User talk:Herostratus/Well jeez

I gues I've lived a bit more than some

Since all but the first two things have happened to me at some point. And I've been blocked for a spurious reason. I'm still alive and emotionally stable and still edit Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this is now in project space, let's just go for it and assume most people have a perfect life and have never experienced any kind of adversity in their normal lives and I'm just a mutant. Here's some more from my own illustrious life we might as well add if that is the supposition of this essay:

• Divorced
• assauted by random strangers apparently because I was the wrong color in that place and time (three times)
• evicted for bogus reasons (twice)
• terrifying car accidents (four)
• cheated on by siginifcant other (not sure how many times, but all from the same....person)
• Degrading phone conversations with collection agents
• Insulted and degraded for basically no reason while working in the service sector (too many times to count)

Let me know if you need more, I'm sure I could come up with a few... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I was about to write a touchy-feely post about how Beebs is good people but he's wrong ;) People do sometimes feel hurt when a community they've invested time and energy in seems to be rejecting them. Surely we've all managed to overreact to something objectively minor at some point in our lives, possibly as a result of some of those other things on Beebs' list? ...But then I got to the part of this essay that says being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life. Which is just a tad over the top. Or maybe directed at those who've just turned 18. This essay has good insight to offer, but exaggerations like that undermine its credibility.

I'm also not quite sold on the idea that new users are disproportionately distressed by being blocked. Anecdotal experience suggests that most new users will accept a reasonable explanation, even if they're a little jarred by the experience. On the other hand, established editors often feel frustrated, hurt, and alienated when they get blocked for reasons they feel are disrespectful of their contributions, and those relationships can be much harder to repair. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The only analogy that I think makes any sense at all is being kicked out of a bar or restaurant. (And that one actually hasn't happened to me although I have been cut off once or twice) There's lots of reasons a person can be kicked out, and in most cases it's no big deal if the come back tommorow and don't repeat the behavior from the night before, but there are a few things that are more serious and will get you kicked out for good. It's not akin to a fistfight, being arrested, sued, etc, in any reasonable way. You're being kicked out, not locked up. And not even kicked all the way out, you can still look at it all you want. Perhaps now that this is in project space it will be modified with more realistic examples. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't quite work - at a bar your role is as a paying customer first, and only secondarily (if at all) as a member of a community with a common purpose. More like getting asked not to come to next week's trivia night. Even if you know damn well you got too drunk and yelled about an answer that wasn't accepted but was totally right, dammit and generally acted like a jerk, it still stings to be told a group you're invested in belonging to doesn't want you around. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Being sanctioned by a group one is invested in being a part of is how that group maintains its norms and social integrity. Special snoflakism ultimately means no one is held accountable for their behavior until it becomes intolerable. Everyone screws up and a community can either gently bring them in line with its norms or it can become a breeding ground for assholes and egotists. You need to screw up pretty badly and respond poorly to lesser attempts to bring your behavior in line with community norms to get even a moderate term block. A person who is incapable of conforming to the minimal rules/norms of Wikipedia and incapable of adjusting/moderating their behavior when the issue is pointed out to them and has so little experience of life that they have never been called out or corrected is probably not mature enough to interact collaboratively with adults. Yes, admins need to consider that there is a person with feelings and possibly a very different world view, values and life experiences but this empathy should not be an excuse to allow problematic behavior to continue uncorrected. Jbh^Talk 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. I'm closing this myself, in the interest of amity and avoiding needless contention. The points have been made and the discussion is likely to bear less fruit going forward. (I claim the right to do so, even though I'm involved, as page creator and as the person into whose userspace the move is targeted; disagree, take it to Wikipedia:Move review although I think we've have enough of this.) In doing so, I'm not going to pass judgement on who had the stronger argument or which points are correct -- I obviously can't, as an involved person. I'll just say that IMO both sides made fair points. It's apparent that positions are kind of entrenched, and it's an emotional issue I guess, so let's end it now and move on to other things. It's just some obscure mediocre essay, it is not worth having a huge fight about and ANI and all that.

