Misplaced Pages

User talk:Steeletrap: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:30, 11 March 2015 editSteeletrap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,937 edits →Two questions for User:Mike V← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:16, 19 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(211 intermediate revisions by 69 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
|} |}


== ] ==
== Arbitration enforcement block ==


<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] decision,&nbsp;and for breaches of your ] per ], you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''three weeks'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block.&nbsp;If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a ]: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->


The sexual assaults were as you point out, assaults. The dressing room visits are sexual harassment since trump owned the pageant at the time. Please don't confuse the two. He did both of them so please stop removing sexual harassment references from the article. Trump is guilty of doing both. ] (]) 17:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
== Edit warring and reverting to fundamentally noncompliant material in Griffin ==


== ]: Voting now open! ==
I have advised {{u|Callanecc}} of your reverts. Perhaps if you will undue your last edit, it may work in your best interests. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Steeletrap. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
== Signing ==


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.
] Hello and ]. When you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to ]. There are two ways to do this. Either:
# Add four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
# With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (] or ]) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tilde --> ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 02:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/45&oldid=750788488 -->


== March 2017 ==
== Link to AE you are involved in ==
] Please do not add or change content, as you ], without citing a ] using an ] that clearly supports the material. The ] is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at ] and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 --> ] (]) 17:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
: I searched for the phrase "very often" on the Milo Yiannopolous talk page, and the occurences I could find don't back up what you say --] (]) 01:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


--
]
<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:The case has been with no action taken. – ] (]) 22:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


You need to provide sources for your additions. , without giving a source for this, without addressing --] (]) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
== Your comeback ==


== 1RR on ] ==
Quite a comeback! If I count correctly you've done 16 article edits, 7 talk page edits, and 14 drama page (SPI & AE) edits. Not that I think the drama page issues have merit, but do you get the feeling that some people don't like you? If you're on WP for the drama you must be {{smiley}} as a clam at high tide.
BTW, the Holocaust denial edit you "fixed" was not actually vandalism. The {{tl|AS}} template is a redirect to the actual Anti-Semitism template. The day before (8 Feb) another editor had modified the AS template into the image you saw. The template has been fixed. (I could not figure out how the Ace had been in the lede for so long because the article edits are reviewed.)
So, welcome back and please enjoy yourself. – ] (]) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:Indeed. Sad to say that uppity women such as Steeletrap have an extra row to hoe on WP but it gets better. ]] 01:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


You have violated 1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos (Edits: ] ] ].) Please self-revert. ] (]) 18:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
== How the academic job market works ==
:I've reverted your edit myself. Please be more careful in the future. ] (]) 18:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


== 1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos (again) ==
You have some strong, and in my experience, incorrect, views on how the academic job market works. It appears from what you write on the Elizabeth Warren talk page, that you think she committed fraud (listing herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory) in hopes of being recruited for a position. As someone who has been on both sides of a recruiting committee, let me explain why that is implausible.


You have '''again''' violated 1RR on ] (Edits: ], ]) If the 1RR restrictions are not clear to you they're described here: ]. Self revert or I will submit a complaint against you to Arbitration Enforcement. ] (]) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
* Firstly, search committees don't recruit for someone of her position (full tenured professor) by thumbing through the voluminous directories and writing to people listed there. Rather, you look at the academic literature and see who has published in fields that you are interested in recruiting in. Those directories are not used for recruitment.
* Second, schools get a lot more flak for not having enough women, rather than not having enough minorities. Warren, by being female, has already gotten that (minor) bump from schools wanting a more diverse faculty. Being a 'minority' woman would not make much of a difference.
* Third, the hiring process is long and comprehensive. It's inconceivable to think that a school that would want to hire a minority, would base that hiring only on a (self-reported) directory entry. There will be requests for documentation. Anyone who cares will take the trouble to find out whether she is a member of a tribe (no).


== March 2017 ==
Reports from people who were involved in her hiring, and from other law school academics, are that her hereditary background played no role in her hiring. What likely happened is that she got a form to fill out when she joined a school.
(Believe me, you get a lot of forms to fill out when you take a new job.) There was a question like, "What is your racial or ethnic heritage? Choose all that apply." Not thinking about it, and being too romantically inclined about her 'native heritage', she ticked the boxes next to White and Native American. ] (]) 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
: Um, no, ]. Of course being a racial minority is a positive if you're looking to be hired as a law professor. Affirmative action exists, and Native Americans are a group that receive it. If you're involved even tangentially in academia--as I am--I don't know why you need need me to tell you this. Charles Fried, who hired Warren, specifically said in the 1990s that HLS was looking for minority candidates, and practiced affirmative action in hiring.
: Clearly, you have to be spectacularly smart to get hired to teach at HLS. Warren's publications show that she is quite intelligent. But being a racial minority is a bonus. (And an amply justified one, in my view, given ongoing discrimination and the benefits of diversity.)
: It's possible that her alleged heritage--though I don't find the statements of Warren pal Charles fried convincing in this regard--made no difference. But that's not the point. Suppose candidate x falsely claims that he is Hispanic on his law school application, and is admitted to Harvard Law. Even if he would've been admitted in any case, the lie still amounts to fraud.
: In any case, none of your (erroneous) speculations bear on whether we should add well-sourced material to the article. We should do so. ] (]) 03:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
: Your speculation as to Warren's motive for (erroneously) identifying herself as Native American is interesting. But your theory does not explain why she stopped checking the box to list herself as a minority professor after receiving tenure. Nor does it explain why she randomly started checking the box while seeking employment in legal academia, despite having checked (only) "white" when applying to law school and college. ] (]) 03:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''
:: She was tenured in <s>1987</s> 1981, she became a full professor in 1983. She was listed as a minority in the directories for a decade after. You have rather strong unshakable views. I request that you restrict yourself to only editing according to reliable sources. ] (]) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::: ]- Per the , "Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School." Care to apologize for disparaging my motive based on a misunderstanding on your part?
:::: Care to read her CV and admit you are wrong? ] (]) 04:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: Dude, your bias is so strong that you have actually convinced yourself that you are in the right, when all the facts are against you. The C.V. says she became a tenured prof at Harvard in 1995. The WaPO link reflects this. Her tenured appointment at Harvard also coincided with her decision to stop identifying as Native American. You can draw your own conclusion from this; I've drawn mine. But we shouldn't hide the timing of her "self-identification"--i.e. when she started and stopped identifying as Native American on AALS documents--from our readers.
::::: The irony is that I am a progressive and a proponent of affirmative action. I think what Warren did was disgraceful because I am a supporter of affirmative action. I can understand someone who doesn't take AA seriously glibly dismissing Warren's preposterous claim to be a racial minority. But I won't. Nor will Hillary, if Warren runs for POTUS. ] (]) 04:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


