Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jzyehoshua

Jzyehoshua, again
Blocked twice then topic banned from Obama pages. Has just returned from five-month near hiatus and a few dozen edits later is doing a WP:BATTLEGROUND in multiple forums on the exact same point: Reviewing the incident, other editors made comments that could have inflamed Jayehoshua (e.g. using the "T"[roll] word, or seeming to endorse the cabal theory in the guise of support). As always, I think a more dignified, polite response is more helpful. I don't know if that would have helped or not in this case but it's worth a try. In the interest of disclosure, I tried both before their first topic ban and again now to counsel the editor to contribute productively, and archived some threads I saw as tendentious, for which the editor has pegged me as one of the pro-Obama cabal. This being a place for dealing with future disruption, it's pretty obvious that whatever brought them to this point, if the editor doesn't get on the straight and narrow soon they're heading for a longer term ban or block, so if we can cut to the chase could someone please give them some strong direction on the bounds of acceptable editing behavior, and deal with them sooner rather than later if they won't change course? Incidentally, given their threat to file retaliatory complaints here against me and others I'm going to section off any complaints about others, and probably ignore them - if we don't manage this one firmly it could become messy. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Barack Obama - series of edits shows edit-warring on talk page, WP:AGF / WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL violations (accusing "liberal editors" of plotting, cabal behavior), WP:SOAP posts (building long screed accusing Obama of murder over abortion stance, not being US citizen, etc)
 * CNB - uses content forum to accuse other editors of bad behavior, disparaging perceived opponents' "disciplinary histories"
 * WP:BLP/N - uses noticeboard to accuse other editors of misbehavior, soapbox about Obama's "dirty laundry"
 * User talk:Jzyehoshua - uses own talk page as an attack page to build case against perceived editing enemies, reinserts after I removed it and warned him about it.

Jzyehoshua response
User:Jzyehoshua:

I originally came back to the page and noticed many of those I'd previously bumped heads with were not active in the discussion. Only after I began speaking did BrendanFrye and both come onto the topic and begin flinging insults about racism and conservatives and the Tea Party.


 * 01:35-36, 17 May 2010 (UTC): When a user (TheiGuard) who asked why the page did not mention why the page did not cover controversies about Obama, and was told to search through the 69 pages of archives for the answer, I responded, saying I did not think the page covered controversy, and suggested that it was being covered on rarely viewed subpages but not allowed on the main page.
 * 03:32, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye, who had not been previously active in the conversation, came in suddenly denying that conspiracy theories could be criticisms, and telling me I was "full of it".
 * 05:23-59, 17 May 2010: I responded that the claim conspiracy theories could not be criticisms "shows a need for further education", and perhaps a harsher tone than I should've used.  I furthermore stated, "For one thing, if they can't be criticisms, then I think you'll have a tough time explaining why his citizenship is mentioned on a page of its own. So it has its own page, but not because it's a criticism? You haven't thought this through well enough."  Wikidemon then entered and denied that the citizenship was important or relevant enough for inclusion.
 * 14:18, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye eloquently responds, "Ha ha. You're a troll."
 * 15:15, 17 May 2010: I simultaneously respond to Wikidemon and BrendanFrye, questioning whether the definition of criticism has to mean a basis in fact, and subsequently making the argument that regardless of whether a controversy is factual, if it has notability and reliability sources, then it should be covered.  In response to Brendan's constant insults, I admittedly respond a bit peevishly with "Yeah, right, the guy here since February 2007 is a troll because the guy here since December 2009 said so."
 * 15:31, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye comes by to offer his usual constructive criticism, stating "Your argument (like your logic) above is basically gibberish and just a huge waste of time...  I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Have fun spinning your wheels."
 * 15:44, 17 May 2010: TheiGuard, whose comment I'd originally responded to, replies to me and says, "I feel he deserves a criticism section, he is one of the most controversial presidents of all time."
 * 16:03, 17 May 2010: Wikidemon responds to my comments about criticism, and falsely claims (albeit politely) that I am proposing "that we include negative facts about Obama for the sake of including negative facts, which is not criticism at all."
 * 16:08, 17 May 2010: Scjessey, like BrendanFrye, comes out of nowhere to play the role of attack dog, telling TheIGuard, "That's a load of old cobblers, quite frankly. Obama has been among the least controversial of presidents by any legitimate measure. His policies and actions have been entirely predictable and mainstream. Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so. While there are indeed legitimate criticisms one can make against Obama, they are minor in scope and have attracted little notoriety. Certainly there is nothing substantive enough to warrant a criticism section."
 * 17:04, 17 May 2010: Editor Threeafterthree reverts Scjessey's inflammatory edit, with revision title "(not a forum, maybe reword to adress improving article?)"
 * 17:31, 17 May 2010: Scjessey promptly re-reverts, with revision history, "(don't do that. It was a direct response to requests for a crit section)".
 * 17:43-49, 17 May 2010: I, having been oblivious to the recent edit war, was meanwhile working on a lengthy reply to TheIGuard, and another to Wikidemon.  The reply to TheIGuard begins "Indeed. I have found in the past that no matter how notable a criticism of Obama, or how well-sourced it may be, that the editors on the Obama page will fight it tooth and nail, bringing in other liberal editors from elsewhere on Wikipedia and then claiming 'consensus' regardless of past editors who provided opposite consensus who just aren't present at the time. I would think consensus alone should not be enough to block mention of topics that are notable and reliably sourced."  Obviously this is a reference to the suspicious appearance of Scjessey and BrendanFrye, who appeared for no apparent reason other than to insult and cause trouble.  However, the post is afterward quite productive, for I then cite 22 Wikipedia pages showing that the controversies of Obama's "Voting record on live birth abortion", "Citizenship", "Knock[ing] off all candidates in 1st election by disqualifying petition signatures on technicalities", and the fact that he "Asked Emil Jones, head of Illinois Senate, to make him a U.S. Senator, following which he was appointed head of high-profile pieces of legislation worked on by other Illinois Senators", are all mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and end with the point, "Supposedly, though worthy of mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, they are somehow not valid on the page of the person they most concern."
 * At the same time, I call out Wikidemon for his earlier misportrayal of my arguments (which point he has yet to reply to), stating, "I never said that we should include negative facts for the sake of including them. Where are you getting this from? What I actually said was that if criticisms are notable and reliably sourced, then they should be included, and that consensus without a valid objection, such as on the basis of sourcing or notability, should not be enough to prevent the subject's mention."


