User talk:Pine457

Pine457, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Thanks for the invitation to the Teahouse, Pine457! Hope this is the correct place and way to reply. Brizzo82 (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
Hi : Please, read WP:MULTIACCOUNT. If you are using multiple accounts, note that while there are legitimate reasons to use multiple accounts, participating at !votes is not one of them. --MarioGom (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not. Who else do you think I am? -Pine457 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem highly knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy and procedure for a new editor. Just as an example, I screwed up on that canvassing rule today and I've been editing here for 15 years. Vashti (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the policies when someone links to them. I recommend more people do the same.  -Pine457 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a recommendation that you should take into consideration: keep a copy of this thread as a record of the suggestions and accusations of misbehavior made against you by these editors to use in the future in an ANI about each one's behavior on Wikipedia. Every, single evidence of a WP:PA violation submitted by any editor is a legitimate contribution to the ANI and is taken seriously. Also keep 1, 2, 3, 4. I promise you that the time will come when they will fuck up in their dealings with an editor who doesn't tolerate insinuations and/or accusations about illicit behavior. WP:NPA is crystal clear: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." is prohibited. I've been around long enough to see admins and "master editors" hauled to ANI and cut down for pushing an envelope too far. P.S. about single-issue editing and SPA tagging. Btw, add WP:CONSPIRACY to your WP bookmarks if you haven't already. Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  11:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC) "other than the extensively-canvassed AfD." Unless you have evidence that an editor has been canvassed, then all you've got is paranoia. Just because you think something doesn't make it so. Way too many Wikipedia editors have SM accounts that they use to interact with Wikipedia editors and readers. And many Wikipedia editors discuss Wikipedia in blogs and websites. But talking about a Wikipedia subject on Twitter, Facebook, a blog, a forum, or any website whatever, does not automatically translate into "go to Wikipedia discussion XYZ and tip the scale". Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  13:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Accusations are based on this entity's existence, not any specific activity (e.g. multiple single purpose accounts).". Pyxis, I was genuine in what I said further down. I genuinely want to be able to work with editors not on my side of the debate to make the pages we all work on the best they can be, and I've been trying to do that since before the AfD closed. If you have an accusation, I think you should go to WP:AN/I and make it. Vashti (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pyxis, what would you have done if a new editor, thoroughly schooled in Wikilawyering, showed up at the AfD and argued solidly for a month against you, with no apparent interests other than the extensively-canvassed AfD? Is it your position that we shouldn't be concerned about this? Vashti (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, I edited Wikipedia anonymously for two years before creating an account. I knew all about policies, AfDs, and ANIs before my name appeared in a revision history. In the over ten years since "new" Pyxis Solitary first took credit for an edit, I've learned that those who suspect editors of canvassing are usually canvassers themselves; and those who suspect editors of having multiple User names often have more than one User name themselves. What I've done when an editor has made allegations of misconduct against me, or harassed me, is: I take it to WP:AN/I. Admins have tools that ferret out problem editors.
 * This seems an odd response from someone who like three messages up accused me and MarioGom of fabricating accusations and personal attacks. I'm not here to make war on you. I want to work with you. Vashti (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm here, I'll explain what I think in a moment. -Pine457 (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This tagging of me was the only potentially appropriate action. It is sufficient to draw the closing administrator's attention. That should have been the extent of your interaction with me on this matter. MarioGom and Vashti, I suggest you read Single-purpose account in its entirety. Especially this:
 * If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single-purpose account:
 * Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time.
 * If they are participating in an Articles for deletion discussion, then consider adding a Afd-welcome message to their talk page.
 * Only tag users as SPAs if they actually fit the tagging guidelines, above, even if the tagging guidelines are followed, only use the tag if it actually serves a constructive purpose in the context that it is being used.

