User talk:Atsme/RVW

Short-changed on a train ticket? edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A userfied essay of sorts

Awwlllll Aboard!!

A ride on the WP:POV railroad is an uncomfortable one; hope it's a short one.
If you've ever been on such a ride, an important lesson learned is how to whistle for
a cab when you hear the whistle of the train. Learn to recognize the early signs as it
approaches the station, lest you find yourself waving goodbye from the caboose.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Disclaimer: Intended as humor. [1]

A few early signs of a train approaching on the WP:POV railroad:

First sign - when there is no locomotive smoke and the conductor must create a way to make the engineer look guilty. Some may refer to such a tactic as misrepresenting the engineer's contributions out of context.
Once the first train ride has ended, and you're back at work trying to improve and build the railway, the opposition tries to shortchange you again with the same used ticket, and attempts to convince others ^{(while doing what they falsely accused you of doing)} that you never should have returned to work.
When previous attempts failed to get you back on that train, the opposition resorts to projecting their bad behavior onto you despite no locomotive smoke ^{(again, doing what they falsely accused you of doing)}; 🚩🚩🚩🛤 you may be on the fast track. Some may see your collaboration as verbose whereas those who AGF will see it as an attempt to reach consensus in a controversial topic area that requires diversity and the freedom to express one's thoughts and ideas in an effort to comply with NPOV.

Writing for the opponent

"Writing for the opponent is an important trait of good editors. They must be able to divorce themselves from their own POV so much that they can bend over backwards to aid in the writing of content which documents views they do not like. They must never block the inclusion of content which opposes their own POV or political positions. If they cannot do this, they should recuse themselves from the topic and edit in other areas. Editors who are unwilling or unable to write for the opponent are incapable of truly understanding or abiding by the NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems." (see WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content)

Evaluation of diffs edit

Diffs that don't have an explanation don't need one - they are innocuous. In a nutshell, these diffs represent a compilation of fairly innocuous diffs [taken out of context, cherrypicked from the TPs of highly controversial topics, and then organized into groups prepended by aspersions to create the appearance of disruption. The articles were subject to DS 1RR-consensus required restrictions, which often leads to lively debate when seeking consensus, resulting in higher levels of frustration.

Group 1 - innocuous diffs, commented on a few - major time sink - (this group was prepended with the aspersion WP:GASLIGHTING) - fast forward to

Feb 16, 2018 - factual comment
Feb 16, 2018 - civil response after being accused of deception
Feb 22, 2018 - civil response about content - see Reuters-Oxford 2017 Report
Feb 22, 2018 - civil response after being called delusional - linked to RS that supported my position
Feb 24, 2018 - civil response with sources - consensus agreed with me.
Feb 24, 2018 - discussing editorial judgment, compared content in various sources
March 1, 2018 - provided link to BBC article that supported my position
May 4, 2018 - provided diffs that supported reasons to wait before including material…
May 14, 2018
May 19, 2018 - normal iVote in an RfC
June 7, 2018
June 18, 2018 - a bit verbose, will work at brevity
June 19, 2018
June 19, 2018 - Facts w/RS
June 19, 2018 - Response to suggestion to include audio of a baby crying
June 24, 2018 - response to editor wanting to use WikiVoice for a contentious label

Group 2 - more of the same innocuous diffs

Nov 17, 2018 -
March 4, 2018
March 28, 2018
April 5, 2018
May 2, 2018
May 4, 2018
May 14, 2018 - factual; could've toned it down a bit
May 14, 2018 - civil discussion over terminology
May 14, 2018 - civil discussion, check verbosity
June 7, 2018
June 7, 2018
June 8, 2018 - civil
June 19, 2018 - facts
June 22, 2018
June 24, 2018 - responded to aspersions - defused claim with a bit of levity and explained with diffs
June 26, 2018 - civil - see this close as it explains the discussion in context

Group 3 - nothing here, either

A deceptive misrepresentation about sources:

Although she often complains about clickbaith sources, she is apparently OK with using source like The Daily Caller [2][3], Breitbart [4], World Net Daily [5], Daily Wire, and RedState [6]

Explanation for above allegations presented in context below

[7]- re: The Daily Caller - about an actual quote in the DC article that was corroborated by C-Span and the NYTimes;
[8] a bit of harmless levity; see WP: RSN discussion regarding acceptable uses - "and (2) Heat Street, PJ Media, and the Daily Caller are not reliable for statements of fact and can only be used, rarely and with proper in-text attribution, for the opinions of particular authors." Neutrality 9:49 am, 4 March 2017 (UTC−6)”
[9] Breitbart discussion at WP:RS/N - it was about citing that source to the following quote by a Breitbart editor:

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.” (ref: Shapiro, Ben (July 15, 2014). "7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'". Breitbart. Retrieved 16 July 2014.)

 *[10] World Net Daily - it was the topic of a discussion at both WP:RS/N and Talk:Suicide_of_Vince_Foster#Miguel_Rodriguez regarding challenged material - the question was about citing the source for the published resignation letter of Rodriguez. Sidebar note: if it’s acceptable to cite BuzzFeed in the 1st paragraph of the lead of Trump-Russia dossier, then citing WND as proposed is also acceptable - context matters.

