Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jzyehoshua: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:16, 18 May 2010 editJzyehoshua (talk | contribs)874 edits →Obama Sanctions← Previous edit Revision as of 17:42, 18 May 2010 edit undoWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Obama Sanctions: caution (and remove inappropriate material)Next edit →
Line 98: Line 98:
(OD) I'm not even going to bother, Jz. You're mind is made up, so I won't waste both of our time continuing to try and convince you otherwise. If you've got a problem with me or my edits, please take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. ] (]) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (OD) I'm not even going to bother, Jz. You're mind is made up, so I won't waste both of our time continuing to try and convince you otherwise. If you've got a problem with me or my edits, please take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. ] (]) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


== Obama Sanctions == ==Obama article==
Edits like this are unproductive and not welcome at ] - or, in fact, anywhere on the encyclopedia. You have been alerted to the article probation on that page, and you have been topic banned for a month over similar incidents in the past, so you are well aware that the community considers aggressive accusations to be antithetical to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Your attempt on this page (which I removed) to build a case against editors you see as your opponents, is inappropriate as well. If you wish to contribute to the construction of the encyclopedia, please find a way to do so that does not involve antagonizing your fellow editors. You're perfectly welcome to contribute to articles, even controversial ones, if you follow our editing practices regarding civility, accusations, use of talk pages, etc. If you find yourself too frustrated to do that on some pages, you may want to work on some articles that do not put you in conflict. If you do persist, I or others will ask for help from administrators, and you will likely find your editing privileges revoked - ] (]) 17:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This section serves as my personal research project on past disciplinary action involving Scjessey and potential affiliates, primarily with a focus on the Barack Obama page:


<center>'''{{Font color|red|SUSPICIOUS}}'''</center>


-]: Aided in March-August 2008 Obama article incident. Involved in August-September 2009 DreamHost case. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Obama Case'''

" ... Scjessey did not provide a statement in the case... "

...Scjessey has engaged in incivility and personal attacks, templated established editors, removed pieces of an AfD discussion, and appeared to stalk ChildofMidnight’s edits.
Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Scjessey has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result. Scjessey then requested unblock, pledged to avoid edit-warring and to take a voluntary 24-hour wikibreak if requested of him. As a consequence, administrator Toddst1 unblocked him.
Passed 11 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Scjessey is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Scjessey is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Scjessey is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Scjessey exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 6 to 1 to 3 at 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight and Scjessey are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 10 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

{{Quote box
|quote = '''August-September 2009 DreamHost Case'''

"The "evidence" presented by 194x obviously deserves some sort of response. The bulk of it consists of statements I have made over an extended period of time that have been mischaracterized as personal attacks by 194. Many of these were responses to goading by 194, but some were responses to a known sock puppeteer who has waged a years-long personal vendetta against me (both on an off Misplaced Pages). These events culminated in me being briefly blocked. Since then, I have reformed my approach and adopted a less confrontational stance that relies on painstaking consensus-building, reasonable discourse and assumptions of good faith. Any and all accusations of bad faith and disruption on my part, following these events, are without merit. 194 also brings up a years-old claim of meat puppetry against me, which has nothing whatsoever to do with either this case or 194. I have already responded to this claim here, and I believe there is no need for me to say more on that matter."

...Scjessey - Over 10,000 edits since January 2005. Block log. Two blocks that expired (12 hours for 3RR in September 2008 and 24 hours for personal attacks or harassment on 4 May 2009). Three blocks followed by an unblock (31 hours for edit warring in September 20008, 24 hours for edit warring on 8 May 2009, 3 hours for personal attacks or harassment on 22 May 2009). Some of these blocks were related to '''Obama articles'''. Some (the ones by SarekOfVulcan) were related to this case. The 4 May block (for comments made on the DreamHost talk page) is mentioned here, and followed this warning on 21 April. The 22 May block (the 3 hour one that was overturned), appeared to relate to a comment Scjessey made on his talk page in an unrelated discussion, though SarekOfVulcan referred to a warning made on the DreamHost talk page. The discussion surrounding the latter block, can be seen here.

...According to 194x144x90x118: "Scjessey: Is already under editing restrictions regarding the Obama related articles and I can't see it as appropriate in light of his history of editing that he be allowed to continue in editing the Dreamhost article, I therefor ask that he be indefinantly topic blocked from that article. 20 months of disruptive behavior, edits on request, attempted recruitment of meatpuppets isn't that quite enough?

