Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement


 * For archived requests, see General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1.

Report #1
I hereby notify the working group that the article probation is ineffective. I am so fed up with subtle POV pushing (and not so subtle POV pushing) that these warriors have chased me away from WP. I am now retired. These warriors should be blocked for destructing WP by chasing people away.

The most common POV pushing is using wikilawyering excuses to get their way. They say a point is not relevant or they use some other excuse. Basically, any right wing fanatic that only edits negative information on Obama and other liberals are one kind of POV pusher. Another is a left wing radical who insists on no negative information on Obama. You can see them insist the same thing for articles like Sotomayor and/or Hillary Clinton. Important information is taken out.

These people are not hard to find. Just look at 3 days of edits and see if they are removing negative or adding negative. Then look at their other edits and 99% of the time, there is a pattern.

Another problem is the article doesn't comprehensive cover Obama. For example, his Afghanistan policy is very relevant. However, late last year, someone put a neutral comment about Afghanistan and the left wing radicals thought any mention of Afghanistan conflicted with the anti-war Iraq message so they took that out. The right wing fanatics are guilty of similar actions such as the Teleprompter issue. All of the fair minded people are gone.

The article probation is ineffective because it allows the old timer radicals to continue to edit, collapse peoples' comments into boxes to cover-up discussion. They claim the "undue weight" argument but insert trivial things themselves.

PARTIAL SOLUTION

The partial solution is to organize a committee to decide what sections there will be. Then sub-committees will decide on the most important topics of each section. Only the POV warriors have the energy to insert a sentence then fight over it. Neutral people don't have the fanaticism to do so.

This way, we can overcome radicalism. The current presidency section could be open to anyone to add a sentence or two since it is current. However, the committee work could fix his senatorial career and Illinois stuff and early life. Anyone could join the committee. The committee can work on one section every month and it will be done before years end.

Mailer Diablo, please consider this. Formerwiki (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, what was your former user name while editing the Obama articles a year ago? Wikidemon (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Even in this simple paragraph, Wikidemon shows POV. This is why people like Wikidemon cannot control article probation because this is just deputizing them to be censors for their point of view.
 * Wikidemon shows POV here, problem with foxes guarding the farm

Wikidemon accuses the above users of sockpuppetry but Wikidemon could have created these users as easily as anyone. Or Wikidemon may be just calling people socks to gain sympathy and hysteria.

Looking at the 4 edits that Wikidemon cites, one of them is not an edit but just an edit log (3rd one). 2 of them are trashy edits, I agree. However, one of the edits shows that Wikidemon is the POV pusher. Obama was given a title of lecturer, not professor. If WP is to be precise, it should name his title, no title inflation nor belittle his title...just the facts. If someone is trying to inflate a resume, they would try to call any faculty member "professor" just as Wikidemon is doing. A few universities run kindergardens. Then calling a kindergarden teacher a professor is really being grandiose.

This Obama article is a huge problem but having sneaky POV pushers run the article probation is not the answer. The really obvious POV pushers (the ones that say Obama is a Muslim) are easy to see but the sneaky ones that act like Wikidemon did in the above edit is dangerous and harmful. Instead, all editors should be cooperative and seek a truly neutral article. Writing something radically left or right or insisting against a neutral edit should be lead to a topic ban. The Obama article is not neutral. The POV pushers who edit it now must leave. Wikipedia should recruit neutral editors who have not edited it but edit other articles well and have them clean it up. ArbCom, are you listening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerwiki (talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ''Note - I have moved this material to a page I just created for purpose of filing probation violation reports and requests for enforcement. The "simple paragraph" Formerwiki refers to above is here.  I will not comment beyond that.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Simon Dodd
I would like to request that User:Simon Dodd be sanctioned for incivility related to Orly Taitz. Since I closed the 2nd AfD, I have been subject to repeated incivility and personal attacks from this user. My own conduct is under review at ANI, and I actively solicit additional feedback on my conduct at that page.

As most folks who follow U.S. news may be aware by now, Orly Taitz is a leading figure in the "birther" movement challenging Barack Obama's citizenship. As such, she was previously discussed in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which is the only proposed merge target brought up in the most recent AfD's for her article:
 * Orly Taitz is Obama-related
 * 3rd AfD
 * ~6 different editors argued to redirect in the first part of the 2nd AfD, 1 after the DRV-enforced relisting.

He has done so at AfD ANI My talk page
 * User:Simon Dodd has repeatedly engaged in incivility and personal attacks
 * breathtakingly disingenuous
 * Are you being wilfully obtuse here?
 * Your attempt to squelch that should not be allowed.
 * two lies in one sentence
 * another demonstrable lie
 * Frankly, it's very difficult to take seriously your protestation that this was an innocent error when you're trying to insulate so clearly flawed a decision
 * And again at ANI, in which he specifically acknowledges this complaint, yet persists in personal attacks. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To date, neither of the statements I asked to be refactored have been. Rather, the second accusation of lying comes hours after I refused to answer the allegations here. While it may be unintentional, Dodd's persistence in personal attacks and refusal to refactor them has severely hampered civil discourse.
 * My attempts to counsel restraint and civil conduct have been fruitless
 * If you want to look for conspiracy theories, be my guest, but not on this talk page
 * you have again raised an argument against the person...
 * Again, please stop the incivility and personal attacks
 * I see no point in responding to any post that accuses me of lying. If you'd like to refactor your post and be civil about it, feel free
 * Please refactor your personal attack, and I'll subsequently respond appropriately to the substance of your comment

My first choice for a remedy would be for User:Simon Dodd to go back through every identified ANI, talk page, and AfD post, refactor them to remove incivility and personal attacks, and apologize for his behavior to date. Alternatively, I would propose a one-month topic ban from all Taitz-related articles, broadly construed and including talk pages. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remedy sought

