User talk:Ihuntrocks

Edit-warring on Jack Posobiec

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Snooganssnoogans on edit-warring re: Jack Posobiec

Thank you for your engagement on my talk page. The three reversion rule has clear exemptions for reversions regarding the Biographies of Living Persons policy. My edits were made to bring the Jack Posobiec page in line with this policy. The edits to which you revert do not cast the subject in a neutral tone as required, and they also remove edits I made which provide references to reliably sourced, verifiable rebuttals to accusations and claims about the subject, in keeping with the BLP policy on public figures.

Please participate in the request for consensus on the talk page for Jack Posobiec to resolve this issue. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

Jack Posobiec

talk page updated to reflect participation by user "Snooganssnoogans" in an edit-war which repeatedly reverts that page to a version which violates BLP neutrality policy and removes credibly sourced citations. A consensus has been requested to prevent further vandalism of this page by "Snooganssnoogans."

Ihuntrocks (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ihuntrocks

Discretionary Sanction Notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply to EvergreenFir re: Discretionary Sanction Notification

Thank you for your interest in this topic. Please participate in the discussion on the talk page for Jack Posobiec regarding edits and the request for consensus. In particular, please address why biographical information which was neutral or positive in character about the subject sourced from verifiable, reliable sources should be omitted, particularly in light of the neutrality requirements for the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Also include why rebuttals provided by the subject to allegations/accusations in or by credible, reliable sources should be removed, particularly in light of the requirements in the BLP for public figures. Participation on the talk page is requested, as you have taken the step to post this Discretionary Sanction Notification on my talk page. Your help is appreciated. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

Jack Posobiec

Your recent editing at Jack Posobiec has been disruptive. Please desist. Take any content disputes to the talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:DR for further suggestions in resolving disagreements. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia you may be blocked w/o further warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Ad Orientem regarding Jack Posobiec and Consensus

Thank you for your interest in this topic. You have been invited to participate via the talk page for Jack Posobiec in building a consensus on edits. My proposed edits and sources are listed there. In particular, please include why neutral or positive biographical information about the subject cannot be added in light of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policies regarding neutral presentation. Also include information as to why edits providing rebuttals by the subject from credible, reliable sources to allegations/accusations may not be included, particularly in light of the BLP policy on public figures. Your good faith participation is requested and appreciated. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

As I am INVOLVED in my capacity as an admin I do not think it appropriate that I take sides in a content dispute. So I will confine myself to noting that WP:CONSENSUS is what we live and die by. If insufficient participation is taking place or consensus remains elusive one can always post neutrally worded requests for comment on related wiki-projects. Also a WP:RfC is also an option. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you for your response. I've never opened a RfC or done a POV dispute, so this is new to me. Your input is appreciated. Please bear with me as I work through this. I'm looking to help get a neutral, well-sourced, and encyclopedic presentation of the topic, which is something I believe is highly desired on Wikipedia. There may also have been an early closure of a discussion prior to adding the NPOV dispute section. There are replies from myself and a couple of other people after it had been added, before it was fully realized. I do not think anyone involved intended to violate policy by continuing to comment. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the various discussions are currently closed so there should not be any issues there. When involved in content disputes my best advice is

• Stay cool, even if others don't. Don't let it get personal.
• Stick to verifiable facts supported by reliable secondary sources. Cite said sources wherever appropriate.
• Avoid claims generally linked to WP:FRINGE theories or sources.
• Try to expand participation within reason. But always do so with neutrally worded requests for comment.
• In line with the above, be mindful of WP:CANVASSING which is a no no.
• Know when to drop the stick and move on. There comes a point in every disagreement when it is time to lower the curtain and accept whatever the consensus is.

In some situations consensus may not be obtained and in those cases a tag can be left on the article alerting readers that there is a disagreement over its content. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you again. I have been trying to participate in discussion with Grayfell, who did reversions on the page in question. All attempts to contact the user via the user's talk page have met with no response. Instead, the user keeps deleting all references to the conversation (see revision 923742761). Is this common or in good faith?

