Jump to content

User talk:PackMecEng/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Pending change patrolling WP:DOY pages

You recently accepted a pending change on February 26 that did not include an inline source. We've discussed this before. Please don't do that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Toddst1: The revision I accepted there in early April was this one about an eclipse on a list article. Which does appear to be supported by the main article. Also again it is a list article, you generally do not use inline sources. PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
You're not getting it. Let me explain:
The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.
The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.
So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.
We could use your help in:
  1. Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
  2. Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.
I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Toddst1: No I get it. I just do not agree with it and do no plan on going with it. Again that is not how list articles work and selective enforcement is never a good idea. Thanks for stopping by. PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Feel free to make up your own rules. However, let me be clear. If you continue to accept these types of entries, it will be considered disruptive and I will seek to have your pending changes privilege removed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Toddst1: No I prefer going by larger policy and not a small local consensus. I would also strongly suggest you read up on what review pending changes actually is before you make baseless threats though. This information can be found at WP:RPC. You might want to pay attention to the general criteria and acceptable edits sections. For example the general criteria is you should not accept a new revision if it conflicts with BLP, is vandalism, obvious copyright violations, or legal threats/personal attacks/libel. Obviously none of those apply here. On the acceptable edits side of things you should check out it is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. I hope this clears up for what you pending change reviewing actually is and what it is not. I see that you are a member of the pending change group for some reason, perhaps that is something you might want to reconsider. Thanks again for stopping by, I hope this helps you understand things better! PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
You said "I would also strongly suggest you read up on what review pending changes actually is" and "You might want to pay attention to the general criteria". Gee wiz, what a good idea!
From that exact section, WP:RPC#General_criteria: "Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE." QED. Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Dang I did not notice that recent addition. I have removed it since it had no consensus and was against the rest of the page. Thanks for letting me know! PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
All good. The community has spoken. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
As the page states at the top, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, okay mister rollback. You keep that in mind as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:PackMecEng, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please refrain from name-calling or creating derogatory nicknames for other editors - especially in a dispute.[2] Toddst1 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Who is acting WP:POINTily now?[3] PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe someone is about to experience the Streisand Effect. Qwirkle (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
We can only hope! PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
I really appreciate how we were able to discuss and cooperate to produce the RFC on DOY & PCR. Even though we have opposing views on the question, it was a civil and collegial effort, and I enjoyed working with you on it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: Agreed! It was a pleasure. Thank you and no matter which way it turns out I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Brevity if the soul of wit." - William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Nahh, that’s Kipling’s amendment, innit? Qwirkle (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: I thought it was act 2 scene 2.
"My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad "
I am not familiar with Kipling's amendment. What is that? PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
If— Qwirkle (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: Ha, I must be slow today I did not even notice. Nice, thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh oh...I thought the quote on your user page was a fat-finger mistake, so I corrected it. Are you saying "if" is what you intended? Atsme Talk 📧 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it was a fat finger, then it just made me smirk. Thanks for correcting it though! PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Thank you for the information. I had not encountered them as a sensitive topic before. --MerielGJones (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@MerielGJones: Me either until I ended up in a similar situation to you. It can be rough. PackMecEng (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment knocked out of line

I fixed it for you - hope that's ok. Happy 4th!!! Don't drink too much!! It's too late to advise me. Atsme Talk 📧 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure the best way to do it when I saw it. Looks pretty good now. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey - WP:Pack's law Atsme Talk 📧 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Ha! That is so awesome! Looks like a good and funny read too. PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a personal attack warning

Probably Jimbo's page is a place where people can be fairly spontaneous, but to post a completely toxic and at the same time completely vague attack on another user, such as this, is beyond the pale even there. This is a personal attack warning. Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen - whoa! You need to scroll a few comments further up in that discussion. I've asked MastCell to stop trying to make that discussion personal and he refuses while continuing to make unfounded accusations that imply editors are racist. He is an involved admin who is pursuing editors - possibly falling under WP:HOUNDING - over their oppose votes at an RfC he is involved in. He may also have violated WP:CANVASSING as an involved administrator, and has created a chilling effect in that discussion. If anybody needs a warning for PAs, it's MastCell. All PME was doing was trying defuse the situation and her comment was a long way from being a PA in that discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the only editor making PAs in that entire thread is the admin who is calling everybody a racist because they disagree with him in a content dispute about including a Reagan quote. Really, friends of this admin should intervene to stop him before it spirals further out of control. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a certain irony in using the phrase "beyond the pale" in the context of a discussion on racism. ——Serial # 15:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I was told we didn’t talk about impalement on this BBS... Qwirkle (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that made me snort. Thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to do that here. Blocked.

