| Revision as of 21:18, 16 January 2017 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,187 edits →January 2017: revoke talk page access← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:27, 14 April 2017 edit undoBumm13 (talk | contribs)Administrators78,499 edits →Your behavior: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| | algo = old(31d) | | algo = old(31d) | ||
| | archive = User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive %(counter)d | | archive = User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 7 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 70K | | maxarchivesize = 70K | ||
| | archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} | | archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archive box collapsible|]]]]]]]}} | |||
| == SPI == | |||
| == Coup d'etat by influencing electoral college == | |||
| Bear with me, this was my first WP entry and my first talk about it. I added current developments about the above topics, and you undid the change with the comment "All true, but undid due to WP:UNDUE". What was wrong with my entry? I know that references needed to be supplied, but if the content was deemed "all true" how can it not fit on that page? Is there a better place to put this? | |||
| Hi-- Are you opening a SPI on 92slim/Forsytor or should I? ] (]) 05:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| :You can do it. The timing of Forsytor showing up to make essentially the same argument as 92slim shortly after the latter was blocked is undeniably suspicious, but I am not sure if checkusers will consider that alone to be sufficient cause to justify use of their powers. (<i>Then again, based on past actions taken by certain checkusers that I am familiar with, I really don't see why it would not be.</i>) It would be nice to compare 92slim and Fosytor's edit histories for any similarities first, but Fosytor hasn't made very many edits.] (]) 05:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Thomas | |||
| ] (]) |
:: Ok, it's past bed time, so I'll open one tomorrow. I did check their contributions and there's a strong behavioral link. ] (]) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::Not 92slim. Just another Steverci sock. ;) - ] (]) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :What the Hell; I won't revert you again if you restore I'll just ping Misplaced Pages's whitewasher-in-chief—{{Ping|Volunteer Marek}}—and let him decide whether or not your edit is acceptable.] (]) 07:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::As the WhitewasherInChief I proclaim that edit unacceptable. It's not encyclopedic and utilizes too much editorializing and has no sources. As a RegularWikipediaEditor I'm gonna remind TTAAC about civility.] (]) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::To elaborate a bit in all seriousness: The connection you making between the CIA's claims of Russian "interference" in the 2016 election and ] is likely to constitute ] and ]. Very few, if any, reliable sources describe the CIA's current actions as a deliberate attempt to sway electors to vote against Trump. Note that Misplaced Pages is about ]—and by definition perpetuates whatever biases may exist in mainstream sources. I believe ] should be limited to major U.S. interventions widely covered in RS on the topic, whereas your text seems like an example of ] or ].] (]) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry that == | |||
| == Discretionary sanctions alert == | |||
| I didn't tag you. I just thought you were still blocked and it would be obnoxious to tag you if you couldn't respond. -] (]) 03:31, 29 March 2017 (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.'' | |||
| == Your behavior == | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| Telling a site administrator to "get a clue" over legitimate edits to an article is perhaps not the wisest thing for you to be doing. Your attitude perhaps needs to change if you wish to continue in good standing on this project. ] (]) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (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 ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] (]) 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone appears on Misplaced Pages knowing all the rules and noticeboards, edits in a blatantly partisan manner, and then peppers everyone's talk pages with warnings. What a bunch of baloney. -] (]) 05:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Please undo yourself == | |||
| Political Positions of Donald Trump is under DS, and disputed content should not be reinserted w/o consensus on talk: | |||
| Please review the DS notice at the top of the talk page and undo your reinsertion of content I've cleaned up and use talk if you disagree with my edit. Thanks. ]] 04:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, ''you're'' not supposed to change long-standing sourced material without consensus. ''Wash Post'' says: The text is clearly sourced—in fact, it's quoted nearly ''verbatim''—so why pretend it's Must you use opaque edit summaries to justify purging everything you don't like? Does ''every single edit'' really need to be accompanied by threats and drama boards—no matter how uncontroversial it should be to any objective observer? In sum, SPECIFICO: What's your problem?] (]) 05:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == I did not edit war == | |||
