User talk:N I H I L I S T I C

April 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elizabeth Guzman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Elizabeth Guzman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of B.J. Brown

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on B.J. Brown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elizabeth Guzman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Guzman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Guzman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your page creation

Hi, N I H I L I S T I C! Could you please cease your article creation and do something else? As you can see, most of your articles are speedily deleted. Could you please stop disrupting other users? If you want to experiment, please use your sandbox. Have you completed The Wikipedia Adventure? Thank you, Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 06:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's mostly just biographies that tend to result in speedy deletion nominations. New articles about districts will tend to not be nominated for deletion. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Carl Loser

Hi! I saw your message that you removed, and I feel I ought to respond. I think the problem that the article faced wasn't your doing; it was that his name really was Loser. When an article like that crops up, it would be normal to assume that the author of the article was being nasty about the person. To compound the error further was that article then described some negative aspects of the person in question, making it seem even worse. So the gut reaction was to nominate it as an attack page, and I (in my haste) didn't review it sufficiently before deleting; my apologies for that. I see that you have come to the conclusion that the person may not be notable enough for an article anyway, and I would have to agree with your assessment, so I won't restore the page. If ever he does become notable and you want it restoring, please don't hesitate to ask. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think in talking about his arrest, I probably should've noted that he denied the allegations. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of B.J. Brown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article B.J. Brown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.J. Brown until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

N I H I L I S T I C, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi N I H I L I S T I C! 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 Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Individual articles for election results in each constituency

Hello. Would you mind stopping creating individual articles for the election result in each constituency. I'm fairly sure you must have seen my comment at WP:E&R, but I saw you are still creating them. They aren't notable and at some point I intend to AfD them, so I'd advise sticking to creating articles on the constituencies themselves and adding each individual election result to them. See, for example, how it's done with Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency). Cheers, Number 57 16:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pickup (election)

The article Pickup (election) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a definition that should be in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. In fact, the definition is already there at [1]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Overprescription

The article Overprescription has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a definition best housed at Wiktionary. See Wiktionary's existing definition of the term: [2]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Guzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Head Start. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

re: newspaper articles

Hey. From the looks of it, the deletions were the result of improper redirects (none of them were actually articles); all the articles redirected to Virginia places, which seemed to prevent article creation. Then again, the fact that only two have been created in the years since tells me that some of them may not be notable. It's one of those cases where I'd have to do a bit of research on the papers to see if they should have articles, since on the surface they should but if they were old niche papers from back in the day there may be little out there. Wizardman 23:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well, a lot of those papers have gotten taken over by larger media companies, so can redirect there. In the process, some of them were renamed, so that may explain what's going on. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Referencing

I've recently gone through most of your recent articles created and the common theme is, whilst you evidently do cite sources, you only link to the URL without providing other important data. I'd like to encourage you to make use of User:Dispenser/Reflinks. Follow the instructions on the page, when you are done, you should be able to fill in complete citations with extreme ease. If you have any questions, feel free to ask :) —Frosty ☃ 03:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to do it without putting two edits in the history? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:RefToolbar. This tool allows for simple addition of the code in one edit, but you will have to retreive the data (date, title, retrieval date, etc) yourself. —Frosty ☃ 23:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a pain in the neck. I'm just going to have to use reflinks, I guess. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

VA state senate district name changes: why?

Why did you move Virginia Senate, District 1 to Virginia's 1st Senate district, and Virginia Senate, District 2 to Virginia's 2nd Senate district, and so on? There would appear to no good reason to change those names. The VA State senator's list refers to them as "District" + "number". Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you want to weigh in over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Naming_convention_for_Virginia_Senate_districts? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AND Magazine

The article AND Magazine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent references. No statement as to why the magazine is notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Zoukis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Zoukis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Zoukis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Tristan Shields for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tristan Shields is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Shields until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Guy (Help!) 08:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead

Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically WP:SCRUTINY. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel like their intent was not "confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." They did post on my talk page, dragging me into something I didn't really have time to read. But their efforts felt like good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Ideally, though they should not have gone after Guy. As Guy is also a good faith contributor (as far as anyone can tell anyway XD ; How many AN/I have they had?). Anyway, I oppose this block. If that means anything. I would like this editor to be able to post in my namespace. So that the specific issues they brought up maybe addressed in a more constructive and consensus based manner. Endercase (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

