| Revision as of 08:26, 22 May 2017 editJames J. Lambden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,695 edits →May 2017← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (861 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Please == | |||
| Please don't politicise disputes, . I assume you understand why. - ]] 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't omit Feinstein because her first name is Dianne.] (]) 12:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ⚖️ | |||
| == BLP on Seth Rich == | |||
| == Help with adding to Talk page == | |||
| It's been pointed out several times that violates WP:BLP. Please don't add it again.] (]) 03:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :B.S. ], I at the article talk page: "USNWR has not apparently corrected much. Their update says: 'Corrected on May 16, 2017: This story has been updated to reflect that Rod Wheeler has not been hired by Seth Rich's family.' Do you think that they should correct what I quoted in my previous comment? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)" You simply ignored my question. Feel free to go to the article talk page and answer the question. I notice that your unwelcome comment above did not link to anything other than the material I inserted, which does not tell me anything at all.] (]) 04:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::The conversation there covers this adequately and in context. But the USNWR thing is actually irrelevant. If you have several people telling you "this is a BLP violation" and explaining in detail why, and when it's a situation where it's obvious that spreading this false info can hurt the family of the victim, you just don't restore the text. That's BLP. It's also basic human decency.] (]) 04:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I haven't restored the text, so don't go lecturing me about basic human decency. Unlike you, ] has provided actual information that the material I inserted has been challenged by another reliable source. I am in process of confirming that. If correct, then I may reinsert (or propose reinserting) the material with an explanation that it has been challenged, in the "Fox News controversy" section. Please note that the material I inserted was sourced to US News and World Report. So go away,and do not come here to wage bogus attacks on me.] (]) 04:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've provided several sources, even before Geogene, which showed the story was fake. You just didn't bother to read the discussion. And yeah, you restored BLP violating text, that's what the diff I provided up above shows. | |||
| ::::I also don't appreciate you preemptively running to ANI about an unrelated matter and filing a spurious report because you're worried you might get into BLP trouble.] (]) 12:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First, you have yet to provide any diff regarding federal investigators and USNWR versus Wheeler and Fox (they are distinct issues). Second, my complaint at your user talk has nothing to do with Seth Rich, and I left a similar complaint at the user talk of Casprings at virtually the same time, also having nothing to do with Seth Rich. Why am I replying here when you already know all of this (rhetorical question)?] (]) 16:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page | |||
| == ANI discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 07:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? ] (]) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == May 2017 == | |||
| ::I reported the glitch at ]. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you.] (]) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for making ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ] ] 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)</div> | |||
| :::I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? ] (]) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Template:uw-aoablock --> | |||
| ::::Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, ]. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam.] (]) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding ] == | |||
| {{ping|Swarm}} From the editor he offended, on the same page, directed at me a day earlier: | |||
| * ''"And what's worse? Engaging in creepy stalking of another user on Misplaced Pages, like you're doing, or having the oh-so-horrible-temerity to be annoyed by it and call it out like I'm doing? ] buddy. Stop acting in an uber-creepy way and then I won't have to call it that. Problem solved. Your stalking and harassment is what needs intervention, not the fact that people point it out."'' ] | |||
| First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits. | |||
| * ''"I was gonna ignore Anythingyouwant anyway, until James J. Lambden showed up and poured gasoline on this shitpile and got it roaring again (his standard mo)"'' ] | |||
| ], here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --] (]) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ''"Go away Lambden. Stop stalking me and stop harassing me. Your behavior has crossed the 'uber creepy' threshold some time ago."'' ] | |||
| :To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at ], "he edit must be signed by adding <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --] (]) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ''"So that's your background right there. Frankly, Lambden's obsessive actions and stalking have been creeping the fuck out of me for a few months now and I would appreciate it if someone intervened to muzzle that kind of behavior."'' ] | |||
| :], thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see ], which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right.] (]) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a ] by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence. | |||
| ::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}} | |||
| ::I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one: | |||
| ::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}} | |||