...According to 194x144x90x118:
"11:06, 11 March 2009 Innapropriate sock claims "I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly."
00:27, 3 April Personal attack by Scjessey "Have you no interested in edititing anything else on Wikipeda, other than this crusade of hate?"
16:31, 4 April 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA?"
20:31, 5 April 2009 "You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes" Personal attack by Scjessey.
01:02, 7 April 2009 Scjessey personal attack "You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost"
02:04, 4 May 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected."
All of this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:DreamHost&oldid=299280215.
Further more I ask that the comittee take a look at the discussion that took place at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:DreamHost/Archive_1 but it shows that Scjessey attempted to recruit meatpuppets to the article and has been causing a disruption regarding it for a very long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AScjessey&diff=298028187&oldid=298017214 Scjessey calling someone a worthless coward
Complaint from me regarding repeated personal attacks on the dreamhost talkpage. Removed by Scjessey as trolling.
And HERE! we have a complaint from a user JavierMC regarding Scjessey and article ownership.
I'd also like to ask you to take a look at THIS!!! link but it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Scjessey tried to recruite Meatpuppets to change an AFD.
As this link will show Scjessey has been editing this article disruptively for the past 20! Months or longer. "

...Quoted from SarekofVulcan: "next edit: included "Oh do not attempt to act like you're just being an honest wikipedian out to improve the online encyclopedia.", reverted by Scjessey for soapboxing"

...Quoted from Carcharoth: "The article has been nominated for deletion three times: 1 (April 2006, no consensus), 2 (October 2008, kept), 3 (June 2009, kept).
* Scjessey supported keeping the article each time and made extensive arguments for keeping in the June 2009 deletion discussion.
* The April 2006 deletion discussion was canvassed off-wiki by Scjessey (he has responded to this in his evidence section)."

...Quoted from Carcharoth: "On 4 May 2009, SarekOfVulcan blocked both Scjessey and 194x144x90x118 for 24 hours each for comments made on the DreamHost talk page
On 22 May 2009, referring to a warning he had made on the DreamHost talk page, SarekOfVulcan blocked Scjessey for 3 hours for a comment Scjessey made on his talk page while discussing an unrelated dispute; the block was later overturned
On 5 July 2009, Scjessey created User:Scjessey/COI, which mentions this article in passing."


...Third parties, without prior involvement in the dispute, have expressed concern about issues of article ownership and potential conflicts of interest relating to Scjessey's editing of the DreamHost article. Scjessey has consistently rejected such concerns.
Passed 8 to 1, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

...Scjessey, a long-time contributor to the DreamHost article, disclosed that he was a DreamHost user before he started editing the article in 2006, and made various other disclosures over the following three years. Following discussions related to the recent disputes, he created a COI notice in his userspace on 5 July, followed by a fuller disclosure notice on 9 July. In addition to this, Scjessey made a commitment at the conflict of interest noticeboard to scale back his involvement in the article following the resolution of the disputes.
Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

|source = ], ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Aided in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"As for the rest of the named parties, I'm, sure there's places where things could've been said with a not-as-sharp tongue, or explained better, sure. Many, myself included, endured quite a shitstorm of vandal-driven attacks on these articles in the wake of the WND/Aaron Klein/Jerusalem21 orchestrated mess. As that was cresting, some longer-established editors of the same POV came in with the same or similar edits, or edit demands in the case of locked pages and/or quick reverts, and there was a fair bit of tension all around. Now that the WND junk has died down, perhaps everyone can settle in a deal with content issues through normal channels. I really do not feel that Steve can be one of these, though, as his actions have been beyond the pale."

...Tarc has engaged in incivility in comments and edit summaries.
Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Tarc is reminded to be civil when dealing with hot button and controversial situations.
Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Aided in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"I urge the arbitration committee to rapidly reject this and sanction Steve in an administrative capacity. Regardless of his tenure (I've been here four years and have around fifty-five thousand edits, doesn't make me any less disruptive if I do decide one day to be), Steve is just basically trolling because his POV-ridden article got deleted."

...Sceptre has engaged in edit-warring and continued to revert Stevertigo outside of the Barack Obama FAQ and engaged in edit summary attacks.
Passed 13 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Sceptre is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Sceptre is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Sceptre is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Sceptre exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 6 to 1 to 3 at 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Aided in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"As far as any "uncivil language" by myself goes, I used "***" as a verb ("don't **** with my comments") because I was frustrated with Steve's continuous editing of my comments."

