| Revision as of 01:23, 3 April 2018 editFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits →May 2017← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:27, 3 April 2018 edit undoFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits ←Blanked the pageTag: BlankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Discuss oats below== | |||
| == Keith Ellison == | |||
| Contentious changes, particularly on a ], should not be made without consensus of other editors. You have now re-instated your preferred version twice without any other editor agreeing with it and if you continue reverting, I will take it to the ] I do not think by the way that it is constructive to approach any article with the sole intention of inserting negative information about individuals. You seem to have no interest in this particular subject other than allegations that were briefly mentioned in a limited amount of reliable sources, but are extensively discussed in fringe websites. ] (]) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :You're attempting to game the system by raising clearly empty procedural attacks on clearly proper edits. The centerpiece of these attacks have been the absurd claim that sourcing brief summaries of analysis from top quality mainstream sources somehow deviates from what those sources say. And on top of that you can't even seem to read clearly when blindly reverting, since you have accused me of removing commentary in defense of Ellison when in fact I'm the person who wrote it in the first place. | |||
| :Consensus is not a veto and you should '''not''' make affirmative efforts to seriously misrepresent source material. | |||
| :And obviously, if edits are "contentious" there has to be a ''reason why'', and you seem to have zero interest in stating any actual objections in any of the edits you reverted. ] ] ] 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ===Unhelpful feedback of old Keith Ellison edits=== | |||
| I'd like to take a moment to respond about ] to the ] article. You said I committed "seriously incompetent editing based on ignorance of the subject matter" when I cleaned up that segment, which was messy/unclear at the time. I take exception to your accusations and stand by my edits. Yes they were bold, but they made the section clearer and improved the neutrality of the POV. I'm not ignorant of the subject matter -- to respond to your accusation that I was fabricating sources, a little investigation on your part will show that ] was indeed a paid Republican Party of Minnesota operative in 2006, when he also anonymously ran the website Minnesota Democrats Exposed, which is the site I sourced in my edit. Funny how I remember this stuff even 11 years later! | |||
| As Judge John Hodgman often says, "People like what they like", so I suppose it's fine if Islamophobia happens to be your personal passion (as it seems from looking at your contributions). However, please don't bully others on WP who are trying to strengthen articles a NPOV. | |||
| Yours in Christ, ] (]) 07:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually I said it was ''either'' incompetent editing ''or'' improper spin—your comments here confirm the latter impression. Also, I'm not sure if you go around saying "Islamophobe" to anyone who corrects you, but it's silly. ] 21:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == The "permanent campaign" == | |||
| I intended this reference to the "permanent campaign" to be uncontroversial, allowing general information to be on another page rather than appear to refer specifically to Donald Trump's 2020 campaign. There are advantages and disadvantages to keeping the campaign structure, the FEC filing and so on, but they are not specific to this topic. Would it be more evenly weighted if we removed the section title and the first line? This would no longer be a section, merely a second paragraph in the lead reading: "Although the early campaign filing is unusual, the permanent campaign is not unusual in American politics, dating at least from the presidency of Bill Clinton under the advice of Sidney Blumenthal."<br>We can discuss at ] if you prefer. I have also posted this question there. ] (]) 16:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't seem to understand basic content policies, for example WP:WEIGHT and proper use of editorial voice. I have no idea how you could have persisted as an editor for so long with these very deep misconceptions. And there is no reason why we should be talking about this here on my talk page. ] ] ] 16:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per ], "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." ] (]) 17:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yet for many obvious reasons the standard practice is to discuss article content at the article talk page. User talk pages are for discussions that don't belong on an article talk page. ] ] ] 18:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ]; ] == | |||
| You've been edit warring nonsensically for several days and so far other editors have refrained from templating you. However, by now it is plain that you are operating under some very deep misconceptions about how WP is supposed to operate. | |||
| <blockquote>"Sweden bashing" refers to a perception</blockquote> | |||
| But that's not supported by any of the sourcing. You are inventing stuff out of thin air, and then putting those words in WP's editorial voice. This is useless from the ground up. | |||
| You also seem to think that reliable sources are mere opinions if you disagree with what they say. That's just asinine. // ] (]) 07:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for March 10== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks-but no thanks == | |||
| Please do not contact me in future-thanking, talk page, etc.] (]) 21:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Refactoring == | |||
| Was really justified? It seems to bear relevance to development of the article. - ] (]) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Sitush}} I got the sense it had a tone of gloating and was just an opportunity for the editor to air the completely unsourced contention that Brown was a drug dealer, which so far as I know nobody has said, and which is a dubious characterization of the alleged bartering. And it was straw-mannish at that—''if'' Brown actually thought he had paid for the cigars, then that certainly seems less blameworthy to me. It was a gut reaction, admittedly. I've been criticized for removing talk page comments before so I will defer to you. ] 22:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == What? == | |||
| I don't understand how this is considered a violation of ]. That portion of text you removed was pertaining directly to the subject of the article... ]<sup>]</sup> 04:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Virtually all NOTFORUM comments pertain directly to the article subject, including any old baseless smear somebody might post. The claim about Brown being a drug dealer is found only in obviously fringe sources. And the WP editor's comment wasn't even directed at the article, he was really just offering his own musings about how good or bad Mike Brown was. See my other comments above. ] 23:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Article talk pages == | |||
| Article talk pages are for disusing how to improve that article. They are not for. | |||
