always be attempted in a good faith manner prior to a ban See, now you're missing the obvious: a block for socking means the editor has previously been blocked for either socking or something else, meaning discussion has already taken place.

As to the editor that posted inappropriate unrelated images on another user's page, sounds bit like harassment to me. No, their actual reasons for posting that image were perfectly appropriate (academic, even) and quite irrelevant to my point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: That is true when the account in question is connected to previous accounts but in this case it was blocked per wp:duck with only circumstantial evidence. Endercase (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikilawyering because that's what you're doing here. People don't get off on technicalities. Also, WP:DUCK exists for a reason. You should read circumstantial evidence, because when you say "only circumstantial evidence" you're conflating that term with "weak evidence", and they are very much not the same. For example, DNA evidence is circumstantial. Fingerprints are circumstantial. Meanwhile, a crackhead "witness" who tells the cops he saw the whole thing in exchange for twenty bucks and a ride to a crackhouse has provided direct evidence. Regardless, even if you were absolutely right, that wouldn't refute my point. Once again, WP is run on editor's judgements, not by strictly following a proscribed set of rules. In the judgements of those who participated in the ANI case and who interacted with this editor elsewhere, they were a sock. Since that judgement was near-unanimous, and since only one newer editor bothered to refute it... Well, you should be able to see where I'm going here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make valid points, the account was likely a sock though clean start also explains the behavior as pointed out at the AN/I (though, not the lack of defence). The issue with circumstantial evidence (CE) is that it only adds to a pre-built case, in this case, CE is the entire case. No DA acting in good faith would prosecute solely on a small amount of CE (the user has knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia), admin should be held to similar standards IMO. Often peers will not defend each other here for fear of being dragged into the whole mess themselves (a valid fear IMO). Endercase (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that making a clean start is only acceptable for editors in good standing.

No DA acting in good faith would prosecute solely on a small amount of CE Oh, you'd be surprised. I personally know a guy who stood court martial for battery charges based entirely on the fact that the JAGs found his fingerprints on a bottle that had been used to hit the victim. He was acquitted, but only after a witness came forward. As to the qualities of the circumstantial evidence in this case, ask yourself how well you know WP policy, and you've been here for months, with multiple experienced editors trying to help you grasp it.

Often peers will not defend each other here for fear of being dragged into the whole mess themselves (a valid fear IMO) Wrong, and right. Wikipedians tend to be outspoken. Only once in my entire tenure here has someone expressed any sympathy for me, while refusing to engage. I was involved in an Arbcom case a while back in which a dozen or more editors who'd never even interacted with me jumped to my defense against an admin engaging in harassing behavior against me, simply because they thought he was wrong. But you are correct about it being a valid fear. I've seen admins block editors who were never named in an ANI complaint because the admin in question found something blockable that editor had recently done while looking into it. While it makes for a rather shitty principle in actual law enforcement, the old idiom "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" is very applicable here. WP has a purpose which is external to any and all editors, and anyone who's not focused on that simply doesn't belong. Our behavioral guidelines aren't intended to be fair or just, and they shouldn't be. Our behavioral guidelines are intended to eliminate problems, regardless of the fairness or unfairness of that, and regardless of the offense or sense of injustice it may instill in anyone. I think that's where you keep going wrong in behavioral issues: You think we should do everything we can to be fair and just. But we really shouldn't, because we're not society at large, we're an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military courts have different burdens of proof, are we closer to that? No, actually it doesn't. US service members are citizen soldiers and have all the same constitutional protections, except where those protections would interfere with national defense and the cohesiveness of the US armed forces. In total, soldiers actually have more rights than normal citizens, including broader protections in terms of a right to legal counsel and rights during questioning by law enforcement, though there is a difference in character. For example, as a private citizen, you absolutely have the right to refuse to perform any public service requested* of you by the government. As a soldier, you would not have that right, even if the service would almost certainly result in your death. If you're curious, you can read more about that here. The burden of proof in a criminal trial and a court martial is the same: The accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

*This does not apply to circumstances in which the government is statutorily permitted to order you to perform some service, such as court orders, except where such service is very likely to result in harm or death. But there's an exception that that exception, too. Namely, the draft.

