User talk:IHateAccounts/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, IHateAccounts, is framed in terms of hating something or someone.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice,.

-- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Anome, this person has edited anonymously for long enough that I think it's fair to say that he probably does hate accounts, and since accounts are not a protected class I don't see why that would be an issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Anome, I have to agree with Guy. This isn't a problematic account name, IMO. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I finally do what you say and I get bullied more for it. Big surprise. And @JzG: "they" will suffice, I'll try to put a pronoun notice on my page if I ever get treated like a human being here. IHateAccounts (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Man, you are off to a bumpy start with this whole account thing. While I don't necessarily agree with the block, I do see where The Anome was coming from, and again I don't think it was intentional bullying (though I do see that you feel bullied as a result). Your name, while I don't believe you meant it this way, could feasibly be interpreted to mean that you hate people who edit from named accounts. The good news is that it's a softblock and you can just create an account with a different name yourself – that's probably easier than going through the rename process, since you don't have many edits with this account anyway, but if you do decide you want to do the rename we can help you with that. Hopefully ~~once the rename is done and dusted~~ we can all get back to article editing and this will become a distant memory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Well nevermind, that's sorted then. Maybe you and I (and anyone else on this page, if they so wish) can pick an article to collaborate on, so we get off on a better foot. If that interests you, any suggestions? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm in —valereee (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, my bad, I usually do use the singular they. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts—can you please explain why you hate accounts, assuming you hate accounts? I, for one, would be interested to know. They require me to have a driver's license. It may be an onerous procedure to get one, but I understand the public good in all drivers being required to get a license. In the interests of full disclosure, I think IP editing should be allowed but I think it should be discouraged. But maybe I have not weighed all considerations. So, I ask you for your input. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Not going to speak for IHateAccounts, but I remember reading the (semi-humorous) essay Wikipedia:Why not create an account? in the past and finding it informative. I don't personally share the perspective, but I respect it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

And I'll repeat what I posted at BS's talk: There are any number of reasons someone would choose not to create an account. In this person's case, they seem to believe (and I completely agree with them) that it shouldn't be necessary to have an account in order to edit contructively without attracting hostile attention. It shouldn't be necessary to have a bluelinked user name, ditto. It shouldn't be necessary to have tens of thousands of edits, or an admin flag, or a talk archive. But all of these things -- IMO, unfairly -- provide some level of 'seal of approval' in the minds of other editors. —valereee (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Do GorillaWarfare and Valereee agree with me that IP editing should be allowed but discouraged? Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not. I think IP editing should be allowed and should not be discouraged. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—why do you opt to register your account? Do you not feel that registering an account represents advantages for you, and wouldn't those advantages be applicable to someone else? Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there are advantages to registering accounts, but if someone is aware of them and still doesn't want to register account I see no reason to discourage them from that decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think registering an account should be encouraged, but I don't think IP editing should be discouraged. Yes, there are any number of advantages to registering an account and editing from it, not the least of which is that editing as an IP attracts scrutiny from editors who find IPs inherently suspicious. :) The vast majority of edits by IP editors are well-intentioned -- someone is reading an article, sees a typo, and fixes it. That doesn't mean the vast majority of vandalism isn't by IP editors, but by and large editing by IPs is a major net positive. —valereee (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

apology

I'm sorry, I responded to you at GW's talk before I saw you'd been blocked. Copying this from her talk:

I apologize; it was completely unintentional, and I'm sorry I came across as bullying. I didn't intend it as putting blame on you at all. I meant it as a completely non-judgemental statement: Having an account makes an editor's life easier. I think that sucks, for the record. It's not fair, and it shouldn't be true, but IMO it's just reality. There's bigotry in the world, and we here on Wikipedia aren't immune. —valereee (talk) 9:17 am, Today (UTC−4)

Unblocked, and an apology

@IHateAccounts, JzG, and Valereee: On review, I agree with the other editors here that your username is not a problem. I've unblocked you, and would like to offer you my apologies for the unecessary and over-zealous block. Best regards, The Anome (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: Thank you for considering and for your sincere apology. As for the rest of above, I am tired of having to have accounts for everything. Every website it seems. I can't even check the local weather without being harassed to make an account, and then I have to have software on my laptop, tied to my phone, just to try to remember what websites I already have an account on and what websites I don't. 90% of the stuff we do in the world shouldn't require an account, just like the grocery store shouldn't need to ask my phone number just so I can buy a gallon of milk and a couple boxes of cereal with cash. It irritates me. And the stuff Bus Stop wrote, pretty clearly they're totally ok with people being harassed and bullied into making accounts everywhere. I disagree fully with the idea that bullying people into creating an account is acceptable behavior, even though I finally gave in to it because apparently, eventually the whole site will be locked into "you shall make an account or you shall go away" status. Editing on wikipedia or checking the weather forecast aren't the same things as driving a car. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently now I have to wait to be "autoconfirmed". Joyeaux. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, given your long time IP contributions, I will fix that now., Guy (help! - typo?) 22:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you JzG. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Anome, thanks. I understand the instinct, this was a good faith error IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "ok with people being harassed and bullied into making accounts everywhere". The thing is user-names have greater recognizability than IP addresses. Editing here, one bumps into the same people frequently. A familiar name is someone known to you. Whereas a string of numbers is forgotten very quickly. User-pages also serve to identify individuals. Your user-page presently says "Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs". That is something that would jog my memory, assuming my brain is still functioning. Welcome to Wikipedia under your new name. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IHA, I do get that -- it infuriates me, too, to have to register an account to frickin' buy a t-shirt. This is, as Bus stop points out, slightly different. Now that we know you as IHA, when we see your username on an edit, we think, "Oh, that's the trusted user I've encountered before...I probably don't need to check their edit except out of idle curiosity, it's sure to be constructive." BS, I even have a hard time distinguishing between license-plate usernames like P372K and P798Q. I'm like...is that the trusted editor I've encountered on multiple occasions, or is it someone new I need to check the edits of? The chances I'll recognize an IP...almost zero. Clearly though people like GW and Guy easily recognize this editor as a long-term trusted user. They must have some gene I'm missing. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—there is a sense of continuity that is important. I understand the argument that discriminating against IPs is unfair. But IPs lack distinguishing characteristics, making continuity difficult. And yes, I agree the name should be tailored to recognizability—license plate-like usernames are problematic. I think it is difficult enough to remember something about usernames that we know we recognize. A problem is that ideally we are concerned with the edit, not the editor. With that in mind it could be argued that unrecognizable usernames should be preferred. But it is more enjoyable to interact with humans, even anonymous humans on the internet, because humans embody ideas and humans tend to have similar ideas from one moment to the next. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

