User talk:Atsme/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Image question

Hi. Could you kindly explain the image and caption you recently posted on User talk:Jimbo Wales? As far as I see, no arbitrator has contributed to that discussion. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I "borrowed" that image with its caption from EEng's museum but I'll be happy to remove it if it is not serving its intended purpose as a depiction of humor. Atsme Talk 📧 01:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but I don't understand the relevance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll just remove it. I'm sorry you had to waste even a few seconds on it. My apologies. Atsme Talk 📧 01:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I imagine he's upset because it puts the arbs in a bad light, so they kind of want you to erase the "log" so to speak. Yet of course, when I asked them to redact my block log for bad blocks that are used against me, for harassment or for more blocks, they refused. Even Jimbo used my block log to try to threaten me when I posted on his talk page. I expected more from the new batch of arbs, or at least some of them. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I was happy to remove it - no problem. I'm happy when others are happy, and if I can do something that brings a smile, that's all I need. It's just that simple. In fact, here's my theme song. Atsme Talk 📧 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I agree 100%. :) Sir Joseph (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Time to grab a cup of tea and relax. MONGO (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Sounds wonderful, thank you, MONGO!! I feel so guilty - bad, bad, bad - for indulging in a bowl of Tiramisu ice cream with whipped cream and a jigger of Cherry Cordial brandy poured over the top. OMG!!! It was sooooo good. Tomorrow I must run up and down 3 flights of stairs 50 times. A piece of cake compared to what I've endured over the past few days. %Þ Atsme Talk 📧 00:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I have to avoid carbs and sugars as much as possible but least I have no restrictions on meat for the most part and I like meat, as one might expect.--MONGO (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, TGIF, I try to take a break every so often and unwatch some pages as they pop up on my watchlist, but sometimes the infuriation gets the best of me, and as I'm sure you know, being accused of something you're not is not a good feeling. And the human body is interesting, I remember being "ordered" by my doctor to drink a chocolate milkshake a day. Those were the days, back when things were simpler (and doctors didn't care about things too much). Sir Joseph (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
After a certain admin made an ill willed caution against me yesterday, I thought seriously about a long break. I really loathe it when folks lack a sense of humor or single one person out of a crowd and ignore far worse accusations and heated commentary that is in the same thread. But, I know that even admins are human and have flaws as we all do. Everyone should avoid deep entanglements here and state their arguments succinctly and backed with plenty of reliable sources. Knowing to walk away when faced with quasi schizophrenic, hypersensitive brick walls is the best thing to do.--MONGO (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
MONGO, that sounds like a wise approach. Atsme, glad today is proving calmer than yesterday (though not to jinx it!). El_C 21:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I really loathe it when folks lack a sense of humor or single one person out of a crowd and ignore far worse accusations and heated commentary that is in the same thread. Me too. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This place is sometimes a terrible place with terrible admins. I was blocked once due to VM taking me to AE, and I was going to just be warned, but one admin didn't like that I didn't think I did anything wrong (which many admins felt there was grey area) so he decided to make it a block. Other admins argued that it was wrong, it was punitive, etc.
Speaking of VM and BLP and AE, he once took me to AE for saying a politician lied, surprisingly I didn't get sanctioned for that, even if it was on a Trump page. User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_8#Inappropriate_comments, and I didn't even remember but the first link was to a "warning" from MastCell regarding "shithole" countries and of course civil language that is only policed when you disagree with it User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_8. On the flip side it's pretty amazing how many times certain people show up at AE and yet don't get blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Pogo

We have met the enemy and he is us. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

yes, indeed. On a slightly different note, pogo brought to mind the Tiramisu ice cream guilt and my pledge to run up and down 3 flights of stairs 50 times (above). If it wasn't for my incredible willpower, I'd be doing that right now. Atsme Talk 📧 18:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding [removed] and undoubtedly some others

I think this nugget I passed on to MastCell recently helps to explain why he, the editor formerly known as Brangifer, and some other likely late-middle-aged liberals dote on trying to convert you:

One more request. Try not to get too upset with Atsme. As one red-blooded man to another you can't tell me that as middle aged ladies go, she isn't a damned attractive one. And it's always a bit disconcerting when nice looking women reject us, intellectually, that is. Take care, and thanks for the gentlemanly note. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Don Rittmann in real life.

And with that, I'll end my latest "good run" on Wikipedia.