However, we do have a different standard here. It's essentially the same standard which is used in civil law: guilt or innocence is decided by the side with the preponderance of evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: I think we may have gotten a bit off track. I do not think that "a block for socking means the editor has previously been blocked for either socking or something else, meaning discussion has already taken place." I think the only thing a block for socking only means is that some Admin thought they were socking (or hit the wrong button). Many blocks that I have witnessed did not provide discussion and in some cases cited policies that did not even apply in that case. This may be due the the problems with RfA that Jimbo has mentioned. I think we may be at a turning point for that though. In the future I think more Admin will have to understand why policy says what it does not just what it says. This was seen at the most recent RfA. Endercase (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again or otherwise comment at this account's Talk page, I will block you for your disruption and your disruptive attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: You violated explicit policy by removing my comment without proving a policy based reason. If you take punitive action in this case I suspect your adminship may be removed. What was given may be taken away. Endercase (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much more likely that any ANI thread would result in further sanctions for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the sentiment, though I'm hoping you won't end up blocked over it. Your comments there were prolonging an argument that should have been long over, and your continued discussion with the editor is not going to accomplish anything except convincing both of you even more that you're right. It's become a classic echo chamber.

Also, there are a number of policies Bbb23 could cite, from WP:NOTHERE to WP:NOTSOCIAL to the sheer disruption of encouraging a blocked editor. Remember, our rules are not legalistic and admins are expected to use their best judgement. If, in Bbb23's judgement, you need to be blocked, the worst that will happen if the community disagrees is that another admin will unblock and Bbb23 will acknowledge that is was a bad block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Have you reviewed their action in this case? I am allowed per policy to voice my disagreement with administrative actions. Admin, per policy, are required to answer questions relating to their Admin Actions. The admin in question instead reverted said disagreement even after I cited Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages (which IMO clearly says that my comment should not be removed), without citing policy even after I specifically requested they provide reasoning User talk:N I H I L I S T I C. I wonder what Jimbo or Bish would think about all this (other than: "all of us should be editing articles"). Endercase (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for either Jimbo or Bish, but personally, I find that your editing at the blocked sock's talk page has been disruptive for some time. Do not return there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Could you explain how you found it "disruptive"? It did not harm the encyclopedia as far as I am aware nor did it violate any policy (as were were discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia) Endercase (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, off the top of my head there are WP:IDHT and WP:POINT, and after consulting WP:DE, I see that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 applies. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase, I don't think anyone is saying you can't voice your disagreement with administrative actions. That talk page is not the place to discuss your disagreement. You should discuss it directly with the admin on their talk page. If that does not satisfy your concerns then at a Noticeboard. ~ GB fan 15:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Actually, my changes to Bbb23's talk page were reverted. [diff] Endercase (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wan't an attempt to discuss your concerns. ~ GB fan 15:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Yes it was, I thought they were violating explicit policy as such I used the normal methods of letting them know. I would have loved to engage in discussion about that. Endercase (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a templated warning message is not an attempt to discuss anything. ~ GB fan 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Then why do Admin use them so often? They must be an effective method of communication. Endercase (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between effective communication to inform someone of something and effective communication to discuss something with someone. The template message you left may be an effective communication to tell Bbb23 that you reverted and a general reason (disruptive) but it wasn't effective in communicating your exact concern or your willingness to discuss your concerns. ~ GB fan 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have, indeed reviewed the case. That editor was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, a violation that was confirmed with technical information. A Checkuser block is very different from, and much more reliable than a WP:DUCK block. When asked what other accounts this editor was using, they responded that answering that question would result in consequences they did not wish to face. This is another way of admitting to having even more sockpuppets that they don't want blocked.

Furthermore, their argument presupposes that they were a productive editor, while a quick look at their talk page shows that a good number of their contributions were not productive. In fact, the first edit to their talk page was a notification that they'd created an attack page. Your own argument boils down to "we can't stamp out sockpuppetry, so we shouldn't do anything about it." I understand that you may believe that everyone can be reasoned with, but I will tell you from experience that you are wrong. Especially on the internet. If you have a proposal for how to deal with sockpuppets, I would suggest you outline it on your talk page or in your sandbox and invite a few editors with whom you have a good rapport to comment on it. If they agree that it's a good proposal, you can then make an RfC out of it and get input from the wider community. But arguing your case at the talk page of a blocked user isn't helping. It's actively hurting your reputation here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent further disruption by your attempts at "discussion". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Please cite the specific portion of the disruptive edits policy to which you refer. There is nothing there that I can see that applies in this case. Endercase (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:Especially when reviewing Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption where the types of Disruption that are usually cited for blocks it laid out. Endercase (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ender, you are standing in a hole, and the first rule of holes is that once you find yourself in one, stop digging. Please stop. Just wait this out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think putting warning templates on talk pages is "discussion". It's not. Your attempts at "discussion" are disruptive. You are, of course, free to appeal this block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent attempt at communication via template with an admin was ineffective. I know know that templating the regulars may result in a block (once unblocked I will leave a note at the relevant essay (or make a list) that specific regulars may not be templated without consequences (anyone may sign that (list?))). I will work on conveying my ideas about socks and COI into an essay or addendum to current policy, such that I can effectively communicate my views on the issue. To be clear I do think that socks should be regulated or blocked or banned in an effective preventive manner. It should now be obvious to all parties involved that templates are not effective communication or discussion starting tools. Endercase (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence is completely missing the point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your plans for when this block expire are likely to lead to another block. You should stay completely away from these subjects and focus on improving the encyclopedia content. Your record since you started editing here demonstrates that you do not have the knowledge or judgment in matters of policy or administrative matters. I haven't reviewed the few edits you've made to main space. Hopefully, your skills there are better. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: They are. And your advice has been given, almost word for word, before. It's good advice, and me and others who are somewhat fond of Ender are all praying he will take it.