| I merely reverted once. I did explain the matter to you and you went on to almost agree. But now you went back to "Criticise everything Mathmensch does" mode. --] (]) 22:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Nope, I never agreed with you. Now that you've gotten reverted by more than one editor it is even more incumbent on you to stop.] (]) 22:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Congratulations. You just did what every strongman in history does. --] (]) 22:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Sincere apologies == | |||
| G'day TTAAC, my apologies for the block, it was wrong. You did not breach 1RR on Benjamin Netanyahu. Sorry about that. I have reversed my actions, and I unreservedly apologise. Happy Christmas, ] (]) 01:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. Same to you.] (]) 01:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Merry Christmas and Happy New Year == | |||
| Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. ] (]) 21:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks—same to you!] (]) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Bernard Lewis == | |||
| Hi-- I don't think I'll be able to move that dispute from edit warring to consensus building without additional help from constructive editors. Since your contributions indicate that you're one of them, and you already have a hand in that dispute, your renewed participation would be appreciated. ] (]) 03:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello TheTimesAreAChanging,<br> | |||
| you've written in your comment: "Potentially serious WP:BLP problems with using interview that Zbig has long claimed distorted his statements; replaced and rephrased". I've the question: Can you provide a source for that? Since ] is a very respected magazine. --] (]) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure. See (or ), and (starting with the question at 7:35), just for starters.] (]) 22:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :For comments by other Carter administration officials see (in addition to the first link), e.g., in '']''. Riedel had more direct access to Gates, Brzezinski, and Carter than anyone, although you won't find his book very useful for promoting the conspiracy theorist version of what happened.] (]) 22:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::But in your Brzezinski repeated the main fact he stated in the interview: "I didn't say it was designed to prompt a Soviet invasion. That was a very sensationalized and abbreviated version of an interview. '''What I did say was that we did help mujaheddin to resist the Soviet. At the time the Soviet''' already had political control over Afghanistan but '''had not yet invaded militarily.'''" He only rejects that it was intended to prompt an invasion. But that is of secondary importance, the main part is: The CIA helped the mujaheddin before the Soviets invaded Afganistan. --] (]) 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::(P.S. And for the other part, when a politician wants to correct an article in such a high-rank magazine more than 7 years later on, then that article would stand on its own, but here he tried to correct one part only to ''confirm'' the main part.) | |||
| :::"''He only rejects that it was intended to prompt an invasion. But that is of secondary importance, the main part is: The CIA helped the mujaheddin before the Soviets invaded Afganistan.''" Right, and that's in the article now.] (]) 00:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==THANKS, re link to text of ]== | |||
| First, I want to thank you very much for the link to the saved text of this article (which earlier had been split-off from ]). | |||
| Late last year I looked for "RH, early career" but was surprised to discover that the article apparently no longer existed. Instead when entering its name there is a redirect to the "RH" article. At a loss of where to find the missing text of "RH, e. c.", I searched the sections at the end of ]. No reference to it appeared. Yet later, I came back to read through the entire "RH" talk page. At the top of a 2012-era section on 'POV', was your added NB entry dated March 2016. In it you included a link to the deleted article. Thank you, again!! And thank you for your kind words. | |||
| After additional reflection, I went back but found no real discussion about the deletion, or why the decision to delete was made. Not on either talk page. Since I had contributed substantially over several years to the text, I reckon I should have been included, or at least informed. | |||
| But my main point is to thank you. Not only for the link, but for your comments about the two RH articles, and other articles as well. ] (]) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Happy to help. Thanks again for your superb editing.] (]) 03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit summaries == | |||