I suggest keeping all discussion related to this issue in one place, namely the article talk page. You can't compel people to engage. So I'd just consider requesting input from some of the various wiki-projects. WP:POLITICS? something along the line of "There is currently a discussion relating to the subject of this project. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion at (wiki link to relevant discussion). Signature." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you again. I was just curious about the etiquette. You have been a big help so far in helping me get my bearings here, and it is much appreciated. Ihuntrocks (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You're going to wear out your welcome here really quickly if you keep accusing everyone of being disingenous or "engaging in a concerted effort" to push a POV. Multiple editors, in multiple different venues, are telling you that you are wrong. It's not because they're engaged in a concerted effort to repress you, it's because there are some very obvious problems with the edits you're trying to make. Nblund ^talk 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I must admit that telling me I'm going to "wear out my welcome" definitely makes me feel unwelcome in the Wikipedia community and is a direct example of incivility, which I am inclined now to report. It would perhaps have been better if you would have taken time to address any of the issues which I have brought up, rather than simply saying "no," repeatedly without offering any justification within the confines of the Wikipedia page policies I have mentioned with respect to specific items on the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard. Thus far, no editors of the "multiple" you mention have addressed policy issues with respect to specific individual edit requests and have instead been inclined to defend a desire to keep the page with its current negative and defamatory tone and biased selection of source material, with no intention to allow neutral or positive material which is credibly and reliably sourced to enter the page. Others, such as @Ad Orientem: have been much more welcoming and helpful in giving direction on this issue (suggesting RfC and broadening the discussion audience, etc.). Ihuntrocks (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes: if you are going to consistently fail to assume good faith of other editors, you are not welcome on Wikipedia, and you will get blocked. You are more than welcome to report me if that's how you'd like to spend your time. Nblund ^talk 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to take a deep breath here. Ihuntrocks is a new editor and this needs to be born in mind as they undoubtedly are not familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. That said, we also need to avoid assuming people are engaged in politically motivated editing. Terms like bias and defamatory should be avoided in all but the most extreme situations. It tends to get people's backs up and creates a confrontational environment as opposed to a collegial one where everybody is working to improve the project one article at a time. And here I must make a personal observation. One of the hardest lessons I had to learn was that when everybody is telling me I'm wrong; it most likely means that I am in fact... wrong. Another hard lesson for me was to steer clear of highly controversial subjects where I harbor strong opinions. I haven't always followed that rule, and I can say that my track record in those situations is mixed. This isn't saying that I have never seen cases of naked bias and POV editing. I have. But happily it's not common. I definitely would encourage an RfC. Let it run it's course and let the chips fall where they will. In the meantime EVERYONE needs to remember that we are all on the same team here and comport themselves accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: The presumption of good faith was initially extended and maintained through several interactions until it could be maintained no more. An accusation of POV-pushing does not come lightly, but one is left with no alternative explanation when successive interactions show that an individual will not engage with specific points in an NPOV discussion and will not provide detailed reasoning in light of Wikipedia's established policies on BLP, NPOV, bias in sources, expresses constant condemnation of any attempt to engage with the broader community to resolve those issues in an article covering a living person, and through actions demonstrates a specific preference to exclude any edits in order to maintain an overwhelmingly negative view of a subject presented when guidelines call for neutrality.

At this point, I am going to disengage from you, per Wikipedia's posted suggestions in instances of conflict, and would ask that you no longer attempt to engage me on my talk page. Thank you.

I would like to thank @Ad Orientem: for the recent input in this stressful situation. I was initially compelled to submit edits to the Posobiec page because it is, on its face, not neutral in tone or presentation. I have been met with what seems like open hostility from the moment I made my first edit to this highly-contested page and I believe that demonstrates well that people with overly strong opinions about the subject are policing that page. I don't use words like "defamatory" flippantly or without cause. When non-neutral information is presented and allowed to flourish from a single, negative point of view when other information which is also from credible, verifiable sources to counterbalance it is actively refused for inclusion, there is nothing left but to say that it is defamation, and by choice. This is manifestly incompatible with Wikipedia's stated policies and goals. While we are encouraged to view ourselves as part of the same team, and as much as I would like that to be true, some users have made it particularly apparent that they would prefer my exclusion. It is difficult to tell if resistance to neutrality or the desire to exclude those who wish to see neutrality in every article is more damaging to the Wikipedia community and its mission. However, it is apparent that neither is helpful. It is my sincere hope that the article can eventually be brought into line with NPOV, and that the current conduct incident regarding uncivil and intimidating behavior can be resolved quickly and dispassionately. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ihuntrocks, I think you should disengage from this dispute entirely and find another article or subject to work on. That's not because I think you are wrong, I take no position on this issue, but rather because I think you are too invested in it and cannot approach the disagreement from a perspective of calm discussion. Repeatedly casting aspersions on the motives of other editors is disruptive. While some allowance is being made for your being new, there are limits. Please consider looking for other topics or pages you can help to improve that won't involve a lot of drama. You can always come back at some point if you feel so inclined. But I really don't want to see you get sanctioned either through a topic ban or a block.. You may also want to have a look at WP:IDHT and WP:TE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you. I was making what I suppose will be my final (for now at least) reply to the relevant NPOV noticeboard topic when this was posted. I do find it disconcerting that I will be unable to continue to work to improve Wikipedia's article on this topic. As noted in my final NPOV noticeboard post, there are sources used in the article which do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Unfortunately, there seems to be too much inertia surrounding this topic for a single person to overcome. There are other topics of interest to me, and I will consider devoting my time to them. Thank you for your support and guidance thus far in my attempt to make one portion of Wikipedia better than when I found it, even if that effort was entirely in vain.

