Misplaced Pages

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Your recent comment about American people was out of line; I took the liberty to hat it. Please edit respectfully. — JFG 04:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Actually, no. It was 100% truthful. Please don't presume to edit my comments again. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not edit your comment; I found it out of line and unhelpful towards improving the article, so I hatted it and informed you here. Meanwhile somebody else unhatted it, which I find regrettable but won't contest. — JFG 19:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps a civility vio is in order since he doesn't seem to understand the gravity of his comment. 19:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whether WP:CIVIL policy should extend to all "horrid racists and gullible idiots", or if it was just designed for us lowly Wikipedians. — JFG 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme and JFG: If you two would like to chat with each other about this, please do so on one of your own talk pages, rather than here. My comment was entirely factual (you can even find tons of sourcing to back it up), and also went on to address the absurd claim that the tax returns issue was "stale". I get that some members of Trump's cult would find my comment hits a nerve, but I don't care about that in the slightest. If you can't see why the comment is factual and necessary, you are part of the problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging NeilN to see what he thinks about Scjessey's comment being 100% "truthful" and "factual", or if it was indeed a violation of WP:CIVIL, or perhaps even WP:BLP. 21:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Be my guest. By all means try to use wikilawyering to get someone you often disagree with sanctioned. I'm used to it. The comment in question didn't target any editors, and it was a direct response to the FORUMy stuff you posted with that silly claim about the tax return thing being "stale". -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody was trying to get you sanctioned - we just want you to understand why your comment was out of line. Your refusal to accept that fact is why I'm asking for outside help. 21:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Methinks there's too much thin skin around here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Bull, as an American you should thank them for protecting you from something or other. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

LMAO! Riiiight.... Unfortunately the thin skinned ones are defending the orange one attacking American democracy and just confirming the truth of the offending statement. Sad. Yes, it's a strong personal opinion, but was not directed at any editor, so that they take offense is very telling. Even more sad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it that way. Easier for editors w/o any political views. Just slice and dice the RS. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There are many ways of thinking about it, but letting it affect oneself is a sign of weakness. They should just bend and not let it affect their balance. Their resistance and objection allows the adversary to have power over them and push them out of balance. That's what the thin skinned are doing. They are allowing that statement to have power over them. They should grow thicker skin and show they are above such things. Ignoring perceived slights is a sign of strength and infuriates the adversary. They are missing an opportunity by reacting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear BullRangifer, I don't know what the heck you're talking about. For the record, I don't feel offended in the slightest, I was just trying to maintain a modicum of decorum in our most-viewed political talk page. Speaking as an encyclopedist. — JFG 04:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, can you do us all a favor and provide the sources you say exist that back up your statement? --NeilN 04:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, but when I read his comment (discovered only because of all the Streisand effect caused by this thin skinned hub bub here), I recognize it basically as a reflection, or other expression of, the content of the Basket of deplorables article. There are plenty of sources there. He may have worded it a bit crudely (not forbidden here), but basically true, and the POV of the largest portion of voters in the election, and born out by current history.

It's Scjessey's personal opinion, not aimed at any named editors, and some people should just learn to chill and not be so thin skinned, instead of using it as an excuse to put on their battle attire. Their reaction is exactly what WP:BATTLE is about. It's that tendency to pick up a stick, rather than drop it. That's been my whole point here.