As page creator, allow me to say I figured this was just a little nothing essay that would not likely catch on or be much noticed, and I did not intend for a lot of brouhaha, and I regret any bad feeling engendered. Anyway, looking at the sunny side, there's been some interesting and educational things brought forth, and some interesting points made, and speaking for myself all this helped clarify my thinking on the issue, and so let's take the positive from this. Jawboning about stuff like this is the Wikipedia way!

Also as page creator, by moving I'm not surrendering or withdrawing the points expressed on the page. I just think the discussion is played out and different fora than RM are called for. I'm gonna move it into my space, but it'll be back someday, but in a much changed form (and this discussion has given me many thoughts for improvement) and a different name, and with input from many editors before being moved into Wikispace. Forward then, and fear no darkness. Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Being blocked hurts → User:Herostratus/Being blocked hurts – Essays that represent extreme minority viewpoints and seem to be owned by a particular user belong in userspace, not project space. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• Oppose – how is this a minority viewpoint? Surely we should all agree that being blocked hurts, especially if done without warning, without clear explanation, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The way it is written it over-dramatizes it, comparing it to various real-world things tha are ugh more traumatic than being blocked on a website, and the author, instead of commenting here, removed an attempt to add some balance to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I'm perhaps luckier than you in not having had such a dramatic life. Still, it's a point worth making, and maybe there are better ways to tune it up than the way you did. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and stop it User:Beeblebrox and instead calm down take a look at at the bigger picture.

Yes I gather that you're no stranger to street. Me too. But a lot of people are. Allow me to introduce you to X, a person I know well. Throughout her academic career, she got one "B". She didn't deserve it (professor didn't like her because she was too talented) and was plenty upset. As to the rest -- Dean's List, summa, and so forth. Never a traffic citation, and so forth. Successful career, valued and lauded professional. Doesn't drink to excess, doesn't smoke, doesn't cheat, and never did. And so forth. "Never being reprimanded let alone punished" is an essential element of X's persona, and she's worked hard to make that a reality.

This is common. You need to get it in your head that this is common. I've know lots of people who are more or less like this -- maybe not to the that degree, but more or less. A lot of people are like this. People who have advanced degrees -- which is kind of the people we mostly want to attract and keep -- a lot of them are more or less like that. Most people where I live go to church -- strike that, everyone goes to church -- and they don't hang around in bars or whatever and never did. You can call these people goody-two-shoes or whatever and I don't care as long as you acknowledge that they are real people and they exist and in multitudes. They, not wharf rats and hopheads and dropouts, are the default and the majority of people.

You have an overly harsh and punitive attitude. Fine, I can't change that, but what I can do is call you on your incorrect behavior here. Upon encountering this page, if you don't agree with it (and fine, that's your perfect right), you are entitled to write your own essay -- you can call it "You can't build an encyclopedia with snowflakes" or whatever -- and link to it from this page. You are not entitled to vandalize this one, which is what you did -- man, you can't add a section to an essay that contradicts the nutshell and the basic thrust of the essay. I can't go over to the essay Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band and add a section to the effect of "On the other hand, forget what you just read and ignore everything else in this essay. If you have a band, you should write an article about it, because our mission is or should be to document the artistic life of the world, including every band that exists" or whatever.

On being told by me that you can't do that, you're now suggesting moving it out of main essay space. Cut it out.

I don't own the essay, and people who are friendly to the general thrust are welcome to change it. There's seven bullet points, maybe that dilutes the message and there should be five (or nine), or wording changes, even major ones, can be made (or suggested, but that's not necessary), as long as the intend and effect is to strengthen or clarify the thrust of the essay: "It hurts to be blocked!... There's an emotional toll... many people are not used to being reprimanded let alone punished, especially not as adults... and we should keep this in mind".