...Grsz11 has engaged in incivil edit summaries during the edit warring.
Passed 9 to 2 with 2 abstentions at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Grsz11 is reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
Passed 10 to 1 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Worked with Scjessey in August-September 2009 DreamHost case.

{{Quote box
|quote = '''August-September 2009 DreamHost Case'''

"I've been holding off on commenting here, waiting on word from 194x to hopefully get the point that his behavior is getting under the skin of quite a few other editors. I'll back up everything that's been said already, although I try not to interact with 194x much anymore after he came to my page and basically threatened to stalk me in retaliation for some perceived slight."

...According to 194x144x90x118: "Dayewalker: While he is an opposing side of mine on the Dreamhost article he has been within most limits regarding his editing of that article. However his wikistalking of me isn't really something that I think is appropriate and I ask that the committee attempt to put an end to that matter.
Passed 10 to 1 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Quoted from SarekofVulcan: "# second edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "BTW if anybody goes ahead and deletes this section of mine again then you'll have a new warrior stepping upto the plate to participate in this little discussion of yours.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
# third edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "Feel free to remove this section and my remarks AGAIN which sparked this whole auto archiving discussion in the first place, I'll just put them right back up and then some.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing."

...Quoted from Carcharoth: "The article has been nominated for deletion three times: 1 (April 2006, no consensus), 2 (October 2008, kept), 3 (June 2009, kept).
* Scjessey supported keeping the article each time and made extensive arguments for keeping in the June 2009 deletion discussion.
* The April 2006 deletion discussion was canvassed off-wiki by Scjessey (he has responded to this in his evidence section)."

...On 15 April 2009, Dayewalker started this ANI thread about a dispute at the article
|source = ], ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-] (previously Wikidemo): Played a role in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"The only involvement I have is that I watch and patrol some articles, talk pages, and policy and other meta-pages the complaining editor attended to lately. As such I saw the disruption attempted to some degree to keep things under control."

...Wikidemon has engaged in edit-warring, teaming with Sceptre in removing comments, including adding comments back on a user talk page removed by the user.
Passed 12 to 1 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Wikidemon is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
Passed 10 to 1 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 10 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}



<center>'''{{Font color|blue|UNKNOWN}}'''</center>




-]: Played a role in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"Thank you Mr. Wizard for notifying me of this discussion. Here is why I will not participate beyond this comment: On Sunday, March 8, there was an article in World News Daily alleging that the Obama articles in Misplaced Pages are biased. That triggered a siege of those articles by "sleeper" accounts as well as some new accounts. I was part of the effort to defend Misplaced Pages against that onslaught. After that, two things happened that hit me. One was User:ChildofMidnight criticizing the defenders of Misplaced Pages's integrity as being "tough on the newbies" and calling it a "dark night for wikipedia". which I found to be a very offensive and blinders-on viewpoint. Meanwhile, some who noticed that I was defending Misplaced Pages urged me to run for admin. That resulted in an RfA in which I was accused of "creating drama". Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs I concluded that certain editors are more concerned with coddling vandals than with the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Nonetheless, thanks to all the Opposers in the RfA, I am now on a self-imposed topic ban on the subject of Barack Obama and most other "controversial" articles. In short, figure it out for yourselves - I've had it."

...Baseball Bugs has engaged in incivility, and removed talk page discussions while using the talk page as a forum himself.

...Baseball Bugs is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.
Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Played a role in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"Sweet, first time I've been named as an involved party in an arbcom. It would appear that I'm an involved party as a result of a single revert that I made on Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. To save time, I'll just link to my comment on AN/I after Stevertigo cried wolf about the injustice of it all. If the arbcom takes this case, hopefully they'll explore more than just the behavioral issues around the whole Stevertigo situation, but of the Obama related articles as a whole. It is, quite frankly, impossible to get anything constructive done on the subject with the most trivial of edits resulting in an edit war and a less than collegial discussion thread."
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}


<center>'''{{Font color|green|TARGETS}}'''</center>


-]: Disciplined in March-August 2008 incident.As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"Stevertigo, a 7th-year editor with nearly 35K edits, is said by various above users to be "POV," "disruptive," 'not abiding by consensus,' "trolling," "troll-baiting" "forum-shopping" violating WP:CIVIL, NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:AGF, WP:TE, and WP:NOCRIT (a much-alluded-to but not-existing policy) etc. This RFAR follows several policy/DR discussions/threads, (above) and was begun under the impression that some of the above charges may in fact be not true."