@Ad Orientem: Could we find out why Grayfell removed the NPOV dispute tag while the discussion is still ongoing? It was added yesterday and there hasn't been sufficient time for commentary on the noticeboard or the talk page to address any issues. The comment associated with the removal/reversion is simply "Not buying it," which doesn't give any indication that there is a justifiable reason for removing a tag which has established removal conditions. I believe this has been removed incorrectly. At the very least, there is insufficient documentation provided to support the removal, and I believe the tag should be added again. I would do it myself, but I do not want to invite anymore discussion of being banned for working on this. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Calton has taken the liberty of closing the NPOV discussion on the talk page, taking my disengagement message as having "dropped the matter," which is profoundly incorrect. It is apparent that this page cannot be discussed or improved under these conditions. How likely is requesting an RfC to address source issues and NPOV for this page to get me banned if I request one? Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have re-opened the talk page discussion and restored the POV tag for now. I have also concurrently closed the noticeboard discussions with a note urging editors to discuss the matter on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I have read all of the updates you have made, and I thank you. I may have been confused at some of the suggestions in the NPOV dispute guidelines, which is why I posted to the noticeboards. It also seemed to fill the purpose of attracting more potential editors to the discussion, short of issuing an RfC. I'm out again, per your suggestion. I will note that, for what it's worth, I do believe Nblund's suggestion to change "alt-right" to "far right" would be more in line with the sources which are currently used in the article and I support the general reasoning presented in the accompanying comment, including the in-text description for the internet troll term for clarity for readers.

Everyone here wants to make Wikipedia a bit better than when they found it, and even a single edit toward that direction is desirable progress. Thank you very much. Ihuntrocks (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I'm wondering when/if I could return to the talk page discussion, on the assurance that I can participate in a manner which is consistent with community standards. I have concerns about many of the sources used in the article in question and would like to state those concerns and clarify that stance. The biggest issue that I have, which cuts across a number of sources used, is that the sources neither define the term used (or provide a link to a definition) when using the term -- such as "alt-right" as only one example -- and many make assertions without providing evidence or context for those assertions. It not only seems inappropriate to ask an encyclopedia to present assertions without evidence as facts, it would also seem to violate a number of policy guidelines for the biographies of living persons. In particular, the guideline that material which is challenged or likely to be challenged should be removed immediately and without discussion if it is poorly sourced. The reliable sources guidelines for news organizations stipulate that items which are op-ed or analysis are not considered reliable sources for anything other than the author's statements and are rarely so for facts. Sources used such as [4] and [9] are clearly marked as analysis on the source page and should never have been included under the guidelines.

Other sources, such as those used for the "Rape Melania" sign accusation ([34], [35], and [36]) still present as fact something which has been retracted by the primary source used to generate those secondary sources (see footnote update here with linked reference here for primary source retraction). As such, these are also not reliable or verifiable sources within the policy guidelines, particularly those for biographies of living persons.

This list is by no means exhaustive and is meant only to highlight that the often-repeated claims that the article is well-sourced with reliable and verifiable sources can be and is challenged, and warrants a policy-prescribed cleanup. In some cases, the policy states that this should be done immediately and without discussion, but I believe discussion is productive, particularly in this case. At all times, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should seek to be accurate, using verifiable and credible sources. For an extended time, this particular article has not been in compliance with these standards and should be cleaned up.

