| Revision as of 19:15, 30 November 2016 view sourceBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,326 editsm →November, 2016: proofreading← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:27, 30 November 2016 view source Hidden Tempo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,255 edits →November, 2016Next edit → | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| ::::::::::You would like amplification with some diffs? Yes, of course. You have stayed clear of 'voicing a single one of your political views', as you have said. But in view of the transparent ''practical'' implications of your editing, that avoidance doesn't come across as neutrality but rather as demureness. Considering for instance and — a couple of examples out of dozens — it's simply counter-factual to claim you are politically neutral, and to contrast your own blameless attempts to 'restore neutrality' with the way your opponents have a COI in favor of Clinton and against Trump. The second linked post there is extremely weaselly, by the way: "I honestly don't care about ] problems, here. But, as I think most will readily admit, the fact that two enormous campaign issues are totally erased from this article is curious, to say the least", yet another ] (see above), is an underhanded way of calling your opponents paid shills. Do you think you can't be sanctioned for hints? (Mind you, I also see many very frank attacks on the good faith of your opponents, singly and as a group, some of which I have already provided diffs for higher up on this page.) Does it ever happen that you "restore neutrality" by adding something, anything, that reflects well on Hillary Clinton or badly on Trump, or by removing the vice versa? I haven't seen it, but perhaps you can find a diff for where it happened. I've seen you several times referring to ''Washington Post'' and ''New York Times'' as "devout left-wing sources", as , clearly with the intent to imply that they shouldn't be used. CBS isn't good enough, nor CNN because it's "owned by Time Warner, Hillary's 7th largest campaign donor". , you call ''New York Times'' "a far-left wing newspaper". As for Misplaced Pages itself, it "is headquartered in San Francisco, a far-left Mecca, so it's unsurprising that liberal activist editors are given free reign to leave their fingerprints all over political articles". You're specifically and explicitly not interested in Misplaced Pages's principles regarding reliable sources, see this remarkable statement: "Whether or not the San Francisco-based Misplaced Pages organization regards a liberal newspaper as 'reputable' is of no consequence to me.. You are a ] editor (please click on the link) and you openly flout the rules of this website. You're headed for a topic ban if you don't radically change your approach. ] | ] 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC). | ::::::::::You would like amplification with some diffs? Yes, of course. You have stayed clear of 'voicing a single one of your political views', as you have said. But in view of the transparent ''practical'' implications of your editing, that avoidance doesn't come across as neutrality but rather as demureness. Considering for instance and — a couple of examples out of dozens — it's simply counter-factual to claim you are politically neutral, and to contrast your own blameless attempts to 'restore neutrality' with the way your opponents have a COI in favor of Clinton and against Trump. The second linked post there is extremely weaselly, by the way: "I honestly don't care about ] problems, here. But, as I think most will readily admit, the fact that two enormous campaign issues are totally erased from this article is curious, to say the least", yet another ] (see above), is an underhanded way of calling your opponents paid shills. Do you think you can't be sanctioned for hints? (Mind you, I also see many very frank attacks on the good faith of your opponents, singly and as a group, some of which I have already provided diffs for higher up on this page.) Does it ever happen that you "restore neutrality" by adding something, anything, that reflects well on Hillary Clinton or badly on Trump, or by removing the vice versa? I haven't seen it, but perhaps you can find a diff for where it happened. I've seen you several times referring to ''Washington Post'' and ''New York Times'' as "devout left-wing sources", as , clearly with the intent to imply that they shouldn't be used. CBS isn't good enough, nor CNN because it's "owned by Time Warner, Hillary's 7th largest campaign donor". , you call ''New York Times'' "a far-left wing newspaper". As for Misplaced Pages itself, it "is headquartered in San Francisco, a far-left Mecca, so it's unsurprising that liberal activist editors are given free reign to leave their fingerprints all over political articles". You're specifically and explicitly not interested in Misplaced Pages's principles regarding reliable sources, see this remarkable statement: "Whether or not the San Francisco-based Misplaced Pages organization regards a liberal newspaper as 'reputable' is of no consequence to me.. You are a ] editor (please click on the link) and you openly flout the rules of this website. You're headed for a topic ban if you don't radically change your approach. ] | ] 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC). | ||
