GDP Growth

Welcome!

Hello, Intellectual Property Theft, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement, and you may wish to read our newspaper The Signpost. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ricardo Cobo has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ricardo Cobo was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ5XRfKccoo) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Theft, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Intellectual Property Theft! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken

Re this. Wikipedia uses sentence case in headers, see MOS:HEADCAPS. Also are you aware that using all caps, as in your edit summary, is construed as shouting? Bishonen | talk 10:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, I didn't know. I'm new here.

I did not mean to shout.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellectual Property Theft (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A couple of discretionary sanctions alerts for you

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.  Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 August 2018 (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 recently 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 any 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.  Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

• As it says in the standard messages, they do not in themselves imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. However, I have given them to you because I'm concerned about your edits to Alex Jones, which appear tendentious. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

  Every editor can indeed receive those, renewable every six months: I have one about climate change topics. —PaleoNeonate – 12:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• @PaleoNeonate: actually the alert messages "count" for twelve months, and should not be renewed more often than that. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

• Thanks, either it changed at some point or my memory of it did. —PaleoNeonate – 21:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for the info. Yes, people keep changing it. And the problem is it's different people who are doing it. I'm trying to bring it up on the pages talk, but people just want to switch it right back without consensus. If you check the pages talk, there is some consensus for my preferred edit, and some against. It's obviously a political issue. People who edit in content like that are violating the NPOV policy.

I'm not sure you understood the 3 RR rule, I notice you posted on GreenMeansGo talk page and reminded him of the 3 RR rule. That is fine you can remind whom ever you would like as long as it doesn't become disruptive. However you are the individual who has violated that rule. With the following edits [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] No other editor has reached 3 and you are at 5. Users Citizen Canine and Obejective3000 have both only reverted 2 times. VViking_TalkEdits 14:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s not enough to seek consensus, you need to obtain consensus; and it looks like it’s you against everybody. At this point, a complaint could be made against you for WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:TEND, or WP:EDITWAR. The reason no one has is partly due to WP:BITE. But, patience only goes so far. I strongly suggest you obtain consensus before editing this article again. O3000 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Theft, when you say "there is some consensus for my preferred edit, and some against", it suggests to me that you need to check out how Wikipedia defines consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. It's policy. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

It appears you're quickly heading for a block. You should stick to only discussion for a while, no matter how right you think your edit might be. When a consensus has been achieved, let others make the edit. That's the safe way to play this until you get the hang of it. Do everything you can to keep a clean (empty) block log. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I will try to explain consensus: the status quo generally reflects consensus. Every edit which stands can be considered a small consensus, but talk page consensus is still more valuable. Multiple editors reverting is a sign that edits go against the consensus. —PaleoNeonate – 15:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume I don't understand the 3RR rule. I refrained from editing once it was mentioned. I think everyone should refer here: Biographies of living persons. Whoever put the "fake news" claim in the article was contentiously using a neologism that was poorly sourced. This is pure violation, and WP clearly states that this kind of content "should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion". Not only did I remove the contentious neologism, I did wait for discussion. In fact, I shouldn't have had to wait for discussion. The users that keep undoing my edit, frankly, are the ones violating WP's policy. FYI, I did not change the first sentence as I wanted to. I am waiting for consensus on that. I know I'm a novice, but TBH, most of your complaints about my edits are behind in research. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, we all have a few stumbles on entering WP. Your understanding of WP policies and guidelines is less than great. You have stumbled into an arena (politics and living biographies) where even editors with enormous experience stumble and receive sanctions. You actually incorrectly lectured an editor with over 1,000 times as many edits and a clean block log. I suggest you try editing less contentious articles until you have a fuller understand of the guidelines. The guidelines are actually very well written. Once you do this for a time, you will likely be more adept at formulating arguments that lead to consensus, which is what makes a successful editor in difficult articles. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Which part is incorrect? –– This seems to be more a problem on divisiveness than novelty. Many users will argue with my POV. And many have. I don't think there is any major part of my argument that is incorrect. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Your user page

Hello and welcome to the project. I had a chance to look over your user page, and having read it I'd like you to take a quick look when you have time at our policy on user page content. In particular the section, which I have linked to which advises against the use of promotional content. In the text you have written you appear to have advocated for a political position and a viewpoint which is not aligned with the community purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia.

After having read the above policy on user page guidelines, I'm sure you will think of lots of community related material to put on your user page, so that other editors know what kind of thing you are willing to collaborate on.

Many thanks

Edaham (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Edaham, I'm a little confused about the message you're trying to convey. Are you accusing me of advocating for a political position? Where? --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't get it either. Editors are allowed to have and express personal opinions, just not in actual article content, and, depending on the situation, with care on article talk pages. There is no promotion of products here. That would be wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No accusation intended. Our policy advises against: Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.. Most of what you have written appears to be a stance against a political party. I was concerned that if other editors here read it, they might assume some kind of advocacy on your part, particularly as you seem to be editing mostly politically oriented articles. There's no need to change it if you are sure its OK. Edaham (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see you were referring to my discussions. I was of course trying to revert bias, not add it. Can you please provide a link to that policy? I want to read further. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

??? They are referring to your user page, but that policy refers to promotion of products and such like. Otherwise we do not remove properly sourced bias from articles. Articles with only bare bones facts tend to be boring, and they don't document the "sum total of human knowledge", which includes opinions often found on biased sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My impression was that that this thread was about User:Intellectual Property Theft. The concern may have to do that it's an "us and them" statement (in this case something reminiscent of the red scare; it also reminds of distasteful patent trolls). For balance, one could realize that the west is also considered to exploit the east: sweat shops and offshored businesses in less regulated environments contributing to the derisory price of common goods we buy (despite the cost of shipping), etc. I'm not sure that the page blatantly violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, though. —PaleoNeonate – 08:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am hearing different things. Not sure what the problem is. I hope I'm not breaking the rules. Can someone provide me with specific examples of where I might have broken them? Could it possibly be the communism reference in my page? --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There aren't any "rules" so to speak so I'm pretty sure you haven't broken anything. Don't worry about it. It was just a thought. I guess I'm not used to seeing strongly voiced political opinions on user pages and couldn't reconcile putting them there with the task of building an encyclopedia. possibly I over reacted. Have a good day! Edaham (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the new user page update. I would only like to encourage you to also assume good faith in other editors, instead of accusing them or attributing opinionated motives. These arguments are also not new and I understand where they come from, however. Please look at the editing history of various editors you disagree with; it may show that they are not single-purpose accounts obsessed with particular topics but that they have wide interests. There are many tasks people can perform to support the encyclopedia, if they care about it (WP:HERE). This is likely also true for you: it's often best to move on to more productive matters if getting discouraged in one area. I personally generally avoid editing politics related articles. Some articles are way more difficult to work on than others and have been the result of long community processes; that's not necessarily representative of all articles, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 15:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the statement of unconscious bias to assume good faith. The reason for that paragraph is that that's what I perceived on Alex Jones' page and Infowars' page. I will take your advice and observe more articles, however. I don't want to be incorrect. In the future, I will better refine my page. But not today. I better get some sleep...--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

tendentious editing

You are heading towards a state of wp:tendentious, as=and this will not go well. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK until you can actually come up with RS that actually say "not fake news".Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You either did not read the NPOV or are misinterpreting it. Whether you realize it or not, at this point, you are practically trolling. When many people refuse to argue, but still decide to dispute they often accuse others of being tendentious, or having bad intentions. Instead of being intimidated, I will file a dispute resolution. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And that is a PA, if you think I am trolling take it to ANI. And NPOV does not trump verifiable, just because you interpret a source to say X does not mean we have reflect that interpretation. What we have to do is reflect what the source actually says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

To accuse me of being tendentious is very far fetched. Please read the part about appropriating the views of all sources. Also, fake news is not an actual (established) term. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you reread your own post to the tea house where you admit you can find no sources to back up the claim it is not fake news. To continue to argue a point after you have accepted you have no sources to back it up is tendentious. To question the veracity of RS repeatedly without validation is tendentious. [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You are not representing the intention of my words. I DID add sources on the Infowars section that you refused to read. I meant there are no sources DIRECTLY STATING Infowars is not fake news. All you would have to do is, again, click on the sources I DID provide, which you still seem to not want to do. Even if I admitted there are no sources the way you interpreted, I added ones later. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I will, say this one more time, you need sources to say explicitly something, it is not good enough to use a source that does not say x to support the argument X is not true, you need a source that says X in not true. None of your sources support the claim there is any debate or disagreement that infowars is not fake news. If you continue to argue they do I will have to take this to ANI as it is tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Threat after threat... You think arguing HERE is tendentious? Making a false report can get you in serious trouble. The reason I am still going here is because I want to persistently disagree with you. It's not my fault if you can't tolerate disagreement. Uhm... no you don't need sources that explicitly say something in order to correctly proportion sources. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Nickname

If you would like to change your name per the concerns expressed at ANI (a block and/or account recreation is unnecessary) you can request it via WP:NAMECHANGE#Venues. —PaleoNeonate – 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. I left a message on the moderator's TP asking what I may have violated. I just don't get it. Could LITERALLY everything I'm doing be wrong or against the rules? (sorry, just venting) --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It was explained. Your user name references a controversy. It's potentially disruptive. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now changed my nickname. -GDP⇧

fake news

Well this seems to imply it is fake news [7], this says "fake news" is a related topic, Infowars is a fake new site [8], as does this [9], this also makes the link between being fake news site and its taking down [10], this says the ban was a blow against fake news [11]. How about spreading fake news? [12]. Publishes fake news stories [13].