...Stevertigo has engaged in edit-warring and engaged in edit summary attacks on the Obama FAQ.
Passed 13 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo proposed to mark WP:IAR historical in its talk page, asking other users to discuss his proposal.
Passed 6 to 2 with 3 abstentions at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 6 to 1 to 3 at 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Disciplined in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

" ... ChildofMidnight did not provide a statement in the case... "

...ChildofMidnight has deleted and/or refactored comments made by other parties on the Barack Obama talk page, and engaged in attacking the actions of other editors.
Passed 13 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result.
Passed 13 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight created the appearance of templating other parties to the case.
Passed 5 to 4 with 4 abstentions at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...ChildofMidnight is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.
Passed 7 to 0 at 12:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC) by motion.

ChildofMidnight is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, ChildofMidnight is subject to an editing restriction for one year. ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should ChildofMidnight exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 6 to 1 to 3 at 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight and Scjessey are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 10 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 10 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Disciplined in March-August 2008 incident. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''March-August 2008 Case'''

"Whoa! I did nothing wrong. The Political positions of Barack Obama article said that Obama promised to stop the DEA raids on medical marijuana. I posted evidence that Obama did not keep his promise. If the article cites Obama's promise, then for balance, the article should also cite that Obama did not keep his promise. As for the Public image of Barack Obama article, since the article already cited conservative support of Obama, I added that he also had communist support too. On my talk page, Scjessey has falsely accused me of making "poorly-sourced" entries, of doing "original research," of "inserting unpublished information," and of putting my "personal analysis" into articles. Scjessey keeps making one false accusation after another."

...Grundle2600 has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result.
Passed 13 to 0 at 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Grundle2600 is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Grundle2600 is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Grundle2600 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 6 to 1 to 3 at 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
|source = ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}

-]: Disciplined in August-September 2009 DreamHost case. As quoted,

{{Quote box
|quote = '''August-September 2009 DreamHost Case'''

"My position on whether or not this matter should be taken under consideration by the arbitration committee is neutral I neither urge nor discourage the committee to take this matter under arbitration. I myself do not have much motivation to "defend" myself here or to discuss the actions of others and I regret that others are wasting their time with this issue as well. I find it curious that user Erik (a norwegian name) a user that I've never had any interaction with what so ever requested this arbitration in light of the fact that admin Sjakalle who is also from Norway has displayed quite strange behaviour towards me which includes canvassing this request for arbitration, the previous request for comment as well as going outside of the topic of the rfc despite clear guidelines to stick to topic, disrupting a general rfc over at the bobby fischer talkpage with personal attacks and other bizarre behavior. And I find it utmost strange that if it is truly expected that I stick to some formal standard of behavior here that it is aokay that an admin such as Sjakalle can just break the rules as he sees fit. I think that the fact that Fisherqueen was named a party to this arbitration underlines very clearly the none honorable motives that sparked this request for arbitration but there is no current interaction between me and her and there has not been for a long time. Seeing as Misplaced Pages matters are at the bottom of my rather endless list of things to do I do not know how far I will go in "defending" myself here or discussing the actions of others. I might comment further on these matters in the coming days but in the meantime I want to express my disappointment with all the childishness here at wikipedia."

...194x144x90x118, an editor since April 2009, has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages, edit warring and a lack of a desire to abide by policy. The first attacks and soapboxing took place on DreamHost and its talkpage, but similar behavior has subsequently occurred on other subjects.
Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

...194x144x90x118 is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.
Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
|source = ], ].
|width = 75%
|align = center
}}




Worthy Mentions:

-SarekofVulcan: Involved in August-September DreamHost case with Scjessey and Dayewalker. Criticized by 194x144x90x118 for abuse of position. Nevertheless, Sarek blocked Scjessey twice (3 hours - overturned, 24 hours - also blocked 194x144x90x118 with block).


I intend to provide more information as I find time to look into the other past disciplinary actions for the Barack Obama page(s).

