SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 673:
Line 673: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
User:JZambrano/WhyILeftWikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 15:40, July 27, 2012
, 15:40, July 27, 2012→Summary: new section, wrapping up
::::::::::If the proposal is that we make some overarching comment that there is a controversy over Obama's support for abortion, or any mention that some people accuse him of infanticide, then no - BLP problems, poor sourcing, NPOV, and undue weight. The "rogues gallery" of professional agitators mentioned above just isn't encyclopedically important, except on the rare occasion when through their outrageous prose and antics they manage their way to bootstrap their way into the national stage. Not just because they said it -- they say lots of stuff -- but because it actually creates an impact beyond their own typical audience. Keyes is particularly fringe-y here. He may not have been acknowleged as such at the time but at this point as one of the more vexatiously litigious birthers his relevance and credibility level is nill. If Keyes' primary campaign strategy in the election was to attack Obama on abortion that can be stated neutrally and is arguably worth five or six words in the section devoted to that election, more in the article on the subject. But there's a strong counter-argument that given the election margin, his ineffective election tactics made no difference to Obama or anyone else so they aren't worth covering at all. I think this is the weakest of the content proposals. Best to start with the stronger ones that have more of a chance of passing scrutiny. - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidemon Wikidemon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon Wikidemon]) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::If the proposal is that we make some overarching comment that there is a controversy over Obama's support for abortion, or any mention that some people accuse him of infanticide, then no - BLP problems, poor sourcing, NPOV, and undue weight. The "rogues gallery" of professional agitators mentioned above just isn't encyclopedically important, except on the rare occasion when through their outrageous prose and antics they manage their way to bootstrap their way into the national stage. Not just because they said it -- they say lots of stuff -- but because it actually creates an impact beyond their own typical audience. Keyes is particularly fringe-y here. He may not have been acknowleged as such at the time but at this point as one of the more vexatiously litigious birthers his relevance and credibility level is nill. If Keyes' primary campaign strategy in the election was to attack Obama on abortion that can be stated neutrally and is arguably worth five or six words in the section devoted to that election, more in the article on the subject. But there's a strong counter-argument that given the election margin, his ineffective election tactics made no difference to Obama or anyone else so they aren't worth covering at all. I think this is the weakest of the content proposals. Best to start with the stronger ones that have more of a chance of passing scrutiny. - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidemon Wikidemon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon Wikidemon]) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
{hab
{hab
=== Result ===
(THIS IS NEW MATERIAL NOT PREVIOUSLY IN THE FORMER BLOG ENTRY)
After the above two discussions, the discussions were closed via hab tags to prevent others from seeing them, and attempts to restore the discussions and continue them - just as they'd been beginning to bear fruit I might add - were reverted via edit wars by multiple users, including Administrator Frank. I then brought it up for AN/I dispute and asked why the discussions were closed on the page, resulting in the following discussion (which also got closed). As seen from the following source, every single thread was getting closed to try and prevent discussion and people from seeing what the sources/evidence I was providing were:
==== Attempt to Resolve Edit War ====
hat|AN3 thread closed - please pursue other methods of [[WP:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and reserve this page for discussion of improvements to the article. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)}}
I just caught on to what the cohesive effort was by scjessey, Sceptre, and Unitanode was. They improperly closed an active thread without reason, 'Neutral Point of View', and then took turns reverting it to try and get me to violate a rule called the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]. Fortunately I caught on just in time to this sinister tactic.
I will ask those initiating this edit warring to explain their justification for closing the thread, as this action seems to be required before posting to an Administrator's noticeboard,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring] where scjessey is already facing potential discipline for a separate incident. He, I found out, has already engaged in similar cases in the past. This was just one of them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive440] He is also coming off a recent ban, and is already engaged in active attacks on other members.