'''Please carefully read this information:'''
:::::: You do know that when one becomes an associate professor, one receives 'tenure' right? ] (]) 04:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Warren's CV: "Harvard Law School. 1995-present: Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law; 2001-02, Radcliffe Fellow; 1992-93: Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law." She was not an associate professor at Harvard before 1995. She was a visiting professor.
::::::: Quit it with the condescension. You are out of your league here. Worse, you keep making factual errors. ] (]) 04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: You're making it personal. Please stop the insults per ] ] (]) 04:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
FACTS:
* She received tenure in 1981
* She was full professor in 1983
* She was given a named-chair professorship in a top law school (Pensylvannia) in 1990
* She visited Harvard in a named-chair position in 1992.
For the interested, link to her CV.
] (]) 04:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
: You have reading comprehension issues. I was talking about tenure at Harvard. That's what the WaPo excerpt I auoted specifically referred to. Many professors wouldn't be satisfied teaching at a second tier school; or even at a 'lower ivy' like Penn. Warren wasn't. She stopped checking the box immediately after she reached the top--a tenured position at Harvard. Those are the facts. ] (]) 04:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].
:: Your words: ''"your theory does not explain why she stopped checking the box to list herself as a minority professor after receiving tenure."'' She received tenure in 1981. She received a named chair in 1990. She visited Harvard as a named-chair (far higher position than tenured) in 1992. She was recruited into a named chair position in 1995. She was given another stack of forms to fill, and didn't check the box next to Native American that time around. ] (]) 04:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Read in context, the quoted excerpt clearly refers to 'tenure at Harvard.' Part of reading comprehension is understanding the significance of context. Work on it. ] (]) 04:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: I wonder, does this level of cognitive dissonance hurt? I guess it must, hence the personal insults. Please stop. ] (]) 05:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
== "Racism" in lead on Sam Harris article ==
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->


== Edits at Richard Epstein ==
Hi Steeltrap, I appreciate the constructive edits you've made on the article, but I don't think the "racism" characterization, even attributed, has enough support in the sources. I've started a discussion on the Talk page . Please add any sources and thoughts you have on the issue there.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
: Hey. I disagree. I understand it's a loaded charge. But it's been made against Harris by a host of commentators. I do agree that the "racism" addition need sfurther discussion and a strong consensus before it is re-added to the article. ] (]) 21:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::That's not a problem. I'd like to see more sources and statements for evaluation. Talk page consensus is rarely up to the standard of ].--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


In looking at your recent edits to ], I'd like you to consider whether the content you added could be cited to some sort of reliable sources. If so, they should be added to the section on '''Writings''' rather than to the intro. Depending on how significant your added content was, it might merit a summary mention (without citations) in the intro. I'll not revert you right now, but you should try to provide sources and place your content in the correct place in the article. Thanks. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
== Griffin edits ==
: Hey JC; if you give me til tomorrow i"ll add the citations. Tied up right now. I understand if you feel compelled to revert in the short run. ] (]) 03:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
:: It seems {{u|White whirlwind}} was not going to be patient. Try again tomorrow. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
:: I see similar potential problems with some of your recent edits at ]. That law review article you referenced is a bare URL, which is not a good way to cite a source. Can I also suggest that you make better use of ]? ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


== A Friendly Word of Caution ==
You've got to back and revert the various edits made just now on Griffin! The article is under a 1RR per week restriction. I did 2 edits in 6 days and my carelessness got me a 50 minute block. Please act now. – ] (]) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
: Thanks, Srich. I don't believe I've done two reversions within 24 hours. If you can clarify, I'll be happy to revert. ] (]) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
::Your first edit was the revert of Lawrencekhoo, the second was addition of the Zionist stuff. In the discussion there is the statement by Guy that he'd seen the material before. Because these are two different revisions, they do not constitute a "consecutive edit". Be on safe side and revert. – ] (]) 01:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
::Also, this a one revert '''''<big>per week</big>''''' restriction, not 24 hours. – ] (]) 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
:: You might post a {{tl|edit protected}} request on the talk page and get consensus to add the material. But since Guy has changed his mind about using it, I don't think you will get support. – ] (]) 01:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
::: I don't think Guy changed his mind about using it. ] (]) 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


{{caution|The article ] is subject to ]. In particular ] is in effect. One or more of your recent edits may have breached this rule. Specifically you must not re-add material to an article that has been challenged by reversion without first securing talk page consensus. Your contributions to the project are deeply appreciated but please be careful when editing on articles that deal with controversial subjects. Thank you. -] (]) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)}}
== ] ==
That was quite a hostile reaction you received regarding photo selection. It can be a sensitive area to discuss but I'd be interested in seeing what other editors have to say. Your request seemed reasonable to me. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
: Racial pages are always polarizing. I try to add my insights as a sociologist, while being cognizant of my limitations as a white (Ashkenazi Jewish) woman. ] (]) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


== Religion and hitler ==
==Comments about others==
, I strongly recommend removing it. If you continue, you will be blocked for violating ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for the change. ] <small>]</small> 23:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
:: I just made the change in response to your crazy threat. The original comment was not a personal attack. Saying someone is ignorant on a specific issue is not the same as saying they're an ignorant person generally. ] (]) 23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
:::<s>Call me crazy, but believe me, it's a personal attack.</s> Call my comment crazy, but believe me, the comment I linked to above is a personal attack. Be more cautious in the future. ] <small>]</small> 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you have a series of edits that comment on other editors. Please read the policy ], specifically where it says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". If you persist in violating this policy, you will be blocked. ] <small>]</small> 23:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
: Thank you for the note, Mister Dread. Without getting into the specifics of my comments, I agree that some of them were at least uncivil. It is high time for me to take a break from the Warren page. And I will do so. ] (]) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
::Good idea; I know from personal experience how frustrating some elements of Misplaced Pages can be. Feel free to vent to me anytime, just not on the article talk pages.... ] <small>]</small> 23:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi Steeltrap could you please add edit summaries for any significant changes to the ], stick to the four paragraph wikpedia lay out for the introduction and remember not to add material not in sources such as "the judges at Nuremberg" determined", when the source only says that the prosecutors prepared a brief of evidence etc. Best wishes ] (]) 04:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}You both may be reasonable most of the time, but with due respect Dreadstar, he did '''not''' call you crazy. He said that the threat was crazy, presumably for the same reason that (second-order) saying he called you crazy is crazy. When changing one or two words to clarify the reference eliminates the alleged personal attack, it is (for better or worse) pretty low on the scale of incivility and hostile interaction on Misplaced Pages these days. Steeletrap knows that I find her sometimes too excitable, but she's working on article content all the time and I've never seen her hold a grudge or lose focus on the issues as she sees them. ]] 23:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
:While I understand your intrusion in this issue, the series of comments by User:Steeletrap on the ] page are indeed violations of ]. I'm not suggesting any action for the comment calling my action 'crazy', and if you view it as such then ] is where you should take it. ] <small>]</small> 23:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
::I just happen to have this page on my watch list and I followed your link in the intital post. I have no other interest in any of the Elizabeth Warren issues and I have not read any of the talk page except for your post. The edit you linked was not a personal attack, per my comment above here. If you reread my comment here I think you will see that you misunderstood me. Steeletrap said that your threat was crazy, not that ''you'' were crazy. There's a big difference. You mistook one for the other just as you mistook the apparent intention of Steeletrap, in her initial remark, to denigrate the other editor's statement (the way it sounded,) not his consciousness or intellect in general. ]] 23:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