Now for some more definite ones these all say it is a fake news site [14], [15].

Of course this leave out all the ones that call it False or made up or any other euphemism for fake. I could find more if I tried. The simple fact is you have no sources that say it is not fake news, some that do not say anything and some that say it is (in one way or another).Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And the first paragraph of NPOPV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" The only expressed view point is that it is fake new. Not saying something is not expressing a viewpoint.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If you look up fake news on WP, it's described as a type of content. Not a type of website. I don't want to spend too long reading, but I believe none of my citations used the neologism "fake news". Very few do. Don't you think "fake news" is an opinion of the journalist? --GDP (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

[[16]] "...intense scrutiny and criticism over their role in the spread of bogus news", [[17]] "...which is most notorious for helping popularize the false belief that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School" (not nor news, belief, so yes they do use neologisms. What I think is irrelevant, we go with what RS say, not what we think of them. Multiple RS call it (directly or indirectly) fake news, [[18]] "false claims", [[19]] "falsely claiming", [[20]] "blatant falsehoods", [[21]] "Bogus news", [[22]] "FAKE NEWS". I will not post anymore, we have multiple RS calling it false, fake, bogus or whatever, and not one source saying it is not any of these. There is no NPOV case to answer, we are reflecting what the RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Websites which often spread fake news are often referred to as fake news by RS. Yes, that's a bit lazy, but that's what happens.

The "neologism" argument should be avoided, as it's a distraction, at least in this case. Myriad RS use the term as daily speech, and we document what RS say (even if they were to use a real neologism). The term was in use long before Trump, but was popularized by him in his deceptive attacks on serious journalists who try to get it right. He constantly misuses the term to mean (roughly) "anything which makes me look bad, even if it's unquestionably true, and no matter how often and publicly it's proven to be true, I'll still gaslight my supporters by calling it fake news".

RS often document his misuse of the term, and unreliable sources, the ones he and his supporters like, usually misapply the term to describe real, accurate, news. RS also mention proper use of the term to mean actual false news, such as the Macedonian sources; false stories spread by InfoWars, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and even Fox News; Russian-produced FB and Twitter stories spread by right-wing websites, etc.

Nearly any statement can be considered an opinion, but if the opinion harmonizes with reality, it's also a factual statement, and we treat it as fact, not as opinion. There are criteria used to determine whether a statement or news story is factual/true, disingenuous, and/or fake. It's critical that all editors here master and understand the art of vetting sources and knowing, without any doubt, whether such things are true or not. In that process, some things remain in a gray zone. When in doubt, check with experienced editors (and avoid fringe editors, even if they're experienced). Also use the major fact checking websites. They are the gold standard and are considered very RS here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 11:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV says "avoid stating opinions as facts". Very, very few sources say that Infowars is dedicated to false information. They just refer to particular stories. But no one seems to address my point that fake news is not really a real term. It's not listed as one in a dictionary. It's defined as a neologism. WP wouldn't say "Infowars' news is fake". I'm trying to be convinced, and I was about "conspiracy theorist", but I can't with the fake news thing. Anyway, I'll take your advice and seek other opinions from EP's. I will probably ask to be mentored. I know we've all had crazy disputes with each other that went kind of far, but I'd like you to know I don't mind other constructive criticism from anyone here or elsewhere (although I may still disagree). Remember, I'm mainly here on WP to edit modern classical music articles and various political articles (perhaps less than originally intended). I just realized that the Bush 43 article had extremely insufficient citations, so I'll focus on adding those. --GDP (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

[23], [24], [25]. Yes it is a real and defined term.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a real real term is what I mean. It's real, but a neologism. But you proved my point. Those sources all say it means false info. Again, very few RS's say Infowars is dedicated to false info. Some portion is false info. Anyway, let me go ahead and communicate with some experienced users and get mentored. I'm tired. -GDP⇧

Your thread has been archived

Hi GDP Growth! You created a thread called I need help with consensus dispute at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Splitting discussion on this TP (old tricks)

I see that you are again engaging in a low level edit war and misusing (or misunderstanding) what consensus is over at Alex Jones. Also one source (as you found) is not more then 4 (as I found) (normally claiming you have found a majority of sources means you have to have provided at least 1 more then the other side). It might be best if you were to ask for a mentor to take a look at any reverts you propose to make sure they do meet our polices (or to quote policy at people).Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be better if you didn't split discussions onto my TP. I also shouldn't have to rebut or defend myself against your accusations twice – once on the thread and once here. -GDP⇧ 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not for disusing user conduct. My advice is about your editing style, not article content (and it is advice not an attack). It may relate to one page, but it is about conduct, not content. Please stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of policy is attacking you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"Old tricks" is not attacking me? -GDP⇧ 14:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it is telling you you seem to be engaging in conduct that you have already be told (such as edit Waring) is not acceptable (and you promised not to engage in). Please stop overreacting to everything and treating criticism like it is a war you must win, this is not going to get you very far (and may have even lost you the argument over at Jones, as it has drawn people in who might otherwise have gone "who cares"). Does it not strike you as odd that pretty much all the good advice you have been given has been more or less what I have been saying to you. That that policy does not mean what you think it means?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not edit warring. You clearly paid no interest to the links provided by Guy Macon. Edit warring can refer to multiple people fighting over the same edit. I contributed to only one revert. The others were committed by someone else. Yes, there was an edit war. Was I engaging? No. All I knew is I reverted once. Whatever happened after that is none of my business. And everything you said here was already stated on the thread. You repeated someone else with the addition of "engage". Please stop making accusations. -GDP⇧ 14:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Steven,

let's just get along. This is just a forum. I don't want this place to be toxic for either of us. Let's forget the fact that we had bad arguments and work together. ;) -GDP⇧ 14:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I say this?, please read wp:notaforum. I am willing to work with you. So I am happy to draw a line under this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

👍 -GDP⇧ 14:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi GDP Growth! You created a thread called Unable to use email feature at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hatting Hats

Hi there GDP Growth, I figured I'd give you an explanation here. The reason @MPants at work: reverted your edit is because the request was already hatted. Putting it into a different hat doesn't make it any more or less hatted, but does clutter up the page. And telling you that should hardly constitute something worthy of offense. Suggest you assume good faith with administrative revisions like this, and also don't insert new comments into a closed thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. Let me add that the hatting comments I put there might be offensive, but they are factually accurate and only offensive to people who have WP:CIR issues as I mentioned. InfoWars is pretty much the ur-example of a decidedly unreliable source, and our job here is to build an encyclopedia, not be a welcoming community to all. We really don't need more editors who think that NASA is establishing child slave camps on Mars, or that the Mainstream media needs to be assaulted by thousands of assault-rifle-wielding conservatives coming here. If my comment offends one such editor and makes them decide that Wikipedia is an unwelcoming environment they're better off staying away from, than that is a good thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I personally, don't take offense to that. But, when you factor in the fact that wayyy more people watch even Infowars than Little Brian Stelter on CNN, some might. And this is what Alex Jones actually said. Jones has said some awful stuff, but regarding the Mars children thing, some people take things too seriously. It doesn't seem like a good thing to purposely offend some in an attempt to chase them out of WP. That's a few miles past WP:DONTBITE. -GDP⇧ 13:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think, when it comes down to the intersection or conspiracy theory and far-right propaganda, WP:CIR takes precedence over WP:DONTBITE - I generally try to be nice to newbies, to the point where this morning I gave sincere advice to an account that was moments later shut down as a sock puppet playing games. But if a few newbies get their feathers ruffled so be it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I went through some work putting the links, and you've answered 7 secs later :(. -GDP⇧ 13:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The number of people who watch InfoWars is irrelevant to any question about its reliability, and is just a sad commentary on people who like such things. BTW, Stelter is an extremely professional and reliable journalist, and it would be good for you to watch his show Reliable Sources, and to believe what he says. Mere watching is not enough. I get his newsletter. It's very informative. His POV is the POV required of editors here, because everything we do must be based on RS, and Stelter is a RS, unlike Jones and InfoWars. Any editor who defends Jones and attacks Stelter really needs to reconsider whether they should be editing political articles here.[26]