| How to improve (or issues with) other articles . | |||
| Users | |||
| General concerns about Misplaced Pages (see link about what talk pages are for). | |||
| Soapboxing (see link for uers). | |||
| Your interaction as SPLC is now becoming disruptive and I am asking you to please stop.] (]) 19:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Mmmhmm ] you posted this an hour after my last word about SPLC. Also note I wasn't soapboxing or talking about users or general concerns about Misplaced Pages. It is also very common and not remotely problematic to briefly discuss how content presentation in two closely related articles relate to each other. More careful attention appreciated in future thanks. ] 15:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::You commented on other users and what they "really" meant (as well as asking what hey would do on another page). Yes, (by the way) you talked about "policy implications", that is about policy not specific pages. Yes (by the way) your insistence on talking about one page on another page looks like you are trying to score points and soapbox about something you think is unfair (hence it "policy implications", you seem to be trying to establish a precedent). You (to my mind) were using the SPLC talk page to try and soapbox about what you perceive as editors (ans Wikipedias) bias, no one is fooled. I am asking you not to do it again either on SPLC or any the talk page. They are for disusing the article whose talk page it is, not any other issues.] (]) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Ahem. {{ping|Slatersteven}} | |||
| *I'm not sure what you mean by saying I asked "what they ''really'' meant''". | |||
| *Asking what an experienced editor would do in a closely related situation at a closely related page is entirely proper | |||
| *Asking a question very clearly related to article content may often have policy implications, and that doesn't make the question inappropriate—even if, as has been noted, the question is about a very closely related article | |||
| *I suggest you go read ]; you may find it edifying to discover that it is not even remotely related to the conduct you are complaining about; how have you gone on this long without understanding such an old policy? | |||
| *More generally what do you think is being accomplished via this rant? It's clear that you're wrong, I had stopped posting questions at the SPLC Talk long before you posted this complaint, it's now nearly 24 hours later, and I'm sure there are ]. | |||
| Cheers. ] 15:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :And I note that you have not really tried to discus tisa issue with half the effort on the right talk page.] (]) 15:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm discussing it right now even as you force me to respond to this nonsense. Kisses, ] 15:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==wise guy== | |||
| And that "wise guy" comment is unacceptable and I ask you to strike it. When you decide to have a polite conversation I will respond to your question.] (]) 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Decline to strike, comment was innocuous, this pearl-clutching is a waste of time and we'd all be better off if you just explain what you meant, because it was obviously open to multiple interpretations and I explicitly asked you to provide some clarification. ] 19:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 18:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Help needed == | |||
| Hello. Given that you are considerably more skilled at structuring Misplaced Pages texts, and managing discussions than I am, I would appreciate your help with finding a solution in the following article. Thank you. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Immigration_and_crime ] (]) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|David A}} I've started looking at it but it does seem like a largeish dispute. I'm not sure I'll find time to understand the discussion about statistics tonight. ] 23:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for April 3== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == 3rr == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
| You've made 6 reverts in about 28 hours. 4 in the last 24 hours. This is not a BLP issue. All material is sourced and it concerns an institute. Please self revert.] (]) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I already explained why that prose misrepresents the source, and you haven't said one word at talk. No, I won't self-revert, and yes, the edit is exempt from 3RR, as should be evident, go read the specific BLP section I already referenced. As I already suggested, why don't you try re-writing the prose in a way that satisfies you while still addressing the issues I raised—instead of just reverting back to obviously problematic material about LPs. ] 21:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Factchecker. ] (]) 03:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ===3RR block=== | |||
| You've been blocked from editing for 36 hours due to violating the ] (I could not find evidence of BLP violations that would allow you to benefit from ]). Please be more careful in the future. And in regards, to —VM alleges that you ] him to another article, making a revenge revert, and I . Please also refrain from this conduct in the future. Use ] instead of escalating. ] 08:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock request == | |||
| (formatting was removed by closure) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=I request unblock because ''the reverts complained of were clear BLP violations'', and by the time the complaint was raised, what was in fact occurring was not revert-warring, but was instead back-and-forth ''incremental revision'' between myself and another editor, ], in which Marek was not participating. My most recent edits left VR's writing largely untouched. The earlier reverts complained of also removed conjectural interpretations of weak sourcing that amounted to accusations of racism or xenophobia against living people and '''thus they're ''exempt'' from edit-warring accusations.''' This was all being done in good faith after some discussion with Vice Regent on the talk page. Furthermore, after the 3RR warning, —a day and a half later, after making progress with Vice Regent, I got no suggestions from Marek but this ANI complaint instead. ==Summary== *The sanction is punitive and unnecessary. The ANI complaint interrupted constructive editorial back-and-forth between myself and ] which had emerged after unhelpful straight-reverting by Marek and another user after my initial rewrite. Marek declined to suggest how the text could be changed and his only talk page comment primarily detailed his suspicions about my allegedly devious purposes and actions. The other user Vice Regent by contrast discussed all the issues (though we disagree on some) and accomodated my concerns in his own revisions, and '''thus my most recent edits left his writing mostly untouched'''. Most of my edits (and all of the most recent ones) were revisions, not reverts. We were making progress when the complaint was filed. *'''I didn't attempt to game 3RR because I don't think 3RR applies. "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues" was a conjectural interpretation of one poorly sourced claim and one tangential mention in a single RS that cannot be easily paraphrased. Thus it was ''poorly sourced'' under the BLP policy.''' *My edit at the Russia article, which I've edited before, was not stalking, but Marek himself has stalked me periodically since I threatened to bring him to ANI for harassing another user (not myself), and thus I think perhaps Marek's aggressive reverting and insistence on bringing this to ANI may be a bit of harassment itself. *WP is a consensus driven project, but the BLP policy makes clear that removing inaccurate or misleading claims about living people is important, and that such claims must be both clearly established and very well-sourced. Moreover all these users should know that it's their ] to achieve consensus for the disputed article text, and when a user makes good-faith removals of material that is a conjectural interpretation of poorly sourced discussion about living people, that is not edit-warring, it's a prompt to ''discuss how the disputed claim can be fixed before being restored''. ===Isn't BLP applicable? WP:REDFLAG?