User talk:207.254.30.108

User:Wes sideman
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: before last revert Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Comments: in addition to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1127118124#Wes_Sideman_Abuse_of_Power Ironically, in a completely unrelated matter, Please be informed that wes sideman is again causing problems and edit warring another article about Klete Keller. (@Wes sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) - It seems to be a pattern. He was warned by another admin @Deepfriedokra: and he recommended to block him (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&diff=next&oldid=1120943837), As the previous complaint here states he falsified information to his liking and monitors and harasses. As he did with the Chad Johnson page, he becomes obsessed and does not want any remotely good press, even edit warring over the simple order in the lead of Klete Keller's impressive USA Olympic gold medal accomplishments BEFORE his minor participation in Jan 6. Another respected editor (SecretName101) clearly stated her case of the correct order in which the lead should be: "This being said, as far as the lead sentence, it seems pretty clear to me that it should mention that he is a swimmer first, then that he committed a crime. SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)" --But he caviled into getting his way and reverted it AGAIN without any input from secretname101. Secretname101 still does not feel the lead is correct, and for good reason. sideman "acts" like he's a moderator/admin and that's why the person who reported wes sideman on admin EdJohnstons talk page was confused. Thank You. '''
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  completely disregarded Secretname101 hard work on lead





Your self-spamming is noted; whether your continued ping-spamming is actionable or not, I leave to the admins. If I were one, I'd remove your TPA for WP:DISRUPTION. Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * well thanks for acknowledging but it's not spam, if you actually read it. I guess you think is spam and another admin deepfriedokra is also spam. Make sure you let them know.
 * you can thank wes for screwing up the intro on yet another article
 * I hope @Wes sideman: will reword their paragraph regarding the relationship between the holiday and its relation of Jim Crow; after all, the article already points out its existence predating Jim Crow and not a result from it. While there is no doubt there was those that used the date for nefarious reasons in the following years, the original start was of good intention of honoring those that died and I agree with @Beland:'s comment on the matter. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the Confederate dead should be honored for fighting for their new country, right or wrong, or condemned because they fought to preserve slavery, is a controversial issue Wikipedia can't take a position on, though it can explain various opinions. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the phrasing as proposed, and added a table showing the dates of statutory establishment and disestablishment. There are still three states I couldn't find the establishment dates for, but I'm sure they can be dug up with a bit more effort and perhaps looking in some more specialized databases or law archives. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look into that, though I can't promise I'll get to it fast. For the moment, I think your approach is entirely reasonable, consistent with sourcing and a good way to flesh out the topic altogether. SnowRise let's rap 06:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SPLC mention in intro
 * Just pinging @Jaredscribe: @Craigboy: @Beland: and @Snow Rise: to call attention to this removal of sourced info from the lead. I've reverted it. Wes sideman (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt to discuss this with Washuotaku, but he simply deleted it without replying. Wes sideman (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wes sideman: This quote from the SPLC was not sourced in the intro, but only the body. It is rather strong, so it's not surprising someone would ask for it to be cited, even though it's already cited in the body. As WP:LEADCITE says, "controversial subjects may require many citations". Rather than re-adding it with no source, I would have re-added it with a cross-reference to the source in the body, and there would have been no need to discuss. Using phrases like "unless, of course, you were masking your actual reasons for the removal" is not assuming good faith, and may have contributed to your message being received as hostile. I see that Washuotaku deleted the user talk page message after adding that cross-reference, which is a perfectly fine thing to do after a dispute seems to be resolved. @Washuotaku: It should have been clear from the start that there was sourcing in the body, as Wes' original edit summary said "added summation of paragraph in the body to the lead", and it appears you read that because you knew whose edits you were reverting. After Wes pointed out in another edit summary and that user talk page message that sourcing was present in the body, removing the text a second time with the edit summary "Then cite it correctly." comes across as a bit passive-aggressive and no doubt contributed to Wes' accusation that you were edit warring. I'm glad that in the end, the article is better off - having the cite in the lead probably contributes to stability - for having both of you contributing, but I'm sad that we didn't get there more quickly and cooperatively. What's done is done, but I just hope thinking about what happened here can help make future interactions more pleasant and productive. -- Beland (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Beland: I agree with your summation of the situation. I would add that it's difficult for me to assume good faith with this particular editor, given his past edits on this article. They all just happen to be edits that remove sourced info that points out the holiday's connection to racism. While it's plausible that that's coincidence, I don't believe that to be the case. So in this instance, I hope you understand why I made the assumptions that I did. It was based on a pattern of editing, and not arbitrary judgement. Wes sideman (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wes sideman: Everyone has their own perspective, and it's easier to see certain problems from certain perspectives. That's why having a diversity of editors is an important part of writing balanced articles. WP:AGF is asking us to assume other editors aren't driven solely by their point of view, even when it's starting to look that way, or at least to keep that opinion to ourselves. For example, a legitimate concern plus annoyance with another editor can incorrectly appear to be POV pushing to a person with a different perspective. Acting as if other editors have good intentions can actually also encourage them to do so; if people are accusing you of bad behavior even when you are trying to do good, why bother doing good? -- Beland (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * wes pushes his point of view / perspective on almost everything he edits. It is a pattern. His history proves this.
 * :Using phrases like "unless, of course, you were masking your actual reasons for the removal" is not assuming good faith, and may have contributed to your message being received as hostile. -- of course he was! he masks his true intentions on everything he edits.
 * Like you,Geoff, I have had no interaction with this article and have no idea why they chose me (and you, and Ed Johnson) to post his identical complaint. And they have now posted it on the BLP notice board. I see no reason to get involved with the situation myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * so you don't remember this you clearly wrote on wes sideman's talk page? "Hello! I see that you have been edit warring at the article Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. I am glad to see that you are now discussing your differences at the article talk page. Be careful not to edit war again, because you have already passed the WP:3RR limit. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC) " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wes_sideman#October_2020
 * not sure why everyone is protecting this vandal wes sideman - he edit wars on a Regular basis in addition to all these other violations above AND he's been warned multiple times in separate incidents, most recently the article on Klete Keller. Selective enforcement at its best I guess.
 * not sure why everyone is protecting this vandal wes sideman - he edit wars on a Regular basis in addition to all these other violations above AND he's been warned multiple times in separate incidents, most recently the article on Klete Keller. Selective enforcement at its best I guess.

207.254.30.108 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)