== Warning ==
:::Ah, I see where the confusion may be, I've changed my comment above for clarity. I didn't mean that calling my action crazy was a personal attack, but instead the comment I linked to originally. And yes, the comment I linked to is indeed a personal attack. ] <small>]</small> 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Good for you, now please revert your comment from my talk page. I'm all in favor of Admins who care about civility and personal attacks. I just think that, in this case, you were barking up the wrong bush. ]] 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


was inappropriate in many ways. If I see something like that again I'll be dropping a topic ban. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 16:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} ] violates talk page protocols by changing wording which has in the meantime been discussed by other editors in the thread. It would be impossible for a reader to make sense of the discussion based on the revised wording. This wording needs to be restored and the correction noted in a way that does not obscure the original and the motivation for the ensuing discussion. Either Dreadstar or Steeletrap should correct what I presume was an error. ]] 00:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Maybe not a good edit w.o. some discussion, but hardly a violation, from what I can see. Have a look: -- The edit shouldn't have been dropped in w.o. prep maybe, but I see ten worse edits per day in American Politics articles. Maybe a {{cn}} is needed. ]] 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
:I disagree with you, but fine. ] <small>]</small> 00:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:: ], why was it inappropriate? Do you disagree that Trump has promoted conspiracy theories? Are you a birther? Do you believe Ted Cruz' dad killed JFK? ] (]) 20:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::In what respect do you disagree, Dreadstar? You are more experienced than I and passed muster as an Admin, so your response will be instructive. Thanks. ]] 01:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Now, '''that''' was inappropriate! :) ]] 22:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
:::First, I believe about the change made the change itself clear; second, I don't believe the original comment I made indicated that this user called me crazy; and third, I believe your assertion that "''The edit you linked was not a personal attack''" to be incorrect. Additionally, I find your tone with me troublesome and I will not be responding to your further comments here. As I indicated above, ANI is ] if you desire more schooling. ] <small>]</small> 01:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Here are a few reasons why the edit was inappropriate.
:# Calling him a ] in the Lead section is inappropriate when he is not called that in the body of the article.
:# In a 3-paragraph Lead section, the amount of detail in that addition is a violation of ] in a highly visible BLP.
:# The examples you give are gratuitous given the "controversial and false" sentence preceding your addition.
:# "He has been described as" is textbook ].
:# Who is "the President" you refer to?
:The reason I jumped straight to a tban warning was because I've seen this kind of drive-by BLP violation from you before, and I distinctly remember ] warning you about adding links to ] in the Lead of the trump article. (I don't have a diff for the warning but here's the edit: ) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
:: No, you jumped to a tban warning because you're an old maid who takes relish in your petty moderator powers. RS describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist, his campaign was characterized by conspiracy theories, and his political career in the Republican Party was fueled by the Birther movement. A bold edit noting that he has been described as a CT was not a violation of policy; I am not edit warring to put it back in.
:: Trump has been accused of child rape. This particular accusation is not notable enough for the lede, but is included in the article about his sexual assault allegations. ] (]) 11:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


== April 2014 ==
And my apologies to you, Steeletrap, for this extended discussion here; I believe you and I came to an agreeable conclusion. ] <small>]</small> 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Dreadstar, when you refactored your words, you did not strike through the original in order to preserve continuity of meaning for readers of this page. That would have been understandable and consistent with WP practice. I would have been interested to hear your response to the question I asked above, to wit, an explanation as to why your action hiding the cause of the subsequent discussion was consistent with WP talk page practice. Since you chose not to respond and chose to acknowledge my concern by restoring and striking your words per accepted WP practice, I think the matter has been resolved. I don't think you intended to create a problem. ]] 03:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


From ]:
==BLP Discretionary reminder==
Oddly, the system let me post a duplicate of ; I've removed it and just posted a reminder. I've notified the other active editors on ], and this is merely a notice not implying wrongdoing on your part. ] <small>]</small> 02:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


{{tq|In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for ] matters related to ], a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.}}
==Two questions for ]==
In pronouncing my guilty of socking, Mike V made no specific argument. His two weeks of (alleged) "deliberation" produced only a two sentence conclusory statement, saying I'm guilty because 'the evidence' is sufficient to prove me guilty, while never specifying how the evidence (and what evidence) is sufficient to prove me guilty. This laughably fallacious, circular logic is not satisfactory grounds for a block. I deserve a better reason than that for being convicted of socking, particularly given that Mike failed to address this case for weeks.


You want to add something to the article ]. This getting removed is a strong indication there's no consensus, so this is a good time to ] --] (]) 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
To shed light onto Mike's reasoning and to determine whether he was employing actual standards in assessing my guilt, rather than going off of intuition and gut instincts, I pose to him the following two questions:


==Disambiguation link notification for April 18==
1) What burden of proof do you use to assess allegations of socking? (Note: In all legal systems, burdens of proof is defined quantitatively, so a specific percentage would help 2) Why do you think the evidence satisfied this burden of proof? Please be specific (and preferably, statistical) in your answer. ] (]) 05:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


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>
=== Mike's response ===
For an SPI case, the burden of proof is met when there is a reasonable likelihood of one being a sock. (I believe that you may be mistaken in regards to legal systems using a quantitative system. ] use a qualitative form of measurement.)


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I performed a search on Misplaced Pages for the term "binkie" and there are very few instances in which it is used to refer to Binksternet. It appears that you alone are responsible for at least half of them. , , , You are also the only user who continues to use it after being asked to stop using it. The behavioral connection of the IPs had been established . While the IP you've mentioned may have originated from Norway, that does not mean whoever uses it is from Norway. ] and the are not consistent with someone who lives there.


== Ben Swann ==
Through both the account (as shown above and here: , , ) and through the IPs (, , , , , ) you've demonstrated a consistent behavior of belittling other contributors. In addition, there are instances where your account () and the IP () make the same point about IPs being treated disrespectfully.


Your concern about these issues is totally understandable, but you have to review both the prior discussions (which were ''extensive'' on a number of things you changed) as well as the reliable sources before changing things based on your own gist of the subject matter. A number of your edits are blatantly against consensus. --] (]) 21:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
This case was discussed over the course of a week with two other members of the SPI team and they concurred that the evidence was actionable. Thus, it is unfair to say that this case was closed in a haste fashion and without any support for a block. The evidence I have provided above, coupled with the that presented at the SPI leads me to believe that the block is fully justified.


