Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 15 August 2006

Block History

Any administrator reviewing this user's unblock request should first make sure they are acquainted with this user's block history, as well as the history of the articles Kwanzaa and this talk page, which the user has blanked. The user has a history of disruption and edit warring in the Kwanzaa article going back over six months, and was given a blunt warning during this most recent spate of disruption that further edit warring would lead to an extended block. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or in this space if you have any questions.

Justforasecond: do not blank this notice, or I will protect this talk page from editing. Regards, Nandesuka 12:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I should get involved, but here it goes anyway. My experience with Justforasecond (talk · contribs) isn't exactly positive. I have found him to be unnecessarily defiant at times and unwilling to accept that his approach to the Woody Allen article is not entirely one of good faith. Yet, 1 month seems pretty harsh. Pascal.Tesson 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pascal, the Allen article needs citations, for reasons I've explained already. This is why the "unreferenced" tag is there. BTW his approach is not entirely one of good faith borders on violation of AGF. Justforasecond 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If Justforasecond will acknowledge that he understands why this block has been applied, apologize for his disruption, and promise not to do it again, I am willing to reduce the block substantially. Nandesuka 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to offer an opinon. Yes, a month is a long block, but a pattern of disruptive behavior is a serious problem and must be dealt with, using long blocks if neccessary. In this case, I believe Nandesuka has given reasonable justification for the block. The offer to shorten the block upon a show of good faith also seems quite reasonable to me- it drives home the point that blocks are for damage control, not for punishment. Friday (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read the policy on vandalism. None of my edits are vandalism.

Blanking my talk page is not vandalism, I did it so you guys could find this template. Every other user I found on the "unblock request" page had very short talk pages.

My edits to Kwanzaa are also not vandalism. They are also not disruption. I've read the disruption policy.

If you look at the history, you'll see this is a conflict between multiple users, including: jpgordon, killerchihuahua, coyep, deeceevoice, spookfish, centrx, anons.. This is a legitimate edit. It is verifiable, encyclopedic info -- that the founder of Kwanzaa is a convicted torturer, not merely an "activist".

I don't see any reason why, if this block is valid, you don't follow the normal procedure -- RfC, RfAr, etc.

Justforasecond 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I have revewed the block and endorse it. Regardless of whether or your claims about Kwanzaa should be in the article, the fact is that you have repeatedly edit warred and gone against consensus often in a disruptive fashion. Your block is fully justified. Hopefully when you return you will be more willing/able to work with other editors. JoshuaZ 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, you are not an uninvolved admin. Justforasecond 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the number of admins who have examined this page and concurred with the block, perhaps you should take this opportunity to reflect upon your behavior and ask yourself how you can improve it to avoid episodes such as this in the future, rather than simply deciding that you are being oppressed by your enemies. Regards, Nandesuka 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you think I qualify as involved? JoshuaZ 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, just to site a couple instances -- your reversion of my edit on a page you had never visited before . My comment on you in an arbcom case Justforasecond 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So a revert I made in April (which to be blunt, I had no recall of) and a comment you made in an arbcom case (also, from a while ago and for that matter a comment I had no recall of) somehow makes me involved now? I would tentatively suggest that this is not a productive attitude. JoshuaZ 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This block was amply justified in my opinion. I would not support unblocking at all based on Justforasecond's subsequent behavior here alone. Justforasecond should make good use of this time out and re-think his method of contributing to the project. FeloniousMonk 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to endorse the block as well, but let me say a few things. (1) No, Justforasecond, you weren't vandalizing, I agree. (2) Nonetheless you were being disruptive. You made controversial edits repeatedly to Kwanzaa while knowing the consensus was against you. If you believe you are still right despite consensus against you, there are proper ways of doing things and improper ways. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for some positive and effective ways of dealing with disputes. I am uninvolved in the Kwanzaa article dispute; notheless you must accept that the result of this dispute might not be in your favor, and at some point you'd be beating a dead horse, and only disrupting things by continuing the discussion. Mangojuice 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Mango. Nandesuka's warning and block both cited "vandalism", its good to hear someone has looked into it and doesn't agree.

