Talk:Sanford I. Weill/Archives/2016

Article protected
The article has been protected to stop the multi-day edit war that has been going on. It will only be unprotected once all parties have discussed the matter and reached a consensus on how to proceed. -- Jayron 32 12:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You may as well remove the protection. The article has been locked in the form preferred by ButtonwoodTree. This means that s/he has no incentive to work toward consensus. It's clear, then, that the current status quo will stand indefinitely. I would hate for the lock to prevent other editors from making good-faith efforts to improve this article. I will not remove the characterization of Weill as a philanthropist. My efforts to protect the integrity and accuracy of wikipedia are pointless in this case, and I'll take my editing efforts elsewhere. --Cjs56 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PROT, especially where it states "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons." The currently protected version is not vandalized, copyvio, or defamatory to the subject.  I am not allowed, by law, to revert it to YOUR preferred version.  As only only one of the two versions can possibly be protected, the rules require the admin to make NO EDITS to the article themselves, and just apply protection to it.  If your version is actually the correct version, you'll seek dispute resolution, invite uninvolved editors with no prior opinion on the matter, and if you are in the right, they will support you.  If you don't really care about the article being correct, but were merely interested in defeating an enemy, you'll quit trying to make it correct.  It's entirely up to what your reasoning behind fighting this edit war was.  How you proceed from now forward will say a lot about what your reasoning was for violating Wikipedia's behavioral rules.  -- Jayron 32 14:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, you can take your condescending attitude and shove it. Your insinuation that my objective here is less than genuine is rude and violates Don't be a jerk. You also assume that my motivations for editing wikipedia are the same as yours; it's one of the assumptions that seems to keep women and people of color from joining and editing. I edit as an outlet in my all-too-rare free time. I've been doing this since 2005, and I've never had anything other than respectful disagreement with another editor until I came to this article. Frankly, it's disheartening that something that was a safe place for me has been violated by ButtonwoodTree's aggression. I want wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, but I also want it to be an enjoyable place where I can make something of value. Because I'd rather move on, and return to editing the wikipedia I love and engaging with the community I love, doesn't mean that my edits here were motivated by anything other than good faith. The fact that you insinuate otherwise is obnoxious. Remove the tag, or don't, I don't really care. I have no interest in pissing my time away on a formal dispute resolution. I'm moving on. --Cjs56 (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to be correct, ask people who aren't involved in the edit war to give their opinion. I never said that, insinuated, or implied anything about your motivation with this article.  What I said was that your actions going forward would give an indication of your motivations.  At any time, you can choose how you want to proceed.  If you want the article to say the right thing, start and RFC, notify the correct Wikiprojects, and watch everyone support you.  Then the article will be fixed.  Its not complicated.  -- Jayron 32 15:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can this be unprotected now? Maybe the parties above have found other stuff to do, and I'd like to improve the article. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I don't think I've found anything better to do, but I'm hoping my antagonist has! I'm all for unprotecting.  Hopefully we don't have a repeat event. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)