| Revision as of 21:52, 12 December 2021 editNorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,475 edits →Edit-warring at Family Research Council← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:57, 12 December 2021 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,423 edits →Edit-warring at Family Research Council: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| Your unilateral removal of longstanding, well-sourced material from the ] article lede, inclusion of which ], is wildly inappropriate ] and violates policy. That your proposed addition of material to the lede has been challenged does not permit you to ignore established community consensus. If you want to remove mention of the SPLC from the lede, you'll need to open an RFC and change that consensus. ] (]) 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC) | Your unilateral removal of longstanding, well-sourced material from the ] article lede, inclusion of which ], is wildly inappropriate ] and violates policy. That your proposed addition of material to the lede has been challenged does not permit you to ignore established community consensus. If you want to remove mention of the SPLC from the lede, you'll need to open an RFC and change that consensus. ] (]) 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :(ec) Not in the least. I agree that what I removed should be in the lead, but it cannot be at this time because including it as it was is ]. There is more coverage in the article on the attack than the non-attack parts of the SPLC designation, so including the latter without the former would be UNDUE even if they weren't intrinsically connected by the words of the gunman. I continue to try to improve the article's balance despite your objection to making the lead reflect the balance of RS content. Consensus, assuming for the sake of argument such did exist, does not trump policy. | |||
| :Here's an invitation, {{U|NorthBySouthBaranof}}: convince me ''why'' the 2012 shooting shouldn't be in the lead, in light of the 2018 WaPo magazine's inclusion of it in coverage of the SPLC's travails, and the 2019 USA Today editorial. I'm all ears. ] (]) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:57, 12 December 2021
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND
Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...
Your proposal
Chicdat removed your proposal on the grounds that the period for new proposals had ended, but seems to have neglected to inform you of this. (It's now on the talk page, though I'm not sure what the point of that is.) Since your proposal shares all important features with the previous proposal 6E, I invite you to support 6E instead. --JBL (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- JayBeeEll Huh. I'm sure there's a note in there somewhere to that effect that I missed, but it seems counterintuitive to advertise an RfC for wider participation... and at the same time have new proposals be untimely. Thanks for your advice, and I may indeed support 6E, but no, I don't believe 6F as proposed by me shared all the important features, else I wouldn't have proposed it separately. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I attempted (before it was removed) to query you about that, so let me do it here: your proposal 6F had 4 bullet points, it shares 3 of them with 6E, and your explanation for why 6F would be an improvement over the status quo only mentions the 3 points they have in common. So, uh, what's the important difference? --JBL (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- The mandatory desysop'ing period. Full disclosure, I'd like to end admins-for-life, and force every admin to spend 6 months of the year without privileges, so that people can remember what it's like to have to ask someone else to do things for you, and not simply have the power to block, protect, delete, etc. I mean, yes, yours is the closest to mine, and I like it in general, but I don't know that I would call it quite equivalent. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I agree they're not exactly equivalent. I think I was clearer in the other post, and now there's been more discussion by others, so if I have anything else to add I'll do it there. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and thanks for proactively engaging. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I agree they're not exactly equivalent. I think I was clearer in the other post, and now there's been more discussion by others, so if I have anything else to add I'll do it there. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- The mandatory desysop'ing period. Full disclosure, I'd like to end admins-for-life, and force every admin to spend 6 months of the year without privileges, so that people can remember what it's like to have to ask someone else to do things for you, and not simply have the power to block, protect, delete, etc. I mean, yes, yours is the closest to mine, and I like it in general, but I don't know that I would call it quite equivalent. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I attempted (before it was removed) to query you about that, so let me do it here: your proposal 6F had 4 bullet points, it shares 3 of them with 6E, and your explanation for why 6F would be an improvement over the status quo only mentions the 3 points they have in common. So, uh, what's the important difference? --JBL (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Edit-warring at Family Research Council
Your unilateral removal of longstanding, well-sourced material from the Family Research Council article lede, inclusion of which has an explicit community consensus established by RFC, is wildly inappropriate sour grapes and violates policy. That your proposed addition of material to the lede has been challenged does not permit you to ignore established community consensus. If you want to remove mention of the SPLC from the lede, you'll need to open an RFC and change that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) Not in the least. I agree that what I removed should be in the lead, but it cannot be at this time because including it as it was is WP:UNDUE. There is more coverage in the article on the attack than the non-attack parts of the SPLC designation, so including the latter without the former would be UNDUE even if they weren't intrinsically connected by the words of the gunman. I continue to try to improve the article's balance despite your objection to making the lead reflect the balance of RS content. Consensus, assuming for the sake of argument such did exist, does not trump policy.
- Here's an invitation, NorthBySouthBaranof: convince me why the 2012 shooting shouldn't be in the lead, in light of the 2018 WaPo magazine's inclusion of it in coverage of the SPLC's travails, and the 2019 USA Today editorial. I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)