This seems a serious offense for scjessey and his fellow cohorts, and thus I seek an explanation for the events occurring. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
That Frank, Dayewalker, and averagejoe are involved seems clear as well, although to what extent I am still uncertain. I am sure all responsible parties will be held accountable when all of this is said and done. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:For goodness ''sake''. There is nothing sinister about this, Jzyehoshua. The discussion was closed because you were [[WP:TEND|tendentiously]] pushing an agenda, instead of participating in a meaningful discussion that might have actually led to something. It was overwhelmingly apparent that you had no support whatsoever for your proposed changes, yet rather than accept that you had failed to win consensus, you continued to argue and argue and argue and argue ''ad infinitum absurdiam''. The discussion was closed to prevent you from further wasting the time of ALL the other editors participating on this talk page. Yet here you are ''again'', wasting our time with ''more'' nonsense about "cohesive efforts" and "cohorts" and all that typical bull**** when someone cannot admit when they are wrong. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::Your long history of edit warring can be seen from all the violation warnings on your talk page. I found out you have a history just on this page alone.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles]] [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] who filed against me recently was according to that page also found to have "engaged in incivility in comments and edit summaries". Sceptre it said, "has engaged in edit-warring and continued to revert Stevertigo outside of the Barack Obama FAQ. and engaged in edit summary attacks." Sceptre and you were subjected to editing restrictions for one year. Tarc was "reminded to be civil when dealing with hot button and controversial situations." According to your talk page, Tarc is also with you on the Climategate article, the other article you are being accused of edit-warring on. You have a long history of personal attacks and edit warring according to your profile, and I, it appears, was just another target by you and your friends in what has been a long history of Wikipedia crime.
::That it was a concerted attack is evident from the revision history.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&action=history]] After I reverted the closed discussion, you reverted it back the same minute. Sceptre reverted after my revert within 1 minute. And Unitanode's was 3 minutes after. You were all just waiting for me to make the reverts, hoping to get me waiting. You must have been waiting and ready all morning while I unknowingly did not make the reverts, for my own reasons expecting an admin to revert the improperly closed article. To the extent that hours later you were so primed and waiting you made the reverts just minutes after mine. I'm not stupid. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Meanwhile, after all those hours of nothing happening, you, Frank, and averagejoe suddenly began commenting almost the exact minute this started happening with comments warning me not to continue edit warring. You must've had them prepared as evidence afterwards that I'd broken the rules, and were likely hoping I'd make all 3+ edits before I could notice the warnings and figure out what was going on. Since I'd already admitted on several pages this was my first time encountering this sort of situation, you must've figured I'd never figure it out in time. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, in my case, I started commenting because I noticed you were edit-warring. Nothing sinister about that. And - despite the edit-warring behavior, nobody's called for you to be blocked for it yet, either. Your previous edits were not edit-warring; previously you've been continuing to argue points that aren't gaining consensus. When you directly undo another editor's edits repeatedly, that's edit-warring. That's why you were warned for it; no other reason (at least in my case). <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::And which is why I said I'm still not sure to what extent you, averagejoe, and Dayewalker are involved. It could've just been coincidence you commented so early on my page when the 3rd revert was close to happening. At the same time, it could've been a pre-prepared comment to be used as later evidence after the fact that I'd been warned at the time, and you've just been covering your tracks very, very well. Like I said, not sure. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::What you're apparently not understanding is that it is most definitely '''''not a coincidence!''''' The point is that the comments were made on your talk page because you were starting to edit-war. The warnings were placed so you could ''avoid'' it. In addition, it most definitely '''''is a pre-prepared comment''''' - see {{tl|uw-3rr}}. There's no sinister tactic going on here; what you're seeing is the community doing what it always does, all over the {{NUMBEROFPAGES}} pages on the project. You have chosen one of the most highly-watched pages to jump in and "fix". <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:For the umpteenth time, can we please not use this article talk page to accuse other editors of things? There's already a thread on the article probation enforcement page, which is one place to deal with editor conduct. This page is for discussions related to managing and improving the article. If everyone has read this and had their say, can we please close this and move on to actual content roposals? Thanks, - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::I only made this discussion because the Wikipedia administrator's noticeaboard template requires me to discuss this on the article talkpage before reporting an incident.