Revision as of 17:42, 18 May 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Jzyehoshua, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Wikimachine 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I offer my own apologies in lieu of those of the offending party

I just wanted to say that I personally find pointed disregard for the health and well-being of a living thing of any age or circumstance to be repugnant, which is why I personally support a ban on partial-birth abortion, recognize that family planning, sex education and contraception are absolutely essential to limit the number of abortions, and support single-payer health care for every man, woman and child. To ban abortion on the one hand, but to absolve ourselves as a society of caring for the essential needs of those people who are born into this world is a contradiction I cannot accept. Two wrongs do not make a right, but then, in this world, we have a great deal more than two wrongs no matter what we do.

I found Alan Keyes' official public statement that Jesus wouldn't vote for Barack Obama to be shockingly absurd and cynically manipulative, as Jesus surely wouldn't have voted for Keyes either, and it seemed to be the epitome of taking the name of the Lord in vain. We live in a world where neither candidate is ever truly going to live and legislate in a perfectly Christian manner. That doesn't mean we idolize either candidate, but neither does it mean we live in a cacophony of bloodcurdling diatribes over every issue creating a dissonance that makes it impossible to live with or have a modicum of respect for anyone or anything. You're familiar with the expression "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and I would add "we should not be the enemies of the imperfect," because there is nothing but imperfection in this world. Frankly, I wonder if the point of this life would be moot if everybody did live in a perfectly Christian manner. Reading your user page as I have only done just now makes me hope that my responses at Talk:Barack Obama were not personally offensive to you, and I did acknowledge there that I respect your position. I maintain that this edit fails weight, sourcing, context and other BLP issues and this doesn't mitigate any editorial point I have made. Misplaced Pages is not the place for activism

After working on the above, I experienced an edit conflict and took the liberty of deleting the other addition to your page as it is unacceptable Misplaced Pages behavior. I apologize for any religious intolerance that is and may be expressed here; while every editor has the right to his own opinions, it is inappropriate for someone to arrive here without any previous interaction with you to say such a thing. Intolerance is as repugnant when it is directed toward the religious community from the outside as it is when it is directed from inside the religious community to others.

I would like you to know that it is my deeply sincere wish that you continue to travel the path toward truth and love that you relate on your user page, something I was moved to read, and that you have all the guidance, support and rewards I hope for us all along the way on our respective paths. Abrazame (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw this comment of yours. Sorry for taking so long to respond. I will agree with you that some of Keyes' comments are a bit insensitive and vitriolic, to put it mildly. I hardly excuse all of Keyes' behaviors or his words, nor do I try to idolize the man. I simply overlook it to some extent, as I admire his candidness when compared to the typical politician who does not even state what they believe. One thing I dislike about Obama is that he says one thing and does another, or tells different parties different things. He tries to appease when he is acting and voting very radically, and I do not like the dishonesty. Keyes on the other hand is an unapologetic radical, and I recognize it, but at least like the aspect of honesty in the man's character - even if he puts his foot in his mouth on occasion.
I also accept your apology. I have a tendency to get overly defensive when there are a lot of fallacies and attacks flying, and it wasn't all just directed at you, but some of the other users using the tactics made me more defensive than I was initially. At any rate, I look forward to a better understanding between us, and hope later comments won't clash as much as they did already. Not that I mind disagreement, I just hope to avoid it becoming personal, rather than constructive, that's all. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, please don't make the mistakes that I made!

I see that you have a strong interest in adding criticism of Barack Obama to wikipedia, even though there is a strong consensus against your edits. I used to do that a lot, and I also did so against consensus. I have been topic banned and blocked multiple times - and it is not fun. I mean, it is not fun at all. It really sucks. I urge you to find less controversial parts of the encyclopedia to edit. Please do not follow the path down the dark side and get your self topic banned or blocked. Good luck! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern and for the suggestion, but I do not believe in shying away from that which is most important simply due to opposition. Indeed, I previously stopped participating in Misplaced Pages for a time when I suspected the community was so liberally biased as to unfairly discriminate against opposing views, apart from objectivity and guidelines. If Misplaced Pages were to disallow opposing views from being presented, why would I want to participate at all? I have participated in editing less controversial parts of Misplaced Pages before - however, I stopped because I thought for a while that Misplaced Pages would discriminately disallow objective examination of controversial criticisms of liberal politicians when it does not do so for conservatives. My participation in the future in Misplaced Pages will depend only on the extent to which I believe it to be a good and honest community for providing unbiased content. I would definitely not help further a medium I did not believe in, otherwise. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a lot in common! Grundle2600 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw while browsing you'd been involved in an arbitration dispute. I would imagine it might be similar to this one, and a verdict was reached prematurely before full examination could be done? I noticed one admin seemed skeptical about the verdict.] I have already taken this discussion into Mediation myself.] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been the subject of several such cases. Prior to the current one that you just cited, I was topic banned from all articles that relate to U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. Now in this current case, I have agreed to avoid editing all such articles from all other countries too. I love editing wikipedia, and I don't want to get blocked from all articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Misplaced Pages. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--John (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on the new section tab and for whatever reason it created a new page, perhaps due to a large page size already? I was just trying to reverse it myself. I only wanted to create a new section, not a new page, and had used the feature before without issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I just switched to the Beta yesterday and this is just the 2nd time I tried using that New section tab with it. Could this be a glitch? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Word to the wise