You, User:Beeblebrox, could engage in this work, but since you don't agree with the general thrust of the essay, then why would you want to make it stronger? It would probably be better to leave this work to others. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

All I can say to that is they you seem to have misidentified who needs to calm down. If you're going to put something in project space, it isn't yours anymore and you don't get to issue take-it-or-leave-it-orders about its content. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- per WP:First World problem. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. An essay with an overly strong personal note (and not a widely held one, I dare say). No such user (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support agree with Beebs. Good essay, makes a good point that I think people should consider. I don't think this is an essay that should be written in the voice of Wikipedia that project space implies, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose.
  Procedurally, because this is a pseudo deletion from ProjectSpace, and these things, the rejection of essays, are usually, and better, fed through WP:MfD. This is not a retitling proposal. let this go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  On the merits because it is valid project related opinion supported by multiple editors.
  WP:OWNership allegations are serious allegations, but the allegation needs to be better tested before userfying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no procedural requirement to keep all discussions of which namespace a page should be in to MFD. Beeblebrox didn't propose the page be deleted -- he proposed that it be renamed. RM is the normal procedure used for such proposals, and the fact that MFD frequently (sometimes?) results in a consensus to move the page does not mean that MFD should be where all such discussions take place; MFD is, as its name implies, where one goes to request deletion of pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Using RM to userfy or draftify seems to be a new development. I'm pretty sure that historically it was rare. I guess it is evolution of practice. I objected to a similar case a little while ago, but it went through ok. Participation seems ok. I guess there is no problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean yeah, on the procedural issue... if I think article "Foo" isn't appropriate, can I do a requested move to "User:FooWriter/Foo" rather than AfD... that would be very nonstandard, userfication is usually a result from AfD. However, it could that it should be/is different for pages in Wikipedia space. Maybe, maybe not, it is up to the person closing to decide I guess. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between an article, and an opinion piece written by an editor who has clear ownership issues. As Hijiri put it, we are not here to complain about how being blocked sucks. There is no room to talk if your behavior is what led to your being blocked. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 14:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support per above as well per the fact it's a pointless essay - No one likes to be blocked however one should grow a pair and accept blocks are done for a reason, Better off in userspace. –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. A well-written essay seemingly chosen at random for expulsion from project space. Of course WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but a glance at a few of the 2,000 or so essays at Category:Wikipedia essays confirms that unless someone proposes a mass nomination of all of those, or if the community sets up an A to F grading guideline for rating essays, there is no need to single out one essay that does not violate any of the basic social structures by which we all interact here. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: As mentioned in the nomination and reflected quite clearly in this very discussion, there is also an issue with WP:OWN here, so no, this was not random at all. I've now been ordered not to edit this essay by the user who created it, who reverted my edits to it without comment and failed to reply in any way here on the talk page until the move request was posted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah User:Beeblebrox, that's actually not true. Since it's an accusation against me and its not true, I'd appreciate if you would stop saying it.

I've explained it to you before, but apparently your mind is closed, but allow me to talk to the audience.

Somebody wrote the essay Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be useful. Somebody didn't agree with it and did the proper and correct thing: wrote Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation. That's how it is done. Linking the two competing essays in a their "See also" section is also fine.

Writing the text of Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation into Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be useful is not how it's done. It's not done because it would destroy the integrity of Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be useful. It would make calling WP:DCBU useless, since the essay would contain two opposing sections and speak with two voices and it would not be clear what is meant.

And that is my perception of your attempted addition to this page -- it's not a improvement, but a refutation.

Write your own essay and you are fully allowed and invited to link to it at the bottom of this one. In the meantime, defending an essay against this kind of attack is not owning it. It is correct and proper.