AN/I re: Bus Stop

I would just like to respectfully suggest that perhaps discretion is now the better part of valour with regard to that section. I believe you have adequately made your points and further rancor (not that I lay the blame entirely upon you) simply muddies the waters. All the best whatever your decision. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ngo talk page

IHateAccounts, the top 10 of contributors to Talk:Andy Ngo is

308 edits User:Springee

191 edits User:Wikieditor19920

168 edits User:BeŻet

136 edits User:Shinealittlelight

129 edits User:Simonm223

84 edits User:Jweiss11

74 edits User:Aquillion

66 edits User:Objective3000

52 edits User:Galestar

52 edits User:Bacondrum

That's all the contributions to that page, not just the current version. Vexations (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

You seem to have a strong interest in disputes that don't involve you, and where, frankly, you don't really have any expertise to offer. However, you have made a lot of bad-faith accusations against me personally, and I don't appreciate it. Your behavior is disruptive and unproductive. If an editor has violated 1RR, there is really no reason for you to comment if you only want to turn it into a personal dispute. Your conduct on the whole violates WP:BATTLEGROUND.

If you keep this up I will report it to ANI. You cannot keep doing what you're doing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: can you look at this? This seems to be very uncivil and threatening behavior in retaliation because I commented on a thread here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_and_battleground_behavior_from_Wikieditor19920 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, a bit rich, from that particular editor, to be sure. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thus far you've commented on a now-closed thread at WP:ANI where you've made a bunch of bad-faith accusations towards me, and now at WP:AN3 where you are continuing the same pattern and bickering about matters unrelated to that noticeboard. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I am asking you to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: they came back. I have just noted this in the complaint they left against Bacondrum here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring) because I think it's relevant, their complaint seems to be entirely just forum-shopping or retaliation behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

For a brand new account, you seem very involved at multiple conduct-related threads. I don't know why that is, but I suggest starting by trying to improve the encyclopedia rather than weighing in as uninvolved user to get a word in every dispute. Those are my two cents. Happy editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: and they've continued. I'm starting to feel like this is a "playing the refs" gambit, they're trying to get a rise out of me so that they can claim my good-faith observations are because they managed to cause a conflict? Maybe that's what they are doing with Bacondrum too? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Since you were the admin who warned Wikieditor19920, I guess I should reply to you here too so you are aware of this. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody involved seems prepared to provide any diffs, which makes it difficult for me as admin to take stock of what's going on, short of a lot of detective work. Since Wikieditor19920 is the one who's complaining on your page, IHateAccounts, I'll warn them about making accusations without offering evidence or examples, because such accusations are simply aspersions. Bishonen | tålk 18:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: after you warned them, Wikieditor19920 filed what appears to be a retaliatory or vexatious claim against Bacondrum here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bacondrum_reported_by_User:Wikieditor19920_(Result:_)

They left this threat on my talk page in apparent retaliation, or to try to scare me away from commenting, for my observing that the links they provided on that page did not match the claims they were making. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How to handle this?

@JzG: @GorillaWarfare: sorry to ask you yet another thing but what's the proper reporting way to have something like this completely stricken? It's DEFINITELY a violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=985377627 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: @GorillaWarfare: and the day gets weirder and weirder. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikieditor19920&type=revision&diff=985396420&oldid=985029505

I told them they had left a wall of text, and they left something that looked like trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIHateAccounts&type=revision&diff=985395734&oldid=985392856

Then I pointed out that they left a literal wall of text (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden&diff=next&oldid=985395583) and they went running to Wikieditor19920. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the diff above has already been handled. Regarding how to have such things removed in the future, see the advice at WP:REVDELREQUEST. I'm not sure how comfortable you are with off-wiki communication via IRC or email, but you're always welcome to contact me via either one (though email is the most reliable way to reach me by far) if you see something concerning in the future that needs either revision deletion or oversight.

Wikieditor did manage to sneak in a bit of good advice amidst all the other stuff above. It is often wise, especially as a new user but also for very experienced editors, to avoid conflicts with other users as much as possible and participate at the dispute resolution noticeboards only when absolutely necessary. I still try to follow that philosophy (at least regarding participation as a reporter at those noticeboards, I do sometimes weigh in or handle issues there as an admin).

In my opinion all of our time is best spent trying to improve the encyclopedia, be it by editing articles or discussing article content on talk pages, and so unless someone is being quite disruptive I generally try to just move on. I also find it's best to try to accommodate other editors when possible; for example, instead of saying "This wall of text makes my eyes bleed. It's completely unreadable." you could have gone in and adjusted the text to make it more readable and then hit "preview" (but not saved—editors often don't appreciate others modifying their comments, even when it's just formatting) so you could read it more clearly.

Your mileage may vary, and certainly not everyone agrees with my approach, but that's my 2¢ on conduct issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Man, no offense, but I was not trolling you. Seriously. Read my points. Hope they are easy enough for you. I will avoid bold text when writing what follows, as you requested. This message is shorter by the one by GorillaWarfare so I hope you can handle it.

