Notice of obsolescence:
Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been revoked or have expired. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified. For the specific community decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see  this discussion at the administrators' noticeboard.

For archived requests, see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1.

WP:3RR as already noted [ [5]], but since this is on an article subject to probation, possible additional sanctions should come as well.

Note - the editor has been topic-banned for one month in connection with this report. [6] I would suggest leaving it open for a few days in case there is an appeal or should anyone want to comment on it here, and then collapsing or archiving it as a matter of page maintenance - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Jzyehoshua ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to all intents and purposes a single purpose account whose mission is to "balance" our "liberal bias" in the article on Obama by including criticisms from the far-right. Issues identified include undue weight, politically-loaded terminology, assumptions of bad faith against others, WP:IDINTHEARTHAT, SHOUTING and generally not getting it. Since he has no other current area of interest I believe he falls into the category of disruptive single purpose account and should be topic-banned. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Looking briefly through his contributions, I see a few well-sourced edits to the article in question, and a LOT more discussion on the talk page, which I haven't reviewed. I don't see any edit warring, he has a clean block log, and he has previously contributed to other topic areas--although not within the past year. Have you tried any less severe remedies? Can you provide a diff or two of egregious conduct on the talk page that would prompt such a severe initial sanction? Jclemens ( talk) 18:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

He edit warred to include on talk edits which were reverted from the article and fomr talk with a request to refactor in less inflammatory terms. There have been several arbcom cases concerning wall-of-text argumentation of this type, and it is clear to me as an outsider with relatively little interest in US politics that an agenda is being pushed by an editor with virtually no other history. That is a red flag on a high profile BLP. Guy ( Help!) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, I've been randomly sampling his edits to the talk page, and not seen any problems with them yet. I've seen him argue about YESPOV and the like, and note that his posts to other editors' talk pages have been civil and constructive. Can you post some diffs of the egregious behavior you cited above? I can certainly agree he's been very prolific on the talk page recently, hence I don't want to redo your effort if you've already got a few examples you can highlight. Just because he disagrees with the current content of the article and writes about it at length doesn't make him a disruptive influence. Jclemens ( talk) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying an outright ban or anything is warranted right now, but the intent to edit biographies of living persons with the approach that there isn't enough criticism in the subject's article is just not going to end well. Tarc ( talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, per UNDUE, the POTUS articles ought to have relatively more criticism than any other articles on Wikipedia, really, as every president of the Internet-era has attracted a huge amount of criticism. Obama's just the latest and current one. We need to be careful that our (correct and worthwhile) efforts to protect BLPs don't harm NPOV by eliminating or marginalizing the proportional inclusion of RS'ed criticism. Again, if there's a violation of editor conduct then let's correct it posthaste, but simply editing civilly from a differing political perspective is not itself misconduct. Jclemens ( talk) 22:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Jzyehoshua has now begun to engage in active edit warring to introduce a contentious paragraph all about Alan Keyes, with little relation to Obama. This digression is apparently, in turn, an effort to smuggle in various anti-abortion WP:SOAPBOXing, including accusations of Obama supporting "infanticide". While the first edit was clearly contrary to broad consensus of detailed discussion on the talk page, the editor immediately twice reverted to insert the same disputed material. Moreover, these reverts were accompanied by threats of indefinite edit warring:

1. Initial edit to introduce Keyes (and Ryan) digressions
2. 1st Reversion to Jzyehoshua own unwanted material - (Undid revision 333995853 - This edit is the only mention of the primary issues during the 2004 Illinois general election, both concerning Keyes, and concerning Obama. Doesn't violate NPOV)
3. 2nd Reversion to Jzyehoshua's Keyes/Ryan material - (Undid revision 333997493 by PhGustaf (talk). Will continue reverting if NPOV accusation not addressed, which it has not been.)

At this point, I think an outright block is very well warranted. LotLE× talk 20:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

So it looks like the disagreement is over how much and what content from United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 should be in the Barack Obama article? In reviewing the recent talk page today, I see few and none-too-substantial responses to his edits. I think I prefer to place him on 1RR before blocking him, because he is making RS'ed edits cordially, despite POV/UNDUE disagreements.

Does anyone object to me placing him on 1RR on all Barack Obama articles, broadly construed? Jclemens ( talk) 05:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you please give it another chance? Jzyehoshua is only at 1RR right now on this, although both the addition and the reversion happened after there was clear opposition to the edit. I had a polite discussion with Jzyehoshua after the second edit and threat, and they agreed not to edit war, so I think it's water under the bridge right now. [7] My overall impression is that we have a reasonable editor who will work with people if we make the extra effort to get along. Also, before imposing any sanction based on this discussion, could we we please notify him (her?) of this discussion and allow time to comment? Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, for what it's worth, 1RR is a good principle for everyone. In theory nobody should edit war on an issue except in clear cases of vandalism, BLP and copyright vios, serious degradation to the article, etc. Anything less than that and we can talk about it on the talk page, even if that means the "wrong version" stays for a while while we talk or until someone else sees fit to remove it. Wikidemon ( talk) 05:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I disagree, Wikidemon. In the conversation you mention on Jzyehoshua's talk page, he does not agree to work with people. He simply states that he will wait a few days before resuming edit warring. I really don't think there is evidence he's got the point. Moreover, if article probation doesn't mean that everyone is on 1RR on the Obama article, it's hard to see the point of it. I don't think the editor has earned a long block at this point, I just think a day or two block would emphasize the importance of good editing to him/her. LotLE× talk 08:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I just saw the message about this. As I stated, my reason for "edit warring" was to follow the Wikipedia rules of editing boldly in the face of no substantive opposition. I created a section on the Obama talk page, "Neutral Point of View", and as you can see, there is still no opposition to the sourcing. Rather, the only oppositions have come on the basis of no consensus or POV, which as the Wikipedia guidelines state, is no excuse for reverting edits. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 09:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