I'm not going to defend the comment, as such. I just think that editors who seek to escalate conflicts, and make more of a personal remark than is warranted, are creating too much drama and turning this place into a battlefield. Then when admins arrive on the scene, or the minor comment is blown up and dragged to a drama board they can abuse, the admins should look at the situation and see who is making the most disruption: Was it Scjessey's slightly emotional and pretty passive en passant muttering of frustration, or those who blew it up into far more than it was, showing that they are the ones looking for a fight? Who expended the most effort to make sure a dying ember was not allowed to disappear into oblivion, but kept alive and blasted into a forest fire? Who really started that forest fire using active measures? They are the ones who need a bucket of cold water poured over their heads and told to get a thicker skin, grow up, and not think of abusing drama boards or crying MAMA to admins. They are busy enough. At least JFG was mature enough to say they weren't planning on doing anything more about it ("regrettable but won't contest"). Kudos to them for that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we talk about why NeilN has become the dial-an-admin for Atsme, et al? He's issued dismissive warnings here before (at the behest of a sock, no less), and doesn't seem to have the nuance necessary to see what's going on in this topic area. Admins SHOULD be better than this. 138.115.53.142 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@IP138, can you please identify yourself? — JFG 18:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Lamest phishing attempt ever. 138.115.53.142 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@IP138: I appreciate your support, but I disagree completely. NeilN (talk · contribs) has been a solid, impartial administrator in a seriously hot topic area that necessarily needs stricter policing than most of Misplaced Pages. Every editor I'm familiar with in the topic area, regardless of personal bias, seems to justifiably have full confidence in NeilN's ability to administrate with an even hand. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Funny how I ended up here, in this discussion, after clicking my way down from something else. Two cents' worth: As it happens, I'm far from a "Trump fan". I do not mind discussions with Trump supporters, even heated ones; just not in Misplaced Pages. I rarely if ever express personal opinions of any kind, and even less so, support them in Misplaced Pages. (I've done so plenty of times elsewhere and have admin'd message boards that make Misplaced Pages look like a primary school debate society, in terms of civility.)

Cut to the chase: I would disagree with Scjessey's comments on Trump voters (I believe what drove Trump's victory was mainly something else IMO and not "racism," etc, and that's evidenced, inter alia, by Obama's recent two wins) but that is not why I do not want them on Misplaced Pages. It's just that they're unnecessary and highly counter-productive in the context of contributing to an encyclopaedia. Words such as " are clowns" I do not mind at all in real life; in fact, I find such ways of "arguing" the easiest to deal with! But with Misplaced Pages being foundationally (1) a collaborative project, (2) neutral, and (3) balanced, we are forced in a coexistence with persons of different viewpoints in almost everything. Volunteering to work together here, therefore, requires minimizing friction and adversarial interactions on the basis of ideological differences. (Am I trying to remove entirely social context from Misplaced Pages? I hope not! ) -The Gnome (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: I wasn't expressing an "opinion" about voters. It was a verifiable fact, backed by reliable sources. Nobody thought Trump would win when he announced his candidacy, but gradually it began to dawn on politicos that Trump's continuous attacks on Obama (questioning where he was born, questioning his religion, questioning his motives - all on the basis of race) were a vote-winning strategy. That, coupled with an astonishing willingness of the poorly educated and uninformed to vote completely against their own best interests if you chant horrible things like "lock her up" led to what turned out to be a stunning upset. Naked racism and stupidity, which Clinton more elegantly described as "deplorable", is why Trump won the election. Also, it was the culmination of a 30-year campaign by Republicans to brand knowledge as "elitism" and ignorance as "bliss". -- Scjessey (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Aaannddd you missed the point. PackMecEng (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You're saying, Scjessey, that what you wrote is a verifiable fact. Yet it's not. There are opinions (by others, if you prefer it this way, and not by you) that Trump won on the basis of "racism" and "xenophobia" but nowhere has this been documented by hard facts. Having a poll showing, for example (I'm making this up), that 95% of self-described racists voted for Trump does not mean that Trump won because the racists voted for him en masse. That would be simply bad statistics. There were other factors at work in the 2016 election; it was not a coincidence that all the candidates that were running on an "anti-establishment", "radical" campaign (whether genuine or not) were doing so well in the primaries, while the typical party-candidates were faring so badly (compared to expectations, at least). Bernie Sanders, for instance, was not a coincidence.

Sanders has been around for a very long time; yet, it was in 2016 that he caught fire as a national politician. In 2012 and before that in 2008, Americans voted decisively for Barack Obama, a black, allegedly Muslim, possibly foreign-born guy. Yes, those allegations were proved entirely false but they were a strong weapon in the political battlefield for the presidency. They did not affect the race.

So, there has been no indication that Americans suddenly turned more "racist" or more "rightward" or more "conservative" since Obama's time. On the contrary, we have solid evidence, e.g. the polls on gay marriage turning completely around, of Americans turning more liberal, and most prominently being seriously unsatisfied with their socioeconomic predicament. In so many words, characterizing as "racists" the American voters who elected (in terms of the electoral college but not in percentages) Donald Trump for president does not represent a fact. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey wrote: I wasn't expressing an "opinion" about voters. Also Scjessey: Naked racism and stupidity is why Trump won the election. That's opinion. Did the same "flyover nation" people who voted for Obama twice suddenly turn racist? — JFG 13:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The reasons why History moves are typically socioeoconomic, aka material. But ideas do make mountains move, too, I will not deny it. What we had, per documented research, in the 2016 American prez election, was a huge wave of discontent; not of intolerance and racism. That was the neofascists, the alt-right, and the racists who came and stood front and center and made a tremendous amount of noise and had an asymmetrical presence in the media. But Trump's rhetoric did not give birth to new racists and it did not turn liberals or conservatives into fascists; what it did was it legitimized openly racist, aggressive, and boorish behavior, towards the minorities next to us.