@Endercase:Templates are, as was pointed out above, to inform. When dealing with an experienced editor, the presumption is that they already know whatever information is contained within the template. Hence the essay Don't template the regulars. When one templates an admin for a disruptive edit, that doesn't, in any way, come across as an attempt to inform, but an attempt to berate. The clear implication of every such template is "I know better than you, and this is what you did wrong." When a new editor is templated by an experienced editor, that's an acceptable implication. It's generally true, and it conveys valuable information. Not so when a comparatively new editor templates an admin. So I suggest that you take from this that your manner of communicating is what needs work. We all understand that you intended to start a discussion. But you did so in a manner that was insulting and disruptive. The most important advice I can give you (you personally, not just anyone) is as follows: Take it for granted that the admins know what they're doing, and know better than you, unless and until proven otherwise. There are bad admins, and admins have had their mops taken away. But the vast majority of admins are good ones, even when they disagree with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clearer. Adding a template is not discussion. Just like edit summaries are not discussion. It does not matter who you template. If you think templating a newbie is a valid way to start a discussion then you're going to be quickly disabused of that idea. Templates are used to inform editors of policies and guidelines and some will warn of the consequences of not following policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: You know that using a software defined ban (block) is a template right? Endercase (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ender, actually there's this thing called "jargon" which gets used here, just like everywhere else. What that means is that a template is actually ...a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. Also, this block isn't a part of a discussion. It was to prevent you from causing disruption. Please let it work. Arguing with the admins over the proper way to handle socks to the point of disruption, then arguing with them over how to handle you is a really ineffective way to do anything except fill out your block log. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: You make a great point: their behavior is not in question here, mine is. Do you also believe that I should not talk to socks ever? I personally feel this is a case of "untouchables". The learned Gandhi had a lot to add to consensus about that. Maybe I should write an essay with that bend. Apparently, a good number of admin and check users consider my interactions with a sock in and of themselves disruptive. I consider those interactions as part of the motivation behind this block, though that has not been explicitly stated. I wonder if they would also consider writing an essay that quotes Gandhi disruptive. Endercase (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, if a sock's talk page access has not been revoked, and you want to converse with them at their talk page, that's fine in and of itself (it can still cause disruption if you're encouraging them to continue socking or endlessly complaining about the block, and that's not cool). Think of WP as a business with you as an employee. WP can 'fire' you at any time, if you break any one of the arbitrary rules. The good news is that WP has some pretty common sense rules that all boil down to two things: Add accurate, verifiable information to the project and don't cause a disruption. Remember that we're here to 'make money' (read: make good articles), not to socialize or advocate or reform. You've been doing some article work, which is good, but you're still pushing to try to "fix the system" which is not so good. WP had over a decade to figure out how to run itself before you came along. The notion that you're going to upset the system and make a more perfect one without a decade of experience yourself is a little arrogant, don't you think? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ender, yes that is a template. In this case it is the appropriate form of communication. This wasn't about trying to discuss your block with you it was about informing you of the block. ~ GB fan 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer idiocy of comparing sockmasters to a class of people historically discriminated against leaves me breathless. @GB fan, Bbb23, and DoRD: I will be recusing myself from taking any future admin actions with regards to this editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Endercase, your comments are not constructive. You're rehashing your contention that you're entitled to disruptively comment on sock Talk pages. I've therefore revoked your access to this page. See WP:UTRS for appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Endercase (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18181 was submitted on May 02, 2017 23:01:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN, Bbb23, and Just Chilling: I would like to continue discussion on the above topics until I have a full understanding. But, I fear doing so would be deemed disruptive. May I archive these two discussions to help remove the temptation? Endercase (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]