This issue is currently already being discussed in depth on the Talk:Barack Obama page's Neutral Point of View section. As I am sure it will bear out, there is no substantive opposition to my edits apart from mere opinionated dislike of the topic by those with opposing ideological viewpoints. Unless Wikipedia administrators tell me I should not do so, I still intend to begin making the edits in a few days, as I said I would, unless someone can provide a substantive reason for not including the edits. As I already showed on the talk page, when there are substantive reasons, I am willing to work with other editors by changing my wording, sources, and placement of material so that it will conform with Wikipedia standards. However, the talk page has been filled from my first post with personal attacks and straw men that I think are a more serious issue, in violation of the talk page guidelines, and should never have been allowed to continue unregulated. Furthermore, I have been unwilling to work with the users in question because there was nothing constructive in their comments, only constant ad hominems and fallacious statements that were not borne out by the actual content of the Wikipedia guidelines. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 09:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Seeing this has already reached this point, I will not simply let the issue rest either, but intend to actively pursue blocks or bans on multiple users, including JzG, Tarc, and scjessey for repeated personal attacks and profanity in lieu of no constructive material or comments whatsoever. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 09:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You're beginning to lose me there. Please see WP:BATTLE. Don't go there. - Wikidemon ( talk) 10:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

This isn't about retaliation. I've been considering it for a while, but was holding off, holding off, on the arbitration. I'd already taken it to Mediation, but was hoping to wait a week to see if the Mediation could resolve things. However, at this point, I don't think it can be avoided since it's already there anyway. It's time Wikipedia addressed what is a hostile atmosphere of personal attacks with the intent to discriminate and block out all opposing views. If this isn't addressed, scjessey and company could even do this to other users down the road. The sort of attacks they are, and have been leveling show they are willing to stoop to some pretty low stuff to silence opposing views, regardless of how calmly others try to talk it through with them. If Wikipedia is going to give close eye to my actions, then I would like to make sure those who've been accusing me aren't overlooked either, because if Wikipedia doesn't put a stop to this stuff now, they will just keep manipulating the process to harass all others with opposing viewpoints out of Wikipedia as well. I saw the way they were treating other users there as well and did not appreciate it, I'd hardly imagine this to be the first time it's come up with them. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, so there is no confusion, I am not referring only to the Obama talk page. There have also been incidents on the talk pages now of me, GoodDay, Misortie, and scjessey. After the first attempted edit, several of scjessey's group began contacting me with talk page comments, some of which were deleted. There may be other talk pages involved too but those are the ones that I am aware of. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 15:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

"Scjessey's group?" I really don't think you want to go there. I oppose your attempt to use Wikipedia to push your anti-abortion agenda, but I am not the evil overlord of a sinister gang of editors. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I do believe there is coherence in creating the bias. When you and GoodDay began commenting on my page within a few hours after the edit,[ [8]] and I replied on your talk pages, I could not help but notice that of the 6 or 7 users who would end up primarily opposing me on the Obama talk discussion, you were having talk page discussions with many of them.[ [9]

You initiated a conversation with DD2K about the need for filing a case against me.[ [10]] You and Tarc also went on Misortie's page, and you advised them to file against me.[ [11]] You also had an interesting discussion with Lulu that only appears when using the compare tool.[ [12]] I know you were involved in multiple other discussions pushing for action against me or criticizing me as well on user talk pages.[ [13]][ [14]][ [15]