| ::If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --] (]) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh and I am ]d to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen.] (]) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --] (]) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| The repeated offenses to me should be taken as seriously. ] (]) 05:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Give it up Lambden. Your constant hounding of me is a straight up violation of ].] (]) 05:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :(Diffs provided already elsewhere, can trot them out again if needed).] (]) 05:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: If there were any validity to this nonsense you would have filed a complaint. Instead you repeat it in unrelated threads as a way to distract from your own bad behavior. It is unfortunate your incivility is tolerated. ] (]) 05:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Horrible block. Please consider unblocking. ] (]) 13:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC). | |||
| *Request denied. ] ] 15:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know why I expected you to perhaps dig a little deeper or try to do something to cool this issue off. ] (]) 16:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let me clarify because that came across as harsh. This is the result of a few days of content issues and bad behavior from several parties. You jump in and block one party and it didn't look like you considered any of the background here. Do you think this block will ultimately improve the situation? ] (]) 16:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::As Swarm notes, this block is long overdue and I hope it is long enough for Anythingyouwant to reflect on her miserable history of POV-pushing, and tendentious interaction. I salute Admins such as Swarm who are prepared to protect other editors, the Project, and in this case the family of a crime victim from the willful misconduct of a small number of disruptive editors. And in case anyone's new to the scene here, Anythingyouwant has been warned at least a dozen times concerning her conduct at American Politics pages. ]] 17:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm glad you're enjoying the show, SPECIFICO. Needless to say, I honestly believe that your remarks apply much more to yourself than to me. And I fully expect my last sentence to be regarded by the Misplaced Pages hierarchy as another personal attack by me.] (]) 17:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, I forgot to express my pain at seeing you self-destruct. How could it possibly be enjoyable? Just for your information, there's a difference between editors calling me names for resisting fringe and pov edits and your situation, in which the warnings have come from many different uninvolved Admins. ]] 20:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock|reason=Saying "baloney" does not seem particularly harsh to me. And it was an honest and accurate use of the word "baloney" too. If the block is because of something else I said, then I would like another chance to appeal once I'm told what that "something else" is. I doubt I'll get such a chance, though, because sanction procedures at Misplaced Pages are often unfair and slanted by design, to single out editors who get in the way of agendas. I did cross out a couple comments at ANI, so I especially hope the sanction is not for them. Immediately before the blocking editor's block announcement at ANI, I said '''''"Baloney. Provide diffs or go away. The thread that started this ANI section speaks for itself, so just cut out your spin doctoring."''''' Is such mild language really blockable now at Misplaced Pages, especially given the much harsher language used by others (a small specimen of it quoted above in this user talk page section)? I was replying to an accusation that I violated ], and in my opinion the accusation was baseless. Is it fine for editors to make baseless accusations of violating ], but not fine to answer with the word "baloney"? Have a nice Spring day. ] (]) 16:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here are some additional points per ]: | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| 1. The block does not take into account all the relevant history, such as the number of much more outrageous comments made by other editors during this ANI thread, some of them documented elsewhere in this talk page section. <br /> | |||
| 2. Poorly considered civility blocks have at times worsened disputes and increased disruption, and in this case blocking only one person will embolden others who were more obviously uncivil.<br /> | |||
| 3. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, whereas here multiple editors have reasonably objected at this user talk page.<br /> | |||
| 4. Users should be clearly warned, and that means telling me which comments are at issue. If the comments are already old and stale, or I disagree that they were uncivil, then I won't retract, but otherwise I might retract or at least explain. I am currently waiting for ] to provide diffs and I do not understand why he has not yet provided the diffs given that he has commented here as recently as 23:25 on 21 May.] (]) 00:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Additionally:<br /> | |||
| A. If unblocked, I promise to stay away from any section at ANI where I have not already been named, for one month.<br /> | |||
| B. If unblocked, I promise to try harder not to say anything at Misplaced Pages that I will subsequently feel the need to strike out because I shouldn't have said it.<br /> | |||
