Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
Would you maybe add some language to your article talk page statement? [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
Would you maybe add some language to your article talk page statement? [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Like "He's basing his wacky view on wacky sources" :-) That article is already under a civility restriction. I will sanction for ''egregious'' offenses but for everything else, your best bet is usually [[WP:AE]] or another admin. Civility is a very difficult thing to enforce consistently and I'd rather leave it to a panel of admins. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
:Like "He's basing his wacky view on wacky sources" :-) That article is already under a civility restriction. I will sanction for ''egregious'' offenses but for everything else, your best bet is usually [[WP:AE]] or another admin. Civility is a very difficult thing to enforce consistently and I'd rather leave it to a panel of admins. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}{{re|NeilN}} that was in direct reference to the [https://washingtonpress.com/2018/04/20/trumps-new-secretary-of-state-nominee-was-just-dragged-into-a-military-service-scandal/ source he posted], which you yourself commented on, that openly tries to canvass readers to campaign for impeachment "for the President's crimes" but also helpfully urging impeachment of Pence for... also the President's crimes I guess? And also to make the point that he's the one who crapped all over JFG falsely claiming ''he'' was "ignorant" and citing "fringe" sources for "revisionist nonsense" when, again, mainstream news desks and commentators are crediting Trump as at least a contributing factor, even as uncertain as the prospects going forward are. |
|||
And it also reminded me of a certain other user who serially and venomously accused others in general (and me pretty specifically) of reading outlandish sources—a total fiction—when he himself once tried to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier/Archive_4#The_Moscow_Project canvass WP users at the very same article to engage in crowd-sourced off-wiki discussion with a political activism site], literally encouraging people to ''determine for themselves'' which dossier parts were "corroborated", something that would probably amount to people concocting a bunch of OR off-site and then helpfully "adding" it in sock/meatpuppety fashion. By ''total coincidence'', the "dossier" article has essentially morphed into a free-form diary of collusion "evidence" and the user in question is responsible for nearly 30% of all edits to the page and led the charge against any mention of fact RS's talking about lack of collusion evidence ''or'' opinion sources suggesting maybe collusion didn't happen. And of course as I noted, that user's public Twitter and Facebook are rife with political invective and are ''heavily'' suggestive of being used as a marshalling ground for partisan arguments on WP. |
|||
Both of these users admit having extreme views but both claim to be ''super-duper neutral'' and objective in their WP editing—yet this is flatly contradicted by their behavior. Overall, it seems like a pattern that some of the most devoutly axe-grinding POV-warriors here have a habit of angrily and dishonestly accusing ''others'' of promoting skewed viewpoints and questionable sources. It's just an effort to crap on other users, drive them away, and [[poison the well]] regarding totally legitimate source materials and POVs, attempting to make them off-limits for discussion . That's totally anti-social and contrary to civil editing and discussion of source materials and it's being systematically tolerated. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 02:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:33, 16 May 2018
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned for six months from mentioning, pinging, or otherwise discussing BullRangifer or their edits, either specifically or obliquely, in any post related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. This ban does not include article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed. Gratuitous insults, personal attacks, and casting aspersions are still prohibited on any page.
You have been sanctioned Despite a clear warning here, you almost immediately decided to do this.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. NeilN talk to me 11:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: this is a dumb sanction and the stated purported rationale for it is dumb. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also your statement of the sanction said "Gratuitous insults, personal attacks, and casting aspersions are still prohibited on any page" but I request you strike it as obviously false, given the circumstances of you sanctioning me.
- Or perhaps change it to "Complaining about gratuitous insults, personal attacks, and casting aspersions is still prohibited on any page". This would require very little of the text to be changed, thus not very labor-intensive on your part, but would still capture the intended meaning. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: in 10 years editing WP I've never, until today, gotten a message indicating somebody else on a different device tried to log in to my account. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Happening to a lot of people today, happened to me as well. There is a AN thread on it here. PackMecEng (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- [1] Factchecker_atyourservice 02:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Happening to a lot of people today, happened to me as well. There is a AN thread on it here. PackMecEng (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: in 10 years editing WP I've never, until today, gotten a message indicating somebody else on a different device tried to log in to my account. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense
@SPECIFICO: if you actually believe this nonsensical claim that I've "violated" any sanction by explaining to Bull that no, I didn't hack his freaking twitter, after he suggested on an admin board that maybe I did, by all means get yourself to AE and file a case ASAP and I'm sure they will jump all over this very important issue and thank you for your extremely diligent hall monitoring and affix a gold star to the bulletin board in your honor to let everybody know what a helpful little admin sanctions gnome you are.
