Events have transpiredEdit

just as predicted. So I guess the irony of templating you was lost on them? The funny thing about this is, MediaWiki was designed to make almost everything that happens on the wiki as transparent as possible, for accountability purposes. The public would be able to scrutinize everything and verify that everything was aboveboard, and that claims made were accurate.

But the way it works now, is that the admins communicate in private, through back channels, and they punish you if you communicate in a public place (like a user talk page). If you had exchanged emails, they wouldn't have complained. And notice the blocking admin is the same guy that did the other block! Not a coincidence.

Here's a pertinent Kumioko post, by the way. Waddup, Ender (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So using a blocking template on me is also not discussion? I do not view their action as preventive. I did not edit war my warning template, nor did I use multiple templates as they claimed. I did attempt to open discussion, I just did so poorly at first. I did open real discussion about why my template was removed on my page. A discussion there or on another location would have sufficed, the block is in my view primarily punitive. Of course I know they are just doing what you think is best for the encyclopedia and they got carried away on their power trip. I have noticed that there has not been a single comment other than mine about if Bbb23 violated explicit policy with their actions. To clarify I have not been officially reprimanded for talking to a sock and I have not been officially reprimanded for asking Bbb23 why they violated policy. Bbb23 has not been reprimanded for their actions or for their part in this mess. It takes more than one to tango. I was reprimanded (and blocked) for being "disruptive" without a single harm occurring to the encyclopedia. I do view this as a violation of policy. I understand that they are demanding respect, but I also understand I have no real motivation to give it to them. I will be civil but their action are in my view, are immature and poorly thought out. This block is a fine example of the mess Wikipedia is in. Luckily, I am also under no obligation to report this account as duck due to how consensus works. Endercase (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Waddup, Ender: Despite Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses. I am now explicitly "banned" from talking to (and I suspect about) socks by 3*B23 pending further administrative action on the en Wiki. Endercase (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah but this is Meta so they have no authority with regard to stuff that happens here. If you were to get blocked on Meta, they might say that reflects negatively on your character, but there have been plenty of users who were blocked on one Wikimedia wiki and continued editing on others.
By the way, I think the article I showed you is going to hit Return of Kings before too long. I haven't scoped out the queue yet though, so I'm not sure how long before it drops (once it gets approved).
UPDATE: Looks like that queue is pretty short! In the "Scheduled" category I see: "The Girls Of Brazil," "Women Are Not Capable Of Objectively Arguing Their Support For Abortion," "Can A Man Who Has Slept With Hundreds Of Girls Still Be Considered A Good Person?" and "There Can Be No Patriarchy Without Patriarchs".
In the "Pending" category, I see: "The Story Of The Man Behind The Phrase “Pyrrhic Victory”," "Feminism Is Still Here Because Men Are Allowing It To Survive," "9 Ideas From Julius Evola’s “Ride The Tiger” That Are Still Valid Today," "10 Lessons That Ancient Egyptian Wisdom Taught Its Young Men," "Bill Nye The Science Fraud Teams Up With Rachel Bloom To Perform Perverted Transgender Music," "How A Superwoman’s Lies Shuttered a Crime Lab And Imprisoned Thousands," and "Wikipedia’s Downward Spiral into an SJW-style Trollfest".
Here's an interesting Q&A, by the way. Here's another interesting Q&A.
Perhaps the use of this userbox would be a helpful defensive measure. Waddup, Ender (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The main problem with socks is how am I meant to know that you are you? Endercase (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
After the banhammer comes down, then you have your proof. We could skype if you wanted. That's how the sex (assuming you believe in such arbitrary constructs as biological sex) of User:Flyer22 was confirmed. Speaking of sex, doesn't the upper part of the X/Y chromosome look sort of like a blue sockpuppet with red and green eyes? Let's discuss the contradiction! Waddup, Ender (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads upEdit

I'm told that the article will probably drop within the next week. There may be a senpai noticed us moment. I would say, you may find it's best to, for now, stick to editing mainspace, but it's just as easy to get embroiled in disputes doing that as it is if you focus on metapedian activities. The bottom line is that any wiki-dissident's days are numbered, because they stay in power by silencing people like you. Otherwise, you might eventually form an alliance to counter their alliance, and they don't want that.

