topic ban |
|||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
:::: There are conservative admins; most of them avoid [[Donald Trump]]. (Almost every admin other than {{noping|MelanieN}} avoids that mess.) Regarding Fox News - I don't care what Marek says, there are other concerns than the volume of sources for what should be included in the lead section of a very long article. I don't have a good definition for "what is encyclopedic in nature" beyond the [[Potter Stewart]] definition. And [[Paper of record]] is a fairly well-defined term, though I'm not sure why "All the News That's Fit to Print" hasn't been moved to the infobox. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 03:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
:::: There are conservative admins; most of them avoid [[Donald Trump]]. (Almost every admin other than {{noping|MelanieN}} avoids that mess.) Regarding Fox News - I don't care what Marek says, there are other concerns than the volume of sources for what should be included in the lead section of a very long article. I don't have a good definition for "what is encyclopedic in nature" beyond the [[Potter Stewart]] definition. And [[Paper of record]] is a fairly well-defined term, though I'm not sure why "All the News That's Fit to Print" hasn't been moved to the infobox. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 03:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::Good admins enforce Wikipedia policies, within the limited discretion allowed them by our system. If that means coming down on the side of liberals far more often than that of conservatives, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are a "liberal admin". Correlation is not causation, and I've found this logical fallacy to be a common thread throughout all claims of Wikipedia liberal bias.<br />Even if there is a Wikipedia liberal bias, conservatives are not going to change it by making noise about it all the time, things just don't work like that. I advise conservative editors to look to user JFG for a model of how to represent the conservative viewpoint civilly, within the rules, and without regular whinging about how the system is corrupt and the cards are stacked against them. If I were in their place, couldn't bring myself to do what JFG does, and couldn't shake my perception about systemic bias no matter how hard I tried, I would just call Wikipedia a lost cause, say a little Serenity Prayer, and find something else to do with my time. In any case, discussion about Wikipedia liberal bias is certainly out-of-venue on an article talk page, and that never accomplishes anything except perhaps to add fodder for a topic ban proposal. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 04:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
::::Good admins enforce Wikipedia policies, within the limited discretion allowed them by our system. If that means coming down on the side of liberals far more often than that of conservatives, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are a "liberal admin". Correlation is not causation, and I've found this logical fallacy to be a common thread throughout all claims of Wikipedia liberal bias.<br />Even if there is a Wikipedia liberal bias, conservatives are not going to change it by making noise about it all the time, things just don't work like that. I advise conservative editors to look to user JFG for a model of how to represent the conservative viewpoint civilly, within the rules, and without regular whinging about how the system is corrupt and the cards are stacked against them. If I were in their place, couldn't bring myself to do what JFG does, and couldn't shake my perception about systemic bias no matter how hard I tried, I would just call Wikipedia a lost cause, say a little Serenity Prayer, and find something else to do with my time. In any case, discussion about Wikipedia liberal bias is certainly out-of-venue on an article talk page, and that never accomplishes anything except perhaps to add fodder for a topic ban proposal. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 04:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Topic ban== |
|||
==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |
|||
|imagesize=50px |
|||
|1=The following sanction now applies to you: |
|||
{{Talkquote|1=Topic banned from post-1932 American Politics for 1 month}} |
|||
You have been sanctioned for [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior and POV pushing |
|||
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2018|log of sanctions]]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|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.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
For your reference, here are a couple of examples of the behavior that led to this: |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=852381729] lashing out at other editors |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=854115436] personalizing disputes |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=851256486] (WP:OR) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News&diff=prev&oldid=853189431] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News&diff=prev&oldid=853191783] POV blindspot: NYTimes, Washington Post are "far-left propaganda tools of the Democratic party". (By contrast Fox News is the most trusted network that "dominates" the competition.) |
|||
I do recommend that, as you suggested above, you spend some time creating articles instead of endlessly debating politics. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:45, 10 August 2018
Welcome!