Competence is required, especially for controversial articles. Fortunately there are myriad non-controversial articles which can be edited by those who lack the skills to vet sources and who don't know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. We really appreciate their gnomish work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Although you have a different perspective, I'm glad you have an interest in what's going on. Most people don't watch/read the news. I personally watch Bret Baier over at Fox, as his show is very neutral and displays both sides of the story. But, I like to watch a bit if everything, even at Buzzfeed where women paint pictures with their period blood. I consider both Stelter and Jones to be somewhat on the extremities of each side (even more Stelter). Please check this Harvard study about biased media coverage. Remember, the U.S./Europe is about 50%-50% on these issues (despite the appearance on WP). Our president even went on Infowars. You could just as easily be on a predominately conservative website where people would say you have to leave because you like Stelter. That's one reason why we should not assume that a brand new user commenting their first comment who doesn't know the rules is automatically useless and bully them. That's almost like what AntiFa does (which CNN refuses to cover). I can't imagine what that user was thinking after his first experience on WP (I assume you saw the thread). One thing's for sure. He will now have even less trust in your side of the isle. Digressing, the original subject on this thread was my use of a second hat. My concern was that the hat didn't really WP:CLOSE the thread. It also, again, had an inflammatory statement. WP policy is against deleting anyone's edits, so I figured the best thing was to put a correct hat over it. Then... someone deleted my hat. No matter. -GDP⇧ 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you the same exact thing I tell every single conservative who tries to bring up that Harvard study: At no point does it ever address the question of whether that negativity is deserved. Citing that is akin to suggesting that mainstream history is biased because they say too many awful things about Hitler. Or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Hussein, or insert-your-preferred-famous-shitbird-here. The fact that the media is overwhelmingly negative about Trump proves only that the media is overwhelmingly negative about Trump. It doesn't say one tiny little thing about why. Oh, and this is what Jones had to say about child slavery on Mars. He listened to a guy credulously claim it's happening, and discussed the possibilities and nuances while agreeing with the guy about damn near everything and never once showing the slightest hint of skepticism. The video you linked to doesn't discuss that, it only shows Mark Dice lying (again) about what Jones just said 5 seconds earlier in the same video in order to defend him. The video that caused all of this is not even the video that Dice is commenting on. This one is. And at the end of the day, no amount of conspiracy theories about the MSM trying to silence Jones because he's revealing the truth change the fact that Jones and InfoWars is about the most shit-poor source for any claim of fact there could be, and any editor unwilling to accept that fact is lacking a sufficient ability to engage in critical thought to participate here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well put. The Harvard/Pew studies do draw one conclusion. The media has been negative about leaders since Watergate. It was negative about Bill Clinton in every single one of the 32 quarters of his presidency. Negative stories sell better. The odd conclusion that some people pull out of these studies that the press is leftist simply shows the bias of the people that come to that conclusion when the studies say no such thing. But, this discussion is pointless. O3000 (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it., the video you linked IS the exact same video Mark Dice showed. Hi O3000 (talk). If you read further on the study, you'll see that the overall press was 60% positive on Obama and somewhat positive on Clinton. They were negative on Bush. I did a paper on the study for H.S. The reason the study shows what it shows is because CNN only shows 20% of the actual news. People are losing trust in the "MSM", and that's why most of their ratings are tanking. Try watching Fox, NYPost, USAToday or Washington Times. I would like to go on more and give links, but I think I read it's against guidelines to talk too much about non WP stuff. I was just watching a video of the Wiki founder saying how good it is that Wiki has people of all viewpoints working together. There's also, IMO, not enough balance here, so, I think I'm helping. (I am more centrist than people here think.) -GDP⇧ 05:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

But, I think we can all agree that saying "Picard is better than Kirk" is fake news. -GDP⇧ 05:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My mom would.^[Humor] About talk pages, user talk pages are allowed more freedom than article ones. —PaleoNeonate – 10:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I hear Trump and Fox say constantly that "CNN won't show this" when in fact they did. The claim that CNN only shows 20% of the news is totally false. Also, have you read the actual Harvard study instead of an opinion column about it? It doesn't say what you think it says. Fox and the NYPost are owned by Murdoch, a man who specifically buys news outlets in three countries to mold public opinion to his manner of thinking. The Washington Times was founded by the Moonies and is wholly owned by the Unification Church. You need to read better sources. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly concur with the above. Your views about what represents a reliable source are not in line with the criteria at WP:IRS. The fact that there are more left-leaning reliable sources is not something Wikipedia can do anything about.

In all honesty, it actually says something hard to hear about right-wing politics. Well, hard to hear for right-leaning people, anyways. But it's a fact: society has been moving further and further to the left throughout history. It's gotten to the point where right-wing criticism of left-wing politics is often fundamentally criticism from the left, i.e. accusing antifa of being fascist, BLM of being racist, etc.

Finally, and this is the most important point I will ever make on your page: Kirk was just a meathead with a winning smile. Picard was a true captain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, here's a good one: Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep meaning to correct the Jean-Luc Picard article, as it claims he's fictional. O3000 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

For some reason people here keep assuming I'm an Infowars fan and that I don't consider CNN a reliable source. For WP purposes, I'm fine with using CNN, as I have a few times. In my couple of weeks here at WP, I have (obviously) learned that WP is just a reflection of existing sources, even if they are wrong. And I was wrong about CNN. CNN shows only 10% of the news. You may here this phrase often, but you ARE in a bubble. [27], a shooting they gave almost no coverage of that killed 27 people, they covered only 3 mins aired on their channel, [28], [29], [30] [31], [32], this is never aired on cable CNN, [33]. You may dispute these, but I would not trust a network that said this and also pedals fake poll results. -GDP⇧ 04:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, choose better sources and have better assumptions (good editors use far more than just CNN). You just listed some unreliable sources which should never appear here, even on a talk page. That you even looked at them is worrying: Daily Caller, Washington Times, Daily Wire, and a bunch of YouTube videos. Even Fox News should be used with caution for political subjects, it's that partisan. Even the RS were cherry picked. I'm not even sure if you actually believe some of those stories, or, if they're true, that it makes any difference. You just threw them at us.

If you want to criticize RS, that's easy. Anyone can do it, because all sources make occasional mistakes, and cherry picking those instances doesn't help your case. What counts is how often they do it, whether they consistently fact check, and how they deal with their mistakes. That's what separates the RS from the unreliable ones. Why not criticize the unreliable ones? You'll convince us better if you do. By failing to do so, you seem to be implying that they are better than RS. That won't fly here.

You may benefit from studying my admittedly rough and unfinished Reliable sources stash. There you'll find lists of reliable and unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The entire idea is that you do some research yourself (be interested in the links). I don't care what sources I used. As for articles, Fox is obviously an RS. Whether you disagree with Fox or not is irrelevant. What you and some others here are saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is not an RS and anyone who uses them is bad. WP defines RS's. Go by their definition. Somehow because I used a conservative site, I can't be taken seriously? That's both intolerant and dogmatic. "Even Fox News should be used with caution for political subjects, it's that partisan." But we all just agreed that the Harvard study showed that Fox is 50%/50% and CNN is 93%/7% partisan. I'd be very happy to write the Fox News segment of your essay. I promise I'll be neutral and you can delete or edit whatever you want. Let me know if I can give it a try. -GDP⇧ 06:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to add WSJ to my list. They are also good. For me to criticize unreliable sources for no reason, that would be virtue signaling. -GDP⇧ 07:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand your comments on CNN, You claim they don’t cover some stories that they heavily covered. You then claim they should never have covered a story about what a prominent economist said. Of course they should – it’s news. Unlike FOX, they cover all news, not just news favorable to Trump. And what fake polls? And, you really need to read the Harvard study as you keep misstating what it says. It in no way, shape or form says that CNN is partisan. Indeed, it shows that Fox is an outlier. O3000 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

THIS is a funny moment. Everything you said is in my mind 100% exactly the opposite. This is the point where no matter what points we exchange, nothing is going to change either of our minds. This particular argument, for now, is over. All I can say is delve deep into Fox and WSJ and you might see otherwise. Cheers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it., Kirk is NOT a meathead! The meatheads are the idiot Klingons in discovery that the producers RUINED. -GDP⇧ 12:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to add WSJ to my list. I subscribe to both the WSJ and NYT. The WSJ editorial page is slightly to the right of Mussolini; but I have used the news section as a reliable source, although it’s news content has suffered somewhat since Murdoch bought the paper and cut staff. Keep in mind we are not here to push a POV. I think that Fox and Jones are laughable as sources and aren't news at all. Fox, according to some of its own commentators, has become a pure propaganda arm of the GOP. But, I just removed negative text from the Fox article, and removed negative text from the Alex Jones article yesterday. O3000 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Fox is different than CNN, CBS and ABC. When Fox says something conservative, they make it obvious that you're hearing an opinion or a person's POV. They don't try to make it appear like normal news. For instance, Hannity is obviously sharing his POV that he admits is conservative. On the other networks I mentioned, they still try to appear to be neutral, unbiased news, representing all Americans. Instead of sharing opinions, they remove news that they don't like. Again, you really need to turn on the Fox channel and get some serious content. They also have Shepard Smith, who's very liberal, and is the chief news anchor. 90% of what you find at CNN, you also find at Fox. 30% of what you find at Fox, you also find at CNN. I can't make that clear enough. And how can you compare fiscal conservatism to authoritarianism? -GDP⇧ 22:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

[34] -GDP⇧ 22:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not watch a Cavuto screed. He is so extreme, he accused Disney (a very conservative company) of attempting to push what he calls the "pro homosexual agenda" in their animated movie about penguins. And if you think I compared fiscal conservatism to authoritarianism, .... O3000 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to be disrespectful, but that's a problem. By the way, Cavuto is being liberal in that clip. Your choice. -GDP⇧ 00:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD "Fake news"? Really?

Are you trying to get yourself blocked or banned? You didn't even try a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page first. That's what you should have done first. You should withdraw that nomination, as it will only cause disruption and get you in trouble. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would you leave a message like that on the nomination page??? If that's the case, tell me! Where does it say I have to get consensus? -GDP⇧ 05:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi GDP Growth: Don't necessarily worry about that part; the correct place to get consensus for a deletion is an AfD nomination. However, before opening such a nomination, please see WP:BEFORE, which would have quickly explained why this specific nomination was not really necessary. I hope this helps. Have a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, ~ ToBeFree (talk)! I got a little scared. I took a quick skim through your link and I think I stated a valid purpose for deletion, but I will read more. Honestly, I, as well as another new user I recently messaged, have had experiences like these happen shortly after making it appear that we are on the moderate/center-right side of politics. In this case, I merely sated that I like the Washington Times, Fox News, etc. and things went downhill from there. I'm not accusing BullRangifer of having bad intentions, and am not sure if this is the direct cause of this. I also hope that my relation doesn't with this user doesn't degrade, as we've had some decent discussions (you can see on my TP). I just think users, overall, should at least consider this problem and try to eliminate any possible unconscious biases, which we all have to some extent. -GDP⇧ 06:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, and no need to be scared :) About general improvements of the article, the article's talk page is indeed a useful place to make suggestions. I see that you have already done so on 12 August 2018, and I will respond there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you see that "there is no reason to assume this is vandalism,"[35] since no one accused you of vandalism. (Fighting straw men is a waste of time.) Now on to just using article talk pages. Interaction and communication with other editors there usually works best. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, someone did accuse me of vandalism, and a few others linked vandalism. What you accused me of is also the same. You also said I must be immediately banned. You have, in probably a dozen ways over the past few hours, made very severe accusations that I have absolutely evil intentions with literally everything I do. Someone also deleted the tag, which seems very unfair as it was only up for a couple hours and I was offering to rescind the nomination myself soon. The TP also seems quite inactive. I would like to end this dispute here. There is no reason for this fight. -GDP⇧ 07:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Social networking

I have a good faith hypothesis which could perhaps explain some of the endless argument issues. Other than article talk pages which are not a forum (you already know this by now), Wikipedia is not a social network (WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK). Since the main goal of editing is to improve the encyclopedia (this includes writing and improving articles, patrolling, consensus forming, etc.), chatting is of secondary importance. There are better venues for debates including usenet, blogs, social media networks, etc. On Wikipedia, to discuss or assess the reliability of a source, we have WP:RSN (its archives can also be searched). We have such public noticeboards and archives for many things so that we don't need to keep going round in circles. Socializing is fine because we work with others, but is not the main point of the project. In case this could help, —PaleoNeonate – 11:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Please see the above thread "hatting hats". It's terribly long, but you can see that I was hesitant to go deep in that discussion, however, another user told me that WP policy allows it. Aparently he was wrong. Thanks, I will keep that in mind. -GDP⇧ 11:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

The way I see it, there's two possibilities. Either you are so competence challenged that you cannot make your way about this encyclopaedia in a manner useful to the project, or you are intentionally trolling us all. Either way, you have wasted enough of our collective time. Courcelles (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GDP, a word of advice, if you appeal make sure you do so in the right way and for the right reasons. Do not use whataboutism. You must only talk about your actions, and why this block is unfair. Anything else and it will not pass muster. In a way an appeal is your chance to show you have got what people are saying. I am trying to be fair here and give you advice.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Slatersteven. I really appreciate you taking a bit of time to give advice. To be honest, I'm really genuinely perplexed. I'm not trying to troll by saying that. I just am and that's me being honest. I have not made an appeal yet, as I thought there is little chance. Not trying to draw pity, but I can sometimes have some trouble telling whether my messages are perceived as trolling, etc, as the admins said. I was certainly not trying to, but I would also like to apologize to any administrators (who are reading this) who may have gotten my message wrong, or have felt as I have been trolling. One admin accused me of filing a false accusation, even though I showed the links. Maybe my frantic and overkill defense was problematic. Perhaps I will go ahead and appeal. If you have any other recommendations, let me know. Also, if you don't mind me asking, do you think the block was fair? No pressure. Thanks, -GDP⇧ 11:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to say if it was fair or not, as I am not sure. I would point out that when asked to provide proof of your accusation you did not. Thus (yes) you ANI had no validity (and thus was false, ad despite being told this you continued to argue the case). That (at its heart) is why you have been blocked, you do not listen first time. Trying to get you to accept you are wrong takes a huge amount of time and effort that many users (and admins) would rather spend actually trying to improve our articles. If you had proved to be a valuable area who made significant contributions to an area of expertise you might have been given more leeway, but frankly you have not done that. Beyond making a few cursory changes to a couple of articles you whole direction has been "fake news". In the ANI I told you what you had to to to not get a block, and you ignored this and continued to engage in behavior you had already been told was unacceptable.

AS such I neither agree nor disagree with your block. I can see exactly why it was done (and pretty much warned you it was going to happen). But I have seen other eds get away with far worse (but then, as I said, they are considered to useful to lose). So all I can say is if you were to say you will not edit any political topics (broadly construed) until you mentor deems you experienced enough to edit them (and a minimum of 3 months) I could see no reason for the block, as you have taken in what you have been told and are willing to learn (rather then just being willing to be taught).Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will follow your exact advice. Although the ANI thread was intended to not complain about a user mainly, but to ask whether I did anything wrong, I can see why that might not have been perceived. -GDP⇧ 11:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I always suggested a topic ban, and if you wish to return, then that is one way to do it. Say you will accept a topic ban from political subjects. That way you can get experience editing here in non-controversial ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GDP Growth. You have new messages at ToBeFree's talk page.
Message added 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see below: As you can not reply on my talk page, I am copying this here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"This is insane." (original title of GDP's original message)

This had originally deleted by a friendly talk-page watcher. I am thankful for every second that other people help me to save for answering serious requests, and removing personal attacks is very welcome. Especially requesting revision-deletion of severe attacks is definitely very helpful. However, I do respond even to requests that other people might consider to be silly or lacking even the most basic competence that is required for editing Wikipedia. Unless someone personally attacks specific editors or sends a message that can not be normally replied to, I often prefer to keep these messages.
In this specific case, the user who sent the message has later been blocked for allegedly being either "competence challenged" or "intentionally trolling us all". See the block log for reference.
Blocking someone for an alleged lack of competence is perhaps the most problematic and controversial type of blocking to do. I personally would avoid ever doing this. There are experienced administrators who are willing to do this, and they do a good job, but this specific type of block is extremely problematic in my eyes. Blocking someone based solely on the "Competence is required" essay (!) will always be controversial, and enforcing such a block retroactively is definitely not something I will do on my talk page.
In a nutshell, thank you very much, and do feel free to continue helping, but this specific message really has a right to stay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You were very helpful, but some people are not. I'm about to be blocked for that nomination after users that have JUST WP:BULLY'd me complained and lied about arbitrary things. See my thread and my rebuttals on ANI titled: "I'm being accused of being a vandal". Three admins are now in the process of blocking me and refusing to give reasons. After posting this post, look what this user did on ANI after that. (Sorry, the ANI link is not working). I even have a new WP:MENTOR that recently said I'm WP:HERE. Oh well. Like I said, this started spiraling downhill after I said I watch Fox News. After just saying that too on that admin's page, they've now changed their mind and is now also blocking me instead of defending me. I am upset and think I will soon just get rid of my account and leave. I would like to report this incident to the bureaucrats that run WP, but I'm not sure where to go. I'll be looking around for that. -GDP⇧ 09:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@GDP Growth: Oh my.

Thank you very much for your message. At the moment, I see that you have been blocked and can not reply here. For a moment, I have considered offering to copy messages from your talk page to mine, but that could be interpreted as "proxying" per WP:PROXYING or block evasion per WP:BLOCKEVASION. I might consider to merge and move the whole conversation to my talk page archive in the future. That would probably be okay. So, at the moment, if you would like to reply to this message, simply do so on your talk page. I will add a new section to your talk page, labelled "Talkback" or something like that. You can simply respond below the notification on your talk page. I will respond there as well, so we have the discussion in one place.

About the block

Just to make this clear, although it hopefully is already: I am not an administrator, and even if I was, I could not remove this block. There are very strict policies about unblocking users, especially about undoing other administrators' actions. If you would like to read more about the "rules" administrators need to adhere to, feel free to have a look at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking.

To be unblocked, in your specific case, I would personally suggest:

• Taking a break for at least two weeks, if not a month or two. I am being serious: You will likely need some distance, and many nights to sleep over this. One thing that I can guarantee is: It will not hurt, it can only get better, the longer you wait. If you instinctively disagree with my previous sentence, you likely need to wait at least half a year.
• I personally would use the time to read a book, whatever is interesting. Any book will do. Absolutely no idea? I have two suggestions from my personal bookshelf:

• Tao Te Ching, a small, cheap, short book that will however take months to understand, and that is very likely available in any language you like, and
• How to Win Friends and Influence People, a big, long book full of wonderful stories, also available in multiple languages.

Both are not completely unrelated to the whole case, I would personally say. Please do not mistake the title of the second book. It refers to "Friends" and "People", but that is not my point! I mean the Wikipedia community. It works!

All the time that you normally spent on Wikipedia, could instead be spent reading. Of course, you could also do anything else, but reading a printed book and not using the computer in the same time has proven to do wonders for me. After that, I would recommend

• Reading the established guideline at Wikipedia:Appealing a block, and
• Reading the following useful essay, which is much more detailled: Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks
• Why stop there? It can be very useful to know the policy the administrators are using as well: Wikipedia:Blocking policy
• Agreeing to a topic ban, per WP:TBAN, with whatever scope the community recommends. If they ask you to stop editing a specific area, the best idea is probably actually taking this advice. This can be a very useful way of regaining the ability to participate everywhere else. Wikipedia is sooooo large!

About "bullying"

Please always be careful about the difference between policies, guidelines and essays. WP:BULLY is an essay, although it is not marked as such as clearly as some other essays. The important part is the following message at the top: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

That said, of course, WP:BULLY is a useful essay. It would just be wrong to quote it like a policy, especially when asking for administrative action against someone who has not adhered to it. The policy you might be looking for is Wikipedia:Civility.

One problem, apparently, with the ANI request was exactly the topic: "I'm being accused of being a vandal" (archive link, permanent link). This apparently has not actually happened.

About taking advice

From what I have seen so far, I would sincerly recommend taking any advice that User:Softlavender has given to you so far, and taking any further advice they give. Together with my above message, I would be surprised if you really need to "leave" forever.

About "leaving"?

One note about leaving should be made here: If you actually decide to do (I do not hope so! Please stay), there is one thing that you may never do: Coming back with a different account while being blocked. If you decide to leave, and after a few years decide to come back, you must do so using your old account. If you lost access, you must try regaining it; if this fails, you must immediately explain the situation, and create a link to your old account, as soon as you register a new account. You must make very clear that you have read and understand the WP:SOCK policy, if you ever use a new account while being blocked with an old account.

You may take all time you wish. You may appeal the block in a few days, but I do not recommend this. You may come back in many years, but that would be overkill. I have suggested a more reasonable timespan above ("taking a break"). The only thing that would permanently ruin all hope is evading the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree, I really appreciate the wonderful advice. I will follow it. The original intention of the ANI was to ask if I'd done something wrong, as two other users were telling me. It was, ironically, an attempt specifically at not getting in trouble. Yes, I'm surprised at how much the computer has drawn my eyes in the past two weeks. I normally don't do that. I need to be more like you as far as activity patterns :). Hopefully I can get my email feature working, so I can send you a message. I always appreciate book recommendations! And once again, thanks for helping. -GDP⇧ 20:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#I am being accused of vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

GDP Growth, how is your situation? Are you banned for life from editing Wikipedia?

GDP Growth, I found out about your ban on the Alex Jones talkpage, so how is your situation? Can you still make edits? And no, I am completely opposed to Alex Jones, but I do find your ban to be harsh.138.75.40.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey. I guess you didn't realize you were logged out, so I didn't get your username. I am "indefinitely blocked" from editing WP. I can only edit this TP. This block applies to my account, my IP address, and me, as a person. I can, however, appeal this block. You can find some more information in the thread above. And I'm opposed to AJ too! I'm a bit like this famous Harvard Law Professor when it comes to defending people. It makes me feel more intellectual (and is more intellectual!). I'm not sure if you saw the original ANI thread that got me banned, but it's linked on the bottom of the above thread. It might confuse you a bit about what happened, but it's a thread I started. Not sure if you have your email feature set up on WP, but I'm trying to get mine set up. As soon as I do, it would be easier for me to send a private message about what's going on. I will only be checking back here once every couple days or so over the next couple weeks, to follow ~ ToBeFree's advice, FYI. Thanks for visiting my little WP prison cell here, -GDP⇧ 10:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you should just lay off wikipedia for a few months and take a break and come back for an appeal. 138.75.40.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What's your username? Are you just an IP editor? -GDP⇧ 12:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Just IP for now. 138.75.40.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We are not stupid you know.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said we are not stoopid, I suggest you do not attempt this again, though I now suspect it is way too late, you are not going top be allowed back now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access may also be removed, unless the only use is for making an appeal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We need to talk

The shit has hit the ceiling it would appear. I am very disappointed to be honest.I should have made my mentoring conditions clear before I took a WP holiday, and they would have covered this scenario. They are pretty rigid, but if I would have explicitly explained them to you, and had you agreed to them, you would not be blocked. For that I blame myself. I see that you attempted to remove an article Fake news via Articles for deletion. That was a wildly bad judgement call,to put it extremely mildly. Spurious use of ANI and other issues in addition have caused the community to lose patience. Again, I would urge you to take on board all the advice that I gave you at the beginning, and those of excellent colleagues given above, and on other pages. If you still wish to edit WP, and have taken on board at least some of the advice and constructive criticism given, and you are prepared to completely drop editing highly controversial articles and accept a voluntary one year topic ban from all articles pertaining to American politics and media articles, and limit yourself to learning WP in non-controversial articles, I would be prepared to support an appeal of your block. My mentoring conditions would apply in the first year regardless of the topics you edit. If you agree, I will lay out my mentoring terms for your information. Softlavender Slatersteven,BullRangifer, can we reestablish T/P access for the purpose of discussing an appeal, or are we being trolled here? My gut instinct is that GDP is badly unaware of how this place works, and has certain CIR issues that could conceivably be addressed. But maybe that's just me and my soft heart. I still think there is WP:HERE, but it is a question of how quick GDP can learn to fly right, and the drain on volunteer resource. I would be prepared to cover that, but my patience is finite.Irondome (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the block log, it does not appear that talk page access has been revoked. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

青い(Aoi) (talk) You are correct, I am trying to catch up on some seriously complex events here quickly, and misread that. Thanks. Irondome (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don’t believe TP access has been denied yet. GDP, I doubt you understand that this is a very generous offer. If you have any interest in contributing, I suggest you accept it without any reservations. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Irondome, GDP still has talk page access, and as long as their only comments are directed toward appeals, there isn't likely any danger of losing it. If they start attacking others or making special pleadings and excuses, the community's reserve of patience is empty and they'll probably lose that access.

GDP Growth, please accept this generous offer of mentorship and a one year topic ban. This is your only way back, and I doubt anyone will object if you accept the offer, but ultimately it's up to the blocking admin. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles talk, I would appreciate your thoughts on my mentoring offer. The conditions would be challenging, and would be a 101 to GDP on how to navigate WP. Please read my opening post on this thread for full details. Irondome (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Irondome, I've not lost access. I can understand your disappointment. What happened is very complicated. I've been meaning to send you an email message about what happened and hadn't gotten around to it. I tremendously wish that you chose not to blame yourself. I will let you know exactly what's going on. I apologize for not messaging you sooner. -GDP⇧ 04:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

-GDP⇧ I should have explained to you what my conditions were for mentoring before I went off. You would not have created that damaging AfD for instance. One of the mentoring conditions is that you run all but minor edits by me first so we can discuss advisability. Time - consuming as hell for me but I believe in editor retention. My advice to you is based on how I go about things here. I DO NOT edit subjects which stress me out in real life. If I do, as in Israel/Palestine, I make damn sure I know my colleagues first and have established relations with them, I actually prefer chatting to colleagues with a different POV. Counter-intuitive perhaps, but rewarding. You need to learn the basic ropes here. WP is a rewarding hobby. Just remember it's a hobby. Do you accept the offer I have detailed above? You seem to have other interests, such as music and space. Work on them. Please accept a voluntary topic ban on politics and media for a year. It will greatly increase the communities' confidence in you being a genuine contributor. If you do I will happily support your appeal. Obviously the final say will be with the blocking admin. Irondome (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

GDP, you were asked to make a plain statement, not to apologize. Maybe you ha be not understood so lets try again. You were blocked for prevarication, for continuing to not agree to conditions but rather just continuing to make non committal statements. You are doing the same again. Your only option now is just to post "Yes I agree to all of the above without caveat". If you post anything else I suspect you will lose any friends you have here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes, I agree to all the above. I did not mean to detract from what everyone is telling me. I will officially make the statement when I appeal. I have emailed Irondome, so you are not seeing all of what's happening.

• As suggested, I'm trying to take a break from WP. I don't mind a few suggestions or advice, but FYI, it may take a while for me to reply. -GDP⇧ 08:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I see no reason not to unblock then. I do not think you need to take a break from WP, just certain topic areas. Concentrate on your area of expertise (contemporary classical music) and earn a reputation as a valued editor there.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, so long as the TBan is logged and not simply a promise to avoid, which also means no politics on talk or user pages (like GDP’s current user page). O3000 (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, as it would likely be "broadly construed". —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm no administrator and cannot decide. However I also think that an unblock with a clear topic ban and a mentor would be reasonable (I remember my comment at ANI in relation to the topic ban being an opportunity not to miss). Irondome's mentoring offer is indeed very generous. —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________

• I think I've got it from here. Like I said, I would like to discuss things with Irondome. If anyone has anything really important to say, fine. But, I don't really want my discussion with Irondome to be bypassed here. And, regardless, I do need a break. At least a couple weeks. You'll just have to forget about me for the next two weeks, as I will do myself. -GDP⇧ 13:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi -GDP⇧. I got your very detailed email. It explains a great deal as to your inexperience in the use of the web, and your lack of experience in handling site-based conversations. It confirms my belief that you were merely unable to handle complex interactions on perhaps the most challenging site for web-based interactions, which is WP, IMO. I would prefer that further conversations be held on my talk page. I must ask you to accept the one year voluntary topic ban on US politics and media subjects, broadly construed. This is non-negotiable. I will explain my reasoning for this in a new thread which will be created on my talk page dealing with the mentoring conditions. I would ask you to trust me and adhere to this. Regards, Irondome (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Irondome. I apologize if the email was overly complicated. Not sure if you know this, but I can't edit on your TP while I'm blocked. Only mine. Like I said, I will follow your recommendation. I would like to discuss exactly what "broadly construed" means. One user said my user page is political, but I just cite current 'laws'. I have two somewhat political userboxes that I could remove. -GDP⇧ 03:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to Irondome: No one has the power and authority to unblock GDPG except an admin, and upon conferring with the blocking admin Courcelles. The prevailing sentiment at ANI is that the user needs an indefinite topic ban from both AP2 and media, broadly construed. And noting the sentiments on this talkpage, I doubt very much that he will be unblocked unless there is an official (not voluntary) indefinite topic ban on both of those areas. There has simply been too much blatant disruption and too many false statements/accusations in an extremely short time here. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, don't worry. Irondome and others are reviewing everything that happened and offering suggestions. Like I stated earlier, Irondome and I are discussing this and not all of what we're discussing will show up here. -GDP⇧ 03:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You're not getting it. The conditions of your unblock are not up to you or Irondome. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Softlavender. My impression is that Irondome is already helping GDP as mentor and may assist him to formulate a plausible unblock request, an admin will then get to decide. This will be my last comment here unless an unblock occurs. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate – 03:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can change Softlavender talk. GDP got in way too deep, way too fast. Being inexperienced in internet dialogue, GDP had not learned the golden rules of deescalation and the proper channels of communication. I believe GDP now strongly gets it. -GDP⇧ Please do not use your talkpage for any further comments on this. Please use my talkpage for any further discussion. Thanks. Irondome (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Irondome, GDP is still blocked and can't use your talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Thanks BullRangifer Irondome (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Irondome (talk), if there is some reason to not continue here, you're welcome to use email, if you wish. -GDP⇧ 21:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

-GDP⇧ it would be probably better if we just used here, for transparency. We would just be discussing relevant points regarding appeal, so there should be no issues there. Irondome (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. If you'd like to get into the details, we can start discussing. -GDP⇧ 22:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

First things first. Read Wikipedia:Appealing a block thoroughly as your first move. Irondome (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. -GDP⇧ 02:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Now read it again Irondome (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

After you have read and absorbed it, please hash out a rough initial wording of your appeal here. Things to remember. Keep the tone positive and upbeat. Look to the future on WP. Do not adopt an embittered or aggrieved tone at all costs. Take full responsibility for your actions. Admit candidly your mistakes. Admit that you dived into the deep end of the WP pool where you should have been in the shallow end. Blame no one.Mention your extreme error in attempting to AfD Fake news, (keep that self-deprecating. Mention that you are aware that that was tantamount to blanking the main page. That's a community in-joke for a supreme cock-up. Some humour is appreciated by the community). Offer a voluntary one year topic ban on US politics broadly construed and all media areas broadly construed. Mention that you will not repeat these mistakes and will not escalate situations. Accept that you need to reach out to those who you are in debate with and create dialogue. Drop the idea that you have enemies on here. You don't. Mention that you have a mentor who will watch over your learning curve on WP for your first year. Apologise to the community for volunteer time wasted. Irondome (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I read it again. I wrote down a bit of a draft the day I was blocked. I will finish it and have it here soon. I might make some very subtle additions to what you described, and you could let me know whether anything should be removed or changed. When I make the appeal, should I request the review of an uninvolved administrator? -GDP⇧ 04:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict so please re-read the above. I have added a bit more. Hash a draft and then we will go from there as to whom we approach. The original blocking admin is an ok person in my experience. Now it's beddy bed time in the UK. Catch you later. Irondome (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for abusing this user talk page, ignore this if you will, but: Now it's beddy bed time in the UK?? =) It's like 5:30am =) byteflush _Talk 04:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Several questions you could maybe answer after waking up: What exactly does "broadly construed" mean? Does this mean no politics on my TP and no political discussions with anyone? What about pre-1933 politics (the original T. ban proposal was post 1932)? Could I still edit those articles? And I assume you mean news/political media. What about other media, such as TV shows? And what about articles on non-controversial personalities/people that happen to have some connection with politics (like Alan Dershowitz)? (Sorry if I unloaded too much here.) -GDP⇧ 04:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Broadly construed. Check the link. I would advise you to strip the political content from your user page. Put up a picture of one the Hubble images of a distant galaxy. Avoid politics for a year. Do not get the reputation of being a WP:SPA. Lord knows we have enough of them on here. You can edit Sergeant Bilko and other more interesting media all you want. Professor Dershowitz is hardly non-controversial to be honest, although I often like his style. Do not edit anything political for a year. Work on music and space. I said my mentoring conditions were rigid. You will be doing enough politics in your first year of college, and it will be more challenging than WP. Save your energies for that GDPG. Irondome (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Irondome, I haven't seen a single sign of consensus changing. Also, your basically writing GDPG's unblock appeal for him is a bit ... out-of-process, to say the least. Could we have a confirmation that Courcelles is tracking the events on this talkpage? Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm watching. Courcelles (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am advising, Softlavender. I am glad you are observing, Courcelles. Irondome (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, have you received my email? -GDP⇧ 05:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't send me emails. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Irondome: Actually, I will not be doing any politics in college ("uni", as you Britts say it). Music is something I'll be doing. -GDP⇧ 05:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it GDPG. So I would suggest you develop that expertise here on WP. Music articles need attention, and new articles. Irondome (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

My question about pre-1933 politics is still, I think, unanswered. Could I edit, say, Abe Lincoln? -GDP⇧ 05:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically , yes, but it would depend on the edit. Please refrain from the use of email communication GDPG, as it muddies things and does not assist transparency. Irondome (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the one email I sent you? That was really long. I have not emailed you since. -GDP⇧ 06:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Never mind. I just thought email would be best in that case. -GDP⇧ 06:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Transparency is important. If you (GDP Growth) were to convince both irondome and myself that you understand what you did wrong and are committed to doing think differently if unblocked, having two editors supporting an unblock is more likely to result in the administrator who actually makes the decision and removes the block unblocking you. I am quietly watching this page, and there may be other editors who are doing the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
*cough* ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope this is not too off-topic, but does a block/ban apply to all Wikimedia, or just WP? -GDP⇧ 21:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A block on the English Wikipedia, which yours is, applies only to the English Wikipedia. You are free to edit all the sister projects provided you haven't been specifically banned from any of them. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC).

Thank you. Interestingly, it seems that the whole WP community is watching this page, or at least sees it. -GDP⇧ 22:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I have a strong interest in people who have been blocked and later become productive editors who really make this a better encyclopedia. That's because that is basically my story; twelve years ago I started off as a fairly disruptive IP editor. I got flamed, but that only encouraged me to escalate the behavior. Then another editor had a nice civil conversation with me, treating me like a human and gently explaining how much fun building an encyclopedia is and why we have the rules we have, some of which don't make sense at first. I have to say that 90% of the time the disruptive editor never "gets it", 5% of the time he gets it but never really becomes productive, but the remaining 5% end up making huge improvements to the encyclopedia. GDP Growth, I have a good feeling about you. I am going back to silently monitoring the page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon. While most vandals go on with their vandalizing ways, get blocked and get forgotten, there are a few that eventually realize what we're doing here. These become editors with high reputation (such as Guy) and their hard work on the encyclopedia is something we can only hope to equal one day. Going from vandal (or a disruptive editor) to a respectful member of the community requires maturity, collaborative efforts and - most important - understanding that you are not the only person on this planet. What you consider The Truth doesn't mean that it is widely accepted as such, nor challenged. You must realize that this encyclopedia is created by a wide variety of editors from all sorts of cultural, political and social backgrounds.

To be blunt, you haven't realized that yet. However, if you can go on with editing music- and art-related articles for a while, without dabbing into politics, you might prove yourself a net-positive for the project. Don't ask too much about your potential topic ban. Use your common sense, and agree to it. Afterwards, use your common sense again - if you're in doubt, you're topic banned from it.

Those are just a few friendly suggestions on how to get back to the community and even become a respectful editor. If you don't violate your topic ban and the community agrees that you have matured - who knows, it may probably be lifted one day. byteflush _Talk 02:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For once, I have no idea how to indent this, but this is a reply about crafting GDP's unblock request for him by Irondome. I noticed it early on, but didn't want to intrude. However, now that more people have shared my concern - I would like to remind GDP that they, personally, have to write an unblock request. Whatever they write in the body will probably be questioned multiple times by several admins. DON'T say that you're waiting for your mentor. Mentoring only goes so far - your mentor will not (should not) tell you exactly what you should reply. So, GDP, without consulting your mentor, can you tell us what lead to your block? byteflush _Talk 04:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

-GDP⇧, You express surprise that this thread is being watched. It is being watched by some of the most respected members of the WP community (i'm low in the food chain here, so i'm not one of them :)). Guy, the other respected colleagues. Hell, you even had a visit from Bishonen. You don't know the ins and outs of the community yet, but we all have our individual histories. We were all new once. Bish was personally blocked by our great leader, Jimmy Wales for incivility lol. The last block old Jimbo ever personally did. Bish is now a greatly respected admin. Guy is a massive presence. All the colleagues who have commented here are well respected, to say the least. The community will cheer you on if you just take it's collective advice. I too have a good feeling about your future here, if you just listen to what is being said. Personally, I believe in keeping new colleagues in the project, if they are not behaviourally shot to shit. You have not displayed a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. You screwed up a bit, but that can be fixed. Now think about hashing out your appeal. I cannot help you anymore on that. It must be your appeal. Do not mention me and do not use my suggestions. I cannot advocate for you, I have pushed the boundaries and will say no more, although I have absolutely no regrets on my advising you. No blocked newbie is ever really helped much on how to appeal. That's a shame. Actually it's a fucking scandal. We have lost probably thousands of potentially active newbie editors because no one could arsed to actually guide them, and not just a link. Well I am different. But now it's up to you. Just use your inner voice. Go over your mistakes. Internalise them. I think you will be a net positive, once you have figured out what's what. Irondome (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Guy Macon and byteflush _Talk. What got me blocked is quite complicated, but I can elaborate later on. A couple users might jump in here and say why, but their statements are already visible. Irondome isn't writing my appeal, rather telling me what to commit to and keep in mind. I will give the appeal in a while from now. Irondome: Appreciate the story. One of the early thoughts in my mind after creating my account was eventually becoming an admin someday. I thought the chances dwindled after things happened, including this. I will say now, that the whole "community lost patience" thing is something that I didn't realize. I see that the amount of users that are very active and WP is a handful. I thought that every thread I posted should just get seen by someone else and people would forget about me. When the same users kept showing up on my threads, it disconcerted me a little, especially as anyone would expect WP to be edited by tons of people, being the tremendously viewed site that it is. I'm trying to follow ToBeFree's advice in regards to a couple weeks+' break before my appeal. -GDP⇧ 07:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm Back

Well Simon, I suppose this is a good time to make the appeal? -GDP⇧ 09:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Heyyy! I endorse this very much, but I will have a few questions. Please go ahead first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey ~ ToBeFree. I will wait and see if Irondome (it appears he has changed is name to Simon Adler) wants to join in here first. -GDP⇧ 16:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That does sound reasonable to me, but I'd also recommend re-reading his last comment on this page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm here Simon Adler (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Irondome was a cool name, but I can get used to this. Just to be extremely clear, should I publish a rough draft here first? -GDP⇧ 04:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Because it may be a good idea to keep the request "brief" and "to the point", and because a part of your block reason is allegedly "wasting time", there should hopefully not be a need for a draft or sandbox. To avoid losing text while privately experimenting with the best wording, I recommend using a text document on your computer. The easiest way to start the unblock process is to add the following code in a new section called "Unblock request": {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}. I personally will wait for this submission before asking more questions. There may be a longer discussion; the "unblock" template in a new section is a good way to start it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GDP Growth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I obviously jumped way into the deep end in WP upon joining. Simon was kind enough to agree to start to mentor me once he would return from a break from WP. I did not get that the point of a mentor was to ask questions about most edits before posting them. What led to my block was an AfD nomination, and spurious use of ANI, which is tantamount to blanking the entire page, setting the WP server on fire and then having it sucked into a black hole. One admin linked a pie chart showing how my editing was proportioned. I thus realized that I was also contributing way too much to TP's. I should have waited for my mentor to get back from his break before all these actions. I hope no one really thinks that I'm trolling anyone. Simon advised me to accept a 1 year voluntary topic ban. Honestly, I don't think it's necessary, but if the admins think it is, then I can definitely agree to not edit current politics and political media topics, broadly construed, for until August, 2019. -GDP⇧ 02:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having reviewed this situation I endorse Courcelles block rationale and agree with his statement at ANI Indeffed because there is either such a CIR problem nothing can solve it in a reasonable amount of time, or we've all fallen for an elaborate troll job. The explanations that were given at that ANI test the limits of good faith, even if given in a seemingly civil way, and honestly reading through the ANI, it sounded just like this unblock appeal.

Before unblocking you should take at least 6 months off from the time of your initial block (So that means no editing until around February 2019) and then consider the standard offer, which I'll take the time to point out is not a right for you to be unblocked after 6 months, but an rather an opportunity for you to demonstrate to the community that you have learned from your mistakes. Finally, this might just be me, but I've gotten to the point where I'm rather cynical about mentorship as a condition for unblocking: it can be helpful, but at the end of the day, you need to be able to demonstrate that you won't be disruptive.