I haven't had time to review this in detail but thanks for posting it here, and thanks for being upfront about the other thread. This page hasn't gotten much use yet but I think it may be a useful place to bring up disputes relating to Obama articles. I'm going to post a notice at WP:AN/I to make sure people are aware of this. There's a chance that people will want to centralize it all in one place. My quick read is that some of Simon Dodd's comments go beyond the acceptable bounds for civility, but he is editing in good faith and perhaps needs to be engaged by a neutral administrator in a friendly way and asked to tone it down. Blocks and bans are usually for repeated, long-term, or extreme behavior, generally after a warning and after attempts to reason it through fail. But that's just my quick opinion. Wikidemon (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * As an involved editor, I have to say that your second proposed remedy is disproportionate and out of the question. You closed an AfD that had been re-opened as the result of a contentious DRV, and then said that if we didn't like it, we could open yet another DRV on the topic. Now you wonder why someone is going a bit ballistic on you?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about my closing--the ANI about that topic is linked above. Even if I am found to have acted incorrectly, I did nothing whatsoever to provoke, solicit, or encourage such an aggressive and impolite reaction. If you follow the diffs above, you see I've remained calm and civil throughout, and encouraded Dodd to do so as well. Thus, this is about User:Simon Dodd's repeated personal attacks and incivility on an Obama-related article. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessary. Article probation shouldn't be used as a stick.  The best outcome would be for Simon and Jclemens to step away from the matter at hand.  If simon persists or this starts to look more like an obama issue, this can be reconsidered. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I understand your sentiment, it does resemble a finding of dual fault, which I do not believe is appropriate. I'm willing to continue my refusal to respond to the attacks, with the exception of seeking scrutiny through this process.  I will continue to maintain such a posture whether or not User:Simon Dodd ceases his unprovoked attacks. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand how you would feel that stepping away from a dispute resembles a finding of dual fault. I really, really do.  But I have a few responses.  First is that you will live a thousand years before finding a procedure or forum on wikipedia's dispute resolution continuum which will vindicate one user in a dispute over another (absent some serious misconduct by one of the users).  Second is that regardless of those feelings, this isn't an appropriate use of the sanctions.  Simon made process related complaints about an AfD close of yours.  He (imo) made them in an intemperate fashion and pressed the issue long after it needed to be pressed, but he didn't do anything save engage in a process dispute which happened to relate to something in the Obama penumbra. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have alerted Simon Dodd that his name was mentioned here, and also urged restraint - that is a courtesy when filing a report like this. As an aside to Jclemens, you might want to try the conciliatory approach.  You've already admitted that it may have been a hasty close.  It never hurts to show concern for another editor's feelings even if you think they're unduly harsh, and it does not mean admitting fault.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review my contribution history on this topic at the above mentioned venues, and give me honest, informed feedback of how I can be more civil to Mr. Dodd. Seriously--I welcome the opinions of uninvolved, experienced wikipedians about anything I said that could have caused or exacerbated the situation.  Of course, I politely declined to reverse a close that yielded the correct outcome, but aside from that, I'm completely at a loss to explain the level of ongoing incivility.  Advise me where I've replied in kind and I'll apologize to Mr. Dodd forthwith. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you made a reasonable but controversial call to close the AfD early as a snowball keep. Nonadmin closures are often controversial, so in general I would only recommend it if you're ready to take heat.  I've closed a few AfDs - of articles I was editing, no less - and been hauled to AN/I for it.  It comes with the territory.  Guess what?  Those articles are still there.  I agree with Protonk's summary that Simon is beating a dead horse and went over the top in his complaints about the closure.  But Protonk is also correct that taking offense to other editors' anger at your process actions is not going to get you anywhere.  You're not an admin, but AfD closure is something normally done by admins.  One thing I've learned about admins (which would also apply to non-admins making process decisions) is that if you want to be effective you have to develop a thick skin and let insults wash over you.  Some people get upset and see hypocrisy when things don't go their way.  Calling them on it rarely helps the situation.  It's almost as if WP:CIVIL does not apply to people badmouthing administrators.  Also, keep in mind that the word "lie" has (unfortunately for us English purists) taken on an entirely new meaning for something that the speaker should have known is untrue, or is simply untrue.  People shouldn't use it in this sense, but it does not necessarily mean a deliberate attempt to deceive.  So when someone says "you lie" they might just mean they disagree with what you're saying.  Anyway, if I could ghostwrite the kind of apology that works it would be "I'm sorry that my early closure of the AfD disappointed you - I was only trying to do what's best, and clearly you disagree with it.  You are right that I did not reverse it, but at this point there is a new AfD, which I will not be closing, so the result is out of my hands.  Let's try not to let this come between us." - Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To set the record straight, I am, in fact, an admin. Have been for 9 months now, and been fairly active at it. Having said that, thanks for the time you took to review my conduct in the matter. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. What do I know then?  Well, the "thick skin" comment applies doubly then, and scratch my comment about nonadmin closures.  It's an admin's prerogative to do an early WP:SNOW closure; editors can reasonably dispute the wisdom and that's what deletion review is for, but it's pointless to accuse anyone of bad behavior simply because one disputes the results.  Further, it's good to keep an open mind and be willing to acknowledge mistakes, but it's also true that you can't please everyone and it is perfectly fine to be firm in your decisions.  That earns respect.  There's a blurry line as to whether you become an involved party simply because a difficult editor disputes your administrative actions. Still, quite a few editors seem to enjoy venting on admins when they don't agree with an outcome.   I must confess to doing it a few times myself.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that it was was "resaonable" for Jclemens to do a snowball close when there had just been a contentious DRV that determined the AfD should be open the full length. He was acting against community consensus when he took that action, and "oh, well, it was the right thing to do anyway" is not a particularly satisfactory answer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that the ANI discussion is about my actions; this request for enforcement concerns User:Simon Dodd's repeated incivility and personal attacks in response to those actions. Your input is most welcome and appropriate there. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that there is something inherently incivil about disagreeing with an administrator's actions. I've looked at the diffs and I don't see anything particularly incivil about them. This whole thing is absolutely silly. Just drop it and the drama goes away. --B (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I welcome disagreement, and am rather tolerant of incivility, as the diffs above show. Out of curiousity, why would you propose prolonging a repeated AfD but curtailing discussion on the civility of this editor, instead of the other way around? Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the two have nothing to do with each other. We have an AFD process that says that AFDs stay open for five days unless there is an exceptional circumstance.  That process was violated on AFD #2.  A deletion review reopened the AFD because of that violated process.  You then violated that process again and closed the AFD early.  If allowed to run itself out, the process would have been long over with by now.  The PROBLEM is every time there is an early closure, the closure gets debated for a week and then the process is restarted.  The result: three weeks of drama.  Just let the process run and it goes away on its own.  There's no harm in letting the thing run.  As for this discussion here, I never tried to curtail it.  I suggested that you, as the initiating party, consider dropping it and let the drama die, but that is offering an opinion to you, not suggesting that an uninvolved administrator reviewing the situation dismiss it.  But since you asked the question, yes, I do think this should be closed.  The link to the article probation is very much tenuous.  Yes, Orly Taitz is Obama-related, but you are taking a remedy intended to stop political bickering and seeking to apply it to something clearly unrelated to the intent of the probation.  This whole thing is an utterly silly escalation and exercise in forum shopping.  Even if there were a legitimate sanction here, it could certainly have been applied by any number of admins reading ANI. --B (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they stay open 7 days, since it changed in May. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew that ... I was just testing you ... yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;) You can tell how often I close AFDs - I stick on the FFD side of things - less mess, less fuss. ;) --B (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that this forum may not have been specifically intended for such complaints, but based on the allegations I've made, I believe it is the most specific place to bring this complaint. Forum shopping could only apply if I'd asked for sanctions else, and THEN came here.  As the issue was specific to an article already under an ArbCom sanction, I chose this venue first, expecting it to attract administrators versant in similar sorts of complaints; I didn't expect it would just prompt another AN/I post. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with B's post at AN/I. I think the we should just get over the whole thing and close this. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I consent. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Protostan
User:Protostan (talk) (contribs) has been editing Barack Obama to repeatedly add the. There had been discussion at Talk:Barack Obama in the past that too many categories in the article were causing technical problems. Consensus was reached that redundant categories would be removed. In this instance, it is my understanding that the United Church of Christ category sufficed, as it is itself a subset of Protestant.