| C. I admit that I said something I shouldn't have at ANI (involving "fangs") and therefore struck it out before this block occurred.] (]) 02:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| :AYW was responding to a false accusation that they violated BLP. A heated reaction to a baseless claim does not warrant a block. ] (]) 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| *A couple of comments: <p>{{ping|Swarm}} Could you please confirm that your block was in accordance with points 3 and 4 of ]? <p>@Anythingyouwant, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that you were blocked for saying the word "baloney". What about {{tq|"just cut out your spin doctoring"}} and {{tq|"You just never stop with the mischaracterizations VM, do you?"}} <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::mischaracterizations are exactly how I would describe VM's comments. He mischaracterized AYW's previous sanction, mischaracterized several BLP concerns, and mischaracterized JJL's actions numerous times. ]'s block was so bad and frankly his behavior when questioned about this block is quite concerning. ] (]) 19:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::], my appeal (above) not only mentioned "baloney" but also specifically quoted "spin doctoring". You say that I'm "disingenuous" for failing to mention the latter, but I did indeed obviously mention the latter, and I also suggested that I may have been blocked for "something else I said". So, in answer to your question, no I don't think I was being "disingenous". I'm also quite sure that you would never be blocked for using the word "disingenuous" whereas I would, because the structure and practices of the Misplaced Pages hierarchy are fundamentally biased, unfair, and contrary to its own stated goals (by the way, that's an ''institutional'' attack, not a personal one). All of the language of mine that you quoted is relatively mild. Merrian-Webster provides : "a person (such as a political aide) responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view".] (]) 20:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *They absolutely are. This user wasn't blocked for any one questionable comment, but a pattern of personal attacks throughout the entire discussion and over the course of several days. It was not any single instance of overreaction that could be retracted, it was a persistent and willful pattern of belligerent behavior that should be obvious to any uninvolved observer. No comment on the suggestions that I should have blocked any other user involved in that discussion, but this user's behavior stood out to me as beyond the pale. ] ] 19:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::] please provide diffs of this "pattern of personal attacks" because you are apparently the only one to have seen it. ] (]) 19:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm on mobile right now but I would be happy to support the block with diffs as soon as I get the opportunity (although any reviewer can simply read AYW's comments throughout that discussion at ANI and see for themselves). ] ] 19:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Obviously I know issuing a block in the middle of such a heated discussion would be controversial, but I stand behind it as 100% appropriate. I have not done anything inappropriate when being questioned. I have simply stood behind it. To be accused of some type of misbehavior because I stood behind a block that is obviously in response to numerous observable personal attacks just makes me think that these users have some sort of personal affinity for his user as opposed to policy-based objections to the block. ] ] 19:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(ec) You know, don't bother. The problem with dealing with admins is that they always think they've done the right thing. You don't comment on the suggestions that other users had poor behavior, and that's exactly the problem with your approach. You jumped into a heated argument and blocked one party, seemingly completely oblivious as to why that user was angry or upset. Marek repeatedly mischaracterized many of AYB's comments, over the course of several days, with no repercussions. You don't see that as antagonistic and baiting behavior? There's a request for help on your talk page that you are ignoring. These issues have been going on for many days across several articles. Do you think you've done a helpful thing here? ] (]) 19:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Personal affinity"? I have a hard time taking you seriously now with such a bad faith assumption. I don't enjoy seeing admins hand out bad blocks. If that's a personal affinity then sure I have one. ] (]) 19:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, the personal attacks are just so blatant and obvious I'm having a hard time believing you're not seeing them and need diffs. Feedback is always welcome but the fact that you disagree with the block does not automatically mean that it was an inappropriate block according to accepted norms here. ] ] 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] I saw AYW's comments but I also saw a lot of other bad behavior from other users. You ignored all that and the baiting over the course of several days and then made a very 1 sided block. Then you double down and accuse me of having a personal affinity with this editor for being outspoken in their defense. If this editor was the only one behaving badly I could understand the block. The personal attacks were very mild and probably warranted at least a warning on this talk page before a block. You have a responsibility to help, not make things worse. Do you intend to do anything else to help us move this original issue forward, or are you feeling done here after your block? ] (]) 20:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{u|Swarm}} how can I possibly have a "personal affinity" with this user? I never interacted with him, aside from the comment at ANI to end the bickering between '''both''' sides. The fact of the matter is you came in to make a pointless one-sided block on an editor who, honestly, was more restrained than VM in their responses. All you did was cause more tension without solving any of the bigger issues at ANI. Is it not your job to actually resolve disputes with thoughtful decisions?] (]) 20:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I wasn't referring to you, any feedback is welcome. However, if you read that discussion, it's comical to suggest that either party was engaged in good faith dispute resolution that I somehow derailed with