Since you're, essentially, badmouthing me and won't stop, I have no choice but to call in reinforcements. If you think I am "owning" this page, I feel bound to get other editors involved with the page. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

On being told by me that you can't do that, you're now suggesting moving it out of main essay space. Cut it out. is just about the most perfect example of owning I've ever seen, and now you're threatening to WP:CANVASS as well? Charming. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support per K.e.coffman. I've recently nominated a few "essays" written by some disgruntled sot for deletion. The theme throughout is that unhappy Wikipedians think they're entitled to push their unsolicited thoughts into WP space. They are not. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The essay is consistent with our Five Pillars. An essay that survived 5 years is now to be deleted, why? Numerous users have linked to it [1] and deleting their links will be needlessly disruptive. Has a good faith effort been made to outreach to those editors and tell them their confidence in the essay is misplaced? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: If you check the edit history of this page and/or the logs, you will see it was in usersace until January of this year. All that is being proposed is that it be moved back there, not that it be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I read your !vote when doing a tally of the number of "oppose"s just now to see if there has been a significant problem with CANVASsing per the related ANI thread. I was actually a little surprised to see you here (I wouldn't have pinged you in my comment below if I knew you were already here). The relevant diff is here. As soon as the page was de-userfied, Beeblebrox brought it more in-line with community opinion, and then two months later (two weeks ago, right before this RM opened) he was reverted. Technically, the page could be moved back immediately per BRD: there should be some form of prior consensus to have this page turned into a community essay, especially if the creator himself is continuing to treat it as his own. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. You don't have to agree with the essay to recognize that the title, at least, expresses a fairly commonly held community view, even if the text is a little over the top. I had a look in Category:Wikipedia essays and found it full of stuff that is old, weird, or frankly just plain crap. Certainly there's plenty in there that I disagree with or that doesn't match my own experience. Historically the community has been fairly permissive about essays in Wikipedia space, and I don't see much reason to remove this one in particular. (Anyone responding with "but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!" is missing the point.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Technically, it would be missing the point to say But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS! And you should not delete/userfy all those other old, weird and crap pages because this is by far the worst of them! The relevant portion of WP:ESSAYS is Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic.[1] According to Wikipedia policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The language of this essay brings to mind the various recent cases where wealthy and privileged kids received light prison sentences for heinous acts on the theory that they had not previously encountered adversity, and therefore should be allowed to get away with some amount of bad behavior. If that is not the intent of the essay, then it should be rewritten to reflect a less privileged tenor, but as long as it is in project space, such rewriting should be open to all Wikipedians. Of course, since only administrators have the power to block, this essay is inherently directed at administrators, who already have plenty of cautionary instructions in place against misuse of the power to block. One would think that a better means of communication exists than posting a general-purpose essay where few admins will ever read it unless it is expressly brought to their attention. That being the case, the essay would work just as well in user space as in project space. bd2412 T 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per other dissenting and logical views. Also because of the AN/I and other actions that were IMO attempts to silence opposition. This essay fits in where it is. Endercase (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