 * 18:08, 17 May 2010: The edit war between Scjessey and Threeafterthree continues, with Threeafterthree reverting once more, this time with revision title of "( still not a forum, reword without ranting, try to comment on improving article)"
 * 18:08, 17 May 2010: Scjessey defends his racist charges, re-reverting again with revision title of "(with respect, this "rant" is no worse than anything else on this page.)"
 * 18:18, 17 May 2010: Threeafterthree reverts a third time, just like Scjessey was baiting him into doing, with title of "(please don't use other's bad behavior to justify your own. I 'll be happy to remove other forum type posts. Also, now at 3rr, so please stop...)"
 * 18:13-27, 17 May 2010: Scjessey, as per his style, has been leaving warnings on Tom's (Threeafterthree's) page so he can afterwards claim the proper warning procedure to make himself look good and the other one bad.  Scjessey and Dayewalker both go to Tom's page, one after the other.  DD2K, another of Scjessey's longtime affiliates, shows up as well to help deal with the new threat.  Scjessey warns Tom, "With all due respect, leave my comment alone. It is a perfectly legitimate response to specific requests for a criticism section. I will accept the entire section being collapsed, but selectively removing my comments will not be tolerated...  You are wrong. The comment, while acerbic, specifically addresses the attempt by others to add a crit section (frowned upon by Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Furthermore, your 3RR claim is ridiculous. I have reverted your edits twice; however, you have violated 3RR yourself by removing my comment 3 times. If you are unable to count to 3, may I respectfully suggest you are not qualified to be deleting anything anyway."
 * 18:20, 17 May 2010: With their motive accomplished, and Threeafterthree now at 3 reverts, and Scjessey at 2, Dayewalker now switches off for Scjessey, reverting back Scjessey's edit with a revision title of "(Rvt to readd comments which deal with a "criticism section.")"
 * 18:32, 17 May 2010: At this point, I decide to intervene and revert, for 2 reasons.  1, I don't want Threeafterthree to feel he needs to revert, and hope to avoid him getting in any more trouble with them playing musical revert chairs like that.  I don't know him, but feel bad for him, he doesn't know what they're doing and was just trying to do the right thing, I'd prefer he get out as soon as possible.  If I take up the reverting instead, hopefully he stops getting himself in trouble.  And 2, as I state on my talk page, when warned by Dayewalker for stepping in, "You and DD2K both showed up in December 2009 to help out Scjessey then, and I believe when his edits got reverted you were one of the ones helping out there as well. As for why I reverted, I simply wanted to make clear my objection to them later on, even though I knew his associates, like you, would drop to make sure the comment stayed, just like you did before. I didn't want him to be able to say afterwards that only one person objected to his playing the race card, and defending his accusations of racism in the conversation afterwards by saying nobody objected."  I wanted to establish that there had indeed been more than one person objecting to Scjessey's obviously inflammatory edit, so Scjessey could not state later that just one person had had a problem with it.  My revision title surely got Dayewalker's attention - "(Reverting due to apparent ad hominems. Isn't this at least the 2nd time I've seen you protecting Scjessey's edits?)"  I was referring to December incidents where Scjessey had used the exact same tactic of inflammatory remarks with musical chair protection of the edit to keep each from getting to 3 reverts.  They must have forgotten I'd seen that I guess, and was familiar with how they did things.  Or maybe they just didn't realize I have a long memory (possibly photographic in regards to what I read).
 * 19:00, 17 May 2010: Scjessey now oddly makes a 3rd revert - I'm not sure if that broke rules, with revision title of "(restore comment that specifically addresses YOUR concerns)"
 * 19:07, 17 May 2010: I revert Scjessey's revert with a revision title of "(Reverting once more to establish objection. And I see nothing posted worth responding to.)"  As I would make plain in my conversation with Dayewalker at 19:58, "As for the comment in question, it obviously violates Wikipedia neutrality and other rules, but I don't really care if it remains. There's nothing in it worth responding to, and until Threeafterthree reverted it, I was just going to let it sit there and ignore it, continuing with the conversation - just as I intend to do now. I reverted it, following that exchange, more to make my dissent clear than because I wanted it gone. After all, it reflects more poorly on Scjessey and those like you defending it, than myself, so I am perfectly happy to let it remain."  As such, I established I did not care if the comment remained, and was reverting more for the 2 purposes established previously, than because I wanted it gone, and had no intention of responding to such a pointless ad hominem attack by Scjessey.
 * 19:10, 17 May 2010: Now DD2K steps in to revert my revert and try to stop this before it gets out of hand and becomes obvious how much opposition to Scjessey's comment there is with a revision title of "If any other users delete other editors comment without due cause, they will be reported. This is absurd and needs to stop now)".  I afterwards, now at 2 reverts and having established objection, simply leave it at that and continue with the conversation.
 * 19:10-30, 17 May 2010: Scjessey, apparently thinking I will fall into the same trap they got me in back in December, drops a warning template onto my page that I am at 3RR.  That way, if they can get me to break the rule, they will be able to claim they warned me with the templates.  I delete it, and drop the same warning on his page, knowing he's also at 2 reverts (which he also deletes).  He then drops another warning template telling me not to abuse warning templates.  I delete this and put it on his page as well, to make a point (which he again deletes).  Scjessey then puts yet another warning template on my page and I simply delete this one, tiring of the charade, and figuring he'll use it against me somehow if I continue with it too long.  As seen from my talk page history, he did this exact same thing back in December to try and get me in trouble using the exact same tactics (how they managed to finally trick me into a violation so they could topic-ban me for a month).  They must have really thought I was stupid or something to not remember that, or else didn't recall themselves.
 * 19:31-49, 17 May 2010: I spend the time adding another 31 independent sources to my previous 22 Wikipedia sources, to establish that these are indeed major controversies.  These are all prominent sources, as you can see:  FactCheck.org/Newsweek, New York Times, CNN, FOX News, National Right to Life Committee, New York Sun, Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog), Chicago Tribune, National Review, MSNBC, ABC News, PolitiFact, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Time Magazine, New York Sun,  Huffington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, CNN, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe,  New York Times, Time Magazine , CBS News, Boston Globe, Houston Press.  Despite this, and the fact that no one poses a specific objection to any of these sources, Wikidemon, BrendanFrye, and others will later claim that this is not controversial/prominent and that I did not provide good sources.
 * 19:51, 17 May 2010: Their tactics are working, for TheiGuard expresses disappointment in the conversation, responding to Scjessey with, "I would appreciate if you would reframe from calling me a racist. I will no longer be engaging in this conversation. You are guarding this article as if it is yours. Wikipedia is about sharing information, and I plan to share plenty of knowledge on this article."
 * 19:59, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye now accuses me, because I provided the 50 sources to prove my point of controversy not mentioned, of posting 'walls of text':"Going for another topic ban Jzyehoshua? Your last topic ban on this page was what, three months ago? You were doing so well. Please stop posting walls of text, if you can't make your point succinctly than it probably isn't a point worth making."
 * 19:59-20:17, 17 May 2010: Tiring of the repeated personal attacks, I reply to BrendanFrye with "It's been a while since Scjessey and others here (whether you were one I don't know) got banned/disciplined much more seriously for your attacks on members on this topic. I know you can't address the points other than to try and distract by focusing on the person rather than the argument, so I'll humor you for now."
 * 20:19, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye, having just accused me of posting walls of text for citing 50 sources showing controversies on Obama are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and prominently in the news, now claims I didn't make any points.
 * 20:21, 17 May 2010: My reply is, "I suppose your disregard for 'walls of text' led you to overlook them."
 * 20:25-42, 17 May 2010: Unidentified IP address begins making attacks on the page which are quickly reverted, including one very vulgar and non-sensical attack on Obama/Biden. I of course am concerned that it could be trying to falsely appear that an anti-Obama person is making attacks on the page, to try and raise sentiment against people like me posting thorough sources and using logic to make points about a need for coverage of prominent controversies on Obama's page.  I could easily see someone, unable to beat the sources or logic, trying to use such attacks to suggest they are from the other side, and the timing of course is curious.
 * 21:47-54, 17 May 2010: I make plain my disapproval of ad hominem attacks and vandalism attempts on the page, stating:  "I realize I'm acting a bit edgy, but then so too would most people, I'm sure, who'd just provided 50 sources on controversial material being excluded from an article, only to be told they hadn't made any points. One wonders, was there a right answer? I provided too many sources, and got accused of making 'walls of text'. And had I provided no sources, I'd have doubtless been accused of not providing sources. It seems, no matter how much sourcing or facts I provide, I cannot generate any response from critics other than personal attacks about racism or Wikipedia history. Instead of answers, there are inflammatory remarks followed by edit war attempts to prevent said remarks from being removed, and vandalism attacks on the page."

Furthermore, both Wikidemon and User:Abrazame refused to moderate this, and would criticize me for going off-topic when trying to respond to these attacks.

My original comments dealt with controversies not being adequately mentioned, and in good faith, I even provided over 50 sources showing they were already mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and in the news. Not only did no one bother addressing these sources, or the reliability of them (not a single one was criticized individually as unreliable, or a single argument made about notability), but they began piling on insults and requesting the topic be closed. While I reacted defensively, suggesting they were not addressing the material/content proposal, and simply were resorting to personal attacks, I tried to get the focus back on the material. Nobody took me up on the offer. and Scjessey tried to start edit wars by protecting Scjessey's racist charge comment and reverting my edits. I thought I did a good job of avoiding this attempts to bait me into a rule violation, but Wikidemon is closing the conversation and all my attempts on other noticeboards as well.

Rather than stating what part of the conversation is unacceptable, and seeking to allow discussion, he simply ends all conversation and refuses to even allow discussion about the inclusion of controversy on the article. has a longer history of discipline on the article, along with Scjessey and others, including their involvement in the famous 2008 Obama articles case where Scjessey got a 6-month topic ban and Wikidemon was admonished for edit warring.