| Please keep it civil.] (]) 08:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Also, in regard to your revert, please keep in mind and the closing statement: ''"You are at the edge of getting topic banned or blocked. I would remind you that Arb restricted areas have little rope and you just used yours up. Discuss before reverting when you know it is going to be contentious. "'' ] (]) 08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| And while I'm here, I *strongly* suggest you remove the BLP vios from your user page concerning Ana Kasparian and Anita Sarkeesian. Remember that ] applies to ALL Misplaced Pages pages.] (]) 08:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :There are literally hundreds of sources that covered the revelations about Saudi and Qatari support for Islamic State. That material has been long-standing, and—given the sheer volume of coverage it received—it is inconceivable that any summary of the ] would exclude it, except possibly Misplaced Pages's. You've been highly effective at wielding DS veto power over that article to hollow out discussion of the ''content'' of the emails to almost nothing—as the —but if you want to go even further and delete the entire "Contents" section outright (presumably because you believe it distracts readers from the far greater evil of Putin), then I hope your efforts are met with resistance. Alternatively, I wish you would recognize that just because Putin may be a bad guy, the U.S. government is not composed of perfect angels.] (]) 09:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::If there are "literally hundreds of sources" then you can find better ones than the ones presently in the article. Also, please keep your speculation about my motives and beliefs to yourself - I know it's much easier to argue with strawmen but it's also a sort of self-delusion. | |||
| ::And on that note, are you going to remove the BLP vios from your user page or do I have to? ] (]) 20:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::What did I say about Kasparian that you feel is a BLP vio? My reference to "''horrible, hate-filled people''" did not name her specifically.] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The part starting with "who previously called for..." ] (]) 05:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't care about calling Kasparian or anyone else bad names outside of articles, but accusing Fusako Shigenobu of a transparently ridiculous crime which she has never committed is particularly egregious. That's a BLP-vio ''par excellence''. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But that's a quote from a ], and all you have is ]. (And I'm sure you can understand that it makes little difference for the point being made whether the story is true or merely apocryphal.)] (]) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I guess, but as you well know WP:RS does not mean "good enough for WP:BLP." We unfortunately have to live with the fact WP:RS are frequently UNreliable, but when they level ] accusations against living people without evidence or consensus—in fact contrary to both—that's potential libel. Whether or not the accused individual or group is "bad" is completely immaterial. In other words, it does not matter what point you are trying to make. A "noble lie" is still a lie. Although in the scheme of things, I don't really care. Keep it if you want. ] (]) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The part where you first mention Kasparian and then follow it up with "Leftists really are horrible, hate-filled people" needs to go too, since it is very clearly meant to imply that Kasparian herself is a "horrible, hate-filled person". So yeah, it's a BLP vio.] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But ] (]) 00:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I did not get it. Why do you quote senator ] here? ] (]) 00:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Volunteer Marek believes in one set of policies for people he ], and another for people he dislikes. He does not even pretend to be consistent or fair (nor does anyone think that he is): Putin and Assange are enemies, Hilary is an ally, so the former are demonized and the latter gets a hagiography. If the same were true of my edits, I would take a hard look in the mirror. However, although I have been called a Right-wing, anti-Communist, pro-Israeli, possibly CIA-sponsored propagandist, it is not hard to find edits I have made that undermine my own alleged POV: , , , , , , , , , , ect.] (]) 01:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::If you can't see the difference between saying that a statement by a prominent Senator is notable, and ranting, raving and smearing living persons on your user page, then I can't help you. Maybe AE will.] (]) 05:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::People around here have a lot of different views, which obviously affects their editing. However, this is frequently not a matter of their POV, but a matter of their knowledge/expertise in the subject. I agree that your edits (diffs) above were good. But let me ask you a question. You apparently quote senator McCain as an example of extreme POV. Do you seriously disagree with him based on your ''expertise''? Did not his words were based on facts? The Ukraine was in fact dismembered. The airstrikes on hospitals did happen. A lot of people were undeniably killed during Chechen wars, in Syria and in other places. Putin was in fact the president during all these times and made decisions, pretty much unilaterally.] (]) 01:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I'm saying we need to be consistent. Would we accept a similarly hyperbolic but substantively accurate criticism of Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton by a Russian official? '''Of course not'''—and that's an example of raging ], not something to be celebrated. (Indeed, we have real-time proof of this, because just over a week after Volunteer Marek precipitated at ] by declaring Putin's own December 23 response to allegations that he personally supervised the DNC and Podesta email hacks to boost Trump )] (]) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I generally agree about the systemic bias, however the page about the current US president-elect is not exactly a panegiric, and of course there is an enormous difference between the leaders of different countries, and it is reflected on the pages. For example, the leaders of North Korea and US are in fact very different. ] (]) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::That you have to go to ] to find an article on a U.S. politician that <i>isn't</i> a "]" is not much of an exception. Maybe the exception that proves the rule.] (]) 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == SPECIFICO == | |||
| Your comments on SPECIFICO are a distraction on the talk page and have gone too far. Please take concerns about user conduct ] However, I would ask you to stop the comments on article talk pages. ] (]) 22:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Alright, point taken. I certainly intend to report SPECIFICO; I'm just not sure my list is big enough yet to guarantee action will be taken. (In addition, it seems that SPECIFICO can't go more than a few days without misrepresenting something or other, so I'm inclined to wait ... )] (]) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would suggest that your behavior might also be questioned. Might want to work things out.] (]) 01:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| TTACC. Did not you see my advice above ? I supported you once on WP:AE. Can not do it next time. ] (]) 22:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll never voluntarily censor myself from editing on any topic.] (]) 22:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you had to restrain yourself in response to conclusion by Dennis on AE. Now you are making serious personal accusations (intentional misinterpretation of sources) on article talk page . This is not the place. If you really believe it, such claims should be only made on appropriate administrative noticeboards and with proofs. ] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems you are going to be just fine, but looking at your sandbox I must tell that your evidence of intentional misinterpretation by S. is weak, to tell the least. You tell was an intentional fabrication, however the quoted actually tells: ''The 170-page report said such Iraq/al-Qaeda statements were “not substantiated by the intelligence,” adding that multiple CIA reports dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating partners – and that there was no intelligence information that supported administration statements that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda.'' Well, I think this is more than enough to think that S. acted in a good faith, whatever else this source tells. ] (]) 19:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::The says that the claims about WMD ''were'' substantiated by the intelligence, but the claims about al Qaeda were not. SPECIFICO used it to declare Trump's statement false and to deny that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD, even though the source explicitly says the opposite, noting: "''The Trump team kept its complaint isolated to intelligence findings that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.''" All of SPECIFICO's "errors" support their POV, but it really makes no difference whether they are misrepresenting sources on purpose or out of incompetence; they've been doing it routinely for four years, and I find it mind-boggling that they've been able to get away with it for so long and remain a respected (if topic-restricted) member of the community. (Nor do I see anything to suggest that SPECIFICO's misconduct is limited to a single topic, or even to any set of topics.)] (]) 01:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you. Now I understand better what you are talking about. Obviously, the US intelligence is absolutely terrible: they did not notice nuclear bombs developed by the Soviet Union and India; they had a lot of other failures, including 911, WMD in Iraq, and of course letting the hackers and foreign propaganda to affect US elections... ] (]) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::However, back to the subject, do not you realize that blaming other contributors on article talk pages as you did , was wrong? Please see ]. If you really have strong evidence that someone misrepresented sources (I am still not at all sure), should not this be brought to ANI or AE? But I guess you do not have evidence, but simply uncomfortable interacting with these contributors. If so, I think you should not edit these pages. But instead you are making life of these contributors miserable by blaming them personally on every possible occasion on article talk pages. Are you going to continue doing the same in the future? This is the way to have yourself topic-banned. ] (]) 05:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I have started a discussion concerning you on ], ]. | |||