TLDR: Take Endercase's !vote with a grain of salt. If he wasn't subject to mandatory mentoring, he would probably not be allowed post here, and his mentor(s) strongly discouraged him from posting in discussions like this one. He has been essentially ignoring everything said mentor(s) has (have) been telling him, but he really shouldn't be doing so given the background. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification (since I don't see anywhere else this was brought up) The caster of the above !vote was recently subjected to mandatory mentoring as an alternative to an indefinite block or TBAN. There were two mentors, me and User:David Tornheim. I am no longer Endercase's mentor following an unrelated incident,[2][3] but I have been keeping an eye on his edits and offering advice when I feel it appropriate. Both David and I strongly urged Endercase to stop trying to amend WP: namespace pages to accommodate his personal opinions, and his apparent insistence on ignoring that advice was another reason I decided to give up on mentoring. His views of policies like V and guidelines like RS are ... not widely shared, to put it simply, and virtually everyone who has commented has told him as much. I know essays are allowed represent significant minority views and so have a lower threshold than policy and guideline pages, but I think clarifying this background is important given that Beeblebrox said at the top of this RM that a problem with this page is that it represents a tiny minority view within the community. I have advised Endercase on his talk page, again, to drop this discussion and go edit articles, but I did not ask him to strike his !vote; this clarification, therefore, is necessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that I am not subject to "mandatory mentoring" the AN/I that the user refers to is here; this appears to me to be nothing but an attempt by a disgruntled editor to demean my !vote. Endercase (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you'll just label this as "harassment" as you did here [4] but the only one who has actively tried to silence anyone is Herostratus, who has said in plain language that needs no interpretation that I must stop it and that I "can't" make the edits I made. The ANI thread is not about the merits of the essay itself, it is about the premeditated canvassing. Beeblebroxn (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You did collapse at least one of their comments. I have not seen you deleting any comments though. It should be noted as I pointed out at the AN/I that canvassing is not a !crime, there are specific guidelines for improper canvassing and I haven't seen any examples of that in this case. Once again I think your case will be helped the most by leaving both this RfC and the AN/I alone until we are closer to consensus. You do appear hostile IMO and obviously have not been assuming good faith, of course many editors are guilty of that. In the future I would like you to ping me in replies you make to my posts, thank you. -- Endercase (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Serious concerns raised by editors above. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Chris troutman. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Writing is poor, essay is under-developed and given the WP:OWN issue, there is title hope of improving it. Otherwise, it's bound fo AfD. --Drmargi (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support OWN issues aside, it seems very much like Herostratus wrote this essay while in a bad mood about his/her one block when he/she had already been here for months (i.e., was not "new" and should probably have already been familiar with the blocking policy). I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia essays not clearly marked as humorous containing un-nuanced opinions that run counter to our core policies, which until my edit just now this page did. I'm also really not comfortable with an editor, who was blocked once for edit-warring six years ago, telling those of us with thicker skins and longer block logs how we should feel; that kind of thing belongs in Herostratus's userspace. Even with my edit, I think this more properly belongs in the userspace (where it's owner can revert my edit freely if he/she so chooses). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum I decided to check up on several of the "oppose" !votes (for other reasons -- I was wondering if anyone was directly canvassed because, full disclosure, I came across this discussion because of the ANI thread and had only read the title), and ... well, as someone who does know exactly how much it hurts to get blocked (not all that much -- if you're actually here to build the Encyclopedia you should just let it go, as the wickedly talented Adele Dazeem would say), I feel like they don't, on the whole fully appreciate my (authoritative) view on the matter, and so could not be expected to properly represent it in an essay. Of the seven users currently opposed to the userfication of this page: four of them have either clean or essentially clean block logs; one (the page's creator) received a short block based on an apparent misunderstanding, and a short block a few months later for edit-warring, and that was six years ago; one was blocked for a month because he was given a discretionary sanction and repeatedly violated it as soon as it was put in place (he didn't appeal, and didn't edit at all even months after the block expired); one was blocked a whole bunch of times for edit-warring and socking. Of these, I feel only the last two have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling the rest of us that being blocked sucks: the former was apparently somewhat scarred by his one experience with being blocked, while the latter has extensive experience of being blocked. I don't feel all that ... hmm ... I don't know the right word, but let's say "comfortable", with this group of users telling me that being blocked "hurts". Remember what Rocket Raccoon said: Everybody's got dead people! But it makes no excuse to get everybody else dead along the way -- put a bit more relevantly, we are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, and the kind of people who complain about how much it sucks to get blocked without acknowledging that sometimes good people can be blocked for the wrong reasons, because it's an encyclopedia and not a social network, are not the kind of people who are going to be a valuable asset to the encyclopedia. I've got baggage, but that doesn't mean that I think the entire project is out to get me, that I think I was blocked because somebody thinks I'm a "bad person" or anything like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the blocking policy exists solely to facilitate Wikipedia's functioning smoothly as an encyclopedia. People get blocked for disrupting that process, no matter how righteous or right they might be or at least might think they are. (This has been put a lot more eloquently by MjolnirPants over on Endercase's talk page recently, by the way.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support The principle of the essay is one I actually agree with. We should give currently and recently blocked editors a bit of leeway with their attitude. An editor who was just blocked is more likely to lash out, and that lashing out is more likely to be a one-time thing. But the essay, as written, seems to be focused on drumming up sympathy for a class of people who could best be described as "sheltered crybabies" IMHO. I'm sorry to sound like a right-wing ideologue (those of you who've interacted with me significantly know I'm really quite socially conscious), but the best thing for someone who has an emotional reaction more severe than "frustrated" at being bocked is to grow the hell up. Welcome to the real world, cupcake; where nothing's fair and sometimes, you're the asshole. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Due to ownership issues. kcowolf (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• 'Note to whoever closes this request regarding blatant canvassing f or support: [5] Not a request for unbiased input at a central location but rather a targeted notice asking users to help him personally. This seems to have directly led to some of the recent activity here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Some stuff I wrote over at ANI clarified my thinking on the "on the merits" matter. It seems to me there are four good reasons for deleting (or userfying) an essay:

1. Realistically, nobody or virtually nobody will ever invoke the shortcut to this essay -- it's just too fringe, some individual's idiosyncratic point of view, and will never catch on. Let this be made manifest by keeping it in her userspace and not clutter Wikispace.
2. It's poor. It's just badly written and/or doesn't make its point(s) clearly. Or it tries to be witty but isn't, or its point is made better elsewhere, or its just pointless rembling, and so forth. We're entitled to maintain some level of quality control for essays in Wikispace.
3. It's anti-Wikipedia. It tells people to things -- such as insult other editors, or ignore COPYVIO or RS or NPOV or whatever -- that are too inimical to our mission.
4. Or maybe other reasons too, but of that nature.

But "I don't agree with this essay" is not one. If you don't agree, the remedy is don't cite it. It is not grounds for deletion. Allow people who do agree with it to cite if they like -- let a hundred flowers bloom, don't censor, "I defend to the death your right to say it" and all that. And I call on the person deciding this issued to deprecate "Userfy, because I don't agree with it" type votes, and consider whether it's been demonstrated that this essay is fringe, or poor, or anti-Wikipedia. It'd be heavy lifting to demonstrate that, I think. Herostratus (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me there are four good reasons for deleting (or userfying) an essay... ...But "I don't agree with this essay" is not one. Given the way WP space essays are often treated as policies (count the mentions of WP:CIR in block logs, if you doubt me) and are often intended to document unwritten traditions and norms, I'd say that "I don't agree with this essay" is a perfectly valid reason to suggest userfying it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I have to say that I don;t understand the purpose of the essay at all. If the point is that admins should consider the feelings of the person being blocked, I'd saythat's dead wrong, that their possible emotional response to being blocked is totallyirrelevant. If what they did was blockworthy, they should be blocked, regardless of whether it will upset them or not. If that's not it, then what the heck is the purpose of the essay?
  In any case, as I said on AN/I, if Herostratus is not going to allow other editors to edit the essay, then it should be sent back to their userspace. If Heorstratus wants it to remain in Wikipedia-space, then they must allow others to contribute, and they must stop canvassing other editors to help stop other editors from editing it. It's really in Herostratus' hands, but the essay is really pretty small beer, without, at least in my mind, a lot of value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Heorstratus does not own this essay nor should we act like they do. If they edit war here then they will be banned per policy. The behavior of a user who happens to be a major author should have no bearing on the essay's status. The essay should be judged entirely on its own merits or lack thereof. Endercase (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improvements solicited

Based on the above discussion, it seems that we're not getting across that this is not mainly about special snowflakes and sheltered housewives etc. and making them sad. (Although they're important too! Honest!) What I was mostly thinking about is people of substance, and making them mad.

Somebody who has never failed a class, not even in high school, is not a sheltered special snowflake. He is the full partner at the white shoe law firm that you will never see because you can't afford. Being like that is how you get to be a full partner at a white shoe law firm.

You can't fuck with people like that. You can't tell a judge or a Senior Vice President of Lexmark that they broke some arcane rule and are in time-out for a couple days. At the same time, people like that can be good Wikipedia editors. Really! (Usually after they retire.)

