| Revision as of 22:39, 7 August 2017 view sourceMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Blocked: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:01, 7 August 2017 view source Hidden Tempo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,255 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for repeated ], ], and agenda-driven editing and ], despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for repeated ], ], and agenda-driven editing and ], despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | ||
| {{unblock|reason= | |||
| *{{u|MastCell}} - I am baffled why you chose to block me for edit warring, when there were multiple editors reinstating the contentious material without consensus. I did violate the 3RR rule one time unintentionally, but surely an indef isn't an order? I went through the proper channels - discussing the material on the talk page, and then to the No original research noticeboard. The material you reference is a citation to an opinion piece in Politico, claiming Stephen Miller attacked "Americans" for a "deficit of nationalism," but neither claim is present int he Politico op-ed. | |||
| *In regards to the tendentious/hyper-partisan editing, please refer to {{u|MelanieN}}, who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as ] and ]. In fact, the only time a ] emerges is when I am personally attacked, usually by Volunteer Marek (can cite diffs if necessary). Of course I do not have clean hands - I should have stepped back and let cooler heads prevail, but to absolve all blame of that user is surely not appropriate. | |||
| *Finally, I am completely confused why my edit summary describing a Politico contributor as a "Trump hater" is somehow unforgivable, while referring to a living person as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and a "misogynist" with no diffs whatsoever is somehow acceptable. I will apologize for the "Trump hater" remark but I do not see the basis of the two standards. For these reasons, I am requesting a lifting of the indefinite block. ] (]) 23:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 23:01, 7 August 2017
Reply
- Years ago the New Jersey police were criticized for disproportionately stopping African American drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike. The speed limit on the southern part of that road is 65mph but due to lax enforcement typical traffic flow is closer to 80mph. That discrepancy between law and custom created a situation in which the individual African American driver, though disproportionately targeted, had no defense: all drivers were guilty and African Americans as a subset of all drivers were also guilty. I see parallels when comparing the behaviors outlined in WP:TENDENTIOUS with that of editors in the Donald Trump article. I don't recall whether the problems in New Jersey were corrected but they did prompt in a Justice Department study.
- I recently (though somewhat lazily) began aggregating sanction enforcement data for analysis. Whether my effort's justified or any useful patterns will emerge is to be seen but if it interests you I'd welcome the collaboration. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas!! Thanks again for all your help. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Missing articles
I notice a conspicuous absence of the articles Tin-pot tyrant and/or Tin-pot dictator (a redirect.) Much of the relevant content would precede 1932, which is outside the scope of your topic ban if you're so inclined. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, @James J. Lambden. Thanks for the heads up, although I find it hard to find the motivation to edit those pages, as my history is more than a little rough. Also it seems that only one area on Misplaced Pages (which I can't talk about without receiving an e-caning) is the primary target of the coordinated efforts to remove neutrality and insert the worldviews of the editors. I just can't use Misplaced Pages for that topic anymore, as it's become just so unreliable and egregiously dishonest. I really like the table you compiled on your page, though. It paints a very clear, albeit disturbing picture of the trend that these people deny exists. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Structurally Misplaced Pages reminds me of Wall St in the sense that few at the top benefit disproportionately in a system contingent upon mass participation. To put the analogy concretely: if the average investor withdrew their funds financial speculation would become less lucrative. Misplaced Pages relies on immense, often tedious effort of IP and apolitical editors so that a small few may use it to advance an agenda. How one best corrects such a system is a difficult question but I suspect change must come from the many, not the few. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Were you replying to me?
The comment you made here, looks like it was replying to my comment. Perhaps got a little mixed up on the format there. PackMecEng (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, PackMecEng, I addressed BullRangifer in my comment but maybe it was confusing since it was directly after your edit. I didn't want to stomp on your edit by cramming mine in there. Was that not right? Feel free to move my reply to above yours if that's more appropriate. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, I was just curious. I have no issue with where it is. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MastCell 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hidden Tempo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- MastCell - I am baffled why you chose to block me for edit warring, when there were multiple editors reinstating the contentious material without consensus. I did violate the 3RR rule one time unintentionally, but surely an indef isn't an order? I went through the proper channels - discussing the material on the talk page, and then to the No original research noticeboard. The material you reference is a citation to an opinion piece in Politico, claiming Stephen Miller attacked "Americans" for a "deficit of nationalism," but neither claim is present int he Politico op-ed.
- In regards to the tendentious/hyper-partisan editing, please refer to MelanieN, who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as James Comey and Sean Spicer. In fact, the only time a WP:BATTLEGROUND emerges is when I am personally attacked, usually by Volunteer Marek (can cite diffs if necessary). Of course I do not have clean hands - I should have stepped back and let cooler heads prevail, but to absolve all blame of that user is surely not appropriate.
- Finally, I am completely confused why my edit summary describing a Politico contributor as a "Trump hater" is somehow unforgivable, while referring to a living person as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and a "misogynist" with no diffs whatsoever is somehow acceptable. I will apologize for the "Trump hater" remark but I do not see the basis of the two standards. For these reasons, I am requesting a lifting of the indefinite block. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=*] - I am baffled why you chose to block me for edit warring, when there were multiple editors reinstating the contentious material without consensus. I did violate the 3RR rule one time unintentionally, but surely an indef isn't an order? I went through the proper channels - discussing the material on the talk page, and then to the No original research noticeboard. The material you reference is a citation to an opinion piece in Politico, claiming Stephen Miller attacked "Americans" for a "deficit of nationalism," but neither claim is present int he Politico op-ed. *In regards to the tendentious/hyper-partisan editing, please refer to ], who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as ] and ]. In fact, the only time a ] emerges is when I am personally attacked, usually by Volunteer Marek (can cite diffs if necessary). Of course I do not have clean hands - I should have stepped back and let cooler heads prevail, but to absolve all blame of that user is surely not appropriate. *Finally, I am completely confused why my edit summary describing a Politico contributor as a "Trump hater" is somehow unforgivable, while referring to a living person as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and a "misogynist" with no diffs whatsoever is somehow acceptable. I will apologize for the "Trump hater" remark but I do not see the basis of the two standards. For these reasons, I am requesting a lifting of the indefinite block. ] (]) 23:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=*] - I am baffled why you chose to block me for edit warring, when there were multiple editors reinstating the contentious material without consensus. I did violate the 3RR rule one time unintentionally, but surely an indef isn't an order? I went through the proper channels - discussing the material on the talk page, and then to the No original research noticeboard. The material you reference is a citation to an opinion piece in Politico, claiming Stephen Miller attacked "Americans" for a "deficit of nationalism," but neither claim is present int he Politico op-ed. *In regards to the tendentious/hyper-partisan editing, please refer to ], who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as ] and ]. In fact, the only time a ] emerges is when I am personally attacked, usually by Volunteer Marek (can cite diffs if necessary). Of course I do not have clean hands - I should have stepped back and let cooler heads prevail, but to absolve all blame of that user is surely not appropriate. *Finally, I am completely confused why my edit summary describing a Politico contributor as a "Trump hater" is somehow unforgivable, while referring to a living person as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and a "misogynist" with no diffs whatsoever is somehow acceptable. I will apologize for the "Trump hater" remark but I do not see the basis of the two standards. For these reasons, I am requesting a lifting of the indefinite block. ] (]) 23:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=*] - I am baffled why you chose to block me for edit warring, when there were multiple editors reinstating the contentious material without consensus. I did violate the 3RR rule one time unintentionally, but surely an indef isn't an order? I went through the proper channels - discussing the material on the talk page, and then to the No original research noticeboard. The material you reference is a citation to an opinion piece in Politico, claiming Stephen Miller attacked "Americans" for a "deficit of nationalism," but neither claim is present int he Politico op-ed. *In regards to the tendentious/hyper-partisan editing, please refer to ], who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as ] and ]. In fact, the only time a ] emerges is when I am personally attacked, usually by Volunteer Marek (can cite diffs if necessary). Of course I do not have clean hands - I should have stepped back and let cooler heads prevail, but to absolve all blame of that user is surely not appropriate. *Finally, I am completely confused why my edit summary describing a Politico contributor as a "Trump hater" is somehow unforgivable, while referring to a living person as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and a "misogynist" with no diffs whatsoever is somehow acceptable. I will apologize for the "Trump hater" remark but I do not see the basis of the two standards. For these reasons, I am requesting a lifting of the indefinite block. ] (]) 23:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}