User talk:IHateAccounts: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, IHateAccounts! Thank you for your contributions. I am Bradv and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|Bradv}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! – bradv🍁 03:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: ok fine, yes yes. I was bullied into making an account and I finally gave up so here it is. I'm not really feeling social right now and probably going to go to sleep in a short while. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Important notices

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

Template:Z33 - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Template:Z33 - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I could use one too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

pronouns

Not sure if you're aware of this, perhaps you find this helpful: In their preferences, Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal editors can set a value for "How do you prefer to be described?". For example, my preferred pronoun can be used by including {{pronoun|Vexations}} which renders as they. There is a list of related templates at {{pronoun}} you may find useful. Vexations (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it. Thank you! IHateAccounts (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Irreversible Damage

Hey you recently reverted my edit ([1]). 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)

[2] - 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)