You don't get to express your contempt for users here. Just do it inside your head, not on a Wikipedia page. I warned you about the way you try to needle MastCell just a few days ago,[4] and here we are again.[5] "Friendly" banter, was it? You don't get away with attacks against somebody you are obviously not on friendly terms with just by using that silly template. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for personal attacks or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PackMecEng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Given that several others disagreed that it was a personal attack above and on the talk page and that the second comment you link is not one either I am quite puzzled by your block. Even going over all the comments on Jimbo's talk page I do not know why I would be singled out. Especially when I was being called an enabler and racist in that same discussion.[6] So with that and the fact that you have kicked me off your talk page I find this rather disturbing.[7] I feel this block is inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were warned about personal attacks not three days prior to your block, and while I might have issue with the context of Bishonen's warning, I cannot argue that the comment which you were blocked for was a clear personal attack. You will not be excused from consequences because your derogatory comment was "just a joke". Bishonen's block is appropriate given the situation. In addition, your request blames everyone else but does not address your own misconduct. Declined. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In case you are not aware, the point of WP:CIVIL you violated, (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken. In fact, your pattern of using "take a break", "you're out of your depth" and "quit while you're ahead" as means of gaslighting is way too transparent. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I think given their interactions on Jimbo's page it was warranted. When things are getting that heated with accusations of racism being thrown around a break isn't a bad idea for anyone. Even me, which is why I left that discussion not long after that comment. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Wait wait wait, is this because I disagreed with you implying Atsme is racist in that RSN Fox news discussion with that lynching comment?![8][9] Followed up by a non-apology when myself and others called you on it?[10] Because other than that I do not think I have really interacted with you before. PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I have zero interest in re-litigating the past, this is about your block and the pattern, quit the whataboutism. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Civility advice coming from the admin who told a completely calm user to "fuck off" on AN/I a while ago. And now heated arguing on Jimbotalk is blockable? That is just... I'm sorry that you are being treated like this, PackMecEng.--Pudeo (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I am rather shocked with how this went, but mostly disappointed. Thank you Pudeo. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Civility advice coming from the person who was warned by a clerk for using personal attacks in a case statement a while ago. And now heated arguing on this talk page? That is just... I'm sorry that you are being treated like this, Pudeo.[FBDB] --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Be careful, people get blocked for using the FBDB template like that! PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: Never been warned by a clerk, you're probably mistaking me for Slugger O'Toole. No big deal though. --Pudeo (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Pudeo: I'm not sure if a message left at your talk page is apparently a message for someone else, I'm sure Dreamy Jazz would be kind enough to make me aware. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
QEDK, it was a personal reminder for Pudeo. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 07:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: Whether you like it or not, the inconsistency between Bish's NPA block here and their own incivility a short while ago is hard to for some of us to ignore. If you're going to take on a job that involves policing the behavior of other editors, you need to make sure your own hands are clean. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much, but it is okay. Given the situation as a whole I do no mind. Could I have been more polite about calling him out on that completely toxic and at the same time completely vague attack on another user? Sure, I probably could of. That really is not the point though. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: I am not surprised that you find Bish's alleged incivility as hard ... to ignore but when the same is presented with evidence in case of PME, it becomes invisible and/or irrelevant. To be perfectly clear, Bish's block fell well under the purview of an WP:UNINVOLVED block per the appropriate policy. Everything else is irrelevant. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK:, your suggestion that all that matters is the letter of the policy is tone-deaf. Sure, the rules say that Bish can block PME for being uncivil, but the rules also prohibit Bish from being uncivil. It should be obvious that there's a problem when an admin chooses to enforce a rule that they have failed to follow. And I never said that PME's incivility was invisible or irrelevant. Please do not put words in my mouth. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Please don't post teasing hints about me without evidence, User:Lepricavark. What was "[my] own incivility a short while ago"? Diffs please. And PackMecEng, do you even realise how trollish it is to riff off another person's words ("completely toxic and at the same time completely vague attack on another user" in my own warning above) and twist them for the opposite purpose? Is it another instance of your idea of "friendly banter"? Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I suspect Lepricavark was referring to the material previously cited by Pudeo, via [11]. All the best, ——Serial # 10:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean the comment I got all the thanks for?[12] Hard to believe Lepricavark would be quite that context-less, compare the edit summary on my "fuck" edit, but I suppose it's possible since Pudeo managed it. Well, Pudeo managed this obliviousness as well, so no surprise there, I suppose. Anyway, I'm done on this page, or rabbithole. Bishonen | tålk 10:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC).
Yes, I had skipped the ArbCom clerk message as I thought it was an automatic one like the 20 last ones. It had a standard thread title, did not address by username and there was no edit summary. Context does matter, if you are a long-time admin who has 25 IRC friends backing you for your totally cool 'go fuck yourself 😎' serve it's fine, but if you're a pleb, you're in trouble for some Jimbotalk arguing and banter. Remember, you don't own Wikipedia. You have no right prevent someone from editing by enforcing the civility policy in a biased manner. --Pudeo (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
So if a bunch of editors were to thank PackMecEng for his comment, would you lift the block? I didn't think so. Incivility is incivility. I don't care how many people thanked you for it. It's clear that we have two different sets of rules for admins being uncivil to non-admins versus non-admins being uncivil to admins. If you wish to enforce civility, keep your own hands clean. It's really that simple. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Let's be real here, civility was not the issue. What is funny though, MastCell was talking about people of color being excluded from the project, so what happens? The only person blocked in the whole kerfuffle is a female person of color that was blocked for calling out the exact kind of behavior her friend was doing, thereby undermining MastCell's own argument. You cannot make this shit up. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Ever read the Orwell essay in which he suggested that the whole point of goose-stepping was that it looked ridiculous, but the watcher dared not say so? Qwirkle (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You have always been really good with just the right words for every situation. I wish I was like that sometimes. PackMecEng (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm kinda on the same page as Lepricavark, Pudeo, Springee, Qwirkle and you, Pack. You had a clean block log until yesterday, and you've been contributing for how long? For grins, I wonder if there's any updating being done over at Gender Desk? Somebody pointed me to that site last year. Anyway, glad your back. Wish I was smart enough to figure out what Qwirkle said about that essay. Feel free to provide a link. Atsme Talk 📧 21:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