Oh my...you caught me off-guard and nearly speechless. I will admit to being disappointed by the preconceived opinions of me by my detractors but it is not unexpected. In fact, it has been on-going for quite some time thanks to the efforts of a small few who relentlessly poison the well and show ill-will toward me whenever the opportunity arises. Perhaps it is just a game to some, despite what they perceive to be good intentions. I find it rather disconcerting to think some actually perceive pragmatism to be an obstacle to their apparent mission to RGW as advocates for social justice. Quite frankly, they make it more difficult for us to remain pragmatically neutral considering so many of us share those same views. I have long since learned how to leave my biases at login due to life's experiences and professional training; therefore, it's second nature to me. And whenever I'm feeling the detrimental effects of such an onslaught, I watch JB's 5-Step Protocol - it's definitely not a RS, but laughter is the best medicine. WP is certainly not the official publication for SPLC or Anti-Defamation League or any other advocacy, at least, not to my knowledge. My arguments are supported by WP:PAG, whereas my detractors are more likely than not to be noncompliant with one or more of the following: WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:RGW, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:REDFLAG and WP:LABEL; however, if they present a solid policy-based argument, I will be among the first to change my position. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely reciprocated. Typically, when one side cannot present a substantive argument, the discussion devolves into one or more of the following: WP:Godwin's law, WP:Pack's law, WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES or WP:ATSME. m( I bid you well, Mr. Rittmann. Atsme Talk 📧 15:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see ....

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack and lack of notification

I'm sorry this note is belated but I only now noticed this post of yours when I was reading something else at BLPN. In it you attack O3000, accuse them of bad faith (of attempting to smear a BLP subject), and don't even ping them. When they complain about the lack of notification, you say you were "unexpectedly delayed" from pinging or alerting.[1] When asked to strike the PA, you simply deflect.[2] I suggest that if you don't have time for alerting somebody over an attack you wish to make, the appropriate solution is not post any of it until you do have time for that. Further, the actual right thing to do with egregious accusations of bad faith is not to make them at all. In a way I'm also sorry to bring this right under the good news about your great picture (I'm a big fan of your photos), but I think it's important. Bishonen | tålk 09:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

Bish, thank you for sharing your concerns - see if this works better. I never imagined that it could be misconstrued as a PA against any particular editor which is why I did not name a particular editor. I simply grabbed a diff that happened to be O3000 restoring a BLP violation against policy. He was one of several editors restoring violative material, and I am willing to stand corrected if I am misunderstanding BLP policy but from my perspective, it clearly places the onus on the editors who want to restore challenged material, not on the editor who removes it. I also thought my comment was describing a content issue in that it was an "attempt to restore content that smears a BLP subject." Do you consider the latter a PA, or is it a better choice of words? As it turned out, consensus agreed that there was noncompliance with multiple policies as stated in the following excerpt from the close: ...there is agreement by the participants that the text as originally proposed did not comply with multiple policies when evaluated as a whole. Don't you think maybe there's a problem when editors restore challenged material despite onus, and are unable to recognize it as a BLP policy violation? Oh, and before I forget...you grabbed the 1st diff of my original post and may not be aware of the changes I made after posting per this edit, and this explanation about notices. confused face icon Just curious...what happens to the editors who kept restoring the noncompliant material per WP:BLP policy: Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.?? Have you made them aware that restoring challenged material in violation of BLP policy is an actionable offense? I think it would be very helpful if you did because editors are more receptive to making adjustments in order to avoid misunderstandings when you politely discuss issues with them as you did here. I certainly appreciate it. Atsme Talk 📧 12:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be continuing with personal attacks even now. Firstly, in your response to my objection, you stated: You knew when you restored that material that it was a BLP vio. That was another false accusation. I knew no such thing, and as others said, there was no BLP violation. This is a matter of opinion and you have no right to tell me what my opinion is. Further, above you state: what happens to the editors who kept restoring the noncompliant material per WP:BLP policy: Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.?? Have you made them aware that restoring challenged material in violation of BLP policy is an actionable offense?. This is yet another false accusation with a call for admin action. And, you again failed to notify me that you are calling for an admin to take some action against me. I made exactly one restore. Count them, one. You need to stop making false accusations based on assumptions of bad faith, personal opinions, and history rewrites. Unlike you, I will not call for admin action twice or even once. Just realize that you can’t behave in this manner and stop.O3000 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I can't agree that Noncompliant material was [diff to edit by O3000] restored in Turning Point USA. The material is a BLP violation, it is irrelevant to the article and noncompliant with WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. The attempt is to smear Kirk via guilt by association was "misconstrued as" a personal attack against a particular editor. It was a personal attack against the editor whose edit you linked to. Thank you for crossing it out. Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
Atsme, thank you for removing material you had BLP concerns about. As most editors are aware of, discussion should occur and consensus should be reached before such material is restored, but sometimes that is overlooked or forgotten. Bishonen, "over an attack you wish to make" assumes something of Atsme that I don't see evidence for, and as such is an aspersion. Please refrain from that if possible. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome, Mr Ernie - I do hope that what I've explained below brings some sense of clarity. Atsme Talk 📧 16:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You are welcome, Bish...but with all due respect, consensus said there was noncompliance with multiple policies. Two is a few couple but not multiple so let's take it a little further so we're all on the same page. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi#Guilt by association which I presented in that RfC as evidenced here. It applies to the material that was removed as a BLP vio, and was supported by consensus. What you may not be considering is how the other policies are integral to BLP policy and form the principle. My position is further supported by ArbCom: (10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. There was no direct relationship. BLP applies everywhere, and as such, the prevailing principle for BLP policy clearly states:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)