=== To start, the question of whether this dispute implicates BLP. Of course it does; although it's been argued that Gatestone is an institution, not a person, the WP prose I first removed said that "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues". But it's a corporation, and corporations don't write articles, people do; the articles at Gatestone are all signed by individual people. If Gatestone is being accused of making false claims about Muslim issues, that means one or more ''people working for Gatestone'' have been accused. The idea that only the material about the organization's founder is BLP material is simply wrong. Moreover, (1) '''"accused" is loaded language that no source I've seen has used in talking about Gatestone'''; (2) the source that describes some claims about no-go zones as "false" mentions Gatestone only in passing and ''does not'' say Gatestone actually ''made'' any false claims—also, the definition of "no-go zones" that the source describes is false is ''not'' the definition used by Gatestone, which in any event describes them as "''so-called'' no-go zones"; and (3) the source that does claim Gatestone made "false" claims is published in a non-RS, written by a non-journalist, and the inaccuracies it points out are pretty trivial and have nothing to do with ''Muslims'' and instead revolve around distinctions betwene different EU-related groups and a poorly worded headline that is contradicted by what the body of the report says. Hence the concern with "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues". It's a conjectural interpretation of weak sourcing. Yet despite the obvious problems, Marek has reinserted this language repeatedly ( ) while ignoring requests that he make edits or comments about how to make the wording less problematic. BLP policy tells us to remove that without discussion, an exception which would be meaningless if an editor can be easily blocked for invoking it. Shouldn't the editors who have the ] of establishing that a claim belongs in an article have the burden of raising BLP-appropriateness issues at BLP/N and weak-source-appropriateness issues at RS/N? Separately, this is also the sort of claim that is supposed to require ] clearly making the claim]] even if not in a BLP. ===Alleged subtle "gaming" of 24 hour revert window=== This is just seeing sheep in the clouds, kind of like when Marek saw "straight up dishonest misrepresentation" in a diff by another user that . All of my edits, except perhaps the last couple, removed contentious claims that were ]. They were "poorly sourced" not because the source was poor, but because they were a ''conjectural interpretation of a source'' that was ''contentious'' and that was ''about living people''. This is why I repeatedly stated the BLP exemption and refused to self-revert when templated for 3RR. I saw no need to "game" any 24 hour window and I didn't try. In any event admins aren't bound by 3RR when blocking for edit-warring so this supposed method of gaming seems unlikely to work. And I think it's quite reasonable to expect based on ] that it's the job of the editors ''wishing to add axe-grinding paraphrase'' of weakly sourced material to go raise it at BLP/N and RS/N. Not the guy who says ''can't we just track precisely what the sources have written about the article subject?''. ===Accusation of ]=== First off, Marek falsely claims I've never edited the Russian Interference article before but and participated at Talk. I have edited other Trump related articles extensively, as Marek can attest because he's also active at some of them. As with many articles, I have looked at the election-interference article periodically and found nothing that seemed to need attention. Next, harassment is an interesting accusation because back in January, after I ,a little over an hour later Marek at an article (and in his case, he had ''actually'' never edited that article ''or posted at its talk page'' before). On top of that his edit and its justification seems pretty pointless and even disruptive to me—a website making a self-published claim about different newspapers its authors have written for. How droll. Who cares? And why would an RS publish on such a topic? This precisely the kind of thing we allow article subjects to say about themselves. No need to make the edit and it seemed clearly in response to my ANI threat. When Marek began reverting me at Gatestone, I looked to see if he had said anything about the issue at the Talk page yet (he hadn't). Looking at his edit history I saw the edit summary . Two things that always catch my eye: alleged source misrepresentation and accusations of dishonesty. Always interesting, whether or not true. I have often accused others of source misrepresentation, but the accusatory tone of Marek's edit summary suggested to me that something was amiss. And sure enough, there no misrepresentation in the original—"allegations of unauthorized disclosure of classified information against him" made perfectly clear that allegations of unauthorized disclosure were raised against Nunes. But this was then replaced with "he came under investigation for ethics violation the House Ethics Committee announced", which makes it sound like Nunes is ''guilty'' and flies in the face of the Wiki convention of describing allegations as allegations (the introductory paragraph of the refers to them as "ethics charges" and later uses language about "the ''suggestion'' that he violated ethics laws", but by contrast the phrasing "investigating ethics violations" makes it sound like the violations were known to be committed, and that the investigation is into other questions such as ''who knew what and when''—a common development in these matters. In any event, in response to the marginal chance that someone could somehow misconstrue the language, I rewrote it as: </blockquote>"On April 6, 2017, Nunes temporarily recused himself from the Russia investigation after the House Ethics Committee announced that it would investigate the allegations that he had made unauthorized disclosure of classified information."