this block. AYW predicted that nothing good would come out of it at the very beginning and then proceeded on a multi-day tirade of incivility and personal attacks. There's no point in dispute resolution if you don't even follow ]. ] ] 23:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I didn't accuse anyone of a "tirade of incivility" while refusing to provide any diffs whatsoever. Tell me, ], was there anyone at that ANI who was criticized more than me? And maybe a person who is criticized the most will tend to be the person who responds the most? Please pick out the two or three examples that you think are the worst so I can respond substantively. ] says it was bad for me to say someone else was "spin doctoring". Is that what you have in mind? As I said above, Merrian-Webster provides : "a person (such as a political aide) responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view". Isn't that rather mild? Is it bad for me to say someone else was "mischaracterizing" things? Does it matter whether they ''were'' mischaracterizing? I'm really curious to see all the horrible things you think I said, so I can compare it to some of the things that VM said during that thread: | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| *{{tq|hanks for illustrating my point and making yourself look like a '''glowing hypocrite'''... ] (]) 21:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| *{{tq|Lambden is just enabling and encouraging this kind of '''character assassination''' with these kinds of comments….Frankly, Lambden's obsessive actions and stalking have been '''creeping the fuck out of me''' for a few months now and I would appreciate it if someone intervened to muzzle that kind of behavior.] (]) 01:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| *{{tq|or a guy who can't resist but to post long walls of text full of '''character assassination and bullshit''' ] you sure have some gall in accusing others of "flooding with walls of text"….Your behavior has crossed the "'''uber creepy'''" threshold some time ago.] (]) 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] | |||
| *{{tq|Stop acting in an '''uber-creepy''' way and then I won't have to call it that. Problem solved. ] (]) 02:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| *{{tq|Nonsense, you're '''making stuff up''' again.] (]) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| *{{tq|That's not a "long list of violations", so '''stop lying'''.] (]) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <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. | |||
| *{{tq|James J. Lambden showed up and '''poured gasoline on this shitpile''' and got it roaring again (his standard mo).] (]) 02:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I'm not saying that you should go block VM, I'm saying that the things I said at ANI are certainly no worse than what he said. And I gave diffs to back it up when I made major complaints against other people, as ] requires: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." So please specify your non-stale evidence. And please be kind enough to provide your evidence for why . I'm not aware that any of them do. As mentioned above, I did cross out a couple comments I made, once because the other person apologized, and once because I should not have said it in the first place. I promise to try harder not to repeat the latter kind of mistake.] (]) 00:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Anything, the articles you patrol are under Arbcom sanctions. There are half a dozen reasons why any Admin could have blocked you. What difference does it make? ]] 00:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::SPECIFICO, you've conveyed to me everything at this user talk page that I could possibly find useful, so please desist unless required to come here by Misplaced Pages rules. Thanks, and maybe we'll be seeing each other ''elsewhere''.] (]) 01:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] please explain, per ADMINACCT, which users have a "personal affinity" with AYW, using diffs to back up your accusations. ] (]) 02:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :With the explanation you owe Mr Ernie Swarm, I'm wondering, since you suggested above that neither party was assuming much good faith, why block only AYW? I still cannot find one comment that stands out over anything VM said in return. Again, this goes back to the fact this was not a thoughtful block. In the spirit of AGF, I will not infer your rationale because it is becoming more apparent the block was less about issues of incivility.] (]) 02:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd just like to say a quick thank you to ], ], and ] for kindly saying some words here on this page in my behalf. I didn't have any personal affinity for you folks before this, but am starting to feel that way. Cheers.] (]) 02:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|Swarm}} I fully respect the admins' authority in sanctioning users at their discretion, based on their judgment of the ongoing conversations, in the interest of maintaining civility and focusing on constructive development of the encyclopedia. However, given the level of invective going back and forth in the ANI discussion that has been referenced, your intervention does look like a one-sided block indeed. Incivility and personal attacks should not be tolerated, no matter which "side" it is coming from. Besides, sanctions are meant to be preventive not punitive, and this one shuts down an editor in the middle of his defence; sounds like punishment for just standing up to accusations of bad faith. Beyond this individual case, it may perceived as a ] on reasoned discourse about the merits of contents. For the record, i am uninvolved in the ANI discussion and in the article being discussed there, although I have interacted with several of the involved editors on other contentious pages, so I have a sense of their usual style. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| *I have not been around a computer and have only been able to provide limited responses on my mobile device. Let me issue a more thorough explanation of the block, with apologies for the delay. In this user's very reasonable unblock request, they humorously say they've been blocked for saying "baloney", and offer up the full, relatively tame quote that caused them to be slapped with a draconian 3 day block. He makes the sympathetic argument that a "civility block" for such a minor offense is a bad block. Yes, his unblock request argues that he is actually ''innocent'' of the charge over which he's blocked, and that he's the victim of an outrageously disproportional "civility block" over one tame comment. He claims that if he was behaving so badly, diffs would have been provided. Although I've repeatedly said that the block was for a persistent pattern of personal attacks throughout that whole discussion, and that they would be obvious to anyone who reviews that discussion, here are the diffs, as requested: , , , , , , , | |||
