| Revision as of 07:07, 22 January 2022 editHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,388 edits →Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:00, 9 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,546 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Hob Gadling/Archive 4) (bot | ||
| (422 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 4 | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Hob Gadling/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Hob Gadling/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{archive box|auto=yes|search=no}} | {{archive box|auto=yes|search=no}} | ||
| == |
==Redfield== | ||
| You are changing my edits to support a false narrative that is unsupported by any evidence. Stop. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Martin Luther == | |||
| See their talk page. ] ] 16:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I saw your ping, I will respond later this morning, when I'm strapped to the Chemo chair and have free wifi and an ipad. They strap me down because the first time I had this, I woke up on the floor. You'll understand I'm a little busy until then. regards ] ] 07:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == |
== On the Jews and their Lies == | ||
| Hello, recently I edited the page ''On the Jews and their Lies'' and you undid this edit. | |||
| Greetings @ Hob Gadling, | |||
| On the talk page I provided context to Luther's statement and I explained the reason for my edit. | |||
| This request is being made since you seem to have engaged in topics related to ]. | |||
| Would you mind having a look at it? ] (]) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Requesting your visit to the article ] and help expand the same if the topic interests you. | |||
| ⚫ | :I have a watchlist. --] (]) 19:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Do you mean the article is on your watchlist and you will respond to my comment soon? ] (]) 22:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::It means I checked it and found it uninteresting. Can we stop this? --] (]) 06:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::At this point I don't want to leave this behind, as I have not received any response to the arguments I gave in support of my edit. I would like to have a fruitful discussion to resolve the dispute. ] (]) 12:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::::Stop bothering me here. --] (]) 06:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Thanks and warm regards | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ] (]) 07:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| :I am not very good at expanding articles. Not my thing. --] (]) 07:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == You should archive some of these sections! == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| The section list is super long! It’s like 200 sections in the same page, so much that the page has been zoomed out! Please fix this! ] (]) 20:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :I just copied an archive thingie from somebody else's page. Let's see if it works. --] (]) 21:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == January 2022 == | |||
| </div> | |||
| (removed notice) | |||
| ⚫ | <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | ||
| I have blocked you for violating ]; you told someone to , and made a . ] (]) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Sorry == | ||
| :@] You are blocking an editor for alleged violations committed (respectively) about 5 months ago and 2.5 years ago? By policy, blocks shall be preventative and not punitive. ] (]) 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| About that. ] (]) 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I apologize, I did this after the posts were pointed out to me, I did not carefully check the date and assumed it was an immediate problem. This is my error and mine alone, and I apologize without condition. ] (]) 22:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. --] (]) 15:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Looking through my new Talk page archive, considering the fact that the user who told me I should archive it is the same one who started this : all edits he complained about had been discussed on my Talk page, and that is where the links came from. --] (]) 13:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Trump supporters == | |||
| Would you please consider editing your comment at ] to remove "It is nice to hear that you consider "Trump supporter" a "smear", but a reliably sourced fact is a reliably sourced fact." Aside from that bit of snark, you answer the (supposed) question well, but it helps no one to add fuel to fires already burning too bright. Thank you, ]|] 16:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :::@]: You thanked me for telling you to do it better, but did not even try find a better response? Please refrain from coming here to tone-police me in the future. Tone-policing adds fuel to fires, have you thought of that? No need to answer, that was rhetorical. --] (]) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seemed a bit backwards from the source, so have rephrased it as "Fauci's advice was frequently contradicted by Trump, and Trump's supporters alleged that Fauci was trying to politically undermine Trump's run for reelection." It's not Fauchi's place to bow to the Prezzy's medical expertise. . ], ] 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Much better now. I like it when complaints by profringe users lead to articles becoming less fringe. --] (]) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Olive branch == | |||
| Hello Hob Gadling. I apologize for the distractions at talk:Bret Weinstein. I try to remind myself not to respond in the moment, and sometimes I fail. You're right of course, I should have saved my vaccine status particulars for "later", should someone have taken the tack I anticipated; pre-emptively inserting it was practically begging for backlash. I'm human, I can be an ass-hat, a dumb-ass (related terms?) and more terms I will reserve that are between me and my god, or words to that effect. Two years of COVID have frayed my nerves. I wish it would just. ''Go''. '''Away'''. | |||
| ''I'' will now go away, off to my more typical efforts here on WP of fixing grammar, and copyediting for clarity. cheers. ] (]) 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == ] == | |||
| I think this draft is ready for mainspace, and would like your opinion. I have moved the list to the talk page for now, to develop a specific consensus as to how it should be included. Cheers! ] ] 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| Hi Hob Gadling. In the recent ArbCom case about GSoW, you made a reference to people asking {{tq|"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of...?"}} I was just wondering if that was maybe a reference to a question I asked at COIN: . If that is the case, I will maybe just add a note to explain the Catch-22 situation between COI and OUTING. Otherwise, I don't intend to comment on the case. This question is supposed to have a friendly tone and does not imply any sort of conflict or hostility against you, by the way. ] ] 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :That refers to the general atmosphere, not to specific contributions. I can't even remember where to put you. --] (]) 06:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Skepticism and coordinated editing'' arbitration case opened == | |||