Hello, Jerry the Bellybutton Elf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
– Lionel(talk) 11:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)I'm not really an AFC person. I just happen to have permission for the script. And saw your comment on the draft. I can tell you within 24 hours this will be a very, very active article lol. It's important to add sources asap. Every paragraph must have an inline citation. Especially Aftermath and reaction. If you need any additional help ask here. And btw great job! – Lionel(talk) 11:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for approving my article. I think it's a good start but I don't really know what you mean by inline citation....Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Don't mention it. An inline citation is the little blue number used for a reference[1]
- ^ like this
- I think your article is a good candidate for "Did You Know." DYK is the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on to the Main Page and in front of the eyeballs of 17 million people. Learn all about it here: "DYK For Newbies." – Lionel(talk) 06:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 --NeilN talk to me 00:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jerry the Bellybutton Elf! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel(talk) 06:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
DYK nomination of Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election
Hello! Your submission of Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey just a heads up. The article is under consensus required. Judging from the article history it looks like you added a new section, then BullRangifer challenged part of it via revision. It should not be reinserted without consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks PackMecEng. My bad. Just a lot of text at the top of the page. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah it can be a tricky provision, especially determining when content was originally added. PackMecEng (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
July 2018
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Donald Trump for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop inserting forum-like discussion, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've hatted the equally inappropriate comment above yours, please stay on-topic. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- So you hatted his comment (promoting liberalism) and deleted mine (defending myself from his attack), and left no message warning of him getting "blocked" from editing, even though he was the one who initiated the spat. Interesting choice. I have no problem avoiding forum-like discussion. I asked to take it to a private room twice, and everybody ignored me and kept right on talking about how great and fair the media is. What should I do in the future? Just delete their comments? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- It was easier to hat the pre-existing comment. No judgment intended. Yes, it's best to ignore, Contrary to occasional appearances, we're writing an encyclopedia, and off-topic opinionating should be studiously ignored. Given the way things can spiral out of hand very quickly in this subject area it's best to address developing ping-pong comment streams expeditiously. Acroterion (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- All right I get it, sorry. I still don't know why I got singled out and nobody else got a warning about getting blocked for going off topic, like Tataral and a few others did. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- I warned you because you were the one I saw, and I was preparing dinner, so I didn't have time to scatter warnings around. Dinner was nice. For what it's worth, there are a couple of IPs I've recently blocked elsewhere who probably feel that I'm an agent of oppression against progressivism and The Truth About The Man. I'll have have a word with Tataral once I've cleaned up in the kitchen. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- All right I get it, sorry. I still don't know why I got singled out and nobody else got a warning about getting blocked for going off topic, like Tataral and a few others did. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- It was easier to hat the pre-existing comment. No judgment intended. Yes, it's best to ignore, Contrary to occasional appearances, we're writing an encyclopedia, and off-topic opinionating should be studiously ignored. Given the way things can spiral out of hand very quickly in this subject area it's best to address developing ping-pong comment streams expeditiously. Acroterion (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- So you hatted his comment (promoting liberalism) and deleted mine (defending myself from his attack), and left no message warning of him getting "blocked" from editing, even though he was the one who initiated the spat. Interesting choice. I have no problem avoiding forum-like discussion. I asked to take it to a private room twice, and everybody ignored me and kept right on talking about how great and fair the media is. What should I do in the future? Just delete their comments? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Apology
I am responsible for encouraging you to participate in DYK. This should have been a fun & rewarding experience. But I was too focused on using the Trump quote in the hook: which barring a miracle means your DYK will fail. Additionally you were inserted into my ANI case which can be a harrowing experience for any editor, especially a new editor. This was not my intention and I regret this. Wikipedia, and DYK, can be an enjoyable experience, if you fully appreciate the nuances of the community. If I can give you one piece of advice, always keep your cool and remain civil at all times. Civility blocks are far more common than people realize. – Lionel(talk) 21:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks but no apology needed. What I saw people trying to do and especially the mods was shameful. It was subtle but I saw how people tried to kill two birds with one stone: shut down the conservatism project so those articles don't get improved, and then start attacking you personally with little supposed "rule violations" thrown in to try to get rid of YOU. I guess having only one political party represented in the mods has predictable results, but still scary. I'll try to keep what you said in mind, since it looks like they tried to do it to me too at the end there. The DYK process left a bad taste in my mouth once the POV people started jumping in but I might try again with a non-political article. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Fox News: Most Trusted?