Bish, if it didn't adhere to the core content policies, it was a BLP violation because Kirk is inseparable from those organizations. If we need further clarification, I suppose we can take it to ARCA, but it's pretty clear to me and I don't want this going down as my mistake and a dismissal of what I believe to be BLP vios. I'm open to your suggestions for verification, but quite frankly, I don't see a single admin having the authority to make a binding decision about how content applies to policy. Atsme Talk 📧 16:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
First, you removed far more text than the compromise called for. Secondly, you continue to deflect. Your personal attacks, claiming I knew I was doing something in violation of BLP, and that I attempted to smear someone, are flat-out falsehoods. How can you possibly fail to understand that these were personal attacks? Further, you failed to notify me of accusations both there and here, even though you called for an admin to act against me in both cases. O3000 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Again...out of respect for Bish, I changed the wording that was misconstrued to be a PA directed at you, and I asked her a few questions - end of story. She doesn't have to answer me, and that's fine. But now you're back here agitating and denying accountability for this edit. That's fine but I am not convinced that it is anything but noncompliant with BLP for the reasons I provided above, and that includes an ARBCOM decision. I'm not going to litigate it here, as much as you want that to happen. All of my comments are supported by written policy and further, by consensus. Stop casting aspersions against me based on nothing more than your opinions.
In fact, in this edit you appear to be well aware of what is or isn't a PA, and here you claimed that I violated AGF and CIV based purely on your misunderstanding of the ubiquitous use of the term "with such a vengeance". I even tried to appease you by changing "vengeance" to "vehemence" when I didn't have to do that at all. I was happy to accomodate Bish, and reword the comment she brought to my attention. I am here to help build the encyclopedia, not waste time fending off your PAs and false allegations. I have repeatedly turned the other cheek to your purposeful snark and baseless allegations but they just keep adding up, and have been for quite some time. Your issues with me go way back to when you didn't like my use of *sigh* - imagine that! Here's the diff. AGF? I am asking you to please stop your aspersions, stop commenting after my comments in discussions whenever they don't agree with your POV, or because you think they're odd, or incorrectly assume they are PAs because you won't AGF. We are probably rarely, if ever, going to agree but that's not a bad thing for the project unless you continue on this same path. Civil disagreements and differing perspectives are good for the project because that is how we achieve NPOV. But quite frankly, you've gone beyond that with your comments here. Atsme Talk 📧 17:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
And you continue to deflect. You falsely accused me of attempting to smear someone and of knowingly violating BLP. And here you said I did this multiple times. You asked for admin action twice, and failed to notify me on both occasions. I did not attempt to smear anyone and did not knowingly violate any policy. Do you understand that? O3000 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
O3000 I think you made your point, and it's probably now time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Ernie, there is clearly no respect for the fourth pillar on this page. O3000 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I respect you and the various pillars.--MONGO (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Blahhhhhhhh!!!!

Just FYI...

We may again have issues with editors wanting to frame Matthew Whitaker in an inaccurate light. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm...see you at the article TP. Atsme Talk 📧 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, you are a true friend. BD2412 T 19:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome. As I've said before, you are a productive collaborator who I truly enjoy working with because you understand NPOV and how to compose neutral sentences and paragraphs even when it is criticism. You clearly understand BALANCE and DUE, and it reminds me of my days working with career professionals. We used to joke in the edit suite when reviewing interviews involving controversial subjects. The most fun was pulling the sound bites of smooth talkers which we defined as someone who can tell a person to kiss their ass in such a way they can't wait to do it. You have that talent. On WP, we'll just call it "diplomacy" or how about "dispassionate tone"? ^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 19:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC) For the sake of clarity and to avoid any chance that my words will be misconstrued - my response is relative to how we frame criticism/allegations about controversial subjects, not how we respond to other editors. 12:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
"Diplomacy is telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." But I prefer, "Tact is for people who aren't witty enough to be sarcastic." Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
We do seem to live in an age where people think the purpose of Wikipedia is to put those they disagree with in the most negative light possible. Have you seen, for example, Person, woman, man, camera, TV? BD2412 T 20:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
WP and mainstream media have given Trump all kinds of free publicity...he's even mentioned in this WP article.😂 Atsme Talk 📧 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert H. Boyle

Nice job. MONGO approved.--MONGO (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thx, MONGO - I have an excellent collaborator in BD2412. I listed multiple RS on the TP of that bio, and I'm hoping I can secure an image of the dedication plaque for the Robert H. Boyle Environmental Advocacy Center at Pace University Law School (1996). Maybe I'll get lucky and a WP editor with a camera will capture that image for us. There's still quite a bit of work to do on the bio but I'm loving the "no deadline" aspect of WP editing. Atsme Talk 📧 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Spotted Trunkfish.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hi Atsme,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Spotted Trunkfish.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 2, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-08-02. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Spotted trunkfish

The spotted trunkfish (Lactophrys bicaudalis) is a species of ray-finned fish in the family Ostraciidae, native to the Caribbean Sea and parts of the western Atlantic Ocean. Members of this family are known as boxfishes because they have a hard outer covering consisting of hexagonal, plate-like scales fused together into a solid, triangular or box-like carapace. Because of this casing, the body of the spotted trunkfish is not flexible, and locomotion is normally limited to slow movements performed by rippling its dorsal and anal fins and gently beating its pectoral fins. If faster motion is required, it can additionally use its caudal fin for propulsion. This spotted trunkfish was photographed at a depth of about 40 ft (12 m) at Bari Reef, Bonaire.

Photograph credit: Betty Wills

Recently featured:

Request for explanation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
My screw-up caused confusion, I take full responsibility, also hatted at article TP Atsme Talk 📧 02:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what you meant by this edit? You initially posted to a discussion about Steve Bannon's arrest with the false, potentially defamatory, and irrelevant claim that former Attorney General Eric Holder had been indicted (your edit summary lectured others about WP:BLP; {{.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Bannon&diff=prev&oldid=974521134). Your false claim about Holder is a violation of WP:BLP, and presumably a knowing one; the source you cited in your post—which I assume you read before linking—made clear that he had not been indicted.

When I pointed out this false claim, you responded by attacking me via a series of unsupported aspersions ([3]) and then altered your previous post like so. I don't understand what you meant by this alteration. Are you claiming that the Eric Holder whose supposed indictment you referenced, was not the former attorney general but rather a different person with the same name accused of murdering a rapper? That doesn't make any sense in the context of your original post, which clearly referred to former AG Holder, so maybe I'm misunderstanding. Given that the matter involves false claims and a BLP violation, I'm asking for clarification before going further with it. MastCell Talk 07:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Attacking" you? Uhm, from my perspective, you're on my UTP HOUNDING while crying victim? Ok, I will AGF, yet again, and will attempt to clarify because you have afforded me the courtesy to provide an explanation. To begin, the diff you included to support your allegation You initially posted to a discussion about Steve Bannon's arrest with the false, potentially defamatory, and irrelevant claim that former Attorney General Eric Holder had been indicted (your edit summary lectured others about WP:BLP is not only misleading in the context of "initially", it simply isn't true. My initial post in context is in this diff, which is dated Aug 20, 2020. Your response the next day in that discussion was "Wait for what?", etc. to which others replied to you, and I also responded here. You came back with this, which is inline with the context for how it all began. I attempted to demonstrate why your demands for immediate inclusion in the lead were noncompliant with RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, DUE and WP:10YT.
You know, MastCell, you could have simply asked for an explanation without the aspersions in your relentless attempt to discredit me, but it does serve in a rather sad way, as evidence of your ill-will and HOUNDING behavior. I am concerned that it is probably not going to end anytime soon, and certainly hope that I'm wrong, but your behavior as it relates to me has even garnered the attention of editors I know only in passing, per this diff in June 2019. There are many more, but I won't belabor that point. What I have noticed is that it has gotten worse as evidenced by the discussion on Jimbo's TP in July 2020 wherein you were making inuendos of racism, if not outright allegations, about editors who did not deserve such treatment from you, and neither did I, but I continued to AGF and approached you with all the best intentions on your UTP July 10 2020. To this day, you have not acknowledged my explanation on your TP but that's fine. I just came across this discussion, and your July 27, 2020 comment wherein you continue spreading misinformation about When editors deny or excuse even the most blatant racial slurs, that is a personal attack. At Jimbo's page, I asked you to not make it personal but you ignored my request, and yet again, I found myself in your pressure cooker. It was about adding material to the article of a dead president that was sourced to a much different time in our history, and that led to Old Billy Hell at Jimbo's TP. You even made false accusations against Levivich as evidenced here, here and here - and there were other innocent editors involved, none of whom deserved what you were dishing out.
And here you are now, screeching at me about one brief paragraph that I failed to properly format while attempting to demonstrate, under pressure from you, why we should wait before including the indictment in the lead. It couldn't possibly get any more trivial than that but you made that mole hill grow into a mountain. I can understand that the USA Today headline may be what confused you along with my ill-formatting: "Nipsey Hussle shooting suspect Eric Holder indicted for death of rapper, heads to trial" - please try to AGF - I certainly didn't create that headline but it truly does serve a multifaceted purpose relative to my point about NOTNEWS, BREAKING, & RECENTISM. We cannot trust headlines anymore than we can trust that an indictment is proof of guilt or that it is DUE in a lead just because the news media published it. I am guilty for forgetting to wikilink the article Nipsey Hussle, a famous rapper but not political, which supported my argument about the fuss over Bannon's indictment being politically motivated, and that it fails WP:10YT. The second Eric Holder in that paragraph is political. The comparison supports my position as demonstrated by the politically motivated edit warring and all the hullabaloo over his lead vs the rapper incident vs what we're seeing now at Bannon, which is not unlike the seemingly infinite back and forth in the edit history of the Holder article as evidenced here, and here, for example. Compare early on breaking news to today's #Operaton Fast and Furious and #Contempt of Congress. Also notice the big difference between the nonpolitical Eric Holder and the political Eric Holder, and convince me that it doesn't support the concerns I expressed here to which you responded here. The aforementioned is taken in proper context of my argument. I fixed what caused the confusion, it was a minor paragraph and I wouldn't care one bit if you wanted to delete it. It's just that simple. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, there's something I'm confused about. If I understand correctly, there is a person named Eric Holder who is accused of murdering Nipsey Hussle, but that person is not the Eric Holder who used to be Attorney General of the United States: two different people with similar names. Is that your understanding, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Tryp - one is political, the other is not, and the handling of each by editors is much different; the point being political motivations are where the problems lie when making decisions or interpretating WP:PAG and whether or not something should be included in the lead or not per DUE, and many other factors, of course. It's difficult to include all thoughts and still maintain brevity, and as sure I'm sitting here, someone will question the one thing you failed to mention - along a similar line to WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. Atsme Talk 📧 18:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Just looking at the dispute here from the outside, and just trying to find a way to peace, it looks to me like some other editors may misunderstand that you thought the two were the same person, or that you were trying to make it sound that way. If so, maybe there has been a misunderstanding. I hope I'm not putting my foot in it, but perhaps clearing up that misunderstanding could avoid escalation, so I hope my question and your reply will help with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Tryp - MastCell used the diff before my final correction, which is here. Hopefully the proper formatting cleared it up, along with my edit summaries. Atsme Talk 📧 19:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I looked at that diff of the final correction, and my (perhaps naive) reading of it is that you were saying that AG Holder was the alleged murderer. Just looking at it from the outside, I can understand why MastCell interprets it that way. Again, I hope that clearing up a misunderstanding, one way or the other, is possible before there is further escalation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The link:

You just verified what I've said. You have forgotten the Eric Holder Not AG Holder indictment of Nipsey Hussle shooting suspect,[1] Fix formatting, add wikilink and properly cite source. 10:49 am, Today (UTC−4) and AG Holder's contempt of court Congress.[2] clarify AG Holder from other person 4:05 pm, Today (UTC−4) Correction Atsme Talk 📧 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) Interestingly, the media scrubbed most of what went on, but even WaPo admits: Obama has certainly had his share of controversies, but some of the most-covered became murky or faded over time. Then all of a sudden in 2019 - CNBC. Misinformation does not belong in this encyclopedia. Atsme Talk 📧 10:29 am, 23 August 2020, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4) (reply)

C'mon, Tryp - AG Holder wasn't indicted for the death of a rapper - seriously - I make my share of mistakes, but Jiminy Cricket, I'm not a blathering idiot. Nobody remembers this stuff - WP:10YT was the point in question - it doesn't matter who is indicted - the murderer of a famous rapper or Bannon, but when its political, guess what? The article becomes a coatrack or its scrubbed and the edit wars begin. Leave it out of the lead. I cannot prevent editors from misinterpreting what a source says as everyone has done with the (not AG) Eric Holder indictment, and it also demonstrates why WP:GUILT is so important, and that we shouldn't purposely juxtapose other names in the content we're adding because it can tarnish an innocent person's reputation (by association). You are all making my point about why we should not do these things. I used the right sources but did not cite them formally - I fixed that. I saw the rapper article and in my mind, it fit perfectly to demonstrate my argument - I just f'd up the presentation. It was the perfect rebuttal to MastCell's comment Political material is judged by the same standards and policies as other material. Had I not been accused and singled out throughout that discussion and feeling very much under pressure, I would have presented it better. As you know brevity has never been my strong suit and when I try it, everything gets screwed up. Atsme Talk 📧 20:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is exactly what she tried to do - she tried to pretend that a person who was NOT "Eric Holder the Obama AG" was in fact one of "Obama associates" supposedly (according to her) "federally indicted". When she was called out on these shenanigans she responded by blustering and accusing MasCell of attacking her. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I really don't think Atsme can reasonably be accused of thinking or claiming that former Attorney General Eric Holder shot Nipsey Russell. This seems like a misstep in communication rather than intent, and one best worth moving on from. BD2412 T 20:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
BD2412, I just noticed the name you used - it should be Nipsey Hussell - see how easy it is to f-up? 😂 Atsme Talk 📧 22:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Tell me about it! BD2412 T 22:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow...VM's a mindreader - maybe we should give the Amazing Randi a call to check it out. Atsme Talk 📧 20:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
First of all, Atsme, that photo of a butterflyfish I just saw at the top of this page is awesome. But, instead of c'mon-ing me, please realize that it was the way it sounded to me, and I can understand how it sounded that way to others. And at the same time, I absolutely could not believe that you meant it that way, because yes, I do give you credit for not being a blathering idiot. When I read the most recent comments here by other editors, (1) I think I should go back to staying off WP entirely, and (2) it becomes very, very obvious to me that what we have here was a failure of communication, and that everyone needs to calm the f'k down. Taking a comment that was "f'k-ed up" and using it as a reason for everyone to retreat to their respective corners in The Great Wikipedia Battle Over US PoliticsTM isn't doing anyone any good. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you, Tryp - I've got some interesting stories that go with all those photographs. :-) I agree with everything you said, and I do realize (and have repeatedly admitted) that I screwed-up, no question about it, but I fixed it, didn't I? I don't know what more I can say or do, short of lying, and I won't do that. It is embarrassing but at the same time very disconcerting to think I was feeling so pressured in that discussion that I f'd up a perfectly good presentation in that one brief paragraph as badly as I did. That is so not like me. COVID made me do it. Allow me to take it back a little further in time because what hurts most is the fact that I once considered MastCell a Wikifriend, and to this day, I don't know or understand why that changed but I refuse to sit back and quietly be bludgeoned with accusations of things I didn't do by people hiding behind the protection of anonymity while my RL identity is known to the world. I realize that trying to be compatible with every editor on WP is impossible - I get that - but I have never, in my entire life (short of an abusive 1st husband) been treated with such disrespect...and it has consistently been by the same few individuals. Maybe some day a bright light will shine on that dark corner, and maybe it won't, but I will say quite frankly that were it not for our little group of "humourists", and the editors I consider "special" as both WikiFriends and collaborators, I would be long gone. I just completed rigorous training of an NPP student, have been working on an article lead, created 3 articles this week, and this is how I can expect to be treated? I understand where you're coming from, Tryp - it's a pretty sad state of affairs. Atsme Talk 📧 22:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course Atsme knew that former AG Holder hadn't been indicted for murder. That's a red herring. My point is that when her error about former AG Holder's contempt charge was pointed out, she neither acknowledged nor corrected it, but instead concocted this bizarre, elaborate lie that she was actually talking about the other Holder in her initial comment. That's an obvious, transparent lie to avoid responsibility for one's edits, not a "failure of communication". Trypto, the reason I'm following up is that I take WP:CIVIL seriously, and central to any grown-up definition of civility is that you take responsibility for your words, own your mistakes, and don't lie to and gaslight people. Dismissing this as a simple political disagreement is, frankly, beneath you. MastCell Talk 22:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I keep thinking that editing Wikipedia is beneath me. I did not see any of the earlier parts about the contempt charge, so I was unaware of that until now. Apparently, a failure to communicate to me. I had understood this dispute to be about the claim that she was treating the two Holders as one. Anyway, I don't see how anyone would want to edit in that topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
MastCell said "My point is that when her error about former AG Holder's contempt charge was pointed out, she neither acknowledged nor corrected it,..." See the diff yesterday @15:02 MastCell mentioned the contempt (I accidentally said contempt of court when I meant contempt of Congress. At 15:18 - 16 minutes later - I corrected it, and my edit summary states: (→‎Addition of Aug 2020 arrest to lead: correction - sorry, was thinking faster than I was typing). WTF is he talking about that I didn't correct it? Atsme Talk 📧 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to go back over the discussion, and my head hurts. Atsme said at one point that Mueller found no collusion, and I've got a big problem with that, but I don't want to argue about it here – I'm just trying to be an equal-opportunity scold. It looks to me like editors were discussing Bannon's arrest, and the discussion turned to whether or not Obama-did-it-too, which makes me glad that I don't edit there. Facepalm Facepalm. Atsme cites a Politico source that does indeed say that AG Holder was held in contempt of Congress over something or other. If the issue was over saying "court" instead of "Congress", it looks to me like Atsme has already clarified that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I fixed it, but Tryp, I promise - it wasn't about an Obama-did-it-too scenario. That was not my intention or the reason I brought any of that up. My intent was to demonstrate how charges and arrests/indictments can easily become dismissals/not guilty or guilty verdicts, and the O administration was the most recent that provided a decade's worth of changes, and I could actually recite some of the names from memory but not the details. The nonAG Eric Holder article fell right in my lap which meant I didn't have to spend time hunting down an indictment case to use as an example - but then I saw it as the gift that kept on giving if I played my cards right. The phone would ring, I'd get sidetracked, always something - I go back and lose my place. That's all it was - a simple f'up - nothing nefarious. I couldn't remember even 1 indictment to be quite frank and that was the whole point of WP:10YT - that plus MC's political comment (see the diff) and the mistaken belief that we handle all articles the same (which would be a dream come true). Political articles are a mine field, there is bias, and POV warriors and everybody knows it which is why they don't want to go there. In a nutshell - I was demonstrating why we should WAIT in response to MC's "Why wait?" Hell, the indictment is in the body text, and the TOC directs readers to the proper section. SIMPLE. And that's all there is to it. Atsme Talk 📧 23:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