England Your England Theres a link to the full text at the bottom. Qwirkle (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I still disagree with the assessment that the second one was a person attack on Mast. I do not have a problem with Soibangla, we joke with each other often. Honestly I disagree that the first one was harassment or a personal attack either. The reasons stated in my unblock request are more targeted at the general inappropriateness of the block in general. I think it is reasonable for people to disagree that the two comments do not constitute a personal attack or harassment. Which is why I explained the situation and gave diffs for the issues as I saw it to comply with the guide to appealing blocks. It was not my intent to pull a NOTTHEM. PackMecEng (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is obvious from the full context of the discussion. Soibangla even replied with a "LOL". This is very tone-deaf. 24 hours is not too bad, but absurd enforcement of WP:CIVILITY is not acceptable.--Pudeo (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Never argue with an admin or insult an admin (I did and got blocked for it a while back, which would never happen for a mortal). First rule of Wikipedia, even if the admin has violated WP:PA, which Mastcell has, multiple times, and yet hasn't been blocked. One can argue that being called a racist, is baiting by Mastcell. The block was disgraceful and the denial of the unblock is shameful. The way CIVILITY is enforced and ignored all other times is a disgrace. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng and @Sir Joseph: your constant repetition of the false claim that MastCell called anyone a racist is a serious PA, and repeating it doesn't make it true. Stop it and AGF. Asking for clarification of a statement was not calling anyone a racist, and no one else was called a racist. It was asking for clarification, which may or may not have revealed a possible blind spot. A simple reply and explanation would have prevented a lot of drama and we wouldn't be here. Anyone who keeps repeating that false claim about MastCell deserves a block, so be careful, Sir Joseph. The first occasion is a PA, and repetition is harassment. Pinging QEDK. -- Valjean (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Also pinging Ivanvector. -- Valjean (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you said here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course. This just shows that there is significant disagreement about the course of events, and since none of you have provided clear evidence of such claims by MastCell, you should really be careful. Many experienced editors disagree with you, and when there is disagreement about an alleged PA, you really need to have all your evidence lined up, and there should be ZERO disagreement from anybody about what it says. When in doubt, don't be negative. AGF. -- Valjean (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with much of what you said here. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Valjean, I don't think your ping of Ivanvector will work; it needs to be on a new line per Help:Fixing failed pings. I've pinged him for you now. As long as I'm here, I'll also register agreement that Sir Joseph's accusations about MastCell are false. A couple of diffs for the statement that MastCell 'has violated WP:PA multiple times' would have helped. Assuming such diffs exist — for myself, I haven't found any. Bishonen | tålk 00:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC).
The ping hadn't worked (you have to sign the edit where the ping appears) but PackMecEng had pinged me earlier and I saw it anyway. Thanks for re-pinging anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought that making it as a completely separate, signed, edit was good enough. -- Valjean (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly my thinking. 🤷 In any case, I've said all that I had to say, so rest y'all. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, as a matter of principle, your refusal inability to recognize the problem should result in automatic maintenance of the block until such recognition becomes evident. The idea of the block is to give you time to think about the matter and change your mind, IOW lead to great self-insight. In fact, any discussion by you that continues to dispute the matter should end up resulting in the loss of talk page access, so reserve any comments for demonstrating that you understand what you've done wrong. This isn't a one-time thing for you. It's a long-time pattern, and it needs to stop. -- Valjean (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you said here. But in the great words of MastCell As for the rest, I'm comfortable with what I've said. I'd feel worse if I saw this kind of thing and didn't speak up about it.[13] PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Very, very disturbing. Valjean why are you here agitating someone who has been blocked? PME, don't even respond. This is all logged now, so just take a little break, and enjoy your weekend. Atsme Talk 📧 03:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I am not surprised to be honest. When I can edit my user page again I think I will get one of those nifty "This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!)." userboxes! It's what all the cool kids have. Seriously though, I appreciate the support. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Talk page stalker here: @Ivanvector and Bishonen:, I'm not sure of the full history but I think this was a bad block. Here is my thinking. Soibangla appears to be saying that they have proof they were found in the right at the drama board. Their proof is a statement by MC. However, that statement is MC's personal view, not the consensus of the discussion. PME pointed that out. I don't see how this would be seen as dismissing or needling MC personally vs just showing that Soibangla's self defense was flawed. Springee (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Springee: I disagree with much of what you said here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    Two uninvolved admins (apart from the one who blocked) have already stated that the block is fine, if PME truly intended for the block to be repealed, they should have followed the instructions in WP:GAB and committed to improving their civility. I don't really care about the outcome here but no administrator would unblock an editor who refuses to understand their own mistakes but none of that is happening here, hence there is literally no cause for unblocking at this point of time. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. PME’s comment that it was just MC’s POV is relevant in context of the discussion. I felt the same way about how MC’s quote was being presented as a consensus vs one editor’s opinion. Perhaps I’m missing the larger context but this looks very ambiguous to me. Most of the time insults/needles are obvious but the question is if they rise to a level where action is required. When I first read this material I didn’t detect any hint of negativity directed at MC themselves. Perhaps I wasn’t looking but at this point if one has to search to find the fault then we have a problem. Springee (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Eh I am not to worried about it. Yeah it is a bad block but she helpfully linked the diffs showing that in the block log so that everyone will know. Don't mind QEDK, they are just upset that I called them on using racially charged language to describe another editors actions as I linked above. QEDK my unblock request did not focus on civility because civility was not a problem. The block itself was bad and that is why I focused on that. What, you would rather I lie in my unblock request? PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about your or anyone else's purposeful misinterpretation of comments. 🥱 You're still in your WP:NOTTHEM phase, I see - so I'll bid you farewell. Good luck! --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, take care! PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you've been blocked