My discipline came as a result of them closing conversations and using inflammatory comments in December to bait me into an edit war the same way they tried to do here, and, unfamiliar with such tactics, I fell for it at the time. The conversations are archived on pages 65-69 of the talk page archives. They've been involved in a number of confrontations with other members on the talk page as well in the past, as I learned from reviewing archives and arbcom records, and it's true, I have begun believing that the numerous accusations of a cabal seeking to silence calls for controversy mentions on the Obama page are indeed accurate, and not overblown as one might think. While I try to remain cool-headed, it is difficult in the face of such constant attacks, and to not state what you believe concerning what appears very clear discriminatory bias at a high level in the Wikipedia structure.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a summary of what is now established beyond a shadow of a doubt for the most recent incident:

A) I provided over 50 sources showing 4 controversies relating to Barack Obama (his voting record on live birth abortion, citizenship, his disqualification of all 4 political opponents in the 1996 election on technicalities, and his well-recorded deal struck with IL Senate leader Emil Jones to take credit for other Senator's legislation), are not being provided on the page, despite reliable sourcing and prominence in the public arena. These included 22 Wikipedia citations establishing the content was already addressed elsewhere though not on the main Barack Obama page, and 33 independent sources from major media organizations (CNN, New York Times, FactCheck.org, et. al.). These can be seen at Talk:Barack_Obama

B) These sources were never addressed by anyone. No one posed objections to the reliability or prominence of any of them.  Nevertheless, Wikidemon and others continue to erroneously claim the controversies in question are not prominent enough, and/or the sources were not sufficient.

C) From the minute I arrived, not only were my points about content not addressed, but I was repeatedly attacked, as was user TheiGuard. Scjessey threw around claims of racism, while BrendanFrye repeatedly applied the troll label, and failed to provide anything constructive to the conversation.  This is discussed in the 2nd archive, "A very lengthy history of what actually happened at the page".

D) Dayewalker and DD2K helped Scjessey protect his edit accusing other editors of racism from being removed by user Threeafterthree by playing 'musical chairs' as it were so none would reach 3 reverts. Dayewalker, Scjessey, Wikidemon, Abrazame, and DD2K would invariably visit either mine or Threeafterthree's pages dumping template warnings and personal warnings not to revert Scjessey's edit.  This is discussed in the 2nd archive, "A very lengthy history of what actually happened at the page".

E) Wikidemon and Abrazame both then had the section closed because I changed the sourcing to bold formatting with some red font, even though I promptly removed it within minutes upon objection, stating it was merely to distinguish between headings and subheadings. When I objected to the closing, Wikidemon finally intervened and stated on my Talk Page my objection was inappropriate.  BrendanFrye then deleted both my objections to closing the thread, and used the revision title to throw the troll label around once more.

F) Wikidemon, after I mentioned one of the AN/I threads, additionally sought to have both my AN/I threads closed, and finally made this one. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the question isn't why Jzyehoshua lost their cool, but how they can remain cool should they continue editing. The article content proposals were rejected, and extremely unlikely to gain consensus at this point - they're specifically addressed in the article FAQs.  The accusations against others don't have a place in the editing process, particularly not on article talk pages and other content discussion areas - so I won't respond.  If Jzyehoshua can edit productively despite that, great.  Launching broadsides against other editors and trying to prove they're in a conspiracy is not going to get anywhere, and is the exact stuff that Obama article probation is supposed to address: it sounds like a broken record.  I hope other editors can calmly reset the record player when it happens again and not get in such a fuss over it.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I maintain that a view of what has been happening certainly bears similarities to a 'Wikipedia mafia', nor am I going to apologize for that term, either. A historical view of this, when examined upon closer scrutiny, will show none so kind a portrayal to yourself and your associates as you'd like it to appear.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TL;DR. Try summarising. If it can't be summarised then it's not a matter for this noticeboard and needs to go to dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To whom is that addressed? The editor seems to want to add rejected content and complain about a cabal.  There are forums for that but the outcome is inevitable, and the chance of anything productive happening that way is slim.  I have no dispute to resolve at all, just asking for someone to make one last try setting an errant editor on track before there is a flame out.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, hello again JzG. It's been months since you last came around, this little incident brought you out here to find me I see.  We haven't talked since you played that role in the December incident.  It seems the next step would be an arbcom of some kind but I know nothing about filing them, and any kind of dispute resolution, if not proving an utter waste of time, would be welcome.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. As an active administrator this is one of my most visited pages. I don't even remember this "December incident", there have been many thousands of reports since then. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

