User talk:Endercase

Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could
You may leave any and all messages here you want. If I don't like it (it is inappropriate) I might remove it though. (I have never done so though)Endercase (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

All subpages are linked on my userpage. Please join any conversation and edit at will. Endercase (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Headings and links
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. &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

Who are you? Also re: your comments on RSN
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Busy now reply later. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Revision deletion --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Thank you for linking me to 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)
 * 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)

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

Confederate money
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Your templated welcomes
Why in the world are you welcoming obvious vandals/socks as well as editors who have been around for years? --Neil N  talk to me 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This. --Neil N  talk to me 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I wish you would think more before posting such silliness. --Neil N  talk to me 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

I notice you're still working on pages in the WP: namespace...
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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

Conversation about Essay
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 VialHolla! We gonna ball! 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 VialHolla! We gonna ball! 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Except it provides no information on how to actually deal with such blocks. All it does is pad disruptive behavior. Let's go over it.

"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 VialHolla! We gonna ball! 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 VialHolla! We gonna ball! 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
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)
 * I am not subject to mandatory mentorship. The comment/attack is fallacious. Endercase (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * Per 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive949. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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).
 * (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:
 * he should focus on writing articles;
 * his recent behaviour (barely touching the mainspace and continuing to argue over policies/guidelines/essays in the WP: namespace) is inappropriate;
 * 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;
 * 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)


 * 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-- 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) 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 .  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)

Welcoming blocked user?
Why ? It seems ... well, not in keeping with community spirit. - Bri (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I agree with and disagree with Endercase's strange position about socks.  I explained it here: User_talk:Endercase/mentor-garden.  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Military courts have different burdens of proof, are we closer to that? I think this encyclopedia is a society, things don't have to be fair or just but they should benefit the encyclopedia. We do need a better solution to Socks, maybe emoji recognition (South Park reff). Anyway, thank you for the discussion, I will temper my defence of peers I feel have not been given a fair shake and try preventive measures instead (as I am doing with BulbAtop (who has odd contribs)). Endercase (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

User talk:N I H I L I S T I C
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)
 * 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)
 * Much more likely that any ANI thread would result in further sanctions for you. --Neil N  talk to me 15:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Actually, my changes to Bbb23's talk page were reverted. [diff] Endercase (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That wan't an attempt to discuss your concerns. ~ GB fan 15:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Leaving a templated warning message is not an attempt to discuss anything. ~ GB fan 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why do Admin use them so often? They must be an effective method of communication. Endercase (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

May 2017
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:. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To prevent further disruption by your attempts at "discussion". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Especially when reviewing Blocking policy where the types of Disruption that are usually cited for blocks it laid out. Endercase (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * Your second sentence is completely missing the point. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You know that using a software defined ban (block) is a template right? Endercase (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The sheer idiocy of comparing sockmasters to a class of people historically discriminated against leaves me breathless. I will be recusing myself from taking any future admin actions with regards to this editor. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

/mentor-garden

Advice and warning
I've been looking at this WP:ANI discussion, which was closed as recently as 20 March. You were quite strongly criticized by experienced editors and admins there, and a topic ban from WP:RSN gained considerable support. It looks like you escaped sanctions for two reasons: 1) because the idea of mentoring was broached, and you yourself appeared to accept mentoring by the two people who offered, though the way it would work was left a little vague both by you and the closer of the thread, and 2) because you seemed at least somewhat ready to accept responsibility for the disruption you had caused.

After the ANI thread was closed, I looked to see how you were doing, alerted by a post on User talk:MjolnirPants, which I watch. I was a little taken aback to note your passive-aggressive and condescending comment about Hijiri88 — one of your mentors at that time, no less — on Vfrickey's talkpage, in a fake 'defence' of them against Vfrickey's lengthy wikilawyering: "..I do not feel like Hijiri 88 is beyond help in these matters. If you (=Vfrickey) are able to convince them that their specific actions were harmful to the encyclopedia I am certain that they would change their behavior moving forward" followed the next day by an actual attack on the same page: "You have a history of edit warring and demeaning behavior. In addition, you are also a rampant POV pusher and constantly and consistently fail to observe good faith. .. While I do appreciate you and your efforts to make me a better editor, you are kinda a wp:dick.."

Having noticed these highly personal comments and others, such as an utterly irrelevant attack on Guy here, followed by MjolnirPants's reply that Guy has tons of experience and is widely respected, then followed by egregious wikilawyering by you: "So you are saying they are experts in Wikipedia (more than equals?)? I thought that was a violation of policy." Have you noticed how conversation stops when you go into that mode..? Believe me, it's not because the other person has been convinced.