Stackable WTF blocks
 You are the recipient of a WTF Block
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid?
Now that you're a mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult
letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable.

Atsme Talk 📧 04:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment. [14]

This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).

I pretty much stole the whole thing from EEng's glorious page but I think it looks nice. PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • How dare you mention your puny bock log in the same breath as mine? But seriously, you've gotta watch it with the {FBDB}. Its function is to alert others that there's prior relationship between editors within which teasing would be acceptable; but that has to not only be actually true, but also apparent to a third party without digging. Not sure what happened here but obviously it misfired. EEng 16:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
If life gives you blocks, make blockade.
  • @EEng: If you like I created a template for that message with a variable for the user.
This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).
I don't know. This probably isn't an attitude we should be encouraging other editors to adopt. I mean, if life gives you blocks you should make, um... blockade I guess, but we don't want people seeking them out like dueling scars. EEng 05:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I can attest that scars are attractive on guys, not that I would recommend trying to acquire them. Also if someone wants to seek them out I am sure they will find them without needing to be tempted by an admittedly bad ass Wikipedia userbox. But if it happens most of the time it is not and should not be a big deal. Perhaps that is just me, always look on the bright side of life. PackMecEng (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Stalking at Tyson Foods

Please do not stalk me and indiscriminately revert me, as you did here[15]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I started a discussion on the talk page there for your edit. Please join me there. PackMecEng (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Elsie M. Burrows

Thanks for editing this page, honestly. It has made me think that to help with the confusion between British Psychological Society (study of people - which has a Wikipedia page) and British Phycological Society (study of algae - which does not have a page), I could start a page on the latter, which I imagine would be considered notable (https://brphycsoc.org/). Not tonight, though, but later this week. Do you have any advice?--MerielGJones (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@MerielGJones: Oh my I did not notice the difference. When I first looked at the red link I had assumed it was a typo when Google only turned up British Psychological Society. My apologies, in that case it does seem like an organization that could use an article. There do seem to be some decent sources on it, WP:ORG has more information on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: OK. Thanks for the info. I will look at the WP page and write something.--MerielGJones (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Steele's debunked hoax dossier" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Steele's debunked hoax dossier. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Steele's debunked hoax dossier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Pack, I suggest you self-rvt this. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks to me as if you are on a self-destruct path right now. The above redirect is unambiguously inappropriate, and so were the personal attacks. Neither is characteristic of you, but both put you on a path towards a topic ban (from pretty much the only topic area you edit) or some other sanction. When things feel like a battleground, I usually take a break from Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 07:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning

In a long discussion on Talk:Steele Dossier of whether or not the first line in the article should say "also known as the Trump–Russia dossier" (the former name of the article), Valjean jestingly suggested the article name Steele's debunked hoax dossier would find approval with some. As I read it, this was a rhetorical point not intended to hint that it would find approval with you. However, you went ahead and created it as a redirect, now being discussed at Redirects for discussion (the top entry). This after accusing Valjean of tendentiousness, among many other accusations. Creating that redirect actually is tendentious, also a violation of WP:POINT, also an egregious waste of other people's time. This, again, is a warning from an administrator. If you do something so tendentious and time-wasting again, I will block you. And if you continue to bludgeon discussions the way you did at Talk:Steele Dossier, you are likely to be topic banned from American politics. I see you say above that you intend to request G7 deletion of the redirect. That's good, even though it hasn't happened yet. The redirect has been up for several days, and you've had to be coaxed into (putatively) requesting deletion. A poor show. Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