== April 2017 ==
Finally, please do not send me emails that are threatening and insulting. It's unbecoming as a contributor and you are expected to maintain a ] of behavior. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without giving a valid reason – such as reverting vandalism – for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been ]. ''Please remember, you are topic banned from editing anything related to the Mises Institute. This includes material about Ron Paul.''<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> – ] (]) 22:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
: Threatening? Now you are lying. I never threatened you. I criticized your decision, work ethic, and admin capacities. Wiki policy doesn't extend to Non-Wiki emails
: Thank you for the revert; because Paul is apparently listed as a Mises Institute "scholar" (I had no idea), this is a technicala violation of the TB and I apologize.
: Regarding your point about Binkie, it just further illustrates your incompetence to deal with SPIs (the subject of my email). The relevant statistical question is not how often I have used Binkie; it is how many other users have used it. As I showed on the SPI at least 10 have. Regrettably, I don't have time to teach you stats, but you'll just have to take my word for this.
: While your revert was appropriate, your rationale is bunk. Conspiracy theorists like Swann are not RS for anything apart from the mad ideas that are rattling around their brains. ] (]) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
: Finally, I am skeptical of how competent your search of wikipedia is. Do you know how to perform thorough searches of wikipedia? How did you conduct your search.
: I pointed to ten other users who have used "binkie" on the page. You have tendentiously ignored that. Nor have you pushed for SPI proceedings against them, which you would have done if you were going off of the evidence.
: Incidentally: even if you believe these IPs harassed Binksternet, harassing Bink was not their aim. The "harassment" was the product of a content dispute on articles in which I have no interest and have never edited. They did not seek Bink out on his talk page.
: Regarding your (belated) standard of proof? Where does this (laughably low) reasonable suspicion standard come from? Please provide a source indicating that it is used to convict people as sockpuppets on WP. I don't see it on WP, and think you and the "team" made it up. Moreover, I don't think you know what that term means, and think you are lying when you said you explicitly had that standard in mind when you convicted me. If you consistently applied RS to SPIs, you would support banning all the other users who have used "Binkie" in the past from WP ("reasonability" is an extremely low threshold; one can "reasonably" believe a host of things that are probably false). Finally, note that qualitative--as opposed to objective, percentage-based standards like preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt--standards are for searches and investigation, not conviction, in all western legal systems.
* '''Comment''' – I've been following Steeletrap for some time, and will come out of my Wikibreak to briefly defend her in this circumstance. I do not believe she has used IPs for editing. Moreover, there is the requirement that editors not use IPs "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." Do the diffs show that she's engaged in such behavior? – ] (]) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::The sockpuppetry policy prohibits the use of multiple undisclosed accounts/IPs to be used on the project space. Using IPs to harass Binksternet by calling him a name that he has already expressed a desire not to be used is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::: Since MIke V was clearly too lazy to read my past exchanges with Binksternet--and is lying when he implies that he spent serious time on the case--I wonder if ] could weigh in. While he has a powerful disincentive to attack me--we don't like each other and have had strong content disagreements--I think that he will be honest enough to admit that he doesn't think I am the IPs. At the very least, I believe Bink will recognize that there is enough doubt on this issue to oppose a ban. My manner of posting is highly distinct. And even if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the Norwegians were pretending to lack English fluency, the IPs don't post like I do. ] (]) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::I saw the sockpuppet case against you filed by Mr.X and I was curious to see how it ended. I did not initially think the Norwegian IPs were you but I could not disprove it either, and there was some interesting evidence brought forward that I was unable to counter. I tried to prove/disprove the case to myself by comparing your registered edits to the IPs but I did not see the rapidly alternating result which would have instantly exonerated you, so I did not weigh in at the SPI page. The tool showed a few hours in between the IP edits and your registered edits—plenty of time to log out on one machine and open an anonymous edit window on another, ''if'' you were physically in the state of Akershus, Norway, a possibility which could not be ignored without checkuser refutation. Your defense should have been based on confirming your actual physical location as being somewhere other than Akershus. ] (]) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::: Well there you have it. Even someone who hates me and believes I have harassed him--and the alleged victim of the IPs--admits that the case is far from proven.
::::: I am happy to, and can easily, prove that I have never visited Norway. Is there anyone I can talk to (i.e. via phone) to do this? I volunteered for an IP check--thereby waiving privacy rights to exonerate myself-- but the lazy admin ignored my request.
::::: By the way, Bink: Not being able to disprove an allegation is not grounds for convicting someone of that allegation. ] (]) 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::As a libertarian you will appreciate that Misplaced Pages is not required to follow established legal procedure for its own internal affairs. SPI cases are very often concluded on behavioral and circumstantial evidence which would be thrown out of your familiar court of law. At SPI you are assumed guilty until proven innocent! The best SPI defense is an active one which you did not take. Instead you were cagey in your responses and generally defiant of the proceedings. This attitude did not help one bit. ] (]) 22:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Can someone please provide a citation indicating that the WP SPI policy is guilty until proven innocent? It seems like people here--especially the highly respected 'veteran' users--just make up policy as they go. ] (]) 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Did I say I was relating Misplaced Pages ''policy'' to you? I did not. Instead, I was relaying Misplaced Pages ''practice'' to you. The way that it is rather than the way that it should be. ] (]) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Bink, that just proves my point. WP "practice" is arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by policy. My block is a seminal example of this. ] (]) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


== Shaun King ==
::: By the way: I know I'm violating WP:NPA. But Mike is attacking the basic integrity of the community by arbitrarily condemning/banning me as a sock and lying about the fact that he did so on a whim, without serious research. I defend my personal attacks by appealing to ]; in this context, of attacking the dangerous culture of unaccountable and incompetent admin behavior, ad hominem arguments are necessary and justified. ] (]) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::IAR does not apply to the civility policy. If you continue with this behavior your block will be extended and your talk page access will be revoked for the duration of the block. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::], surely you would want to unblock me if you knew you were mistaken? I can prove you were mistaken, in conjunction with Bink's evidence. Bink's evidence indicates that there is no way I could have edited via the sock unless I was also in Norway, since I made edits within a few hours of the socks. Can we do the IP test now, please, so I can prove I was never in Norway when I was making the edits? Surely you would be open to additional evidence, and the IP test would provide overwhelming evidene. ] (]) 22:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec)
* '''Comment''' Like Srich, I have followed Steeletrap's activities on WP since her arrival in early 2013. She made plenty of mistakes as a new editor, and was instantly set upon with an extended period of harassment and unfounded aspersions. Frankly, I find her excitable and I think she comes off particularly poorly when she feels attacked or treated unfairly. In the context of recent WP discussions of civility and a wide range of gender-related behaviors and attitudes, it would be particularly unfortunate if any of us -- but especially Admins at SPI -- could not focus on the core issue and look beyond personality and behavior under stress.
: A strikingly broad range of editors dismissed MrX's evidence at SPI. This included editors who at times have spoken critically of Steeletrap's ideology, her edits, and her behavior. It's distressing to see Mike V again raise the straw man issue of the rude diminutive after it was clear from the SPI discussion that, in the absence of other compelling evidence, editors did not consider this dispositive. In light of the overwhelming consensus against MrX' allegation at SPI and particularly in light of Steeletrap's consent to a checkuser there, I'm surprised that Mike V at the least would not state his view to solicit reaction from the assembled editors before summarily blocking Steeletrap. Why should editors participate in these threads if the Admin will close contrary to consensus? Mike V., I urge you to reverse your action. ]] 22:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::'''btw''' I just had another look at MrX's "evidence" and I see that the diffs he cites fail to verify his assertion that Steeletrap ever, let alone "often" mixes "single and double quotes" or even that she ever erroneously uses a "single" where a "double" is correct usage. ]] 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Back again from my Wikibreak to followup on this block. As IP spoofing is a possibility and as other evidence from Mike supports the SPI, and in consideration of the comments and advice from Binkster, I'll offer my meager 2¢ and support the block. Also, I'll advise Steeletrap to completely avoid the PA. E.g., "...clearly too lazy to read ...--and is lying" etc. just does not win friends and influence people. Denial of talk page access may have, hopefully, helped to focus Steeletraps' mind. Steeletrap has ignored the important part of IAR – we may IAR in order to "improve or maintain" Misplaced Pages. By her very own admission she uses a fallacious (ad hominem) argument. How did her PA improve or maintain WP? I hope she has taken time during her non-voluntary break to reflect upon this. – ] (]) 02:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Srich, how is it "evidence" in this case to assert that IP spoofing is possible? What evidence of Mike's do you believe supports the SPI? Why do you suppose that numerous and diverse editors and SPI Admin rejected the socking evidence presented on the case. What evidence do you find proves socking? Which block are you supporting? It's not clear from your statement. Three of us here, you me and Binksternet, have seen a lot of Steeletrap's editing and behavioral traits over the past couple of years. Do you really think that, of all of Steeletrap's pet issues and concerns she would waste her spoofed Norwegian sockpuppetry adventure on Binksternet? Far more probable that any editor would use an IP to evade a topic ban, to stack the deck in a contentious talk page discussion or other ways we see over and over on SPI. Doesn't that sort of data fall within your definition of "evidence?" ]] 03:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::: In addition to the "Revenge of the C-Students" dynamic I've discussed before, a big problem with WP is that administrators deliberate in secret, so the reasoning behind an admin decision cannot be assessed. My block involved one admin bungle after another. The biggest bungle was the total absence of compelling evidence for the block. Others included the invocation of inconsistent standards of evidence. First the SPI was closed because (the admin said) I was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt; later I was blocked, even though no additional evidence was introduced, based on a lower standard of "reasonable suspicion." Clearly, the admin didn't read the procedures for SPIs before rendering judgment.
::::: Also, ], you've inadvertently lent support to my narrative on WP. You switched your 'vote' on whether I am a sock solely based on the opinions of others, or on a fallacious appeal to authority. By WP standard, you'd make a great admin. ] (]) 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Steeletrap, for your own protection I advise you to restrain your ardently felt but impetuous instincts here. While many established editors can be uncivil or even post personal attacks and accusations under the protection of various WP alliances and social connections, you have no such history or support here. Your experience should have taught you to moderate your indignation if you wish to survive. Now that you've felt your vulnerability -- that you believe you can be threatened or blocked for any reason or no reason with little hope of orderly adjudication -- I suggest you adjust your expectation and concentrate on editing.
Srich will shortly be going through the RfA process, and if you participate there please ensure that your views are expressed in a dispassionate and articulate manner. Any other way will only bring you more aggravation. ]] 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
: I don't need 'wiki-friends.' What a pathetic concept that is. I'm here to stir things up and effect change. The people who blocked me on false charges are soon going to wish they had imposed a long-term block. I plan on releasing a number of essays over the next few weeks describing problems in admin conduct. Stay tuned. ] (]) 19:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Coming here again for rationale on why you falsely edited Shaun King's page? Please provide rationale for why you put down that Jeffrey King was his ADOPTIVE father instead of his biological Father, as indicated on his birth certificate? I look froward to you reversing your changes. Thanks! ] (]) 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
== Talk page access ==
: King says his bio father was a light-skinned (mixed-race) black man, and that Jeffrey King is his adoptive father. Per WP:BLP, we have to go off what he says about his family and race unless it's proven that he's lying. ] (]) 00:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


== Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
I've revoked your access to this page because of your repeated personal attacks. You may use ] to appeal.--] (]) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you.

re: Religious Views of Adolph Hitler ] (]) 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

== T-Ban ==

Reminder. Thank you. – ] (]) 17:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
: I'm well aware. But don't see how NAP would fall under that. Anyway, I hope you can jump in and deal with some of the tendentious editing on that page, which currently claims that several eminent Western philosophers were Rothbardian libertarians without knowing it. ] (]) 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

== October 2017 ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person{{spaces|1}}on ], but you didn't support your changes with a ], so I removed it. Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy concerning ], so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you! <!-- Template:uw-biog1 --> --] (]) 06:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

== November 2017 ==

I reverted your edits of version of the page ] as portions of the text you added/edited appeared to be unsourced or ] from inferences from the existing sources. A record of your version of the page has been kept and I'd like you to discuss your changes (and the sources on which they are based) on the talk page. Thank you. ] (]) 23:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

== Topic ban violation ==

Re: ], the 6 month topic-ban was enacted on 15 May 2017. It will expire on Nov 15th. It has not yet expired nor was it expired in October. ] (]) 20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
: I made a mistake regarding the date of expiration: I tied it to the beginning of the arbitration, not the decision. By all means revert any edits that you regard as unduly insensitive to Milo. ] (]) 20:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
:: I was going to respond with "Understandable" but I could not find an arbitration case against you that began earlier. All I can find is ] Can you direct me to the case? ] (]) 20:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
::: Look, dopey: If I were going to blatantly violate a t-ban, I wouldn't do it in broad daylight on a highly controversial page. I'd get a sock. If you want to ban me or whatever I don't much care but I'm not going to deal with your soothsaying regarding my intentions. ] (]) 21:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
:::: You said you confused the case start date with the case end date but from what I can tell no "case" exists. I am trying to determine whether I'm mistaken. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and will continue to if you can explain your reasoning.
:::: I did not impugn your intentions but it is not encouraging that you have made your ] to oppose my recent !vote. ] (]) 21:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Steeletrap, it's a pretty clear violation of ] to address other editors as "dopey" as you have now twice Many admins I know would block on sight. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 03:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
:{{reply|Awilley}} Frankly "dopey" is relatively mild. Another editor has repeatedly ] me ], ] and ] and nothing has been done despite my complaints. I am more concerned by the nonchalant topic-ban violations and seemingly retaliatory !vote. I would like an answer to my case request question. ] (]) 03:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

:I would hope that you know that ]'s enactment of the topic ban (seen ) does not mean that once the topic ban expires, you should go back to your same contested style of editing at the article. ] (]) 18:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
:: Anyone who would block me for calling him dopey is a hypersensitive marshmallow (a term that applies to many WP admins, admittedly). ] (]) 23:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Why don't you just answer JJL's question above. On the surface it looks like you violated the topic ban and then made up an excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:::: Nah, I didn't. I thought the TB had expired. Which--happily--it will in a couple weeks. I'm not sure what link I clicked on to make me think it began in April, but there you have it. ] (]) 05:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

==Weinstein edit==
I thanked you for adding the number of women who have accused Weinstein. Then I noticed it had been taken out due to another editor noting that HW had been fired before number of accusers reached 80. So I added a source for the 50. If you have a source for the 80 please add. I think you were brilliant to add the number and we know down the road if it just keeps being called "alleged harassment" readers may not see the magnitude of this.] (]) 13:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Steeletrap. 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/10&oldid=813413927 -->

== Potential edit warring ==

Watch it with the reverts on ], please. --] 20:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

== KofC ==

]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice-->

== 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 ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. &ndash; ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
:Note: if you wish to say anything ] feel free to put it here on your talk page with a request for someone to copy it over and any of your talkpage watchers will take care of it. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

== Blocked for two weeks. ==

] is where it is all laid out. If you evade your block again by using an IP to edit while blocked (or in any other way), I'm likely to just indef block you the next time. Feel free to read ] or better yet, just wait it out. Hopefully you will just get the point and edit productively when you return in two weeks. ] - ] 01:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
: Um, is there any way I can prove my innocence? I am not this IP.
: I agree it's a remarkable coincidence. But consider: Why wouldn't I have just waited two days? Perhaps I'm being framed or something.
: I think I may quit WP. I'm tired of the lack of due process. ] (]) 03:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

== Julius Evola ==

You seem insistent on inserting the claim that Evola believed in ghosts and telepathy when the source you provide does not substantiate this information: https://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=12998

for alchemy, the source states that "Evola authored numerous works on alchemy, magic, Oriental philosophy, mysticism and Tradition", that "he was in touch for a time with British Orientalist John Woodroffe – and study of various texts on alchemy, magic and Oriental philosophy, particularly Tibetan Lamaism and Vajrayanist tantric yoga." and that "This entailed intensive study of primary texts on alchemy, Buddhism, Taoism, Hermeticism and various other schools of esoteric thought." but does not provide the context that you seem to imply, that he believed in alchemy in the traditional sense.