By the way, if you had wanted to have a chance of getting unblocked before the 72 hours was up, you could have told them that in the future, you would not template administrators. There's not really any harm in saying that, since at this point, it seems you're pretty much obligated (by NeilN's fiat) not to template them anyway or they're going to block you again. At the same time, of course, you wouldn't apologize, because you did nothing wrong.

Arguing that a block was unjustified rarely leads to an unblock. But you can always try it anyway, e.g. if you think/feel that it's more important to make your point. As a practical matter, it likely won't make much difference in the long run, because at this point they're stalking you and looking for excuses (however flimsy) to ban you, and they won't stop till it happens. Waddup, Ender (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not ask for an unblock. I asked to have my talk page rights restored to continue to engage in discussion about my block. You might want to check my contribs here. I don't think the userbox would have helped, NeilN Explicitly said they did not read my userpage prior to the block (failure to do due diligence in my eyes; unaware of my test score on my userpage (their talk page I think)) Endercase (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the article is going to drop on Sunday (the 7th). The title is now "Wikipedia Is A Dire Warning Of What Happens When You Let Social Justice Freaks Take Over". In other news, analysis of Vipulgate continues. Your case was on the periphery of Vipulgate, but I thought it would be interesting to examine the major players and their relationships, and try to understand what is the larger picture and what underlying agendas might exist. Unfortunately, it's very easy to misinterpret or misunderstand what people are up to. It's one of the reasons why I'm usually against appeals to motive; I've seen people err so often when they did that, and at any rate, it tends to distract from the merits. So maybe I'm wrong; maybe analysis of alliances is just an unnecessary distraction. Or it would be, if closing administrators actually put more emphasis on logic and evidence than on numbers of votes and on who is doing the voting (i.e. how many admins are voting a certain way).
If we see a group of editors constantly banding together to express the same sentiments, it theoretically could just be that they really do think alike. That's one argument for staying focused on the evidence, as Andrevan did. It was interesting to watch the clash between Andrevan and Jytdog, in which the latter kept refusing to provide any relevant diffs. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal:_Vipul-related_editor_general_sanction, in which Jytdog kept deflecting by saying that if Andrevan didn't know where the diffs were, it meant that he hadn't bothered to read the pertinent threads. (Andrevan insisted that he had indeed read those threads and not seen any such evidence.)
I suspect that Jytdog is full of excrement, as usual, but there's not really any smoking gun, because we're trying to prove a negative, i.e. that there's no evidence of paid advocacy by Vipul's group. (We know that there was paid editing going on, but was there paid advocacy?) Wikipedia is a pretty big project, with billions of revisions on record, so at what point do we say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Who knows, there could even be evidence out there that got hidden when articles or revisions got deleted.
Anyway, we can still sometimes look at their techniques and their arguments and discern when there's fallacious reasoning. When people tell Jytdog that his reasoning is bad, he'll usually try to flip the script and accuse his critic of being a drama instigator. That's what he did to both Janweh64 and Andrevan. Here's a great post about the problems with Jytdog's approach, by the way. Waddup, Ender (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Waddup, Ender: I have seen paid advocacy (No proof paid but very highly likely: Whopper article). But I don't really think it is a problem, if they edit war or continually advocate (usually though edit warring (maybe the burger king article)) that is a problem. Usually this is COI but not "paid editors" they actually work for the company not on a short term contract basis. Short term contracts are not really a problem in my eyes. Other more propaganda style COI editors are a much bigger and harder to solve problem. The socks that are caught as socks really are the low skill socks (see my posts on Doc James' talk, sorry about the implied insult). Endercase (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, or the sockpuppetmasters partly wanted to get caught. It's like Robert Fisher; did he want the public to find out about his Red Pill commentary, or not? Maybe it was half and half. Why am I talking to you on Meta, rather than emailing you? Same reason, I guess.