| {{outdent}} Okay, thank you for providing diffs. Let's take a look. In , you think it's "voicing a political view" to refer to Salon as a progressive left-wing source. And yet, on ], it is appropriately described as a "progressive/liberal website." So that accusation doesn't hold up. of a half-baked attempt to paint Trump as a liar was a POV, DUE, and length issue, and is also not a political view. So no, it's not "counter-factual" to declare my neutrality - it's simply a conflict with your own personal opinions. You are entitled to refer to my words as weaselly, but don't forget that I've raised the issue of ] issues several times very bluntly and explicitly. As a side note, stating that open supporters of Hillary are editing the page in order to make Hillary seem "cleaner" isn't that big of a stretch, is it? In contrast, I have never voiced my support of any former candidate. Do I ever make edits that make Hillary look better and Trump look worse? Admittedly, no. But guess what? I don't have to. There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that. There is literally no potential NPOV edits that could be made on Hillary's bio or campaign page to make her look better, and vice versa for Donald Trump's. The President-elect's page has multiple issues, and has more than earned its neutrality and length templates. Every possible event, statement, and left-wing blog's opinion (yes, some blogs are left-wing, and no that's not a political view) is represented on his page. So no, I have not added any more to that page to make the man look even worse. Again, my view of NYT and WaPo as left-wing sources (due to their long-standing history of endorsing/supporting Democrats, which I outlined on the diff you linked) isn't a political view. It's an opinion backed by hard evidence and raw data. Similarly, stating that Breitbart is a conservative or "right-wing" website is also not a political view. An example of a political view would be: "Partial-birth abortions should be legal." or "Illegal immigration is good for our economy." Same with my suspicion that the reason the political pages on this project almost exclusively lean to the left is due to the strong tendency of San Francisco/Silicon Valley headquartered companies to be heavily leftist organizations. That's not a political view. I've been accused of tendentious editing before, and while those users are all entitled to hold that belief, it just doesn't match the character of my actual edits.<br></br><br></br> | |||
| In regard to your threat of a topic ban, please observe where I attempted to collaborate and work with other editors to include the ] in the ]. Instead of offering insights on how to improve the proposal, or any constructive feedback at all, I was met with dismissals by using a and of "POV" with no suggestions to improve the text. I don't see why I would be the one to "radically change my approach" instead of the users offering nothing to improve the article. Perhaps it's just the difficulty of conveying nuance and tone through text that leads to confusion about the message. I could be misinterpreting these comments as disrespect and likewise my comments could be misinterpreted as asserting political views. Rest assured, the last thing I want is for my efforts to improve these pages as "POV bias"! I definitely have encountered vehement resistance to many of my proposals (usually from the same four users), but hopefully most will see that I'm merely trying to achieve neutrality, which I think Mr. Wales would be on board with. Sorry for the wall of text...I wanted to be as clear and thorough as possible in addressing your claims, as well as those of others. ] (]) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:27, 30 November 2016
Welcome!
|
"Reported"?
Hello, Hidden Tempo. At the Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 page, you told Volunteer Marek, "I warned you twice, buddy. You couldn't control yourself, though. You had to put in your two cents and once again adopt your "holier than thou" attitude and attempt to fabricate political views that were never given. Reported for repeated incidents of harassment, after being instructed multiple times to keep your garbage away from me. You would be wise not to reply, but I'm not going to hold my breath." This appears to be a claim that you have already reported VM at one of the report pages. However, I cannot find any such report. Did I miss it, or was this just bluster? I suspect that telling someone you have reported them, if in fact you have not, could be considered a form of harassment or personal attack. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Warning
I too noticed the post Melanie N mentions above, along with other attacks on Volunteer Marek, as here: "You're what is known as an "activist editor," who chooses to push the DNC agenda and do Hillary's dirty work, rather that contribute to the project in a constructive manner. For that reason, along with your complete inability to carry on a civil discussion, I am warning you a second time to stop pursuing me to different articles in order to attempt to inflict your viewpoints upon me. Either comply, or we could just go ahead and escalate this and take care of it that way." And then in a second edit, you claim untruthfully to have in fact escalated it, into reporting him for harassment (?) after being instructed multiple times to keep your garbage away from me." Volunteer Marek is an experienced editor that you're unlikely to scare off by banging an empty drum, as a newbie might have been, but it's nevertheless totally unacceptable — not just the untruth, but the tone of that post, with calling your opponent "buddy" and "instructing" him to "keep away from you" — as if Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 were your personal space. If you post any more personal attacks, you may be topic banned from post-1932 American politics.