They can identify their past account(s) to Arbcom and Arbcom can decide if WP:SCRUTINY applies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I agree that their apparent use of other undeclared accounts is concerning, but they should not be required to provide evidence. Based solely on this one account they do not appear to be in violation IMO. Does Wikipedia have an analog to the 5th amendment? Endercase (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No. We are (very, very thankfully) not a court of law. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Those amendments were put in place to protect the average person from an authoritarian state. Their logical consensus is pretty clear. As is assume good faith. Duck has been challenged in the past as a tool to circumvent AGF, this would be the case now IMO. The proposed (AN/I) clean start theory would explain all of this user's behavior, and the explanation of a bad faith contributor needs more direct evidence IMO. The built case as it currently stands appears entirely circumstantial to me. This user attempted to address some important pertinent issues and banning actions in this case appear punitive and don't solve the problem. Even if the user is a frequent Sock, banning in that case also appears entirely pointless (they will just create another account). Better we communicate with the user than ban their account. Endercase (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Your opinion, in this case, does not sway me at all. The editor can appeal the block themselves or email arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Welp, diplomacy on my part has failed. Anyone else want to take a wack at it? I'm leaving my last 2 cents below.

@NeilN: I just don't understand why we are banning accounts of individuals who obviously know how to get around said blocks. It appears as if the sole result is just to drive the subject further underground and makes it more difficult for the community to fix any damage they may do in the future. That was the entire point behind the creation of the Stealth banning phenomena on other sites, traditional banning is simply pointless in these cases. If Wikipedia is not willing to try other methods this is a "problem" that will never be fixed. Communicating with the so called "disruptive" member is the only method I'm aware of that is above board and honest, other than the approach you currently appear to be trying. But that approach (banning) has serious flaws (compleatly pointless if the subject knows how to mask their identifying features (IP, cookies, fonts, browser, OS)). This user has been accused of being one of those individuals, as such the banning actions appear to be pointless and moreover harmful. At this point it appears as if your style of actions have caused paid editors (the implied claim about this user) to take a scorched earth approach to their accounts (they don't appeal the bans, or article deletions the vast majority of the time), this makes them far more difficult to track and has no other real effects. They might lose a few articles with this approach but to be honest this user is likely far more prolific than that and such "damage" to them is superficial at best and as such shouldn't be considered an upside of this type of banning. In fact I have even read that the banning of such accounts can just be part of a ploy to get even more money from the paying party, as it demonstrates resistance and the difficulty of the task. If you want to get rid of paid editors make it easy to create/edit articles not difficult; that would crash the market by drasticly increasing supply IMO. I have even heard that there a statistically significant portion of admin that are paid by one party on another, recently one was fired from Wikipedia foundation itself. Endercase (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, N I H I L I S T I C. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Endercase (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Rustici

The article Thomas Rustici has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

Nomination of Thomas Rustici for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Rustici is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rustici until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

N I H I L I S T I C (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've learnt my lesson and won't do it again. I'm not a bad guy once you get to know me. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Recent CheckUser blocks Moleculist, What happens?, M151 Jeep, Havoc Apache, St. claires fire. Favonian (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2017 (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.

We'd like to know what prior accounts you've used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I would love to provide that information, but the last time I did that, the situation didn't end well. It's kind of like when the cops say, "Hey man, just be honest. If there are drugs in the trunk, let us know and we can put in a good word for you. On the other hand, if you don't want to cooperate, we can't help you." N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Good reason why this appeal should be declined. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So what's the pathway to citizenship/amnesty for those who have already repeatedly exhausted all appeals up to the highest level? Because there always has to be a way, whether de facto or de jure.

If you enable MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js and look through revision histories, you find that there are an awful lot of crossed-out names everywhere. It's like the millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Deporting all of them just isn't in the cards. Even with Trump in office, it won't happen.

So we end up with this game of catch and release, catch and release. Or in some cases, the authorities get really mad and throw one of them in prison for illegal reentry. The percentage who wind up that way is miniscule, though, so it doesn't deter. Here, the equivalent is G5 — just nuke everything! Or, WP:DENY. Doesn't work. It assumes the person has a certain psychology that you can manipulate, the same way that you could be manipulated if you were them. But they're not you.