It's all a two way street. JzG was right and I took their advice, which I appreciate. They were the only one to actually approach me on the topic. I don't know what coaxing you are talking about, if you mean talking to like a person then yes I suppose so. You should really lighten up on these one sided warnings, they are less than helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
PME, Bishonen has an excellent sense for the gestalt of most situations. Please listen. EEng 03:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I dunno man, seemed to pour more fuel on the fire than actually help anything. The situation was resolved and then the warning. I am honestly not seeing it, but I accept I could be wrong. I think we have just had different experiences. PackMecEng (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this is so unnecessary. Look, when you do something unwise, as you did, you may set multiple things in motion which don't all stop the instant you move to undo what you did. I used the word gestalt earlier; it means the totality of a situation that's greater than the sum of its parts; this or that detail doesn't matter. You made, as Bishonen said, a poor show. Get what you can from that evaluation and then get back to editing articles. Don't respond now. Here on this page, let's all stop. EEng 05:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not all a two-way street. And the only user to advise you to self-revert was O3000, AFAICS, not Jzg. Bishonen | tålk 11:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC).
Then you misread the situation on the talk page. How can replying to people commenting on what I said can be taken as bludgeoning is mind boggling. Especially given that your assessment was actually after he wrote a wall of text in reply to another editor disagreeing with him. Or did you miss his personal accusations, the comments when he misused speedy delete, or the comments at the MDF? Next JzGs advice was to calm down and reassess, which I did, how do you even self-revert a page creation? Finally everything in a collaborative environment is a two way street. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
That article needs to be TNT'd and restarted. So much has changed between the initial reporting in 2016 / 2017 vs now, especially with regards to the veracity of the material. There are probably many editors who deeply believe the pee tape is real. As long as that's the case, progress on that article will be limited. The ironic thing to me is that people believe the pee tape is real, despite a single shred of any kind of evidence, but say with a straight face on other articles that we can only trust RS. The NYT ultimately (just a week ago) reported the dossier to be "deeply flawed," but that's certainly not the perception you get after reading our article, which pulls from outdated and debunked stories. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ernie, if you're still hanging your hat on the pee tape, I'm afraid your effort's all going down the drain. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that pee tape isn't very exciting. Maybe an NSFW PG-13 rating, and certainly not porn, with only two hookers, and "Trump" pays more attention to his cellphone than to them. I've got the link if you want to see it for yourself. It's on a dedicated site, not a porn site. Then compare the room and lighting with images of the suite Trump and Obama stayed in. The match is exact, so if it's a fake, it was made in that same room or one exactly like it. We may never be sure, but Moscow hookers talk to each other, and they still swear it happened. Whatever the case, it's a minor allegation compared to many of the others which have been proven true, and focusing on what is not proven, while ignoring what is proven, is very telling. -- Valjean (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Valjean Do no solicit BLP violating porno on my talk page. I cannot believe I have to actually write that. PackMecEng (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Look up the meaning of "solicit". I didn't do that, and it's not porno. Besides, you believe it's fake, right? I'm not sure, and Comey changed his doubter position to a "maybe" peeliever position after talking to Trump. That's on Trump. Imagine having a wife who might believe it. That's just wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Valjean Solicit ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone. I have never told someone what they can and cannot do on my talk page. You get to be the lucky first. Do no solicit BLP violating porno on my talk page. I do not care the reason, it is wildly inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
That's the right definition, so where do I solicit anything? I already stated that I did not solicit anything, and that the pee tape isn't even porn. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Please read my comment again ("I've got the link ...."). That is not an act of solicitation. In fact, it's the opposite, an offer for those who are curious to see the alleged pee tape. When people's curiosity is satisfied, their interest drops. That's what we want, because it's really not as big a deal as it's made out to be. Press sensationalism doesn't help anything. Just to be clear, there is no sexual activity by "Trump" (he is fully clothed) or the women, and it's a darkened room. One part that's fairly clear is "Trump's" short fat fingers poking his cellphone, an action we've seen many times. -- Valjean (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Valjean So you see no problem offering another female on the internet a video from some shady server online of two prostitutes urinating on a bed and then you go on to say that Trump was part of it. What the actual fuck man? Do you not see the multiple and massive problems with what you are doing right now? PackMecEng (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
"offering another female"? I wasn't aware that SPECIFICO was a female, and that is totally irrelevant. I treat all editors the same, regardless of sex, so don't make this a sexist issue. What is more worrying and a "massive problem" is that you are making such a big deal of it and not just ignoring it. It's as if you're trying to create conflict (from some humor) where there was no conflict. That's a battlefield attitude, and it doesn't make Wikipedia a better place. That's why we should avoid going down that path. Please don't do it. Seek to de-escalate, rather than escalate. I had no intention to cause you offense, and I'm sorry for that. -- Valjean (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Valjean So no, you see no problem with what you did? PackMecEng (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Valjean This is surprising. I've seen you many times defending Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, praising high quality sources while criticizing low quality ones, attacking fringe theories, and decrying the evils of fake news. Now here you are promoting a shady video that mainstream sources have almost completely ignored, and which Slate (the source I did find when I googled) calls a very convincing fake. Convincing because it probably was filmed in the same room, and fake because it reflects renovations done to that room after the alleged incident occurred. And yet you suggest that it actually was Trump poking at the cellphone with "fat fingers". This seems very hypocritical and I suggest you retract some of your claims above, as they are about as Verifiable as Pizzagate. ~Awilley (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Awilley Good catch. The first mention of Trump was with quotes, indicating there is no proof it's him, but I forgot to do the same after that. Now done.
Look, three of us were engaging in a bit of humor here ("all going down the drain", "sour taste", "it's just a matter of taste" now located below), and the subject was the pee tape, which I labeled as "the alleged pee tape" above. I thought I was clear enough that we don't know if it's real, and, as the author of the Slate source states, it's a "convincing fake" (although her conclusion is just her opinion for unconvincing reasons). BTW, I have never recommended using the website that houses the tape as a source. It is clearly not a RS. Don't worry, my standards have not been lowered.
Everything was fine until PME failed to enjoy the humor and twice falsely accused me of "soliciting" "BLP violating porno", yet never apologized when shown wrong on both counts (I wasn't soliciting anything, and it's not porno). You aren't addressing those gross personal attacks and battlefield attitude, an attitude that is very destructive. That should be a high priority for you.
I thought we were all adults here and didn't expect this oversensitive reaction or attempt to create a fire out of nothing. Why don't you address that? Peace-seeking is much better. This is really pedestrian and petty. I'm amazed you'd even get involved. You're better than this. If it's any comfort, I'm sorry I ever mentioned it here. I had no idea that my comments would get such a reaction. I now know better than to do that on this page. I suspect that if the subject had been Bill Clinton or Biden, this wouldn't have happened. PME would have joined in the fun at their expense, but Trump is protected here, so that didn't happen. I inadvertently struck a nerve.
If you want to do some good here, don't take sides. Address the personal attacks made against me. I've already gotten the point to be more careful on PME's talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, my "sour taste" comment was an accidental pun not meant as humor. You both made mistakes. Time to end it. Jehovah. O3000 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't catch that. I thought you were humorous. Thanks for the clarification. -- Valjean (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Pack has a point here. Left a sour taste in my mouth. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
LOL! I can only imagine...it's just a matter of taste... -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Talk about poor show! The admin who blocked you for "incivility" drops the F bomb in an edit summary on someone's talk page, which is not able to be changed? Bish, sure, it's subjective, but if you don't know that someone welcomes such language please try to avoid it in the future, or keep it to your pages. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you really think you are helping Pack? O3000 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This is really strange. I try to rid myself of sexism and feel I am being encouraged to be sexist. That's regressive. Feel free to help me understand this better (maybe on my talk page or by email). I can always learn more.
BTW, I eagerly await the reception of any policy which forbids humor on private talk pages, especially boyish humor. I would sorely miss EEng's wonderful sense of humor. -- Valjean (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A big apology to everyone!

Something I lost track of in all of the above was a lack of sensitivity on my part. I got defensive and failed miserably. Tact has never been my strong point, and emotional intelligence is practically nonexistent in my family, where Asperger syndrome affects certain members, including my son, and I suspect myself to some degree. My wife's family is much worse off in that regard. In my family, we rarely spoke of emotions. I still have a hard time discussing them. They were suppressed to avoid punishment, and I was spanked until I could exercise enough self-control to stop crying. That first happened when I was about nine years old, so daily spankings were my lot in life from the time I was about three years old and possibly earlier, as my mother believed in spanking babies. My mother spanking me is one of my earliest memories. She always carried a rubber hose (about 1/2" x 8") in her purse. After getting spanked at school, I would then get spanked at home. I'm damaged goods in many ways. I'm a preacher's kid and do not recommend a strong, conservative, religious upbringing. These are possible reasons, but not excuses.

I want to apologize to everyone, not just the females here. I forgot that being kind is more important than being right. I am not exempt from the common failing that "a man is right in his own eyes." (Proverbs 21:2 NIV) Right or wrong, I should have been more sensitive. Please forgive me. -- Valjean (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well stated. Humor used to be illegal here. Now accepted – within bounds. An old story, kinda related:

Man is invited to a long running dinner party by a friend and accepts. Sitting at the dinner table, a few sheets of paper are distributed. It contains numbered jokes. Someone says #14, and everyone laughs. Someone says #23, and everyone laughs. Man whispers to his friend – what’s going on? Friend explains that you pick a joke that you like and state the number. So, he says: “number 8”. No one laughs. Asks his friend what happened. Friend says: “It’s not what you said; it’s how you said it”.