You are not inquisitors here. It is not your place to ask me to explain my participation. You should read WP:BITE as well. You are likely to discourage newer people from editing with this kind of behavior. Vashti, I think you felt you discovered something that justified bossing me around. You had no business telling me what I'm allowed to discuss, and I think you did that because you convinced yourself I was a bad actor. You might have avoided that if you hadn't taken it upon yourself to act as inquisitor. It was also inappropriate to call out SilverStar6583. Her or his account was created before the AFD, and so could not be disregarded under WP:DGFA. That call out served no legitimate purpose, and could have a chilling effect on future participation. Let's hope it doesn't. -Pine457 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are certainly things I said during the AfD discussion that I regret and wish I hadn't said. But to be honest, Pine, I've felt bitten by you more often than I've felt that I was biting. You've read WP:SPA, so you know that single-purpose accounts are "expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy."


 * That was the second conversation that day, I believe, that I'd had with you, that turned into you explaining anti-trans ideology to me at some length. It's not appropriate, it's not in concord with WP:ADVOCACY, and it's not okay for a single-purpose account. Vashti (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One, it's not anti-trans. I believe that adults should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, and that people should not be required to conform to sex stereotypes to be afforded the same legal protections as those who do conform.
 * Two, in both cases I was responding to someone else's claims, in project space. I am allowed to do that.  You are not entitled to decide that I should not respond to claims that other people put forward.
 * It seems that you think you and people who agree with you are allowed to make claims about reality, which I am not allowed to respond to. Wikipedia's policies do not back you up on this.  I do not have to pretend to be neutral when discussing things in project space, and neither do you (and you clearly are not, and there's nothing wrong with that).  You have seriously misunderstood the policies, if you think that this gives you the right to continue telling me what I'm allowed to discuss, as you are doing now.  If you think I am doing something wrong, it is time for you to take the matter to the administrators.  Do not boss me around again.  -Pine457 (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Vashti, I'd like to to point you to WP:POVEDITOR which should clear up your misconceptions. I'd also like to ask you to link to anything that I've said that you think justifies this claim: But to be honest, Pine, I've felt bitten by you more often than I've felt that I was biting.  I think it's a false accusation so I'd like you to back it up.  -Pine457 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notice
 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is on my page. What have I done wrong?  -Pine457 (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As it says, it does not imply you have done anything wrong. Rather, it is a courtesy notification that you are editing in an area with discretionary sanctions. I figured you should be alerted since you dove right into this topic and, like all of Wikipedia's Byzantine and bureaucratic rules, it is not something anyone would assume an editor "should" know.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. It looks intimidating and will surely drive people away from Wikipedia, but I see you didn't write it yourself.  -Pine457 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice: take a hint from the above Multiple accounts thread and, just in case, prepare to defend yourself. Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  13:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC) --> Guidance for editors: The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion. --> Alerts: Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently Ds/alert – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. An alert:
 * FYI: every time an editor involves him or herself in a gender-related topic discussion, and another editor disagrees with that editor's point of view or doesn't like what that editor is presenting in the discussion, the ds/alert will usually be posted in the first editor's talk page. Besides the explanation that it's just to "inform" you about the ArbCom decision on gender-related topics, take it as a warning sign that someone may complain about you at ANI.
 * I thought I'd also throw this in here for good measure: WP:AC/DS


 * is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault,
 * cannot be rescinded or appealed, and
 * automatically expires twelve months after issue.
 * In a nutshell, d/s sanctions are reserved for editors who "severely or persistently" disrupt a discussion, and the use of d/s alerts are not intended to be misused by editors (if they do, they can be blocked or banned from adding them). Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  09:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Email
You do not have your email options activated and cannot be contacted privately. I think you should be aware of a development. Send me an email through Email this user in my Tools area and I will respond to it with the info. Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice
An issue we have at many talk pages on controversial subjects is that passionate editors get more interested in debating the topic rather than ways to improve the article. This is basically why we have WP:NOT FORUM. This is bad because it obscures the discussion that matters and tends to turn off other editors from joining in. I know you don't start the FORUM discussions, but I feel it would be in your best interest to refrain from taking the bait in these situations. All it ends up doing is escalating tensions and it will ultimately end badly for everyone. It doesn't mean you have to ignore them completely, just make sure any reply you make relates back to improving the encyclopaedia. Anyway, just my two cents as you are a new editor and have decided to start editing in one of the most difficult areas here. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)