One man who tried draconian measures was Adolf Hitler, but even he didn't succeed, because those he sought to destroy bounced right back and even became dominant and entrenched. One might argue that they emerged stronger than ever.

Some forces are just too resilient to get rid of. Cannabis can't be eradicated, and Afghanistan can't be permanently subdued by any invader who doesn't want to leave a garrison there forever.

Kumioko has expressed some convincing views on this topic. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Can you link the Kumioko views? Endercase (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't link to it, because it might be considered some kind of BADSITE, and I can't find the specific post anyway, so I'll just restate and expand on the gist of what he was saying, in my own words.

Some of the users who have racked up millions of edits are part of the backbone of the project, yet administrators like the fact that these users have to operate in the shadows, because it gives them more power. They can keep them on a shorter leash that way.

They like the fact that these users keep coming back and making their productive edits, because that's what keeps the encyclopedia going. If there were a risk that they wouldn't come back, admins might actually have to exercise some restraint in kicking people off, lest they lose valuable contributors. The fact that they're technically not really supposed to come back, though, means that if an admin simply decides he doesn't like that user or what he's doing, he can unmask him at any time and summarily get rid of him and his work, without having to deal with the procedural safeguards that would apply if the user were in good standing. There's no need to go through xfD or give carefully-thought-out edit summaries in reversions; he can just G5 and rollback everything he prefers gone from the encyclopedia. There's no need to go to ANI or ArbCom and make a case for why the user's behavior was objectionable; SPI and/or checkuser will suffice.

It's not unlike how it is in the workplace where the boss happens to know that one of his employees lied on his job application years ago. He can keep that employee on his staff if he finds him valuable, or he can fire him whenever he wants just by saying, "Hey, I discovered that you lied on your application." He will be immune to any claims of wrongful termination because that will always count as a valid reason to fire him. There will be no need to document how the employee was given warnings and negative performance reviews; how he showed up late repeatedly; etc. All he has to do is say, "Here's the evidence that you lied five years ago."

It's also not unlike situations where illegal immigrants are in the U.S. and are working and paying federal taxes (e.g. paying into someone else's Social Security account), yet are not able to claim federal benefits because of their illegal status. The federal government actually benefits from these immigrants' being here illegally, because it can make money off of them while also reserving the right to kick them out at any time, using their illegal status as a reason that no one can really argue with. They can be picked up on suspicion of a crime and deported, without the need to actually find them guilty of anything, just by showing, "Hey, your visa expired" or "Hey, you never had a visa; you must have entered illegally." N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This argument was less convincing than I hoped. I don't think moral arguments will help in this case. One should focus on practicality and and the pure insanity of their current methods. Like paying for the deportation of individuals who have been deported multiple times. I know of individuals who use this to simply get free trips to Mexico whenever they want (some of which are American Citizens who pretend to be illegals), (milage may vary on this method). Endercase (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I made a moral argument. (Although moral arguments tend to also be pragmatic arguments anyway; it's just that they take a long-term, big picture view.) I more just meant to point out the way in which relegating certain users to the shadows gives admins more power with which they can further entrench themselves in power while also perpetuating their own biases.

I stumbled into the Vipul debate by chance, but I now see it's part of a bigger puzzle. In so many cases, what you actually need to do in order to succeed is the opposite of what the rules would suggest, since the rules are just a trap for the naive, and symbolic gestures to appease the public. In the end, Vipul disclosed everything in an effort to comply with the rules (however belatedly). He got punished for his honesty, because certain admins followed those leads and blacklisted those sites. Some paid editors who followed the rules from the get-go by disclosing their clients and work have been targeted as well. Wikipedia benefits from paid editors' work, since there aren't a lot of volunteer editors left to do that kind of work, but Wikipedians prefer not to make it too obvious to the public how much the project relies on editors who have a conflict of interest. In reality, almost everyone with an interest in a topic has some sort of agenda or position, even if it's not the only reason they're on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not actually neutral; it just has a bias that is so acceptable to those who run Wikipedia, that they don't have an objection to where the articles now stand. We could call that "consensus," although it's a manufactured consensus, brought about in large part by expelling or otherwise silencing those who disagreed. And although Wikipedia claims to value transparency, the ArbCom and the WMF keep a lot of information private and hold their deliberations via back channels, with the users being forbidden to even comment on those matters publicly.