Please let me know if/when I may rejoin the discussion, or if a link to this can be provided on my behalf in the current discussion if distance is still required on my part. As always, thank you very much. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• You may rejoin the discussion anytime you wish. I think you may be under a misapprehension. You have not been topic banned. My suggestion that step away from the discussion was just that... a suggestion. Just be aware that you have been cautioned about your demeanor so if you choose to return, tread carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Editors are removing the tag for NPOV while the discussion is still ongoing. New editors have been joining the conversation and a general consensus is that the article needs work. User Volunteer Marek made a reversion to remove the tag, with comments directed at you by name. See the edit log here. The tag was replaced by user Amanda L. Morales, and then reverted again by user Calton with the derogatory message Hello brand-new editor who is not a sockpuppet! No. which seems confrontational, to say the least, and may violate the policy on assuming good faith in other editors. See revision log here. The user Amanda L. Morales has since joined the discussion on the talk page to express concerns about the lead for the article regarding neutrality. User Atsme has suggested a possible RfC, and that is starting to seem like something which may be required at this time. Currently, the NPOV dispute tag is not present on the page. Tagging you to bring this to your attention, particularly since you were the last person to have put the tag back on the page and have posted two warnings not to remove it and that the discussion is ongoing. I do not want to add the tag back myself, as I do not want to possibly be flagged for making disruptive edits. However, the tag should still appear on the page as the discussion is not only ongoing, but more editors than not have identified issues that need to be addressed in the current discussion. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ihuntrocks, thank you. I am aware of the edit warring as well as the uncivil and personal attacks that have been posted. That is all I am prepared to say for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you for your response. I understand the need to stay uninvolved in the discussion of the ongoing events. I did want to note that the profanity was particularly troubling and that Volunteer Marek misrepresents my account activities. My account was created in 2013 and my first edit was nearly 7 months ago (March 19, 2019) to remove page vandalism on The Rubin Report. Indicating that my account is a sock puppet account is a blatant presumption of bad faith and a misrepresentation. The fact that I quote policy in discussions is just a sign that I'm both literate and legalistic. I my contributions on the talk page may slow down a bit in order to both let the situation percolate regarding Volunteer Marek's recent posts and to let editors who have more recently joined the discussion have more space to express themselves. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

IHR - Ad Orientem is giving you excellent advice. The area you have chosen to edit in is not unlike jumping off into the deep end of a swimming pool before you learn how to swim. It is not the ideal topic area for a new editor to begin making contributions - veteran editors have trouble navigating the AP2 (American Politics 2) topic area (which applies to Jack P. as does BLP). The article isn't going anywhere so take some time away from it and acquaint yourself with WP's 3 core content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and other applicable WP:PAG such as WP:NEWSORG, WP:RS, WP:RECENTISM and so on. Become a (talk page watcher) and quietly watch the drama boards WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:AE, WP:3RR, WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, WP:BLPN - learn how best to present yourself. Take care - and Happy Editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I used the "thanks" function on your edit, but I wanted to come back here and thank you more fully. You've given some very good advice above, (as has Ad Orientem, as you note), and you have contributed productively and civilly on the talk page for the discussion in question. I will follow through with those suggestions that you have given to continue increasing my ability to participate and help improve articles (that's why we're all here). Unfortunately, my four major interests are geology (not much to change), Presbyterianism (known for not changing), information security (always reading Wiki articles to look for places to help out), and American politics -- particularly controversial figures Left, Right, and Center. We both know how that one goes. Even single, simple edits to that topic are both beneficial and, as it turns out, exceptionally difficult to get put in place. It's daunting, but so are most of the things I've done off-Wiki which have turned out to be rewarding and worthwhile pursuits. Seeing how the sausage is made, so to speak, has been very... enlightening so far. Thanks again for your contributions on the talk page for the subject and here on mine. The way you've conducted yourself, especially in reaching out in the capacity of a mentor, lets me know that your contributions are good to watch and that your suggestions will help others improve. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, IHR. Your interest in geology made me think of a recent photo challenge on Commons, so when you get a chance, take a look at the results and entries in the June 2019 Geology Photo Challenge. If you have any images that you shot and own the copyright, and are willing to release them under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, consider contributing some of them to Commons and possibly participating in future photo challenges. It’s fun!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thank you for the link. I will definitely check that out later. The only photographs I usually take these days are under my microscope, but if any of that type of photography is useful in future events I will definitely consider participating. It does sound like fun.

Regarding CU request

@Ad Orientem: and @Drmies: Since a CU request has been advanced, I have updated my user page to reflect that a family member with an editor account may occasionally share an IP address with me. I was not aware that I should do this until tonight after reviewing the pages on CU and socking. That user is Mongreltaceae. This family member has only recently opened the account, has made minimal edits to pages to which I have not made any edits and has not made edits to any pages which I have edited. The user has not participated in any talk page discussions to my knowledge. Mongreltaceae is making a similar user page update. Since transparency is important, I felt I should not only add this to my user page in light of the recent request but to also notify you directly via mention. As the request has been issued to Drmies, I have added that user to this statement as well. My first edit (March 19, 2019) will have a different IP block, as I have moved in the intervening time.