Numbers are numbers, and polls are polls. What we have as fact, despite what you believe, is that Americans voted for two persons who came from outside the big mainstream tent and chose them to contest the presidency. Such was the depth of mass discontent. One of those two was prevented by his own party to enter the election, as by now everyone admits; while the other defeated the machine of his (nominal) party and won the White House. The Extreme Right might be cheering ever since, but they did not bring on the victory. You could invoke a more legitimate factor by pointing out the huge number of Sanders' voters who stayed home election day. -The Gnome (talk)

Trump emboldened racists, who finally had a reason to come out and vote, so they did. That's a fact. Sanders voters were idiots too. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Geez, in your worldview, only citizens who already voted for Clinton in the primary are not idiots or racists? What a deplorable thing to say! — JFG 17:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The country is going down the shitter because of Trump and Republican enablers, so it is clear anyone who failed to vote for Clinton has fucked us all into a cocked hat. Bernie never had a shot, so a vote for Bernie was just as worthless as a vote for a third party candidate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I remember you were quite mad at Bernie during the primaries, especially as he didn't really bow out until Obama grabbed him by the in the White House. But that election is done and can't be brought back, just like the 2000 Florida recount. Your best bet is to push for the Blue Wave in the midterms. Doesn't look easy, from where I'm watching… — JFG 17:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: To be honest, I'm not interested in "pushing" for anything. My chief concern is that bullshit and lies has become the "new normal" and it is starting to infect Misplaced Pages. I find myself drawn to the likes of Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, and even fucking Bill Kristol for evidence that the Republican party hasn't gone completely tits up. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel your pain. But at least you won't get nuked by a rogue NoKo missile. Rejoice! — JFG 18:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How do you know? There's nothing in the "agreement" that guarantees that. We are in exactly the same place now as we were before the pretend summit. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I don't see residents of Tokyo, Guam and Hawaii being trained for emergency nuke alerts. Situation has seriously de-escalated over the last few months. South Korean President Moon played a great role in that, imho, as he both accepted overtures by Kim and made some of his own. — JFG 19:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

An even bigger concern should be drunk drivers. 20:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: "Situation has seriously de-escalated..." You do know who escalated the situation in the first place, right? Tweets about "Rocket Man", fire and fury, and big buttons were not helpful. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Who says anything escalated? That may play OK for the nightly cable news audience, but encyclopedia editors need to be much better informed, critical, curious, and insightful. This sounds like walking out of a Sci-Fi movie and feeling glad Earth was not destroyed. We don't take any public figure's spin on its own terms. We search for RS descriptions and context. I haven't read this thread closely. Was that supposed to be a joke about "de-escalated"? Who said it escalated? Oh, the same one who said he de-escalated it. Thanks for the de-escalation, Americans. Let's keep some perspective and drop the editor OR. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Mmhh, actually, the North Korean regime escalated bigly by sending long-range missiles over Japan and detonating nuclear bombs. Mean tweets don't quite raise to that level imho. — JFG 04:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The reality is (still on "just the facts, ma'm") is that the US and N.Korea have been at essentially a state of war for more than six decades, long after the Korean War and the Cold War were over. One could posit with confidence that any country in the world that finds itself at a state of permanent, official war with a superpower such as America would go to any extreme imaginable to defend itself. And would be acting irrationally if it were to unilaterally disarm itself, of lessen its military capacity at any level. (Here's an interesting yet not that surprising insight as to how relations between NK and the US could have improved: a brief presentation of the methodical diplomatic efforts undertaken during Clinton's presidency.) Just as in the Middle East conflict, the solution depends on the actions of the party that finds itself at a dominant position. Of course, the very dominance of such a position inhibits moves towards a fair and peaceful resolution of conflicts. We are in the realm of tragedy. -The Gnome (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Scjessey, do you actually believe that the United States would be under threat of being attacked by North Korea if no rapprochement with North Korea was made and if no agreement between NK and the US is achieved? If we're still talking about facts on the ground, this is a most absurd notion, considering the gigantic difference in military power between the US and the rest of the world's countries, including the other so-called "superpowers," and not on the basis of "defense" spending but of sheer strength and reach. So, I find we're no longer talking about facts but about obsessions and ideology. I perhaps have something to say in that respect but this is not the place to do so. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: "I perhaps have something to say in that respect but this is not the place to do so." Please feel free to speak freely (that sounds weird) on this talk page, provided it doesn't break one of Misplaced Pages's policies. I welcome healthy debate and hearing alternative views to my own.