I can understand the desire to discredit Evola, but we don't need to do so with ] information that exists in no source.

He was also not a nationalist, instead preferring a right wing EU.

Please correct this to help ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia.] (]) 01:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

== ] ==

I suggest you self-revert before you are blocked for violating ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

== Note ==

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> --] <sup>]</sup> 20:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

* I'm going to report you the next time you call me a "clown" () or accuse me of "spinning" for Richard Spencer (, ) for enforcing our BLP policy. --] (]) 21:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
* You're edit warring now when you were just given a DS warning by {{u|NeilN}}? You know this article is under 1RR, yes? I could take to you AE right now. --] (]) 20:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
* You just violated 1RR ''again'' with more BLP violations. Are you begging for a block? --] (]) 06:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

**I hadn't seen these comments when I reverted you. Whether or not "r far-right extremists and counter-protesters clashed violently" was NPOV, changing it to "after an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of left-wing protesters" is a clear violation of NPOV and a misrepresentation of the source, which said "counter-protestors." ] ] 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

*In an effort to reduce some of the tension, did you know that I personally spearheaded the effort to call Spencer a white supremacist instead of a white nationalist? And I've personally swatted down numerous attempts to change it back? It's all in the talk page archives. --] (]) 23:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
::I am not the enemy. Do you understand that? --] (]) 17:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
::: I see two possibilities based on your editing on Spencer. One is that you're the enemy (a Spencer apologist). The other is that you are a posturing legalist, whose legalism is getting in the way of productive (accurate, topical) editing. I'm happy to assume the second one and work forward. ] (]) 17:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
::::I suppose that's an improvement, but I think you missed where I mentioned that I spearheaded the effort to call Spencer a white supremacist instead of a white nationalist. I don't know how that translates into being a posturing legalist whose legalism is getting in he way of productive editing. If you're complaining that I believe in following community standards, then I guess I'm guilty has charged. You may be just passing through, but I'm the one who's been defending our content from the <s>Spencer shills</s> ''bigots'' for the last year plus. The most effective tactic is to explain to them how our core policies work and to explain how our content complies with them. So when you add content that ''doesn't'' comply with our core policies, it makes our collective jobs harder. You see? I'm on your side. --] (]) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

* is in violation of an active arbitration remedy (do not restore content without consensus). Please self-revert immediately. --] (]) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

* I will leave the Spencer article alone if you will stop following me around. --] (]) 18:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

== June 2018 ==
] Please stop your ].
* If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the ], and seek ] with them. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ].
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ].
If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. ''You have to use direct in-line citation in a Biography of a Living Person,
from an independent credible source. You cannot speculation/personal opinions/personal conjectures see ] and ]. ''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 12:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
==Removing other users comments==

Is against policy (see ]. Please do not do it] (]) 15:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
: Hey, I was copy and pasting my post from another forum. I wasn't deleting a post by another user; I was deleting my (accidental) reproduction of his post from another forum. ] (]) 16:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::Ahh I see now. OK.] (]) 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

== Brett Kavanaugh ==
I have changed my original block to a warning. Going through revisions on the rapidly changing article 1RR is not clear. However, the discretionary sanctions are clear that "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." You did not seek consensus on the talk page following the removal of your edit when it was clearly disputed. Please discuss such edits on the talk page instead of leaving remarks in edit summaries as you did. Please let me know if you have any questions. ] (]) 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
: THanks. I really appreciate you reversing your decision and acknowledging the mistake. I actually had self-reverted the change (the opposite of 1RR). ] (]) 12:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
::If you are referring to , that does not look like a self-revert to me. That can be viewed as ] by "making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged" (per talk page template). ] (]) 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you can't add controversial unsourced material about living persons to any page like you did . You should very well know that that is not allowed under BLP. ] (]) 09:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What's your source for the statement that Blasey Ford is not going to appear? News reports are that it's uncertain. ] (]) 20:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would advise self-reverting ; adding sources may address the issue brought up by MONGO but still would be a violation of the consensus-required before restoration restriction (also - I'd advise finding non-opinion sources, especially as the sentence you've inserted states "partisan conspiracy theories" as fact) ] (]) 22:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
:I was challenging that edit but should have made it clear not just because it was unsupported.--] (]) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
::Indeed the revert seems to be a violation of the "Consensus required" sanction that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". A self-revert is definitely a good idea. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

===Final Warning===
I think the self-reverts as a result of controversial edits without consensus are getting out of hand. Moving forward, if you are contemplating making a controversial change to the article please seek consensus on the talk page first. If you are not sure or have any doubt as to whether the edit could be construed as controversial, do not make the change, seek consensus on the talk page first. This method is a best practice when editing controversial topics. The above comments from various editors (and my own warning to you) clearly show a pattern in your editing style regarding this article that can be characterized as disruptive editing. Any further controversial edits you make without consensus (whether you ultimately self-revert or not) will be met with a discretionary sanction, which may include a block and/or a topic ban. Please edit carefully. ] (]) 03:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

==Personal attacks at ]==
The only reason I'm not blocking you for the personal attacks in on Awilley's page is that I have a certain understanding of venting after being sanctioned. (Even though you apparently took it with insouciance at first.) If another admin comes by to block you for it, I don't mean to stop them with this warning. Showing such disrespect and discourtesy affects the atmosphere of this place, and is depressing not just for the target of your attacks, but for anybody who reads them. If you do escape a block, I'd advise you to take a little break until you feel capable of courtesy towards fellow editors. ] &#124; ] 14:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Steeletrap. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=866998363 -->

== Original research at ] ==

I've removed some ]. Surely you know our policies on searching and not adding our own opinions? ] ] 13:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/05&oldid=926750390 -->

== ] Sexual Misconduct ==

It's been a couple years since I checked in, and I really don't care enough to edit it myself, but have you seen this steaming pile of... mess?

::In response to the University determination, Krauss produced a 51-page appeal document responding to the allegations, including a counter-claim that a photo claimed to be of Krauss grabbing a woman's breast was actually showing his hand moving away from the woman.

I'm not at all surprised, but I don't have words to describe how inexcusable this is that it's on Misplaced Pages. But you know, Odin forbid I should edit the page to say, "Whereas some critics who have two brain cells to rub together point out that is the lousiest defense they have ever heard."-- ] (]) 06:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:16, 19 March 2022

This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2

Tu ne cede malis

The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
Presented to User Steeletrap.