An edit summary like this one will hurt your case. Threats to edit war are not going to go down very well, particularly given that the Obama article is on probation (you can see the discussion at the top of the talk page). I've stayed a little removed from the issue for a little while but I still think that if everyone can cool down a little there can be a more productive discussion. Cheers.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I will give it a few more days after creating a section asking anyone to provide proof against the edit having a NPOV, and if no proof can be provided on the talk page, will make the edits once more. I will create the section soon to make crystal clear whether or not there is proof about the NPOV accusation. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Keep in mind that individual editor are often POV - they're supposed to check that at the door but human nature is what it is. The key thing is that the resulting article is NPOV. If we can achieve that, it's not so important what's in people's hearts of hearts. Happy holidays, if that's what you're into.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
True, true. And not necessarily big on holidays, as I suspect they're an excuse for people to act 1 day a year the way they should all the time, but sure, Happy Holidays!  :) --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, while I'm semi retired as I take care of a personal project that is taking more of my time, I do occasionally come back and take a peek at what is going on here in Misplaced Pages. I've been watching your posts of the Talk:Barack Obama page and have seen your contributions. I can see that there is a lot of potential to really help Misplaced Pages grow. However, I've also noticed a couple habits that might impede you're being able to help the project and give you a public image you may not want. I also want these suggestions to be able to help you navigate the Barack Obama page a little bit better and cause/see less drama. These are only suggestions take 'em or ignore them if you want:

  • Understand your own biases and passions. When editing neutrally, you need to understand your own biases and passions and try to keep them from ruling you. It is hard, I know, but if you know what you lean towards, you can make sure you don't edit that way. (One way I do, is sometimes I just won't edit or comment on an article that I might feel passionately for or against.)
  • Understand where others are coming from. If someone disagrees with you, fully understand where they are coming from. Do their arguments make a valid point? Did they raise a valid reason?
  • If it seems that you are the only one tooting that trumpet, and the majority of the community does not agree with you, then maybe it's time to back off on that issue.
  • If you find yourself starting to call others names or groups of editors names, then that also might be a sign to back away from the issue.
  • If you can, avoided walls of text. Try to say what you mean in a succinct and brief manner. Editors will be more likely to read what you say when you say it with as few words as possible. If you really need to delve deeply and explain a subject, maybe use a collapsed box around it, and the editors will be more likely to read the extra information at their own leisure.
  • Also, take a couple hours and delve deeply into the archives of the pages. See what has been brought up, see what reoccurring arguments that have been brought up over and over again, and see why the community has grown more pissed over certain things. (I could do in depth, but I want to be brief.)
  • Finally, be interested in other things then just Barack Obama and politics in general. Work on other non-political articles as a way to take a breath and relax a bit.

You seem like a good editor and can contribute a lot to the project and as I said these are just some helpful suggestions. Sincerely, Brothejr (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am deliberately holding off on editing other Misplaced Pages articles however to see what kind of community Misplaced Pages is. I don't want to get involved in other pages until I see how Misplaced Pages will handle this current situation.
I do recognize that I have been going overboard, and treating others the way they treat me; getting defensive and acting in a way I don't approve of. Therefore, I am going to stop trying to defend my reputation and let others think what they want about me.
I still think that the Obama article is lacking in critical historical factors surrounding him, and that objectively the partial birth abortion issue has been a major one during his career. It's tough to walk a line between not acting vengeful towards those who are editing out of bias, and still stick up for necessary changes to an article. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well at least he isn't a sockpuppet. --Misortie (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm no sockpuppet. I have no desire to hide behind another account, although I noticed I did have some additional edits in the past for my IP address itself (just since Misplaced Pages lets you edit without being logged in, and if you're idle on your computer while making an edit you get logged out). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages

In regards to this , I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I edit a lot of pages on Misplaced Pages, I don't recall "protecting" another editors edits as such, nor would I ever "protect" a specific editor or viewpoint. However, the conversation on Tom's talk page clearly shows there's no consensus to delete those comments, please don't do so again.