Otherwise, I think you know what to do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factchecker_atyourservice 14:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
What?
You've archived all my displays of wit and inappropriate behavior? Atsme📞📧 22:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Atsme: I'll selectively restore it at a later time, this page is mostly for people threatening to have me blocked/banned/whatever. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed the pile on and sympathize with your frustration...but...you are in control of that outcome. When you feel as though you're about to fall off the wagon and say something that resembles a PA, bite your fingers, come over to my TP and discuss first. Atsme📞📧 02:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is no PA wagon, PAs are rampant. Respectfully, Atsme, there are several users that speak to you with undisguised contempt, regularly, not only without repercussion but without even a raised eyebrow by anybody else in the room. Have you read the essay I was complaining about? It was explicitly thrown in my face, but if you read it you'll see it is clearly about you too. I think you may have a case of Helsinki syndrome, as in Helsinki, Sweden. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- The thing is you cannot make a difference if you are banned. There are tons of issues with pretty much anything Trump related these days and the only way to bring them back to NPOV is discussion and consensus building. It is long, drawn out, and a pain in the butt but it is the only way. The snipes are common and constant, but don't actually matter. All they do is weaken the case of anyone making them, and if you just ignore them and make your points generally policy wins out. I have been here only a year and a half but that is longer than most new comers to American politics, went though the same stuff (and still do, heck go though my talk page and archives). Just be careful and do not respond in kind, you can see it now on several talk pages talks about civility and topic bans or blocks. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Neil just recommended DRN. FCAYS, I think it's worth a try next time there's a content issue. Be patient and don't take the bait...you're too good a writer to be lost over a behavioral issue. There are no deadlines...be happy. Atsme📞📧 06:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- FCAYS, how very Scanda dare you! Helsinki is in Finland, ok!!? That's like comparing Eurovision chalk with Eurovision cheese. And I'm not even going to mention Athens. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC) ... sorry, did someone mention a wagon??
- @Martinevans123: Not sure if you are playing along but it's a reference to a scene in a US action film called Die Hard where a goofy news anchor is corrected on the location of Helsinki. The joke was supposed to be explained by a youtube link which was disallowed, and I went with it anyway because I live on the precipice of social acceptability. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- As you should know, I treat this sacred encyclopedia with the respect it deserves and I never play along, even at home. You're best avoiding all that social media contamination. Yes it's a long way down. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ... often kinda sums it up here, I think.
- In answer to certain questions posed on your talk page: Yes; No; Depends, why do you ask?
- But, I think there has got to be a better format for this. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- As you should know, I treat this sacred encyclopedia with the respect it deserves and I never play along, even at home. You're best avoiding all that social media contamination. Yes it's a long way down. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ... often kinda sums it up here, I think.
- @Martinevans123: Not sure if you are playing along but it's a reference to a scene in a US action film called Die Hard where a goofy news anchor is corrected on the location of Helsinki. The joke was supposed to be explained by a youtube link which was disallowed, and I went with it anyway because I live on the precipice of social acceptability. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is no PA wagon, PAs are rampant. Respectfully, Atsme, there are several users that speak to you with undisguised contempt, regularly, not only without repercussion but without even a raised eyebrow by anybody else in the room. Have you read the essay I was complaining about? It was explicitly thrown in my face, but if you read it you'll see it is clearly about you too. I think you may have a case of Helsinki syndrome, as in Helsinki, Sweden. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed the pile on and sympathize with your frustration...but...you are in control of that outcome. When you feel as though you're about to fall off the wagon and say something that resembles a PA, bite your fingers, come over to my TP and discuss first. Atsme📞📧 02:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey!!!