I've read the wikipedia:disruption article and I don't see how it applies. Not for a MONTH in any case. It's also worth looking at the recent edit history on the article. You'll see KillerChihuahua with the most reverts, the same admin that endorsed this block and requested in in the first place. You'll also see other editors that agree the Karenga info belongs. Justforasecond 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

While I did cite vandalism in the block summary — and I do think that edit warring over a period of six months while the consensus remains firmly against you constitutes vandalism — let's be crystal clear about what I actually warned you about:

Your continued edit warring on this article is disrupting, and is unacceptable. 
if you continue, I will block you for an extended period. This is your final warning. 
Nandesuka 18:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there something ambiguous about the phrase "Your continued edit warring on this article is disrupting, and is unacceptable?" Nandesuka 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

1. (cur) (last) 00:18, 25 July 2006 Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) (Feel free to keep seeking consensus for this on the talk page.)
2. (cur) (last) 00:16, 25 July 2006 Justforasecond (Talk | contribs) (why keep this out of wiki?)
3. (cur) (last) 00:15, 25 July 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) (Adding irrelevant content is NOT working towards perfection)
4. (cur) (last) 23:59, 24 July 2006 Justforasecond (Talk | contribs) (rv -- lets work towards the perfect article here)
5. (cur) (last) 23:53, 24 July 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) (Rv to Deeceevoice; Karenga's criminal record is covered on his article. It is not germaine here. See Talk. Please see the WP:MOS about multiple links of the same words; also WP:CONTEXT)
6. (cur) (last) 23:36, 24 July 2006 Spookfish (Talk | contribs) m (linked name in image)
7. (cur) (last) 21:52, 24 July 2006 84.178.227.185 (Talk)
8. (cur) (last) 21:42, 24 July 2006 Deeceevoice (Talk | contribs) (→Controversy - deleted off-point material w/weasel words -- per discussion)
9. (cur) (last) 13:40, 24 July 2006 CoYep (Talk | contribs) (→Controversy - clarifying)
10. (cur) (last) 13:38, 24 July 2006 CoYep (Talk | contribs) (→Controversy - Belongs in the Kwanzaa Controversy section since this is brought up by almost all Kwanzaa critics)
11. (cur) (last) 13:35, 24 July 2006 CoYep (Talk | contribs) m
12. (cur) (last) 13:35, 24 July 2006 CoYep (Talk | contribs) (controversial)
13. (cur) (last) 13:33, 24 July 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) (And that belongs in the Karenga article, which is where it is. It is not germaine to this article)
14. (cur) (last) 13:31, 24 July 2006 CoYep (Talk | contribs) (→Controversy - Karenga’s criminal record has been object of criticism)
15. (cur) (last) 17:48, 23 July 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Justforasecond (talk) to last version by Jpgordon)
16. (cur) (last) 17:47, 23 July 2006 Justforasecond (Talk | contribs) (→History and etymology)
17. (cur) (last) 14:01, 23 July 2006 Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) (It's already linked. Stop that. (And see WP:3RR.))
18. (cur) (last) 09:20, 23 July 2006 Spookfish (Talk | contribs) (added link to name)
19. (cur) (last) 04:57, 23 July 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) (already linked in the intro)
20. (cur) (last) 02:52, 23 July 2006 Spookfish (Talk | contribs) (added link to name)
21. (cur) (last) 02:50, 23 July 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 65309673 dated 2006-07-23 02:41:36 by KillerChihuahua using popups)
22. (cur) (last) 02:49, 23 July 2006 Spookfish (Talk | contribs) (→History and etymology)
23. (cur) (last) 02:41, 23 July 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Spookfish (talk) to last version by KillerChihuahua)
24. (cur) (last) 02:33, 23 July 2006 Spookfish (Talk | contribs)
25. (cur) (last) 02:27, 23 July 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Spookfish (talk) to last version by 68.84.19.34)
26. (cur) (last) 02:19, 23 July 2006 Spookfish (Talk | contribs) (→History and etymology)
27. (cur) (last) 02:19, 23 July 2006 Spookfish (Talk | contribs) (→History and etymology)
28. (cur) (last) 22:34, 21 July 2006 68.84.19.34 (Talk)
29. (cur) (last) 17:26, 21 July 2006 Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) (And why should it? More attempt at smears and innuendo.)
30. (cur) (last) 16:20, 21 July 2006 Justforasecond (Talk | contribs) (→Controversy)

I didn't request a block. Please correct this assertion. KillerChihuahua 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see a message from you on Nandesuka's page, the next thing that happens is I'm blocked by nandesuka. I guess he didn't notice all your reverts. When I requested an unblock you quickly "reviewed" and decided the block was warranted. Justforasecond 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see I have exactly as many edits as Spookfish for the timespan you pasted above. KillerChihuahua 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You have seven reverts in under 48 hours on one article(!!!). Spookfish is no saint -- he has five (first two are not reverts). Anyway, neither one of you is blocked for disruption. Justforasecond 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because Spookfish is new, and I was reverting back to consensus version. This has been explained to you previously:

• It takes two (or more) to edit war. In the "God" edit war, KillerChihuahua and JoshuaZ both warred. Any actions against Sam for edit warring should apply to these two as well. Justforasecond 06:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, no. If the talk page has established a consensus and one person keeps changing to defy that consensus, then only that person is "edit warring": the others are reverting. As for whether all sides are equally guilty, the ArbCom members will look at the edits and make up their own minds. However, reversion of vandalism, for example, is not part of 3RR and not part of edit warring, and returning an article to the position with 90% approval by all editors on the article isn't, either. Geogre 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(bullets added for formatting) KillerChihuahua 18:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Chihuahua, there were at least three editors putting forward the same point. I've pasted the history above. Justforasecond 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pity neither of the other two attempted to discuss the edits on talk. Your position was rather thoroughly dissented against at Talk:Kwanzaa#karenga the felon. KillerChihuahua 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Block disputed

I have seen no edits which appear to be vandalism - if that claim can be justified it should be. If not, it should be withdrawn. Reviewing the edits noted I've seen minor incivility and edit warring (both from and to this user), but nothing that I'd consider significant disruption or worthy of a one month block. Various people who have cited 'dispute resolution' are correct... except that this was not just the proper cource for Justforasecond to follow, but also what those disagreeing with him should have done. Complaining, placing false 'vandalism warnings', and making lengthy blocks are definitely not accepted forms of 'dispute resolution'. This appears to be nothing more than a content dispute - with a block placed on one user on the grounds that their idea of the appropriate content does not have consensus. Even assuming that to be correct... it is not a blockable offense and calling it 'disruption' is a nice way of saying, 'blocks can be placed for continually advancing an opinion admins do not like'. Is there something more here? Actual vandalism to justify the claims of such? Personal attacks or incivility greater than the user has received to justify claims of disruption? If not I will unblock and push this towards dispute resolution... as it seemingly ought to have been. --CBD 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, have you read this page? Unblocking would seem like a bad move- every other admin who's given an opinion has supported the block so far. Keep in mind, as explained above, the block was for disruption, not vandalism. Friday (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, I will unblock Justforasecond and then reblock him with the accurate block rationale, disruption. CBD, the issue is not "Justforasecond is edit warring over a content dispute," but "Justforasecond has been edit warring over a content dispute, in a disruptive manner for six months". Nandesuka 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, CBD summed it up pretty well. I don't see and you haven't stated the urgency for this block, which is far longer than I've seen for blatant attacks and vandalism. We have a standard process for dispute resolution. This block is causing tremendous collatoral damage: thousands of users through a shared proxy. Justforasecond 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond has agreed to "avoid the article in question (Kwanzaa)" and consequently I have unblocked him. Please stay clear of that page and try to discuss possible alternative wording / dispute resolution options in future disagreements. --CBD 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Justforasecond 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

What follows is an AMA request and should not be interpreted as uncivil, personal attack, or a lack of AGF. This is strictly how *I* see things, and though I've tried to be fair, it may offend some. If you are concerned about incivility or attacks please do not read further.

Template:Spoiler

I was warned by User:Nandesuka for "vandalism". I committed no vandalism based on the wikipedia:vandalism definition and informed him as much. The next day he blocked me for vandalism. I had still committed no vandalism.

He later changed the block to be based on "disruption". I committed on disruption by the wikipedia:disruption definition.

This block was for a month. My experience is that this is a very long block. One editor I know well has called others "crakkkas" repeatedly and received no block whatsoever, until a lengthy arbcom case put her on probation. Even then, she was blocked for shorter periods of time.

