CheckThatSpelling
Welcome
edit
|
Special alert
editThis 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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
SummerPhDv2.0 03:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop claiming someone has made a personal attack on you
editThe statement "Wikipedia does not examine evidence then decide if the Earth is flat or spherical, whether or not NASA landed astronauts on the Moon, whether or not Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust or whether or not Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about the subjects (spherical, yes, yes and yes)." is clearly not a personal attack on you but a comment on evidence. You're failing to assume good faith and accusing an editor of something they did not do.
Do you have or have you had any other accounts? Doug Weller talk 11:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- This part was conveniently left out, "If you would like to debate any of those questions, challenge the data, point to shadows in photos, etc., you are on the wrong site." The word "you" in that sentence refers to me, obviously. And pointing to shadows in photos is a clear reference to questioning the official moon landing photos and it compares me to wacky conspiracy theorists. So, it's clearly a personal attack. He needs to stop doubling down and apologize so we can get back to debating in good faith. CheckThatSpelling (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- SummerPhD was talking about your comments, not about you. There was no personal attack. It is clear that SummerPhD was addressing your arguments, but that doesn't make their comments personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Is your argument that because he compared my comments to the comments of a moon landing conspiracy theorist, instead of flat-out stating that I'm behaving like a moon landing conspiracy theorist, then it's not a personal attack? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's been the consensus of discussions at places such as WP:ANI. And you haven't answered my question about other accounts. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Then its a bad consensus because obviously comparing someone's comments to moon landing conspiracy theorists is insulting. I don't know what you mean by other accounts. I don't owe you anything. CheckThatSpelling (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's been the consensus of discussions at places such as WP:ANI. And you haven't answered my question about other accounts. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Is your argument that because he compared my comments to the comments of a moon landing conspiracy theorist, instead of flat-out stating that I'm behaving like a moon landing conspiracy theorist, then it's not a personal attack? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- SummerPhD was talking about your comments, not about you. There was no personal attack. It is clear that SummerPhD was addressing your arguments, but that doesn't make their comments personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)