</blockquote> Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it addresses Marek's concerns while fulfilling the important goal of avoiding phrasing that implies guilt. The policy on ] says: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." None of that is present here. The connection to the Gatestone dispute is a pure coincidence of when I happened to be looking at VM's edit history, and the very recent edit summary that happened to jump out when I did. ===The content dispute itself=== Just to note, there wasn't much pure reverting by me; most edits had successive changes. The pure reverting was mainly by Marek and another user, neither of whom said boo on talk except one comment by Marek on April 8 accusing me of various trickery. By contrast when Vice Regent began editing on April 8 it was after some discussion between the two of us, and . My subsequent edits . Marek's blunt revert-without-discussion and policiing of 3RR have not helped move the dispute along. The dispute revolves around one solid RS that has only brief and tangential discussion of Gatestone, and one weak non-RS that makes claims that are directly about Gatestone, but they're fairly trivial and the piece contradicts itself, raising further doubts about the source. Neither of them is a good basis for the claim that "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues". ====Bloomberg article==== First, the better source, a . I haven't noticed any problems from a sourcing standpoint—but it's only a passing mention of Gatestone with an extremely tenuous link. Gatestone isn't mentioned ''until the 10th paragraph of the article'' (out of 13 paragraphs total) where it says: <blockquote> Meanwhile, though, the idea of European no-go zones took root. After riots broke out in some French suburbs in 2012, analyst Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute, a New York-based think tank, wrote that France was trying to "reclaim no-go zones," including the areas that had been listed in Pipes's 2006 report. Kern defined them as "Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off-limits to non-Muslims." In other reports, Kern has written that Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden also have no-go zones.</blockquote> Notice the Bloomberg article doesn't say that Gatestone made the claims that are said to be false—''that entire neighborhoods of Paris or London are "off-limits to law enforcement and governed by Islamic sharia law"''. The Gatestone report doesn't mention Sharia law, it defines the zones as "Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims", which is different than what Bloomberg disputed. '''''Most importantly, the Gatestone report refers to the areas as <big>"''so-called'' 'no-go' zones"</big>, and every single use of the term in the Gatestone report is bracketed with "scare quotes".''' Notice also, the only thing the Bloomberg article explicitly ''says'' about the Gatestone report is that it referred to some of the same areas that Pipes referred to in his 2006 report. In this report, he had described a French government report on "sensitive urban zones", translating the term as "no-go zones". He later said to Bloomberg there were no places in Europe where authorities were unable to enforce the rule of law, but Bloomberg seems to oversimplify what he has said, which is that the issue is more complex, that there are gradations of danger, that the reality is different for police and other government employees than it is for tourists and other civilians, that he writes the French areas he originally discussed are not "full-fledged" no-go zones, and writes, "However one sums up this complex situation – maybe partial-no-go zones? – they represent a great danger." So in brief it's clear that Bloomberg is citing him for the claim that there are no areas off-limits to police, which is the claim that Bloomberg calls "demonstrably untrue". But again, Gatestone never made that claim, Bloomberg doesn't say Gatestone made that claim, Bloomberg doesn't say Gatestone made false claims. Bloomberg only notes Gatestone published a report referring to some of the same areas. Bloomberg specifically notes Gatestone uses a different definition of the term "no-go zones". Again, in the actual Gatestone report, it refers to them as "''so-called'' no-go zones" and uses "scare quotes" every single time it uses the term. It's not endorsing the use of the term, it's not making any claims that are false, and it's not being ''accused'' of anything. Hence "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues", and ominous and sinister-sounding but entirely uninformative claim, was quite problematic as far as the Bloomberg source goes. ====Snopes blog post==== The is trickier, though it depends on what it's being used for. Snopes is a novelty website that has made a name for itself debunking urban legends and internet rumours. Lately it has been attempting to rebrand itself as a more general purpose fact checker, but it is, as noted at RSN, still a mom-and-pop operation. It's not a serious entity with serious practices or a serious reputation. The author is a former who has a communications degree from a state college and a one-year "journalism" degree from ''community college''—a course described as ''preparation'' for a four-year degree. Respectfully, this guy is not a journalist. What the Snopes post does show, successfully and uncontroversially, is that the Gatestone report got a couple details wrong when discussing an actual incident in which the British government rejected a set of policy recommendations. Snopes seems to vaguely imply, but doesn't actually say, that the Gatestone report called the recommendations mandates. In fact, the report ''doesn't'' call them mandates, Snopes's own screenshot shows that the report refers to them as recommendations, not mandates, and the report goes on to say the recommendations were already rejected by the British government. So far, all we've got is an inaccurate headline. It also notes that the original report failed to note that the recommendations were issued by a human rights group, not the EU. Ok, fine. If all we want to say is these two things then I'm not going to the mat over the weak sourcing. Trivial claims can have trivial sourcing. But "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues" ?? '''No way'''—that was inflammatory and misleading, and it had to be removed and BLP says don't bother discussing such removals, ''just do them''. ==Conclusion== This ceased to be a real edit war when Marek stopped reinserting the loaded language about "false claims about Muslims" on April 7, and this block will not assist effective resolution of the content dispute. ] 7:53 pm, Today (UTC−4) | decline = Polemic masquerading as an unblock request. If you think you should be unblocked, please try again with a proper request that directly - and briefly- addresses the reason for your block. ] <small>(])</small> 00:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| '''Version of first (declined) request with formatting intact''': | |||
| {{hat}} | |||
| I request unblock because by the time the complaint was raised, what was in fact occurring was not revert-warring, but was instead back-and-forth ''incremental revision'' between myself and another editor, ], in which Marek was not participating. My most recent edits left VR's writing largely untouched. The earlier reverts complained of also removed conjectural interpretations of weak sourcing that amounted to accusations of racism or xenophobia against living people and thus they're ''exempt'' from edit-warring accusations. This was all being done in good faith after some discussion with Vice Regent on the talk page. Furthermore, after the 3RR warning, —a day and a half later, after making progress with Vice Regent, I got no suggestions from Marek but this ANI complaint instead. | |||
