User talk:MrPorpoise

Welcome!

Hello, SinglePorpoiseAccount! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 06:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Important Notice

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-1992 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.

Doug Weller talk 06:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

AN/i notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Hi SinglePorpoiseAccount! First things first: you never asked for this advice, so don't feel like you need to take it or respond if you don't want to. I am concerned that further debate on the RSN issue is unproductive, and I think you've pushed passed the point where it's reasonable to continue. I can empathize with the weirdness of our RS policy being off-putting when you feel a particular article has gotten it wrong. It is what it is. With so many editors disagreeing with you, continuing to fight will be seen as evidence that you aren't willing to engage in cooperative encyclopedia-building. You may want to read WP:1AM—just an essay, but a good one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for the advice. Unfortunately I feel like the discussion has taken an odd turn I really didn't expect. I expected to have to cite parts of the source, argue why I thought it would warrant caution, why I thought caution was needed in the first place, etc. Instead it feels more like it's been about me and a random comment I made about AP. I want to find a consensus on the matter, no matter which one it is, but we've barely discussed the source material and I'm not sure anyone specifically addressed the key points I made.

I've edited a bit every now and then as an IPA, but this is not how I expected my first couple of weeks with a real account to be. Honestly it might even have been better as an IPA because then I didn't care about being ignored when I raised an issue on a talk page. At the very least it was better than not being ignored and instead thrown into a process I pour my time and effort into, only to have to deal with this. I've only read some RSN notices before in passing but it seemed to be a lot more fair then.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to be helpful. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: So I finally figured out why the response seemed to be so unfair; the question asked on the noticeboard isn't the question I thought it was. Naturally I assumed FormalDude had formulated the question properly so I just skimmed over it while preparing my defense. Lesson learned; always verify the question is what you think it is. The answer to the question, as it stands, should probably be that BFN is a reliable source in general. But that's not the question we need an answer to on the audit talk page, the question we need an answer to is something along the lines of "is the BFN article is to be preferred over the initially offered PNT article." I tried to clarify that in a new comment at the bottom of the discussion but I think it's both too late in the discussion to make that change and I would probably need some help to formulate the question properly. Reading some of the other comments again it also seems like some users think I was the one who opened the issue? All of these realizations are becoming a bit overwhelming, I don't really know where to start. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again sorry for all the noise on RSN, I thought that was the process for resolving a dispute on source selection since a more experienced Wikipedian opened it. Would it be appropriate for me to leave a "thank you for your patience on RSN" on your talk page? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I think calling for a close was a good idea. You are welcome to say whatever you'd like at my talk page! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you this way, but it looks like I might soon be banned over the FormalDude dispute. Regardless of what happens I'm happy I got to interact with you. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As there's already an "unsolicited advice" section, I will throw my two bits in. First: keep your replies to a minimum at ANI. I advise you to consider yourself on a two paragraphs-per-day quota for replies at ANI. Second: change your name and do something else, at least some of the time. Nobody likes single-purpose accounts even when they are allowed. The username certainly makes it look like you're trolling. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I'll keep that in mind. I've tried to refrain from excessive commenting in the ANI issue but old habits (from other forums) die hard. It's nice to have a rule of thumb and two paragraphs should be doable. I will consider changing my name, I thought others would see the humor in it but it really has turned out to work against me. Thank you again for taking the time to help me. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I have put in a rename request for having my username changed to MrPorpoise. I got the idea from one of your comments at ANI and I like the way it sounds. As far as I know it doesn't sound close to any Wikipedia-specific terms either, which I now see the value of. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that was a great call, and I second 力's advice about keeping mostly mum at ANI. If you are amenable to a topic ban over a full ban, I would say so there. That other editors believe you to be a SPA is understandable, and voluntarily accepting a temporary TBAN would go a long way toward convincing others that you're here to build the encyclopedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I have two great reasons for slowing down anyway. The first one is that FormalDude seems to be too desperate in getting me banned, something I didn't fully appreciate the consequences of until he dragged User:Ryk72 into the mix. The wild accusations aren't playing in his favor. The second one is I'm done losing sleep over this. I've been up all night several days in a row now to keep up with all the Wikipedians from other time zones, and that's neither healthy nor sustainable. In the grand scheme of things it's just not worth it.

