User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive January 2018

Dennis Toeppen
Suggest you read arrest section of BLP. Toeppen article violates BLP in its current state. 218.30.160.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

New section
According to IMDB, this person is famous. Jason Rich Smith


 * If you disagree with an Afd nomination, you can comment on the Afd discussion, but you may not remove the Afd tag until the discussion is closed. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to do that.I don't know how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightBite (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the Afd discussion, where you can comment on why you think the article should stay, feel free to ask if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a sock. Doug Weller  talk 15:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Replying to previous talk.
Thank you, I have cited my reliable source on the 'Bohemian Rhapsody' page, as you instructed.Check if you wish. SPARAFUCILE7 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
You were notifed of the discretionary sanctions concerning pseudoscience back in May in this diff. Please do keep them in mind when you edit about vaccines. Thx Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning
Hi Tornado chaser, after looking at some of your recent edits to vaccine pages, I was considering placing you under 0RR because you appear to be reverting and not discussing controversial changes on the talk page, and your edits do not in my view adhere to NPOV as defined under the Pseudoscience case. Since you don't appear to have been sanctioned before, however, I've decided just to make Jytdog's warning above a bit more official, and remind you to discuss controversial changes on the talk page and to adhere to a neutral point of view. I've recorded this warning at the AE log. You generally do good work on Wikipedia, but this is a contentious area, and caution is advised when making any potentially controversial changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I always try to edit neutrally and avoid edit wars, so this message surprises me, but thanks for pointing this out if you think there is an issue. Where to you think I am reverting without discussing? I belive this is the closest I have been to an edit war on a vaccine-related article, And I was not planning any more reverts without a consensus. I have just been in 2 content disputes about vaccines, this one where consensus seems to be developing in my favor, and this one where we seem to be reaching a compromise, these were ok right?. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * . Tornado chaser (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the Sears one you were engaged in reverts over a multi-day period to the point where in my opinion, you were part of a slow-burning edit war on the content. It is important to remember that On National Vaccine Information Center, you reintroduced challenged material: in contentious topic areas, it is always better to discuss before restoring content, and this has a policy basis at WP:ONUS. Also from looking at the edit history there and on other pages, you use confusing edit summaries which tell absolutely nothing about what you are doing to a third-party, and that can be about contentious material:, , , .Finally, on the NPOV point, I would like to emphasize the Committee's principle in the pseudoscience case in regards to NPOV and science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. I'm not a part of any of these disputes, but I can see why people might think you are not adhering to NPOV, and that your changes combined with the edit summaries might come off as a bit deceptive. I don't think this is your intent, which is why I just gave a warning, and I think you want to engage in the process of developing the articles. My warning is just a reminder that in contentious areas, the talk page is usually preferable to continued bold edits, and that pointing out the committee's findings re: NPOV and science might be helpful. It's a logged warning, yes, but if you are just more careful with your edit summaries and talk more, and be a bit less bold, you shouldn't have any issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, you are absolutely right about my intent, the "Good Idea" edit summary was intended as a response to a comment on the talk page but was confusing, "better wording" is an edit summary I often use when I am changing the wording but not the content, I didn't think this was confusing or deceptive but I will try to use more specific edit summaries in the future, but I am not sure what is misleading about "flows better".
 * About the NVIC page, I thought WP:BRD was the standard, but now I will follow WP:ONUS, and on Sears I didn't realize it, but I just looked at the history and it looks like I may be at 6RR, so good catch! Tornado chaser (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: the edit summaries, if something has the potential to be contentious, just add more details. I want to get the idea behind what someone is doing so it is obvious when I see the diff. Some of those changes at first glance appear to change the meaning or remove content, which is why a bit more explanation could be helpful. Re: Sears, 3RR refers to a 24 hour period, but edit wars can take place over multiple days. 3RR is also a bright line and not a right, especially in contentious topic areas. At Sears, what I see is you making good faith reverts over similar or challenged content over a multi-day period without discussing that. It isn't a 3RR vio, but it is edit warring behavior, especially in a contentious topic area when no talk page has been used. Just keep in mind that in areas covered by discretionary sanctions, the talk page is always the best place to go rather than continuing to be bold. Like I said, you're clearly here to build the encyclopedia, just be more careful in this area . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, last question, I get your concerns about edit warring and edit summaries, but you also mentioned WP:PSCI, where do you feel I have given too much legitimacy to pseudoscience? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to answer this without wading into the content dispute, as I've acted here in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and I don't want to influence the outcome of any potential talk discussion. Some of the concerns at Sears were over this edit. The scientific consensus (and sourcing), identify the views as dangerous, which is substantially different than not supported by scientific evidence. If the sourcing identifies something as dangerous, it is arguably giving undue weight to Sear's position not to classify it as such: even if you note that it isn't evidence based. This is of course, without suggesting an outcome any potential talk page conversation might have, but it is important to remember that NPOV does not always mean toned down language, sometimes it means calling a spade a spade, and this is especially true when science is involved. I hope that makes sense, and like I said, it is not meant to prejudice any potential change in wording based on talk page conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note
about this comment where you mentioned accusations of disruptive editing and suggestions that I be banned for a talk page discussion. What I wrote was: and
 * diff If there are not independent refs that say this, it is a very good sign that we should not be saying it, per WP:UNDUE. Continually trying to give UNDUE weight to FRINGE views is something that we TBAN people for, under the DS. You will do as you see fit going forward of course.
 * this In general, the community considers persistent advocacy for UNDUE content to be disruptive. This is actually the main kind of disruption that we get on pseudoscience topics - people who just will not relent doing things like citing primary sources to elevate some fringey perspective, even when everyone else is saying "umm no".

