| Revision as of 19:32, 22 September 2024 editTrangaBellam (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,563 edits →Aspersion: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:32, 22 September 2024 edit undoTrangaBellam (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,563 edits Adding Contentious topics notice (ipa) (TW)Tag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ::Leave my dynamics with K3, JJ, and V93. JJ has agreed with you on numerous occassions — far more than with me because we, mostly, do not edit in the same area — and he had awarded you multiple ; so, perhaps, they are a relative or a friend or a supporter or a ... of your's? It is quite amusing that JJ is supposedly a part of our cabal but not of your's! Do you see how silly this is? Ofcourse, you know as well as me that all this is bluster which is intended to obfuscate than to clarify; other longstanding editors like Bishonen, OIDDDE, et al. have already weighed in — with views that appear to align with mine and JJ's — and not in your support. | ::Leave my dynamics with K3, JJ, and V93. JJ has agreed with you on numerous occassions — far more than with me because we, mostly, do not edit in the same area — and he had awarded you multiple ; so, perhaps, they are a relative or a friend or a supporter or a ... of your's? It is quite amusing that JJ is supposedly a part of our cabal but not of your's! Do you see how silly this is? Ofcourse, you know as well as me that all this is bluster which is intended to obfuscate than to clarify; other longstanding editors like Bishonen, OIDDDE, et al. have already weighed in — with views that appear to align with mine and JJ's — and not in your support. | ||
| ::I understand that you have come back to en-wiki after a rather-long vacation — three years is an eon in internet-time — but I can assure you that contemporary policy requirements, especially on the need of providing DIFFs for aspersions, have not been (yet) done away with. ] (]) 19:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | ::I understand that you have come back to en-wiki after a rather-long vacation — three years is an eon in internet-time — but I can assure you that contemporary policy requirements, especially on the need of providing DIFFs for aspersions, have not been (yet) done away with. ] (]) 19:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Introduction to contentious topics == | |||
| {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''], ], and ]''', a topic designated as ''']'''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. | |||
| A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. | |||
| Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: | |||
| *adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages; | |||
| *comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; | |||
| *follow editorial and behavioural best practice; | |||
| *comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and | |||
| *refrain from gaming the system. | |||
| <p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the ] or you may learn more about this contentious topic ]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> ] (]) 19:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:32, 22 September 2024
Please do not post invitations, wiki-loves, please-help-me type messages on this page. Formal notices required by wikipedia proceedings are welcome. Please leave this message here. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Aspersion
Hi, please provide evidence that I have tag-teamed with K3, JJ, and V93 or retract the unsubstantiated aspersion. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Read the case carefully and what I actually said. No aspersions there. What is your point here? Are you saying you never had off-wiki correspondence and never were friends with any of them? In the ANI case, you yourself wrote, "K3 with V93, me, and others, has guarded the " – a Misplaced Pages article you allege suffers from "persistent attempts at whitewashing".
- Kautilya3 and you have co-edited many articles. See, for example, the TP and articles such as when you joined an edit war to keep Kautilya3-favored flawed version; or, the editing history of the article and its TP where you apologized; etc.
- There is nothing wrong with off-wiki correspondence and friendships. In some situations – such as access to peer-reviewed scholarly sources – it helps Misplaced Pages. In some situations, it harms. During proceedings, it is important for uninvolved independent reviewers to be aware of the relationships between the accused and his or her supporters, possible motives in a friend's or relative's testimony, or attempts to introduce straw man arguments and false consensus, and other potential conflicts of interest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying you never had off-wiki correspondence and never were friends with any of them?
- I am 'friends' with none at Misplaced Pages. In about the last three years — I do not have access to my wiki-communication before that —, I have corresponded with JJ only twice and only twice/thrice with V93. I guess our email-frequency and the volume of our edits tell you something about our supposed hush-hush colloboration.During proceedings, it is important for uninvolved independent reviewers to be aware of the relationships between the accused and his or her supporters
- Once again, this is an aspersion because your usage of the words is meant to poison the well by implying that some sort of CABAL is at work. You might be interested to know that I and K3 have disagreed ample times and even reverted each other to the point of edit-warring — given your propensity at digging up diffs, I am certain that you can locate them if you try enough.- Leave my dynamics with K3, JJ, and V93. JJ has agreed with you on numerous occassions — far more than with me because we, mostly, do not edit in the same area — and he had awarded you multiple barnstars/wikilove; so, perhaps, they are a relative or a friend or a supporter or a ... of your's? It is quite amusing that JJ is supposedly a part of our cabal but not of your's! Do you see how silly this is? Ofcourse, you know as well as me that all this is bluster which is intended to obfuscate than to clarify; other longstanding editors like Bishonen, OIDDDE, et al. have already weighed in — with views that appear to align with mine and JJ's — and not in your support.
- I understand that you have come back to en-wiki after a rather-long vacation — three years is an eon in internet-time — but I can assure you that contemporary policy requirements, especially on the need of providing DIFFs for aspersions, have not been (yet) done away with. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.