I considered blocking you, specifically for talking in this way to somebody who had spent time trying to help you, but I think you may not realize how your manner affects others. Therefore I'll give you some advice instead: 1) please don't comment on other people at all (because I really don't think you have much sense for how it affects them, perhaps even when you're trying to be nice) and 2) please try to read policies for their spirit, not for finding policy fragments that prove how right you are. People will soon get tired of trying to explain things to you, simply because you make so many insensitive comments about other people, and you cherry-pick so many policies in defence of yourself. Both these approaches are fundamentally wrong. Put your listening ears on instead. If you don't, you'll end up blocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Adding: I just noticed that you changed the post I particularly objected to while I was writing up the above (writing it rather slowly, as I do, and with RL interruptions). I'm very glad to see you did. Those changes show good sense, even if they took you 15 hours. Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking "save". Bishonen &#124; talk 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC).


 * TL;DR:I'm weird and I apologize when I cause harm. I do things for reasons though. Even if those reasons need lots of work.
 * I accept any punitive actions supported by Bishonen or Hijiri88(who I had already given permission to, to remove any and all of my posts), or my other uninvolved (in this case) mentors, or by public consensus.


 * Thank you, you are a very well respected admin, I have have seen the loyalty you inspire in others. Guy gets under my skin to be honest, though I probably also get under theirs (particularly when I fixed that AGF link on their talk page).
 * "Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking 'save'." this is something that I am working on, I have been getting better in that regard if you believe that. It is just difficult to balance respectfulness and pure honesty about my feelings. I would like your take on expression in regards to consensus, I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings. This leads to ignoring peers even when they are being problematic which in turn leads to peers being banned. I don't want to contribute to that cycle, I would much rather speak my mind and if I can help them be aware of how they come across. It is a fine balance though, one I have nowhere near mastered.
 * WP:LAWYER is another difficult point, I believe in the fundamentals, I don't mean to do any damage to the encyclopedia. This type of behavior is meant to gain a personal greater understanding of policy not to prove a point. I am not being sarcastic when I make these types of comments. These are legitimate questions, often questions that have been left unanswered by shared public consensus. I am trying very hard to understand this society. I also refrained from making direct comments at my AN/I, which may be worth noting.
 * Consensus is a difficult term for me, as it at once is meant to mean the most logical position while also somehow the majority opinion. I find that often these are not one in the same and some modification could be made. In order to do that some disruption is necessary, else you get a particular type of stagnation that leads to cascade failure of power structures. That sort of failure leads to dark ages, I would like to avoid that (though my personal input would never really change anything by myself).
 * I find it odd that peers don't often take issue with my questions or arguments in and of themselves, but with my audacity. That is something I don't know how to change, I speak my mind. Should I not speak my mind?
 * It did take me longer than it should to change that post, I agree. If you would like to ban me for that, I believe that would be in order and supported by consensus. In addition, I still left the post in a state where I am criticizing my mentor, which is not my place. But, I do not believe in dishonesty, even when the expression of my ideas may harm me. Ideas and views should be proportionally and honestly expressed. No editor is perfect nor should any editor be above reproach. Criticism is how things improve. Stagnation is death to online communities, and to many individuals. Though I understand I come across as abrupt often I am also very patient (despite my impression). I am OK with incremental changes, 2 steps forward 3 steps back. I just want people to know that the average when taken in sum will always be forward (across a large enough time frame). We may not know what the near future holds, I could die tomorrow, I would rather be honest today.
 * To be clear I am extremely grateful to my mentors, their guidance has been honestly expressed and done without malice. I am a very difficult student, I understand that, if they are successful in their mission they are in my opinion more than worthy of being admin. if they can handle me they can handle just about anyone. But I will logically criticize those who criticize me, if you can't handle it then you should get out of kitchen as the saying goes. Something about glass houses and those without sin. The vast majority of the peers I encounter want to help the encyclopedia, without fair criticism those same peers will end up in a AN/I and banned over enough time. Criticism is an important part of the consensus possess, even if I was personally out of place and should be punished for my sins.
 * Based on the loyalty that others have shone they have for you I would accept your judgement without personal criticism. I would like that you also consult with Hijiri88 on this as they are the injured party, I would also accept any position they currently take, an eye for an eye and all that. They may take up to one pound of flesh. Though I would prefer not to die for my comments, I would accept that fate should the injured party so choose. Though that might be because I have a pretty high confidence that they won't go the pound of flesh route. I do also like life quite a bit and my sub-conscious may take over at that point and defend myself, but I would cooperate to the best of my ability. I know no-one is asking for that amount of cooperation but that is how far I would go to make things right. I might not take back my feelings (my first wording was harsher than I truly feel), but I would go though hell to make things equal.
 * I believe in this project and if you feel the project is better off without me than so be it. I am not a one-man army here to change the way things are done, I do however want the participate in consensus, hence my questioning and challenging behavior. I feel like my mind does work differently than most peers', and as such my particular POV is often not seen. It is not necessary for the project though, eventually another like me will add their POV (like mine) as some tiny footnote in history.