They always say, "You either trust us or you don't." It's the same dilemma we run into with the black budget and with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. What we do know is that when there's a lack of transparency, those in power, or with connections to those in power, tend to get their way.

The thing about most of the regulars on Wikipedia, is that they think of the system and policies that exist now as enlightened and almost perfect (because if they'd been disgruntled, they would've either left or gotten kicked off by now). If you criticize the system, you're viewed as the enemy, and it's assumed that you're attacking the system so that you can push your own agenda. Which may be true, but they have their agenda as well.

They assume, or presume, that Wikipedia's success (e.g. becoming a top-ten website) is because of its policies and practices, but its success could be in spite of some of those factors rather than because of them. Looking at the history of the rules, a lot of them (e.g. G5) were controversial for many years. But I guess after they'd been in place for awhile, people didn't want to experiment with anything different, because change is scary. In 2010, they doubled down on G5 to treat blocked users identically to banned users. I see the logic behind that, but it's interesting that it took them so long to make the change. It used to be that the community was very forgiving toward blocked users and didn't even require the six-month waiting period specified in the standard offer. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Technically Abcom is still trumped by AN/I dissions. I refuse to use any system that isn't transparent and consensus based here. All other systems are based on explicit consent. I have seen blocked users evade detection for a number of years (work as a non-disruptive user) then pop up an AN/I with a list of their previous accounts and get forgiven after coming compleatly clean. I also agree with your stance on paid editors, but I think we are bit more anti-authoritarian than the avg user. Though is worth noting that one reason I agree is that I believe there is a number of very influential Admin that are paid by a third party to protect that parties interests. There are also a large number of ways to game the system to remove the competition so to speak. "Wikipedia is not actually neutral"- nothing is actually neutral. I agree that moral arguments are often just long term ways of dealing with interacting with other thinking beings while maintaining a simplistic feel, however these types of arguments rarely (IMO) work on those in power. It is worth noting that you were minorly disruptive with some of the accounts mentioned in the previous ban appeal denial. Endercase (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed something, "We'd like to know what prior accounts you've used"... "we"... reviewing editors are required to be independent of the blocking editor. If they have discussions related to the block with the blocking editor those discussions are required to be in public and in full view of the blocked individual. The term "we" suggest a level of comradery or involvement that is above and beyond the maximum allowed for reviewing editors. Per AGF this "we" is likely just reference to the users of Wikipedia or a royal we (still odd in this case). I would tag the applicable editors but I fear this is not even worth mentioning to them and using their valuable time. Also blocks have to be supported by evidence, as the blocking policy is an intent based policy is uses DUCK to circumvent AGF which in my eyes is wrong, but it is supported by consensus currently. Endercase (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Nonsense. Clearly he was refering to 'the community' in the secon-person plural, not some group of conspiritors! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ah, thank you for clearing that up grammatically. To be clear I did not claim anything regarding conspirators, primarily I was alluding to a possible friendship among Admin with a slight possibly off wiki communication (which is far less dark). Still, as member of the community, I dislike being spoken for in such a manner (if that is in fact what they intended). IMO no single editor nor group of editors should speak for the whole community ever, except to refer directly to explicit policy. One can only ever accurately speak for oneself, Adminship does not grant clairvoyance. Endercase (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: You know that the more of these types of posts you make, the less you'll be taken seriously around here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neil: I'm sorry, what "types of posts"? It is also worth noting that I don't care how seriously I am taken, I just want to contribute to the encyclopedia and understand it's complex and diverse society. As long as I am taken seriously enough that all of my changes aren't immediately reverted and I am not punished; I'm cool with others having whatever opinion of me they deem appropriate. Also, the more often anyone (particularly unelected individuals) choose to speak as if they represent a larger group of people (when they in fact only represent themselves) the less seriously they are taken as well. It also worth noting that I did not tag (ping) anyone in the above post, explicitly to not waste y'alls time. Endercase (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, posts that dissent from the party line and/or seem to defend people or behavior that the community (i.e. those who haven't quit in frustration, or been kicked out yet for being dissidents) doesn't like. Dissidents used to be tolerated a lot more than they are now, but Wikipedia culture has gotten worse and worse, causing more and more good content creators to leave or be kicked off, in a vicious spiral. Your own days on Wikipedia (at least under the Endercase account) may already be numbered.