You also knew Scepter and welcomed them back, another of my ardent critics,[ [16]] and Tarc welcomed you back.[ [17]] And then there's the sudden appearance of Lulu, who you also welcomed back.[ [18]] It just seemed suspicious to me that 3 of your old associates would suddenly all drop by to help you criticize me after what appeared to have been long absences. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 18:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Advice to both sides on this - right now, it is too early to ask for broader review, and you really need to show that you've made every effort before asking for intervention. For Jzyehoshua, you're trying to deal with this on two fronts, first advocating fairly aggressively for content that other people dispute, and second complaining that you're being treated too harshly by the editors who oppose your content. Those two work against each other, although I have some sympathy for both. For Scjessey, I agree that Jzyehoshua is pushing a content agenda, but you and others have also been unnecessarily harsh and unwelcoming to an editor new to the page and raised the alarm for content that could well be discussed and brought to a neutral point of view. It's not a cabal and I don't think anyone is in league, so I don't see this as misconduct, but there does seem to be some group-think and piling on. My guess is that arbcom, and the more advanced dispute resolution forums, would reject an appeal by either side at this point and ask everyone to keep working on it. Arbcom election results were just announced, and there's a substantial change in the committee's membership. You don't want to be too quick to rush there with a complaint that isn't fully formed, because once they've decided they don't want to hear about a problem it will be doubly hard to come back if it truly gets to the point where it's intractable. This is all just my opinion of course, but I really think we ought to hit a reset button and try again, only friendlier this time. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, Wikidemon, but I disagree. All the "welcomes" I got are as a result of the expiration of my topic ban, and nothing whatsoever to do with this agenda-driven editor. You're more forgiving than I for this kind of editor, but I have no time for people who want to use Wikipedia as a tool for propaganda. Jzyehoshua is seeing conspiracies where none exist, but I can guarantee that if this sort of behavior continues it will lead to the WP:RFC/U I suggested, and perhaps ArbCom after that. Comments about "associates" and stuff are completely inappropriate, and the statement above is as cleverly-crafted a distortion of the truth as all that anti-abortion bullshit on the Obama talk page. My patience tank is almost empty. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You realize that abortion is among the biggest drivers of single-issue voting in American politics, right? To expect that a stable consensus on the amount of abortion-related material on the page of a sitting U.S. President is probably overly optimistic. The best I think we can reasonably hope for is that discussions of POV differences of opinion be conducted with civility and decorum. Jclemens ( talk) 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. But this situation is a little more complex, because what we have is the same editor making the same points repeatedly, despite an overwhelming majority of editors expressing disapproval. The stench of flayed horse carcass is quite pungent. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikidemon, I thought about WP:NOTIFY after I'd left for the evening last night, and you're absolutely right; it was inappropriate of me to propose anything absent a defense from the editor in question. Jclemens ( talk) 16:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Before even having realized this discussion was here, I opened an ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Isn.27t_the_Barack_Obama_article_on_a_one-revert_lockdown.3F. Woogee ( talk) 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• [19], [20], [21]. It is, I think, entirely obvious that these edits do not have consensus, but Jzyehoshua chooses to edit-war over them against other editors (plural). This user has virtually no contributions to mainspace to offset this disruption: [22]. Guy ( Help!) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I feel that this puts my actions in context and disallows me from acting further in this matter. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'd like to point out a few things:

• We should understand that User:Jzyehoshua is a relatively new user with under 400 edits total, and under 200 when the edits to Barack Obama started. Indeed, there were only three previous edits this year.
• When I saw Jzyehoshua's edit to Barack Obama, followed by two more tweaks, I saw that they violated several policies and reverted them. After the text was largely added back, it took a second reversion and a note on Jzyehoshua's talk page, but the point was gotten across. By that, I specifically mean that the fact that the article is on probation and violations of that probation would likely result in a block. The discussions then began on Talk:Barack Obama. My point is that, thus far, we are seeing totally appropriate behavior that we can all assume was a good faith effort to improve an article. We can disagree on the definition of improve, but I hope we mostly agree that was the intention here.
• What I've seen follow since is a whole lot of great large walls of text added by Jzyehoshua, representing a flurry of discussion that borders on WP:BATTLEGROUND and has contributed to the size of the talk page nearly tripling to a whopping size of over 500KB of text in less than 10 days. (I've taken shortcuts by providing diffs that include several - sometimes a dozen - consecutive revisions to the talk page.)
• What I have not seen is WP:CONSENSUS to add the requested changes, and it's gotten a little more difficult since then. Jzyehoshua has been told that there's no consensus and has cited policy stating that lack of consensus alone isn't a reason to revert. There doesn't seem to be understanding that there's consensus against the proposed changes. In addition there are the previously provided diffs showing what looks to be an intent to edit war that followed subsequent edits to the article.
• As a semi-involved editor, I am not in a position to impose anything in particular here, but I would ask Jzyehoshua to step back, try to do smaller things, try to do them less quickly, try to do them individually, and try to do them succinctly. I really understand there's a passion to get a point across, but I also think that putting too much on a talk page at once (or in consecutive, smaller edits) is overwhelming and ends up making it more difficult to gain consensus.
• I hope that a block isn't necessary but a topic ban (hopefully brief) might be...I hoped early on that a "word to the wise" would suffice and I'm hopeful still that it can help. If I could really distill it down to one word, that word would be community; that's what we are here. We consist of individuals with a largely shared vision of what the project is; there is a less-shared vision of what it should be, but we should not mistake those visions for what really exists today.