 * Wow, this has gotten really long. I'm sorry, there is just a lot of data to convey. The TL;DR at the top does summarize it pretty well though. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything Bishonen said above is good advice. Listen.   --David Tornheim (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * David, you should have given the same advice when I asked you to yesterday. What you did was post a string of attacks on my talk page, which almost certainly made the problem worse. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I visited this page to see how the subpage issue I mentioned above is going. The section is but that link will not work until the collapsed box under  is expanded. As a side note, wishing blocked users could post here is inappropriate as it tells the community that core procedures involving disruptive users are invalid. The issue I raised (about a draft in article space) is trivial, but the fact that even after the discussion, Endercase could still not comprehend what WP:Subpages says (diff mentions "Allowed uses" #8, but that allows subpages under talk ). The advice I gave (to copy the content to talk) was valid since no one else had edited it at the time. I don't care about the subpage, but I am concerned about the lack of understanding and the desire to look for snippets that might permit the page (see "please try to read policies for their spirit" from Bishonen above). However, one issue about leaving the subpage is that now that another editor has joined in, the future of the page becomes problematic. A solution would be to move it to User:Endercase/sandbox where anyone can continue editing (lowercase "s" is correct). The beauty of that is that in the future the sandbox can be reused for unrelated purposes and no clean up would be needed. An inferior solution would be to move the page to Talk:Argument from authority/Temp where it could languish when unwanted. Using "Temp" as the name would be better as the page might be used for other temporary purposes in the future (or use "Draft"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already given you full permission to move the article, If you think it is a problem then move it. That is my understanding of consensus. My reading of the rules only strongly suggests that is should be moved, primarily, it states, to avoid a permanent residence. The article(temporary sub-page) will be moved whenever someone moves it. There will be no opposition to the move. I have already asked for consensus for a move on the talk page, I will move it after that discussion (and more reading about the process). There is no real problem with the page, unless you think there is, I have read very little about harms to the encyclopedia in such a case. You are the only editor that has expressed strong opinions about the move, as such I invite you, once again, to move it. Endercase (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, the issue is not so much the page. The difficulty is that you have again avoided an opportunity to acknowledge what the guidelines say about subpages. More than that, the "My reading of the rules only strongly suggests" comment dodges and weaves around the fact that the guideline is crystal clear—no subpages in article space. Fixing the page later is fine by me, but why the wikilawyering? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not debate policy, I thought that was how consensus works. Endercase (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it up to your mentors to explain where proposals to change policy or guideline pages should be debated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy suggests that(the proper location for debate) is everywhere(talk pages) where someone disagrees. In addition, you came here pointing out my mistakes. Errors you had already pointed out. Then when I ask if there is really a problem with the page you back down, and say there is no real problem. Meaning your entire intent here is to try to make me look bad("wikilawyer"), you do not care about the page what-so ever or even about improving my behavior. This does appear to be NOTHERE(civil, hound, that sort of thing), much like you are accusing me of(wikilawyering for the sake of self interest). Something about a pot and a kettle is in order I think. Please don't notify me or my mentors about that page again, either fix it yourself or let it go. Endercase (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Endercase, are we seriously still talking about this? Seriously? Everyone has been telling you to drop it. Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages. Now. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is terribly ironic as I was just telling them the same thing. I need to write out wp:stick by hand a few hundred times. See y'all when I'm done, after I sleep and stuff. Endercase (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Endercase, in your long reply, you project a conviction that it's necessarily a virtue to 'speak your mind' and be frank at all times. No, it isn't. I see you constructing a theory that it's a good thing to tell people how they "come across" (to you), otherwise they're not going to improve and will end up at AN/I. But I think it's a flawed theory. "Honesty" is overrated when it comes to telling people what you think of them. I'm not asking you to be dishonest, but there's nothing dishonest about keeping your mouth shut at the right times. Speech is for communication, it's not for expressing your feelings and never mind the cost or the result or the impression it makes on the other person. Telling people they're a dick and so on doesn't communicate or help anybody to improve, it only offends. I understand you find the Wikipedia culture in this regard overly reserved ("I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings"), and you want to improve that culture. You don't want to adjust to it. Now I agree with what Hijiri says just above: "Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages," and I would add, stop trying to change the culture, be more open to adjusting to it. The typical somewhat cautious Wikipedia discourse, codified in policies like WP:CIV, is unlikely to change because one person behaves in the opposite way and is devastatingly frank at all times, under the banner of "Should I not speak my mind?" Please instead follow my simple advice above and don't comment on other people at all — go edit articles. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