 * Honestly, I saw this(the battles from Jzyehoshua) coming once again, but decided to try and ignore it. Unfortunately, other edits decided to engage. I doubt that ignoring the situation would have worked with this particular editor but it may have produced better results. In any case, when an editor puts what must be hours upon hours of work into writing so much material it is near impossible to read and forming attacks on other editors(1,2,3,4), I don't think that there will be any real resolution short of a permanent topic ban on the editor. The BLP violations themselves(accusing a living person of murdering babies) are enough, but the endless stream of battleground behavior should be enough to convince any that something definitely needs to be done here. Dave Dial (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, hello again DD2K, or Dave Dial, whatever you choose to call yourself now. I see you are all coming by to cast your voice against me once more.  Who next?  Scjessey, LoTLe, Grsz11, Sceptre, or Tarc?  The gang's not all here yet.  Like I said before, it's not a BLP violation if it's reliably sourced and prominent.  Do you care to dispute the sources, or just throw out more BLP violation accusations?  Furthermore, as the above history bears out, you had your cronies starting attacks on me once again long before I ever made this an issue.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:DUCK? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. You sat by while multiple people threw insults and personal attacks around all yesterday and today as they tried to start edit wars, and did absolutely nothing except close the thread so discussion could not occur.  You closed another discussion on a noticeboard, and asked for yet another noticeboard discussion to be closed.  You closed all the old discussions as fast as you could in December once it started getting admin attention to try and prevent them from getting looked at.  And now, while all your friends are asking for me to be perma-banned, when I respond a bit defensively, you're telling me I'm not being civil enough?  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny how once I start posting what actually happened, with sources and diffs, suddenly it's necessary to summarize, and all my old enemies come a'running. You'll have to pardon me if I'm just slightly suspicious.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Old enemies? Have you been editing Wikipedia under different account names? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I saw all I needed of them back in December. Those few weeks saw them throwing every attack at me they could, while you administrated.  Guy of course continues to call for my perma-banning.  I tried several dispute resolution processes, in case you forgot.  And in the process, I ended up going through the archives to prove that there had been past consensus for including the controversies - remember?  In the process, I also discovered the old arbcom files, and how many of those now seeking to get me in trouble had done the same thing to others as well.  And now, when I come back and get bombarded with personal attacks and edit war attempts, surprise, surprise, I start acting a bit more defensive than I did when I originally arrived.  After all, I've seen you guys use these tactics before, and reading the arbcoms as I do, I'm recognizing how you can wipe people off Wikipedia one after another.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing there worth responding to. For me to engage at all is giving you the benefit of the doubt but I'm not going to respond to provocation.  If you are here legitimately and wish to stay, you need to cut it out and find something productive to do.  Taking up the grievances, tactics, aims, and attack targets of indefinitely banned editors and their sockpuppets is not going to go anywhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if I'm right, and this is a series of tactics you've been using to drive editors off the board, and I'm simply the next one in your way, then there's (a) not much I can do to avoid this coming up again except hide from the topics you guys inhabit, or you'll try to get me in trouble; and (b) you'll be so good at using those tactics that unless I do bring up past history, it will be very tough for me to make it plain that this is indeed what you are doing. A historical perspective often helps, after all, in not repeating past errors.  When I went to the board, Scjessey and BrendanFrye were nowhere to be seen, and suddenly come back after what you yourself admit was a long absence to sling insults as though I was never gone.  And now, look at this, 2 more members who at the time were the most vocal in calling for my banning, JzG and DD2K, have suddenly emerged as well.  It seems you guys had forgotten, with all the members you've gone after in the past, just how familiar I would be with them all.  Furthermore, you've got to admit, you each play very clear roles.  Scjessey and BrendanFrye can be seen playing attack dogs with inflammatory comments.  Others come in to play musical chairs in reverting edits like Daywalker and DD2K did, so that each never gets to 3RR while they can get others in trouble.  JzG and Tarc then scream for the banning on admin boards - JzG I've noticed is very good at it.  And you and Dayewalker of course play Mr. Neutral, acting the impartial admins - though the facade breaks down when seen how biased you are in closing threads to prevent the admins from noticing.  Me, I just go where the facts take me.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This was posted on your talk page some time ago by Brothejr. Since you don't seem to mind huge walls of text, please read it again and try to take his advice to heart.
 * Understand your own biases and passions. When editing neutrally, you need to understand your own biases and passions and try to keep them from ruling you. It is hard, I know, but if you know what you lean towards, you can make sure you don't edit that way.  (One way I do, is sometimes I just won't edit or comment on an article that I might feel passionately for or against.)
 * Understand where others are coming from. If someone disagrees with you, fully understand where they are coming from.  Do their arguments make a valid point?  Did they raise a valid reason?
 * If it seems that you are the only one tooting that trumpet, and the majority of the community does not agree with you, then maybe it's time to back off on that issue.
 * If you find yourself starting to call others names or groups of editors names, then that also might be a sign to back away from the issue.
 * If you can, avoided walls of text. Try to say what you mean in a succinct and brief manner.  Editors will be more likely to read what you say when you say it with as few words as possible.  If you really need to delve deeply and explain a subject, maybe use a collapsed box around it, and the editors will be more likely to read the extra information at their own leisure.
 * Also, take a couple hours and delve deeply into the archives of the pages. See what has been brought up, see what reoccurring arguments that have been brought up over and over again, and see why the community has grown more pissed over certain things.  (I could do in depth, but I want to be brief.)
 * Finally, be interested in other things then just Barack Obama and politics in general. Work on other non-political articles as a way to take a breath and relax a bit. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well now, that truly is ironic, since your first words on the talk page served no other reason than to label me a troll. You did nothing to aid the conversation constructively at all, only throwing names and accusations around.  Perhaps you should be taking your own advice to "If you find yourself starting to call others names or groups of editors names, then that also might be a sign to back away from the issue."  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:DUCKBrendanFrye (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Would an uninvolved admin please look into the above complaint and make a comment, so this can be either acted upon or collapsed? I'm not crazy about Jzyehoshua bringing up perfectly good edits of mine, and attempting to tar them with unsubstantiated allegations. This was too long to read hours ago, and Jzyehoshua has been building this wall of text for seven hours straight now. Will someone please step in and either act upon it, or end it? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I second that, as the more eyes on this the better.  So far the only commenters are those who've been personally involved themselves.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me correct you, I am not "personally involved" with you. I noticed my name, and some of my edits, in your manifesto above. I've never been blocked or topic banned, nor do I make personal attacks. I'm not one of your "old enemies," as you put it, but you seem determined to paint me as such. The sooner this ends, the better. Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet you worked with Scjessey on getting 194x144x90x118 banned in the 2009 Dreamhost case. As for who was involved last time, I can bring that up if you want.  JzG/Guy did the reporting here.  Scjessey, Sceptre, Grsz11, and Tarc were all around, along with Wikidemon (who confused me for a long time since he never campaigned against me as much as you guys).  Two others, BaseballBugs and Woogee, are mentioned there also, who I noticed were in the archives for the 2008 Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles case.  JzG/Guy, Frank, and Woogee reported this one also.  Frank and Tarc were the ones involved here, and in it, I can be seen stating, "At the time the discussion was closed, perhaps half a dozen different users, yourself included, had all replied to the thread in question. It was very much active. There were several users doing nothing constructive but calling for me to be banned or blocked, and the discussion closed. DD2K, scjessey, Guy, Dayewalker, averagejoe."  I could go back to the talk page archives on page 65-68 I'm sure and see exactly what that role comprised.
 * Furthermore, if you take objection to any of my bullet points above mentioning you, then by all means feel free to challenge them and state what you disagree with. You could start with explaining why you felt inclined to prevent the removal of Scjessey's comment that seemingly accused other posters of racism, and then try and pressure both me and Threeafterthree into not reverting it on our talk pages.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jzyehoshua, while i'm not an admin, i am completely uninvolved. May i suggest that you reread Dayewalker's advice, and take it to heart.  If you don't like Dayewalker, let me give it to you:  Step away from this topic for a while, edit something else, prove that you are a good, reliable editor.  Make a name for yourself and your NPOV attitude.  Sometimes it has to be done (i speak from experience), and it's not possible to edit just where one would like, purely because of who else edits there.  No matter, this is a huge place, and i can offer you a dozen suggestions off the top of my head of things you might turn your hand to.  Cheers, LindsayHi 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for sharing your input here, it's much-needed. My problem is this:  how can I seek to improve Wikipedia elsewhere while knowing that a malicious band of editors will do everything it can to block changes to the most prominent pages on Wikipedia?  Isn't that like doing evil, that good may come of it?  In other words, why improve a project's lesser pages until sure that it isn't simply allowing bias for its major pages?  Why should I improve Wikipedia, if it will allow rampant bias to go unchecked for one of its prominent pages?  Would that not be akin to putting forth my efforts to improve something that will ultimately serve only to preserve bias, and prevent the flow of truth?  It's not that I want to stick to this page alone, merely that I have trouble conscionably focusing on other pages while I know this one, one of the most prominent on Wikipedia, to be clearly engaging in what is immoral and dishonest.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, until Wikipedia shows it can stop the clear WP:OWN violations occurring at its most prominent political article, how can I be sure I am not simply supporting a biased and evil institution. I want to work hard for good organizations, and until this is resolved solidly in my mind, I will have difficulty in good conscience focusing elsewhere on Wikipedia.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your intentions, but I just don't believe in hiding from this issue for no other than reason than avoiding conflict. All that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing.  As Martin Luther King Jr. once stated, "in the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."  By doing so, I would simply be serving to give credence to their actions, and by my negligence, to allow what I know to be wrong.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, their intervention helped topic-ban ex-admin Stevertigo in August 2009, who since 2002 had actually helped create the modern Wikipedia rules on civility and fair treatment. I don't fool myself into thinking that any accomplishments on Wikipedia that I might achieve, or a temporary focus elsewhere, might exempt me from the eventual traps they laid for him.  They used edit warring tricks then to bring him down, and only my familiarity the second-time around helped me avoid it this time.  Delaying action on this matter will serve no purpose but to better prepare them in the future.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That might explain why the civility rules don't work and there isn't any reasonable enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd noticed you had some kind of argument going with him on his talk page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a moment to read what you've written above in this thread. Your words remind me of Matthew 7:3-5 and Romans 2:1. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So then would you say Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong in condemning the racial injustice of his day? Or John the Baptist for criticizing Herod for incest?  (Mark 6:18)  I expect to be equally judged, for I have been getting judged already by those now mentioned here.  They were the ones who began seeking to get me in trouble, not the other way around.  Indeed, this is merely fulfillment of that which you state, that those who judge will also be judged.  Where the line is between trying to condemn others and simply standing up properly against injustice, as Jesus did with the Pharisees when they would attack him, is still something I wrestle with.  Nevertheless, I believe to not do so at this point would be yet another wrong.  It was the very reasons you state back in December that led to me letting them attack my reputation and win that case without fighting back like I could have, and only through further thought on them that I now choose not to make the same choice.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What it all reminds ME of is the many editors who've tried to use wikipedia to present "The Truth", especially in the realm of conspiracy theories. Most of those crusaders were eventually dispatched. The only question when one of them comes along is how long they'll last here. We should open a 2 dollar window to take that one up. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTOPINION, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:THERAPY, WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is, can you address the sources? Or else, if the sources are reliable, prominent, and related to the subject, is there another reason you would care to cite that they should NOT apply?  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break 2
I hate these things, virtually never participate in them, never even know they're going on. Jzeyoshua, as you not only addressed me in this thread but characterized me | in this edit as "frothing at the mouth" to close the Obama talk thread without discussion, I want to point out how wrong and disingenuous you are. In fact, although you write above that I "refused to moderate" (and you didn't ask me to), I did indeed step in and moderate. I reverted one of your posts at Talk:Barack Obama, and | I posted admonishment and advice at your own talk page. | You responded to me | at both places with thanks and admitted that you saw at least one of the bad approaches you need to rein in, then took the wrong routes again moments later, adding to a scrapbook of wrongs at your talk and reediting your previous work at Obama talk to feature blaring red, boldfaced headers instead of learning from the responses and selecting an aspect of your avalanche for which you thought you had a chance to move forward with a responsible editorial discussion. I was about to post another response to your reply, but decided I'd said enough for one night. (That's part of your problem, engaging in 20, 30, 40 edits and reedits to the same single talk page in the space of several hours and expecting responses and arbitration to come at the same mad pace, without taking the time to absorb and consider any point, be it someone else's or your own.)