• Having said all that, I do not think an indef block is the appropriate next step, but I do think it should be noted that such is a distinct possibility if consensus isn't reached to make edits that are clearly divisive and contrary to several policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and the probation on Barack Obama.
• Now that I've left my own great large wall of text, I'll step out of the way.  Frank  |   talk  06:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

As I stated would happen however, the latest section on the talk page is bearing out that aside from not reaching Consensus, there is still absolutely nothing anyone can find wrong with even the most controversial of the edits that will hold up under scrutiny.[ [23]] -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 08:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Not true; you got an objection four minutes after that message. When people say that Keyes' political attacks on Obama have no place in Obama's biographical article, that's a reason not to include it. When your edits are reverted shortly after being added, that is an indication the community does not agree with your edits. Also, while you're looking up policies and guidelines to support your edits, make sure to read silence is the weakest form of consensus. This is subtle stuff, I agree, but you are saying that "no consensus" is not a reason to revert, but...you're actually receiving objections to your edits, so that's not the same thing. Then, at times, you've claimed "only two people responded and only one disagreed", so that sounds like WP:SILENCE to me, but again - it's a very weak form of consensus, especially considering the large walls of text you're adding to the talk page. It's really quite hard to pick out what point to respond to when there's so much included there. If someone doesn't respond to one point you make, you seem to be using that as agreement with that point. That's generally not how consensus works - especially not on an article which is on probation.  Frank  |   talk  16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I heard that objection raised recently for perhaps the first time. My response was that "I don't see this issue as being about whether or not it was a major view of Keyes. I see it as being at issue because it was prominent in the press and during the general election as a historical factor." -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

And yet, you wrote just above: there is still absolutely nothing anyone can find... when it took exactly four minutes for someone to do so.  Frank  |   talk  17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't say there were no objections. I said I was confident there was nothing that would hold up under scrutiny to reasonably deny inclusion of the material on the Obama page. I do hear some reasonable reservations about the inclusion of the subject matter, but think it's been able to be addressed so far. Other subjects such as sourcing and wording can be worked around, and I've already been trying to do so with those interested. I still don't think there is a reasonable basis for denying inclusion of the material on the page which can not be suitably addressed. I don't see any reservations against the material that deal with violations of Wikipedia guidelines with the exception of Consensus. The sourcing does not seem to be a problem, and shows this issue to have been prominent enough to be relevant on the Barack Obama page. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 21:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

(EC-OD) I agree with Frank, as above, this Jzyehoshua account is definitely using this article as a BATTLE|battleground. In response to Frank's comment on the talk page (and my brief agreement with him), Jzyehoshua responds (editing as an IP) to dump almost 8K of text onto the page in a single edit [24]. His refusal to understand consensus basically forces other editors (who also edit other articles, unlike him) to keep up with his walls of text, lest their silence be taken as proof that his edits have consensus. His comments above pretty clearly show he doesn't understand consensus, and that if he feels his additions fit into one branch or another of wiki-policy, he's going to keep forcing the issue. I agree with Frank that maybe a brief topic ban would help him to better understand the concepts of wikipedia. Dayewalker ( talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Resolved

 – blocked. Jclemens ( talk) 19:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

withdrawn by Unit Anode on 01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC), based on the ongoing discussions at the talkpage. reply

The user in question has raised a claim on the article talk page that the article needs a great deal more detail on day-by-day polling numbers of presidential popularity, along with some fairly WP:OR conclusions about the great moral significance of a drop in Obama's poll numbers. The uniform opinion of nearly all other editors was that such coverage would be an excess of detail that was not appropriate to the main biography.

In response to not finding any consensus or support for this suggested edit, Unitanode first tried to make a WP:POINT by slapping a {POV} tag on the article at:

• First POV tag (Revision as of 15:25, 2009 December 30)

Then reverted another editor who removed the WP:POINT:

• POV tag reversion (Revision as of 22:07, 2009 December 30): (I explained why the tag was placed. don't rm it until legit criticism is allowed in the article. right now, even innocous criticism is simply reverted out. that's POV, pure and simple)

Third time's the charm:

• Second POV tag reversion (Revision as of 22:35, 2009 December 30 )(I've explained it at the talkpage. It's not about "lack of consensus for one poll"; quit removing the tag without addressing the underlying issues.)

S/he added a tendentious description of polling numbers, that I trimmed to include only relevant details. S/he then reverted the trim at:

• Reversion:

A strong pattern of edit warring here. FWIW, The editor has been doing nearly the same thing over at Jimmy Carter: when a tendentious addition was not accepted, s/he slaped a {POV} on the top, and scattered rather random {fact} tags on the most ordinary sentences throughout the article, simply to WP:DISRUPT the article. Carter's isn't on probation, but the edit warring pattern and WP:POINTiness is very similar. LotLE× talk 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• I note, with interest, that Lulu has not chosen to participate in any way at the discussions currently going on at the Obama talkpage. As for the Carter article, Lulu would like to simply remove the POV tag without dealing with any of the issues that were raised at the talkpage. That's not how such things work. I'll leave the rest of this ludicrous complaint to be hashed out by whomever does such things. Unit Anode 00:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Here's a link to a related discussion I started before the current (and quite productive) discussion (which Lulu has avoided, at present) began on the Obama talkpage. Unit Anode 01:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I've moved that discussion to this page, immediately above, and collapsed it so as not to overwhelm things. Without commenting on the merits of Lulu's report, it is redundant to the above, and has probably grown stale now due to the passage of time. A day later the parties are discussing matters on the talk page and have stopped commenting here. I'm not aware of any precedent or rules on how this kind of RfE board should function, but I would think it is for enforcement of immediate matters of disruption that need attention and not longer-term examinations of editor conduct, or broader areas (e.g. the Jimmy Carter page) that are not covered under Obama probation. Thanks and happy new year, everyone. - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think there's anything sanctionable here, and it would have been better for Lulu to not file this report but rather engage directly with Unitanode. However I would strongly enjoin Unitanode to avoid any future edit warring and remember that the Obama article probation terms means that edit warring on those articles will be viewed even less charitably than is normally the case. Also adding POV tags to featured articles is not a particularly good idea for reasons which should be rather obvious (if a featured article is really not NPOV and someone is preventing you from fixing or even discussing it, then one should probably head off to WP:FAR). Sometimes talk page discussion takes awhile, and already some progress seems to be being made, so it's unfortunate that this situation escalated at all. It would be better if everyone would just sheath their rhetorical swords now and calmly discuss the article without commenting on one another. I'm off soon to celebrate the New Year, try not to hurt each other! -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Resolved