°°^°°
Thank you @Endercase!😀😀😃😄

Still finding my way around and the tips were helpful. Thank you. BulbAtop (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, what the heck is °°^°°? I've seen it before. Is it like your personal symbol? Various searches don't show a thing, which is a little odd. I mean no hits? 0. Don't see that very often anymore. Endercase (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, it is indeed a personal symbol. It is used as a header for the appreciation. 😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So it is like your version of a barnstar?? What if I "steal"/copy/meme it? °°^°° Endercase (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While we are on about it, what is with all the emogjie[sic] here?? Are you really on mobile? Or is that like a custom OS with a touch keyboard or something?? Endercase (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW you RESEARCHED IT?? BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well yeah °°^°°, then I made a weird video where my mind was blown, never really thought about how much search engines leave out of the internet. I mean this even breaks Wikipedia's Search engine. None of the comments even show up. I guess it must be rare. How do you know when someone has used it? °°^°° You say on your page that you can use that like a ping. But it breaks the search engines... do you have a custom internet search? Like what the actually heck? And also I only mentioned coffee one on Wikipedia (I think: other than some IP edits I made when I first got here, maybe), did you read all of my messages? Like if I use this anywhere would you get a ping?? Like a custom social media all in one search? Is that even real? Anyway, I need sleep, still human. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. Do what you want with it...I don't mind! Just promise me a review, okay? Aaaand yes, I'm 101% mobile, hence the emojies (sick) [sic]. Maybe the °°^°° is, like, extraterrestrial, who knows? Looks cool to me. But I never would havc known that your research could have so much results though. What video? What's it about? Anyways, just feel free to use my sign, okay? And BTW do you know any programming? 😥
 * And I pity you for being human. BulbAtop (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, automatically switched to turning test mode. You are human. Or at least you have limited resources. Sorry. Be back later. Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about that. BulbAtop (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are responding about being human. Well, sure, we could be in a simulation. Everything could be fake, but even if it is, we are still human. Human is whatever other human's identify it as, I have identified you as most probably human. Anyway, I've asked my question about how you knew about the coffee. You may email or use other communications if you wish. Endercase (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant BOTH being human and having limited resources. But what what other communications do you refer? BulbAtop (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, I would understand if you feel like you can't talk freely here. I don't feel that way myself but, I would understand if you did. Endercase (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I DO feel that way. Wouldn't be long before we're being interminably banned, don't you think? BulbAtop (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC
 * As long as we are genuinely trying to help them I don't think they will permaban us. Though they may attempt to teach us a few manners. For instance you do not follow the typical reply format. This might anger some of them. Endercase (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. Just what are these "reply formats"? I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so I just had to ask. {endercase@gmail.com} sounds good enough?😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * like this, looks better in desktop mode.Endercase (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay.....but you didn't answer the question though. BulbAtop (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by that. That is my email. Endercase (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay then good enough.😃 I'll email you. BulbAtop (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