Welcome back to the fray. Atsme📞📧 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Appreciate the note but I'm not "back" nor joining any "fray". This place is turning into a day care center. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Removing hats
Hi, I noticed you reverted the hatting here restoring a bunch of back-and-forth discussion to a voting section. Please don't do that again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Awilley: I attempted to put the moved comments into the section the other editor wanted them moved to, but something was wrong with the formatting and I wasn't willing to spend any additional time fixing the formatting issue. You are more than welcome to move the comments yourself if you can do it without messing up the formatting. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Moving it down is fine, you just need to remove the hat and hab templates (including the double curly braces) ~Awilley (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- That would not have been proper since other comments were hatted. I simply copy pasted my comment text into the lower section. In any event, it appears the formatting issue may have been unrelated to the hat. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Moving it down is fine, you just need to remove the hat and hab templates (including the double curly braces) ~Awilley (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. NeilN talk to me 20:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Unsourced BLP stuff, attack editors, admin says no big deal. Restore one comment, immediate block! LOL what a joke. 46.242.240.216 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've warned you about making reverts like this before. Stop trying to re-open discussions on other users' talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: I just thought it had transformed into an admin discussion and that you would be commenting shortly. The last thing Jessey said was to falsely claim the "smearing" never occurred and I just wanted to reply to that. N.B., the additional comment I added after reverting pointed out the obvious DS violations made by Scjessey, which I believe you are authorized to sanction.
I also felt the need to reply to a comment by Mandruss saying I felt certain comments were justified when that wasn't really what I meant.
Since I thought you were going to show up and comment, I also assumed you would probably restore the comments section yourself, first, so I didn't think doing it myself was that big a deal.
On more of a big picture issue, it's frustrating that this started with comments by the other editor that were pointlessly hostile and appeared to be based on pretty extensive ignorance of RS's, and my response was to criticize the hostility and point out the wrongness of the view, with sources.
Yet I was blocked for a highly technical violation while Scjessey was not blocked even though he doubled down on the insults even after being advised of the sourcing.
He's basing his wacky view on wacky sources and trying to drive away editors who don't agree with views from those wacky sources. That is waaaay more serious than reverting somebody's blanking of talk page discussion of their own improper conduct. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: IMO the real issue is using faux-"sourcing" concerns as a pretext to insult other editors—i.e. don't accuse others of "revisionist nonsense", or citing "fringe" sources, or "ignorance of the facts"—when the other guy is referring to matters reported straightforwardly in mainstream news sources.
Would you maybe add some language to your article talk page statement? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Like "He's basing his wacky view on wacky sources" :-) That article is already under a civility restriction. I will sanction for egregious offenses but for everything else, your best bet is usually WP:AE or another admin. Civility is a very difficult thing to enforce consistently and I'd rather leave it to a panel of admins. --NeilN talk to me 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: that was in direct reference to the source he posted, which you yourself commented on, that openly tries to canvass readers to campaign for impeachment "for the President's crimes" but also helpfully urging impeachment of Pence for... also the President's crimes I guess? And also to make the point that he's the one who crapped all over JFG falsely claiming he was "ignorant" and citing "fringe" sources for "revisionist nonsense" when, again, mainstream news desks and commentators are crediting Trump as at least a contributing factor, even as uncertain as the prospects going forward are.
And it also reminded me of a certain other user who serially and venomously accused others in general (and me pretty specifically) of reading outlandish sources—a total fiction—when he himself once tried to canvass WP users at the very same article to engage in crowd-sourced off-wiki discussion with a political activism site, literally encouraging people to determine for themselves which dossier parts were "corroborated", something that would probably amount to people concocting a bunch of OR off-site and then helpfully "adding" it in sock/meatpuppety fashion. By total coincidence, the "dossier" article has essentially morphed into a free-form diary of collusion "evidence" and the user in question is responsible for nearly 30% of all edits to the page and led the charge against any mention of fact RS's talking about lack of collusion evidence or opinion sources suggesting maybe collusion didn't happen. And of course as I noted, that user's public Twitter and Facebook are rife with political invective and are heavily suggestive of being used as a marshalling ground for partisan arguments on WP.
Both of these users admit having extreme views but both claim to be super-duper neutral and objective in their WP editing—yet this is flatly contradicted by their behavior. Overall, it seems like a pattern that some of the most devoutly axe-grinding POV-warriors here have a habit of angrily and dishonestly accusing others of promoting skewed viewpoints and questionable sources. It's just an effort to crap on other users, drive them away, and poison the well regarding totally legitimate source materials and POVs, attempting to make them off-limits for discussion . That's totally anti-social and contrary to civil editing and discussion of source materials and it's being systematically tolerated. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)