 – Blocked by Kingpin13 ( talk · contribs), see here. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Following a discussion where JB50000 ( talk · contribs) tried to remove the "Professor" from Obama's article, JB5000 now seems dead-set on changing Obama's religion to non-denominational Christian or Protestant. He began here [25], then after reversion readded [26] [27] [28] [29] his change four times within an hour and a half. He's been warned on his page about 3RR and the Obama probation, and responded to the news he was in violation of both policies by making a null edit [30] on the page to again claim there was no consensus against his edit.

Upon returning to Wikipedia, his first edit was to reinstate his edit [31] and place a note in the text instructing other editors not to revert.

This editor has been active on the talk page, but refuses to see the overwhelming consensus against him, and to stop reverting while the discussion is ongoing. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

For ease of reference, I've personally tried multiple times [32] [33] [34] [35] to get JB50000 to understand that he is edit warring on a page under probation. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Suggestion to Dayewalker...try polite discussion, not seeking to have someone blocked. Look at Josiah Rowe...his opinion does not agree but he is very persuasive is having a calm environment and ....

OFFICIAL RESPONSE BY THE ACCUSED

Instead of being constructive, Dayewalker's report fans the flames of edit warring. The Obama article is not up to professional standard and could use vast improvement. I've made some very reasonable suggestions, although the mindset of many is to just oppose, not discuss but revert. I always discuss.

I've also started a very constructive discussion with Josiah Rowe, who is not a regular at the article, and have made much progress with a reasonable editor like him.

I've also not edited the article much, except one time today, which is permissible. I did not know about the limit on editing until yesterday and you can see my editing today is limited to 1 edit and plenty of calm discussion (no name calling, just some reasonable ideas)

The improvements suggested are all very reasonable:

1. I discussed whether the political positions section should reflect his current position only or evolution of positions. I didn't forcibly advocate change but started a discussion on a valid topic.

2. I suggested re-wording health care to focus on the Obama biography, not just current U.S. history. This is a good idea not proposed by anyone else. I wasn't trying to inject opinion, just help people focus on writing a good article.

3. I suggested that the Nobel Peace Prize be relocated to a different section, not the image section. It is an honor and an award, not an imagel Again, very logical and very constructive. (But again, opposition)

4. I suggested that the faculty rank of Professor and the generic term professor can be confusing so I suggested multiple ways to eliminate this confusion. I also suggested more succinct prose. No attempt was made to inflate his achievements or diminish them.

5. I suggested being more specific and increasing the information on the infobox to show that his religion is non-denominational Protestant (since corrected to non-denominational Christian because of references found). I pointed out that the Christianity reference has mistakes and may not be optimal and sought comparison with other Presidents in the past century (all of whom have a denomination). Again, this is for article improvement.

No POV is being pushed, just valid ideas and neither pro or against the President.

Sanctions would be counterproductive and punitive. Blocking as punishment is against the rules. Look at my history today--calm discussion, not too much discussion, only 1 edit. Very reasonable. If you want to see further evidence of things, see my user page (not user talk page), top paragraph. JB50000 ( talk) 06:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I was hoping that after the drama filled edits and summaries JB50000 made yesterday that he would come back and edit in a more constructive manner. But the first edit he made was to re-insert the same material that he put in, and reverting multiple other editors(violating guidelines), on Thursday. This user refuses to understand WP:Consensus, WP:OR or WP:3RR, at the very least. As one can see, he still refuses to stop edit warring and seems to be searching for a battle ground . DD2K ( talk) 06:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Edits like the one from DD2K does nothing to improve the situation, they just fan the flames and should be considered a blockable offense itself. Instead, DD2K should calmly try to reach out, like Josiah Rowe has done and which I've commended for his approach today. 3RR? I thought I edited only once. A just conclusion to this report would be to warn DD2K and ask him to examine himself...addition of comments like his worsen tensions. That's what I've learned in the past day - calm, polite and logical discussion is the key to better editing. JB50000 ( talk) 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Summary and recent developments requiring attention

