Talk:Chad F. Kenney

So where is the guy who started the edit war
by deleting factual, sourced, verified information about Kenney's controversial rulings? The same guy, I mean, who thought it was inappropriate also to include the information that Kenney was a partisan Republican politician before he became a judge. This guy claims the "issue" of the facts needs to be litigated by all comers, but can't be bothered to start a discussion on the Talk page himself. No, just delete delete delete delete while insisting that I need to persuade Himself to permit the information's inclusion. Because, I guess, he thinks the little children will be terrified if they read on wikipedia that Judge Kenney has issued some controversial decisions that harm and offend ordinary people in the community...or, what? No explanation why he's determined to keep removing the info, just bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.139.21 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edits introduced factual errors to the article and violated our core policies of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Two experienced editors have been repeatedly trying to tell you this and you have been ignoring us. I also didn't remove any information about Kenney's tenure with the Pennsylvania State Republican Committee; I simply moved it to the body of the article as it is a comparatively minor aspect of his biography (see WP:LEAD for guidance on what belongs in the lede section). I have rewritten the material you added to accurately reflect the sourcing and to comply with Wikipedia policies. Marquardtika (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You said these rulings are controversial. How? What makes them notable? I read through both articles and they seem like average cases to me that would come before any district judge. What makes them different? New precedent? Circuit split? What notable federal question does it include? Widespread coverage? I still don't get why these rulings are necessary to include in the article. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The "two experienced editors" are in fact mutual friends as their own pages show, so cut the comedy. The fact that Snickers claims he personally cannot see why the rulings are controversial, and yet is determined to eliminate the facts, tells me as much as I need to know about his impartiality in the matter. Here's a hint: people's basic concerns about safety and quality of life were degraded by the judge's dismissal of their longstanding grievances, thus the reason news articles were published about these supposedly insignificant rulings. I've dealt in the past with partisan editors trolling articles about Republican politicians, and your rhetoric here is virtually identical to the rhetoric they always use in trying to eliminate factual information that reflects not so well upon the person: "Oh, gosh, I personally can't see why this information matters at all, therefore it needs to be deleted post haste. Or if not totally deleted, then cut way back and reworded to avoid hinting at any of the really embarrassing stuff. Because you know I am a longtime editor around here and you're nobody."

As for Marquardtika's vague assertions that I introduced "errors" in the plural, that is simply false. There was a single inaccurately worded assertion, which I myself corrected while you were busy deleting the entire passage over and over again. You, by contrast, have (1) eliminated acres of essential contextual information in each of the two cases, (2) presented both of them in ways that misleads readers about the central issues in question, and (3) introduced your own blatant biases in the way you repackaged the disputes. In particular, your use of the term "counselors" reflects the two anti-abortion extremists own self serving descriptions. They are not counseling anybody, in point of fact; they are obstructing, harassing, taunting, attacking and abusing people...who fear for their lives. They are not counselors in any normal sense of that word; counselors are professionals, they have standards, they have training, they have agreed upon procedures and rules, and the ethos of a counselor *never* involves trying to bend other people to their own will or manipulate them. The street screamers have nothing in common with counselors, and yet you use that completely inappropriate word to mask what they have been documented as doing. It appears to me that your project here is not to describe the full nature of the cases in question without bias, as you keep insisting, but instead to minimize the extent to which the judges rulings are controversial. And they are in fact controversial among many people...something you would not know because you live far away from Allentown/Bethlehem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.139.21 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Stop with the personal attacks. I'm asking why these rulings are significant, you still haven't said why. Until you can your edits will be reverted. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You're not the arbiter of significance. You're also lying when you say I haven't said why they're significant.


 * Yes, let's focus on content, not contributors. To address the IP's comments, I did not use the term "counselors"--I used the term sidewalk counseling, because it is the term in the source. The Wikipedia article on the subject clearly states this term applies specifically to people who protest outside of abortion clinics attempting to discourage people from getting abortions. Marquardtika (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

They're not counseling, as a factual matter. They have a record of intimidating, abusing, and attacking workers and patrons of the facility. There is no excuse for granting them their own euphemism. You have not provided any evidence of them actually counseling anybody. Nor have you explained why you are so determined to exclude contextual information wrt these cases. I will point out the rhetoric of partisan concern trolling as appropriate and necessary; I've seen a metric ton of it on wikipedia over the years.