Also, as advice going forward, the instant you understand how to appeal to the ideas in WP:BITE, whether you link to it or not, is the second you know enough about Wikipedia for it not to apply to you. Focusing on being new and needing help and mentoring rather than discussing what you did, what you have learned, and what you will do in the future to avoid it will not get you unblocked. You need to be able to explain those three things in a way that makes it clear that you, not anyone else, gets it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment: Given the extreme nature of the user's beliefs, and the extreme amount of disruption they created, with hardly any productive edits, I recommend that the topic ban (from AP2) be official, logged, and indefinite. That was what was agreed upon by the consensus at ANI as the only condition this editor should be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The ANI thread can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#I_am_being_accused_of_vandalism, diffs can be found here. Please note that mentorship, or misunderstanding of mentorship, can never have been the issue, but asking a mentor before making these edits would have caused the mentor to explain the problem. The "point" of mentorship probably depends on the agreement between mentee and mentor, and if the "point" of a specific mentorship is requesting approval for every single edit, then there's a larger problem hidden behind this. However, I believe that the block may have been made too hastily in the first place, judging by the quick re-block within 2 minutes to adjust a suboptimal block reason, and the unnecessarily emotional blocking comment at ANI. I believe that a topic ban would nicely avoid (not "solve", but nicely avoid) the issue in a way that hopefully makes everyone happy. At the moment, I do believe it to be necessary, ironically indicated by the contrary statement at the end of the unblock request. I believe that one year of participation in the huge world of Wikipedia, current politics aside, is exactly the right measure in this case. GDP Growth has clearly shown willingness to learn, indicated by looking for a mentor, listening to their advice and asking them for explanations - so much that there had been complaints about this positive behavior above. GDP Growth has also admitted having had interest in becoming an administrator one day, and taking this into account, I would say: Too quickly, too much. That's the whole issue. And it's not a huge permanent issue justifying a block anymore, but rather a good start for unblocking and learning, learning, learning by doing. Everywhere except in current politics, broadly construed, for one year. This can still be prolonged or shortened. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Guy Macon's recommendations

I recommend that there be no unblock until a full six months has passed since the latest block. GDP Growth was warned, repeatedly and in detail, what he had to do to avoid being blocked. Actions have consequences.

After the six months, I recommend that GDP Growth be unblocked with an indefinite topic ban from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, in any namespace. No request to lift the topic ban should be considered until at least 6 months later.

Message to GDP Growth: If my recommendations are followed, You should spend the first six months closely following all of the noticeboards (especially ANI and arbcom) and studying our policies and guidelines. You should spend the next six months trying to be the most productive, friendly, and rules-following editor we have ever seen. In your six-month appeal, mention this message and confirm that you followed my advice and intend to continue to follow the second part of my advice. In your one-year request to lift the topic ban, point to specific edits and specific pages where you have proven that you are willing and able to be a good editor.

When I first started editing Wikipedia 12 years ago as an IP, I screwed up far worse than you ever have or ever will. The more I got pushback from experienced editors the harder I fought -- and I am pretty good at fighting. One day a wise editor posted a calm, reasoned comment that explained how much satisfaction there is from being a productive editor. After some back and forth, I changed my ways and it was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Just the other day I got an email from a journalist who is writing an article on Wikipedia and found my essay at WP:1AM to be especially helpful. You can have the same experience if you really want to. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, ~ ToBeFree, Simon Adler, and all the others who helped to a lesser extent, including Slatersteven, thanks. I tried. I suppose I'll do what is stated above. -GDP⇧ 20:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be for the best, it is about making a gesture. The above will go a long way when the time is up.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• After six months, at the earliest, a new appeal. If the block is lifted, a topic ban (from AP2) is a must, per Softlavender's suggestion above. There are serious CIR issues here, and they must learn by editing non-controversial topics. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GDP Growth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I suppose it's been about 6 months since I was blocked. You can see the above request. I hope this shows that I'm here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks, -GDP⇧ 04:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm a bit worried by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake news (2nd nomination). This was a stunningly bad nomination. Everyone makes bad judgments at AfD sometimes, but you said that Fake news "uses sources that are the typical suspects of 'fake news'". That makes me think that you have no idea how to identify a reliable source. You can't edit Wikipedia without understanding how to identify reliable sources. So, please make a new unblock request that shows you can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Support unblock along with an indefinite topic ban from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, in any namespace, broadly construed. GDP Growth should spend the next six months trying to be the most productive, friendly, and rules-following editor we have ever seen. When he asks for the topic ban to be lifted, he should be able to point to specific edits and specific pages where he has proven that he is willing and able to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GDP Growth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I should have explained further. I honestly am not sure that I can make that judgement now. I thought I did before and it turned out bad. Therefor, I accept a topic ban from post 1932 politics, and when/if the ban is lifted, I will seek advice from a mentor or experienced user to make sure I know how to make that distinction. I think all the users I know here are recommending that I be unblocked with a TB. They are nice people and will help me through the process of of building up my judgement.-GDP⇧ 16:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I will give you a chance as you have agreed to a topic ban as described on this page, appealable after six months. Good luck, and don't hesitate to ask for help or assistance. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that GDP Growth should be given a chance, keeping WP:ROPE in mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of WP:ROPE, and will certainly take its advice. -GDP⇧ 22:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me be even more blunt. GDP Growth waited out his six months without complaining on his talk page, sockpuppetry, or in any other way being disruptive. Now he is asking for a chance to prove that he can be a good editor, knowing that his behavior will be watched. Also, if he started being disruptive it would make me look like a fool for vouching for him. I simply don't think he would do that to me. And he has done everything listed at Wikipedia:Standard offer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to decline GDPG's appeal, and if enough people are up for helping them, an unblock could certainly be tried, per WP:ROPE. However, it's disappointing that they apparently have made no effort to edit other wikimedia projects.[36] Yes, Guy Macon, there is a bulleted list at Wikipedia:Standard offer — three bullets about things to avoid. The user has avoided them. That's good. But I don't see what they're supposed to have learned from simply sitting out the six months. The Standard offer also contains this point: Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects. GDPG, I thought you intended to edit other projects, since you asked if you were allowed to[37] (I told you yes). I, at least, find it difficult to assess your improvement as an editor when you haven't edited anything. Your statement that you intend to take the advice of WP:ROPE doesn't help much either. What advice? WP:ROPE contains advice for admins, AFAICS — not advice for you. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

If others/the admin thinks it's best if I edit some other WM projects first, I can take another couple weeks to do that. One thing that I think I did promise to do (and continue to do) is to consult a mentor, presumably Simon Adler, or if anyone else is willing (or just any experienced user willing to give advice in a TP) for any significant edit for some time. I can also promise not to nominate any articles for deletion, or use the ANI board at all without a clear approval from the mentor. This precaution could last a few months, or however long other users think is necessary. But regarding other WM projects, can't I create another username? How would you know it's me? I guess I'd have to use this username with that account. -GDP⇧ 04:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

PS, I think the only trouble I've caused in with political topics. That's why I'm accepting a TB. -GDP⇧ 04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Slatersteven, if you want to add something... -GDP⇧ 08:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the ping. I think the only thing I should add is that I have already supported an unblock for exactly the same reasons 6 months ago. This has not changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it normal to sometimes take this long? Maybe I should put a fresh request in a new section? Or, if somebody would leave a note in an admin's TP, that would be helpful. -GDP⇧ 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It has only been two days. If nobody has evaluated your unblock request after a week I will post a request for someone to make a decision at WP:AN. Right now time is your friend; I expect more comments supporting an unblock in the next few days. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Two days is nothing in Wikitime. I’m OK with an unblock with an AP2 (1932+ politics) TBan appealable after six months. Although, I still don’t see that you have fully understood your block, and am concerned that your interest is to eventually return to politics, where your problems became evident, with little interest in other areas. But, I believe in playing out ROPE before and after sanctions. O3000 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Like I said, I have a good feeling about you.

If there is anything at all I can do to help, please drop me a line on my talk page. In particular, if you get into a conflict, I will be happy to tell you if the other person is being disruptive (or perhaps that you are the one who is being disruptive) and advising you on how to deal with the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Thanks! Don't hold too much hope in me, as I'll be a very occasional editor. But, I'll try to get some good edits done before the six months. -GDP⇧ 23:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I should get some advice on my user page. I think it's more of a governmental topic, but maybe I should stay on the safe side of my topic ban and remove my constitution stuff? -GDP⇧ 23:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be wise to remove anything even vaguely political from the user page. And yes, welcome back. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)