Humor is extremely valuable – but sometimes difficult without facial muscles and there is a circumstance -- a time and a place. May it never leave society. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Valjean First chance I have had to really sit down today. Thank you for the apology. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson talk page

That wasn't a forum post. It was directly related to every recent discussion on the Tucker Carlson talk page, including some that have already been archived. What do you need, references that cite those discussions? Try not to censor legitimate talk page subjects. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@JimKaatFan: That was personalizing a content dispute see WP:PERSONAL. Making vauge and wild accusations against other editors is not what a article talk page is for. Also that is not what censoring is. For reference the edit they are referring to is me reverting their post here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It wasn't personal at all. And it's not a content dispute - it's a point about his position in EVERY content dispute in that article. I have no idea who that guy is. I've barely interacted with him. But I did look through that talk page and archives, and the POV bent is obvious. I'm not sure why no one else has pointed that out. It's ridiculously plain-as-day. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@JimKaatFan: Again discussing personal matters or speculating their motives is not acceptable on article talk pages. It is against WP:PERSONAL and WP:AGF. If you wish to do that the appropriate venue would be a place like WP:ANI, WP:AN, or WP:AE. Again, completely inappropriate for an article talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion is literally about that talk page. Literally none of what you just cited applies. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@JimKaatFan: Article talk pages are discussing content not personal problems with other editors. Please see the links above and WP:TPNO. PackMecEng (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Stop ignoring what I wrote above. There's nothing personal about it. It's entirely about content. What's with this tag-teaming? Do you two often work together with this purpose? Honest question. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@JimKaatFan: I have said my peace, though I will say at this point it looks like you are at WP:3RR. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
JimKaatFan, nice of you to accuse me of tag-teaming without having the courtesy to ping me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
And yet, here you are. Amazing. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
JimKaatFan, yes I am because you have made this mess going to loads of different pages. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia Nice of you to accuse me of accusing you of a DS vio without having the courtesy to ping me. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Soibangla, hows it going? PackMecEng (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, we're havin' fun now! soibangla (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Every day above ground is a good day! PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Criminal use

You made two reverts [17] [18] with the summary "not this again" on content that is under active discussion. Please provide a valid rationale and join the discussion when reverting. –dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: As you know this has come up many times over the years to add each individual use of a particular firearm in a crime. Each time it has been found to be undue unless a particular event had an impact on the history of the firearm. Things like getting it banned or the like.. This was being discussed on the project page when you reverted. Please seek consensus for your new addition. Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Where exactly is this “under active discussion?” I see little beyond edit summaries before recently, and only a slight expansion of those edit summaries on the subject. I have seen extensive past discussion that suggests that PME’s edit summary is fairly accurate; this is an old chestnut. Qwirkle (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Current consensus is to decide on a case-by-case basis which is to be done at the article talk page. There is no requirement that it have a specific impact (I don't know why this language keeps coming up, it's not a policy or guideline) and these lists are often included even when there's no specific effect on the weapon. I opened discussions at Talk:Ruger 10/22 and Talk:Winchester Model 1200 before PackMecEng's reverts, so please join the discussions there. Repeated reverts without an appropriate explanation are unlikely to stand. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

D/S Refresh

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.

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.

Just a reminder since I don't see that you've been made aware in the past year. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:VANISH

Per WP:VANISH, Please consider avoiding talking about the vanished users by the old or new name. I don't know of any policy that says we have to do this, but if someone has quit Wikipedia, requested vanishing, and scrambled their password, the polite thing to do is to let them go without further comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • The deleted pages are normal for vanished users. If they really have opted to vanish, then by definition they are not facing sanctions -- any sanctions would be pointless. However, if they continue to edit under the new name or as an IP, I normally put in a request that they be unvanished and another request that they be blocked. Would you be so kind as to provide diffs showing that "they appear to be editing as IPs at the same ARCA case"? In particular, it would be helpful to know which one is doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No need to ping me. When I comment on a talk page I put it on my watch list.
The user talk pages were not deleted. I posted links to them at the top of this page. Moving (also known as renaming) is not the same thing as deletion.
If they had requested Wikipedia:Changing username instead of Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing there would be a redirect to the new talk page and its history from the old talk page. This is usually not done when vanishing, because that would defeat the purpose of "when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits" --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the pings, never know. It sounds like a distinction without a difference. As I linked above if you go to their official talk pages they have no history. If someone wanted to look at their edits for whatever reason they would have to track down those renamed user links which is not a good thing. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you think "when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits" is not a good thing. I have no opinion on that. I can see good arguments either way. It would be interesting if you proposed changing the vanishing policy. I believe that you would have to start at meta:Right to vanish, and that our page is based upon that page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is reasonable to have disagreements on if they are in good standing at the moment as demonstrated by the discussion you started and the comments at the ARCA page, specifically the comments by OID & Guerillero. I have also seen no good reason to obfuscate their talk pages. Which you are correct they were technically moved and recreated not deleted, that is not functionally different. It certainly goes against the spirit of WP:VANISH. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah. I misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I thought that you opposed the current practice of vanishing. It looks like you oppose the current practice of vanishing while the person is part of an Arbcom case. That seems to me to be very reasonable; I can't see any good reason not to make them wait and vanish them after the case closes. Related: should the same basic rule apply during an ANI case? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would say it should apply whenever anyone is under scrutiny from the community. I could see them requesting it at any time but it should not be granted until the scrutiny concludes. PackMecEng (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That makes a lot of sense to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. Destruction of evidence should not be allowed. Editors in good standing should be allowed to vanish when there is no controversy, but this is different. Their "good standing" status is certainly disputable, and there is a need for all evidence to be "on the table", and kept there forever. -- Valjean (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Slow motion edit wars

Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that happened on Andy Ngo are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Fair enough and I will keep that in mind. I would like to note that is my first revert ever on that page. PackMecEng (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, PackMecEng,

I've noticed over the past month, you've been involved in talk page discussions where you have been very provocative and you've made thinly-veiled accusations to long-time editors, admins & even Jimbo. I'm not sure why you are choosing to take the role of devil's advocate in discussions, but I recommend taking a less adversarial position, especially with editors who have been working to improve Wikipedia for years, if not decades.