In my view, Atsme made an egregious BLP vio that reflects a pattern of “backsliding” and warrants further review of the terms of the March 2019 lifting of her topic ban. soibangla (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have nothing productive to say here, go away. Your hands are far from clean and I don't need you dancing atop a 2 year action that was questionable from the get-go. Stop dredging up the past. Your allegation of an "egregious BLP vio" is in itself an offense considering I cited sources and corrected the formatting error as evidenced here, which of course, MastCell did not acknowledge. Formatting errors are not disruption, for Pete's sake. Atsme Talk 📧 19:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC) NOTE: Soibangla's potential motivation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Proposal for 6 mos. t-ban 19:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Atsme, this is disappointing. It's clear that in your initial comment you were referencing former AG Holder, not some other Eric Holder accused of murdering a rapper. That is obvious from context (you were responding to Soibangla's comment that no Obama-era officials had been indicted by naming one such official whom you believed, incorrectly, to have been indicted), and from the link you cited, describing former AG Holder's contempt-of-Congress finding which you incorrectly presented as an indictment. You additionally claimed that "the media scrubbed most of what went on", which again reinforces that you were referring to AG Holder and would make no sense if you were talking about an unrelated murder case. Finally, it is completely implausible that you intended to make a point about "the handling of each [of the two Eric Holders] by editors", as one doesn't even have a Wikipedia article and they have literally no commonality except for their given names.

    You now claim that you were referring to the indictment of accused-murderer Eric Holder all along and that you simply made a "formatting" error. Please don't insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe that, as it's an obvious lie. Nipsey Hussle's murder had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at Talk:Steve Bannon, even by six-degrees-of-separation free association. Again, your initial comment was obviously aimed at AG Holder and not accused-murderer Holder. The most plausible explanation seems to be that, when told you were mistaken about AG Holder's indictment, you Googled the terms, found that someone who shares Holder's name had been indicted in a totally separate apolitical crime, and are now gaslighting me by pretending that you meant to refer to the second Holder all along. WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact, and it doesn't mandate that we swallow any fabricated explanation, no matter how far-fetched, for inappropriate behavior.

    It's OK that you made a mistake about Holder. I make mistakes all the time; we all do. But if someone shows you that you've made a mistake, you can just acknowledge and correct it. Instead you've constructed a ridiculously implausible excuse and are aggressively trying to convince me that I'm somehow in the wrong for pointing out your error. The term "gaslighting" is overused in the post-2016 world, but this is gaslighting. I don't view this as "trivial" or a mountain-from-a-molehill—posting false claims and partisan misinformation poisons the collaborative atmosphere and strikes at this project's core mission, and lying and gaslighting are fundamental violations of our civility policy. It's not so much about Eric Holder; it's about disruptive behavior (sidetracking policy-based discussion by injecting unrelated dubious or false partisan talking points), about refusing to acknowledge error and instead making up a ridiculously far-fetched excuse about a "formatting error", about attacking the person who pointed out your mistake rather than correcting it, and about why you think these behaviors are acceptable or justifiable. I don't have anything further to say here and will consider whether and how to follow up elsewhere. MastCell Talk 19:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's really not funny or snarkworthy PackMecEng. The example by MastCell here, and some of the comments by Atsme at talk:Steve Bannon#Video are chilling, not only because of her false claims, but because she doubles down when they are pointed out to her. If this were just on a talk page it would be disruptive, but when falsehoods are used as justification for removing properly sourced material from an article,[4] it's actually quite damaging. - MrX 🖋 20:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Nah it is funny and very snark worthy. You all are going too far again. PackMecEng (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments like that don't help your credibility. - MrX 🖋 20:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate it very much if you would refrain from offending guests on my UTP. Thank you very much. Atsme Talk 📧 20:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Cool story, bro. Ha I mean honestly, how can I take something like that seriously? PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, could you please just admit that you made a mistake in conflating two people with the same name, strike the talkpage comment, and we can all move on? ~Awilley (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes - do it for me, please, or tell me what I need to strike. I'm afraid to move right now, and have sought solace in talking to Tryptofish. Awilley, I don't care about the politics involved - only the technical editing part (PAGs), and I managed to screw that up pretty good, too. I'm going to focus on the Cleavage lead for a while - where in the hell can that go wrong (nevermind, don't answer) - and my new Capt. Don article. Atsme Talk 📧 23:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't my edit summary count? (→‎Addition of Aug 2020 arrest to lead: correction - sorry, was thinking faster than I was typing). And how about "I make my share of mistakes, but Jiminy Cricket, I'm not a blathering idiot." Does that count? Atsme Talk 📧 00:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Did you see THIS?????? Highly pertinent of course.--MONGO (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Awwww...I love happy endings. Atsme Talk 📧 00:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Remember your topic ban? And your successful appeal?

Atsme, it seems to me you have comprehensively backslid from the promises you made in your successful topic ban appeal in February 2019. The AE admins lifted the ban, but with a warning about backsliding. You said then, for example, that you had reflected and learned a lot: "I now see the biggest problem was my overzealousness to win the debates and gain consensus, showing little consideration to opposing views. The times my position did gain consensus were overshadowed by the inappropriateness of my persistence, and for that I apologize with a promise that it will never happen again". (A very different attitude from that which you showed in your reply to Soibangla on this page yesterday.[5].) AFAICS, you have gone all the way back to inappropriate persistence and "overzealousness to win". In February 2019 you said "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas." By contrast, this summer you posted some 75 times in the Fox News RFC. Please go back and re-read your own appeal, Atsme, and start living up to your promises, or I will consider reinstating the topic ban. Bishonen | tålk 09:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC).