I also noticed this attempt to shove off Scjessey, where you say you're "not here to argue whether or not the candidate you tried to put into power is a filthy liar, @Scjessey. This talk page is about improvement of the article and bringing it to neutrality. If you can't stay on the topic, I would highly recommend you cease editing this page." The rhetorical figure "Not here to argue whether or not the candidate you tried to put into power is a filthy liar", known as Apophasis, is merely a way of pretending not to call Clinton a filthy liar while actually doing just that. I have the impression you may think talkpages are forums for free speech ("I'm confused as to why you continue to advocate for censoring the talk pages"), but they're not, they're subject to WP:BLP just like articles and all other Misplaced Pages pages. One more BLP violation such as referring to a living person as a filthy liar, however indirectly, and you will be topic banned. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC).
- MelanieN and Bishonen, why would you assume the worst about me and give this guy a total free pass, especially after reviewing his obvious POV edits? Yes, I stated I would report the guy. The truth is...I have no idea how to do it! I read some article on arbitration but the fact is, it was far too involved and detailed. I did try and resolve the dispute several times by informing Marek to stop harassing me. He did not comply. If you review his edits directed toward me, it will soon become entirely clear why I told him to cease his interactions with me. As far as Scjessey's repeated attempts to drag me into his political debates goes, yes, I admit that could be construed as apophasis. You got me on that one. And what would you say about his defamation of Donald Trump throughout the entire election? Did he also get a threat of being topic banned, or was that something reserved just for me? You see guys, it's the obvious imbalanced nature of these political pages (and now attacks on my character) that escalates these debates. @MelanieN is free to push her POV edits and insistence to put Hillary's meaningless popular vote tally in the article, and enjoys absolutely no accusation of "pushing her political views." Everyone assumes good faith with her edits (likely because the majority of the editors supported Hillary Clinton for president). But if someone wants to put WikiLeaks and the Clinton Foundation in the article (obviously worthy of at least a subsection) in the article, well they get accused of pushing their political views and get told to "zip it." See where I'm coming from, here? Anyway, if one of you would be so kind as to provide a link to fill out the report of harassment, it would be greatly appreciated. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- (I've indented your response to keep the thread readable, hope you don't mind.) You stated you would report the guy? I suppose you hinted it, yes, but that's not the problem. The problem is where you said you had reported him.
- You can report a user at WP:ANI, where you just create a new section at the bottom of the page, give it an informative and neutral title, and tell the reported user on their page that you have done so - it's easy, not really a matter of filling out anything, you just write in humanspeak. Or, in the case of a topic under discretionary sanctions, as this is, you can report it at WP:AE for the attention of uninvolved admins. For that, it's best to use the template Arbitration enforcement appeal. Neither of those boards are for content disputes (that would be requests for mediation), but strictly for concerns about user conduct. And note that the reporter's own conduct will also come under scrutiny. If you decide to post a report, I would advise you to call it something other than "incidents of harassment", because the notion that VM has harassed you on article talkpages is unlikely to get much traction. That's just advice. Arbitration is in fact not for this kind of thing; it's the last resort for intractable disputes where nothing else has worked. Also, the arbitration committee has already placed post-1932 American politics under discretionary sanctions, see links in the alert you received about that. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC).