I asked to be unblocked, only to be quickly denied by User:KillerChihuahua. KillerChihuahua acted in what appears to be bad faith, or at the least a serious conflict of interest. He had 1) been reverting edits from me and other users on Kwanzaa and he had 2) contacted nandesuka to, as far as I can tell, institute the block in the first place. The history above shows that KillerChihuahua had, in fact, reverted edits from three separate users in the spate of 48 hours to what he describes as a "consensus" version.

It appears that KillerChihuahua and Nandesuka may know each other, and that KillerChihuahua enlisted Nandesuka's assistance in blocking me to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, then reinforced this block with his "review" of the issue. This is probably not provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but given the history that Nandesuka must have seen before imposing a one-month block on me, you'd have to wonder why he didn't say a word to KillerChihuahua about excessive reverts.

Both of these very experienced admins also have presented no rationale for why the standard dispute resolution process would not have been appropriate in this instance.

As this has been discussed at length on this very talk page with neither Chihuahua nor Nandesuka agreeing that the block was inappropriate, mediation will not likely produce results. This should go directly to the Arbcom. Hopefully this case will serve to define what are the bounds of blocking for "disruption" and whether admins can impose arbitrary length blocks of long-term editors without going through dispute resolution.

To get everything out on the table, I have to add three things for any potential mediator:

• I have been blocked four times before, each for 24h or less. This will undoubtedly come up in any arbcom case or analysis of this event. Other than the Nandesuka blocks, I have a "disruption" block from User:El_C. This admin demanded I not report violations of probation for User:deeceevoice to the admin noticeboard, and blocked me when I did. I also have three violations for 3RR. One of these may be genuine. The others two are not. You will see that one is reported as "gaming". In other words, I did not violate 3RR, but the admin concluded that I was attempting to circumvent the 3RR rule (I wasn't, but I can see how it looked that way)
• I conducted an unpopular arbcom case against User:deeceevoice. This user had a history of well-documented uncivil behavior, but had a loyal group of supporters. Their names appear in her arbcom case. As much as I'd like to assume good faith, a few of them seem to have popped up in the oddest of articles to revert my efforts, and I'd expect them to reappear if I am in arbitration again.
• Because of my penchant for exposing the hidden details in certain stories (described on my user page), other editors may also reappear in any arbcom case. I'll resist listing names here.

In other words, the arbcom case may not be open and shut.

Justforasecond 00:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Justforasecond, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your unfortunate troubles. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Misplaced Pages to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 00:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be your advocate. Arbitration is a final resort. I think that you should contact a steward and ask them to review the conduct of the admin. Geo. 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geo. Thanks. What is a steward and how do I find one? Justforasecond 03:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

JFAS, the best thing you could do is focus on articles, not other editors. You were blocked- many people agreed with the block, but you got unblocked anyway. This was fortunate for you. Is there some problem you're still having? Sounds to me like you were lucky someone was willing to unblock you. Is there some purpose to persuing the matter further, or are you just looking to stir up trouble? Wikidrama is unhelpful and undesirable. Friday (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Geo's suggestion is invalid. A steward will not desysop an admin. That would require the Arbcom. User:Zoe| 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A stewards opinion will help your case at Arbcom. You can find one hereGeo. 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Try User:AngelaGeo. 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Realities of the situation

Should admins be able to call things 'vandalism' when they aren't? No. Should they be able to declare one side of an edit war 'correct' and block the other? No. Should they be able to place month long blocks for slow motion edit warring? No.

ARE they able to do these things? For all practical purposes... yes. And far more. Slap a 'disruptive' label on it or say 'exhausting community patience' and admins can (and do) pretty much whatever they like. They generally only face trouble if their actions offend other admins or are egregious examples of abusing people who are completely innocent. You were edit warring and your Kwanzaa edits were POV/phrased to denigrate the founder... ergo not 'completely innocent' and most admins would (indeed did) fully endorse blocking you on any available pretext. Very few admins are bothered about harsh treatment of users who have been labeled 'troublemakers' by other admins.