Accepting a voluntary TBAN is something I have considered but it feels wrong as a matter of principle. I don't think I've done anything wrong on a fundamental level, I was mislead by FormalDude into thinking I went through the appropriate channels and I thought it was reasonable, although in hindsight a bit verbose, to reply to every accusation of wrongdoing at the same rate they did. On top of that, like I said on ANI I fear a new Wikipedian without the same invested time into Wikipedia would react to the situation by simply quitting and never coming back. Almost immediately getting met by what I consider framing into conspiracy theories, then thrown into an ANI and accused of being a sockpuppet, isn't to be taken lightly in my opinion. Not that it's evidence of anything but I can see on FormalDude's talk page he has been involved with getting sockpuppet accounts banned several times before, and it brings into question how many of those were actually genuine sockpuppets (although some of them definitely look like obvious sockpuppets). SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough on the voluntary TBAN proposal. I think slowing down and getting some rest is a great idea. I wouldn't worry too much about banned sockpuppets; our SPI and CheckUser team is phenomenal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It just hit me; the ANI case, would that include the sockpuppet investigation or is that a separate process altogether? I assumed a sockpuppet investigation would be a part of it but the way you mention the SPI and CheckUser team might imply it's not? Because if the ANI case is purely about the accusations from FormalDude then I might really be wasting my time and I should've suggested an IBAN right from the get-go.

They clearly have something against me but I have no interest in "winning" the argument with them, I'd rather just not deal with them at all. It's just a disagreement of opinion on a source selection blown way out of proportion. I cared enough to defend my opinion but there's a very distinct difference between having an opinion and forcing them on others. Yes, I do know I went a bit too far in the heated discussion but I only wanted the matter resolved properly (as in more than two opposing opinions trying to decide the matter) before I let them use the source. I tried to indicate even using both would've been an acceptable compromise in my last reply to BD2412 on RS/N, but I'm not sure the message came across to anyone else. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, almost all sockpuppet issues are dealt with via WP:SPI. Obvious cases of sockpuppetry are (I think) sometimes just blocked by whichever admin notices first. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I'll apply what I've recently learnt from WP:DISENGAGE and simply do nothing on the ANI case until someone asks me to do so. I would still prefer a mutual IBAN but other than that I don't really have anything useful to add anyway, and FormalDude seems to be "out in undone weather" as we say in Sweden (not sure what the proper translation would be, but this machine-translated page explains the meaning fairly well[1]). The irony in that I was "out in undone weather" too is not lost on me, but now I see that I clearly was. Since I know for a fact I'm not a sockpuppet there should be no issue passing SPI if it comes to that. Thank you for your help, I think I'll go have a nap now. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The name change went through and I think it would be appropriate to notify of this change in the ANI. Where would I put that? At the end of the case or at the end of the discussion section? 85.24.253.9 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice I got logged out after the name change. Last comment was from me. MrPorpoise (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The quick answer is: I don't know! At the bottom is probably fine. Also, if you don't want your IP associated with your account, you might email the oversight team, with more info at Wikipedia:Oversight. Some people don't mind. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't exposing my IPv4 addres is applicable in my case, as due to the lack of IPv4 addresses my ISP is NAT-ing the IPv4 space and only the IPv6 addresses are real exposed addresses. In addition to that the DHCP lease is only 12 hours IIRC, so even the IPv6 address is probably going to belong to someone else tomorrow. Anyway, I'll add the notice to the case and if it ends up in the wrong place I hope someone more experienced than me knows where to put it. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just read through the WP:BLUDGEON article mentioned in ANI. I can absolutely agree I was on that path, and I regret it now that I realize how disruptive it was to my case. But out of curiosity, why isn't FormalDude regarded to have done the same? I'm not saying he has or that it should be in the ANI, I'm just trying to determine the difference to properly understand WP:BLUDGEON. Is it just the long comment I started with on that page? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I have nowhere else to ask. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being more clear. I linked to BLUDGEON because I think it describes your behavior at RSN, not at ANI. I don't think FormalDude's behavior at RSN was bludgeony, and I don't have a great read on either of your participation at ANI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok, then I think I understand. Sorry again about the RSN stuff. MrPorpoise (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I broke the silence and posted what will hopefully be my last edit to the ANI case. I hope I didn't overstep my bounds but I'm always second-guessing myself when I comment on serious stuff. MrPorpoise (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Name

I thought a good option was "MarriedPorpoiseAccount"! ;) BilCat (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, that would indeed have been funny! :) MrPorpoise (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

You're most welcome. BilCat (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea of a porpoise adapting to human society is funny regardless of title, and keeping it vague is as practical as it is absurd! You could see "MrPorpoise" getting into all sorts of highbrow wacky content meetings, in which an explicitly single or married character would risk seeming more like a fish out of water. Research shows Wikipedians don't relate as well to struggling aspiring fish as they do generic male authority figures. If you ever need an adopted nephew sidekick down the road, ping me, sir. Till then, have a good day at work, money! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am a real human and I eat normal human food like sardines, while I walk on my two bendable legs from my landbox to my workplace, where I have a fellow human colleague and we frequently talk about normal human things like "nice wind we are having today" and "I sure had a good sleepwalk yesterday".^{[citation needed]} InedibleHulk is a great name by the way! MrPorpoise (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, my other mother's brother, that's very convincing! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I cometh with peace, and milkshakes!