- P.S., on the off-chance that your question about topic ban warnings being 'reserved just for you' wasn't rhetorical, I can't tell you about topic ban warnings — they aren't logged anywhere — but here's the log of topic bans and blocks placed for American politics in 2016. The log also includes a few page-wide restrictions not relevant to any particular user, but disregarding those, you can see there has been quite a lot of sanctioning this election year. As far as I recollect, I've warned several users myself without then actually sanctioning them, but not Scjessey. You can look in their page history to see if somebody else has. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
November, 2016
As I have said bluntly at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, you need to take a break from that page if you are not going to fall in line. You have been playing nonsense games, adding screeds, and making ridiculous broadside attacks on the other editors there since you first came to the page. Your condescending insult about my being in college is particularly stupid. Please stop immediately, or we'll have to seek some intervention. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- In regard to the above: Hidden Tempo, all but one of the edits Wikidemon links to were posted before my warning, which is rather lucky for you. I agree some of your earlier ones were completely and utterly unacceptable, for instance the ones I mentioned higher up on the page, and also, say, this general attack on opponents as "a seedy underbelly of activist editors who are working around the clock ready to scrub anything that fits WP:JDLI from the pages of politicians and their related scandals." Or this claim that Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 "has obviously been heavily contaminated by editing from Hillary supporters, and possibly paid operatives from the DNC". (My italics.) My hope is that your talkpage editing has become at least a little more collegial since then, and that you've had a read of WP:AGF. But I have another point to make: in the long run, it gets pretty disruptive to criticize/attack opponents without a single diff, as you still do, for instance in some sweeping accusations against Scjessey here. You notice how both Wikidemon and I exemplify what we say with diffs, i.e. evidence? Without diffs, accusations are just handwaving, and are never going to be taken seriously. (Except possibly in the sense that they'll be resented and/or sanctioned as personal attacks.) I hope you don't think generalizing alphabet soup wikilinks to policies and guidelines are a substitute for diffs, but sometimes I get the impression you do. Do you know how to create diffs? If not, you frankly need to learn, if you're going to continue arguing on controversial pages, and complaining about other people. See Simple diff and link guide. Please don't make any further unevidenced attacks. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
- Yeah, I know how to create diffs, @Bishonen. Just so I've got this straight, it's perfectly acceptable to attack and insult other users as Scjessey, Wikidemon, MelanieN, and Volunteer Marek have done repeatedly, so long as they insert a link/diff to go with the attack? Honestly, I don't really have any desire to continue arguing for neutrality on all these talk pages. It's time-consuming and extremely frustrating. However, it's the right thing to do, as many visitors to these pages take Misplaced Pages as gospel. After comparing the lengthy and horrifically undue nature of Donald Trump's campaign page compared to Hillary Clinton's squeaky clean and bare bones campaign page, I knew there was something very wrong that had to be corrected. If efforts to have discussions regarding ways to improve the article and anything that reflects poorly on Hillary is just going to be reverted with no questions asked, then it's pointless to continue. I'll check back in a few months or so and hopefully after the inauguration everybody's cooled down and the articles will have some semblance of neutrality. But I really hope that you don't think that just because I didn't run crying to the admins doesn't mean that these violations I brought up never occurred. Some of the attacks on my edits and my own personal character have been truly heinous, but I've always tried to handle it myself. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- (And you know how to indent threaded discourse? Fixed again.) Of course you realize discussions are a lot more time-consuming for those who take the trouble to provide evidence of what they say. You save time by not doing it (but squander your credibility). Are you really trying to morph my request for giving diffs into a request for you to "run crying to the admins"? Which incidentally I haven't seen anybody else do wrt you, either, but I could presumably have missed something. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC).
- Yes, I also know how to indent. Sorry I missed a colon, there. Not sure what the sarcasm was in aid of, though. And yeah, the editors who openly supported Hillary during the election (and openly broadcast their views on the talk pages) already said I "have no credibility" because I regard the most liberal newspaper in the country (The New York Times) as a liberal newspaper. I'm not going to sweat that.
- Yes, I also know how to indent. Sorry I missed a colon, there. Not sure what the sarcasm was in aid of, though. And yeah, the editors who openly supported Hillary during the election (and openly broadcast their views on the talk pages) already said I "have no credibility" because I regard the most liberal newspaper in the country (The New York Times) as a liberal newspaper. I'm not going to sweat that.
- (And you know how to indent threaded discourse? Fixed again.) Of course you realize discussions are a lot more time-consuming for those who take the trouble to provide evidence of what they say. You save time by not doing it (but squander your credibility). Are you really trying to morph my request for giving diffs into a request for you to "run crying to the admins"? Which incidentally I haven't seen anybody else do wrt you, either, but I could presumably have missed something. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC).
