User talk:Alaska4Me2
ANI discussion
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI, I have opened an ANI report on Radiant Fellow. You are welcome to comment there, but in your own best interest, given the continued disconnect you have with WP's internal culture, I would advise against it unless another editor specifically pings you in the discussion for comment. I could just leave it at that, but to address your concerns of "doing nothing", it must be noted that one simply cannot openly accuse someone of misconduct without evidence, and that evidence has to objectively apply to existing policy. This is one of the areas of disconnect I have been trying to get you to understand - we don't look at these subjectively and call something disruptive or inappropriate just because we don't like it or it "feels" that way. It is only so when held up to the existing standard of policy. Up until this week, that evidence was there (as you have noted), but it was very weak evidence, and primarily subjective. That's difficult to raise as an issue. However, his most recent stealth edit war and subsequent behaviors was adequate for reporting to ANI and it is far more egregious. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you insist on believing I need schooling in regard to Wikipedia culture. My eyes were opened a few years ago as I perused various noticeboards and saw the caste system and tribal workings for what they are. There's a lot of gnat straining before swallowing camels in this place, and it's usually due to favoring or targeting who will benefit an editor or administrator best for what their personal psychological needs of the moment are. The other user's behavior has not been a secret to you, per your conversations with Doug Weller in the past, and long before the user started messing with me. He's been a problem for at least a year. You knew it and chose to sit idly by, especially in the last couple of months. And now here we are. If he had been dealt with appropriately in a more timely manner, based on the behavioral evidence of slow edit warring, playing mind games with me, dishonesty in his edit summaries, being an SPA (not to mention you told me just a few weeks ago that you have always believed he was evading a block), then ANI probably wouldn't be happening today. He needed to be taken to the 3RR noticeboard a while ago and before ANI today. That action probably would have stopped him in his tracks for long enough to get the right message across. Your reason(s) for passive non-action up until now are your own and I'm not going to publicly state what I think they are. Instead, I'll just grab the popcorn and see how the drama plays out. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia;
- 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. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A "warning" for a total of two edits to the Tim Walz article? My first edit there was a correction of the location of his hometown from "western Nebraska" to "northern Nebraska". The second was a reversion of non-neutral content AND advising that editor to see discussions on this subject at the article talk page that were already happening. That second edit resulted in a discussion with the editor at the talk page where we ended up working together on new wording that was sourced well and removed the POV content.
Obviously, I have no problem with editing appropriately at the article. More importantly, I have little interest in editing it or any political articles at all, hence the reason why I have a grand total of two minor edits there. There's no need for this "reminder" at this editor's talk page, Johnuniq. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- How many edits have you made to Talk:Tim Walz? That counts, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Casting aspersions
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Alaska4Me2,
- Do not go to Butlerblog's User talk page and make unsubstantiated accusations against them. You refuse to accept their explanation that they are doing random maintenance editing and keep trying to turn this into a feud. But it seems like it is completely one-sided on your part. Butlerblog has finally had their fill (I can't blame them) and made a formal complaint against you at ANI so you'll have to make your case there that you are editing neutrally and according to policy and that includes assuming good faith. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)