	Milkshake
	Hi! This is just a token of appreciation. Hope you're doing well. Pass this on, everyone deserves it GFO (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi MrPorpoise! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, An information gap is left behind now that the article List of Sony A-mount lenses is deleted, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi! We have not met but it seems we both are vying for the same thing: the inclusion, in a neutral manner, of the recent accusations surfaced in RS regarding Patrisse Cullors purported misuse of funds for real estate purchases. We also seem to be both victims of WP:TAGTEAM. If you can, take a look here and here. Thank you and have a good day. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! While I appreciate your enthusiasm, notifying other wikipedians of discussions (which they are not already involved in) in this manner is what Wikipedia calls WP:CANVASS. I saw your thread yesterday and I wanted to let it play out a little more before I said anything. Unfortunately my hands are now tied, I cannot take either side in the thread or I'll be at risk of falling for WP:CANVASS. I do believe you have good intentions though and you could make the argument that there might indeed be WP:TAGTEAM violations on that talk page, but all I can do is support you from the sidelines at this point.

I fully understand if this is not an option for you, but my advice would be to create a named account. An "IPA", which is a term for wikipedians that only have an IP address to identify them by, is usually given less priority. On the flipside of that coin I must also discourage you from creating a single purpose account, or SPA for short. As the name implies these are accounts which are only used for a single purpose and usually never seen again. You're much better off creating a single account and caring for your reputation under that name. There are of course legitimate reasons for staying as an IPA, but be aware of the implications for doing so.

Either way, best wishes and good luck! MrPorpoise (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. I believe it's just better to allow the entrenched editors to have their way. They seem to be operating under WP:TAGTEAM and to have far more time. Sad but this is a perfect way to dissuade new editors. Again, thank you for your time! 108.34.231.7 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Affected by VPN edit block

I'm currently unable to edit anything but my talk page due to being stuck behind a VPN. Any responses elsewhere may be delayed until I'm temporarily at another location or the situation is otherwise resolved. MrPorpoise (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it MrP. Ping me if you need something copied somewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer. I think what I need most is some advice on how to proceed. There is an appeals process for erroneous VPN blocks, but since I am in fact using a VPN I don't think that process would apply. I also don't have that much time to spend on Wikipedia editing so this issue has sort of ended up in a pile of low priority tasks.

The reason I'm using a network-wide VPN is because of Swedish logging laws. Bahnhof (which is my ISP) responded to those laws by offering what they're calling "LEX Integrity", and are recommending all their customers to use it as much as possible. This sidesteps the logging laws because the legally required ISP logs only show garbage while using a VPN. Therefore I would strongly advice Wikipedia admins to make an exception for the Bahnhof-hosted VPN or VPNs connected with The 5th of July Foundation (currently only Bahnhof AFAICT). The single endpoint for LEX Integrity is in the ISP server hall so there's no geoblock evasion for Swedish users, the primary function is just ISP log evasion and its use is encouraged by the ISP themselves.

So if you have any advice on this I'd be very grateful. What's the procedure here and would I be out of line to ping an admin? Feel free to discuss this elsewhere with other wikipedians too, I'd be interested if this leads to a wider discussion regarding Swedish logging laws and if we should allow Swedish VPNs as a workaround. I would suspect a lot of other tech-savvy Swedish wikipedians are encountering the same issue but have opted for disabling their VPN while editing, which to me is understandable as a temporary solution out of frustration but I still stand firmly on fighting the ISP logging laws. You're welcome to read more at The 5th of July Foundation about page.

If appropriate I would have no issue having a banner saying I'm using a 5th of July Foundation VPN service on my user page; I have no intention of hiding my use of such a VPN. I want to make it very clear that this is about evading a ridiculous Swedish law, not Wikipedia admins. MrPorpoise (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Not something I knew about; thanks for the mini-lesson. I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and procedure on the use of VPNs, but it looks like part of WP:PROXY, §Editors who need to use proxies, might have the next steps available to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)