Today, | you erased my post and your reply from your talk page. While it is your right to delete vandalism and nonsense, it is general practice to archive helpful, relevant comments. It is particularly egregious when your defense alleges that the opposite of our exchange is true about both me as an individual and your experience in general upon your return, and on the same day you characterize me thus in other fora, you remove this evidence to the contrary. I find it ironic and disingenuous that you expect your screeds to remain with all their links and bulletpoints and headers on the archives of the Obama bio talk page (repeatedly, as they're in the archive from the last time you plastered exactly this motley assortment all over), yet you erase my comment and your response from your own talk within hours. I'll make another observation: You're advised to look at archives and instead of seeing how an editorial page "office", if you will, cannot function under a full-bore attack from raving lunatics, you identify with the riffraff, and vilify the responsible. That's part of your problem, and it is that, and not your ideology, that will lead to your next block, in case you're interested in having a brief flirtation with the truth.

To the issue of User:Scjessey, he wasn't calling anyone at that page a racist, he was making a dismissive generalizing aside about the tea party. When User:TheiGuard takes that comment to get personal, writing, "reframe [sic] from calling me a racist", though TiG is only then coming out of the tea party closet, something not established at that page prior to this. That, then, is either a tactic or an example of irony or oversensitivity by TheiGuard, to transform an inspecific aside into a discussion point and a personal attack. Scjessey then says he was not calling TiG a racist, but | TiG continues with the digressive fomentation despite having previously said he will no longer be engaging in the conversation. Ironic that you fault Scjessey and not TheiGuard for turning your attention toward that digression as if it was an appropriate place. User:Sceptre was not wrong in his comment, which I read as an attempt to defuse the situation and restore focus to the subject of the thread (which was pretty much done), insofar as the tea party movement is driven by misinformation (taxes are at their lowest in generations, for example, despite the fact that we've been in a war or two for the past decade that wasn't paid for, and of course we are not without representation anywhere in the U.S. except D.C.).

To get to the crux of the issue: You are here on a crusade, and as you noted in your multifold response to the neutral constructive comment of User:LindsayH above, you have no interest in being a part of Wikipedia unless you can present your points of view on the abortion issue at the widest variety of pages you can, including Barack Obama, and you note that the reason for this is that you want your points of view on abortion to have the most prominence possible. Prior to your last block, I also helped you in more than one way you completely ignored, from removing personal attacks on you at your own talk page and admonishing that editor to writing in the editorial discussion that there was an aspect of one of your suggestions that I thought we might be able to come to some agreement upon. You were completely disinterested, actually hatting that thread yourself, because getting only the reasonable part of what you want is not acceptable to you. As you say above to LindsayH, this place would be evil in your eyes if it didn't scream bloody murder from the rooftops, and you don't care to have some arcane point you have raised be accepted into the article, you want everything you want and primarily you want this point of view about this issue at that article. You will not listen to reason. A crusade knows no reason. Perhaps you are the noble one here. Sad, then, that you are also the one inclined to get so worked up that you can't see your way. I have said it before and I hope never to have this back before us that I have to say it again, but I admire your passion for this cause; you should channel that passion in a healthy and lawful way that steers away from heated exchanges and respects the rights of others. Produce sex education programs. Champion abstinence. Open and fundraise for a home for unwed mothers and/or unwanted babies, perhaps through your church, and promote that as an alternative to abortion. Take your activism into the real world and work within legal avenues to change the balance toward sexual responsibility, cultural and religious acceptance of pregnancies, and alternatives to abortion. Stop imagining that everyone that disagrees with your positions and approach or that is tasked with enforcing editorial responsibility or the law is your enemy. Fighting to call Barack Obama a baby killer at his Wiki bio is a fruitless battle; the solution to the abortion issue doesn't go through the presidency. It goes through the real world, one community of real and sexually realistic people at a time. God bless you and your efforts elsewhere, Abrazame (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I did respond gratefully at the time for your intervention. Which was why I was so disappointed when you began seeking to have the thread closed, along with Wikidemon, for clearly frivolous reasons, while completely neglecting the more serious attacks by others on the page.  If I remember right, didn't you also make some claims at another of the AN/I threads?  I will have to go back and check, but thought you had comments there as well.  At any rate, it appeared you were completely seeking to silence the Talk Page discussion along with Wikidemon, and led to my deleting the thread on my talk page.  As I realized where Wikidemon stood in trying to silence opposition, and saw you siding with him, I changed my opinion of you simultaneously.  And perhaps I was wrong.  You and Wikidemon were always the 2 who made me most unsure, I will admit (though as I saw more and more how influential Wikidemon was in silencing opposition, I finally stopped considering the possibility of impartiality on his part).  Yet your advocacy on my page appeared disingenuous, since you would afterward make clear on the Talk Page discussion you wanted the discussion ended without cause.  This was what convinced me you were less interested in my wellbeing than simply removing the discussion of controversy.


 * As for Scjessey, you know full well from a reading of the conversation he was not referring to the Tea Party. It was in reference to those like me and TheiGuard, and made clear when he stated this in the revision history of the page while reverting edits - he said it was in response to me.  Furthermore, why do you think he fought so hard to keep the edit in such context, rather than just adapting it per the suggestion of Threeafterthree?  It was never intended to make any specific point, but to try and generate an edit war with myself, except that I refused to bite, and instead another editor wandered in and got involved.  Furthermore, with that bold red font edit you refer to, I actually had merged 2 posts to make them more concise and cut down on the size of the page by eliminating wordiness.  And I promptly removed the objectionable formatting within minutes of anyone objecting.  As for the Iraq War, and Bush, I've been opposing both since 2004 - the same time I began opposing Barack Obama, ironically.  You are preaching to the choir.  As seen here,, I was actually one of Bush's more vocal opponents, just as I was of Obama's, and as a result ended up voting for a 3rd party candidate - just as I would do once more in 2008.  I strongly supported Obama's opponent in 2004, Alan Keyes, so it is ironic that Scjessey would now accuse me of racism - first because I supported his opponent, also African-American, and second because I was opposing Obama long before racist charges became popular.


 * I never stated anything similar to what you just categorized me as being; "you have no interest in being a part of Wikipedia unless you can present your points of view on the abortion issue at the widest variety of pages you can, including Barack Obama, and you note that the reason for this is that you want your points of view on abortion to have the most prominence possible". My edits on abortion for the Pro-Life movement, which added much additional statistical reporting to the section, actually cited Gallup's most prominent abortion polls in providing fuller analysis of the abortion issue to illustrate that the majority of Americans are neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Choice, and support abortion only under certain circumstances (e.g. rape, life of the mother).  Abortion is one of my best researched topics, so I focus on it, but I never stated an agenda for pushing my abortion POV onto Wikipedia pages, so I am not sure what you are referring to.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you check all those sources I posted in the conversation, you will see they actually addressed his voting record on these controversial 'Born Alive' bills, not abortion in general:


 * Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics
 * Sourced Independently: FactCheck.org/Newsweek[4], New York Times[5][6], CNN[7][8], FOX News[9], National Right to Life Committee[10], New York Sun[11], Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog)[12][13], Chicago Tribune[14], National Review[15], MSNBC[16]
 * Sourced additionally for Obama's present votes on these controversial bills: ABC News[17], PolitiFact[18][19], Chicago Tribune[20][21], Washington Post[22], Time Magazine[23], New York Sun[24], Huffington Post[25], Chicago Sun-Times[26]
 * Obama's Own Words in IL Senate Transcripts for Bills: Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act[27] (pp. 84-90), Induced Birth Infants Liability Act[28] (pp. 29-35)