Don't get me wrong, there's a grand bit of silliness on both sides of this issue. That's another case to be made, however, in the short term there's no call to delete one single person's comments from the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You and DD2K both showed up in December 2009 to help out Scjessey then, and I believe when his edits got reverted you were one of the ones helping out there as well. As for why I reverted, I simply wanted to make clear my objection to them later on, even though I knew his associates, like you, would drop to make sure the comment stayed, just like you did before. I didn't want him to be able to say afterwards that only one person objected to his playing the race card, and defending his accusations of racism in the conversation afterwards by saying nobody objected. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
As for the comment in question, it obviously violates Misplaced Pages neutrality and other rules, but I don't really care if it remains. There's nothing in it worth responding to, and until Threeafterthree reverted it, I was just going to let it sit there and ignore it, continuing with the conversation - just as I intend to do now. I reverted it, following that exchange, more to make my dissent clear than because I wanted it gone. After all, it reflects more poorly on Scjessey and those like you defending it, than myself, so I am perfectly happy to let it remain. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I assure you, I have never showed up anywhere to "help out" Scjessey. You seem to insist that someone can't disagree with you without being part of some conspiracy. If you disagree with the original comment, take it up on the correct noticeboard and see what other people think. Had you (or Tom0 actually addressed what the comment said, a discussion would have ensued, I assure you. What you're saying above about deleting it to make your point clear isn't helpful. Dayewalker (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahuh. So it's just coincidence that in December 09 you and DD2K were around then also to help out Scjessey with the mediation disputes at the time, huh? You weren't active in this conversation from what I saw, but as soon as Scjessey came in, so did you. Furthermore, I was not the first to suggest such a group, I am finding. As someone said there, "LotLE and Scjessey are the attack dogs for a large group of editors who Misplaced Pages:OWN the political articles, POV-pushing on behalf of the left." Scjessey was facing discipline for actions on this article, as seen here and here, long before I ever showed up on the scene. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
See, I already knew once I showed up, that you'd all soon follow, and try to start an edit war with an inflammatory comment to get me and anyone else objecting in trouble, after which you and Wikidemon would of course consider them 'discredited' with our opinions on the article now invalidated. This time though, I was expecting it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys are predictable. Just keep using this exact same strategy. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't know what you're talking about. I made a single comment in your area on that page (which I still agree with), and suddenly I'm part of a conspiracy? Hilarious. I edit a lot of articles, as you can see from my contribs list. You seem to need to make people fit on one side or the other, and I don't. You've ignored my good faith advice above in favor of paranoia, and there's not much I can do for that.
If you look to find conspiracies and enemies everywhere, you'll certainly find them. That's not what wikipedia is about, though. I'm not part of any "you guys," as you put it above. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The last time, it was Scjessey using his attack tactics, and starting an edit war when you showed up, followed quickly by LoTLe. You think I don't notice that you guys were absent the whole conversation, and suddenly show up each time to participate in edit war attempts? You can play innocent if you want; because it seems pretty obvious to me. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm not even going to bother, Jz. You're mind is made up, so I won't waste both of our time continuing to try and convince you otherwise. If you've got a problem with me or my edits, please take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. Dayewalker (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama article

Edits like this are unproductive and not welcome at Talk:Barack Obama - or, in fact, anywhere on the encyclopedia. You have been alerted to the article probation on that page, and you have been topic banned for a month over similar incidents in the past, so you are well aware that the community considers aggressive accusations to be antithetical to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Your attempt on this page (which I removed) to build a case against editors you see as your opponents, is inappropriate as well. If you wish to contribute to the construction of the encyclopedia, please find a way to do so that does not involve antagonizing your fellow editors. You're perfectly welcome to contribute to articles, even controversial ones, if you follow our editing practices regarding civility, accusations, use of talk pages, etc. If you find yourself too frustrated to do that on some pages, you may want to work on some articles that do not put you in conflict. If you do persist, I or others will ask for help from administrators, and you will likely find your editing privileges revoked - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jzyehoshua: Difference between revisions Add topic