I think everyone who covers controversial topics engages in some advocacy, whether intentionally or not. Just presenting the facts as they've been presented in reliable sources (none of which are totally neutral) results in an article that isn't totally neutral. Larry Sanger notes that even when we're objective, we're not really neutral.
For example, any task that involves writing a history will tend to produce a biased account. Suppose I'm writing "the history of Endercase's involvement in Wikipedia" and I mention that you added a tolerance userbox, but I don't mention that you added a Department of Fun userbox. Someone might ask, "Why did you mention one but not the other?" I might say, "Because the reader doesn't want to know about all these irrelevant details. I only included the important stuff." That's where my bias comes in. The only way to not have bias is to just hand the reader a bunch of data and say, "Here, you sort out what's important to you." Waddup, Ender (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Waddup, Ender: Well the department of fun is in practice the more accepted version of the tolerance userbox. Plus, I didn't add the DoF boxes, °°^°° did. Though, I did meme one into a don't violate my NAP box. I compleatly agree, there is no such thing a "neutral" peer everyone is biased by their experiences, NPOV isn't meant to refer to the users it is meant to refer to the administration of content. For instance in the stealth banning article instead of removing the information I added they could have added additional citation needed tags. Readers see thoughts and understand what they mean. I personally hate that RS/N now makes censur decisions on sources, in my view sources should never be removed but tags such as additional citation needed or alt-versions should be added. They use the removal of sources to then remove the content citing "Not Notable/Primary/OR" even though the source for that information was just removed and was obviously not OR or primary. The actions at the stealth banning article really made me feel like I needed to start talking about policy and being more involved in the community (then I went to AN/I). I have been a lurker on Wikipedia for a very long time, making minor IP edits and reading talk pages. As a Reader I was never even aware of all the "social media"esk backpage discussion and policy decisions. If I had been more familiar with the concept that Admin are just users with more tools (not paid or endorsed by the foundation) I think I would have started making my POV known a while ago. How did you get involved in this whole Wikipedia thing? Endercase (talk)
@Waddup, Ender: can we change it to "Wikipedia is a Dire Warning of What Happens When You Let Populist Authoritarians Take Over" Endercase (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was just playing to my audience (which consists in large part of populist authoritarians who oppose SJWs). I'm sure that if Wikipedia's bias favored their viewpoint, they would say that it's glorious how Wikipedia's rugged, untamed reliance on crowds' wisdom being harnessed organically, rather than a top-down approach, has resulted in the greatest encyclopedia the world has ever known. I tend to agree with Wikitruth, though, that the problem is the lack of direction from the top. I disagreed with a lot of Jimbo's decisions, and in fact I think he put in place some pretty bad policies, but I also think it's important that every organization have one person (even if he's ultimately accountable to a board) who is the final decision-maker. Wikipedia doesn't have that; it makes a lot of important decisions by committee (i.e., the ArbCom), which isn't optimal.
I guess one could say that the U.S. makes a lot of decisions by committee too, in that the final appeal in the judicial branch is heard by nine Justices, but there's still a President who can unilaterally decide to pardon people. Of course, that power gets abused a lot. The best approach, therefore, is to expose the decision-maker to market forces. To some extent, Wikimedia is subject to that, because there are competing resources available on the Internet, and donors can decide to take their money elsewhere. But because there are no stockholders who stand to gain or lose based on the organization's profitability, the organization is somewhat insulated from pressure to be popular with advertisers and readers. Of course, that was the point of making it a nonprofit, but I think that decision has worked to the detriment rather than to the benefit of the readers, editors, and ultimately even Jimbo.
I got involved in Wikipedia just because there was a topic that I was enthusiastic about and wanted to cover. Then addiction took over, as I wanted to make Wikipedia complete. Waddup, Ender (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
[1]Endercase (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