 * --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I collapsed the massive diff list into a hat/hab template for space issues. Hit view, read, lather, rinse, repeat. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which he quickly reverted. I ain't getting into that edit war mess.  Moving on. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 17:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway to put a limit on the number of letters Jzyehoshua can respond with? Keep it near 1,000?  These 2K and 3K+ posts are causing this section to be unreadable and no one's point to be getting across or be read for that matter. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bored now (proposals on what to do)
Anyone else had enough of Jzyehoshua's constant painting of every single facet of every single dispute in which he's involved as being the fault of all those other people? Anyway, he is topic-banned from Obama articles but is still disrupting them with soapboxing on the talk pages. I think it is time to clarify that the topic ban means a ban form the topic, with no further discussion by him of anything related to Obama. Or just ban him outright, I guess, since his entire mission here seems to be to promote an agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support one-year ban from WP in general, or topic ban on Obama articles if consensus gives that as a first step. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support block and topic ban I don't know if it's my place to suggest anything but I would say that at a minimum, user Jzyehoshua should have his topic ban reinstated and extended. I haven't checked his history on other articles but his use of the Obama talk page as a battleground detracts from real conversation and is a large waste of time and energy for all involved. BrendanFrye (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

←I dunno what this guy's problem is, quite frankly. I posted a single comment on Talk:Barack Obama that he evidently objected enough to that he deemed it necessary to edit war over it, and the result is this crusade against me. He should be sanctioned for this bullshit at the very least. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed that whole section as an attack page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say reinstate the topic ban. I suspect that will effectively ban him from Wikipedia as a whole, given his purpose here seems to be only to disrupt Obama related articles. Resolute 15:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if only admins and specifically involved editors are supposed to comment here, but I've been following this since I wandered into a discussion on the content noticeboard, and I would also support a topic ban, broadly construed to include all Obama-related articles. ClovisPt (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If he actually thinks that abortion is murder, and edits from that viewpoint, then he ought not be editing the subject. Abortion, in general, is not murder as currently defined in the U.S. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I never made such a point in regards to Obama. (ANOTHER PREVIOUS POST HERE HAS BEEN MOVED)--Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This all strikes me as original research and original synthesis on your part, which rules it out for inclusion in articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(REPLY TO THIS HAS BEEN MOVED TO NEW SECTION TO STAY ON TOPIC)


 * As is often pointed out, this is not USPedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support all-out Block and Ban - Looks like a disruptive ad-nauseum typing user who is just here to disrupt articles related to Obama. From what I have read, he doesn't seem to be keeping away from Obama pages, per his ban from them, so indef block him and ban him outright and move on. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support block and topic ban --As noted in my above comment, this is not ever going to end and there needs to be a permanent topic ban. A block that would be indefinite with instructions on which guidelines to read may help. I'm waiting for this to end up in the above, endless list of grievances. Dave Dial (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. If he wants to come here and edit articles about soccer or something, that could be OK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban or block, whatever makes this go away the quickest. If you'll look at his edits from yesterday until last night, Jz spent nine straight hours adding text to ANI and declaring this to be a battleground between him and the forces of evil. His walls of text and single-minded purpose to make people address his issue again and again reminds me of another blocked editor's seven questions. Dayewalker (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to mention that "other blocked editor", but decided not to. These two sound far too much alike for me. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, don't mean to insinuate in any way an actual connection between the two, I'm just drawing a comparison in their style of argument. Dayewalker (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever you're referring to, it's worth pointing out that Joshua has been on here for over 3 years and his agenda has been obvious from the get-go. He's also from Illinois, so he probably thinks he knows Obama better than the national audience does. Trouble is, he's synthesizing a "case", and doesn't seem to understand (or care) that that's not how things are supposed to be done here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Just to be clearer, when you state that his "walls of text and single-minded purpose to make people address his issue again and again reminds me of another blocked editor's seven questions," you are very much insinuating actual connections. Very similar with this inquisition. †TE†  Talk  18:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not, and that's why I clarified as above. If I felt differently, I would have definitely said so. ThinkEnemies, please don't carry unrelated arguments into ANI threads. If you have a problem with me, start a noticeboard thread or other discussion. Please don't clutter another thread with unrelated accusations. Dayewalker (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just seized on an opportunity to mention that edit. I have no problems with you, and hope that sentiment can be mutual (I'm not sure it is). Anyways, I don't think my few words could harm this massive thread. The wall above us could easily fend off the Mongolians. †TE†  Talk  19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support 1y block - or wherever consensus leads. But the topic ban didn't "come through", apparently, so I'm not sure it'll work. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The other editor is User:Grundle2600. Although speculation about sock connections are fair here, there are too many differences in attitude and expression to make much of it.  Grundle was friendly and did not accuse perceived enemies of being evil.  Grundle mentioned at one point that he had OCD and Asperger syndrome, which would explain some of his behavior.  It made me wonder whether there is a way Wikipedia can be more accessible to people with obvious psychological issues, rather than treating the subject as verboten per WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  Anyway, there is something strikingly familiar about Jzyehoshua language, tactics, disconnect from reality, specific grievances, and single-mindedness.  By his own account he pored over large swaths of the Obama editing record to compile evidence of a cabal.  Whether that's a sincere statement of obsession, or an excuse to explain why an account new to a dispute would know everyone and everything that happened over the span of years, either way it spells trouble. Everyone should have a couple chances, but when someone gives off those telltale signs we're heading for trouble.  The usual dispute / behavioral / consensus mechanisms are not well equipped to handle that.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just typical behavior for me on anything. Like I say on my profile, research is fun, and I research everything extensively, think through every line of reasoning even more so.  I mean, take a look at my page on politics, which I started before all this began, at User:Jzyehoshua/Politics.  This isn't unusual by any means, I analyze and research everything I focus on to what most probably consider an abnormal degree.  Those walls of text, as you're seeing, are just typical writing for me, and occur naturally without the same effort it seems others might have to put into them.  And frankly, this is me doing the best that I can to keep it concise, as well. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't have time to write you a short letter, so I'm writing you a long one instead." -- attributed to Twain--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

has been on here for several years, and I don't think he's Grundle, he's just another POV-pusher who has apparently flown under the radar until now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in late. My only involvement in this "affair" was to remove an editor's post that I found to be of a forum type and really not necessary to improve the article. It was calling folks ill-educated and racist and was off topic, imho. The editor replied that it was true and others chimmed in that it really wasn't that bad and that there was other stuff like it as well, yadda, yadda. The usuall bad faith and insults started and I ran for the hills :). Seriously, my point is that it adds nothing to the discussion and is against forum guidelines to include these snarky comments about other groups you disagree with inside talk page conversations, thats all. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like consensus for a topic ban, which I will now notify. I am going to boldly include abortion-related topics as this intersects with the whole Obama-as-Antichrist thing. Let's see if he's able to edit productively and harmoniously outside his hot-button area. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Abortion Controversy
Since baseballbugs and neutralhomer keep closing my replies above, for no other reason than it is off the topic of a topic-ban, I am creating a new section here to address his original distortion of one of the controversies in question. Content of the posts has been moved here:

1st Post:

My points about the live birth abortion controversy, as seen from this FactCheck.org article (which acknowledged he lied about his record), did not deal with abortion in general. Rather, they dealt with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, that in 2002 made it illegal to allow children who survive late-term abortions to die unattended. Another bill, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, made the late-birth abortion practice in question illegal in the United States as well, primarily because Congress distinguished between regular abortion and the kind of late-term abortion in question, declaring it 'infanticide' because of the widespread practice allowed under previous law of leaving children who survived the abortions to die unattended in soiled back hospital rooms, on tables, or in wastebaskets. (Sec. 2(14)G) and Sec. 2(14)(O))

Both practices are now illegal, and Obama's voting record was controversial because he opposed Illinois versions of both the federal bills while in the Illinois legislature. Obama's own words on the IL Senate floor, as seen from these transcripts (pages 84-90 and 29-35), actually were,

"Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living.  Is that correct?...  whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term.  That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it."