Is this fair? Of course not, but that's the world. However, that doesn't mean that you are prevented from contributing info which is 'unpopular'. When people object take it seriously and come up with a way of rephrasing and providing references which addresses the concerns. For instance, in this case you were criticizing Karenga and Kwanzaa with your phrasing... and thus putting Misplaced Pages in the position of doing so. People objected that this was an attack / POV and they were correct. However, you doubtless learned about that information because notable conservative commentators have levelled those same criticisms. Citing criticism by noteworthy people is 'neutral point of view' and otherwise complies with Misplaced Pages's policies. You might have had better luck with something like, 'Some conservative commentators who criticize Kwanzaa, such as Pat Robertson (link to source) and Sean Hannity (link to source), have stated that Karenga spent time in prison for felony assault and was evaluated for mental stability a few years after founding the celebration.' Same information, but presented as views of noteworthy individuals rather than stated as if the view of 'Misplaced Pages' itself. Now people still might have reverted that, and it looks like you did cite some of this on the talk page, but you'd have a stronger case for it being notable and compliant with Wiki policies. Some sort of wording which covered the same facts could probably have been ironed out. I know you are staying away from the Kwanzaa article (thank you), but the same principle applies in other situations. The more work you put into following the protocols (note, following not citing - that generally just annoys people) and remaining scrupulously polite the harder it is for admins to find an excuse to block you. A hassle, but certainly less so than the alternative. --CBD 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment CBD. I had actually planned to create a section called "articles criticizing kwanzaa", but, I don't believe this would have been acceptable to certain editors. There did used to be a section labeled "criticism" that contained information that critics included in their articles about Kwanzaa. It was removed -- I believed the edit summary was "removed bullcrap criticism section", and later recreated as "controversy". Well the article has progressed in one dimension -- it used to have a section about how George Washington owned slaves. Here's how the criticism section used to look:

Criticisms

In the United States, Kwanzaa is often linked with the ancient religious holidays Christmas and Chanukah, both of which also fall in December. Some Christian and Jewish leaders have complained about having the two festivals equated with a celebration that dates back less than four decades. They argue that this has been caused by misguided attempts at political correctness.

Other criticisms center on Karenga’s criminal record, including time spent in jail for felonious assault and false imprisonment, which some people feel detract from the celebratory nature of the event. Kwanzaa supporters counter that there is nothing wrong with a celebration focusing on African American cultural values centered around family and community, that Kwanzaa is not a body of “faith” in the religious sense. They also note that Kwanzaa does not honor Karenga; he merely originated the holiday. There are holidays honoring far worse, they argue, pointing to the existence of Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday set aside to honor, among others, President George Washington, a plantation owner who owned, bought and sold African slaves.

Justforasecond 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

... totally unrelated note

thanks for reverting my accidental deletion of the whole second half of the WA article. (still not sure how I managed to do that...) Pascal.Tesson 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way I think I forgot to comment on that but I have a concern with the citations you gave in his biography. The article you cite looks like a copy of the wikipedia entry or something close to it. But I have not yet taken the time to figure out whether it's a case of copyvio from Wiki's editors or an uncited copy on that website's part. I believe the second option to be more likely but we should check that out. Pascal.Tesson 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Communications

Do you still wish to pursue Arbitration against Nandesuka? What do you want out of Arbitration? Geo. 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

metro transit

I put up a request for unprotection, feel free to add a comment there if you like. -- stubblyhead | /_c 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring of Japanese American internment

Please see my user page. I have created a subpage with a significant restructuring of the article. I have added a minimum of new text. Where I have removed text, that is noted on a separate subpage, with comments. I'd like input from you and a few others before I "publish" it as a subpage on the article's talk page. --ishu 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I don't know whether you've had time to browse or review the proposed restructuring, but I am considering promoting it to the talk page, since I've received no feedback from the handful of people I've queried. If the restructuring is off-point or unnecessary, then I'd rather not start that ball rolling. But if it's got some merit, I'd prefer to have some support going into the talk, so that we can get the gist of it in. I'd appreciate any input you can provide. If nothing else, I'd appreciate if you could just scan the TOC. Thanks. --ishu 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --ishu 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

'Oscars'

Jfas, your insistence on changing half of the references to 'Acadamy Awards' in Woody Allen to 'Oscars,' while leaving the rest of them alone, is disruptive, inconsistent and unacceptable. If this edit stems from a good-faith belief that 'Oscars' is the preferable term, and should be used throughout Misplaced Pages, then that's one thing. But having the section refer to 'Oscars' and 'Academy Awards' both is ridiculous, and 'Academy Awards' is the preferred term both on Misplaced Pages and in general. Thank you. drseudo (t) 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)