...Guessing I got lost in junk mail lol? BlbAtp (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it got lost in the interwebs. I have received a few emails that mention Wikipedia but I have responded to all of them. I guess yours was not among them. I searched my junk-mail and it was not their either (unless it had no markings of your current account). I sent you a ping, well see if you get that. Endercase (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Interwebs? BlbAtp (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO: The so called "internet" isn't uniform nor is it "lagfree", interwebs is therfore more accurate. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh snap...
 * I actually never thought about that. I'm so stupid.😞😞
 * But wow, we really need to talk more. BlbAtp (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if trolling... AGF-> Stupidity has nothing to do with it IMO, our culture has adopted a uniform sounding word for a very patchwork technology. This is likely a psyop (marketing), to give the appearance of stability. I used a weird word, you questioned it. Questioning thing isn't stupid IMO. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But don't you think it would be different, seeing that we're from two separate cultures? Just asking. BlbAtp (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Guess that depends on how you define culture. We really should switch to email. I don't want to banned for this (some editors would love to try). Endercase (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But just lemme sort a few things out first, good? BlbAtp (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I just read through this section, and I want to say a few things (in order in which the things they are in response to appear):
 * Check out Deep web.
 * I am a programmer, if anyone has questions or needs help. I also enjoy programming, so feel free to ask for favors (small favors, mind. Don't ask me to create a new OS for you.)
 * Check out Holographic principle. Yes, the in-depth physics are just as the layman's explanation presents them. For that matter, check out Many worlds hypothesis and remember how you used to wish your favorite works of fiction were real when you were a kid...
 * If anyone proposes a block against one or two users for having a good faith discussion on one of those user's talk page, I will be the first to excoriate them for their inability to mind their own fucking business. You guys are free to use email, but it kind of breaks my heart to think there are editors afraid to discuss anything having to do with WP on WP, unless doing so would cause a disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know a bit about the dark and deep webs, some of it is very cool (such as P2P sites and chats) and some of it is much less cool. But I never realized there were small pieces of code that literally broke search engines, I thought you had to try a bit to not be indexed.
 * Be careful about the whole offering minor programming favors, next thing you know I'll be asking you to help analyze reams of weather data to determine why global warming projections appear to drastically decrease biomass growth. Or something even worse.
 * troll face* What about dielectricity though? (see Eric Dollard, try to suspend disbelief for a bit XD). Also functionality trumps exactness, if something is functionally real it is effectively real (until it is nolonger functionally real).
 * BulpAtop was warned about wp:social a little while ago by the recent RfA subject, not to mention my run-ins with my AN/I submitter. I have received a few emails from 3rd party WikiDenisons warning me to keep my head down, saying I've upset a few vengeful members, and that the emailer would like me to stick around. Endercase (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Programmatically analyzing weather data is actually something I offered to do, recently. (Tidal data, to be specific). But yeah, you ask me to write 6000 lines of Fortran and I'll agree, then send you a malware that replaces every file with randomly culled beastiality/scat porn and re-associates file extensions and icons to make sure you don't notice until it's too late. Because I'm an evil lil shit sometimes.
 * If someone emailed you to let you know that you've pissed some people off, then honestly my response would be "Thank you, captain obvious!" and to christen you as a real Wikipedian because we've all pissed people off. Anyone who actively sets out to get you is more likely to discover the aerodynamic properties of fibrous cellulose projectiles. That being said, if someone were socializing to the exclusion of actually editing, a vengeful party might be able to get the admins to give them a stern warning.
 * I've actually heard of Dollard before (I spent a lot of time arguing with cranks back in the day) and I think I've actually called him a shit-for-brains in a mailgroup at some point (to his cyber-face, that is). Or maybe it was a forum somewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dollard is crank in some respects but some of his books make mathematical sense and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods. But it is difficult sometimes to separate the BS from the actual science. Mostly just don't listen to his views on evolution at all (maybe he is a troll?). Right now, I think there may be some worth in his books anyway.
 * It is mildly difficult to find someone that knows Fortran these days. A lot of models use it though. Endercase (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods From what I've read, I'd have to disagree (admittedly, he's not my favorite crank so I haven't read all that much), and I suspect any decent physicist would, too. His writings might be much easier to conceptualize, but that doesn't mean they hold up to any scrutiny.
 * I know a few people who know Fortran. I'm not one of them, to be fair. I've use it a little bit, but I'd need a reference work to do anything useful with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know Fortran! Good old "Do" loops. Some of the worst variable names ever! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree
I wrote this before noticing your comment immediately above "I don't think the question is if it is Canvassing or not. I think it should be "Was it inappropriate canvassing?" ". Of course, I agree.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I am allowed to express my opinions on this (or any) policy any longer. My views and expressions are, I've been told, disruptive. I have been topic banned (apparently) from talking about a large aspect of canvassing policy. Endercase (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with your other views, but I think you are spot on with this observation.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you. You may may want to review my comments Village pump (policy) that I made prior to the administrative action. Endercase (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in...
Seeing this: Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere/Archive