 * What matters is not your opinion--or my opinion, or any other editor's opinion--but what is verified by reliable sourcing. That's the entire basis of Wikipedia. You keep edit warring to include material which clearly doesn't have a consensus. If you want to build consensus, then argue for the merits of including your preferred content--that will get you farther than criticizing other editors. Marquardtika (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So what is your latest pretext for deleting this info, Marquardtika? You can't continue to pretend that is not verified information (you know, "the entire basis of Wikipedia"). You can no longer pretend that consensus is on the side of you two obvious partisans, now that another editor showed up and added the material to the article - only to have you delete it immediately again. So what will your third pretext be for continuing to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.135.26 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So what is your pretext for excluding this information, Mr. Edit Warrior? You refuse to say. I don't have to prove to your satisfaction why it "needs to be included". You have to prove to me and to Baghdaii why it needs to be excluded. Either that or your sockpuppet Snickers has to prove it to the two of us if you want to reach consensus. Oh, and I know several other people who looked at your behavior on this page and decided you were totally out of control. If you wish to get in a consensus battle, I'll just invite them to come in and outnumber you and your sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.141.27 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is very odd to accuse others of sockpuppetry when it appears one individual (you) has been using ten or so different IP addresses to try to edit war content into this article. But that's a behavioral issue. This is a content dispute--I attempted to start a discussion about the content in the thread above but you didn't really engage. Why don't you make your argument here, focusing on Wikipedia policies, for why you think specific content should be in the article. Then we can have a constructive discussion about it. Marquardtika (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What a phony. You're impervious to the charge of misbehavior?! You didn't attempt to start a discussion here. You kept deleting the content without explanation and only showed up here once I called you out, repeatedly, for pretending that you wanted to find consensus. You want to exclude the information, period, and you've never said why. It's factual. It's sourced. The cases are important enough to have been addressed in multiple news accounts in PA newspapers. But you are certain that it has no significance: why? As for your bizarre insistence that I have been using different IP addresses, you seriously need to get a clue. I already explained it to you, and yet you refuse to let it go. Shows exactly how clever you think you are, and how unwise your own assessment of yourself is. No, it is you who started this edit war, not I. No, there is not just a single editor adding this content. The content you keep deleting is content that was added by someone else - content you deleted immediately when he added it. He told me that he considers you abusive jerk for edit warring over this, but it just wasn't worth his time to start a long process of trying to get the Wikipedia forces that be to step in and force you to stop being a jerk. So he walked away from his own content rather than continue to cross swords with you. Which is exactly what partisan trolls aim for in 'protecting' the pages of Republican officials from information that the trolls insist has no "significance". If they're made to look stupid on their denial of "significance", then they fall back on the phony claim that the content is unverified or the citation is somehow not credit worthy. And if they're made to look stupid denying that news accounts mean what they say, then they fall back on "no consensus". Because hey, as long as they don't want the content included, there can be no consensus can there? You pulled out all 3 of those pretexts during this dispute, in order (significance; verified; consensus) - just like a partisan troll would be expected to do. Not one of your pretexts stands up to scrutiny. In fact, your repeated and utterly bizarre insistence that this content is "unverified" - even though the citations are rock solid - gives your game away. You're not trying to reach an understanding. You're just trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.141.27 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The sourcing is reliable, the facts are verified, and you know it because I cited sources. You seem to be quite ready to criticize me, but somehow you imagine you're beyond criticism? You showed up and immediately deleted the info without ever discussing its merits, but after you already made up your own mind I'm obligated to persuade you not to keep deleting it? The content stands on its own, sourced and factual. What you really mean is not "I don't think it's verified", but instead "I don't like it". There is no I just don't like it for you to appeal to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.252 (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Marquardtika, that's pretty brazen of you to warn me about the 3 reversion rule. Both you and your buddy/sockpuppet Snickers2686 have violated the 3 reversion rule repeatedly during your month long edit war against the content that I and Baghdaii have added. But I suppose you'll say that the rules apply to me but not to you...because of reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.132.105 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I edited your original content to comply with Wikipedia policies here. You immediately reverted it to a disputed version that no other editor has defended. You are now coming to the talk page with long walls of text and personal attacks. Nothing about the content dispute. If you want to actually discuss the content, I'm all ears. But when you call others trolls and use ad hominem attacks, it's not constructive and not helping us move toward any kind of content consensus. Marquardtika (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You aren't going to allow the content, period, however much you may pretend you wish to discuss it. Witness your obsessive deletions of it. Also, your refusal to admit much less justify the points I've made about your own behavior. "I edited your original content..." No you did not. You deleted it. You didn't edit Baghdaii's content either. You deleted it. It is what you continue to delete. You're as phony as a 4 dollar bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.132.105 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the 72.86 IP for edit warring. Please ping me or report to WP:ANEW if any other IPs from the range, or any brand new accounts, pick up the edit warring as block evading sockpuppets. ST47 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Why did you not block Snickers2686 and Marquardtika for edit warring? Same WP bullshit as always - users with accounts ganging up to protect each other's "right" to block anybody who doesn't have an account. You can do no wrong; you can only be wronged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.9 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have created a new "Notable Cases" section (as I have done for several other judges). I looked for cases with multiple news sources reporting on the decision. As for the abortion clinic case, I used the language used by the cited reliable sources. I will create news alerts for Judge Kenney continue to add notable cases/decisions as they occur. Tchouppy (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't state too clearly what makes the rulings controversial, Marquardtika/Snickers2686 *may* permit you to add it. But that's only because (a) you have an account, and (b) two other people have already tried to add this material so they are now in minority and thus their last pretext (CONSENSUS!!!!) has fallen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.9 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So we're doing a case by case basis now for every judge? Snickers2686 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Chad Kenney.jpg