Daily Wire, RedState [11] - I made 3 edits to Sean Hannity, and 20 edits on TP. In this case, both sources published a video that corroborated the quote another editor suggested including in the named section, Sean_Hannity#Political_commentary,_controversies,_and_criticism. Keeping in mind the fact that while RS were cited for that article, among them were primary, tertiary, and RS that are considered competitors of Hannity, plus questionable sources I had nothing to do with, including Buzz Feed, Pink News, various press releases, local newspapers, National Review, The Daily Intelligencer, The American Conservative, The Daily Beast, etc.

Group 4 more of the same, but with a few that reflect badly on my accuser

December 4, 2017 (User talk page) - in context, it was a response to a t-banned editor wrongfully denying that his t-ban applied to a specific article. He inflated the situation, Dec 4, 2017 attacked me, then filed a case against me at AE Dec 4, 2017 in retaliation. Initially began discussion on TP of admin Golden Ring who imposed VM’s t-ban, and asked for clarity.
Feb 12, 2018 - civil response to question
Feb 12, 2018 - cited policy to clear-up confusion in normal survey discussion
Feb 22, 2018 - civil discussion
Feb 22, 2018 - response to this
Feb 22, 2018 - taken out of context it doesn't make sense, so see the following: Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_2#Weight_&_Balance_issues, I attempted to encourage discussion but 2 editors disrupted my attempt. A 3rd editor made excellent suggestions: best way to stop accusations of whether it’s racist or not is to define scope of article; and article survived lengthy AfD, let discussion stay open a few more days.
February 26, 2018 - factual
March 5, 2018 - I did let frustration get the best of me, including March 5 2018 stonewalling, and misrepresentations March 5 2018 and telling others what they can or can’t say March 5 2018.
April 17, 2018 - a civil response to intimidation tactic: "I have to say Atsme, this does look like you're the only one with problem with this material. We have shown numerous sources which highlight the relevance of the Cohen raid with this subject. Pack your PAGs and get onboard. This train is leaving the station! 🚂” And then he added my name to the section title April 17, 2018 when he called for consensus, Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 11#Seeking consensus to restore challenged content. As it turned out, consensus favored my position, and proved I wasn’t the only one with a problem - 13 OPPOSE, 4 SUPPORT & 1 REWRITE
May 13, 2018 - more of the same - contentious labels in WikiVoice - I refer to discussion by Jimbo on June 19 2018
June 18, 2018 - verbose

Group 5 more of the same innocuous diffs - I stand by my responses in my iVotes (and in most cases, consensus supported my position).

Group 6 more of the same innocuous diffs to create the illusion of patterned behavior

August 12, 2017 - refer to the quotes at the top of the page
November 18, 2017 - BLP/N discussion - MrX questioned why I challenged material as noncompliant with BLP (citing WP:Label, WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:V). Masem did a better job of explaining it Nov 20 2017 as did another editor Nov 26 2017. It was the start of the holiday season, I had out-of-town guests, so I may not have been 100% accurate as to naming the exact policy, but I stand by the crux of my argument.
November 18, 2017 - the discussion at BLP/N demonstrated that I was correct, so the threat to take me to AE is what needs serious review, not his compilation of innocuous diffs against me.
December 5, 2017 - there were several errors in that particular AE, and I've asked GoldenRing to please correct the log. VM violated his t-ban, so when I reverted the edit of a t-banned editor I did not violate BLP DS 1RR/consensus required as alleged, but was warned anyway. The article was under BLP DS/1RR-consensus not AP2 DS, but the subject was strongly connected to Trump politically so it violated VM’s TB. He attacked me on Golden Ring’s TP because I did not ping him to the discussion, but I could not have since he was t-banned from that topic. I deflected his attacks, hoping Golden Ring would have stepped in sooner than he did. Golden Ring also incorrectly stated in his decision at AE that he replied to me 7 hours after my initial question to him, but it was actually 3 days, not 7 hours and circumstances had changed.
December 12, 2017
February 5, 2018
February 9, 2018
March 3, 2018
March 17, 2018
June 8, 2018
June 19, 2018
June 20, 2018
June 27, 2018

Group 7 Misrepresentations mixed with innocuous diffs

May 15, 2018 - Says "material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage" " and seven days later May 22, 2018 contradicts herself.

There was no contradiction. Two comments with different meanings juxtaposed and preprended with aspersions to create his logical fallacy.

May 23, 2018 - innocuous
March 20, 2018 - Wrongly accused of improper use of rollbock - it was a BLP vio explained here.
May 5, 2017 - innocuous

Frequently misuses WP:NOTNEWS in content disputes.[7][8][9][10]
Another misrepresentation with diffs that do not support his NOTNEWS argument - see following explanation
13 Atsme reverted edit - RfC was called - - consensus agreed with Atsme: SNOW close, consensus is clearly to exclude the information.}}
14 Masem TP discussion about LU university - Masem responded
15 My oppose iVote - RfC on LU’s relationship with Trump - section was tagged May 2018 with UNDUE and BALANCE issues; informal local consensus, not community-wide RfC;
16 - I challenged McClatchy addition - local consensus supported my oppose argument - (4 Support - 1 Rewrite - 13 Oppose) argument was a single source reported info from an anonymous source.

Group 8

May 28, 2018 - "We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice," - No one was proposing it, or even suggesting it.

That is exactly what the discussion was about - just read the proposal.

Group 9 - More of the same - reflects badly on my accuser

Feb 25, 2018 - my comment "“I remain optimistic that we can work through these issues in a productive, collegial manner and avoid (like the plague) what we've seen happen with other highly controversial topics.”
May 14, 2018 - civil consensus discussion

Group 10 - I stand by my comments - they represent civil discussion in a highly controversial environment

Add topic