| == User Page == | |||
| Volunteer Marek brings up a solid point about your userpage. The amount of focus you have on women and feminism in particular is pretty fucked up. Hanging that kind of a sign around your neck makes it really difficult for anyone to take you seriously. I'm not surprised you have so many issues dealing with SPECIFICO when she has to see your views on women broadcasted so openly. It would be best if you toned it down. I'm not going to sit and defend a giant rant like that.--v/r - ]] 05:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't aware that I had expressed ''any'' "views on women" at all. Even if I had, my userpage exists primarily to push the Overton Window further Right and to counterbalance Misplaced Pages's shockingly pervasive Left-wing bias; I find it fascinating that countless users openly identify themselves as Communists (an ideology that killed tens of millions in the twentieth century) and call for the "Palestinian right of return" (a euphemism for the destruction of Israel) on their userpages, yet this invariably passes without comment. (There are even ''actual userboxes'' specifically created to advocate for those views ... I've yet to see any pro-Nazi userboxes.) (And, of course, Volunteer Marek's claim that I "misquoted" Kasparian is absurdly trivial; his silence on the question of whether or not Kasparian called female Trump voters "''fucking dumb''" is itself an admission.) I readily concede that I may have made a tactical error, given that ''both'' AE reports against me ultimately devolved into attacks on politically incorrect things I wrote on my userpage—and appeals to have me excommunicated for heresy—after it became obvious that there was no substance to the original complaint and not even a single example of me pushing a POV in any article could be found. (I might have expected admins not to block me simply out of sheer dislike, but perhaps that was an absurdly optimistic assumption.) I'm still weighing my options as to how best to resolve it.] (]) 06:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's clear to me that AE is driven by politics after T Canen's comment. There isn't an inch of substance to those claims. But your userpage is trash. Absolutely trash. You do yourself no credit by having it. Push the 'overton window' right on a personal blog. The only way to beat the civil POV pushing is to be even more civil.--v/r - ]] 07:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Are you trying to go at this alone? Keep running your mouth off at everyone you're pissed off with and you can go at AE without my help. Fucking trigger warnings about your userpage? Wow. Straighten the fuck up or move on to a different topic. But don't expect me to cover for you if you can't control yourself. I'm not your fucking babysitter. If you want to go at it alone, tell me now so I can quit wasting my time.--v/r - ]] 00:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :*y'know, we've never really gotten along here, but even I think that if you stuck to content work, and avoided the rants that you launch into either on talk pages or edit summaries about "leftist propaganda" (often without the least provocation), this mess could have been avoided. Just sayin'. ] (]) 10:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Not exactly, {{ping|Vanamonde93}}. I am surprised and saddened by the decision. Times has been topic-banned because of the ''type'' of articles he has recently gotten involved in and not because of any egregious behavior. Some years ago, as Times himself told me, he was flagrantly and systematically engaged in right-wing pro-American "counter propaganda" and revisionism, particularly on subjects related to Cold War history. All of us are well aware of that history. That propaganda served the cause of the American establishment, which is ''not'' to say it was well-grounded in establishment sources. It just "served the cause," and was therefore was considered perfectly acceptable, even commendable, encyclopedic standards be damned: Times was never sanctioned for it, though his opponents frequently were. Fast-forward to today: Times had become an immeasurably more knowledgeable and careful editor, regardless of his politics (which were on ''full'' display on his user-page ''and nowhere else''). From personal experience, I know that he ''routinely'' makes edits that ''sharply'' contradict his own political beliefs. He corrects his mistakes quickly. Very few editors can can say that about themselves. His recent edits on wikileaks and hacking-related subjects were largely well-sourced and circumspect, if not always perfectly neutral (a matter of opinion). I just read the sanctions decision and I couldn't find a single blockable diff (nor could several other administrators). The problem was that these edits stepped on the wrong toes: ''it was fine'' to write that Ho Chi Minh "officially" ordered the execution of 172,000 innocents (obviously fake black propaganda) as part of the North Vietnamese land reform campaigns; ''but it is an