| Revision as of 03:32, 20 May 2019 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,806 edits →Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction: misunderstood the (battleground) question← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:43, 20 May 2019 edit undoSashiRolls (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,634 edits ←Blanked the pageTag: BlankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| == Discussion == | |||
| There is currently an AE case involving you . ] (]) 04:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Why? Has this got something to do with your BLP issues? I never understood why you and Trypto wanted to delete the "political positions" page for a candidate running for President. () See, watching the page, I saw a lot of mud being slung right onto her BLP. As those who actually argued saw, there was more than enough independent coverage on that page to justify its existence. But the <span style="color:indigo;font-weight:bold;">I don't like it</span>s carried the day. I wonder why? It might be systemic, don't you think? I see you have agreed, finally, too, that the 1RR was a pretext. Was this just a "get sashi" moment, King? In any case, thank you for notifying me. You allowed me to make a lot of connections I hadn't made before. Cf. . So y'all think that the organic folks are full of beans because organic solutions would heat the planet faster? Fine. Put the argument on the page. Maybe someone will write something philosophical about how the agricultural class should be allowed to retire earlier since they've risked more to put food on our table? I don't have all the answers kingo; I wish I did. ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==AE decision== | |||
| ==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=An ] with ], which means either of you are subject to an ] on articles the other party has edited first.}} | |||
| You have been sanctioned The dispute is at an impasse and the AE complaint is at an excessive length. Something had to be done. . | |||
| 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.--> ] 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| }} ] 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| An interesting decision. There is nothing in ] about being ]ned from articles the other has edited first. Such an interpretation would penalize newer editors / protect editors with vested interests, which is why it's surprising. But, if that's how Misplaced Pages wants to be seen, that's how it wants to be seen. Nothing I can do about that. ~~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 02:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|El C}} Please reassure me that you are not banning me from BLP/N, RS/N, etc. just because I could not have posted there first. If you are intending to be very literal about this strange preferential treatment, I think I will start writing for a different publication. Are you willing to be interviewed for the first piece? | |||
| A normal ], just to be clear, is fine with me. However this special ] proviso you've come up with places an undo burden on me, as the newer user, to have to check the history of every article, noticeboard page, or village pump page I edit to be sure the ghost of the user that cannot be named has not been there. This prevents me from voting in RfA, if taken literally. Which is fine, but don't expect me to participate or to refrain from being frank when interviewed about the problems with the Monsanto articles on en.wp.~~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 02:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I said ''articles'', and it is just meant for the IBAN to stick. Because surely you can't both be editing the same article while under an IBAN. Articles that you have edited first would preclude the other party as well. I had no idea you were the newer editor (are you? that's not made clear), so them having edited more articles is just random as far as I'm concerned. And obviously, we're talking about substantive edits. You're not expected to search through an entire page's history, but if it comes to light that the other party has edited said article substantively, you should be walking away from that article. You can participate on the same project pages but not interact with one another. Basically, I want you to stay away from each other, and am not wanting to go back to AE for squabbles about who should be allowed to edit which article and how an unavoidable interaction happened because you both were editing it. ] 03:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|El C}} I have not been squatting the en.wp GMO articles for years, as was made clear in my evidence. You have effectively offered succor to those who wish to control what the glyphosate article says. By permitting people to lie and bully with impunity at AE, I'm afraid you haven't done en.wp any credibility favors. Churn & burn is the wiki-way, such is life; that's why wiki is dying. Now it's just time for the press to be alerted about that death. Could you estimate the total time you spent on your decision for the record? ~~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your battleground mentality does not inspire confidence. And clear is not a word I'd associate with (either of) your evidence. ] 03:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||