What I wrote was accurate.

I did not say that you are being disruptive and I did not say that you should be TBANed -- if I thought you were being disruptive already and should be TBANed already I would have actually filed at AE already.

I did make it clear that in my view you are heading in that direction. As I also said there, you will do as you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw this as a passive-aggressive "you are being borderline disruptive and if you continue to disagree with me you may be banned" I am not shure how else to interpret this, adn was going to ask for clarification. I do know that good faith content disputes are not disruptive editing and therefore are not reasons for a ban, in my comment I was also referring to other editors who implied that I am an antivaxxer. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it how you will. There was nothing passive or aggressive about what I wrote -- I was however being very clear - giving you a big "HEY MAN"  that you were (are?) heading toward an AE enforcement action.
 * If you do not understand that civil POV pushing a FRINGE view will indeed get someone topic banned, I suggest you spend some time reviewing AE filings. It will.  My goal in saying it was to give you fair warning; my purpose in writing here was to clarify since you misundertood the warning. I have responded a last time here to further clarify.  I will not reply further, since my goal was to give you a fair  heads  up, not to make drama. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to create drama, but I am confused, I was given a warning to discuss changes to DS areas on the talk page, which I did, but was told this was "civil POV pushing" now if I edit warred or persistently argued against consensus, that would be disruptive, but I cannot be banned simply for being the party in a content dispute who did not get consensus, can I? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on how far you take it. I have no idea how far you will take it. Which is why it was a heads up and not an action in itself. I was  "hey -- LOOK.  There is the cliff edge which you are heading directly towards".
 * There are DS on this topic for a reason- namely lots of people come and push and push and push and push, some in a civil way, some in a not so civil way. People come and they will  not drop the stick, so we have DS to save everybody time and effort.
 * I have seen many people be warned, blow the warnings off with labels like "passive aggressive", and keep right on, and go right over, and get indeffed or TBANed.
 * Again, you will decide how far you will go. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So you mean so far my editing has been ok, but are warning me not to argue endlessly against consensus? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been OKish but alarming to the extent that you have a string of people warning you, including the involved discussion with TonyBallioni just above. You have established your direction of travel toward the cliff  edge on this topic.  Your editing has been pretty decent elsewhere. This is why we have topic bans. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony warned me to "use talk pages more", I did, and you dolt me I am on the way to a topic ban, this is why I am confused. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep he was correct. And I am too - there comes a point when pursuing a FRINGE point too hard, even in the most civil way possible, is disruptive.  As I already have said.  And which I am not saying further.  You will get this, or you won't.  Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

So what I have done, where I try to convince those who disagree, but concede when it becomes obvious that consensus is against me is not a Tbannable offense? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If what you have done up to now was TBANable I would already have filed. You are building up a very use-able string of diffs, including this interaction, of absolutely beating things to death.  You are about an inch from the cliff edge.... for me. For others, you are probably way over, others may want to give you lots of more time to see if the pattern becomes even more starkly clear.
 * This is not law and court and "offense", it is about people's patience and when their patience ends and it becomes worth their time to stop doing other things, gather diffs, and present a case.
 * You will not be able to identify clear lines defining when "enough is enough"
 * But if you are wise you will be aware that you obviously carry a strong POV on this with you into WP, and if you are not careful you are going to exhaust everyone's patience. and when that happens, someone will bring the case.. and if it is competently done (not to be assumed) and there really has been a problem, you will  indeed to be tbanned. that is how it goes. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)