Number 1: I was following a strategy to de-escalate the conflict after you began addressing what you called my WoT with what was actually lack of civility and what appeared to me as a knee-jerk reaction. So I posted privately on your page not to take an issue in the talk page.

Number 2: Even if I tried to bring it in your talk page, the entire section of the talk shifted from my 9 statements to... me doing a WoT. Topic was completely derailed afterwards by people too concerned by me writing a WoT than by the actual points I made. Not sure if this teaches me more about WoTs or more about people.

Number 3: Honestly, that entire talk page is full of WoTs so mine pales when compared to the previous ones full of conspiracy theories.

Number 4: Anyway, I edited everything and now you see 9 lines... 9 paragraphs of one or two sentences each that state my policy points.

So I hope it is enough. We spent more e-mails debating form than content. This is the worst crime in Wikipedia, but I see it happening all day (to the point I had quit contributing until yesterday). I am aware there are forums on-line and image boards targeting Hunter Biden's page during the election and my concern was to have Wikipedia stop being an electoral battleground. At all. Was it for me, I would have locked all US accounts before the elections to ensure petty debates do not rise out of recent news and unverified claims.

Can we call it a day and start over? Shake hands maybe? MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarcelloPapirio: Thank you for finally fixing the format so that I can read what you wrote. I will look at it. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hi, IHA. I noticed that you made a comment and then a second one on the page Talk:Hunter Biden that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I think your discussion with JzG is relevant. For my part, Atsme was not being truthful, and I was being as polite as I could be in the circumstances. Between their previously demanding that I leave an article and make proxy edits for them at Donald Trump, and their habit of publicly proclaiming they "muted" people, I am unimpressed with them. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't accuse people of not being truthful; that also is a violation of AGF. You can argue that a statement is not true, but saying someone is not being truthful implies intent. You don't have to be impressed with everyone you work with here, but in the interest of collaboration, keep it to yourself. —valereee (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I came here to template you also, but see Valereee beat me to it. Please be respectful and AGF. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

For this after warnings. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'd like an explanation of how a current event and an observation of Atsme's reluctance or refusal to provide real sources to back up their claims constitutes a "personal attack". I don't think I made one and I think you're being overzealous because you and Atsme are friends https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtsme&type=revision&diff=986095543&oldid=986093783. Maybe I just need to ask advice from @JzG: who has made the same observations about Atsme's behavior before. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: After re-reading it twice more and the policy and everything else again I think you're just picking on me because I'm new and therefore an easy target, because I'm not the first person (Soibangla, Muboshgu, JzG, and Valjean all have observed similar) to observe Atsme's lack of bothering to source their (what I would consider to be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violating) claims. I think I deserve an explanation as to how you think you're not doing so. I'm also including @GorillaWarfare: on this reply since this isn't the first time someone decided to pick on me and I'm not a fan of being bullied. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, I'll point out that the section above the one you cite is me asking Atsme to cool her own jets at the page in question. Calling me "overzealous because (Atsme and I) are friends" is another assumption of bad faith. I try to maintain a civil, and whenever possible, cordial relationship with other editors, even when I disagree with them. Look, I just want you to stop sniping and making snarky remarks. It's counterproductive to a collaborative project. —valereee (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This would be another instance of not assuming good faith: I think you're just picking on me because I'm new and therefore an easy target. Also: this isn't the first time someone decided to pick on me and I'm not a fan of being bullied. —valereee (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Valereee is not picking on you. She and another user already warned you that your participation in conversations on that page was getting more heated than is appropriate, and snipes at other editors like the one you made towards Atsme only contribute towards a hostile and extremely unpleasant editing environment. It can be frustrating working with editors with whom you disagree, but we all must try to be as civil as we can be towards one another. It's one thing to ask another user to please provide sources to support their points, but jabs about another editor's sources getting "lost in the mail" like Tucker Carlson's credibility are not acceptable, and are certainly closer to "bullying" than a block after fair warning that your behavior was not acceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Valereee: No, your comment feels to me like victim blaming since I am on the receiving end of behavior that makes no sense and doesn't match the policy. I know perfectly well what being singled out as a target looks and feels like, I've had to endure it enough of my life just for not looking heteronormal. Again I'll ask how a current event and an observation of Atsme's reluctance or refusal to provide real sources to back up their claims constitutes a "personal attack", since you did not answer that question and deflected instead. I'm not even going to bother asking for an unblock because the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks page reads like one giant block of victim blaming, and I am not going to say I did something wrong when I've read the policy multiple times and I don't think I made a personal attack. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

IHA, I'm sorry you've been singled out because you don't look heteronormal. That should never happen to anyone. What I read was a comparison between your colleague, Atsme, with whom you disagree, and a Trump-slurping pandering toadie. That is what I objected to. I want you to deal with colleagues with whom you disagree with respectful disagreement. If you wouldn't say it in the workplace, you shouldn't say it here. —valereee (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I noted the problem with Carlson because Atsme had referenced Carlson in that very thread https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=985915681&oldid=985915154. I don't think your representation is correct in the slightest and it was NOT a personal attack no matter how you try to twist my words. I did not say "a Trump-slurping pandering toadie", and I fully reject that attempt to put words into my mouth. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