I'm posting here for two reasons: first, I feel you may feel vindicated as you were predicting socking while everyone else was ignoring it, and I was disagreeing with you. Second, it's a great example of the disruption socking can cause. An article was subject to a counterfactual POV shift for a year, editors were chased away from the project and projects like our formal mediation were subject to gaming and disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What was the evidence that caused you to request a checkuser? They should have engaged in discussion, this would have been avoided. That POV was nothing more than a troll stance IMO. I have significant difficulty believing they believed their own arguments. I think they were testing the limits of Wikipedia's society. I also do not believe that is all of their accounts. Their disagreement with the fundamental methods by which Wikipedia determines the reliability of knowledge and their camping at what I consider a key page suggest that all of those accounts are masked. None of the accounts I see at the check user have anywhere enough edits given how quickly they respond to changes, the puppet master behind those account is not done IMO. This, I think, is a game for them. They may try to "get you back" if they are that sort, be careful. Endercase (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Be careful about those spaces as the first char of a line. It messes up your formatting.
 * It was a number of things, mostly between FL or Atlanta and Shroom. Shroom's way of talking was so stiffly formal, yet it fell away when they got flustered. Shroom also tried the exact same tactic FL had tried before (asking at RSN whether scientists were RSes for claims about logical fallacies, while obfuscating the fact that philosopher disagreed). There was also your suspicion: given your attitude towards socking, I felt like suspicion on your part was something to take seriously. So I did the scatter chart which I linked at the SPI, but only showing FL and Shroom. I noticed there was no overlap: they were never editing at the same time. So when Perf showed up after the block and jumped right back in, but FL didn't, I realized that there were only ever two of them active at the same time, so I threw the others in the chart. I didn't really expect the result I got (I thought Perf and Logician might be the same, and I thought FL and Shroom might be the same, but I didn't expect them all the be the same person). And while I'm confident the CU got all of the current accounts, I would not be the least bit surprised if they immediately made more accounts, and have a sock or two already active again. But as long as they don't disrupt the article again, I don't really care. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am having some issues with the editor (keeps putting my cursor at the beginning when I hit shift+most other keys). I filed a bug report, it is a known issue in chrome. I might switch to notepad++. I understand that feeling but the significant lack in edit count given their knowledge of policy and other behavior suggest that these accounts are not all of them. I mean just look at their noticeboard activity, very non-standard for a "new" user. All together they have far less edits than I do. Endercase (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What browser are you using? I skipped over the Chrome part... Try Firefox for a while. It's what I use, and I have very very few complaints. Supposedly, Edge is even a pretty decent browser.
 * Regarding the socks, actually, they've displayed a very trivial (if expansive) knowledge of policy: they don't really understand most of it (I can show you one example of the sock really screwing up a thoroughly-documented, not-difficult-to-understand process). Look at Shrooms report of me at ANI for an example of them completely misconstruing how the community tends to respond to such things for another example. Yeah, they know their alphabet soup of policy pages, but they didn't really understand any of them. Hell, they were ideologically opposed to our most fundamental policy, lol. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of Tahir Yahya
I have removed the tag from Tahir Yahya, which you proposed for deletion. I added a source. The subject's definitely notable and sources exist; the article needs work. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna
I have removed the tag from Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! – Elisson • T • C • 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion (since you are active) you should add sources as well as merge with the tagged article, or move it back to your userspace until you have time to work on it. I have also left multiple tags. Endercase (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, it is in no way reasonable to move an article that has existed in mainspace for 12 years to userspace just because it lacks references. Especially an article that exists in 7 languages, with text that has not been challenged for 12 years, and contains facts that are easily verifiable with a Google search.
 * If I didn't have to contest improper PRODs with the little time I spend on Wikipedia these days, I could perhaps have had time to actually source the article. I also don't like being told how to spend my time here. Please don't waste my, or others, time with PRODs on articles that are clearly not material for PROD. – Elisson • T • C • 19:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)There is no such thing as an "improper prod", except in cases where an article has been previously prodded. 2)The article as it currently stands is unencyclopedic (no sources), that in and of itself is grounds for deletion. 3)The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled. I can do that for you if you don't know how.  Endercase (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not waste my time with this nonsense. I suggest you do something productive rather than something destructive, like this mess. – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that any claims within this article may be challenged, and removed, and may not be restored without a citation, per WP:CHALLENGE. As a deletionist, I am putting this article on my list of things to do.  Unsourced claims will be removed, and it will be incumbent on the editor who restores that material to provide a source.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually no that's definitely not standard practice. In fact since the Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna article seems to have had quite a few editors and has a long enough history that probably at least some of them are entitled to copyright, it would be quite inappropriate to delete the article and make a copy in user space. Instead if it's to be WP:Userfied, the article should be moved to user space with the redirect from main space deleted. Nominally it's also possible to delete the original article but preserve the lists of editors, but that is almost never done as there's almost never a good reason. See also Copying within Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all I'm a bit confused about how you got here; in this conversation that is. I trust I don't need to ask for a checkuser. Second of all I'm well aware of necessary and policy based attribution requirements. The recent modifications to the article have helped quite a bit. It does not matter how many "authors" an old, uncited and unencyclopedic article has; if it is outside the guidelines the article gets deleted. If someone wants to fix it they can ask an user with the necessary tools to help userfy it after  deletion or petition to bring back into standards without a deletion during discussion. That is standard practice. If you would like to disagree with me, I suggest that you spend some more time in AfD; if you want to know standard practice for articles that do not meet minimum requirements anyway. It is worth noting that nothing actually gets deleted, that is a misnomer, hidden would be a more correct term.  