outrage'' to suggest that the JAR report on Russian hacking was pretty shitty, that the Wikileaks documents were genuine, or that Donna Brazile was unapologetic about her misconduct at CNN etc. Petty stuff really, and indisputable to boot. Nonetheless, it was genuine violation of establishment "safe spaces", so outrage was guaranteed. Given this level of outrage, it was natural that disputes between Times and a few other editors occasionally got heated, with invective hurled in both directions. But even that is a false equivalence, since many of Times's "outbursts" were perfectly accurate if somewhat impolite criticisms, like faulting editors for not reading or selectively misinterpreting sources. These outbursts were not even that numerous, as far as I am aware. Banning someone for this is pathetic. This pattern of selective outrage is on display everywhere: for example, Times' earlier version of the his user page falsely accused a living person (]) of an implausibly horrific murder, on the basis of one weak source. This was the most egregious and elementary BLP-vio one could make, but nobody cared. Instead editors were outraged that Times misquoted ] in order to disparage her. While the latter may have been bad, it was ''nothing'' compared to the former. The hypocrisy and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on display here are quite worrying: today it's Times; tomorrow it could be you, me or any other non-centrist who happens to slip just a little. Well, maybe not too worrying because Wiki-politics are not that big a deal, but you get what I mean. ] (]) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's okay – We're hunting and their sympathizers. | |||
| ::::As time went, the editors saw that they needed to be more equal than others and so they introduced the rule: “All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others.” – , , , . -- ] (]) 18:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just as in the time of McCarthy, we are dealing with a case of hysterical overreaction. I have seen a few pro-Russian editors: all are reverted on sight and mostly perma-banned. The only place where Russian "propaganda" may have a chance is in Syria-related articles, where Anglo-American editors (and their "reliable sources") get really confused about whom to hate more: Muslims or Russkies. Comrades, we must remain vigilant. ] (]) 22:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg | |||
| |imagesize=50px | |||
| |1=The following sanction now applies to you: | |||
| {{Talkquote|1=You are indefinitely topic-banned, as described at ], from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. You may appeal this restriction after six months have passed, and you are invited, at that time, to indicate how your approach to editing has changed with respect to the concerns voiced in the AE thread linked to below, and how you have usefully contributed to articles in other topic areas.}} | |||
| You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to . | |||
| This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] 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 ]. I recommend that you use the ] 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.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| == MEK == | |||
| Hi, I saw you were active on ]'s talkpage previously. I started editing the article in late 2016, adding sourced content that I felt is missing in the article. Now I find myself getting reverted over and over again without a proper reason, and wasting time explaing pillars of Misplaced Pages to users who constantly remove reliable content. Could you please take a look at the history and talkpage and give an opinion? Thank you. ] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of the accounts popping up on that article are highly suspicious. There's clearly some form of tag-team meat- or sockpuppetry going on. The first step is probably to file an ] to see how many of the accounts are legitimate.] (]) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::How can I provide an evidence? ] (]) 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Pahlevun}} I was thinking about filing a report myself, but perhaps EdJohnston's recent will solve the problem. The accounts I consider suspicious are and All of these accounts appear to be ] with only a handful of edits unrelated to Iran or the MeK between them, and their behavior at ] strongly suggests some degree of coordination. When it comes to sockpuppetry, the evidence I see at a cursory glance is as follows: | |||
| :::*Several of these accounts were recently created in late 2016, sometimes only days apart: Newcomer1 was created on August 15, NickRovinsky was created on October 10, Saleh Hamedi was created on December 19, and TheDreamBoat was created on December 20. | |||
| :::*The remaining accounts have been around much longer, all dating from late 2013. Does this mean they are innocent of any wrongdoing? Perhaps, but for accounts that so closely share the same interests and POV, it is striking that they were ''all'' created within days of each other, over a period of less than one month: Atlantic12 was created on October 23, Citieslife was created on November 8, Tigereconomy was created on November 15, Carpe765 was created on November 20, and 36Balloon was created on November 22. | |||