You didn't indulge in personal attacks but I don't see anything positive to be gained in challenging other editors about ideological positions that have nothing to do with improving article content. Why be antagonistic instead of collaborative? We might have different perspectives on politics or social issues but we should all be working together to improve content. That is easier done when you are cordial with other editors even when you disagree. On Wikipedia, it's better to make allies than opponents. Good luck with your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Liz, Do you have specific examples? That way we can have a discussion on what was happening and why I may of said what I did. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Liz yay? nay? Just a drive by? PackMecEng (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Liz It has been several days with you actively editing and no reply so I am going to assume you are not interested in discussing this. We have been over this in the past. Drive by messages and editing is never a positive or helpful thing. In the future please take some time to look over the situation more thoroughly. Take care. PackMecEng (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry not to have circled back before now. I don't check my notifications regularly. I was struck by comments you made on Jimbo Wales talk page and then elsewhere on noticeboards. I don't have examples at the ready (they were older edits from September) and my message was more just to caution you that you seemed to be poking and challenging admins for no clear reason. And today I noticed Mastcell's comments on your talk page which brought me back here. Next time I see the behavior that concerned me, I'll bring it here. Sorry for not being more specific at the moment. Liz Read! Talk! 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: Better late than never I suppose. Though it is a prime example of some of the issues we have had lately. I do however take issue with the classist structure you preface your advice. I do not and will not treat a user differently based on their user rights. From an IP to an Arbcom member they are all the same to me. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's true. Here you are using an editor's status as an IP to dismiss their input, for example, in a way that you obviously wouldn't do with a named account. MastCell Talk 23:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
No, that would appear to be a tacit statement that the user in question does have a named account, yet is hiding behind an IP. It says nothing about how PME might act toward someone flying under their own colors. Qwirkle (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hounding, again

Please don't follow me around Wikipedia reverting my edits, as you did here; doing so violates our policy on WP:HOUNDING.

This isn't your first time with this behavior—you have previously hounded me, as described partway through this talkpage thread, where you combed my contribution history and followed me to a relatively obscure article to revert my edits. To make matters worse, you used a panoply of false claims as an excuse for your hounding (as elaborated by an uninvolved admin here).

Before you present the inevitable excuses this time around, let's be clear—this is an article you haven't touched in nearly 4 months and many intervening edits, but within 3 minutes of me editing the article you arrived to revert me. There are a ton of articles on Wikipedia, and plenty of ways of finding good ones to edit without going through my contributions and following me around. I'm asking you for the second time to stop doing this. MastCell Talk 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@MastCell: Been active on that article for a long time and it showed up on my watchlist. PackMecEng (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It's been on your watchlist for a long time. You ignored it for 4 months, through dozens of edits, but managed to pop up within 3 minutes of me editing the page. Your explanation would be more convincing if this weren't a recurring issue. Plausible deniability gets a little less plausible each time. MastCell Talk 23:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@MastCell:
1 - you ignored it for 4 months, through dozens of edits That page has a low volume of edits. Most people that have it on their watch page do have not edited it in a while. That is meaningless.
2 - but managed to pop up within 3 minutes of me editing the page Yes it poped up on my watchlist as I said already. You notice I didn't touch your other edits to that page or elsewhere? Know why? Because I don't actually follow you around and when I do see edits that are fine I leave them, because you know, they are fine. What do you think? I just sit on your contribution page waiting? WTF? This might shock you but I do not actually care about you. If someone else made the same bad edit I would revert the same way.
3 - Also if you want to bring up stuff from over 2 years ago why not the note from the same admin asking you to cool it? Recurring issue my ass. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't bring up the latter conversation because it was unrelated to you hounding me. But it does make decent reading, even at this remove, so thank you for reminding me of it. If you believe there's no issue here and that your actions are completely acceptable, then I don't have anything else to add in this venue. MastCell Talk 18:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@MastCell: Listen I think you are being paranoid here. As demonstrated, you seem to be holding a grudge for over two years. If the first reaction you have to being reverted is this, then there is a problem. So let me be clear, there is no issue here and my actions were completely acceptable. Now, do you see the problem with what you are doing here? PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Responding to pings
  • "You notice I didn't touch your other edits to that page or elsewhere? Know why?"
  • "What do you think? I just sit on your contribution page waiting?"
  • "Also if you want to bring up stuff from over 2 years ago why not the note from the same admin asking you to cool it?"
  • "Now, do you see the problem with what you are doing here?"
I'm not really a fan of that kind of aggressive questioning. That's all. ~Awilley (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Awilley, Yeah I was a little aggressive, just annoyed. I should be a bit more gentle in the future you are right. PackMecEng (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll respond further at the article talkpage, but I did want to address one more thing. You disclaim responsibility for the content that you reverted back into the article: "me restoring long standing material from deletion with a misleading edit summary is not me taking responsibility for it, whatever that means." I wanted to be clear about basic editorial responsibility. When you restore material to an article, you are vouching for it and taking responsibility for its content and policy compliance. Otherwise you shouldn't restore it. It's inappropriate to revert reflexively simply because the material is "long standing", without regard to its merits—that's a canonically disruptive behavior.

( The sources for the material in question were quite detailed and nuanced, and it took me a good long while to review them and to conclude that they were being misused. I was a bit surprised that you were able to review them all, and to confirm that they were accurately reflected in the removed text, in less than 3 minutes. That's one reason I thought that you might have simply reflexively reverted me without actually investigating the merits of my edit). MastCell Talk 18:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What on earth?