Despite being invited to do so, this editor has not chosen to discuss his change and get consensus, per WP:BRD. His edit summaries also are lacking:

1st edit "Article is better now" - for an editor with an established history (see contribs)), this is an insufficient if not misleading edit summary.

2nd edit "Thanks however [AP] wire story on Obama's resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ in the course of the Jeremiah Wright controversy stated that he had, in doing so, disaffiliated" - suggests a non-WP:NPOV.

3rd edit "He was a member of that Church for decades" - suggests he did not understand the edit summaries and article talk page text explaining WP:DUPCAT, e.g., "there was more than one category of Christian, redundant since the United Church of Christ category is included" and "explaining that the category is redundant to that of UCC" (from the article's talk page), and "Reverted good faith edits by Protostan; Redundant category not needed & previously deleted. "United Church of Christ" category is subset of Protestant cat. (from my revert).

Finally, I'll note that a look at the editor's contributions and talk page indicate a particular focus on adding religious categories to WP:BLPs. Some of the changes were disputed vigorously by other editors (such as those to Abraham Lincoln, while others may be under the radar. A sampling seem to be done without WP:RS and seem to be OR, e.g., --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard G. Colling - nothing in his biograph article states that he is a Christian, or even an American citizen. One of the external links implies he's a Christian (but actually only states that he is religious via a quote from him "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods”).
 * Keith B. Miller - an edit, hence reverted, adding the text "He is a Christian." to the lede (the article is a stub), again without WP:RS (or any reference at all), nor with anything in the article stating that Mr. Miller is, indeed, a Christian.
 * Mary Higby Schweitzer - another reverted edit adding to a WP:BLP without citation and without supporting text in the article.
 * I'll keep an eye on this, but I'd say this doesn't fall under the article probation -- it seems to be a fairly garden-variety content dispute. I agree that the parent category should be left out, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I conur with SarekOfVulcan. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4wajzkd02, could you point to the talk page archive contains the discussion of redundant categories in this article?--chaser (away) - talk 17:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you review the WP:DUPCAT link above, you'll see that it didn't really need to be discussed in detail here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaferk
WP:3RR as already noted [|here], but since this is on an article subject to probation, possible additional sanctions should come as well.

User:Jzyehoshua

 * Note - the editor has been topic-banned for one month in connection with this report. I would suggest leaving it open for a few days in case there is an appeal or should anyone want to comment on it here, and then collapsing or archiving it as a matter of page maintenance - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

is to all intents and purposes a single purpose account whose mission is to "balance" our "liberal bias" in the article on Obama by including criticisms from the far-right. Issues identified include undue weight, politically-loaded terminology, assumptions of bad faith against others, WP:IDINTHEARTHAT, SHOUTING and generally not getting it. Since he has no other current area of interest I believe he falls into the category of disruptive single purpose account and should be topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking briefly through his contributions, I see a few well-sourced edits to the article in question, and a LOT more discussion on the talk page, which I haven't reviewed. I don't see any edit warring, he has a clean block log, and he has previously contributed to other topic areas--although not within the past year. Have you tried any less severe remedies? Can you provide a diff or two of egregious conduct on the talk page that would prompt such a severe initial sanction? Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He edit warred to include on talk edits which were reverted from the article and fomr talk with a request to refactor in less inflammatory terms. There have been several arbcom cases concerning wall-of-text argumentation of this type, and it is clear to me as an outsider with relatively little interest in US politics that an agenda is being pushed by an editor with virtually no other history. That is a red flag on a high profile BLP. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've been randomly sampling his edits to the talk page, and not seen any problems with them yet. I've seen him argue about YESPOV and the like, and note that his posts to other editors' talk pages have been civil and constructive. Can you post some diffs of the egregious behavior you cited above?  I can certainly agree he's been very prolific on the talk page recently, hence I don't want to redo your effort if you've already got a few examples you can highlight. Just because he disagrees with the current content of the article and writes about it at length doesn't make him a disruptive influence. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying an outright ban or anything is warranted right now, but the intent to edit biographies of living persons with the approach that there isn't enough criticism in the subject's article is just not going to end well. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, per UNDUE, the POTUS articles ought to have relatively more criticism than any other articles on Wikipedia, really, as every president of the Internet-era has attracted a huge amount of criticism. Obama's just the latest and current one. We need to be careful that our (correct and worthwhile) efforts to protect BLPs don't harm NPOV by eliminating or marginalizing the proportional inclusion of RS'ed criticism. Again, if there's a violation of editor conduct then let's correct it posthaste, but simply editing civilly from a differing political perspective is not itself misconduct. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua has now begun to engage in active edit warring to introduce a contentious paragraph all about Alan Keyes, with little relation to Obama. This digression is apparently, in turn, an effort to smuggle in various anti-abortion WP:SOAPBOXing, including accusations of Obama supporting "infanticide". While the first edit was clearly contrary to broad consensus of detailed discussion on the talk page, the editor immediately twice reverted to insert the same disputed material. Moreover, these reverts were accompanied by threats of indefinite edit warring:


 * 1) Initial edit to introduce Keyes (and Ryan) digressions
 * 2) 1st Reversion to Jzyehoshua own unwanted material - (Undid revision 333995853 - This edit is the only mention of the primary issues during the 2004 Illinois general election, both concerning Keyes, and concerning Obama. Doesn't violate NPOV)
 * 3) 2nd Reversion to Jzyehoshua's Keyes/Ryan material - (Undid revision 333997493 by PhGustaf (talk). Will continue reverting if NPOV accusation not addressed, which it has not been.)

At this point, I think an outright block is very well warranted. LotLE × talk 20:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So it looks like the disagreement is over how much and what content from United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 should be in the Barack Obama article? In reviewing the recent talk page today, I see few and none-too-substantial responses to his edits.  I think I prefer to place him on 1RR before blocking him, because he is making RS'ed edits cordially, despite POV/UNDUE disagreements.
 * Does anyone object to me placing him on 1RR on all Barack Obama articles, broadly construed? Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please give it another chance? Jzyehoshua is only at 1RR right now on this, although both the addition and the reversion happened after there was clear opposition to the edit.  I had a polite discussion with Jzyehoshua after the second edit and threat, and they agreed not to edit war, so I think it's water under the bridge right now.  My overall impression is that we have a reasonable editor who will work with people if we make the extra effort to get along.  Also, before imposing any sanction based on this discussion, could we we please notify him (her?) of this discussion and allow time to comment?  Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, 1RR is a good principle for everyone. In theory nobody should edit war on an issue except in clear cases of vandalism, BLP and copyright vios, serious degradation to the article, etc.  Anything less than that and we can talk about it on the talk page, even if that means the "wrong version" stays for a while while we talk or until someone else sees fit to remove it.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Wikidemon. In the conversation you mention on Jzyehoshua's talk page, he does not agree to work with people.  He simply states that he will wait a few days before resuming edit warring.  I really don't think there is evidence he's got the point.  Moreover, if article probation doesn't mean that everyone is on 1RR on the Obama article, it's hard to see the point of it.  I don't think the editor has earned a long block at this point, I just think a day or two block would emphasize the importance of good editing to him/her.  LotLE × talk  08:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just saw the message about this. As I stated, my reason for "edit warring" was to follow the Wikipedia rules of editing boldly in the face of no substantive opposition.  I created a section on the Obama talk page, "Neutral Point of View", and as you can see, there is still no opposition to the sourcing.  Rather, the only oppositions have come on the basis of no consensus or POV, which as the Wikipedia guidelines state, is no excuse for reverting edits.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue is currently already being discussed in depth on the Talk:Barack Obama page's Neutral Point of View section. As I am sure it will bear out, there is no substantive opposition to my edits apart from mere opinionated dislike of the topic by those with opposing ideological viewpoints.  Unless Wikipedia administrators tell me I should not do so, I still intend to begin making the edits in a few days, as I said I would, unless someone can provide a substantive reason for not including the edits.  As I already showed on the talk page, when there are substantive reasons, I am willing to work with other editors by changing my wording, sources, and placement of material so that it will conform with Wikipedia standards.  However, the talk page has been filled from my first post with personal attacks and straw men that I think are a more serious issue, in violation of the talk page guidelines, and should never have been allowed to continue unregulated.  Furthermore, I have been unwilling to work with the users in question because there was nothing constructive in their comments, only constant ad hominems and fallacious statements that were not borne out by the actual content of the Wikipedia guidelines.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing this has already reached this point, I will not simply let the issue rest either, but intend to actively pursue blocks or bans on multiple users, including JzG, Tarc, and scjessey for repeated personal attacks and profanity in lieu of no constructive material or comments whatsoever. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're beginning to lose me there. Please see WP:BATTLE.  Don't go there.  - Wikidemon (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about retaliation. I've been considering it for a while, but was holding off, holding off, on the arbitration.  I'd already taken it to Mediation, but was hoping to wait a week to see if the Mediation could resolve things.  However, at this point, I don't think it can be avoided since it's already there anyway.  It's time Wikipedia addressed what is a hostile atmosphere of personal attacks with the intent to discriminate and block out all opposing views.  If this isn't addressed, scjessey and company could even do this to other users down the road.  The sort of attacks they are, and have been leveling show they are willing to stoop to some pretty low stuff to silence opposing views, regardless of how calmly others try to talk it through with them.  If Wikipedia is going to give close eye to my actions, then I would like to make sure those who've been accusing me aren't overlooked either, because if Wikipedia doesn't put a stop to this stuff now, they will just keep manipulating the process to harass all others with opposing viewpoints out of Wikipedia as well.  I saw the way they were treating other users there as well and did not appreciate it, I'd hardly imagine this to be the first time it's come up with them.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, so there is no confusion, I am not referring only to the Obama talk page. There have also been incidents on the talk pages now of me, GoodDay, Misortie, and scjessey.  After the first attempted edit, several of scjessey's group began contacting me with talk page comments, some of which were deleted.  There may be other talk pages involved too but those are the ones that I am aware of.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Scjessey's group?" I really don't think you want to go there. I oppose your attempt to use Wikipedia to push your anti-abortion agenda, but I am not the evil overlord of a sinister gang of editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I do believe there is coherence in creating the bias. When you and GoodDay began commenting on my page within a few hours after the edit,[] and I replied on your talk pages, I could not help but notice that of the 6 or 7 users who would end up primarily opposing me on the Obama talk discussion, you were having talk page discussions with many of them.[]


 * You initiated a conversation with DD2K about the need for filing a case against me.[] You and Tarc also went on Misortie's page, and you advised them to file against me.[]  You also had an interesting discussion with Lulu that only appears when using the compare tool.[]  I know you were involved in multiple other discussions pushing for action against me or criticizing me as well on user talk pages.[][][]