| ==Summary== | |||
| *The sanction is punitive and unnecessary. The ANI complaint interrupted constructive editorial back-and-forth between myself and ] which had emerged after unhelpful straight-reverting by Marek and another user after my initial rewrite. Marek declined to suggest how the text could be changed and his only talk page comment primarily detailed his suspicions about my allegedly devious purposes and actions. The other user Vice Regent by contrast discussed all the issues (though we disagree on some) and accomodated my concerns in his own revisions, and '''thus my most recent edits left his writing mostly untouched'''. Most of my edits (and all of the most recent ones) were revisions, not reverts. We were making progress when the complaint was filed. | |||
| *I didn't attempt to game 3RR because I don't think 3RR applies. "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues" was a conjectural interpretation of one poorly sourced claim and one tangential mention in a single RS that cannot be easily paraphrased. Thus it was ''poorly sourced'' under the BLP policy. | |||
| *My edit at the Russia article, which I've edited before, was not stalking, but Marek himself has stalked me periodically since I threatened to bring him to ANI for harassing another user (not myself), and thus I think perhaps Marek's aggressive reverting and insistence on bringing this to ANI may be a bit of harassment itself. | |||
| *WP is a consensus driven project, but the BLP policy makes clear that removing inaccurate or misleading claims about living people is important, and that such claims must be both clearly established and very well-sourced. Moreover all these users should know that it's their ] to achieve consensus for the disputed article text, and when a user makes good-faith removals of material that is a conjectural interpretation of poorly sourced discussion about living people, that is not edit-warring, it's a prompt to ''discuss how the disputed claim can be fixed before being restored''. | |||
| ===Isn't BLP applicable? WP:REDFLAG?=== | |||
| To start, the question of whether this dispute implicates BLP. Of course it does; although it's been argued that Gatestone is an institution, not a person, the WP prose I first removed said that "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues". But it's a corporation, and corporations don't write articles, people do; the articles at Gatestone are all signed by individual people. If Gatestone is being accused of making false claims about Muslim issues, that means one or more ''people working for Gatestone'' have been accused. The idea that only the material about the organization's founder is BLP material is simply wrong. | |||
| Moreover, | |||
| (1) '''"accused" is loaded language that no source I've seen has used in talking about Gatestone'''; | |||
| (2) the source that describes some claims about no-go zones as "false" mentions Gatestone only in passing and ''does not'' say Gatestone actually ''made'' any false claims—also, the definition of "no-go zones" that the source describes is false is ''not'' the definition used by Gatestone, which in any event describes them as "''so-called'' no-go zones"; and | |||
| (3) the source that does claim Gatestone made "false" claims is published in a non-RS, written by a non-journalist, and the inaccuracies it points out are pretty trivial and have nothing to do with ''Muslims'' and instead revolve around distinctions betwene different EU-related groups and a poorly worded headline that is contradicted by what the body of the report says. | |||
| Hence the concern with "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues". It's a conjectural interpretation of weak sourcing. Yet despite the obvious problems, Marek has reinserted this language repeatedly ( ) while ignoring requests that he make edits or comments about how to make the wording less problematic. | |||
| BLP policy tells us to remove that without discussion, an exception which would be meaningless if an editor can be easily blocked for invoking it. Shouldn't the editors who have the ] of establishing that a claim belongs in an article have the burden of raising BLP-appropriateness issues at BLP/N and weak-source-appropriateness issues at RS/N? | |||
| Separately, this is also the sort of claim that is supposed to require ] clearly making the claim]] even if not in a BLP. | |||
| ===Alleged subtle "gaming" of 24 hour revert window=== | |||
| This is just seeing sheep in the clouds, kind of like when Marek saw "straight up dishonest misrepresentation" in a diff by another user that . All of my edits, except perhaps the last couple, removed contentious claims that were ]. They were "poorly sourced" not because the source was poor, but because they were a ''conjectural interpretation of a source'' that was ''contentious'' and that was ''about living people''. This is why I repeatedly stated the BLP exemption and refused to self-revert when templated for 3RR. I saw no need to "game" any 24 hour window and I didn't try. In any event admins aren't bound by 3RR when blocking for edit-warring so this supposed method of gaming seems unlikely to work. | |||
| And I think it's quite reasonable to expect based on ] that it's the job of the editors ''wishing to add axe-grinding paraphrase'' of weakly sourced material to go raise it at BLP/N and RS/N. Not the guy who says ''can't we just track precisely what the sources have written about the article subject?''. | |||
| ===Accusation of ]=== | |||
| First off, Marek falsely claims I've never edited the Russian Interference article before but and participated at Talk. I have edited other Trump related articles extensively, as Marek can attest because he's also active at some of them. As with many articles, I have looked at the election-interference article periodically and found nothing that seemed to need attention. | |||
| Next, harassment is an interesting accusation because back in January, after I ,a little over an hour later Marek at an article (and in his case, he had ''actually'' never edited that article ''or posted at its talk page'' before). On top of that his edit and its justification seems pretty pointless and even disruptive to me—a website making a self-published claim about different newspapers its authors have written for. How droll. Who cares? And why would an RS publish on such a topic? This precisely the kind of thing we allow article subjects to say about themselves. No need to make the edit and it seemed clearly in response to my ANI threat. | |||
| When Marek began reverting me at Gatestone, I looked to see if he had said anything about the issue at the Talk page yet (he hadn't). Looking at his edit history I saw the edit summary . Two things that always catch my eye: alleged source misrepresentation and accusations of dishonesty. Always interesting, whether or not true. I have often accused others of source misrepresentation, but the accusatory tone of Marek's edit summary suggested to me that something was amiss. | |||
| And sure enough, there no misrepresentation in the original—"allegations of unauthorized disclosure of classified information against him" made perfectly clear that allegations of unauthorized disclosure were raised against Nunes. But this was then replaced with "he came under investigation for ethics violation the House Ethics Committee announced", which makes it sound like Nunes is ''guilty'' and flies in the face of the Wiki convention of describing allegations as allegations (the introductory paragraph of the refers to them as "ethics charges" and later uses language about "the ''suggestion'' that he violated ethics laws", but by contrast the phrasing "investigating ethics violations" makes it sound like the violations were known to be committed, and that the investigation is into other questions such as ''who knew what and when''—a common development in these matters. In any event, in response to the marginal chance that someone could somehow misconstrue the language, I rewrote it as: | |||
| </blockquote>"On April 6, 2017, Nunes temporarily recused himself from the Russia investigation after the House Ethics Committee announced that it would investigate the allegations that he had made unauthorized disclosure of classified information."</blockquote> | |||
| Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it addresses Marek's concerns while fulfilling the important goal of avoiding phrasing that implies guilt. | |||
| The policy on ] says: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." None of that is present here. The connection to the Gatestone dispute is a pure coincidence of when I happened to be looking at VM's edit history, and the very recent edit summary that happened to jump out when I did. | |||
| ===The content dispute itself=== | |||
| Just to note, there wasn't much pure reverting by me; most edits had successive changes. The pure reverting was mainly by Marek and another user, neither of whom said boo on talk except one comment by Marek on April 8 accusing me of various trickery. By contrast when Vice Regent began editing on April 8 it was after some discussion between the two of us, and . My subsequent edits . Marek's blunt revert-without-discussion and policiing of 3RR have not helped move the dispute along. | |||
| The dispute revolves around one solid RS that has only brief and tangential discussion of Gatestone, and one weak non-RS that makes claims that are directly about Gatestone, but they're fairly trivial and the piece contradicts itself, raising further doubts about the source. Neither of them is a good basis for the claim that "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues". | |||
| ====Bloomberg article==== | |||
| First, the better source, a . I haven't noticed any problems from a sourcing standpoint—but it's only a passing mention of Gatestone with an extremely tenuous link. Gatestone isn't mentioned ''until the 10th paragraph of the article'' (out of 13 paragraphs total) where it says: | |||
| <blockquote> Meanwhile, though, the idea of European no-go zones took root. After riots broke out in some French suburbs in 2012, analyst Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute, a New York-based think tank, wrote that France was trying to "reclaim no-go zones," including the areas that had been listed in Pipes's 2006 report. Kern defined them as "Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off-limits to non-Muslims." In other reports, Kern has written that Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden also have no-go zones.</blockquote> | |||
| Notice the Bloomberg article doesn't say that Gatestone made the claims that are said to be false—''that entire neighborhoods of Paris or London are "off-limits to law enforcement and governed by Islamic sharia law"''. The Gatestone report doesn't mention Sharia law, it defines the zones as "Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims", which is different than what Bloomberg disputed. '''''Most importantly, the Gatestone report refers to the areas as <big>"''so-called'' 'no-go' zones"</big>, and every single use of the term in the Gatestone report is bracketed with "scare quotes".''' | |||
| Notice also, the only thing the Bloomberg article explicitly ''says'' about the Gatestone report is that it referred to some of the same areas that Pipes referred to in his 2006 report. In this report, he had described a French government report on "sensitive urban zones", translating the term as "no-go zones". He later said to Bloomberg there were no places in Europe where authorities were unable to enforce the rule of law, but Bloomberg seems to oversimplify what he has said, which is that the issue is more complex, that there are gradations of danger, that the reality is different for police and other government employees than it is for tourists and other civilians, that he writes the French areas he originally discussed are not "full-fledged" no-go zones, and writes, "However one sums up this complex situation – maybe partial-no-go zones? – they represent a great danger." | |||
| So in brief it's clear that Bloomberg is citing him for the claim that there are no areas off-limits to police, which is the claim that Bloomberg calls "demonstrably untrue". But again, Gatestone never made that claim, Bloomberg doesn't say Gatestone made that claim, Bloomberg doesn't say Gatestone made false claims. Bloomberg only notes Gatestone published a report referring to some of the same areas. Bloomberg specifically notes Gatestone uses a different definition of the term "no-go zones". Again, in the actual Gatestone report, it refers to them as "''so-called'' no-go zones" and uses "scare quotes" every single time it uses the term. It's not endorsing the use of the term, it's not making any claims that are false, and it's not being ''accused'' of anything. | |||
| Hence "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues", and ominous and sinister-sounding but entirely uninformative claim, was quite problematic as far as the Bloomberg source goes. | |||
| ====Snopes blog post==== | |||
| The is trickier, though it depends on what it's being used for. Snopes is a novelty website that has made a name for itself debunking urban legends and internet rumours. Lately it has been attempting to rebrand itself as a more general purpose fact checker, but it is, as noted at RSN, still a mom-and-pop operation. It's not a serious entity with serious practices or a serious reputation. | |||
| The author is a former who has a communications degree from a state college and a one-year "journalism" degree from ''community college''—a course described as ''preparation'' for a four-year degree. Respectfully, this guy is not a journalist. | |||
| What the Snopes post does show, successfully and uncontroversially, is that the Gatestone report got a couple details wrong when discussing an actual incident in which the British government rejected a set of policy recommendations. Snopes seems to vaguely imply, but doesn't actually say, that the Gatestone report called the recommendations mandates. In fact, the report ''doesn't'' call them mandates, Snopes's own screenshot shows that the report refers to them as recommendations, not mandates, and the report goes on to say the recommendations were already rejected by the British government. | |||
| So far, all we've got is an inaccurate headline. It also notes that the original report failed to note that the recommendations were issued by a human rights group, not the EU. Ok, fine. If all we want to say is these two things then I'm not going to the mat over the weak sourcing. Trivial claims can have trivial sourcing. But "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues" ?? '''No way'''—that was inflammatory and misleading, and it had to be removed and BLP says don't bother discussing such removals, ''just do them''. | |||
| ==Conclusion== | |||
| This ceased to be a real edit war when Marek stopped reinserting the loaded language about "false claims about Muslims" on April 7, and this block will not assist effective resolution of the content dispute. ] 01:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{Hidden archive bottom}} | |||
| You have '''got''' to be kidding. That's over 2,500 words. You were blocked for a violation of 3RR. Did you violate ]? If so, the block is legitimate. If not, show that you did not. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect a volunteer admin to read more than 2,500 words to determine this. --] (]) 00:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Note that I specifically suggest you immediately strike the above unblock request, and then work on something more sensible. I'd suggest a limit of 50 words. Maybe 100 at the outside. You are welcome to ignore my advice. It is just advice, after all. But I came here to review your unblock request and just gave up. --] (]) 00:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I did not violate 3RR, as is addressed in the very first section. | |||
| :And since this block was issued without giving me any opportunity to respond, and will be part of my permanent "record" and used to justify further blocks, including the comments from the admin essentially saying I engaged in stalking, which would henceforth be cited as ''a history of stalking'', it seems I have no choice but to object in detail. | |||
| :I don't see how I can make a 50- or 100-word unblock request, and the summary makes it pretty clear that the 3RR exemption is established in the very first section. I've bolded parts of the summary that are most relevant. Other than that I am going to have to rely on the good will of admins such that, if anyone doesn't want to read the whole thing, they'll just ignore it rather than decline, or just grant the request and ignore sections deemed extraneous. ] 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *:I declined your request and then saw your note above and empathize with your concerns about the long term impact on your record. Regardless, you should consider focusing only on the relevant issues: the block for 3RR and the wikistalking allegation and nothing else in your request. --] <small>(])</small> 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == 2nd (shortened) request == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed| reason=I request an unblock because the reverts complained of were obviously valid BLP reverts—a conjectural paraphrase of one poorly sourced claim that makes trivial claims, and one RS claim that is only tangentially related to the article subject (doesn't mention Gatestone till the 10th paragraph out of 13) and which is not easily paraphrased. Marek insists on the axe-grinding paraphrase that "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues" which used loaded language not found in any source, and which ignores the fact that only the non-RS says Gatestone said anything "false", and they were really just trivial inaccuracies having nothing actually to do with Muslims. (Others have restored that language, but Marek is really the only editor who has repeatedly re-inserted it, ( ) while ignoring requests that he make edits or comments about how to make the wording less problematic.) My edits have mostly contained incremental changes, not simply reverts. My approach has been to add more detail about the exactl source claims so a misleading summary isn't needed. Others have backed away from the problematic language and thus ] largely unchanged] (and I did not touch his lead sentence at all because it removed the "false claims about Muslims" language.) The latest edits were back-and-forth revision between me and Vice Regent, admittedly on issues we disagree on, but not a revert war. | |||
| The Wikistalking claims are simply false. and participated at Talk article before and I watch it regularly. I made a completely valid edit after noticing that Marek had accused another editor of "straight up dishonest misrepresentation". The other editor ''hadn't'' done that, and my edit simply attempted to fix a ''very'' marginal grammatical concern that Marek noted that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of confusing anyone. It was just a coincidence that I happened to be looking at Marek's history to see if he had said ''anything'' yet at Gatestone talk. Moreover ''there was nothing wrong with my edit at that article, no reason whatsoever to object, and in fact Marek didn't object.''—so it is hard to understand his complaint that this was ''"particularly nasty"''. Note the policy on harassment says "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." That's not the issue here at all. | |||
| Finally, Marek has done similar things to me periodically since I . In that case, Marek , his edit was hardly even justifiable—removing a trivial self-published claim the article subject made about itself—and he had ''never'' edited or discussed anything at that article before. So I wonder if his eagerness to file an ANI case instead of discussing how we could reach compromise language is related to that old grudge. ] 01:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)|decline=Procedural decline: the block has expired. ] (]) 21:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| == war == | |||
| warning - you know the details - ] (]) 18:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :BLP violations are supposed to be removed without comment, you should review policy before reverting ] 18:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gatestone_Institute&action=history - nothing ] violating there - more - i don't like it ] (]) 19:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misrepresenting a source is misrepresenting a source. Putting words in a source's mouth is misrepresentation. A contentious accusation at a BLP that is based on source misrepresentation is instantly removable. ] 19:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Ok, I hear you - if you want to claim ] exemption that is is up to you, personally I disagree with you. ] (]) 19:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :You're free, personally, to think that the sky is green. ] 19:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I am reporting you for violating ].''']''' <sub>]</sub> 19:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Surprise. ] 19:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes - there is no ] excuse for that edit war. ] is not even a biography of a living person. ] (]) 19:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for demonstrating ignorance of the subject even as you perform drive-by blind reverts and pile on to a baseless admin complaint. ] 19:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 19:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for ] and violating the ], as you did at ]. 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 ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ''']''' ~ (]) 21:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| As an addendum, this does '''not''' fall under the BLP exception to the 3RR rule, considering the nature of the claim + the source that backs it up. ''']''' ~ (]) 21:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Lord Roem}} | |||
| ] reads: | |||
| <blockquote>'''Do ''not'' leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of ]<ref name="Wales_2006-05_Wikimedia_wikien-l">]. , WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."</ref> or existing groups''', and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the ].</blockquote> | |||
| The ], meanwhile, refers primarily to size of group and risk of reputational harm. Gatestone is a small group of named authors and analysts, and corporations don't write articles. People do. | |||
| "Poorly sourced" material includes prose that is based on conjectural interpretation of source material. | |||
| Moreover, there is no source or group of sources which supports the claim that "Gatestone has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles". | |||
| An article was published containing a somewhat minor error in the headline which was repeated in the body. This single article was later given minor corrections, then later (apparently) removed. This is just editorial housekeeping, as another editor . Moreover it's ''one'' article said to contain inaccuracy, yet the Wiki lead prose says "criticized for publishing inaccurate articles". And on top of that it's just some non-RS blog post by a non-journalist, with credentials about as weak as they come, and there he is making trivial criticisms of the trivial error of ''one article''. (The Snopes article makes one glaring error itself.) | |||
| Blowing this up into "has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles" is '''gross distortion of source material''', and those edit-warring it back into the article know ''both'' that it is against consensus ''and'' that there is a mediator on the scene offering to help, but they're essentially ignoring (and reverting) him. | |||
| And that's to say nothing of the earlier incarnations of this axe-grinding claim, made by the same users both edit-warring this known-to-be-hotly-disputed material back into the article ''and'' reporting me for a block: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| suggests merely that Gatestone uses ''aggressive spin'' to ''promote a particular narrative''. For whatever reasons, it is insisted to instead use misleading summary of weak and tangential sourcing to make murky claims that sound worse than anything any actual source has said. Even prose that uses the same sourcing, but eliminates misleading and axe-grinding language, has been repeatedly reverted without discussion without regard to the burden of the proponent. This was a pure attempt at a compromise by myself and others despite obvious WEIGHT concerns, and it was thrown back in our face with this edit-warring nonsense. | |||
| In fact this is the only time in a long wiki-career of editing contentious articles I can recall a proponent of a criticism ''repeatedly refusing to allow a lengthier paraphrase or even a direct quotation of the material''—when that was needed to present the material without misleading readers—and it's clear that the only reason for that is because the source material itself doesn't sound as bad as the ridiculous WP summary language that's being concocted. | |||
| That's the very essence of SYNTH, using semantic sleight of hand to say things that deviate from sourcing. ] 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :FCAYS, you're free to make a request for unblock, but you plainly violated ] and aren't showing any indication you'll act differently in the future. If there's a dispute about sourcing/synthesis, that should be resolved through the dispute resolution process. | |||
| :You've been blocked for this type of conduct in the past; please do not repeat it going forward. ''']''' ~ (]) 23:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Lord Roem}} the violation isn't "clear" unless the exemption doesn't apply. | |||
| ::I also wonder why you didn't sanction the other three for edit-warring regarding material they know lacks consensus, which they've got the WP:BURDEN to achieve in the first place, and at the same time they're ignoring attempts by an outside mediator to facilitate constructive discussion. This could have all been a stable process of discussion, and besides prior attempts by myself and others to rescue this awful sourcing via ''honest'' paraphrasing (all rejected with no discussion but plenty of scornful remarks), now a founding member of medcom is on the scene trying to help us hash out this dispute, but Mr. VR isn't playing along and has chosen instead to continue a one-man revert campaign of adding increasingly horrible material that he knows lacks consensus among the others editing that article, and, not finding the necessary sourcing, he's taken to concocting SYNTH to produce the desired result, and putting that SYNTH as fact in WP voice. Policies like BURDEN and the BLP exemption are supposed to keep every POV push from escalating into dispute resolution, or at least designate whose job it is to go to noticeboards seeking input, but ok, clearly I'm the problem here. ] 00:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just want to point out that what Factchecker said above regarding me is not true. | |||
| :::"they're ignoring attempts by an outside mediator to facilitate constructive discussion". Assuming Factchecker is referring to Ed Poor, that's not true. See sections ], ] and ]. In those sections Ed makes a comment and either Snooganssnoogans or I engage in that discussion. Similarly, FCAYS is wrong in saying "Mr. VR isn't playing along" - again, I've been discussing actively on the talk page. | |||
| :::"via ''honest'' paraphrasing (all rejected with no discussion but plenty of scornful remarks)". Again, false. Jason presented a paraphrasing that FCAYS liked. I responded to and then made a .''']''' <sub>]</sub> 02:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course I was talking about Ed Poor and of course you're not playing along. After merely ''acknowledging his presence'' you then procceded to edit war with ''zero attempt'' to hash out this dispute on the talk page. | |||
| ::::Snoogans meanwhile simply engaged in a dumb and pointless rant against Ed on unrelated issues (issuing condescending sourcing demands for utterly trivial and uncontroversial tidbits) and, like you, has made no effort to work towards consensus, but instead, like you, has simply gone on edit warring. He, like you, is one of the editors who has insisted on frankly idiotic and dishonest paraphrasing of this source material, as illustrated by the ridiculous examples of your "editing" posted above. | |||
| ::::And yes, of course, countless attempts at ''honest paraphrasing'' were reverted by you and others who insisted on ''dishonest'' paraphrasing intended to exaggerate one flimsy source and one garbage source, to make the article subject sound bad. | |||
| ::::'''Now please don't ever post on my Talk page again because you are nothing but a troll abusing admin process to try to push a dumb POV into an article.''' ] 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == May 2017 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ]. Note that multiple accounts are ], but '''not for '']'' reasons''', and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans ]. 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 ~~~~''}}. ], ], ] 05:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-sockblock --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Factchecker atyourservice. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=813406758 --> | |||