~~My mistake. That's how I see Carlson; YMMV.~~. I apologize for using hyperbolic language to describe Carlson. What you actually said was maybe Atsme's sources just got "lost in the mail" like Tucker Carlson's credibility?, which made it clear you were comparing her to someone you don't respect. Just stop talking about other editors. Talk about edits. It's really as simple as that. —valereee (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You say "my mistake" but I'm sitting here with proverbial ice on a black eye for 31 hours because you decided to twist my words and declare a "personal attack" where one wasn't made and where Tucker Carlson had been referenced by Atsme just a couple comments before. To hell with this Outer Worlds is out and I'm going to go play that. Wikipedia has shown me what it is and I should have believed it the first time to paraphrase Maya Angelou. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: So you're back to twisting my words so you can justify bullying me for your friend. Thanks for making it 100% clear that you won't treat me fairly and exactly where you stand. I'm more than used to seeing bullies play with pretexts to justify how they mistreat me. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Making personal attacks against the admin who blocked you for personal attacks is an excellent way to wind up with the block extended. If you think the block was unjustified or unfair, appeal it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: since I'm just an "it", why should I? I already know from past experiences I won't be treated fairly. I got bullied into making a user name and then immediately hit anyways when I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour&oldid=884194176 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That Signpost article was disgusting and ought to be deleted, and I've said as much repeatedly. I can't blame you if it's enough to make you not wish to contribute to the project; you'd hardly be the first person to be driven away by it. But your attacks on valereee are a separate matter, and are not acceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Careful. If you speak out about the essay in any way, SMcCandlish will accuse you of incivility! And this will be used in your kangaroo court trial. Jorm (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Valereee decided to bully me and deliberately misrepresent what I said because they're friends with Atsme, and because they had the power to get away with it. I think that's the only way to see what they did, and I think it's typical of how I've been bullied so far on wikipedia. But what do I know, I'm just an "it" to all of you anyways. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I gave you my take on what happened when you first pinged me to your talk page after the block was placed. Valereee is not bullying you, and I have no idea if she is friends with Atsme or not, but a block for incivility after two separate people warned you for incivility was justified. As I've already said, you can appeal the block if you genuinely believe that you've been misrepresented or that valereee is acting on some bias due to a friendship. If you don't wish to, that's your prerogative, but you need to either ask for an outside set of eyes on the block or stop with the aspersions against valereee—you can't just continue to make accusations but refuse to ask for outside input. I would also really appreciate you stop with the insinuations and now outright accusations of transphobia against editors who have not shown such behavior towards you.

My personal hope is that now the block has expired, you will put this behind you and return to editing with just a bit more care about commenting on content and not contributors. Hope to see you around the articlespace. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm a bit disappointed to see you blocked, but do understand where Valereee is coming from. I haven't been following that talk page closely so can't comment on the specific cause of the block, but have noticed a pattern of sometimes confrontational edits, such as the one here. I've appreciated your contributions and I hope you use this as an opportunity to reflect a bit – nobody 'wins' in contentious debates on current affairs talkpages. It's often worth stepping back and leaving points you disagree with unanswered, even if they're in response to your comments, especially when another rebuttal won't add anything new to the discussion. Trust other editors' judgements (or the closer's judgement in RfCs). Related to this, characterising others' arguments or views is neither respectful nor a good launching point for valuable discussion. It's worth remembering that regular editors are probably well aware of our policies, so dispute is more likely to be the result of differing, valid interpretations of broad policies, rather than ignorance of them. These aren't easy things to do, and I make these mistakes myself, especially when I'm convinced I'm right. WP:SPADE doesn't overrule WP:AGF. To some degree we're all better off pulling back from current affairs and 'culture wars' and redirecting our energy to more productive topics. I hope to see you back shortly, Jr8825 • Talk 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And I got THANKED for my comment too. I'll wear the bruise on my eye with pride the way John Lewis wore his scar from the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It wasn't a personal attack, I do not recognize that as a legitimate claim. @Valereee: I consider your action wrong. Simple statement. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit consists of a BLP violation "Johnaton Turley, an arch-conservative hack" (it didn't link as neither you or Atsme spelled the name correctly Jonathan Turley), followed by your hyperlinking Washington Times as the Moonie Times adds only heat to the fire. Wikipedia is not a battleground and I'd say from my experience you got off here on the wrong foot so now would be a good time to relax and regroup.--MONGO (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC

If you think the block was a mistake, then appeal it. The process isn't stacked against you, it will come down to the judgement of uninvolved admins. The problem is I don't think you're approaching this with the right attitude. A bit of humility and self-recognition is needed – acknowledge there have been a number of instances where your abruptness and lack of civility have been problematic, and work from there. Accept what hasn't worked, apologise if necessary for any jibes sent in haste. Then make your case that you did not intend to engage in a personal attack, and you will be cautious to avoid a similar situation in the future. Jr8825 • Talk 20:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:, @Valereee: has already admitted making a mistake. Either they will fix their mistake as a measure of good faith or they won't, I don't acknowledge the old "well you have to admit you were in the wrong too" victim-blaming that always hits targets who speak up for themselves from people playing at a false middle ground. It made no sense when I was bullied and told I had to "admit" that I was "making myself a target" by supposedly not trying hard enough to appear more heteronormal and less nonbinary than I am, and it doesn't make sense to me now either. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: the rest of what I've seen and read tonight has made it clear there's no such thing as an unstacked deck here. Therefore there's no point, the tone policing and other bullying behavior will be all I'll see. Tone policing is how people like me are gaslit out of existence when we stand up for ourselves and after seeing garbage like this and the people who wrote it apparently having had no sanction I'm not fucking surprised that's the wikipedia way. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour&oldid=884194176 IHateAccounts (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I hadn't seen that Signpost article before and I find it repulsive. It doesn't represent or reflect Wikipedia as a project. I don't assume its views – those of a tiny subsection of a large, diverse community – extend to the editors who have engaged with you in good faith here, and you shouldn't either. Valid concerns about your uncivil comments were raised politely by editors far more experienced than either me or you, and you ignored them. "I was being as polite as I could be in the circumstances" is no good. If you find yourself unable to stay respectful and calm, then simply don't write anything at all. This is why we ended up here, not because anyone is bullying you. I urge you to take on board the collegial criticism you received here, without seeing it as attack on yourself, which it really isn't, and move forward. Jr8825 • Talk 02:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Wikipedia's civility standards are higher than that of most social media websites and forums. To participate in a controversial topic area, such as post-1932 American politics, an editor needs to show respect to other editors. While I was not aware of the comments that Valereee had pointed out, comments like Special:Diff/985102737, in which you accuse another editor of "lack[ing] media literacy skills", certainly fall short of the standards of civility required by Wikipedia. Please focus on content instead of other contributors. Focusing on content allows your arguments to be more impactful, and makes the discussion less adversarial, which allows article writing to be more pleasant and expeditious for everyone involved. — Newslinger talk 02:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Wikipedia:Competence is required, "Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:...the ability to read sources and assess their reliability." The person in question had repeatedly been trying to get completely unreliable material inserted by that point, and made multiple comments completely failing to understand the difference between news coverage and opinion columns. Someone who had a functional ability to read sources and assess their reliability oughtn't do that. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Competence is indeed required, but there are better ways of making your point without needing to post negative personal comments against another editor. For example, it would suffice to attack the quality of the available sources or the plausibility/provenance of the discussed claims. Personally attacking other editors is off-limits. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note for Koncorde