| You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. Please note: per ], ArbCom is accepting private evidence by ]. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. <small>You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the ].</small> | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | <!-- Message sent by User: |
||
| :Hello Hob Gadling, I have just submitted evidence with regard to incivility and what I perceive to be POV problems in the skepticism area. Quite a lot of the diffs in the 'General atmosphere of incivility' section come from your edits. I just wanted to let you know. | |||
| :My aim was to inform the Arbitration Committee about the general atmosphere of incivility, not to single you out in some way, and I did not mention your name. However, you may want to consider submitting some evidence of your own to put a few of these diffs in context, and/or think about saying something about them in the workshop. Or perhaps it is better not to participate as long as your name is not mentioned in the workshop, I'm not sure. {{u|Tryptofish}} and a number of clerks and Arbs have given some advice about this on {{u|Roxy the dog}}'s talk page. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Apaugasma}} thank you for the ping. I have now read your evidence. I had a rather strong reaction to it, that you were (metaphorically speaking, of course) throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Even if you don't mention people by name, it still comes across like you are criticizing them by citing their diffs. There are an awful lot of diffs repeated from earlier evidence sections, and about editors who are not parties (and at least one of whom has retired). --] (]) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some editors seem to be oblivious of ours being an encyclopedia, not a tea party. ] (]) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Tryptofish: some repeated diffs I posted with the specific aim of discussing who would remove them (see ]), and some have now indeed been removed. I fully understand your reaction, but I'm sure that you'll also understand that I, having been on the receiving end of some of this, have a somewhat different perspective. I am not seeking sanctions, and I sincerely hope that no sanctions apart from a warning or two will come from this case. What I do want, however, is an acknowledgment of the fact that there indeed is a civility problem, and that it needs to be addressed. | |||
| :::In the topic area where I edit, we are dealing with incompetent nationalist and/or religious POV-pushers on a daily basis. It does happen that I lose my patience and get a bit rough around the edges, but I don't think I've ever, even once, called editors out on being incompetent nationalist and/or religious POV-pushers. I don't 'call a spade a spade', because far too often, the spade turns out not to be a spade at all. If you go through my talk page edits like I went through Hob's you will find very little to throw at that metaphoric wall (in fact I invite you all to do so: I've found it's a great way to actually 'get to know' an editor a bit, which breeds sympathy). Anyway, it is very much possible to give obnoxious editors succinct policy-based replies, and to AGF and to be at least 50% friendly as long as you're not 100% sure about what they are trying to accomplish. This is not happening in the skepticism/fringe area, and that needs to change. | |||
| :::@TrangaBellam: I'm not entirely sure if I get your meaning, but building an encyclopedia will work much better in the general atmosphere of sharing a cup of tea than in something resembling a battlefield. Even the worst offenders here are really just homely pieces of laundry that need to be put in and out of the washing machine on time, while we are sitting in the kitchen having tea. If you look at my contribs you'll see that I'm a regular in the laundry room. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will not submit any "evidence". I think this whole thing is partly an overblown trumpeting of a few cases where people made mistakes, which can be remedied easily, and partly a toxic attempt to get rid of editors with a certain viewpoint. I also think that the arbitrators are capable of discerning which is which just by looking at the quality of you people's reasoning without my help. I am watching the spectacle though, and I do not need any text from you on my Talk page. Never did, never will. --] (]) 06:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just adding a justification why I do not want to see you here. When I tell someone that they have used a fallacy, such as a strawman, then the correct response is either, "you are right, that was bad reasoning" or "you are wrong, it was good reasoning because " and not "Waaah! You accused me of bad reasoning! That is ad hominem!" | |||
| ::Of course, pointing out the bad quality of someone's reasoning is the exact opposite of ]. Go read the article, you don't know what the term means. | |||
| ::If you want to debate, learn how to do it first. And when someone tells you what you did wrong, don't just dismiss that without asking yourself whether it might be right. | |||
| ::From my previous exchanges with you, I have no expectation that you will learn anything from what I am saying here. I expect you will complain about it instead. And I have no intention of having to repeat it again and again. But that will happen every time you come here, so, stay away from this page. --] (]) 07:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:00, 9 December 2024
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Redfield
You are changing my edits to support a false narrative that is unsupported by any evidence. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.150.25 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Martin Luther
See their talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
On the Jews and their Lies
Hello, recently I edited the page On the Jews and their Lies and you undid this edit.
On the talk page I provided context to Luther's statement and I explained the reason for my edit.
Would you mind having a look at it? AdrianEvex (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean the article is on your watchlist and you will respond to my comment soon? AdrianEvex (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- It means I checked it and found it uninteresting. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- At this point I don't want to leave this behind, as I have not received any response to the arguments I gave in support of my edit. I would like to have a fruitful discussion to resolve the dispute. AdrianEvex (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Stop bothering me here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- At this point I don't want to leave this behind, as I have not received any response to the arguments I gave in support of my edit. I would like to have a fruitful discussion to resolve the dispute. AdrianEvex (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- It means I checked it and found it uninteresting. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean the article is on your watchlist and you will respond to my comment soon? AdrianEvex (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry
About that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)