Additionally, the user with IMO wp: own problems recently IMO violated wp:civil in their edit summary at the article in question. Calling user  a distasteful name and apparently failing to assume good faith or practice proper communication protocol. Of course what to do about that, if anything, is ScrapIronIV's choice. Though I was thinking about leaving a warning. As far as the article goes I won't personally pursue the deletion of anything that several users are actively working on as is now the case with this article. That is one reason why I prefer PROD deletion as it is far easier to stop by any active editors. However,  that article was and still is not in state where anyone could honestly claim it was encyclopedic IMO.  We are all just working to make Wikipedia as more useful and respected place.  Endercase (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)\
 * note some comments were removed to prevent a pointless argument* I think we are on the same page you may have misunderstood my message. The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard. If you would like to talk about a comment I left on an IP editor's talk page we may of course do so. Endercase (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Individual challenges need to be addressed individually, not have a single reference applied to the entire article. As for my user name, it has a very specific historical significance. What is distasteful about it?  Even if you find it distasteful, what does that have to do with my contributions here? Regardless, I have removed the unsourced content from the article, and will continue to do so until appropriate inline citations have been provided.  Scr ★ pIron IV 01:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood your comment as it was worded. You specifically said "The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled". There's no way that this can be understood to meaning anything other than delete the article than make copy on user space. Moving an article from article space to user space is not 'open a copy'. It is moving. It doesn't matter whether it was deleted and undeleted or moved straight away it's still moving it. As I said time and time again, it is the way userfication is carried out. Not via "copy"ing to user space. If you meant to say moving, please take greater care with how you word your comments in the future. Please remember while there's nothing wrong with having imperfect English, you need to make sure your comments are not so poorly phrased so as to seriously mislead other editors. Since you were advising another editor, such a comment could have easily done so (were it not for the fact I think the editor you were advising probably understands userfication better than you). As for the IP, if you want to reply to my comment, you're welcome to do so, probably on the IP's talk page. I don't really care. I'm much more concerned that you understand how userficiation is carried out and you understand the importance of clarity when advising other editors. In particular, that you do not advice other editors to do something that is completely unacceptable whatever the reason you worded your comment in that way, Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you mean by "The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard". If you think it is acceptable to simple mention other editors in the edit summary when created a copy then please I beg you again to either read what I've said or read the links I provided or ask for help from someone else. It is not a proper way to carry out userficiation. As I've always said, this should nearly always be carried out by moving. Almost never by copying, regardless of what you say in the edit summary. The entire edit history should be preserved as far as possible. The only cases where you use the edit summary is to refer to another article you've copied the content from which is still extant. Ideally you should also add the appropriate tags to the talk page to ensure that the article you copied from can be found and is not deleted. If the article you copied the content from is deleted, and I mean actually deleted with the edit history lost not turned into a redirect which is sometimes loosely referred to as being deleted, but isn't; then there is a problem that needs to be fixed ASAP. This would nearly always be by undeleting the article, rather than by copy the editor contributor list somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the vast majority of what you say above. However, per the terms of licensing agreement listing the names of the previous editors in the edit summary or even arguably the talk page is "acceptable" even if it is a very poor practice. I agree that standard procedure needs to change as you have eloquently pointed out maintaining the true edit history is preferred by several orders of magnitude. In order to help insure that happens though several policies need to be changed and current deletion policy needs to be reviewed. Endercase (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Protocol Labs
A tag has been placed on [[:Protocol Labs, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the  criteria for speedy deletion , by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are: *  It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See  section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion .) Please read  the guidelines on spam  and  [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Business ]] for more information. * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company,   etc.  ), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See  section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion .) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please  see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable . If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may   contest the nomination   by  visiting the page  and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with  Wikipedia's policies and guidelines . If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the  , or if you have already done so, you can place a request  [[wikipedia:RFUD| [[WP:RFUD|here ]].    ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia    ᐐT₳LKᐬ   13:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The entire text is "Protocol Labs is the creator of the InterPlanetary File System, and Filecoin." How is that advertising? It is covered by Techcrunch and Forbes and is thereby noteable. Endercase (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just became a new page reviewer last night, so there is a sort of curation side-bar that I am starting to use. If I'm being totally honest I feel a lot of pressure not to screw up on the reviewing and I guess under that pressure I kind of did screw up! I'm not normally like this haha. Sorry for the drama, and if there is ever a Wiki-favor you need just let me know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No big deal. Well, we'll see how the AfD turns out. I don't oppose consensus. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Endercase (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ALMANAC (software model)