- Yeah, I know how to create diffs, @Bishonen. Just so I've got this straight, it's perfectly acceptable to attack and insult other users as Scjessey, Wikidemon, MelanieN, and Volunteer Marek have done repeatedly, so long as they insert a link/diff to go with the attack? Honestly, I don't really have any desire to continue arguing for neutrality on all these talk pages. It's time-consuming and extremely frustrating. However, it's the right thing to do, as many visitors to these pages take Misplaced Pages as gospel. After comparing the lengthy and horrifically undue nature of Donald Trump's campaign page compared to Hillary Clinton's squeaky clean and bare bones campaign page, I knew there was something very wrong that had to be corrected. If efforts to have discussions regarding ways to improve the article and anything that reflects poorly on Hillary is just going to be reverted with no questions asked, then it's pointless to continue. I'll check back in a few months or so and hopefully after the inauguration everybody's cooled down and the articles will have some semblance of neutrality. But I really hope that you don't think that just because I didn't run crying to the admins doesn't mean that these violations I brought up never occurred. Some of the attacks on my edits and my own personal character have been truly heinous, but I've always tried to handle it myself. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- You did miss something. There are at least two users who have begged admins to ban me as punishment for discussing things that they deem to reflect poorly on Hillary or the Democratic party (the Donna Brazile/Hillary advance debate questions scandal, the Clinton Foundation pay for play scandal, the secret 65-media member dinner hosted by John Podesta, the WikiLeaks scandal, etc.). I am currently dealing with another user who is stalking me from article to article, reverting everything I touch, instilling a highly sanitized, pro-Hillary version in its place, and then spouting off a few attacks on the talk page for good measure. But of course, none of these people receive any "warnings" or big stop sign icons on their talk pages. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- And still no diffs for where people have begged admins to ban you, nor for the person stalking you from page to page to install a pro-Hillary version, and attack you? This is getting ridiculous. Accusations without evidence are merely aspersions, and it's time you stopped casting them. Both the bits I italicized are serious accusations of policy/guideline violations. Stop making those without evidence; they're unacceptable. I'm serious. My point about the colons was by contrast very minor, but I was referring to the fact that I tidied your threading last time I was here, too (that time with an extremely polite comment). Bishonen | talk 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC).
- I didn't even realize you were requesting diffs for this page, also. You want diffs in the middle of a casual conversation? I mean, if you want them, I'll provide them...but my intentions aren't to rat anybody out, rather point out the double standard that's going on here. There appears to be one set of rules for unapologetic Hillary/DNC supporters, and then another for neutral contributors. That's all I'm saying. I don't really care if people are punished for WP:CIVIL and WP:APR attacks - I'm just trying to improve the article, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's a mistake to think your own talkpage isn't part of Misplaced Pages, or that I came here for "casual conversation". It's interesting to see you cast yourself as "neutral". Nothing about your actual contributions suggests that is true. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC).
- That's quite an accusation to make...especially without any diffs. I've only made a small amount of contributions to the Hillary and Donald Trump campaign pages actually, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Those few edits I've made (including those that were reverted) were very minor edits, and contained no POV influence at all. Pretty offensive to just start mocking someone's neutrality without providing any examples or supporting evidence whatsoever. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- You would like amplification with some diffs? Yes, of course. You have stayed clear of 'voicing a single one of your political views', as you have said. But in view of the transparent practical implications of your editing, that avoidance doesn't come across as neutrality but rather as demureness. Considering for instance this addition and this removal — a couple of examples out of dozens — it's simply counter-factual to claim you are politically neutral, and to contrast your own blameless attempts to 'restore neutrality' with the way your opponents have a COI in favor of Clinton and against Trump. The second linked post there is extremely weaselly, by the way: "I honestly don't care about WP:PAID problems, here. But, as I think most will readily admit, the fact that two enormous campaign issues are totally erased from this article is curious, to say the least", yet another apophasis (see above), is an underhanded way of calling your opponents paid shills. Do you think you can't be sanctioned for hints? (Mind you, I also see many very frank attacks on the good faith of your opponents, singly and as a group, some of which I have already provided diffs for higher up on this page.) Does it ever happen that you "restore neutrality" by adding something, anything, that reflects well on Hillary Clinton or badly on Trump, or by removing the vice versa? I haven't seen it, but perhaps you can find a diff for where it happened. I've seen you several times referring to Washington Post and New York Times as "devout left-wing sources", as here, clearly with the intent to imply that they shouldn't be used. CBS isn't good enough, nor CNN because it's "owned by Time Warner, Hillary's 7th largest campaign donor". Here, you call New York Times "a far-left wing newspaper". As for Misplaced Pages itself, it "is headquartered in San Francisco, a far-left Mecca, so it's unsurprising that liberal activist editors are given free reign to leave their fingerprints all over political articles". You're specifically and explicitly not interested in Misplaced Pages's principles regarding reliable sources, see this remarkable statement: "Whether or not the San Francisco-based Misplaced Pages organization regards a liberal newspaper as 'reputable' is of no consequence to me.. You are a tendentious editor (please click on the link) and you openly flout the rules of this website. You're headed for a topic ban if you don't radically change your approach. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC).