As such, there is no denying that he supported the right of doctors to allow children who SURVIVED ABORTIONS, meaning they were OUTSIDE THE WOMB AND ALREADY BORN, to be left to die. THIS is why his record is controversial. I actually posted verbatim Obama's words from those transcripts, as I will mention further on in the above history, but BrendanFrye I believe it was deleted them. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 2nd Post:


 * ...Which is why I did not build my case around this. Instead I provided a ton of sources from Wikipedia and the media to prove my point.  All of which deal with Obama's record on the controversial 'Born Alive' bills, not abortion in general:


 * Obama's voting record on live birth abortion:
 * Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics
 * Sourced Independently: FactCheck.org/Newsweek, New York Times, CNN, FOX News, National Right to Life Committee, New York Sun, Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog), Chicago Tribune, National Review, MSNBC
 * Sourced additionally for Obama's present votes on these controversial bills: ABC News, PolitiFact, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Time Magazine, New York Sun,  Huffington Post, Chicago Sun-Times
 * Obama's Own Words in IL Senate Transcripts for Bills: Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act (pp. 84-90), Induced Birth Infants Liability Act (pp. 29-35)


 * ...Which apparently you did not bother to read before, or you'd have known you were mischaracterizing my statements, and that I was referring to 'Born Alive' bills, not abortion in general. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New block, now lifted
As discussed on my talk page, User_talk:Jzyehoshua, NeutralHomer for the past few hours had me banned for frivolous reasons, while the ban talk has been ongoing. The ban was quickly reversed but an autobot ban prolonged it a bit. NeutralHomer did so at the same time he closed the above thread, which explained that the controversy in question for Barack Obama did NOT deal with abortion in general, but a now-illegal form of abortion where children who survive abortions are left to die, that was outlawed by both the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The discussion on my talk page reveals exactly what happened. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Homer is not an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what happened, and the aimless accusations are inappropriate. You edit warred that page past WP:3RR despite escalating warnings to stop, while accusing others of conspiracy and vandalism.  It's true that all you were doing was trying to fix a typo but you brought it on yourself.  If you tried to explain yourself calmly, and didn't interpret the actions of others as a paranoid plot to silence you, that would not have happened.  You're likely in your last minutes here unless you change your ways drastically.  I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you but if you think all this is persecution and act accordingly, that's a self-fulfilling prophesy.  On the other hand, getting along here, as in real life, is very easy if done with a little goodwill and faith towards your neighbors.  Attacking me and others for bringing you this message will not help, it will only fuel the problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I stated there, "Also, I really was confused by the WP:3RR page, since it stated, "This says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period... The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time... I'd always thought it was just 3 reverts, but when this began, I re-checked the rules and decided the limit was 4, and thought I would just be at 3 with one more, so I made a last revert. I will try to discuss from now on as well, but you're right that this moved very fast, with nothing but templates and reverts to show for it, and no discussion forthcoming on the talk page. Furthermore, because I was so sure the reverts wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and consisted of out-and-out vandalism, I was quicker to revert than I ordinarily would be."


 * Despite your claim that this is not a plot, I was just baited into getting blocked, at the same time discussion to ban me began, and that revelation of a gross misportrayal of my statements was being hidden from view by the same user, NeutralHomer. I will indeed try to tone down the 'plot' talk, but the recent events if anything are only proving my point.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the blocking admin here, and admit the error was my own - quickly remedied, despite forgetting to reset the autoblock. I've also discussed the 3RR rule with Jzyehoshua. There are a lot of concerns in this discussion, and I'd encourage Jzyehoshua to address them calmly and civilly, but this brief block shouldn't really bias the discussion one way or another. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban
Per the above discussion and the arguments over other subjects I have notified Jzyehoshua that he is topic banned form articles related to Barack Obama and abortion, in order to allow him to learn to edit productively and harmoniously in an area where he does not have such strong feelings. I am aware that this is less than the outright block or ban called for by most above. I think it will not be long before we find out if this user is able to edit harmoniously in other areas or is unwilling to even try; the WP:ROPE is now paid out and the rest is up to him I'd say. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur - I was leaning towards imposing the same sanction based on the discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also agree that a topic ban is better. Editor seems to want to research and edit, perhaps that can be done constructively on articles that are not controversial for the editor. Dave Dial (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just seen the discussion and agree that topic ban is a good compromise. Will it be a time-constrained topic ban or indef? This will need to be stated as well as exact details about what the topic ban covers. e.g. is the user allowed to edit Michelle Obama Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well, but I am expressing my permanent disapproval of how many of those involved in the 'consensus' were already named defendants in it. Of those whose 'consensus' resulted in my ban, many had already been named in the discussions/history of the case as part of the cabal, including:


 * User:BrendanFrye
 * User:Scjessey
 * User:DD2K (aka Dave Dial)
 * User:Dayewalker
 * User:Wikidemon
 * User:JzG (aka Guy)

Users SarekofVulcan and Baseball Bugs were mentioned in the topic before they came as linked to a prior incident, and found the topic because I posted mentions on their notice pages per rules. And User:NeutralHomer just got caught in administrative abuse.

Therefore, you can have this, I give up on Wikipedia, you win. But let it be known this whole thing was a farce. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When your consensus has to consist of these exact same users each time, logical people should question the validity of such decisions. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * JzG, the supposedly impartial member delivering this decision, is the one who pushed in December for my discipline as well, as seen here. And all of 8 those previously mentioned were either involved in the December case or the 2009 Obama articles case, with the exception of NeutralHomer.  I don't know if Conflict of Interest applies here, but I at least question the decision.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above - I was about to impose the exact same sanction on you, and I am a completely uninvolved editor in this string of events regarding your edits.
 * If you would like, I would happily revoke Guy's topic ban and impose a new, identical one on you myself. It would avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, but will change nothing at the practical level.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well, perhaps that would be best, as it would at least avoid the editors who have repeatedly been involved in past proceedings. If you don't mind, on what basis is this decision delivered?  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't realize I was an involved editor. Next time, I'll make sure I don't go chasing after people to get you unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't think those who were involved in the December or 2009 cases should be voting on this case, either for or against consensus. And as for you, Abrazame, Wikidemon, and Baseball Bugs, I don't know - perhaps I have been too paranoid in suggesting you are part of the cabal.  I probably should not have ever brought up such a notion in the 1st place.  My frustration stems from the fact that every time I try to bring up the issue of non-positive material not addressed on the Obama page, the sourcing and questions of relevance/notability/etc. never get addressed.  Instead, it quickly devolves into ad hominem attacks, edit wars, vandalism attacks on the page, attempts to get me banned, and questionable thread closings/archivings.  The whole cabal stuff got mentioned in my frustration that I can't get the merits of the material addressed due to stiff opposition from a group of editors who use those tactics, and in trying to figure out just who was involved, it seems I overstepped my bounds.  I still am certain they are taking turns on edit wars and closing threads and using incendiary comments to try and start edit wars, but I should never have tried identifying who was involved.  Not that there's not proof, but in cases like Wikidemon's and Abrazame's, it involves the thread closings primarily which are more controversial in each case, and tougher to define.  With you and Baseball Bugs, I saw you were involved in Stevertigo's case, along with Scjessey, and perhaps jumped to conclusions.  Although I still don't understand how Baseball Bugs can keep trying to say I am calling Obama's record on abortion in general a controversy, and trying to block the related thread, when it's clearly about specific bills of a much more controversial nature, but that's beside the point.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I stopped editing political articles about a year ago. In effect, I put myself on a "topic ban" in order to keep my sanity. I got very tired of having to deal with the left-wing POV-pushers (against Palin) and the right-wing POV-pushers (against Obama). They come in with an agenda, namely to use wikipedia as a tabloid or a scandal sheet, or synthesizing material from various sources to build a "case", as part of a crusade to spread The Truth, being as how the reliable sources have not covered it sufficiently, in their eyes. That's not wikipedia's purpose. If you want to conduct a crusade, you're free to start your own website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that POV is wrong. It's that BOTH sides are supposed to be getting covered according to prominence and reliability of sources.  You're right, that it should be about reliable sources.  Why do you think I provided 55 sources, 22 from Wikipeda and 33 from primary media organizations?  Why do you think I kept suggesting, suggesting, suggesting, that everyone address the sources themselves?  Why do you think I kept asking if anyone had objections to the sources, reliability, etc. of the sources?  I WOULD NOT BE PROPOSING THESE AS CONTROVERSIES IF I THOUGHT THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SOURCING.  All I asked for from the beginning was for the sourcing to be examined on its merits, and instead, all I get are personal attacks, thread closings, edit wars, and attempts to have me banned.  Yeah, I have a POV.  But I also try to be honest enough to present the opposite side along with my own, and if my side isn't notable enough, then I have no intention of having it presented.  I mean, you saw the sources.  Could they GET any more prominent or reliable than that?  Really?  And yet, the thread on the subject got closed and I was repeatedly told the sources weren't reliable/prominent, though no one would object to any given one specifically.  THAT is what frustrated me.  As far as I'm concerned, these are major controversies, I provided WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH SOURCING, and nobody to date has been able to deny this.  Yet the discussion has been silenced, I can't get this to even be considered for inclusion in the article, and I have to go through a drawn out noticeboard process to try and change that.  Yeah, I'm frustrated.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not like I even tried to take it down this road, either. This is Wikidemon's thread.  The AN/I I originally started was on content alone, and trying to get the material examined on its merits.  Wikidemon had that one closed for allegedly being a BLP violation, but him and Sceptre did not address how the sourcing was inadequate.  Then, to prevent it being dropped, I created another AN/I on the BLP noticeboard questioning whether this was indeed a BLP violation, and why.  Wikidemon sought to have that closed and diverted here instead, where instead of the content, it has become instead about...  I don't know what.  But that's not my fault, I tried to take it down a different path, and not make it personal.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was the original closing of the discussion and refusal to even discuss whether the sourcing was good enough that got me started making the AN/I threads, and resulted in my anger towards Wikidemon and Abrazame. I couldn't understand why they would try to eliminate discussion like that, and got me focused on the now-deleted research project of past cases on my talk page.  But originally, I just wanted content discussion for the reliability of the sources, and because that could not happen at the page, I was forced to use the noticeboards.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Complete and utter circular reasoning. Nobody would contest the sources I was providing, their prominence, notability, etc.  But then they would just end all discussion of the controversies by stating that it was a BLP violation.  I'd point out that it's not a BLP violation if the sourcing is good enough.  And yeah, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, but I was always willing and ready to do all I could to make sure my sourcing measured up as such.  I was confident in the sourcing.  Very much so.  But the threads would just be closed after a few vague assertions of BLP violations and not enough sourcing, with never any specifics.  If I would provide the sources themselves, as I did in the first AN/I case, and challenge them to explain how the sourcing wasn't good enough, then they'd just have the thread closed immediately.  There was never any way around it, and then this thread forced me to defend myself instead of focusing on the sourcing/content like my original AN/I threads had intended.  It got personal.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As seen from the history I showed, what started as a discussion of whether controversial material was being included, and simply trying to discuss several issues discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia and in the news, rapidly degenerated into name-calling, edit wars that I tried to stay out of, and thread closings. It wasn't that it got discussed and was rejected, it wasn't even being allowed to be discussed because of all the attacks and problems going on.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This was exactly what happened last December. The material took a back seat to the personal attacks and activist thread closings to stop it from being examined.  I've gotten frustrated, and am no longer as calm in reacting as I was at first.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The same thing has been getting done here. Look at the thread collapsings of the diff lists, abortion thread, and summary.  A lot of my key points were made there, and editors like BrendanFrye and NeutralHomer will just collapse them and get me in trouble for 'edit warring' if I revert them.  They do this to prevent my major points from being seen by everyone and if I try to revert, it's me causing trouble.  And they will play musical chairs so none goes to 3 reverts, and they can prevent my points from being seen.  They do the same kind of stuff on the talk pages as well, forcing you to have your points concealed or deleted, or else get in trouble for edit warring, and there's no way to stop it.  At some point, it gets annoying for anybody, I think.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean, just look at the reasons they've been using. They collapsed the diff list because it was too long.  They collapsed the summary they'd previously asked for even though it was short and concise.  They collapsed the abortion section originally because it was posted as a reply in the ban section, then when I moved it, they collapsed it because of one section quoting from IL senate transcripts that could fit the definition of the original research, even though the rest of the post contained extensive sourcing from wikipedia pages and independent media sources that was obviously not OR.  They collapsed the discussion on the Talk:Obama page because for a few minutes I used a certain font in a single post.  If I try to revert any of these, it's me who gets in trouble for edit warring, and they can basically run the threads however they want, deleting and collapsing replies at will.  As seen with NeutralHomer, this was most obviously abused when he reverted a post consisting of typo fixes, and when I reverted, I got the recent, and immediately reversed, temporary ban.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And yeah, I got angry and let out my frustration with comments simply stating what I saw, a coordinated effort behind this. I let out my frustration too much, but it's not like there was no background behind it, either.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no cabal. Venturing an opinion, as an admin, on the behaviour of a user, certainly does not disqualify you form venturing further opinions on that same user later. You have presented no evidence at all to suggest that the people you claim to be "involved" have been in some kind of dispute at the same articles you edit, which is what that term is generally accepted as meaning. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get too involved in this, but I've read this whole thing, and I don't really see why a topic ban on abortion is called for. If you look at the article history of Abortion in the United States, you'll see that Jzyehoshua added some uncontroversial, sourced information about opinion polls to that page. It was only when he made a minor correction that the mini-edit war started, which was based on an incorrect assessment of his initial edit.

Also note that, after his initial changes from a week ago, he added a note to the talk page explaining what he had done and asking for additional input and assistance. Seems entirely reasonable to me. Torchiest talk/contribs 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The rationale is simple: abortion is his "hot button" topic, and Obama was merely a catalyst. If he is to discover how to edit in a collegial manner then this is best done outside his hot button topic. He obviously has extremely strong opinions on abortion and is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of alternative views. As long as he is editing these articles, he will be subject to stress and is likely to blow up again. I disagree that his edits to this topic are acceptable; Stop vandalizing the page by reverting logical edits dealing with typo fixes and repeated paragraphs! is hardly exemplary. Differences of opinion are not to be characterised as vandalism, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you.
 * He now has the choice of editing harmoniously in the millions of articles not related to abortion, ignoring the sanction and being blocked (which was the second choice above anyway due to other issues) or storming off in a huff, in which case the traditional riposte is "don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out". We do not need crusaders in topics which are subject to deep philosophical and religious divisions. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Odd that you're still the one taking charge here, when Georgewilliamherbert had said he could take over. You are the one who has been pushing for a ban on me ever since the original December discussions as seen here.  You have been one of the major attack dogs aiming for my head this whole time, and it's ironic you would pretend impartiality here.


 * You are trying to paint me this way when this has been the only article I had a problem on, and only then with you and your friends, Scjessey, Tarc, DD2K, etc. I would encourage anyone to look at the edits referred to there, it was vandalism by NeutralHomer, and a blatant attempt to start an edit war so I wouldn't be able to defend myself here while the ban monkey trial occurred.  The obviously rude and insensitive comment at the end shows just how activist JzG is here.  The fact that he is allowed to impose sentencing here is a joke.


 * I continue to maintain that nothing wrong at all was shown with the sources provided, and that consensus alone, without basis, was used to silence my viewpoints. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Chiming in late, largely because it's been a while since I looked into any of our Obama articles. On reflection I think this ban is more likely to be productive than the indefinite block that was the other likely admin response to this situation. I hope that Jzyehoshua applies to editing articles some of the energy that's gone into making the successive posts that we've seen here, and I hope that seeing editors working on less contentious subjects can result in Jzyehoshua learning to coöperate better with other editors. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think for one second I would devote my efforts to supporting a bastion of liberal bias and unchecked censorship, which uses no excuse to discard without examination utterly reliable sources, you have another thing coming. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. I think we are done here, yes? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User has broken the topic ban on the Obama talk page. BrendanFrye (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will verify that myself. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And, blocked indef as a result by . UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)