involved, veryEdit

NeilN was accused of being a sock of Bbb23 back in 2014 and their cross interactions have not slowed down since. This one of a few things that does make it difficult to AGF. Endercase (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact oddly enough, the reviewing editor for my appeal, Just Chilling, has a history of reviewing blocks by Bbb23 (at the very least UTRS appeals:17311, 17552, 17653, 17262, 17724, 17721, 18015, 18104, and now 18181) generally they ask how they should respond to the appeals on Bbb23's talkpage. Endercase (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, whatever happens, you're always welcome to come down to Kings Wiki or Infogalactic, speak freely, present evidence without having your motives questioned, and write up analyses of what goes on at Wikipedia. You won't have to worry about your content being thrown down the memory hole. Waddup, Ender (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good, I might do Infogalactic (though I have some issues with them, I don't really like their account sign-up process). The MRApedias are a bit too reactionary to SJW in my eyes. They color the MRA movement in such a way that actually slows down the progression of rights. The whole rank shaming, alpha beta crap really pisses me off as well. I've seen it "make" people who should never dom (were actually brats) do some things that shamed all of humanity. I find it pushes too many edge case non-neurotypical individuals over to the darker side of psychopathy and contributes to so called "rape culture". Their ideological alignment of gender identity with relative dominance (particularly sexual) makes me wish I could directly share my experiences online so they can understand why that doesn't help the movement at all. Endercase (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I guess it's gonna drop at 2pmEdit

Interesting how his schedule works...

Publishing Soon

    Today, 2:00 pm Wikipedia Is A Dire Warning Of What Happens When You Let Social Justice Freaks Take Over

Recently Published

    May 5th, 4:00 pm 10 Lessons That Ancient Egyptian Wisdom Taught Its Young Men
    May 5th, 12:00 pm How The Perception Of Disgust Is Manipulated Over Time To Break The Human Spirit
    May 5th, 8:00 am Thousands Of Innocent Men Were Wrongly Imprisoned Because Of One Lying Woman
    May 4th, 4:00 pm The Story Of The Man Behind The Phrase “Pyrrhic Victory”
    May 4th, 12:00 pm Why Liberals Are So Physically Monstrous And Repulsive

Not sure what the rhyme or reason is exactly, other than that Monday is when traffic is highest, and Saturday is when it's lowest, so that's probably why Saturday was skipped. Waddup, Ender (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize I would be mentioned. Hopefully, that doesn't get me banned or something. Thank you for portraying my actions in a positive light. It is a good article, even if it will trigger a few folks and does continue portraying this a battle between sides. Hopefully, it helps change things. Endercase (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The article was changed from my version. My version described Jytdog's behavior as "douchebaggery" (this was changed to "action") and said "Endercase slaps some sense into a bitch" (this was changed to "Endercase rectifies the situation"). It also had a section at the end, "Endercase goes down fighting the WikiKnights," about NeilN's blocking you, which got deleted entirely. I'm not sure if that was because your block expired, or if it was an attempt to get the word count down, or both. Waddup, Ender (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What a pity!Edit

I guess Jytdog didn't feel like engaging in some constructive dialog about the article. Waddup, Ender (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

By the wayEdit

With regard to what was written here: "Furthermore, their argument presupposes that they were a productive editor, while a quick look at their talk page shows that a good number of their contributions were not productive. In fact, the first edit to their talk page was a notification that they'd created an attack page."

He's talking about User_talk:N_I_H_I_L_I_S_T_I_C#April_2017, which is a reference to this page. User_talk:N_I_H_I_L_I_S_T_I_C#Regarding_Carl_Loser shows that it was ultimately found to not be an attack page. Waddup, Ender (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)