The article ALMANAC (software model) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no evidence of notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the Authority on notability so I'm sure you are right. However, you may want to consider the vast number of published whitepapers in reputable journals that have used this software and that talk about it. What is published in 'news" isn't the same as what is published in peer reviewed scientific journals as I'm sure you know. I do agree that the article needs improvement but I'm not sure deletion is the way to go. However, considering that you are far more of a regular than I am your judgement I do respect. I will not oppose your actions in this case. Endercase (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

List of organisms by chromosome count
I reverted your change, where you said ''People with "genetic disorders" are human too. -- Changed "Humans have x" to "The vast majority of humans have x" following wp:cycl''. The list is a list of species, not of individuals. Homo Sapiens, as a species, has 46 chromosomes. This is like saying that "Zebras have stripes", which is correct for a species, and not invalidated by an example of an individual which doesn't. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 05:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this, a range would be more scientifically accurate. Endercase (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a description of a species. You can clutter up a description with all the possible defective variations to the point where the description is meaningless. E.g., "Zebras are striped, except when they're not." That's not useful for an encyclopedia. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 05:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it not useful for an encyclopedia to recognize that edge cases exist and that the "Truth" isn't the only way of looking at things? I changed an authoritative and incorrect statement: "Humans have 46 chromosomes." to a less authoritative but more correct statement "The vast majority of humans have 46 chromosomes." Calling those that exist outside the center of the distribution curve "defective" (because they don't fit your worldview?) is also a bit out there. Endercase (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you insist on changing "has 46 chromosomes" to add disclaimers, you'll have to add disclaimers to every reference to chromosome number for every species, everywhere. ALL species have defective reproductions where anomalies crop up. At that point, might as well delete the list, because the page will be buried in disclaimers. As for objecting to the term "defect", that's the term biologists use for reproduction errors (although I've also seen "sports").  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the disclaimer solution that you propose is not viable when applied to the entire system. Including the standard deviation and some information about the distribution could be a solution but would also be a large task. However, knowingly making categorically false statements particularly about humanity is not good for the encyclopedia IMO. Maybe just a disclaimer in the LEDE should be added? Endercase (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no standard deviation or distribution; other than gametes, human nuclei have 46 chromosomes - all other cases are reproductive errors. Please read Aneuploidy. Anything other than 46 in a human is abnormal, or to use the term you found sensitive, a defect. There are cases of monosomy or trisomy which are survivable, but these are generally not reproductively viable. See the table at the end of the Aneuploidy. At this point, I'm done on this discussion. If you still insist of pursuing this, you'll have to pursue one of the mediation strategies - WP:3O or something like that. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Endercase: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 17:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Endercase!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Endercase, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Multiple failed attempts to log into my account that were not me
I've been getting the occasional email about how there was a failed attempt to log into my account. Today received an email claiming there had been multiple attempts that have failed recently. This notification is just in case I do lose control of my account temporarily. I have taken the proper measures with my password, but you never really know. Please email me at endercase@gmail.com in case there is a problem. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately. Endercase (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

How you doing?
I haven't seen you popping up on my watchlist in a while. I've also looked through your contribs, and I have to say that I like what I see. So really, this is just me saying "Hi" and wishing you the best. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * {{yo|MjolnirPants]] Doing great, way less Wikipedia lots more IRL work. But, I pop in every once and a while. I wanted to thank you again, you and the others (along with wikipedia policy of course) really taught me a number of valuable lessons. Please let me know if I can help out anywhere in particular. It is great to see you here on the talk pages again. Been thinking about trying my luck writing an article about the chinese issue going on with the Uighurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minority. [A citation here], think it is good idea? ( there is some information Uyghurs but I think a separate article would be appropriate. Endercase (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you might have hit on something that needs expanded coverage, yeah. Best advice I could offer you on that is to start a draft, work on it till it gets to a readable state, then avoid the draft for a few weeks, come back, and see if it still looks good. Also, post a link here when you do. I might pop in and help out a bit.
 * And I'll certainly keep you in mind if I need an extra pair of eyes at anything. I know you'll bring some valuable insight. Take care. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Other editors at Talk:PragerU have given you good advice regarding the reliability of WorldNetDaily and Breitbart. You would be wise to follow it. As you know these sources have been discussed and rejected at RSN many times, and continuing to push for their inclusion is disruptive. As for Preston Business Review, a quick scan of their homepage reveals that the site is nothing more than a collection of stories copied from other sources and attributed to Caroline Biscotti. The story in question was in fact copied from WND. Did you examine the source before advocating for its reliability? I hope you consider this and stop the disruption before it becomes necessary to pursue sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The current open discussions at RSN in which both of us have expressed an opinion [1] [2] is extremely relevant to to final actions that should be taken on the PragerU article. Simply contributing to consensus and expressing an opinion you disagree with is not "disruptive", as you put it, but a fundamental part of what makes Wikipedia work. However, if you so wish you can of course start up a discussion in the admin noticeboard for review of my conduct. It is also worth noting that I have not "pushed for the inclusion" of any specific source particularly not Preston Business Review. Having already said that if it was to be used at all it would require additional citations for verification and that it is not generally a reliable source. I have simply disagreed with the method of removing it and the other "disagreeable" sources in question, specifically reverting an edit, that you admit, added at least one reliable source. As I have said in the PragerU talk page it would have been more appropriate to simply remove the "offending" sources separately, an action which I would have not even disagreed with and likely would have even done by myself. Endercase (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Request
Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of STORJ


The article STORJ has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: STORJ – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Balkywrest (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)