@Koncorde: since I'm being bullied currently, here, information: "News Channel 9" aka newschannel9.com is WTVC Chattanooga. Contents "© 2020 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc." per the bottom of their pages. Everything under the "by Sinclair Broadcast Group" byline appears to be one of the Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Must-run_segments propaganda pieces they are well known for. Do what you want with it, I may or may not bother signing in again any more. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of the above. However a bias is not a reason for exclusion and they are not dealt with on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page at all so there is no definite outcome regarding their reliability. Koncorde (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Special:Diff/991223849 This has gone on long enough. You have been warned often enough. The next time I see a personal attack from you, I will block you for a week. —valereee (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You may consider your warning noted. Please do not expect me to respond to you again. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the reddit account was set up to specifically troll you and wasn't actually by PacMec, you should probably apologise, but I can understand why you made those comments considering the remarks were very hurtful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thank you for the kind words. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: On second thought, I have to say something. You say "This is so depressing. A long-time productive editor who suddenly this month drastically changes their editing pattern. Yurivict seems to have gone off the rails along with the US sociopolitical system" [1] on the one hand, and tell me "I agree, it was a well-thought-out and worded report. Very nice, IHA." [2]. Yet when I bring a VERY similar case, primarily asking that the user just get someone to talk some sense into them with respect to Reliable Sources policy? I find myself being savaged for it, made out to be an enemy by individuals who grossly misrepresent edits and statements, and accused of filing in the wrong place. And all this happens even after I took the time to write a draft, I asked for advice on how and where to file it first and for more experienced people than me to check and copyedit it, and even made corrections myself when I realized I had made an error regarding the edit history, in order to do everything in good faith. I don't think that's either right or just, and I don't understand people who can just flip hot/cold like that. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

IHA, your statement at Yurivict was helpful and contained no personal attacks, and I said it was good. Your comment at the ANI was a blatant accusation of hateful motives, and I said it was bad. That's not me flipping hot and cold. It's me responding to what I see, both the good and the not so good. Also you said you'd been having a bad day, and that made me want to try to help.

I want to see you succeed here. I think you have enormous potential for that. Your biggest obstacle seems to be a tendency to making retaliatory personal attacks when you feel you've been personally attacked. That's not the way to handle a personal attack. The way to handle it is to say, "I consider '(words of personal attack)' to be a personal attack. Please redact."

My tolerance for incivility/abf/personal attacks is probably on the lower end of the scale for WP editors. I consider our civility policy to be the World Turtle for all our other pillars. I've probably spent as much time dealing with it as on all my other admin activities put together. I have warned many, many people, including other admins, for incivility. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish you had the same low level of tolerance for grossly misrepresented links, and the aspersions cast upon me. I wish I could take your statement "I want to see you succeed here. I think you have enormous potential for that" and truly believe it right now. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish you could, too. I won't get into 'grossly misrepresented links' if that means a content dispute; once I get involved with those at an article, I'm no longer an uninvolved administrator. But I'll certainly look at any aspersion cast upon you. Just ping me to it or leave a diff on my talk. —valereee (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, here is some unsolicited advice. You've been engaged in some contentious areas. There's been quite a bit of heat. Apparently you've been abused offline, I'm sorry you have to go through that. But editing emotionally will not be good for you. Be civil, and present evidence when making accusations. You'll learn this, some way or another. If you're angry, please don't edit. starship .paint (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Some more thoughts from me, reflecting upon your recent history. When you actively deal with controversial editors, you may make the mistake of seeing other editors in the same light. Remember that everyone makes mistakes, and that definitely includes editors who have interacted with you. How editors have interacted with you might not necessarily present an entire picture of themselves.I would like to share a situation where I myself was indefinitely blocked not all that long ago. In that situation, Levivich was the one who successfully explained to me what my mistake was. Another conservative editor, Mr Ernie, spoke out in support of me. They didn't have to, they could have easily supported my block given our different political leanings. As for valereee, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that they are anything but a well-meaning editor and administrator. If you care to read, valereee enjoyed broad community support in her candidature for adminship.

Which brings me to what PackMecEng wrote here. When I read it, I believed it. I do think it is possible that mistakes were made. I say that as someone on the opposite aisle from PackMecEng. I'm going to quote Joe Biden [3] Let's give each other a chance ... we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy. Have a little more faith in our editors. Don't let outside experiences colour your judgment. If you want to edit in contentious areas, you must be temperamentally ready, you must avoid adverse reactions. starship .paint (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: At the moment I feel like several people have tried to twist or misrepresent whatever I do into the worst possible light. For instance, I held off on leaving a response at the WP:ANI thread until I have the chance to fully discuss with MJL, and Levivich below twisted that into an aspersion about "because of your response, or lack thereof, to the offer at ANI." I feel like I have bent over backwards to show good faith, time and again, and not been given the same courtesy in return. And at least for tonight, now, I am going to take your earlier advice and sign off and not edit while feeling this frustrated. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Take care, and have a good night. starship .paint (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW

I have always considered PackMecEng a charming and helpful user. Personally speaking, when I was constantly being attacked and harassed, PME was one of the users I leaned on the most to get me through it. For example, when some users were misgendering me on wiki, she was there standing up to it. I seriously can't understate the level of appreciation I have for her because of that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@MJL:Clearly you and I have very different experiences. If I stated how I feel several specific editors view me and why I feel specifically targeted, I'd probably get accused of a "personal attack" again, so I'll leave it at that. I will note clearly that the "it takes 2 to Tango" comment seen elsewhere causes a visceral reaction. It reminds me of victim blaming patterns that I am all too, painfully and personally, familiar with. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

IHA apologies for posting here, you may not want to hear from me at the moment and if not feel free to remove my post. I just want to say it is not and never was my intention to attack you as a person. I also want to mention I had no idea you identified as non-binary. I had seen your preferred pronouns on your user pages but did not put two and two together. For the record I want to unequivocally state that was not me on reddit and that attacks like that are completely unacceptable. It appears to be a joe job style attack. Finally I, like pretty much everyone else, have noticed that on the content side you do pretty well. You are getting good with RS and researching and I do honestly think you could be a great asset to the pedia. I would seriously consider MJL's offer of mentorship. They went though the same kind of mentorship when they were new with Swarm. PackMecEng (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It was literally on my user page and in at least one of the linked discussions you posted that I consider you as having seriously misrepresented. I find your claim not to know impossible to believe, especially after you misrepresented my going out of my way to ask for experienced advice to act in the best faith, and NOT going to "drama boards" as you call them when advised, as "spending way to much time on user talk pages either trying to get people sanctioned or just stirring up drama". I struck my comment as advised by GorillaWarfare on advice to show my good faith as well. You're 100% right that I really did not want to hear from you here. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

IHA, it's not that I had a different experience with Pack than you. The time I was talking about was in a moment of my time here I was regularly reduced to tears and people were calling for me to get indefinitely blocked from the project. Meanwhile, PME was one of the few people I knew here that would consistently send me positive words of encouragement.
I have regularly experienced attacks against me solely because of my gender while on this project, and I am probably one of the few people in the world who can speak authoritatively about how nonbinary and genderqueer people get treated on Wikipedia. When I say that PackMecEng is an ally, I do so in absolutely unequivocal terms.
Let me be absolutely clear and say you have seriously done some things wrong. You spend way more time than you need to on discussion pages, and you seem to have some major civility issues. I want to see you succeed, and I guarantee you that most people in the AN/I thread want to see that as well. If you want to have this conversation offwiki in order to speak more freely, then I would encourage that to happen. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Where do you suggest? IHateAccounts (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My preference is Discord, but I am willing to meet you where you are at (figuratively speaking). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have Discord. I might be able to make *sigh* yet another account to do it. But of course @Valereee: should be aware too, aspersions like this [4], calling me a "lost cause", are a good way to make someone not want to bother. I feel like I've bent over backwards to show good faith here. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, I think MJL was also previously considered a lost cause by certain editors. That didn’t bear fruit, by the way. You could prove Levivich wrong, or you can prove him right. starship .paint (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

IHA, what Lev actually said about you was he wasn't sure you seemed to be a willing mentee. When I read that comment, what I see is Lev saying if you weren't a willing participant, mentoring wouldn't work. Not that you were a lost cause from the start. You and I may differ on how to interpret such comments, but that's my interpretation.

Mentoring here on WP is a controversial idea. There are a lot of experienced editors who, through their experience, don't think it works. I've had multiple failures, myself, involving significant time and energy. To other editors, that time and energy expenditure could have been more profitably spent volunteering elsewhere. There's a reason MJL doesn't undertake this lightly: if you aren't all in, it's a waste of their time. —valereee (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As a fan of Star Trek who is heartily enjoying both Picard and Discovery, I am well aware of "the Qowat Milat, a sect of fierce Romulan warrior nuns known for absolute candor and binding themselves to lost causes" and what was meant. It's a very hurtful aspersion. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

On the shows, there have been only two "lost causes" to which we've seen Qowat Milat members bind themselves: the "lost cause" of Jean-Luc Picard and the "lost cause" of Michael Burnham (which, non-trekker TPWs, was the subject of last week's episode of Discovery, hence why it's fresh in our minds). I wasn't referring to you as a Qowat Milat "lost cause", but even if I were, in what way could comparing you to Picard and Burnham, two of the show's heroes, be a very hurtful aspersion? It would be a compliment, because "lost cause" means a noble cause, but one that is unlikely to succeed, and Qowat Milat only bind themselves to the most noble of lost causes. In any event, you are not the "lost cause", mentoring you is the lost cause: a noble effort that is unlikely to succeed. "Unlikely to succeed" because of your response, or lack thereof, to the offer at ANI. What I wrote was a compliment of MJL; I'm sorry you took it as an insult of you. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I responded to MJL here, and plan to discuss with them. I don't find your misrepresentation of that as a "lack of response" to be appropriate. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL:, I'll wait for your suggestions on how to connect. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, well if you don't have Discord then IRC is always an option. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I am even less familiar with that. I will work on signing up for Discord and let you know sometime tomorrow. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Alright, that works for me. You can add me as a friend there (MJL#7990) when you finish signing up, so I look forward to hearing from you then.
BTW, what Starship.paint said about me was completely true. Many editors seriously considered me a lost cause incapable of adding any real value to the project. My initial experience certainly wasn't as... turbulent as yours has been post-registration, but I definitely see some real comparisons there.
It might also be worth it for me to point out that my plan as a mentor is to get you to the point of being an upstanding member of the community. I see a lot of potential value in your contributions, but it's sadly been overshadowed by other stuff that we can get into later (nothing too bad).
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW 2