| :::*All of the accounts have simple, one-sentence userpages, with the exceptions of (recently updated), and —which are still fairly bare-bones. This proves little in isolation, but it may not be a coincidence that and open with famous quotes (], ], Latin saying, and ], respectively). | |||
| :::*All of the accounts seem to format citations identically, but some slip-up and add a bare URL on occasion. Make of that what you will. | |||
| :::*The most peculiar feature uniting several of these accounts, from both 2013 and 2016, is the insistence that any statement relying on a single source—whatever the quality—can be arbitrarily deleted. Consider the following edit summaries: | |||
| :::**; ; ; ; ; ; —Atlantic12 | |||
| :::**—Citieslife | |||
| :::**—36Balloons | |||
| :::**—Newcomer1 | |||
| :::**; —NickRovinsky | |||
| :::*Carpe765 and Saleh Hamedi are determined to scrub any references to "Marxism": —Carpe765; —Saleh Hamedi | |||
| :::Even with the page protection, maybe filing a report isn't such a bad idea.] (]) 10:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've gone ahead and filed an SPI ].] (]) 11:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2017 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one month''' for ]. Note that multiple accounts are ], but '''not for '']'' reasons''', and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. 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 ~~~~''}}. ] (]) 18:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-sockblock --> | |||
| {{Ping|Bbb23}} Can you please explain to {{Ping|MelanieN}} how absurd it is to think that —not ], previously indeffed for —am employing the following IPs to report/ and so that SPECIFICO : , , , , , , , , , , , , , Considering that you blocked my IP almost an hour before Oneshot's IPs appeared on SPECIFICO's talk page, it seems you must know that MelanieN's suspicion is completely wrong. More importantly: Can the administration really do nothing more to combat Oneshot's sustained harassment campaign against me, which has been ongoing for several months now—with regard to either the IPs or (If the account isn't ] enough to justify checkuser, I'll be happy to lay out a mini-SPI right here.)] (]) 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| And now Oneshot's back to —]. Seems a little outrageous that he is able to do this with impunity while I am unable to respond because I couldn't resist leaving one talk page comment pointing out that ] (]) 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :There's very little I'm able to do per policy. I can't disclose your IPs or any other named accounts' IPs. No one has suggested any additional sanctions beyond the one-month block I imposed, so at this point it's all speculation and talk. Don't create a mini SPI here. It's not something you're allowed to do while blocked.--] (]) 15:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Ping|MelanieN}} was blocked by Bbb23 at 18:06 on January 15. I wouldn't have had to reveal it if Bbb23 had only admitted it was already blocked. | |||
| *{{Ping|Bbb23}} You obviously didn't need an SPI or any evidence to checkuser me. Why do you refuse to check if ] is a sock of ], as I ''personally guarantee'' you will?] (]) 18:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *You don't seem to get it. When you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit, and that includes editing by proxy. I've therefore revoked your Talk page access for the duration of your block. See ] for appeals.--] (]) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:27, 14 April 2017
Template:Archive box collapsible
SPI
Hi-- Are you opening a SPI on 92slim/Forsytor or should I? Eperoton (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can do it. The timing of Forsytor showing up to make essentially the same argument as 92slim shortly after the latter was blocked is undeniably suspicious, but I am not sure if checkusers will consider that alone to be sufficient cause to justify use of their powers. (Then again, based on past actions taken by certain checkusers that I am familiar with, I really don't see why it would not be.) It would be nice to compare 92slim and Fosytor's edit histories for any similarities first, but Fosytor hasn't made very many edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, it's past bed time, so I'll open one tomorrow. I did check their contributions and there's a strong behavioral link. Eperoton (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not 92slim. Just another Steverci sock. ;) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, it's past bed time, so I'll open one tomorrow. I did check their contributions and there's a strong behavioral link. Eperoton (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry that
I didn't tag you. I just thought you were still blocked and it would be obnoxious to tag you if you couldn't respond. -Darouet (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Your behavior
Telling a site administrator to "get a clue" over legitimate edits to an article is perhaps not the wisest thing for you to be doing. Your attitude perhaps needs to change if you wish to continue in good standing on this project. Bumm13 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)