This editor, User:JB50000, has shown to be a continued rolling ball of infractions, from the multiple issues of knowingly exceeding WP:3RR and other tendentious and petty editing to his complete refusal to understand the concept of consensus to absolutely ignoring fundamental refutations in discussions he begins on the talk page, choosing instead to reassert his position and draw out threads. He edit-warred with me when I deleted a profane rant because he wanted to pick up on a few of the vandal's points, and rather than introduce them as his own, he preferred restoring or quoting the vandal and threatened me at my page — this was his very first acknowledgement of me whatsoever, despite the fact that I had made a lengthy and detailed explanation to him in a thread where he commented on every other response but mine. So his first-ever communication with me? "Stop removing my comments from the Obama talk page or I will have you blocked." Irony that I and others look past several opportunities to seek redress when he exceeds brite line guidelines like WP:3RR at an article on probation, yet his very first comment to me is "I will have you blocked". Sort of the same spirit in which he petitions here against a perceived "tag-team" when in fact it was another instance of him refusing to accept consensus and discuss issues on a talk page first at a probation article, and edit only after he satisfies the community that his suggestion is valid and properly weighted and sourced.

Later, he edit-warred with me when I deleted entire posts with others' signatures that he had cut-and-pasted into his own RfC from another page, as if these two editors had weighed in on his RfC, without telling us where they were from or their context.

It's not being new and not knowing the ins and outs, it's being belligerent and tendentious and refusing to accept or look into another editor's knowledge or judgement about anything at all, while ignoring most every salient and explained objection.

He disingenuously raises issues or uses loaded words and ideas before turning around to claim he's not interested in raising those issues or words, such as several uses of the word "Muslim" [36] [37] in a discussion about Obama's Protestantism; several posts including quoting news articles at length about a campaign tactic to question the use of the phrase "Professor" while claiming he doesn't want to note there was a controversy or mention the campaign; and things like "There are indications that he had no religion as a kid but I don't want to get into a can of worms." Worms is all there is with this guy. (The article has for some time included several iterations of the lack of dogmatic religion in Obama's parents or grandparents during his youth and young adulthood, so not a particularly wormy issue unless you're trying to make it so.)

His posts lately often seem little more than opportunities to provoke, including this completely irrelevant comment about his father's passport, which was followed up a moment later by this nonsense edit cut-and-pasted in Chinese at an AN/I, and the piece de resistance for the evening, this talk page comment where he writes:

"I saw on a Chantix TV ad that suicidal thoughts are possible when taking Chantix. I hope Obama does not have any of these because the red button is always close by for him to push. That's why drugs ads on TV should be banned."

and

"On TV, it also said that Obama is overweight. He must have gained all that weight eating fancy dinners like that served at the dinner where the Salahis shook his hand."

If by this point, with all of the leeway we've given this user and all of the efforts to guide him in the proper use of talk pages and other editorial considerations, these are the kinds of edits he is making, I respectfully request an administrator step in and prevent him from taking such sprees in the near future. When someone vandalizes an AN/I with the excuse they're "just being silly" — and presumably the Obama edits are in a similar vein, if decidedly more pointedly smeary and arrogant — there's nothing short of enforcement that is going to send the message that this individually or taken as a truculent rampage is wholly unacceptable behavior.

I can't imagine that if JB50000 gets away with such open provoking at this late date, anything short of a red-light administrative action will be taken by him as a green light to continue in this vein. I would add that in my four or five years here this is the first time I have presented a case for administrative action against an editor, and I would reiterate how our unpleasant experience with this editor has been borne with helpful suggestions, a good argument, and blatant warnings in return stretching back over a month and a half — since only a week after the previous problem poster there was banned. Respectfully, Abrazame ( talk) 08:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree on JB50000's recent edits, which have been quite insane. However, as I wrote below, apparently no admin comes by this page anymore. My initial request for someone to look into JB50000's edits has been ignored for almost a month now. I was advised by an admin to make any complaints about violation of the article probation to WP:ANI in hopes someone will actually see the discussion. Dayewalker ( talk) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Would it be appropriate for you to post your first post from this thread (or whatever variation/update you may like to make) at ANI, to start that effort? If you do, I will follow up by posting version of my recent post in the ANI thread (edited for length and to make sure I'm not repeating your points) and we can give interested editors a heads-up that the discussion has been transferred there. I'm not up on the minutiae of the protocol but this seems preferable to cutting-and-pasting the whole thing there as if the discussion had transpired there. Of course we would link from there to this page so anyone there can see the original here.

Or should we just request Admins from there come and review this thread as it is here? I mean, if this page exists, it should be monitored, and if it's not, it should be closed and everybody go to ANI in the first place, no? Abrazame ( talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure of the best course of action, it may be best to just request an admin review this page. My initial report is a month old so it probably wouldn't be acted upon, but it does provide some context into the multiple problems editors have had at with the subject at that article.

Of course, it seems like there's at least two admins currently talking to JB on his talk page, and they both are quite puzzled by his actions last night. Maybe it would be better to start with them.