I trust both of you as neutral parties, but firmly deny the accusations of sockpuppetry made by Volunteer Marek and again raise my objections to that user's use of profanity in the discussion on the Jack Posobiec talk page. It should be expected that a new editor would familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies when making contributions. It should also be expected that an editor would use these policies in a discussion when other users bring them up. A claim that one must be a sockpuppet for doing so is not assuming good faith and I am very sad to see Volunteer Marek do that in this discussion to me and to also accuse another newer account who tried to enter the same discussion of sockpuppetry in the edit log when that user attempted to revert to a version which still had the NPOV dispute tag. Ihuntrocks (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am sure you saw that that other account was indeed not kosher; it was created solely to harass. That doesn't necessarily mean anything for your edits, but AGF is easier to apply in some contexts than in others. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Want to add that it would be unwise if you and the alternative account holder actively participated in the same discussions or even edit the same pages. Furthermore, under no circumstances should the two ever vote on the same issues such as a request for adminship, a talkpage request for comment or similar.--MONGO (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: and @MONGO:: Drmies, I did notice last night that it seemed the other account had been blocked and wasn't on the level. That's unfortunate, and I'm glad it was caught before it advanced further in the discussion or became more disruptive. Thank you and/or anyone else involved in catching and removing that account. MONGO, thank you for the advice. We are being very careful with this and maintaining a strict "never the two shall meet" policy on all of the items you mentioned. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Time to move on

Hi Ihuntrocks. I've been checking in on the discussion over at Talk:Jack Posobiec‎, and I think it's time you stepped away. You have made whatever points you intended to and you need to let the community draw what conclusions it will. Repeating the same points ad nauseum is not helpful and can be seen as a form of bludgeoning. And here I am going to abandon my neutrality as an admin. I am not seeing a convincing argument that the page has substantial NPOV issues. Some reasonable arguments have been advanced regarding whether certain descriptors should be applied in wiki-voice or attributed to RS sources. But IMHO none of that substantively impacts the basic neutrality of the article. The unhappy truth is that some people get articles that don't reflect well on them because they reflect the overwhelming body of RS sources dealing with the subject. Such is the case here. Yes, on rare occasions I have seen exceptions where there really was some bias, but this is not one of them. If Jack Posobier comes across as a wing nut, it's because that's the way almost every reputable source has painted him. And, as a matter of personal opinion, I think they have done so fairly. During this business I have bent over backwards to indulge your concerns and allow for an open discussion. But aside for some fair, but ultimately trivial quibbling over how to best express the views of the reliable sources, I am not seeing anything that rises to evidence of a serious NPOV fail. Having expressed this view I can no longer act as an admin here, so my advice is that of an experienced editor only. One of the harder things to learn around here is when to drop the stick and move on. IMHO, this is that time. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I think you're right. Some efforts at improvement would make a vacation of the labor of Sisyphus and this seems to be one area where that would be true. In my brief time here, having been introduced to a recurring cast of characters (themselves often the subject of reliable sources) I can merely say that those sources are indeed reliable. I will contribute no further to the discussion, having done what I could with my small, new, and finite voice to affect improvement in an area which doesn't lend itself to movement. I've borne accusations of sockpuppetry and myriad other biting techniques with good grace -- even while watching those instances go unaddressed by those around me who should be discouraging that sort of behavior and building a better community -- and it is with that same good grace that I will depart. Thank you for your honest self-presentation in the above comment. That is truly appreciated. Ihuntrocks (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will offer only a small correction. I am not a "legate." I am just an experienced editor who has been given a few extra tools to help keep things running smoothly and a very small degree of authority which can be used in only in special circumstances. None of which applies in my above comment. I applaud your decision to step away, but only if you are doing so of your own free will. There is no coercion here and no threat of retribution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Shel Silverstein wrote a song which was picked up by Bobby Bare and has been a favorite of mine since I was a kid. It's called "The Winner" and a particular lyric comes to mind here: But my eyes still see and my nose still works and my teeth're still in my mouth / And you know I guess that makes me the winner. Y'all have fun. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice

As I said before, do not post on my talk page again unless required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: My apologies. When you previously stated "this discussion" in the edit log regarding a previous discussion, I took it to literally mean the stated discussion. I have since migrated the relevant discussion to the Dave Rubin talk page where it can be picked up at any time. I will abide by your request not to post on your talk page unless required by policy now that that request has been stated clearly for the first time. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)