| </div> | |||
| *The diffs span from 05-18 18:30:47 to 05-20 22:14:51 and constitute their definitive behavioral pattern in this discussion | |||
| <!-- 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 --> | |||
| *The user in question is an established editor and the argument that they weren't warned is ludicrous. This isn't someone who overreacted a bit, as we all do, and was in need of a reminder that that wasn't okay. This was willful, persistent and ongoing disregard of the behavioral guidelines. | |||
| *The chief complaint I've received regarding this block is that numerous users were guilty of the same behavior and should have been blocked if AYW was blocked. While it was not my intention to give the perception of a one-sided block, the simple fact of the matter is that AYW's conduct stood out to me, as an uninvolved observer, as uniquely severe and counterproductive and the primary catalyst for the uncivil tone of that thread. NPA blocks are, obviously, controversial, and a high bar to meet. Most of us are guilty of making personal attacks at some point. In my opinion, AYW's behavior was clearly actionable and I did not feel the same way about anyone else on either side of the discussion. Those who expressed differing opinions are noted, and I will continue to exercise care to avoid unfair or one-sided blocking, as I have always done. I will defer to the judgment of other administrators as to whether or not VM or any other editor involved should be blocked, but I continue to stand behind ''this block'' as an appropriate and warranted preventative measure. | |||
| *The suggestion has been made that this block derailed the process of constructive dispute resolution. My response: see the first diff. AYW's very first comment dismissed the possibility that that could be a productive discussion, in addition to making a personal attack. That behavior never changed, and it's apparent that no progress was being made. | |||
| *To those who disagree with the block, or lack of more blocks: your feedback is duly noted, and while I continue to stand behind the block, every blocked user has the right to have the block reviewed by another administrator, as many times as they want. I have no problem with that. I will not be overturning the block, nor will I be investigating/blocking any other user involved at this point. I'm happy to answer any outstanding questions about the block, though the case I've made is really quite simple on my end and I feel has been explained at length. | |||
| *Regardless of one's opinion on my decision to block, this user has given no indication that they understand that they were in the wrong, and in fact assert the exact opposite. ] ] 07:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|AYW's conduct stood out to me the primary catalyst for the uncivil tone of that thread}} is only reasonable if you ignore the talk page discussion that prompted the thread, linked to in the ''first sentence'' of the first post. The second sentence said: | |||
| ::*{{tq|I mention in the discussion my concerns about violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF on the part of VM. VM says they're combating Anythingyouwant's alleged attacks. What I see is VM repeatedly attacking Anythingyouwant for allegedly not caring enough about the feelings of Seth Rich's family}} | |||
| ::Your decision as an administrator was to ignore the personal attacks toward Anythingyouwant that prompted the complaint, ignore the personal attacks toward him in the complaint itself and sanction Anythingyouwant for responding after repeated provocation. You express concern over Anything's lack of acknowledgement but I'm more concerned what your involvement has taught his aggressors: by all means continue. Shameful. ] (]) 08:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024
⚖️
Help with adding to Talk page
I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page
Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy
and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? Swan2024 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I reported the glitch at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, User:Swan2024. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I reported the glitch at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax
First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits.
Regarding the neo-Nazi debate, here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at Template:Reply to, "he edit must be signed by adding
~~~~to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) - User:Super Goku V, thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see WP:OPEN, which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a Neutral point of view by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence.
Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.- I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one:
Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.- If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh and I am Subscribed to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 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) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)