| Revision as of 06:21, 21 August 2016 editTweedVest (talk | contribs)91 edits →August 2016: response← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:38, 2 September 2016 edit undoAwilley (talk | contribs)Administrators14,151 edits →August 2016: warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| ::::::::::::Only an editor '''purposefully misreading''' the comment would think it merited a block. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC) | ::::::::::::Only an editor '''purposefully misreading''' the comment would think it merited a block. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::You said above that you supported Melanie's "formal" warning as an admin. Now you say that it doesn't matter. That's communism/fascism. Two sides of the same coin. This is why WP is failing. ] (]) 06:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC) | :::::::::::::You said above that you supported Melanie's "formal" warning as an admin. Now you say that it doesn't matter. That's communism/fascism. Two sides of the same coin. This is why WP is failing. ] (]) 06:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi, I'm coming here after seeing your harassment comment . I am getting the impression from my perusal of your contribution history that you are not so much interested in improving the encyclopedia as you are in engaging in arguments with other editors and perhaps pursuing a politically-charged agenda. Since you are an experienced editor you know that this will lead to a quick block from editing if it continues. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Note == | == Note == | ||
Revision as of 04:38, 2 September 2016
Welcome
|
Hillary Clinton
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing.
Please read WP:BLP. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Specifico, are you acting in an admin capacity giving this warning, or a "neutral" editor? TweedVest (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
August 2016
Hello, I'm MrX. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Talk:Hillary Clinton, 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. Please don't add speculation to article talk pages. If you are proposing an edit, please say what the edit is and provide links to sources that support the material. Misplaced Pages is NOTAFORUM.- MrX 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC) - MrX 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just added three sources. Please block anyone who deletes or archives my suggestion without discussing it in good faith. Thank you. TweedVest (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is an official warning: Your repeated attempts to add this unproven negative material to a biographical article are in violation of Misplaced Pages's rules at WP:BLP. That is why all of your discussions have been promptly shut down and quick-archived, as I assume the current one soon will be as well. (BTW your three "sources" are not reliable sources, as pointed out in the current discussion.) That article is under a form of restriction known as WP:Discretionary sanctions, which place strict limits on edits to the actual article. You have not attempted to add this material to the article, so you have not technically violated the discretionary sanctions. But it is still necessary to treat DS articles with care. If you bring this subject up again at the talk page, administrators might find it necessary to block you from editing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, unless you are an admin, this is not an "official warning." Are you willing to put your edits to the neutrality test? TweedVest (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone can warn of discretionary sanctions but as it happens, MelanieN is an admin (so am I). --NeilN 04:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Two questions: (1) is MelanieN an uninvolved admin with regards to that article/topic and (2) are you giving me a formal warning not to introduce reliable sources about allegations about Clinton's health issues on the article's talk page? TweedVest (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am involved at that article. So I do not take admin actions at that page, except to issue warnings when they are called for. The warning I gave you was to advise you not to reintroduce the topic a fourth time if the third one gets closed and archived. It has not been closed and archived, so you are commenting on the third thread that still exists. I will note, though, that even after being warned by NeilN (who is an uninvolved admin) about the need to be careful on that kind of page, you proceeded to put an unsourced comment on the page that was so totally outrageous it had to be redacted. You have been warned. I will not be taking action. But other admins may. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you're involved, why did NeilN imply above that he considered your opinion to be valid as an administrative warning? That seems to be saying that you admins are gaming the rules wherein an admin pretends to be "uninvolved" by not giving content opinions, but then backs up admins who do while trying to give the appearance of not doing so. How is WP supposed to have any credibility if you WP admins are editing so dirty? TweedVest (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I told you. Anyone can give out warnings - uninvolved admins, involved admins, regular editors... --NeilN 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- If an editor is giving content opinions on the talk page, then gives a "formal" warning, then how can you, as an "uninvolved" admin support them and claim to be "uninvolved"? Misplaced Pages appears to have some serious governance issues. TweedVest (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- And you have some issues adhering to WP:BLP as MelanieN correctly noted. Editors can have opinions on content and still warn editors who are violating policies and guidelines. --NeilN 06:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- You implied in your statement above that Melanie was acting as an admin, and even if she wasn't, you supported her warning. Shortly thereafter, another editor implied that Dr Drew was seeking publicity in his statements to the media, widely reported in RS as I have noted, that he has serious concerns about HRC's health. Did you block that editor for that BLP violation and did Melanie formally warn him? If not, why the double standard? TweedVest (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Only an editor purposefully misreading the comment would think it merited a block. --NeilN 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- You said above that you supported Melanie's "formal" warning as an admin. Now you say that it doesn't matter. That's communism/fascism. Two sides of the same coin. This is why WP is failing. TweedVest (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Only an editor purposefully misreading the comment would think it merited a block. --NeilN 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- You implied in your statement above that Melanie was acting as an admin, and even if she wasn't, you supported her warning. Shortly thereafter, another editor implied that Dr Drew was seeking publicity in his statements to the media, widely reported in RS as I have noted, that he has serious concerns about HRC's health. Did you block that editor for that BLP violation and did Melanie formally warn him? If not, why the double standard? TweedVest (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- And you have some issues adhering to WP:BLP as MelanieN correctly noted. Editors can have opinions on content and still warn editors who are violating policies and guidelines. --NeilN 06:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- If an editor is giving content opinions on the talk page, then gives a "formal" warning, then how can you, as an "uninvolved" admin support them and claim to be "uninvolved"? Misplaced Pages appears to have some serious governance issues. TweedVest (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I told you. Anyone can give out warnings - uninvolved admins, involved admins, regular editors... --NeilN 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you're involved, why did NeilN imply above that he considered your opinion to be valid as an administrative warning? That seems to be saying that you admins are gaming the rules wherein an admin pretends to be "uninvolved" by not giving content opinions, but then backs up admins who do while trying to give the appearance of not doing so. How is WP supposed to have any credibility if you WP admins are editing so dirty? TweedVest (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am involved at that article. So I do not take admin actions at that page, except to issue warnings when they are called for. The warning I gave you was to advise you not to reintroduce the topic a fourth time if the third one gets closed and archived. It has not been closed and archived, so you are commenting on the third thread that still exists. I will note, though, that even after being warned by NeilN (who is an uninvolved admin) about the need to be careful on that kind of page, you proceeded to put an unsourced comment on the page that was so totally outrageous it had to be redacted. You have been warned. I will not be taking action. But other admins may. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Two questions: (1) is MelanieN an uninvolved admin with regards to that article/topic and (2) are you giving me a formal warning not to introduce reliable sources about allegations about Clinton's health issues on the article's talk page? TweedVest (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone can warn of discretionary sanctions but as it happens, MelanieN is an admin (so am I). --NeilN 04:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, unless you are an admin, this is not an "official warning." Are you willing to put your edits to the neutrality test? TweedVest (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm coming here after seeing your harassment comment here. I am getting the impression from my perusal of your contribution history that you are not so much interested in improving the encyclopedia as you are in engaging in arguments with other editors and perhaps pursuing a politically-charged agenda. Since you are an experienced editor you know that this will lead to a quick block from editing if it continues. ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2016 (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 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.