Have you seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Paid_editor_Janweh64_moving_own_drafts_to_mainspace.2C_again? What I'm wondering is, how long before Janweh64 decides to go to the dark side (i.e. stop disclosing his COIs, and instead edit Wikipedia through a bunch of paid meatpuppets, as so many professional Wikipedia authors do). He's being really nice right now, even though he's not being treated very well in return.

It reminds me a little of when Carolmooredc was negotiating to try to get unblocked after arbitration sanctions were imposed on her. I thought, "Wow, it is really sad to see what she's having to put up with here." But she was trying to follow the rules, I guess, rather than socking.

The thing about socking is, they may destroy your work once they catch you, but they don't treat you quite as badly as they treat a user who has gotten on their bad side yet is still trying to follow the rules as best he can. You don't get quite the level of disrespect that those users get. It reminds me of how, when I went to court, I noticed that the people there who had been caught driving on a suspended license got treated worse than those who had gotten caught driving without any driver's license at all. The people who had made at least some attempt to obey the rules (by getting a license), but fallen short of full obedience (by doing something that resulted in suspension), got the sternest responses and the harshest penalties. Those who had not bothered to get a license at all were given a mild lecture, "Just make sure you get a license in the future before driving again" and sent on their way with a light punishment.

We're at a point now where volunteer edits to Wikipedia are declining, because volunteers often make the mistake of actually trying to change Wikipedia politics, rules, and/or culture, rather than just carrying on with their business and flying under the radar as much as possible, the way paid editors do. There's no way of knowing what the ratio of paid to unpaid edits is, but my guess is that it's increasing. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Party lines do nothing but hold back development under the guise of preventing "disruption" IMO.

I will look into this AN/I, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I will not use a sockpuppet or other misleading account. It goes against my arcane sense of honor. Then again if I were a paid editor I might feel differently. Endercase (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In the ANI, someone even said that paid editing is tolerated but not loved. If I were a paid editor, I would think, "Why settle for being merely tolerated, when I can be loved?" I guess people figure, only volunteers deserve love, the same way that only a wife (rather than a prostitute) deserves the amenities that come with being a wife — even though both are being paid in some way or another. Kinda like how both volunteers and paid editors get some kind of reward! Volunteers get barnstars or whatnot for their work; paid editors get a paycheck. Well, guess what, I've written featured articles, "good"-rated articles, etc., but gotten very few barnstars, I guess because my work isn't the crowd-pleasing type. If I were to change my habits, and instead do crowd-pleasing work, would that make me in a way a paid editor, because I'd be whoring myself out to the masses? Hmm!

So what is the bias against paid editing really about? I think it gets to a deeper issue, which is that on Wikipedia, people make a lot of appeals to motive, getting around WP:AGF by saying, "When I have evidence to rebut the assumption of good faith, I'm allowed to question other users' motives." Very often, they're wrong in their opinions about other users' motives, though. (I know, because I too have been falsely accused of having some agenda that was different, or even the opposite, of what my true agenda was. I might try to write an article in a neutral way, based on reliable sources, and someone might say, "Because you said this good thing about this person/entity, you must be a spammer trying to promote them" or "Because you said this bad thing about this person/entity, you must be trying to disparage and attack them".)

As soon as the door is opened to questioning people's motives, the situation gets ugly quickly, because an appeal to motive is an ad hominem attack, and the debate shifts from a collaborative effort to improve content, to a prosecution with an adversarial tone. The accused typically gets defensive, provoking further attacks. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:N I H I L I S T I C/JzG discussions

A tag has been placed on User:N I H I L I S T I C/JzG discussions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 1989 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Trump resistance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump resistance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump resistance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Virginia's 76th House of Delegates district

Hi, I'm Boleyn. N I H I L I S T I C, thanks for creating Virginia's 76th House of Delegates district!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Navbox VAHseDist 2017

Template:Navbox VAHseDist 2017 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)