IHA, I'm glad to see you open to MJL's help. I don't know if you've seen this tool, but it might help you understand why people are saying you're spending an unusual amount of time at discussion pages. The typical newish editor (under 5000 or so edits) shows a very different pattern. Usually the newer the editor, the more they edit in the main space (red) with some green (article talk), a bit of yellow (user talk), and very little deep blue (Wikipedia) or bright blue (Wikipedia talk). Again this is nothing more than an FYI re:other people's comments on that, in case you didn't know about that tool. It's not a comment by me; I know you have more experience than your statistics would show. —valereee (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to offer possible sources or try to work on wording rather than just dumping edits that have a chance someone will decide to revert them out of hand. I have never understood the "you talk too much" aspersion that some people seem to love. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I get it, and I accept that many editors are more interested in our internal workings that they are in articles. I totally see room for those types of editors, and I'm not concerned with 'you talk too much' except in cases of walls of text. I literally was only explaining where the comments were coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, IIRC, IHA is not a newbie, but has lots of experience as an IP before being encouraged to create this account, hence the chosen name. That's why the tool might show an unexpected pattern. I hope that info helps. IHA can clarify if I'm wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I noted that in my original post. —valereee (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Steve Bannon

I've told the editor who broke 1RR they need to self-revert. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for the notification :) IHateAccounts (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax

Hopefully this is helpful, but I don't think I should add it to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsmax TV. I compared which sources are used in the Newsmax articles, and found

Hence my comment that there wasn't much overlap. I'll reconsider that. Vexations (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Newsmax TV. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Irreversible Damage

Hey you recently reverted my edit ([5]). In the effort to not start an edit war I am not reverting it, but that source is not being used as WP:MANDY. It's being used to substantiate the claim, not give Shrier a chance to deny the claim. Bravetheif (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: PragerU is a particularly ugly disinformation/propaganda mill. Not worthy as a source, plus it's not like it's an interview. It does not give her author credit for the script, but only has her as "presenter". IHateAccounts (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I agree, PragerU is all those things. It's a dogshit channel hosted and run by dogshit people. It should not be used as a factual source on it's content, but Shrier clearly endorses the position the video holds, which is why I used it in the first place. Bravetheif (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Since she isn't given author credit on the piece, I think it should stay out. It's not WP:ABOUTSELF for her to make claims about other incidents, as she does in the video, as a "presenter." IHateAccounts (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Look, I don't completely agree, but I see your point. Plus, now I think about it, maybe inadvertently directing people to a conservative propaganda hell hole isn't a great idea. Bravetheif (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

More advice

Probably the first edit to a problem editor (and most do not do this) should be to lay on the relevant Welcome. There is a whole section for tailored welcomes in TWINKLE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'm really not in the mood right now and I'm not interested in installing more add-ons to my chrome. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Twinkle isn't a browser extension, it's a Gadget you can enable in your Wikipedia preferences. It's extremely useful for all sorts of things; I'd recommend checking it out at some point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are any number of WP gadgets that make editing easier in multiple ways. Twinkle is great, and check out Navigation Popups. Hover over anything, get info. :) —valereee (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipe-tan for you!

	Feel better!
	I know you are in a terrible mood as of late, but I seriously hope you feel better. Trust me, things will improve soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I've seen a sock attacking you

Doug Weller talk 14:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for letting me know, I've noticed a few probable ones in the past few weeks and forwarded the information to my mentor @MJL:. Do you mind if I ask which one this was and where they were attacking me? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

[6] - ring any bells? Doug Weller talk 16:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes that's one of them, MJL was requesting someone to look into it but I believe they were unavailable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I hesitate for a couple of reasons to say who I think the sockmaster is publicly on Wikipedia. Is there an alternate option? Discord maybe? @MJL: could help facilitate maybe? IHateAccounts (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Normally we'd expect you to use email, it's up to you if you want to email me (from my talk page). Doug Weller talk 19:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I haven't put my email here for privacy reasons. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Emailed on their behalf with who I imagine they mean. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Dishonest section summary redacted

I made several edits on Irreversible Damage with well explained edit summaries. You reverted multiple edits at one time with no explanation but asking me to take my edits to the talk page. This is disrespectful and uncollegial editing. If you disagree with me, fine, this is part of the process--but please say specifically why in your revert summaries. -Pengortm (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: WP:BRD. You made edits that worsened the article and did not follow policy. Propose your language on the talk page instead of misrepresenting my edit summaries, which were quite clear: "The section blanking is unwarranted and your rephrasing is less informative than the original wording." I find your comment here to be "disrespectful", "uncollegial", and bordering on troll behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:REVEXP. Can you point me to the policy where I need to propose edits on the talk page first? I have edited wikipedia for a long time and do not think this is typically the case. What section are you saying I blanked? I removed a sentence that seemed to be original research. I don't think this is blanking a section? - Pengortm (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"The section blanking is unwarranted and your rephrasing is less informative than the original wording." I believe I was completely clear, after you blanked out a large block of text. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy where I need to propose edits on the talk page first? Is this the policy you believe I am violating or something else? Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: IHA hasn't quite mastered the project speak yet, but this is still disruptive. We already have an extensive discussion ongoing on the article talk page. Try to discuss things there before making large changes to the article itself. (talk page watcher) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) see WP:BRD, already referred to before. You made edits. You were reverted, with an entirely valid edit summary despite your misrepresentations. At this point you are expected to discuss your proposed edits. You are now definitely crossing into trolling (WP:SEALION, Sealioning) territory, and I am lacking in the emotional energy to deal with that today, so I will be 100% clear here: do not reply to this conversation again or otherwise bother me on my talk page again. Propose your ideas for wording or your other concerns on the article talk page. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice about Talk:Irreversible Damage

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: What are you saying was "personal information"? If I have it correct you are objecting to the link showing an external twitter account that does not list a name, address, or other information. Querying @MJL: and @GorillaWarfare: in case they can help explain this as well. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, linking to an external account outside Wikipedia that is not identified by the user is most of the time not allowed. I do think the policy should be a little clearer to i'll boldly edit it in a minute, but the "Posting links to other accounts on other websites" paragraph of WP:OUTING is the relevant section. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We take a pretty conservative stance on Wikipedia when it comes to allowing people to edit completely anonymously, which includes discouraging people from surmising that Wikipedia user A operates [some other site] account B unless Wikipedia user A has disclosed this explicitly on-wiki, even when the usernames A and B are the same or similar. You might have noticed I have a link on my userpage to a page on my own website which would probably be considered by most people to be stating the obvious; this is because of this hardline stance. There are some rare circumstances in which it's okay to do this (usually to do with paid editing investigations) but unfortunately it's an extremely grey area and enforcement varies among the admin and functionary group. Personally I think some edits that were made to WP:OUTING to try to reflect the existence of this gray area were irresponsible because they may suggest linking accounts is more acceptable than it really is, but that's perhaps veering off-topic a bit.