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit§ion=new&preload=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Editintro] --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:(EC) A clear (near-unanimous) consensus exists that thread is resolved. The thread is so large, it's causing slowdowns when people (including me) load the page. Multiple editors have closed it in hopes of moving on, I agree with them whole-heartedly, and would have also closed the thread if I had seen you reopen it. Please accept the current consensus, as what you're doing is [[WP:TE|tenditious editing]]. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, funny how everyone decided to close the one active discussion, the most recent and relevant one, as opposed to just archiving the old ones on the subject. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Er, Jzyehoshua, what is it exactly that I "filed against you" ? Have no idea what that refers to. As to the ArbCom case, yes, I received a relatively mild admonishment for general incivility and some rather brusque edit summary usage on this page back in the day. I make it a point to no longer engage in either, though if at any time you feel differently, [[WP:WQA|the proper complaint venue]] is available for your usage. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm referring to the case you, [[User:JzG]], and [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] filed against me a week ago.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#User:Jzyehoshua]] --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::I made a single comment in that very long section, that isn't "filing". And ironically enough I noted that a ban probably wasn't warranted. Are you going to have a [[WP:Plaxico]] moment here and goad me into reconsidering that? [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 01:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::I thought for some reason you were one of 3 filers of it. Maybe I read too much into your having commented there by the time I found out about it. If it was just a comment and not actually filing it, I'll apologize. I thought you'd helped file it for some reason. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
:::If everyone can just keep still and not say anything for a week, it'll all be archived :) Anyway, thanks for the attempt to follow proper procedure but I do not foresee anything good coming out of an AN/I report, just recriminations and hurt feelings. The "I" part of AN/I, "incidents", is a signal that the administrators there generally only deal with current, active, pointed problems, not long-simmering disputes, which this one is by now. We also have a mediation cabal case afoot, and a report over there at the article probation notice board. The best way to resolve this is with a big dose of patience and goodwill on all sides. Failing that I would let the mediation and any existing reports play out, and after that, hope we can encourage a wise, impartial administrator to help play traffic cop to sort through this. I think I could make such a request, as long as nobody flames me for it. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
*Interestingly enough, I've been on opposite sides of debate from several of my supposed "partners" here. Sometimes, Jzyehoshua, you're just wrong. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Unit</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F">'''''Anode'''''</span>]] 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I suppose it's best for the admins to sort it out. I tried to take it to Mediation and go through this with discussion, but it seems the opposing users wanted to move against me to such extent that both avenues have become impossible. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:"The admins" don't sort things out. This is still a [[WP:COMMUNITY|community]], and if there's anything to be sorted out, it will be done by members of that community. The only thing an admin would be required for is if there's a reason to implement a block. As long as nobody does anything requiring a block, there's no need for any admin action. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
*I'll warn you, if you get administrators involved in this, there's a greater-than-zero chance you'll be blocked for 3RR/edit-warring. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Unit</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F">'''''Anode'''''</span>]] 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
**I know that. And if they ban me, oh well. Whether I passed the 3 reverts or not I am not sure yet. It was close. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't known what the 3 revert rule meant or that it included the talk page discussions until this, but I think I stopped at 3 reverts on the history, but they might count it as 4 since I did 2 separate edits, one to remove a hat and one to remove a hab, so am not sure. Guess we'll see. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
:There's at least one admin who's already involved and I've in fact argued that it's not appropriate at this time. I will say the path is a possible one, but it's always a possibility with any editor. (And, being involved, I wouldn't do it myself, of course, except in a most egregious circumstance. We're not in that sort of situation at all.) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This issue is now being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring
I will notify the users involved. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
:This is getting extremely disruptive. The only "edit war" I see is Jzyehoshua warring with every other editor and then feigning innocence ("apparently there's some sort of 3RR rule"). I try to assume good faith (although Jzyehoshua abandoned any such notion some time ago) but I can't help noticing something extremely familiar about the tireless [[WP:BATTLE|battle]]/[[WP:3RR|edit-war]]/[[WP:POINT|point]] actions of this editor. And, coincidentally or not, they're editing from the Chicago suburbs.
:I've mostly stayed out of these discussions because I can't keep up with the pace of them, but also because have a feeling that when this is all done, we'll be shaking our heads at the ridiculous amount of time that was wasted on this distraction ''yet again.'' --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
{{hab
== Summary ==
== Summary ==