 * You also knew Scepter and welcomed them back, another of my ardent critics,[] and Tarc welcomed you back.[]  And then there's the sudden appearance of Lulu, who you also welcomed back.[] It just seemed suspicious to me that 3 of your old associates would suddenly all drop by to help you criticize me after what appeared to have been long absences.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Advice to both sides on this - right now, it is too early to ask for broader review, and you really need to show that you've made every effort before asking for intervention.  For Jzyehoshua, you're trying to deal with this on two fronts, first advocating fairly aggressively for content that other people dispute, and second complaining that you're being treated too harshly by the editors who oppose your content.  Those two work against each other, although I have some sympathy for both.  For Scjessey, I agree that Jzyehoshua is pushing a content agenda, but you and others have also been unnecessarily harsh and unwelcoming to an editor new to the page and raised the alarm for content that could well be discussed and brought to a neutral point of view.  It's not a cabal and I don't think anyone is in league, so I don't see this as misconduct, but there does seem to be some group-think and piling on.  My guess is that arbcom, and the more advanced dispute resolution forums, would reject an appeal by either side at this point and ask everyone to keep working on it.  Arbcom election results were just announced, and there's a substantial change in the committee's membership.  You don't want to be too quick to rush there with a complaint that isn't fully formed, because once they've decided they don't want to hear about a problem it will be doubly hard to come back if it truly gets to the point where it's intractable.  This is all just my opinion of course, but I really think we ought to hit a reset button and try again, only friendlier this time.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikidemon, but I disagree. All the "welcomes" I got are as a result of the expiration of my topic ban, and nothing whatsoever to do with this agenda-driven editor. You're more forgiving than I for this kind of editor, but I have no time for people who want to use Wikipedia as a tool for propaganda. Jzyehoshua is seeing conspiracies where none exist, but I can guarantee that if this sort of behavior continues it will lead to the WP:RFC/U I suggested, and perhaps ArbCom after that. Comments about "associates" and stuff are completely inappropriate, and the statement above is as cleverly-crafted a distortion of the truth as all that anti-abortion bullshit on the Obama talk page. My patience tank is almost empty. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You realize that abortion is among the biggest drivers of single-issue voting in American politics, right? To expect that a stable consensus on the amount of abortion-related material on the page of a sitting U.S. President is probably overly optimistic.  The best I think we can reasonably hope for is that discussions of POV differences of opinion be conducted with civility and decorum. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But this situation is a little more complex, because what we have is the same editor making the same points repeatedly, despite an overwhelming majority of editors expressing disapproval. The stench of flayed horse carcass is quite pungent. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon, I thought about WP:NOTIFY after I'd left for the evening last night, and you're absolutely right; it was inappropriate of me to propose anything absent a defense from the editor in question. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Before even having realized this discussion was here, I opened an ANI discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Woogee (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ,, . It is, I think, entirely obvious that these edits do not have consensus, but Jzyehoshua chooses to edit-war over them against other editors (plural). This user has virtually no contributions to mainspace to offset this disruption: . Guy (Help!) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that this puts my actions in context and disallows me from acting further in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out a few things:
 * We should understand that User:Jzyehoshua is a relatively new user with under 400 edits total, and under 200 when the edits to Barack Obama started. Indeed, there were only three previous edits this year.
 * When I saw Jzyehoshua's edit to Barack Obama, followed by two more tweaks, I saw that they violated several policies and reverted them. After the text was largely added back, it took a second reversion and a note on Jzyehoshua's talk page, but the point was gotten across. By that, I specifically mean that the fact that the article is on probation and violations of that probation would likely result in a block. The discussions then began on Talk:Barack Obama. My point is that, thus far, we are seeing totally appropriate behavior that we can all assume was a good faith effort to improve an article. We can disagree on the definition of improve, but I hope we mostly agree that was the intention here.
 * What I've seen follow since is a whole lot of great large walls of text added by Jzyehoshua, representing a flurry of discussion that borders on WP:BATTLEGROUND and has contributed to the size of the talk page nearly tripling to a whopping size of over 500KB of text in less than 10 days. (I've taken shortcuts by providing diffs that include several - sometimes a dozen - consecutive revisions to the talk page.)
 * What I have not seen is WP:CONSENSUS to add the requested changes, and it's gotten a little more difficult since then. Jzyehoshua has been told that there's no consensus and has cited policy stating that lack of consensus alone isn't a reason to revert. There doesn't seem to be understanding that there's consensus against the proposed changes. In addition there are the previously provided diffs showing what looks to be an intent to edit war that followed subsequent edits to the article.
 * As a semi-involved editor, I am not in a position to impose anything in particular here, but I would ask Jzyehoshua to step back, try to do smaller things, try to do them less quickly, try to do them individually, and try to do them succinctly. I really understand there's a passion to get a point across, but I also think that putting too much on a talk page at once (or in consecutive, smaller edits) is overwhelming and ends up making it more difficult to gain consensus.
 * I hope that a block isn't necessary but a topic ban (hopefully brief) might be...I hoped early on that a "word to the wise" would suffice and I'm hopeful still that it can help. If I could really distill it down to one word, that word would be community; that's what we are here. We consist of individuals with a largely shared vision of what the project is; there is a less-shared vision of what it should be, but we should not mistake those visions for what really exists today.