I'm going to step in here and say some things. I appreciate Atsme's most recent comments here: [6]. It seems to me that those comments are sincere and entirely self-aware. And very much responsive to the concerns that Bish subsequently raised just above. Looking at it from MastCell's and Bish's perspectives, I can see how that might seem late, but I also think that it was soon enough. I've been feeling incredibly unhappy with Wikipedia lately, and it certainly pains me to see MC, Bish, and Atsme, three people I care about very much, feeling the ways that you do. Atsme, it's entirely up to you (of course!), but my takeaway is that it's a topic area that just isn't worth the trouble to edit, at all. (I see that you said that you will focus on cleavage (breasts), and I'll just say that I've been admiring your wrasse.[FBDB])
My unsolicited advice after looking yesterday at that talk page discussion is that you might want to consider a different approach to how you make your arguments, if ever you do resume editing about US politics. When things are as contentious as that, my experience has been that it's best to cite policies, with as little elaboration as possible. I'd have just framed it as it's a BLP, we can't do CRYSTAL, and we should wait before putting something negative in the lead – and leave it at that. Let other editors go back-and-forth if they wish, but don't get pulled into it. And most importantly, don't elaborate by giving examples that you think illustrate your point; just express support for specific applicable policies. It seems to me that the examples and comparisons that you added are what raised concerns with other editors. And you can actually anticipate that they would come across in ways that the other editors would not appreciate. If you catch yourself about to make an OTHERSTUFF argument about a political issue, step away from the keyboard and don't save the edit. You know that quite a few editors will not like the points about Obama or Holder (actually, I don't like them either), so there's nothing to be gained by trying to strengthen your argument by saying something that won't convince editors who disagree. Keep it simple, and try very hard not to provoke. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The fish's advice could be shortened to the "focus on cleavage" line: keep abreast of events, but play your own cards close to your chest, don't make a boob of yourself, and you won't go bust. --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, you sure milked that for all it was worth! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Trypto, just to clarify: your comment suggests that Atsme made a valid point about Obama/Holder which I just "didn't like". That's incorrect. Her comment about Holder was false, and I objected to her false assertion about a living person. MastCell Talk 22:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let's please not argue about whether your objecting on principle is, or is not, disliking. I'm not saying that her point was valid; I'm saying that she would have been better off not saying it. As I understand it, she said that Holder was found by (a Republican) Congress to be in contempt of Congress. And the Politico source seems to me to back that up. I've already expressed my negative opinion about Obama-did-it-too arguments. I wasn't going to say it, but I think everyone should be careful about WP:RGW, and that goes for you, too. And if you are going to emphasize BLP, the discussion was also about what BLP says about putting something negative in the lead.
But I really want to put this entire discussion in the rear view mirror. Personally, I have a lot of contempt for the Republicans in Congress, and Steve Bannon is not someone I want to defend on BLP grounds. I'll start an office pool: I'll say that Bannon is Q. Now, I want to stop arguing about this, so I can go molest some children in the back of a pizza parlor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Well MastCell, by now saying she made "false" statements least you've altered your charges that she was saying a "lie", which you did repeatedly yesterday. I guess thats progress. Tryptofish...strike your last sentence please as it is disgusting and I see no humor at all in it.--MONGO (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Mongo, I promise you that my purpose was not to offend you, but I'm not gonna strike it. I'm disgusted by Q-anon, so sue me. In any case, this is why it's best to stick to citing policies when discussing US politics, and to leave opinions out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It is offensive no matter where it is derived from. You can live with it then.--MONGO (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry to be a downer, but I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, so don't anyone go after me from that angle. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Mongo, I promise you that I have no ill will towards you. I'd really like to stop discussing this whole thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Look, its not helpful to lower yourself to the thing you hate. I have no idea what the hell purpose that comment was for.--MONGO (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On second thought, I'm striking it. Life's too short to get caught up in this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 Thanks--MONGO (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme, for acknowledging your error [7]: that's not common enough in the American politics area on Wikipedia.

How often, I wonder, does an admin swoop in and give warnings when an editor they agree with, politically, has made a mistake? I know it happens occasionally, but again, I suspect it doesn't happen enough. I am not implying, by the way, any impropriety on the part of admins here — comments so far seem measured, and that's laudable. Cheers. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A heartfelt thank you to all of my thoughtful talk page watchers. It is difficult to express the comfort your words brought to my troubled mind (I almost said "disturbed" but imagine where that would have taken us)! At this point in time, only two words come to mind: Streisand effect, and I wish it wasn't so but look at the page view spike. m( Atsme Talk 📧 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/Archive_37&oldid=1007560294"