What policy justifies such a demand from you? This feels more like aggressive harassment and a failure to AGF in my intentions, even after my civil explanations. I hope I'm wrong. My contribution and comments did not violate FORUM and were on-topic. Unlike your persistent reactions,XOR'easter acted properly and collaboratively. Kudos to them. -- Valjean (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, Basically putting a ref on it's own with no suggested edit is not helpful or an improvement. I am sure you had good intentions and it was not my intention to question those, I do not think I have. Now if you find a source you think could improve an article give it and perhaps a purposed edit, that would be good. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, yeah. This is heated enough, and I'm guilty too - let's keep it low key and content-focused. Thanks for the reminder, PackMecEng. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG Agreed, everyone (including me) seems to be a little agitated for some reason lately. Hopefully in a week or so it will get back to normal. I think it might be a good time to get back to a new motorcycle articles that I have been meaning to improve. PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
We can only hope it will be better in a week or so. In the Northern Hemisphere though it will be winter and that combined with the global changes due to COVID may mean more editing here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Far north Idaho at the moment here. So about the same unfortunately. PackMecEng (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Yay treats! Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert, I have no idea how that came to happen! Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: No worries, I have done it myself several times! PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Getting dumped from Trump, for now.

Doesn't matter now. I've been blocked (48 hrs) from the Trump page. Just wish yas would apply what yas are pushing for to at least all the American political office articles. As for myself & Mandruss? We haven't been seeing eye-to-eye, these last few weeks. For this round of disputes, he gets his own way. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, Me and Mandruss have not always agreed.[20] Though he is pretty much always spot on with policy and rules. He is very thorough in that regard. PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
He should've left in the inclusion of Biden per longstanding practice & waited to see what kinda consensus would emerge. It's out my hands now, so I'm content to wait (even after 48 hrs) & see. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop it

You need to stop the harassment and baiting (we have history...), or I'll have to seek an interaction ban. Stop (1) following me around and (2) inevitably defending fringe (defined as ideas not from RS) narratives and dubious sources. Aquillion had some good advice for you. Try following it. -- Valjean (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Please WP:AGF. I am just trying to help you to keep you from being banned from AP2 for your WP:FORUM like behavior, use of Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, and repeated use of non-WP:RS. You have been warned so many times by so many people at this point. Please, for everyone including yourself go back to the old Valjean we all know and love and do not continue down this hyper partisan path that is more interested in truth over facts. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Your repeated attempts to discredit me only make you look bad. This crusade needs to stop. Your exaggeration and hyperbole above is just your opinion. I don't own any talk pages, but it's rather conspicuous that you keep popping up immediately after I comment to make some form of an attempt to poison the well against me, the editor, rather than just commenting on content.
Let's repeat what Aquillion wrote:
"I think you are starting to approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. It is not necessary to reply personally to every single point you disagree with; if the arguments are flawed in the way you say, someone else will see it and say something. (And if you are the only one who does, it is likely that your points are not as strong as you believe them to be.)" Aquillion [21]
"It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own. That is from WP:BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, you have personally replied to every single source that anyone has presented arguing that Newsmax requires depreciation, which is textbook bludgeoning and isn't really a helpful way to contribute to discussions." Aquillion[22]
That's really good advice. Take your focus off of me and stop acting like my nanny. I'm 69 and my parents stopped using a nanny for me when I was nine years old. Before that, we always had nannies living in our homes (including in Korea, which explains my love of kimchi). Your bludgeoning of my comments, and your poisoning of the well against me, are unwelcome forms of hounding. If you won't stop, I'll seek an interaction ban, and your consistent defenses of fringe sources and narratives from them won't look good. Whatever my faults may be, and I have many, I am always on the side of the facts and narratives found in RS, and my talk page comments and actual editing are not identical, so stop judging them. That's the way it works here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Valjean, Where have I ever had consistent defenses of fringe sources and narratives? I am not the one using Twitter as a source or other hyper partisan sources to make claims about BLP subjects. These unsupported WP:ASPERSIONS are part of the issue I describe above. That kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is what makes the AP2 environment so toxic and needs to end. I am not the enemy here, I have no skin in the game so to speak. Dude, people just need to stop using Wikipedia like it is Facebook or Twitter which you were recently warned about on your own talk page.[23] PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm shocked by the display of angry temperaments on your UTP by visitors, nonetheless. I'd hat and archive those comments in a NY minute but be sure to keep the diffs. I was delightfully surprised by JzG's comment; he can be such a sweetie when he wants to be, and he really is super smart. You're probably feeling pretty overwhelmed right about now, with big ole bully men on the attack all the way back to October. Wow! I spilled my damn pretzel bag, and now I've got salty pretzel crumbs all over my laptop and sofa. Jiminy Cricket!! Thinking back on all the crap we've endured over the past 4 years makes me physically ill and I can only imagine what you're feeling right now, but then, your skin's thicker than mine. Sweetie pie, just sit back and relax...wait and let the Guild of Copy Editors start working on those 4 years worth of rambling trivia and unwieldy, unencyclopedic articles that are scattered about. Phew!! I saw where EEng started cleaning-up one of the unwieldy articles containing seemingly infinite trivia and subpar prose, but he's already had some backlash himself. On a humorous note, it reminds me of an aquarium with pregnant guppies that you have to keep separated or they'll eat their babies. Chin-up, kiddo - I see positive things ahead with the DS/AE nightmare, so don't let them rattle your cage, or I should say make tidal waves in your little aquarium! Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It's all good, compared to places I used to work this is a vacation. I remember back in the cost plus years I was always the one they picked to tell the brass when projects were behind. Now that was fun. Then later in life I had to opportunity to be VP of operations for a medium sized company that had an extensive manufacturing division. Machinists can be so bitchy it always amazed me. But anyhow, hopefully all the breaking news will start to calm down and the real work building an encyclopedia can begin! Someday I do wish they would get rid of Twitter and Facebook though, nothing good seems to come from those. PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PackMecEng/Archive_4&oldid=1048421121"