 * Having said all that, I do not think an indef block is the appropriate next step, but I do think it should be noted that such is a distinct possibility if consensus isn't reached to make edits that are clearly divisive and contrary to several policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and the probation on Barack Obama.
 * Now that I've left my own great large wall of text, I'll step out of the way. Frank  |  talk  06:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated would happen however, the latest section on the talk page is bearing out that aside from not reaching Consensus, there is still absolutely nothing anyone can find wrong with even the most controversial of the edits that will hold up under scrutiny.[] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true; you got an objection four minutes after that message. When people say that Keyes' political attacks on Obama have no place in Obama's biographical article, that's a reason not to include it. When your edits are reverted shortly after being added, that is an indication the community does not agree with your edits. Also, while you're looking up policies and guidelines to support your edits, make sure to read silence is the weakest form of consensus. This is subtle stuff, I agree, but you are saying that "no consensus" is not a reason to revert, but...you're actually receiving objections to your edits, so that's not the same thing. Then, at times, you've claimed "only two people responded and only one disagreed", so that sounds like WP:SILENCE to me, but again - it's a very weak form of consensus, especially considering the large walls of text you're adding to the talk page. It's really quite hard to pick out what point to respond to when there's so much included there. If someone doesn't respond to one point you make, you seem to be using that as agreement with that point. That's generally not how consensus works - especially not on an article which is on probation. Frank  |  talk  16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard that objection raised recently for perhaps the first time. My response was that "I don't see this issue as being about whether or not it was a major view of Keyes. I see it as being at issue because it was prominent in the press and during the general election as a historical factor."  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, you wrote just above: there is still absolutely nothing anyone can find... when it took exactly four minutes for someone to do so. Frank  |  talk  17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there were no objections. I said I was confident there was nothing that would hold up under scrutiny to reasonably deny inclusion of the material on the Obama page.  I do hear some reasonable reservations about the inclusion of the subject matter, but think it's been able to be addressed so far.  Other subjects such as sourcing and wording can be worked around, and I've already been trying to do so with those interested.  I still don't think there is a reasonable basis for denying inclusion of the material on the page which can not be suitably addressed.  I don't see any reservations against the material that deal with violations of Wikipedia guidelines with the exception of Consensus.  The sourcing does not seem to be a problem, and shows this issue to have been prominent enough to be relevant on the Barack Obama page.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC-OD) I agree with Frank, as above, this Jzyehoshua account is definitely using this article as a BATTLE|battleground. In response to Frank's comment on the talk page (and my brief agreement with him), Jzyehoshua responds (editing as an IP) to dump almost 8K of text onto the page in a single edit. His refusal to understand consensus basically forces other editors (who also edit other articles, unlike him) to keep up with his walls of text, lest their silence be taken as proof that his edits have consensus. His comments above pretty clearly show he doesn't understand consensus, and that if he feels his additions fit into one branch or another of wiki-policy, he's going to keep forcing the issue. I agree with Frank that maybe a brief topic ban would help him to better understand the concepts of wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Róbert Gida
, a mission-poster, also a WP:SPA with no interest other than "correcting" our "liberal bias" on the Obama article. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While this user is clearly a new SPA, his only edits on the topic are to the talk page. If a sockpuppet (and I would support a CU based on the posting pattern) I agree that he should be blocked as such.  I'm concerned that absent without substantiated sockpuppetry or any actual harm to the article, talk page interactions would generally not rise to the level of action. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue here is that the talk page of the Obama article is not really there to be used as a wingnut bulletin board, that is for Free Republic. Nor is it the place for recasting the perspective on Obama to reflect the views of the far right, which is Conservapedia's job. Constantly fighting battles with people who think that a balanced article is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy (leaving aside for a moment the unassailable fact that the "left" in US politics is in fact the global political right) is a recipe for burnout and rapid attrition of editors, and the seed of polarisation where only those with strong liberal sentiments will want to stay and fight the fight. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So vocally disagreeing with the current state of NPOV balance on an article is a sufficient justification for topic banning someone? That would set a dangerous precedent that I'm uncomfortable with.  If there's actual conduct violations going on, that's one thing, but simply arguing that articles should be more "fair and balanced" (for whatever value of that espoused by that particular poster) is not a good reason for a topic ban or other sanction, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll observe this editor for a little while longer, but I anticipate filing a sockpuppet investigation report in the near future. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted the likely sockmaster on his talk page, and given a fairly stern caution about socking and soapboxing. He's quacking like a mallard right now.  I agree somewhat with Jclemens's first statement (not the second - yes, repeated vocal complaints on the article talk page against other editors and maligning them for their supposed bias is a reason to lose one's editing privileges, as that was one of the main behavioral problems of the socks in 2008 that gave rise to article probation) that absent the sock concern we should give it a little more time, as each new account deserves some assumption of good faith.  However, soapboxing on the talk page several times per day with citations to bad sources, together with requests of the form "Bad thing X happened while Obama was in office, Put it in the article" eventually wears out its welcome.  On the first through fifth or tenth offenses we can patiently explain that: (1) only reliably sourced material goes into the encyclopedia, (2) sourcing a problem, then blaming it on Obama, is WP:SYNTH, (3) if he gets this far, things must be of due weight and relevance, be faithful to the source, and avoid POV, and (4) the talk page is only for discussion and proposals for improving an article, not for griping about other editors or the article subject.  After a certain point, if the editor is unresponsive to warnings, they wear out their welcome.  Either an administrator can give them a block or topic ban under article probation, or because that rarely happens in a timely fashion, we can just begin to consolidate and collapse their contributions.  Let's try to stay dignified and cordial about this, though.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would classify what you're describing as "conduct violations" rather than "vocally disagreeing", so I'm not sure there's any substantial disagreement between us. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear from the available evidence that this user is most likely a sock of User:Multiplyperfect, but I am not sure what the correct method is for reopening the old case. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced, indef blocked per WP:DUCK. Yeah, I don't know the actual process to amend the archived case, either. Anyone? Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

POV and ownership problems at Barack Obama
withdrawn by Unit  Anode  on 01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC), based on the ongoing discussions at the talkpage.