In general, if you are concerned about off-wiki canvassing, best practice is to add {{notaballot}} where applicable, and maybe mention that it's happening, but avoid suggesting that any individual editor is responsible. If behavior is quite egregious and needs admin intervention, it should be addressed privately and links should not be made on-wiki. I hope this clarifies a bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Heh, looks like Amanda and I edit conflicted with largely the same concerns about how the outing policy wording has been recently(ish) changed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, @AmandaNP:, thank you both for the clarifications. Regarding the text that was redacted, one of the pertinent points I made in response to the question by Srey Sros was that the twitter posts I was intending to provide, while they seem to now be deleted, were from an account that has been posting about involvement in a billboard advertisement campaign for the book. I believe that the off-wikipedia WP:CANVASSING involves, at least in part, individuals who if they edited on wikipedia directly run afoul of WP:COI policy. Can this portion of the information be restored, or is there wording either of you can suggest that would satisfy both the questions asked and the policies involved? IHateAccounts (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit to the policy page is not to change it - just to give it straight, but yes, with GW I agree it's a tad different from status quo. I removed the whole bit because of wanting to get the reference off. While I don't find readding that bit that you mentioned completely objectionable, I would try and limit how far you are pointing, because pointing to it is the same as giving the account name. Of course I didn't research this specific part of your comment, but just give that as a general warning. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: Thank you for the clarification. I have left a supplementary comment on the talk page explaining my concerns as above, please let me know if anything needs changing. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@AmandaNP and GorillaWarfare: The link thing was my bad. I did not notice any potential personally identifiable information (nor the ability to connect it to an onwiki editor) within the tweet thread, and I literally told IHA to use {{Not a ballot}} to post it. This should not be held against them since I gave them some really terrible mentoring regarding this. I really can't say this clearly enough: I straight up instructed IHA to post that link. They posted it as a direct result of my carelessness here. Had I connected a few more dots, this would not have happened. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: While I appreciate the sentiment and explanation, ultimately it's up to the user posting it to be responsible for the edit - just as it would if it was the copyright policy. It's highlighted in the meatpuppetry policy. Obviously, we are just worried about the content not being reposted, i'm not about to block the user (although it always remains an option in outing cases) for outing or meatpuppetry. But independent thought is always something that has to come out of offwiki coordination, except while under duress (which will get a comprimised account block anyway). It's just like me running a CU based on what someone else said, I can't, I have to justify it myself because I am responsible for the check. So I think this can be a lesson all around. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: I wanted to state this definitively for the record in case this ever comes again in bad faith (which no surprise to me it already has). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The relevant piece of policy was insufficiently clear on this point, so I think it's understandable that MJL and IHA didn't realize this was a no-no. Now that both MJL and IHA are aware of the specifics around outing and linking to off-wiki accounts, and the policy has been clarified to avoid further misunderstandings by others, I think all is settled. I think it's clear this was a misunderstanding, not a malicious outing attempt. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Problem areas - focus on content

Hey, so I wanted to tell you about this publically on wiki because I know this has been a major source of frustration for you.

If there is a user you know is, or simply just understand to be, only here for the wrong reasons, then you must make an effort to avoid interactions with them if you can't do so in a WP:CIVIL manner. There are plenty of users with a lot of experience dealing with these kinds of users, and there are tools uniquely available to you to bring these folks forward to them. Not everyone is lucky enough to get a mentor, but not everyone is as unfortunate as you to be subject to a campaign of offwiki harassment.

Continuing to critically engage with users that do not want the best for this project is only going to hurt your reputation and the reputations of those who have your best interest in mind. Instead of the next thread being about "Problem User X", you let it become "Users X and Y fighting". You just are not prepared to deal with these kinds of users on your own and should stop trying to. This is especially true when you know you have been uniquely targeted for who you are.

It should come to no surprise to you that I have received a lot of negative messages for my adoption of you and have been accused of shielding you from accountability. Let's prove those people wrong, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sighs... Is this showing your best self?

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A7 on Tal-al ward

Hello IHateAccounts -- I've declined the above deletion request, as A7 only applies to biographies, companies, organisations, web content, organised events and the like. Please check the details before requesting deletion under it again. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Ok I'll bite, the categories are ludicrously vague and unhelpful. What's the category for "the subject of the article probably doesn't exist"? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi IHateAccounts - you can nominate articles for speedy deletion under the WP:G3 criteria in cases of blatant hoaxes. Chetsford (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi IHateAccounts -- as Chetsford writes, G3 applies to articles where you are certain that the subject doesn't exist: "This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform)..." Making hoaxes is considered a pernicious form of vandalism, so you should not tag an article as a hoax if you have, say, failed to find it on Google. Any article where there is any doubt at all should instead be nominated for Articles for deletion. Many articles that don't have a place on the encyclopedia are not covered by the speedy criteria -- they are only intended to make an easy route to deletion of the most obvious hopeless submissions (CVs of schoolkids and the like). Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

My Edits On Shenendehowa

The edits I made on Talk:Shenendehowa Central School District were not a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRoboKitty (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)