I'm going to be out for the evening, but I'll support whatever option you decide. Obviously, this has been an uncorrected problem for a while now. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This new complaint is completely baseless. Obama's doctor and Obama MUST keep the suicidal side effects in mind. If not, the US is in danger. At NO time, did I suggest this should be in the article - I think that there shouldn't be mention of Chantix giving suicidal thoughts. Richard Nixon said he could pick up the phone and in 20 minutes 100,000,000 Russians could be dead. Al Haig then made sure Nixon wouldn't do anything crazy.

As far as getting fat through fancy dinners, many CEO's have this problem. Obama is fatter now than before, probably because of this. Again, at NO time, did I suggest this should be in the article.

These complainer's issue about my Chinese post was humorous just as many do in Wikipedia. But I never put humor in articles, because that is bad editing. Look at many of the user boxes, they are attempts at humor. Besides, the Chinese post was NOT about Obama or in Obama's article.

Anyone who gets anger and provoked by this should not be in WP. JB50000 ( talk) 05:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I won't speak for Abraz above, but I've never posted out of anger. I've made posts dealing with your behavior (including posts here, at various talk pages, and on your talk page) out of frustration with your posts. Above, you claim your Chantix comment was not at the Obama page, this diff [38] clearly shows otherwise. Regardless of where your post went, it was inappropriate. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I AM SORRY http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ADayewalker&action=historysubmit&diff=347243600&oldid=346680601 JB50000 ( talk) 05:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As an update, JB50000 has blanked [39] the part of his statement above where he claimed he didn't comment on the Obama page. So that my comment above makes sense, he made that claim here [40]. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) That's called editing to fix an error. Besides, I said I was sorry on your page and you still act mad by blanking out my apology. Sorry. JB50000 ( talk) 05:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

JB's recent edits are simply inappropriate, fair and square. JB, if I see any more horseplay from you like the inappropriate insinuations on the Obama talkpage or the trying to post Chinese when you had no idea what you were saying, I will block you for disruption.

And by the way, when responding to people's comments please do it on a new line. Responding on the same line as the original comment, like you did in Dayewalker's comment above and many other places I've seen, makes it difficult to follow the discussion. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 06:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I submit that this edit, JB50000's decision to publish essentially the same post I removed from the Obama talk page on my own talk page just now, is the one step further you suggested would garner him a block. Obviously, as the person who reverted it, I already read it there and know where to find it in the history should I need to refresh my memory. I don't need it to be reposted at my talk page, and it should be obvious I didn't intend to discuss it.

He says he never meant to suggest that any of this should be in the article, yet not only does he post it at that article's talk page — which is exclusively for discussion of what should be in the article — but a day after I read and remove it from there, he posts it at my talk page. Clearly he is doing what I suggested he is doing, which is A) misusing an article talk page by trying to tarnish the subject, and B) seeking to provoke editors.

It is blatantly disingenuous to post links and open discussion of the topic at my page in the guise of an apology for opening up discussion of the topic at Obama's page. Note he is not stating he is sorry for his inappropriate posting, he is sorry that, in his estimation, I am mad. Of course he's not sorry that I am mad, it has long been his intention to make people at that page mad, and clearly it was his impression I was mad and could be made more mad that motivated this post at my talk page.

What he's saying, then, is that he intends to abuse Wikipedia talk pages by bringing up issues whether or not he has any intention of adding them to articles, for the purposes of tarnishing the subject and making people mad; and furthermore that he intends to ignore the purpose and effect of judgement, such as a revert of such non-editorial discussions, by pushing and provoking editors with such at their own talk pages. I request that action be taken now. Abrazame ( talk) 06:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This harsh (and inaccurate analysis) is about to make me cry. Sorry. 对不起 Es tut mir leid انا اسف

JB50000 ( talk) 06:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You're not sorry, and you're not fooling anyone. Abrazame ( talk) 07:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Abrazame, that post was made before I warned him, so it's not a blockable offene.

JB, intentionally doing things that you know will get on other editors' nerves (in this case, posting machine translations in languages you don't know, when you've already been criticized for doing so) is not a good way to win any support. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 07:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

At least two editors are going against consensus and inserting wrong information. They insist on putting mention of Bo, the dog in the Barack Obama article. The citation that they use says that the dog is a gift to Malia and Shasa. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/politics/13obama.html?_r=2 (EXACT QUOTE FROM THE REFERENCE a gift from Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and his wife, Victoria, to Malia and Sasha Obama) and http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/12/Meet-Bo-the-First-Dog/ (EXACT QUOTE FROM THE REFERENCE a gift from Senator and Mrs. Kennedy to Sasha and Malia) It is not a gift to Barack. The talk page discussion discusses that the information is trivia and is not about Barack. There was also discussion about other trivia and it was decided that both trivia (swearing in twice, which is directly about Barack) and Bo the dog are trivia.