Okay, thank you for providing diffs. Let's take a look. In the Post-truth article link, you think it's "voicing a political view" to refer to Salon as a progressive left-wing source. And yet, on Salon's own Misplaced Pages page, it is appropriately described as a "progressive/liberal website." So that accusation doesn't hold up. The reversion of a half-baked attempt to paint Trump as a liar was a POV, DUE, and length issue, and is also not a political view. So no, it's not "counter-factual" to declare my neutrality - it's simply a conflict with your own personal opinions. You are entitled to refer to my words as weaselly, but don't forget that I've raised the issue of WP:PAID issues several times very bluntly and explicitly. As a side note, stating that open supporters of Hillary are editing the page in order to make Hillary seem "cleaner" isn't that big of a stretch, is it? In contrast, I have never voiced my support of any former candidate. Do I ever make edits that make Hillary look better and Trump look worse? Admittedly, no. But guess what? I don't have to. There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that. There is literally no potential NPOV edits that could be made on Hillary's bio or campaign page to make her look better, and vice versa for Donald Trump's. The President-elect's page has multiple issues, and has more than earned its neutrality and length templates. Every possible event, statement, and left-wing blog's opinion (yes, some blogs are left-wing, and no that's not a political view) is represented on his page. So no, I have not added any more to that page to make the man look even worse. Again, my view of NYT and WaPo as left-wing sources (due to their long-standing history of endorsing/supporting Democrats, which I outlined on the diff you linked) isn't a political view. It's an opinion backed by hard evidence and raw data. Similarly, stating that Breitbart is a conservative or "right-wing" website is also not a political view. An example of a political view would be: "Partial-birth abortions should be legal." or "Illegal immigration is good for our economy." Same with my suspicion that the reason the political pages on this project almost exclusively lean to the left is due to the strong tendency of San Francisco/Silicon Valley headquartered companies to be heavily leftist organizations. That's not a political view. I've been accused of tendentious editing before, and while those users are all entitled to hold that belief, it just doesn't match the character of my actual edits.
In regard to your threat of a topic ban, please observe this edit where I attempted to collaborate and work with other editors to include the Clinton Foundation allegations in the 2016 Hillary campaign article. Instead of offering insights on how to improve the proposal, or any constructive feedback at all, I was met with dismissals by using a quote from the interim DNC chair and bizarre and unfounded accusations of "POV" with no suggestions to improve the text. I don't see why I would be the one to "radically change my approach" instead of the users offering nothing to improve the article. Perhaps it's just the difficulty of conveying nuance and tone through text that leads to confusion about the message. I could be misinterpreting these comments as disrespect and likewise my comments could be misinterpreted as asserting political views. Rest assured, the last thing I want is for my efforts to improve these pages as "POV bias"! I definitely have encountered vehement resistance to many of my proposals (usually from the same four users), but hopefully most will see that I'm merely trying to achieve neutrality, which I think Mr. Wales would be on board with. Sorry for the wall of text...I wanted to be as clear and thorough as possible in addressing your claims, as well as those of others. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)