I've seen this developing for awhile now, but today I experienced it first hand. At Barack Obama, the article contains basically no information that is in any way critical of the subject. One issue that had been raised at the talkpage was that something should be mentioned about the historic nature of the decline in his approval rating. I wrote up a short (two sentences, I think), well-referenced, and very balanced addition, and placed it in the article. It was reverted, claiming it violated UNDUE and lacked CONSENSUS. First, WP:CONSENSUS does not trump WP:NPOV; second, it's completely laughable to claim that those two sentences violated WP:UNDUE. After a short discussion at the talkpage, in which the owners of the article (and they ARE the owners, let there be no doubt), refused to even consider allowing those two sentences into it, I placed a {POV} tag on it. As per convention, I also opened a talkpage thread regarding the POV problems with the article. It was closed and hatted within maybe 15 minutes (and probably less). The tag was also summarily removed, and I was accused of POINT-iness. I unhatted the discussion, and restored the tag. Now they've hatted and closed the thread again, and are tag-teaming the POV tag out. Something needs to be done about these ownership and POV problems. From what I can tell, they extend (to greater and lesser extents, in some cases) to other Obama-related articles as well. I will provide diffs for the above exchange upon request. Unit Anode  02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please provide diffs if you are going to use this page to accuse other editors of bad faith. As far as I can tell you have no basis to make accusations of bad faith other than disappointment that your content proposal did not achieve consensus.  As one of the editors who opposed your content proposal on weight and relevancy grounds, and who reverted you when you added it despite consensus against, I explained very specifically what the problem is and how that can be addressed.  You seem to be purposefully ignoring my explanations so that you can accuse me and others of doing it only to avoid criticism of Obama.  I also left plenty of advice and cautions for you, leading up to a "final warning" to stop edit warring the POV tag on the Obama main page and to stop using the Obama talk page to accuse other editors of bad faith.  I hope it does not come to a block because you are a good faith editor with several months and thousands of edits on a wide range of topics.  But you are going to have to cool down and work with others here.  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An edit about Obama's poll ratings after less than a year in office (however historical they may or may not be) isn't useful in his biographical article. That's the point, pure and simple. Presidency of Barack Obama is the way to go. Lack of two sentences in a biographical article about the man's life doesn't equate toa POV tag, and editors who see and revert such a change aren't tag-teaming or owning...they're following established standards. Frank  |  talk  03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the perpetual brick wall that many others have run in to many times before. The problem is that many of the POV protectors are able to pick off their enemies one by one. Those of us wishing for change need to unite.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a battle, and I won't treat it as one. All I want here is to see a solid, neutral article on Pres. Obama. Unit  Anode  03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be very sad if the only way to address ownership issues from cabals of POV pushing editors was to form an even bigger cabal. I refuse to be party to any group of that kind, and it shouldn't be necessary even though Arbcom took a pass on dealing with the incivility, ownership, abuse of hatnotes, and violations of the core NPOV policy last go round. It's possible that they might be willing to do something about the disgusting atmosphere on that article talk page going forward. I doubt it. But it's possible. Certainly the pattern of abusive behavior is very well established and the need to have it rectified is acute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs, per request
This should suffice for now, to give everyone a flavor of what is going on at the page. Scjessey has stayed on the editing sideline thus far, but s/he's been offering some sideline cheerleading against my innocuous edit. Will place these diffs shortly. Unit Anode  03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon refers to "lack of consensus" for my edit, as well as the laughable UNDUE "concern."
 * Wikidemon reverts my POV tag, without discussion, while also accusing me of POINT.
 * Now Frank tags in, again removing the POV tag without engaging in discussion, which the very text of the tag requires. He also completely misrepresents the purpose of the tag as "lack of consensus for one poll."
 * Frank stays tagged in, removing the tag AGAIN without the required discussion and resolution of the underlying issue. Most humorously, he refers to the fact that the POV discussion thread was closed and hatted, when it was members of the tag-team that closed and hatted it.
 * Double diff of Wikidemon insulting me by accusing me of "sour grapes", and closing and hatting my POV thread I opened to discuss my tag. He closed the thread 2 minutes after I opened it.