The threat would not be from North Korea itself, which has failed to really produce a convincing ICBM that can survive re-entry. The problem is that war with North Korea would inevitably draw in China and then other nations. Once the first nuclear weapon is deployed, the rest will follow, and it's goodnight, sweetheart regardless of who is waving the biggest stick. I am delighted the USA is engaged in talks with North Korea, and I really hope Trump can make it a success. Unfortunately, Trump gave away the farm (military exercises ended, praise of a murderous dictator, North Korea given equal billing to the USA) and came away with nothing. Trump metaphorically bowed so low to Kim, he was able to lick the floor. Neville Chamberlain could've got a better deal. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The comparison to Munich 1938 has no substance. In 1938, the Allies gave away something substantial: the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia. In 2018, the United States gave away nothing at all: The war games did not cease for ever, they were merely postponed; and the "equal footing" you perceive is nothing but the typical diplomatic environment in meetings between delegations, especially between leaders. What did you expect, that the American would sit on a higher chair than the Korean or that Trump would kick Kim in the balls? Such meetings follow routine, standard protocol.

And, of course, when you meet an adversary for peace talks, you cease the belligerent rhetoric.

Trump (whom, as it happens, I have been following since he was a New York landlord's son back in the day) is a person more comfortable with one-to-one interaction than with a crowded room. Compare the G7 fiasco with the NK rapprochement. Trump's readiness to engage in talks directly with a North Korean leader is something unprecedented and totally out of book. These talks could, at last, bring peace between the two countries. (Again, check out the link I gave to the history between NK & the US.) Having said that, I find Donald Trump to be a person who, overall, is evidently unfit for the office, and I suspect he did not want the presidency but the glory and the exposure. The presidential campaign was going 100 percent greatly for businessman Trump up until the night he won the White House. -The Gnome (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Gnome, this solipsistic nonsense is useless for Misplaced Pages and need not be published here. This is fringe blog fodder. Please don't put your personal theories on various Misplaced Pages pages. We're here to work on the encyclopedia and you should not assume anyone cares about your personal theories and opinions. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This goes for everyone, by the way. --NeilN 15:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Did you miss Scjessey's comment just above, telling The Gnome that further discussion is welcome. Scjessey is free to decide what is and is not appropriate on his own talk page, just as you are free to determine what you want on yours. Please respect his wishes. — JFG 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I did, in fact, invite comment. As long as it doesn't break policy, I welcome it on this talk page, even if it's "a load of old cobblers" (as we British folk like to say). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I broke policy. I'm taking my leave off this thread. (And apologies specifically to SPECIFICO for my engaging in non-mainstream analysis. ). Oh, and an accusation was made that I'm posting "personal theories on various Misplaced Pages pages." It's a baseless and silly claim. -The Gnome (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Be careful of 1RR ~Awilley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: - Not applicable. They were completely different sections, and both edits were challenges to new material, and so permissible by Arbcom ruling. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I point you to the definition of a revert: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (From WP:Edit warring emphasis added) Are you able to point me to the Arbcom ruling that makes an exception for challenging new material? ~Awilley (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Er... I think this is the way NeilN enforces it, but now you have me confused. Editors must be able to challenge new material in this way, or the system is broken. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You should be worried about how I enforce it. The system has other checks for editors who aggressively add material. ~Awilley (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One editor doesn't get to sit on an article and revert everything added without considering WP:1RR. That being said, if an editor is adding new material with each edit and constantly getting reverted by different editors then we can look at that as well. --NeilN 14:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: In that case, I have misinterpreted how the BRD/challenge system is supposed to work. My first reversion is still under discussion and awaiting new respondents. My second reversion, which I guess took me over 1RR, has been resolved, with the result being the removal of additional material to complement the reversion. If you or Awilley think my reversions are disruptive enough to warrant sanction, I will not complain; however, I believe this will make it hard to cope with multiple, separate additions. In fact, I raised this exact point in one of the discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you really prefer a sanction to simply self-reverting one of your edits then please consider yourself restricted to WP:1RR on all articles related to post-19-whatever American Politics. I'll finish up the paperwork later. ~Awilley (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey has pointed out one dysfunction of the system. The other one that's been mentioned by several talk page editors, and by me on NeilN's talk page a while back, is that after content has "aged" by a month or so, it is being rewritten -- often in flurries of consecutive edits -- to insinuate POV changes under the guise of "copyedit" "remove redundant sources" etc. and anyone who restores the stable version of any of these changes will be making a 'revert' under the current 1RR interpretation. The result is that only a fraction of these bad edits gets reverted each time and the others tend to be forgotten and cannot be reverted for another month until they age so that they can be undone without "reverting". I believe that the Admins who regularly watch this page have seen this and some kind of attention to this issue would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Regarding your second point, "cannot be reverted for another month until they age" doesn't make a lot of sense. If the rewrites introduce objectionable terms/insinuations then a revert triggers the consensus required restriction. I know I've warned editors trying to change stable material this way. --NeilN 15:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. The problem is that when there are say half a dozen of these questionable tweaks all at once, an editor "uses up" his daily revert on one of them. Then five other editors can be similarly disabled for the day if they all come to undo the damage. And they usually can't be "undone" en masse because they may have one or two valid cleanup edits among them so a mass revert is not possible and "undo" wont work where some of the text has been tweaked in more than one edit. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm missing something. Why are the five other editors stopped from reverting changes? Are you saying they've used up their individual reverts but the original editor is still tweaking after that? --NeilN 15:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors say they are reluctant to "use up" their daily revert undoing somebody who appears to be gaming the system, leaving them unable to engage with new content that will expand and improve the article. Comments to this effect are scattered on the talk page over time, sometimes even with a call for someone else with a revert available to step in. It appears to be gaming the system when one editor can disable several others by waiting a month and then changing longstanding content (not a revert) while it takes several editors using up their daily budget to undo the damage. This might sound like cloak and dagger stuff, but I assure you it's an increasing problem because it's a very effective strategy for editors who wish to insert non-consensus minority or fringe material in these articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It would be helpful if you could list diffs of edits that employ this strategy or alert an admin (providing diffs) the next time it occurs. Admins have heard the desire for a greater willingness on their part to employ sanctions so any game playing like that will be looked at. --NeilN 18:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, that is very constructive and I will do so on your talk page either looking back or next time I feel that this has occurred. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The ship has sailed on avoiding sanction. You would have avoided it if you had self-reverted after my 2nd or 3rd post here. The only thing I haven't decided on yet is the duration. Re: manual reverts, I expect Wikipedians to be proactive problem solvers. I don't have time to hold your hand the whole way and I'm certainly not going to explain how to do a manual revert or tell you what to put in your edit summary. ~Awilley (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: The second reversion that challenged added material, the one that took me over 1RR, prompted a discussion on the talk page with the editor in question (which is how it is supposed to work). It led to a solution we were both happy with, which the other editor then implemented, before you even had a chance to make your second post to this discussion. Reverting my offending edit thereafter would have been a pointless exercise. I even pinged NeilN because of my confusion, which led to a useful discussion about issues with this policy. So at this point, any sanction you give me would not be to "prevent harm" to the encyclopedia, but rather it would be purely punitive. If you really feel it is necessary, please do what you think is best; however, perhaps you should consider consulting one of your administrator colleagues. Incidentally, if your intention is to restrict me to 1RR on the politics topic, is that not already the case? Is that not why you are sanctioning me in the first place? I'm confused. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My objective here is to teach you to follow 1RR and to be proactive in fixing your own mistakes. When an editor or admin approaches you on your talk page pointing out a mistake you have made, it is your responsibility to fix that mistake, not argue endlessly about policy. To me that (preventative) lesson is worth the extra disruption of making SPECIFICO or whoever spend 5 seconds re-reverting your self-revert. ~Awilley (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I already understand how 1RR works (I have a substantial, multi-year editing history), although I confess I thought it did not apply to "challenged material". I think what you are suggesting is punitive, not preventative. I'm sorry you can't see the absurdity of me reverting a thing and then asking someone else to undo the revert (costing them their 1RR of the day) just to satisfy what I perceive to be astonishing inflexibility on your part. I'm just shaking my head here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose. In the future though, if somebody approaches you on your talk page and correctly informs you that you've exceeded 1RR (or 3RR or whatever) your next edit should be to self-revert something, assuming you want to avoid a sanction. The more you put it off and argue the more likely you are to get a block. In re-reading the above I realize that I didn't actually ask you to self-revert early on. I assumed (incorrectly apparently) that as an experienced editor you would know that was the right thing to do. Because of that I'm not going to make the 1RR sanction as long as I had determined to do earlier today. It will be for 3 months and covers post 1932 American Politics broadly construed. I won't insult you with a template, but it will be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2. It can be appealed directly to me or at WP:AE if you want. To answer your question above, this 1RR is only partially redundant with the politics articles you edit, not all of which are covered by the special 1RR and consensus required rules. ~Awilley (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I accept the penalty, although I maintain it is entirely punitive, and I think that reflects on your approach to administation poorly. I won't be arguing it, because I admit the violation (although I didn't initially think it was a violation). I believe editors should be able to do what I did without it being a violation, although that's for discussion elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, you are basically citing Scjessey for jaywalking while there's folks across the street holding hostages by the throat chanting in tongues. Anyway, Scjessey is actually one of the editors who received an AE warning long ago and has done nothing uncivil since then. He's a poster-person for how DS should work, not a problem case. I don't think anything other than acknowledgement of his acknowledgement and a smile is necessary to prevent any future problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

