Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DPL bot (talk | contribs) at 09:53, 5 June 2019 (dablink notification message (see the FAQ)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Warning

It's one thing to subject myself to it —I can take it. But a veiled threat to other users that you will "compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on" — that will not be tolerated. I warned you already against battleground behaviour. There will not be a third warning. If you have concerns about editing in the GMO area, use resources like NPOVN or COIN to report issues. I have no sympathy for Monsanto, et al. (or the company formerly know as) of all entities, but you can either make threats or be an editor on Misplaced Pages — you can't do both. El_C 00:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Offering to help make a coherent list out of a scattershot filing cabinet (admin archives) is not a threat. ~ SashiRolls 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bolded for emphasis. El_C 00:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

and? ~ SashiRolls 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

And? Really? El_C 00:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked first. :) ~ SashiRolls 00:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, this is not inspiring confidence. El_C 00:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. ~ SashiRolls 00:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This battleground mentality is what I'm talking about. El_C 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC){{od}]

It's late El C. I object to being forced to speak wiki instead of natural language. I don't like having rhetorical DSM-5 diagnoses thrown at me. That's what, for me, doesn't inspire confidence. Can we just speak English? It is not "having a battleground mentality" to offer to help in organizing the data in all those messy archives, to shed a little light on a very thorny problem. There is a there there. Ishmael Reed said so. But writin' isn't always fightin'.~ SashiRolls 01:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not open to debate. You will not be making veiled threats about listing "recurring actors" to the press again, or you will be sanctioned. Plain and simple. El_C 01:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you made that clear. And if you reread the conversation above I have not done so. I will keep my mouth shut. Would you be willing to fix the lack of a 1RR warning on the TPs so that new editors are warned... (cf. your link above)? ~ SashiRolls 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi: victim of the same "gotcha journalism" that got Trump elected

Not sure if you would be privy to this piece in your neck of the woods, so thought i'd pass it along: Rolling Stone petrarchan47คุก 21:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Petrarachan! I hadn't seen this article; it's good to see that in some corners of the MSM these Daily Beast / NBC hit pieces are being noticed. Gotta' run, but just wanted to say thanks! ~ SashiRolls 10:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

EW

I have been very patient with your, shall we say, "aggressive" edits on Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but you are way over 3RR. More troubling, your editing reflects that you have very strong opinions about this subject that I believe is damaging a neutral POV.

I request that you self-revert your fifth revert to this article in the past hour unless you prefer to take your chances at the appropriate notice board. - MrX 🖋 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That content was never in the article before you added it in the previous edit. I don't know how I could have reverted it five times? Please explain below. Or be a bully... as you wish. No way will I put that nonsense in the article under my name. ~ SashiRolls 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed the same content five times. I said you made five reverts. You removed material that I added, five times. You also just violated 1RR at Tulsi Gabbard (your fist revert was this, a few hours ago). I suggest that you self-revert you second revert there as well.- MrX 🖋 22:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you stop POV-pushing exclusively negative information onto Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. Your "you just violated 1RR" diff is obviously not a revert. I added the other side of the story and fixed blatantly POV prose. Please stop this transparent gaming of DS.~ SashiRolls 22:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to call that first removal a revert (which is not unreasonable despite the fact that it was not added today), then you were at 8RR on 19 May 2019 (the day you added what I removed today). ~ SashiRolls 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, you removed ", largely via the same propaganda sources that influenced the 2016 presidential election" and two sources. That's a partial (and substantial) revert. Two of the three sources specifically highlight Russian propaganda, which you effectively now scrubbed from two articles.

If you don't wish to self-revert, I intend to raise these issues at WP:AE, as I believe your edit warring and WP:OWN conduct is harmful.- MrX 🖋 23:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't think that accusing someone of being a Russia propaganda candidate is an exceptional BLP claim requiring exceptional sourcing? This is why I removed a duplicate ref (The Independent) reporting on the NBC news story while suggesting she was in David Duke's corner and removed a ref that did not support the exceptional claim. This, while adding two articles directly responding to the article calling it a hit piece. You will need to explain your eight reverts on 19 May and why I am not taking you to AE for that crystal clear violation where there are no possible BLP protection reasons involved. If I were retired / home all day, perhaps I would consider doing so, but I am not. Please stay off my talk page. ~ SashiRolls 06:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SashiRolls

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SashiRolls. - MrX 🖋 22:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are subject to the sanction listed at User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#No personal comments for a period of 1 year.

You have been sanctioned because of the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks listed here.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the sanction carefully and make sure you understand it, including the section below titled #Instructions for reporting violations, so you know what to do when somebody notifies you that you have violated it. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is quite funny. Somebody lies and the person they lie about has their speech fettered. An anonymous pair (the Snoox) smear the reputation of a living person, and the one who makes clear what they are doing has their speech fettered. I will begin to think you might be decent when you place the same notice on Snooganssnoogans talk page. For the moment, you seem as corrupt as those you are aiding and abetting. 🌿 SashiRolls 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care much what you think about me, and if you call them Snoox again after being asked not to multiple times I'll block your account. Follow the sanction. It's what you should be doing anyway, and people will take you more seriously when you're not disrupting talk pages by constantly lashing out at your colleagues. ~Awilley (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not what I think that matters. It's what is obvious that matters and that is that the GMO crew & the DNC crew are well protected. Please stay off of my talk page.🌿 SashiRolls 17:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ironic that the mister who started the AE thread was concerned about personal attacks and not staying calm in the American Politics 1932- area has himself used words like this in it. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX games 1RR again

So by correcting the errors you introduced into the article with your two reverts, you have sought to get me into trouble. When are you going to get bored with this childish gaming? Will someone have the intelligence to block you, or will you be allowed to continue to pester people? I do believe I told you to stay off of my TP...🌿 SashiRolls 17:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This personal attack. Where you accuse MrX of being dishonest and childish for (correctly) saying that you violated 1RR. This doesn't have anything to do with the "no personal comments" sanction above. are always against Misplaced Pages policy, and the extra sanction is most definitely not a free pass to make personal attacks against other users on my talk page and then demand that I jump through hoops to ask you to remove them. At some point you need to realize that if you aren't willing to work collaboratively with your fellow editors you will be asked to leave permanently. ~Awilley (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. I did not call MrX dishonest because he accused me of making a mistake concerning the wiki-rulez, I called MrX dishonest because he said that Taibbi's article does not talk about smear. It does. Demonstrably. As the quotes on the page show. I did call MrX childish for playing a childish game: first revert someone's edit, then when reverted add a tag saying that my contribution was "made up". MrX says "smear" was "not in the source cited" when in fact, there it was, plain as the nose on your face (twice). The strategy of tattling on honest people who have been entrapped by dishonest edits is what is childish. I checked the rulez and realized that this was an effective strategy to get people blocked, so I reverted to follow the rulez being gamed. I'll write elsewhere where people are respectful.🌿 SashiRolls 00:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tulsi Gabbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)