For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

The sexual assaults were as you point out, assaults. The dressing room visits are sexual harassment since trump owned the pageant at the time. Please don't confuse the two. He did both of them so please stop removing sexual harassment references from the article. Trump is guilty of doing both. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Steeletrap. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Distelfinck (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I searched for the phrase "very often" on the Milo Yiannopolous talk page, and the occurences I could find don't back up what you say --Distelfinck (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

--

You need to provide sources for your additions. You repeat adding this in, without giving a source for this, without addressing what I said in this edit summary --Distelfinck (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos

You have violated 1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos (Edits: 1 2 3.) Please self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit myself. Please be more careful in the future. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos (again)

You have again violated 1RR on Milo Yiannopoulos (Edits: 1, 2) If the 1RR restrictions are not clear to you they're described here: Misplaced Pages:1RR#Other_revert_rules. Self revert or I will submit a complaint against you to Arbitration Enforcement. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Edits at Richard Epstein

In looking at your recent edits to Richard Epstein, I'd like you to consider whether the content you added could be cited to some sort of reliable sources. If so, they should be added to the section on Writings rather than to the intro. Depending on how significant your added content was, it might merit a summary mention (without citations) in the intro. I'll not revert you right now, but you should try to provide sources and place your content in the correct place in the article. Thanks. — jmcgnh 03:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey JC; if you give me til tomorrow i"ll add the citations. Tied up right now. I understand if you feel compelled to revert in the short run. Steeletrap (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems White whirlwind was not going to be patient. Try again tomorrow. — jmcgnh 04:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I see similar potential problems with some of your recent edits at Richard Posner. That law review article you referenced is a bare URL, which is not a good way to cite a source. Can I also suggest that you make better use of WP:Edit summaries? — jmcgnh 04:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A Friendly Word of Caution

CautionThe article Milo Yiannopoulos is subject to discretionary sanctions. In particular WP:1RR is in effect. One or more of your recent edits may have breached this rule. Specifically you must not re-add material to an article that has been challenged by reversion without first securing talk page consensus. Your contributions to the project are deeply appreciated but please be careful when editing on articles that deal with controversial subjects. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Religion and hitler

Hi Steeltrap could you please add edit summaries for any significant changes to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler, stick to the four paragraph wikpedia lay out for the introduction and remember not to add material not in sources such as "the judges at Nuremberg" determined", when the source only says that the prosecutors prepared a brief of evidence etc. Best wishes Ozhistory (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning

This was inappropriate in many ways. If I see something like that again I'll be dropping a topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not a good edit w.o. some discussion, but hardly a violation, from what I can see. Have a look: -- The edit shouldn't have been dropped in w.o. prep maybe, but I see ten worse edits per day in American Politics articles. Maybe a is needed. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Adjwilley, why was it inappropriate? Do you disagree that Trump has promoted conspiracy theories? Are you a birther? Do you believe Ted Cruz' dad killed JFK? Steeletrap (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Now, that was inappropriate! :) SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few reasons why the edit was inappropriate.
  1. Calling him a conspiracy theorist in the Lead section is inappropriate when he is not called that in the body of the article.
  2. In a 3-paragraph Lead section, the amount of detail in that addition is a violation of WP:WEIGHT in a highly visible BLP.
  3. The examples you give are gratuitous given the "controversial and false" sentence preceding your addition.
  4. "He has been described as" is textbook WP:WEASEL.
  5. Who is "the President" you refer to?
The reason I jumped straight to a tban warning was because I've seen this kind of drive-by BLP violation from you before, and I distinctly remember User:Drmies warning you about adding links to child rape in the Lead of the trump article. (I don't have a diff for the warning but here's the edit: ) ~Awilley (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No, you jumped to a tban warning because you're an old maid who takes relish in your petty moderator powers. RS describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist, his campaign was characterized by conspiracy theories, and his political career in the Republican Party was fueled by the Birther movement. A bold edit noting that he has been described as a CT was not a violation of policy; I am not edit warring to put it back in.
Trump has been accused of child rape. This particular accusation is not notable enough for the lede, but is included in the article about his sexual assault allegations. Steeletrap (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2014

From WP:Consensus:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

You want to add something to the article Milo Yiannopoulos. This getting removed is a strong indication there's no consensus, so this is a good time to discuss this --Distelfinck (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ben Stein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expelled. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann

Your concern about these issues is totally understandable, but you have to review both the prior discussions (which were extensive on a number of things you changed) as well as the reliable sources before changing things based on your own gist of the subject matter. A number of your edits are blatantly against consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ron Paul newsletters, without giving a valid reason – such as reverting vandalism – for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please remember, you are topic banned from editing anything related to the Mises Institute. This includes material about Ron Paul. – S. Rich (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert; because Paul is apparently listed as a Mises Institute "scholar" (I had no idea), this is a technicala violation of the TB and I apologize.
While your revert was appropriate, your rationale is bunk. Conspiracy theorists like Swann are not RS for anything apart from the mad ideas that are rattling around their brains. Steeletrap (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Shaun King

Coming here again for rationale on why you falsely edited Shaun King's page? Please provide rationale for why you put down that Jeffrey King was his ADOPTIVE father instead of his biological Father, as indicated on his birth certificate? I look froward to you reversing your changes. Thanks! Swreynolds7 (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

King says his bio father was a light-skinned (mixed-race) black man, and that Jeffrey King is his adoptive father. Per WP:BLP, we have to go off what he says about his family and race unless it's proven that he's lying. Steeletrap (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

re: Religious Views of Adolph Hitler JerryRussell (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

T-Ban

Reminder. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware. But don't see how NAP would fall under that. Anyway, I hope you can jump in and deal with some of the tendentious editing on that page, which currently claims that several eminent Western philosophers were Rothbardian libertarians without knowing it. Steeletrap (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm DrFleischman. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Richard B. Spencer, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

I reverted your edits of this version of the page white people as portions of the text you added/edited appeared to be unsourced or synthesized from inferences from the existing sources. A record of your version of the page has been kept and I'd like you to discuss your changes (and the sources on which they are based) on the talk page. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Re: this, the 6 month topic-ban was enacted on 15 May 2017. It will expire on Nov 15th. It has not yet expired nor was it expired in October. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake regarding the date of expiration: I tied it to the beginning of the arbitration, not the decision. By all means revert any edits that you regard as unduly insensitive to Milo. Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I was going to respond with "Understandable" but I could not find an arbitration case against you that began earlier. All I can find is this. Can you direct me to the case? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Look, dopey: If I were going to blatantly violate a t-ban, I wouldn't do it in broad daylight on a highly controversial page. I'd get a sock. If you want to ban me or whatever I don't much care but I'm not going to deal with your soothsaying regarding my intentions. Steeletrap (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
You said you confused the case start date with the case end date but from what I can tell no "case" exists. I am trying to determine whether I'm mistaken. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and will continue to if you can explain your reasoning.
I did not impugn your intentions but it is not encouraging that you have made your first edit to Steve Bannon to oppose my recent !vote. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Steeletrap, it's a pretty clear violation of WP:NPA to address other editors as "dopey" as you have now twice Many admins I know would block on sight. ~Awilley (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Frankly "dopey" is relatively mild. Another editor has repeatedly called me a "creep", a "stalker" and "obsessed" and nothing has been done despite my complaints. I am more concerned by the nonchalant topic-ban violations and seemingly retaliatory !vote. I would like an answer to my case request question. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I would hope that you know that NeilN's enactment of the topic ban (seen here) does not mean that once the topic ban expires, you should go back to your same contested style of editing at the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who would block me for calling him dopey is a hypersensitive marshmallow (a term that applies to many WP admins, admittedly). Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you just answer JJL's question above. On the surface it looks like you violated the topic ban and then made up an excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. ~Awilley (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Nah, I didn't. I thought the TB had expired. Which--happily--it will in a couple weeks. I'm not sure what link I clicked on to make me think it began in April, but there you have it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein edit

I thanked you for adding the number of women who have accused Weinstein. Then I noticed it had been taken out due to another editor noting that HW had been fired before number of accusers reached 80. So I added a source for the 50. If you have a source for the 80 please add. I think you were brilliant to add the number and we know down the road if it just keeps being called "alleged harassment" readers may not see the magnitude of this.Kmccook (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Steeletrap. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential edit warring

Watch it with the reverts on Knights of Columbus, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

KofC

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Steeletrap reported by User:Lionelt (Result: ). Thank you. – Lionel 08:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: if you wish to say anything here feel free to put it here on your talk page with a request for someone to copy it over and any of your talkpage watchers will take care of it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks.