I suppose there are two different points here:
- I don't see any reason to include the results of opinion polls in the lead. "Most trusted" [1] is inherently subjective, and not the type of content I'd want to include in the lead based on surveys [2]. "Highest-rated" is better, but "dominated the competition" [3] certainly isn't encyclopedic.
- If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I'd strongly encourage you to contribute in areas other than American Politics. If you're simply here to make sure that political articles are "fair and balanced", you can expect the level of arguments you are currently engaged in to continue indefinitely.
- power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:POVFIGHTER is relevant to the second item. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I like how they included both liberals and conservatives in the example. Out of curiosity, have either of you ever run into a conservative mod? I've met like 7 or 8 so far and they've all been liberals, or defended liberal editors. I might just create some articles instead of debating stuff because it's obvious nothing ever gets done by doing that. And Power I used that word because Newsweek used the word, which was the source of the addition. But seriously. I tried to add the fact that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for 196 consecutive months, and someone deleted it like the next day. The notability of facts clearly isn't what gets stuff in the lead, so what's the criteria? Volunteer says it's about how many sources you can find that say it, which seems more than dubious. I wonder if I'd have any problems adding that New York Times thinks of itself as the "paper of record" into its lead? Oh never mind, it's already there. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are conservative admins; most of them avoid Donald Trump. (Almost every admin other than MelanieN avoids that mess.) Regarding Fox News - I don't care what Marek says, there are other concerns than the volume of sources for what should be included in the lead section of a very long article. I don't have a good definition for "what is encyclopedic in nature" beyond the Potter Stewart definition. And Paper of record is a fairly well-defined term, though I'm not sure why "All the News That's Fit to Print" hasn't been moved to the infobox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Good admins enforce Wikipedia policies, within the limited discretion allowed them by our system. If that means coming down on the side of liberals far more often than that of conservatives, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are a "liberal admin". Correlation is not causation, and I've found this logical fallacy to be a common thread throughout all claims of Wikipedia liberal bias.
Even if there is a Wikipedia liberal bias, conservatives are not going to change it by making noise about it all the time, things just don't work like that. I advise conservative editors to look to user JFG for a model of how to represent the conservative viewpoint civilly, within the rules, and without regular whinging about how the system is corrupt and the cards are stacked against them. If I were in their place, couldn't bring myself to do what JFG does, and couldn't shake my perception about systemic bias no matter how hard I tried, I would just call Wikipedia a lost cause, say a little Serenity Prayer, and find something else to do with my time. In any case, discussion about Wikipedia liberal bias is certainly out-of-venue on an article talk page, and that never accomplishes anything except perhaps to add fodder for a topic ban proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I like how they included both liberals and conservatives in the example. Out of curiosity, have either of you ever run into a conservative mod? I've met like 7 or 8 so far and they've all been liberals, or defended liberal editors. I might just create some articles instead of debating stuff because it's obvious nothing ever gets done by doing that. And Power I used that word because Newsweek used the word, which was the source of the addition. But seriously. I tried to add the fact that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for 196 consecutive months, and someone deleted it like the next day. The notability of facts clearly isn't what gets stuff in the lead, so what's the criteria? Volunteer says it's about how many sources you can find that say it, which seems more than dubious. I wonder if I'd have any problems adding that New York Times thinks of itself as the "paper of record" into its lead? Oh never mind, it's already there. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:POVFIGHTER is relevant to the second item. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic banned from post-1932 American Politics for 1 month
You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and POV pushing
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. ~Awilley (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
For your reference, here are a couple of examples of the behavior that led to this:
- [4] lashing out at other editors
- [5] personalizing disputes
- [6] (WP:OR) [7] [8] POV blindspot: NYTimes, Washington Post are "far-left propaganda tools of the Democratic party". (By contrast Fox News is the most trusted network that "dominates" the competition.)
I do recommend that, as you suggested above, you spend some time creating articles instead of endlessly debating politics. ~Awilley (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)