I don't want to get anyone into trouble but if you want to know the names, it is Fat&Happy and Johnuniq. Please warn them as I don't seek blood by asking for their block because I am a nice person. JB50000 ( talk) 04:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Fat&Happy is now being an aggressive bully and inserting facts not supported by the reference. Enforcement is now needed. JB50000 ( talk) 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment- JB50000 needs to be put on probation from the Barack Obama article, and all related articles, for a few months or until he can agree to stop reverting against consensus and call his additions/reverts 'consensus' when they are clearly NOT. This last case is just a small part in what is an ongoing disruption problem by this editor. There was no consensus from any other editors to remove the 'Bo the dog' portion, and the only editor that wanted to remove the mention was JB50000. The insignificant mention of the dog should be beyond any controversy, but every edit seems to be controversy with JB50000. Check the contributions and the edit summaries for the bizarre reasoning of the reverts and changes. Some examples are 1 with the edit summary of "False information removed. The source says the dog is a gift to Malia and Sasha, not Barack. See talk page. Trivia and false information is not allowed, sorry.", even though the portion was in the citation is in the Family and personal life section of the article and the sentence quoted the source as stating "Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo". This is just one of a long list of WP:Battles this user is obviously instigating on the Obama article. There can be no logical reason for these actions, other than probing for some kind of way around Wikipedia rules or just wanting confrontation. This needs to be stopped. DD2K ( talk) 04:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Evidence against the tag team - None of them discussed anything on the talk pages. The talk pages support what I say with no disagreement. The talk page section was there for well over a week, almost two. The article MUST follow the citations, particularly for this article. Being sloppy is allowed elsewhere but not in this article. The White House and New York Times references say the dog was a gift to the daughters. It did not say the dog was given to Barack. This article is about Barack, not the daughters. Tag teaming to establish article ownership is prohibited. Tag teaming to edit almost correct but wrong information (not supported by references) is prohibited. Real and responsible editors would say "let's look into this...Oh, I see you are right about the references". DD2K is wrong to escalate the situation. The charges against me are in an above section and were shown to be baseless and false.

The only battle that JB50000 is willing to fight is for the Wikipedia article to be properly referenced and neutral. People who insist on illogical stuff can't do it for this article because of the special nature and article probation. Those who read the evidence in the section above this will see that everything advocated is for article improvement and is completely neutral. By using a tag team to stop even minor improvements, they can stop major improvements. This obstructionist disruption by the tag team must stop. JB50000 ( talk) 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As an aside to everyone using this page, apparently no one ever looks at this page anymore. You have only to look at the case made against JB50000 above to see proof of that. I was advised by an admin to take violations of the Obama probation to ANI for immediate scrutiny. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• For the record, I am aware of this discussion and would be happy to explain my position if required. However, since I have made a grand total of one edit to Barack Obama (and 8 to the talk page), and since my edit had an accurate edit summary ("Undid revision 345177059 by JB50000 (talk) reliable source shows it is not false; only 9 words + ref; item has an article so it's not trivial") and was simply restoring material that is well established in the article, and well sourced, I do not think any further comment from me is warranted at the moment. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

An IP user ( 76.226.79.238 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 76.226.150.165 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 76.226.140.119 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) signing his talk page posts as "Anthony Ratkov" has added a large number of alleged political scandals starting at talk:Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#You_failed_to_include_a_few_major_scandals. Several deal with Obama, including a particularly egregious case of Birther OR. I've made the mistake of trying to engage with arguments. The IP is adding anti-Obama, "pro-white" content elsewhere. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=382367342&oldid=382367065

DD2K has removed valid and reasonable comments from the discussion page. That page says to bring complaints here. Please enforce the rules and punish DD2K —Preceding unsigned comment added by France is the greatest ( talk • contribs) 19:17, September 1, 2010

User:France is the greatest (the above person) is re-opening nonsense discussions and adding ridiculous questions about Obama being Muslim. Clearly not a new User. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I am saying that he is NOT a Muslim. You mean you are advocating that he is. If so, you shouldn't be here, go to nazi.com

Everard is not a new User because new Users do not remove other people's comments. It seems that Everard has no justification for accusations so he resorts to smearing me calling me "not a new User" You are correct, I signed up in 2009, not new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by France is the greatest ( talk • contribs) 19:33, September 1, 2010

I see at least three users who have reverted your Talk page comments as unproductive. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 23:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

(unindent & edit conflict) A sleeper account for sure, and the approach is unhelpful to say the least. There have been a number of IP edits with a similar tone lately, not sure whether a logged-in account was doing this too, or even it is worth the trouble to find out. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikidemon and Everard are doing the same thing. Removing useful comments that they disagree. Then they call me a sleeper. I am not a sleeper spy.

I have been reading Wikipedia for about a year and never met so nasty a bunch of editor(s).

The editor just violated 3RR - blatantly and aggressively, after a warning. Seems to be trolling as well. I think we're done here, this is a matter for ANI/EW. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• (Edit conflict)This user( User:France is the greatest) and BAMP are sock puppets of Gaydenver/ JB50000 I may file a SPI case, but it looks pretty ducky to me. Dave Dial ( talk) 23:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Interesting. I am holding back on the 3RR report because the editor agreed not to revert further today. However, the socking does appear likely - this would be very strange behavior for an inactive editor. For any editor, in fact. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Indef. blocked. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply