Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 23 January 2017

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Glass houses

Unlike me, you actually have (by your own admission) violated 1RR at 2016 United States election interference by Russia with these reverts. (Keep stalking and reverting only my edits, and "TTAAC needs to blocked or banned" is going to come back to haunt you.) Unlike you, I'm going to give you a chance to self-revert before crying to a drama board. I hope you take it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is connected as well, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim on one hand that a DS notice is not an accusation, just housekeeping that we all have the notice. All editors on these articles should routinely be given them.(), and in the same breath when you yourself are given the same, reply that I am going to file a complaint if you don't remove that sanctions notice from my talk page. It's clearly a violation of WP:POINT and I have no idea what constructive purpose you could claim it accomplished.(). Just a friendly reminder. TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether the page is up, because it's somewhat sexist and not all that witty, but "Don't be a dick" applies to your message, TJ Wood. I had previously received that notice, as is evident from the "My Apologies" thread above. If you're trying to stir up trouble, that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That was pretty much my message as well. If you'll look at my talk, I was given the same by the same user, which completely makes sense, if it is indeed housekeeping we should be routinely reminded of. Unlike yourself, I attempted to explain why it was not the best use of the template rather than threatening to take them to ANI.

The fact that you in turn threatened to take me to AE over the issue, probably means that you need to take a good hard look at your assumptions of bad faith, and fix yourself. TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not only have I not threatened you, but you've disregarded my observation that you are speaking without first checking the context that would address whatever concerns you may have. Don't post any more on this thread. Please read all the context on all the related pages. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You did indeed, and I was following the conversation at the time, because I was having the same conversation, at the same time, with the same user on my talk. That you did not simply remove the notice yourself, as I sure you will this comment, is silly, and that you insult my intelligence by insinuating that I am unable to look through a half dozen diffs is more so. Fix yourself. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

AE report

This is to let you know that I am filing an Arbitration Enforcement request against you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, for violation of the Discretionary Sanctions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Using SYNTH far too liberally

How can a direct quote violate BLP?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You are on thin ice, as half a dozen editors and Admins have recently told you. It does nobody any good to see you blocked or banned, but I can tell you that you are headed down a dangerous path. I hope you will reflect on all the feedback you've gotten recently, take some time off from the American Politics articles, and study the policies and guidelines and Arbcom restrictions that have been cited to you. Synth has to do with the juxtaposition of content to insinuate a conclusion not intended by the sources. I'd again urge you to go back and heed my message to you from yesterday. Your response is nothing more than a denial of the Discretionary Sanctions restrictions about which you've repeatedly been warned. Now, please reflect and don't come to this page again for at least 30 days. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there

Sorry you are getting harassed by TTAAC. You are a good editor who is clearly trying to be fair and do what is right by Misplaced Pages. Everyone has their biases and no one is perfect, especially us. haha. But I don't see any reason for this constant berating you receive by trolls like TTAAC. Also, it is a strange sign of the times that admins are possessed by the urge to enable creeps like TTAAC when banning them should be a no-brainer. I mean, the creep actually accused Obama of being the founder of a terrorist organization. If that isn't a WP:BLP violation, then I don't know what is. But some dark cloud is spreading over the earth and sending us into an anti-intellectual dark age. It is like something is toxic in the air and turning everyone into pod people, like something out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." How else to explain how Americans would elect a clearly racist uneducated man like Trump. He bragged about raping his co-workers on audio tape no less!?!??? These truly are dark times.

I don't know you and I can't say we are friends. But I respect your strength and conviction as an editor so in the meanwhile keep your chin up and don't let these trolls drag you down. Misplaced Pages needs you. Good luck lass and God speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.141.67 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Need help filing complaint about disruptive user

Saw that you were part of AE where an user a named "TheTimesAreAChanging" was TBANNED with this very condition:

So wouldn't this EDIT be a clear violation of his TBAN then? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=760179804

In the header of the article, it even says BOLDLY, "This article is part of a series on the Politics of the United States of America." So that irony could not have been lost on him.

The edit (listed above) in particular that he chose to make was about the US and Russia's interference with elections which is the hottest thing being debated in America politics right now! Before his TBAN he was busy making disruptive edits about this subject as well, but on directly related pages on the subject. Unbelievable. Clearly he's just trying to find a creative way around his ban so he can sneak in edits about it and resume edit warring on the subject, etc.

Update#2: TTAAC has also just been found guilty for socking puppetry for, you guessed it, so he could edit U.S. political pages and get around his TBAN. Maybe he should be indeffed at this point if he's going to go that route??? This all the more offensive since the thing he likes to rant about the most is OTHER people's alleged sockpuppetry. What a hypocrite!

Then TTAAC decided to protest his socking violation with MORE socking, using these IPs to protest his ban by engaging in a lame con against the admin who blocked him:

Now, here's the thing: one has filed a proper SPI about this so could you do so? This will bolster the case for his indeff since that's the only remedy that makes sense at this point, etc.. and we need this documented if the investigation finds (and it will) that this is TTAAC. Clearly the sock master account needs banning.

Also, we NEED to bring this to the attention of arbcom admins but they don't like us anons to file these reports and this place isn't worth it enough for me to create a formal account and deal with that drama. I'm content will my on-and-off editing and lurking.

So could you file this new development with the admins?

TTAAC's clearly a WP:NOTHERE with no desire to rehabilitate himself during his six month cooling off period they assigned to him for that very purpose. Now is the time to bring justice on this subject, etc.

Update#3: Here is TTAAC now engaging in block evasion . Again, something else that should be properly reported to both arbcom admins AND processed in a proper SPI so TTAAC will be held accountable and won't get away with this. When similar situations have arisen, TTAAC has demanded that an user be indeffed for block evasion. So honor his wishes and help him out with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.138.120 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#4: Hmmmm...TTAAC seems adamant about proving that this guy is not related to him. Of course, that lame protesting over it with anon IPs screams guilt and a behavioral investigation will find this to be WP:DUCK related to him. But what is MORE interesting about this is that it sounds like he thought this sock strategy was fool proof in some way and it failed him for his gaming purposes. So I'm guessing this is at least meatpuppetry and his insecure meltdown over it betrays the following: he probably has some friend in a far away state willing to let him use their computer to make edits so he can insulate his IP. Still a socking offense, which is why we have behavioral investigations to counter this type of con.

SO...don't let him get away with this. File a proper SPI so we can expose Kingshowman as his obvious meatpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.138.120 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#5: Another of TTAAC's IP socks. Here he is block evading pretending to be User:Kingshowman upset at the idea of being associated with "a racist troll" like TTAAC but the problem with this con is that the edit history of this IP shows TTAAC's presence on the Donald Trump pages where he was soapboxing previous under his logged-in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.138.120 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#6: TTAAC uses yet another IP sock to evade his block . This is made even MORE offensive about the fact he's pretending to be someone else when it's clearly him, so it's a block evasion AND a sock violation.71.218.141.119 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#7: TTAAC using yet EVEN another IP sock to evade his block Again, made even MORE offensive about the fact he's pretending to be someone else when it's clearly him, so it's a (multiple) block evasion AND a (multiple) sock violation. Someone PLEASE indeff the sockmaster please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.143.35 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected

Hi, SPECIFICO! I'm sure you can tell this rapidly-shifting IP is TheTimesAreAChanging, who was recently blocked for a month for violating his TBAN. Or maybe it's Kingshowman, who is furious at having his name linked to TTAAC's. In any case I have semiprotected your page. I will let you do the cleanup operation. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello thanks MelanieN. It's all Greek to me -- socks impersonating one another's socks. If either of them has a complaint, my humble talk page would be the last place to get it resolved. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RE your comment on the BLP Noticeboard on Sippenhaft

It's not quite clear which way your comment is to be taken there, or perhaps you prefer not to come down on either side. If you have a view as to whether this is a BLP violation or not I'd appreciate a note one way or another. Regards, Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Well I believe that editors are claiming that no RS connects Trump to Sippenhaft and that the disputed content is therefore SYNTH and a BLP violation. However I believe that the two sources I cited do explicitly link Trump to Sippenhaft, so that they can be used to rebut the SYNTH claim. At any rate, as a public figure who's spoken at length on this topic, I don't think Trump could credibly claim that these sources are libeling him, so I see no BLP violation. Feel free to copy this to the board if you think it helps clarify my remarks. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi SPECIFICO, thanks for responding. I copy-pasted to the BLP noticeboard. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Specifico.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Violations of arbitration remedies at "2016 United States election interference by Russia‎"

You made two unrelated reverts at 2016 United States election interference by Russia‎ within a short time period: . This is a violation of arbitration remedies which apply to that page. Please self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you don't understand the policy and DS rules that apply to reverts and editing in this article. Please review WP definitions and policy regarding reverts and the rules that apply to Discretionary Sanctions in this article and in the ARBAP2 decision and don't post on this talk page further about this. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand the rules, and your two reverts (diffs above) are a violation of the rules. In your further editing, please keep these rules in mind. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to be as gracious and polite as possible. Your complaint is two degrees weaker than the one that got a previous AE complaint against me tossed out on its face. You are now banned from this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)