There are a lot interesting things to think and say about blocking. I'm not saying that most blocks aren't justified. Maybe 97% are. Maybe it's 99%, or maybe it's 85%. That doesn't mean we can't always try to be better. It is entirely possible that we don't block people enough here. Or at any rate that we're blocking the wrong people for the wrong things and not blocking people who should be blocked. Other things, too. But that's not for this page. This page is trying to say one thing. Maybe we should concentrate more on not blocking long-term editors rather than than proud people, and maybe that point can or should be added to the page -- this could be done without changing the nutshell or subverting the point of the page.

So anyway, I'm apparently not getting through to people, who are responding with "screw this, we don't need no stinken special snowflakes here", when as I said that's not the main point. So how can we improve this page? Improvements or suggestions solicited. Herostratus (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

By solicited, you mean "blatantly canvassed" of course. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep this essay, but this description seems unhelpful to me. First of all, there's no doubt that many in the administrative ranks positively relish the idea of putting some entitled jerk in their place. Your description of a highly ranked executive bristling at the idea of being expected to behave in accordance with community norms because he's just so damn important is not likely to inspire much sympathy :) I do think you're right in the sense that administrative actions often feel to their targets like schoolchild hall-monitor type behavior, not the way you would relate to an adult you view as a peer. I think that's probably the aspect of this argument that needs highlighting - when someone takes on an administrative role in relation to another user, they're effectively no longer acting as a peer and fellow editor.

I guess it's not entirely clear to me whether your central point is about the damage that may be caused by blocking newer editors (that is, they wouldn't have expected such an exercise of authority and are put off continued participation by what they perceive as a personal slight), or the damage that may be caused by blocking established editors (that is, they feel they've earned the right to be treated as peers and object to the perceived black mark given by someone they don't respect as an authority figure). The problems of acculturating and orienting new editors whose expectations are shaped by their real-life position seem different to me than the problems of managing relationships within the established community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The essay seems to reflect a belief that most people have had a life entirely free of conflict or distress of any kind, and that being blocked on Wikipedia would bel the worst thing that ever has or will happen to them. I am a white American from a solidly middle-class background. Not one of the 1% but not underprivileged by any means, and this practically screams a privileged, first-world-problems type of mindset. This reminds me of every time someone has said "don't you know who I am" when they were acting like the rules shouldn't apply to them. No, we don't know who you are, and our policies apply regardless. If this essay has no room for that it shouldn't be in project space. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

General discussion on the point raised by this essay

TL;DR, "So how can we improve this page?" - By deleting it, By all means keep it off wiki and have a good read when you're blocked but this essay is no use to this place - If you or people in general cannot deal with being blocked then you or they need to grow a pair. –Davey2010^Talk 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Telling users to "grow a pair" is not proper behavior IMO. Please strike that comment as battleground behavior and belittling fellow editors. Endercase (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - I'm entitled to my opinions and despite the wording (which I've now amended) my comment was meant as people in general not just the creator, I have nothing against the creator however IMHO if you're that upset and hurt over something so minor as a block then yes you should grow a pair simple as that and so no amount of striking will change my opinion on that. –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your honestly and cool Not done template. I just really don't like Ad Hominem attacks on other views. Endercase (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My takeaway is that you want to communicate that there is a type of person out there that would be a great Wikipedia editor but that they can't accept the normal disciplinary procedures we have in place. You might be right about that and if you had some statistics or studies to back that up I'd read them. Thing is, Wikipedia is too egalitarian to give special dispensations to sensitive high achievers, just like we don't give academics or other credentialed experts their due on wiki. We very rarely let prolific editors get away with calling a female the c-word and those folks actually have a track record of contributions! I get what you're saying but unless you think that the block was wrongly administered procedurally, this essay is a non-starter. We can't accept editors that won't obey the rules. We shall not have a class system of editors, even if that's what would be best for the encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, but by treating everyone like dirt, you select for dirt.

But nevermind about that. Essentially everything that the two of you say above is wrong and some of it is toxic IMO, but I'm not likely to convince you of that (just as you are not likely to convince me that I'm wrong). And fine. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions.

The problem is, you think we're not.