My bad, I thought you were referring to JFG with your "holding hostages by the throat" analogy. ~Awilley (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey had the courtesy to notify me of this discussion, as all his reverts today challenged my edits. Technically he did perform three reverts of newly-added content: 11:28, 13:34 and 13:42. On the other hand, he engaged in good-faith discussion on the talk page, and recognized his errors when pointed out. Any sanction should be lenient. — JFG 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JFG, although that middle edit is clearly not a reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This middle edit at 13:34 was most certainly a revert of the content I added at 12:46. You chose to keep only the part that MrX added at 13:01 for balance, and you called it "false balance" in the ensuing discussion. Note that I had asked you to voluntarily undo your change due to a potential process violation, but out of courtesy I did not push things further. — JFG 20:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation is flawed, but whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Awilley exercised the patience of Job with Scjessey. This is the Trump article. He was within his rights to block the minute he saw the violation. He was within his rights to block the entire time Scjessey was arguing about the "broken system." But what strikes me as troubling is Scjessey's initial remark "permissible by Arbcom ruling" and then when challenged changed his story to "Er... I think this is the way NeilN enforces it." Even after Scjessey's defense of the 1RR has been vacated, Awilley gives him yet another chance with "You should be worried about how I enforce it..." but Scjessey still does not self-revert. Endorse 1RR restriction primarily because when his defense collapsed he didn't take responsibility for it. – Lionel 01:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not really a vote. ~Awilley (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Awilley is correct; nobody took this incident to WP:AE, and Awilley has decided on a sanction by his own initiative, which is the spirit of "discretionary sanctions". Case closed. — JFG 07:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Who asked for your opinion? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: It's not "in the spirit of discretionary sanctions" at all. The purpose of the sanctions is to prevent harm coming to Misplaced Pages. None of the edits I did were harmful. They were productive. In the case of the "violating" edit, it led to a mini-consensus between the two of us that we were both satisfied with. And it was that edit that led to me being sanctioned. That's just dumb. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Awilley has been graceful and lenient in his interactions with you; not sure it's in your best interest to criticize his decision as "punitive". Besides, there were three different reverts, and you are still contesting that they were reverts, while claiming you "understand how 1RR works". Puzzling. — JFG 13:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Lenient? Most other administrators would've passed it off with a slap on the wrist at the most. WP:PUNISH makes it clear this was a punitive act, since it did nothing to serve the goal of preventing harm to Misplaced Pages. Moreover, criticizing the actions of an administrator should have no effect on my "interests". Finally, two of my edits were reversions. The other one is something you concocted to make me look bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)