|
File:2022 Pakistan Floods - August 27, 2021 vs. August 27, 2022 in Sindh.jpg|thumb|2022 Pakistan Floods - August 27, 2021 vs. August 27, 2022 in Sindh
- Dumping impulsively by same measure whole topic for ever? appeal to tradition, Fallacy of necessity John is a bachelor Therefore, c) John cannot marry. a fallacy in the logic of a syllogism whereby a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.
- WP:POVPUSH essay asks basically for following WP:DR mechanism nothing else ".. If you suspect that POV-pushing is happening (it is not always obvious), follow the steps listed in the above section (NPOV resolution). .." WP:CPUSH (Read with Essay limitation cited by Joe Roe @ t/p→ ".. Likewise, this remedy is not meant to apply to editors who work within a narrow range of topics but adhere to Wikipedia's core policies. .." WP:POVEDITOR → ".. must maintain rigorous commitment to policies and guidelines to ensure their contributions are not interpreted as civil POV-pushing. .. .. What we care about is accuracy in reporting what sources say." Agree and follow.
- May be some scope for WP:REFACTOR
- {{talkquote|}}
- WP:ARCA appeal
- Sanctioned per this discussion on WP:AE. Scope of present sanction
- Wish to better understand how do admins perceive the issues,
- .. a sanction placed against you has been amended to remove a previous restriction regarding your ability to appeal. The archived request can be viewed here.
- My response was ".. Took note of this helpful discussion. After overwhelming discussions small time gap can be helpful break for users too for study and reflection about what all went wrong. .."
- OP it was a content dispute brought to ARE without any effort what so ever for following WP:DDE protocol and ongoing process of WP:DR was almost hijacked. OP themselves got TBanned without any effort from my side.
- Self appropriating a role of content ombudsmen sans official community mandate and even before exhausting available WP:DR options.
Some statements from USaamo in ARE against them
- I suggest AE should have a preliminary scrutiny for reports to be formally accepted for proceedings here. It will not only save their time but will also protect users from being dragged into baseless and frivolous reports.
RP @ TB ARE
- ".. I think what we need here is a warning to not use ANI/AE as a mechanism of first resort when the edits are not going the way you want them to go (whatever happened to WP:DR?) .."
- Missed (or ignored?) many aspects like there is no targeting of Pakistan only as stated in statement like ".. Noted other global incidences @ Talk:M.S.A for later expansion. .."
TB
- ".. Editors are humans — not androids — ..; ''as long as'' things resolve, all's fair and fine. .." Ref
- ".. There is nothing in policy that suggests that we shall bend over backwards and exclude reliable sources lest our article is overwhelmingly negative. .." Ref - Still offended due to content WP:IDONTLILKEIT in other cases?
- ".. You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating. .." Ref
- ARE a way to discuss content?
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
- ".. If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. Remember that you can reach out to a relevant WikiProject or the neutral point of view noticeboard if you need help. .."
Evidence and analysis
- WP:UNINVOLVED : ".. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. .. or obvious edits that do not show bias .."
- Confirmation bias , Nitpicking, Ipse dixit Argument to moderation –Because I say so, Truthiness
- Instances of WP:LAWYERING WP:BLPSTYLE
- "this hard-to-figure-out discussion'? I did not know adding a POV tag to an article be so serious issue (anyways some one seem to have removed that tag recently - though I would not agree about some of the changes in those edits is another issue) . See 1 2 Are not these regular neutrality concerns, here issue was at the most of better section heading and some copy edit and some consensus building or DR but other users tried to meet with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT . These concerns are not relevant but tangential image is relevant? On one side I took care to include Islamic point of view with academic background. Article was already covering Urdu language press so Other side I covered uncovered right side with RS and also insisted upon covering some other uncovered areas having RS. . Far from getting any appreciation if not for nuanced and responsible behavior at least good faith effort toward neutrality should have got some appreciation far from that can some one throw insinuation. Anyways some one removed the POV tag was that POV tag really serious reason for coming to conclusion of CIR and topic ban.
- If rest of WP:CIR which is just an essay not even a policy but if they believe that there also RP is not completing WP:CIRRESP protocol “.. If it appears no-one has explained a problem with their edits, doing so should always be the first step. ..”
- One intriguing irony is in one article I was being asked why you are not bold enough and discussing first and about other articles I am not only being characterized for being bold but also considered fit for topic ban.
- IDK what is problem in sourced draft areas like Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Sikhism to which I had invited at least one Punjabi Wikipedian who would be interested in Women's rights related articles. If any problem in draft area why can't be discussed on respective t/p
Time line
- 29 & 30 July Nangparbat sock attacks articles and tries to influence talk pages Ref 3 August 22 Sock of Nangparbat attacks my sandbox with whataboutery 1 (Incidentally that sandbox article name Mansiya V. P. in itself proof of my editorial neutrality. Besides I answered sock on their talk page (I request reading this answer)) , 16 Aug Usa dif, 27 August Nangparbat accounts smears and RP blocks Ref, 30 July Pakistan notice board Ref (on 10 Sept visit TB is supposed to be aware of they are walking in Sock shoes) TB visits Pakistan notice board 10 Sept (And sees my RFC) ref , Rather than focusing on RFC topic @ hand ventures to find flaws in my editing by visiting Public spaces article Ref How did they reach my edits @ public space in short time? by visiting history of the talk page where Nagparbat sock accused against my edits and did TB walk in those shoes? How did they think of visiting history of Pakistan notice board page or simple grudge from previous altercation which did not go their way? or both? Preparation of contrived environ against me?
Notice by RP 10 September 2022 AE started 12 September 2022 AE closed 8 October 2022 next minute comes to my user t/p threatens me Ref This one of recent discussion an Admin suggests ".. please consider pinging users when you complain about them to administrators. Like this: .." Ref TB says that's courteous Ref Idk why that courtesy had not been extended to me also, while making complaint about me.
- Examples of my nuanced understanding and editorial neutrality
- A Companion to Medical Anthropology. United Kingdom, Wiley, 2022. Page of Chapter 24 Climate change and health; Anthropology and beyond
- "Women" "Public space" Google scholar search threw 100 pages (With or without ) @ * 10 entries per page.
|