You're not saying "Well, I just can't agree with you". With your vote above you are saying "I don't agree with you and you need to be shut up. Your point of view is not just wrong, it's illegitimate to even raise it". By advocating to delete the essay -- userfying it with no redirect amounts to the same for practical purposes -- you make it impossible to use it as shortcut for a considered response, which is the only real use for essays. That's what essays are for: so people can state an opinion or make a point, in detail and butressed by arguments, without having to type it all out over and over. Thus "This was a bad block, and remember some percentage of your blocks are going to be de-facto permablocks, per WP:HURTS" would not be allowed to be said under your position.

I consider that bullying and strong-arming, so excuse me if I don't wish to discuss these matters with you over tea. The "Improvements solicited" thread is not for you, it's for people who who want to improve the page, so I've broken y'all out into this separate thread. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I guess I just fail to read this essay as others can. I absolutely cannot see any reason to reject it. It is undoubtedly true. Some people are soft and gentle, are logging in to find yourself blocked, can be confronting, a deeply hurtful rejection when you thought you were contributing. It happened to me once (I logged in in a range block at a university), it took many long moments to realise it wasn't directed at me personally and to get over it. I read this essay as addressing the subject of damage to a newcomer who means well but doesn't understand something, WP:BITE. I don't read it as being about recalcitrants who can't handle consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 08:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocking is just another form of rejection

And who hasn't been rejected at some point, whether socially, or sexually, or in some other way? People should be accustomed to this kind of treatment by now. St. claires fire (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocking is just another form of rejection - Wrong - Blocking is to prevent further disruption to the project, If you state in the unblock request that you understand what you did wrong and promise not to repeat what led to the block then unblocks are usually accepted,

If we didn't have a blocking function here this place would be unworkable and would sink. –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said that rejection wasn't sometimes necessary or right. St. claires fire (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

For some editors a societal based rejection that masquerades as consensus can be very harmful and can even result is suicide. If you have spent enough time on the internet then you are likely aware of or have personally witnessed this phenomenon, rejection especially by that of perceived society can be very disruptive to the psyche. Banning is an inherently violent type of rejection as it is to imposition of an outside will on another being, quite often without their explicit consent. We should IMO discuss in this essay how to actually deal with blocks that are out of order or not a result of consensus. Endercase (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you've hit on a pet peeve of mine. I don't blame you (necessarily) because you had no way to know, but being a leftist/liberal/social justice warrior type, I hear a lot of rhetoric from the socially conscious, political left, and this particular euphemism is one that is commonly used in such context, and which drives me absolutely nuts....

Banning is an inherently violent type of rejection... No, no, no, no, no. There is no form of written or verbal communication that is violent. You can analogize some forms of communication to violence if you're really willing to stretch your analogies (comparing arguing to fighting, for example), but communication is, by it's very nature, non-violent. Banning people is not an inherently violent type of anything. An admin giving me an editor's home address and asking me to "Give them something to worry about other than WP. You know. With a baseball bat." would be an inherently violent type of rejection. Banning someone is the substitute for violence that allows us to define this project as a civilized one. Even a forum like the youtube comments section is inherently and inescapably non-violent. Maybe I'm overreacting by posting this little mini-diatribe, but this is something that irks me. Having seen the effects of actual violence first-hand in a number of ways, let me assure you that NOTHING that happens on WP is, in any way, shape or form, violent. Not even close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I guess aggressive or authoritarian are better adjectives in this case? Endercase (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, IMHO. To be fair, as I mentioned, this is a pet peeve of mine. It's perfectly logical to say some form of speech is violent, so long as you're clear that you're making a metaphor. This is a pet peeve of mine because, over the past 20 years, I've seen this rhetoric get treated more and more literally, and it's -frankly- ridiculous to treat it literally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it is a disturbing trend. It is notable that real violence is generally accepted to be far more damaging than words or even the silent treatment (an analog version of online banning IMO). Endercase (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Offer

If you wish to split the criticisms portion into a separate essay I am more than willing to "host" that in my userspace. But, IMO it should be at least duly linked linked and represented in this essay. Though, I would like input on what this counter essay should be called should we go that route. Endercase (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)