User talk:Lexlex/Archives/2022/04

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

And please don't accuse me of disruptive editing when you're not following along the sprawling talk page discussion and requirement for consensus to edit on that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, please re-read WP:LISTEN. This is not an accusation: You are making editorial changes which are in direct conflict with consensus and established fact. Continuing to do so while also complaining you are being maligned by those who call you on it is covered in the above policy. Please stop your disruptive behavior. Lexlex (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be sure to maintain civility in talk page discussions

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Hunter Biden. Thank you.
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.

SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Advising that you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT is neither assuming bad faith or a personal attack. Again, please read the advisory. Please also note that use of various warning messages for things which did not occur is just a straw man attack and could be interpreted as a WP:Passive aggression. Lexlex (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Lexlex, I fear SPECIFICO's response is understandable and accurate. When I saw your comment, I was surprised and a bit shocked. It seemed unnecessarily harsh, was very personal, assumed bad faith, and the "your leanings" was a clear NPA violation. See how WP:NPA forbids using an editor's political leanings to attack them, and that's what you did. Don't comment on an editor's motives, because we all live in glass houses. You are also projecting with your "passive aggressive" comment above. Please be more careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

For reference, below is the response you are both referencing from Hunter Biden :

“ No, it's just WP:Cherry picking. Preemptively excluding information from an authenticated source because of speculation on your part violates WP:Rumor. Please stop this disruptive behavior and read WP:NOTGETTINGIT as this is becoming a waste of editor time. While strong emotions on political issues are understandable, perhaps consider that your leanings on the subject matter cloud your normally sound judgement. Lexlex (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC) ”

Where is the ad hominem? Lexlex (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not mention ad hominem, although NPA does. I'm just concerned that your comment ("While strong emotions on political issues are understandable, perhaps consider that your leanings on the subject matter cloud your normally sound judgement.") was unnecessarily personal and violated NPA by commenting on the editor, not the content. It's best to not do that. It also applied just as much to you, so don't throw stones. Your judgment was also clouded, and maybe that's why you crossed the line by personalizing your emotional response. I doubt you would have felt good if SPECIFICO had written the same to you. That's all. See my comments as more of a third party caution than a strong warning.😞 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack is personally attacking an individual instead of making an argument, which seems to characterize your observation above. However, my post was plainly not that. There is no attack, merely general advice that has been handed out daily to editors throughout Wikipedia's lifetime: Personal views—whatever they may be—should not cloud reasoning. It is pretty clearly a general admonition to try and remain impartial. The specific leanings or views of the editor are not mentioned by me (and not relevant). It is good advice and I stand by it. Where you see a personal attack is still not clear. Frankly, it seems you may have jumped the gun here. Lexlex (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)