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Steeletrap is where it is all laid out. If you evade your block again by using an IP to edit while blocked (or in any other way), I'm likely to just indef block you the next time. Feel free to read WP:GAB or better yet, just wait it out. Hopefully you will just get the point and edit productively when you return in two weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, is there any way I can prove my innocence? I am not this IP.
I agree it's a remarkable coincidence. But consider: Why wouldn't I have just waited two days? Perhaps I'm being framed or something.
I think I may quit WP. I'm tired of the lack of due process. Steeletrap (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Julius Evola

You seem insistent on inserting the claim that Evola believed in ghosts and telepathy when the source you provide does not substantiate this information: https://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=12998

for alchemy, the source states that "Evola authored numerous works on alchemy, magic, Oriental philosophy, mysticism and Tradition", that "he was in touch for a time with British Orientalist John Woodroffe – and study of various texts on alchemy, magic and Oriental philosophy, particularly Tibetan Lamaism and Vajrayanist tantric yoga." and that "This entailed intensive study of primary texts on alchemy, Buddhism, Taoism, Hermeticism and various other schools of esoteric thought." but does not provide the context that you seem to imply, that he believed in alchemy in the traditional sense.

I can understand the desire to discredit Evola, but we don't need to do so with WP:Fake information that exists in no source.

He was also not a nationalist, instead preferring a right wing EU.

Please correct this to help ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia.Golgotha12 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

I suggest you self-revert before you are blocked for violating WP:1RR. --NeilN 20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN 20:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    • I hadn't seen these comments when I reverted you. Whether or not "r far-right extremists and counter-protesters clashed violently" was NPOV, changing it to "after an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of left-wing protesters" is a clear violation of NPOV and a misrepresentation of the source, which said "counter-protestors." Doug Weller talk 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In an effort to reduce some of the tension, did you know that I personally spearheaded the effort to call Spencer a white supremacist instead of a white nationalist? And I've personally swatted down numerous attempts to change it back? It's all in the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not the enemy. Do you understand that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I see two possibilities based on your editing on Spencer. One is that you're the enemy (a Spencer apologist). The other is that you are a posturing legalist, whose legalism is getting in the way of productive (accurate, topical) editing. I'm happy to assume the second one and work forward. Steeletrap (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that's an improvement, but I think you missed where I mentioned that I spearheaded the effort to call Spencer a white supremacist instead of a white nationalist. I don't know how that translates into being a posturing legalist whose legalism is getting in he way of productive editing. If you're complaining that I believe in following community standards, then I guess I'm guilty has charged. You may be just passing through, but I'm the one who's been defending our content from the Spencer shills bigots for the last year plus. The most effective tactic is to explain to them how our core policies work and to explain how our content complies with them. So when you add content that doesn't comply with our core policies, it makes our collective jobs harder. You see? I'm on your side. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Roseanne Barr, you may be blocked from editing. You have to use direct in-line citation in a Biography of a Living Person, from an independent credible source. You cannot speculation/personal opinions/personal conjectures see WP:BLP and WP:RS. MissTofATX (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing other users comments

Is against policy (see WP:TALKDD. Please do not do itSlatersteven (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I was copy and pasting my post from another forum. I wasn't deleting a post by another user; I was deleting my (accidental) reproduction of his post from another forum. Steeletrap (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Ahh I see now. OK.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

I have changed my original block to a warning. Going through revisions on the rapidly changing article 1RR is not clear. However, the discretionary sanctions are clear that "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." You did not seek consensus on the talk page following the removal of your edit when it was clearly disputed. Please discuss such edits on the talk page instead of leaving remarks in edit summaries as you did. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

THanks. I really appreciate you reversing your decision and acknowledging the mistake. I actually had self-reverted the change (the opposite of 1RR). Steeletrap (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If you are referring to these edits, that does not look like a self-revert to me. That can be viewed as gaming the system by "making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged" (per talk page template). Politrukki (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you can't add controversial unsourced material about living persons to any page like you did here. You should very well know that that is not allowed under BLP. Politrukki (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What's your source for the statement that Blasey Ford is not going to appear? News reports are that it's uncertain. JTRH (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would advise self-reverting this edit; adding sources may address the issue brought up by MONGO but still would be a violation of the consensus-required before restoration restriction (also - I'd advise finding non-opinion sources, especially as the sentence you've inserted states "partisan conspiracy theories" as fact) Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I was challenging that edit here but should have made it clear not just because it was unsupported.--MONGO (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed the revert seems to be a violation of the "Consensus required" sanction that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". A self-revert is definitely a good idea. ~Awilley (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Final Warning

I think the self-reverts as a result of controversial edits without consensus are getting out of hand. Moving forward, if you are contemplating making a controversial change to the article please seek consensus on the talk page first. If you are not sure or have any doubt as to whether the edit could be construed as controversial, do not make the change, seek consensus on the talk page first. This method is a best practice when editing controversial topics. The above comments from various editors (and my own warning to you) clearly show a pattern in your editing style regarding this article that can be characterized as disruptive editing. Any further controversial edits you make without consensus (whether you ultimately self-revert or not) will be met with a discretionary sanction, which may include a block and/or a topic ban. Please edit carefully. KnightLago (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks at User talk:Awilley

The only reason I'm not blocking you for the personal attacks in these edits on Awilley's page is that I have a certain understanding of venting after being sanctioned. (Even though you apparently took it with insouciance at first.) If another admin comes by to block you for it, I don't mean to stop them with this warning. Showing such disrespect and discourtesy affects the atmosphere of this place, and is depressing not just for the target of your attacks, but for anybody who reads them. If you do escape a block, I'd advise you to take a little break until you feel capable of courtesy towards fellow editors. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Steeletrap. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Original research at Black Egyptian hypothesis

I've removed some original research. Surely you know our policies on searching and not adding our own opinions? Doug Weller talk 13:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Lawrence Krauss Sexual Misconduct

It's been a couple years since I checked in, and I really don't care enough to edit it myself, but have you seen this steaming pile of... mess?

In response to the University determination, Krauss produced a 51-page appeal document responding to the allegations, including a counter-claim that a photo claimed to be of Krauss grabbing a woman's breast was actually showing his hand moving away from the woman.

I'm not at all surprised, but I don't have words to describe how inexcusable this is that it's on Misplaced Pages. But you know, Odin forbid I should edit the page to say, "Whereas some critics who have two brain cells to rub together point out that is the lousiest defense they have ever heard."-- JCaesar (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)