Look, there's no "tagging in" here. There is no pending discussion regarding POV on the talk page. If there is, let's have the thread. If there are specific concerns, let's discuss them. That's how it works. Frank |  talk  03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag is supposed to remain while the discussion goes on. Instead, the thread I opened for discussion was closed 2 minutes after I opened it. And "tag-teaming" isn't always an intentional thing. In fact, I think in this case, it may well not have been. But it still remains tag-teaming, in that a group of editors is simply enforcing their view through force of numbers instead of based upon actual policy. Note that erroneously citing "undue weight" and "consensus" in an attempt to circumvent NPOV is NOT being "policy-based." Unit  Anode  03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the tag is "supposed to stay in place", but aside from that, I would say that just because one editor claims the article is not balanced doesn't make it so either. Just lay out the concerns on the talk page. That's the right forum. Frank  |  talk  03:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the text of the tag before simply removing it next time. It's to remain in place until the issues that led to someone placing it are resolved. Unit  Anode  03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) "Drive-by" POV tags should not be attached to a featured article, or any important / high traffic article, simply because an editor does not get their way on a single content proposal. In this particular case you proposed the addition of more material showing what you describe as a "historic" decline in Obama's popularity ratings.  Other editors on the talk page objected on weight, relevancy, and sourcing grounds, but you added the content anyway.  I reverted that as a good faith bold edit, but one of undue weight and limited relevance, and against consensus on the subject.  Your response was to announce that you were leaving in a huff, attach a POV tag to the article, and start a series of accusations of bad faith, article ownership, etc., on the talk page.  Other editors, including me, asked you to stop and took pains to explain that the opposition to the polling information is not a POV issue but rather a matter of weight and relevance.  I even offered you a window that you might have missed on how polling information could be better treated.  You made it a POV issue by insisting that you wanted to add negative information about Obama, and that the reason others were opposing it is, despite their denials, an effort to own and protect the Obama page against criticism.  Unsupported claims like this poison the well, and characterizing other editors' comments as "laughable" or "beyond the pale of believability" only make things worse.  Even properly used, POV tags are supposed to reflect a dispute over the text of the article in question, not an accusation of bad faith against those who edit it.  They are nearly always controversial, and rarely help to calm people down to the point where they can reasonably discuss proposed changes.  Likewise, the article talk page is supposed to be for discussing changes to the article, not to make accusations of POV and bad faith against other editors.  That is mentioned explicitly in the article probation page, and was in fact one of the main issues that lead to the imposition of article probation.  Problems with editor behavior can be brought up here and on other appropriate pages, but I'm afraid in this case there is no evidence at all presented that any editor other than you engaged in any tendentiousness, edit warring, improper accusations, or other problems.  Again, I urge you to step back and take a breather. This kind of fight is not something you want to be launching right now.  No administrator is going to read this report to demonstrate that sanctions are warranted against the editors you are accusing, and I sincerely hope you will stop doing the sort of things that get editors blocked here.   Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Request
I'd ask Frank, Wikidemon, and the other involved editors/admins to let the arbitrators comment on this. You've all made your opinions very well-known. Unit Anode  03:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are the one who has been causing trouble on the Obama pages today, not the editors you are accusing. You have filed a case with no proof, just accusations, and at this point none of us has documented and presented an account of what actually happened.  I was working on that for AN/I when you filed this report which, to be fair, is at least more productive than continuing the talk page accusations or main page edit war.  I hope this won't be necessary and that you'll see fit to take a breather and a step back.  Incidentally and for your information, the obama pages are subject to community general sanctions, not arbitration sanctions, and the people reviewing this are concerned administrators, not arbitrators.  There is no established precedent or procedure for how reports are supposed to be handled.  This one is already far longer than it should be for a quick reality check and attempt to restore order.  On the other hand, an Arbcom-like case with complete evidence, requests, etc., would be a multi-day affair and would beg for a much more formal structure rather than back-and-forth discussion among the participants.  All that, I hope, is not going to be necessary if you can just accept that you should not edit war on the article page, and not accuse people of things on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  Yeah, I'm the problem. Good call. And ANI would have really lowered the drama-quotient as well. Sheesh! Why can't you just let the Arbs look into the problems I've raised? I've said nothing untrue in my original thread. Now please let them deal with it. And start an ANI, if you just really can't keep yourself from commenting further. That will really help things. Unit  Anode  04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A little self-reflection would serve you better than sacrcasm. Yes, your edits today on the Obama article and talk pages was a serious problem that I was in process of reporting to AN/I after you edit warred past my "final warning" for you to stop.  It is not drama.  I said I would ask for help if you continued, you continued, and so I was in process of doing what I said I would.  I'm not sure what you hope will happen here.  A full review is not going to help your case, and to do that someone has to brief the evidence of your involvement today, which as I said is the main issue.  That and the socks your accusations seem to have riled up.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the condescension. The thing is, I know very well who I am. I'm a Democrat and an Obama-voter, who actually kept a lot of the BS out of this article during the campaign. I worked hard to keep the "junk" out, and all I'm interested in is an article that complies with NPOV. What I see now, quite simply, isn't close to that standard. Pres. Obama has taken a ton of criticism the last few months, and for this article to simply focus on only the rosy side of things seems, well, a bit head-in-the-sand to me. And it makes Wikipedia look silly, at best. Unit  Anode  05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, pro-Obama Democrats shouldn't get a free pass either, not unless we want to prove your claim about bias. That really isn't the issue.  I was simply objecting as I said to the edit warring and accusations.  Can we just drop the mistrust and give it an honest try here?  I might agree with you that the content is missing some important pieces, not all of which reflect well on Obama.  But things get messy very fast when specific editors get called out for that on the talk page.  Maybe we can break the ice regarding your specific edit and come up with something that will gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is this: there was nothing wrong with my edit. It was neutrally-worded, well-sourced, and informative as well. Feel free to post the actual text I wrote to the talkpage for discussion. Point out specific portions that violate UNDUE or POINT or whatever else. Where the problem comes in is with knee-jerk reversions of such material. Unit  Anode  05:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments
It seems as if Unitanode's addition (reverted here) doesn't add anything, other than a comparison with Reagan. The section already stated that it fell below 50% in November, and commenting on a change in an even shorter amount of time (1 month, compared to 10 months, January-November) does seem a bit short of providing a historical perspective.  Grsz 11  04:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, with this edit summary, I see a complete misuse of the tag by Unitanode. POV is the most misused tag, especially on this article and others like. "I didn't get my way, I'll put a POV tag on it so maybe somebody looking at it will think less of it." It's a battle-like mentality that contributes nothing, accomplishes nothing, and goes no way in addressing whatever legitimate issues there may be. The tag isn't addressed at certain editors, it's addressed at the content. And with that edit, as well as his statement that "There is a complete rigidity of the "regular editors"" proves that this tag was used simply as a means to discredit or criticize other editors. If you open up a discussion with such bad faith accusations like that, no kidding it isn't going to end favorably for you.  Grsz 11  04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It added that it was the largest drop of post-World War II presidents, and that his trajectory seemed to mirror Reagan's. But this is not the place to debate the merits of the addition. The addition stands on its own as appropriately structured, written, and sourced. As I said, let's let the arbitrators look into the history of the talkpage, the article, etc., and offer an opinion. Additionally, I'm tired as hell of being accused of misusing the tag. I explained that it was a result of a long-term trend I've observed, of which the "complete rigidity" of the regular editors regarding an innocuous edit like the one I made was simply the final straw. Unit  Anode  04:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And what would be wrong with just adding the text to Presidency of Barack Obama, where it is much more appropriate? Frank  |  talk
 * I was planning on adding a similar, but more extensive, addition to the Presidency article. After my experience at the main article? Not so much. Unit  Anode  05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the "not so much" bit - that's a far better place to add it, because that's what it's about. Frank  |  talk  06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because if a two-sentence version, placed in the appropriate section, neutrally-worded, well-written, and reliably-sourced couldn't stick in the main article, how the hell was a longer version going to stick in the sub-article?!? Unit  Anode  06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the main reason I think so is because that's where it actually belongs. This is about the man's entire life, not the polling numbers of a single year. Give it a try - start with the same edit. It's not that the information is irrelevant or useless...it should just be put in the right article, IMO. Frank  |  talk  06:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really believe that poll-related information doesn't belong in the main article, then all the stuff about his high initial poll numbers (both worldwide and in the U.S.) should be removed. Note: I don't think the latter should be removed. His polls are now part of the man, just as they were for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al. It doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be overwhelming to the article, but it's certainly relevant to "the man's life", as you call it. Unit  Anode  06:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Unitanode
The user in question has raised a claim on the article talk page that the article needs a great deal more detail on day-by-day polling numbers of presidential popularity, along with some fairly WP:OR conclusions about the great moral significance of a drop in Obama's poll numbers. The uniform opinion of nearly all other editors was that such coverage would be an excess of detail that was not appropriate to the main biography.

In response to not finding any consensus or support for this suggested edit, Unitanode first tried to make a WP:POINT by slapping a {POV} tag on the article at:
 * First POV tag (Revision as of 15:25, 2009 December 30)

Then reverted another editor who removed the WP:POINT:
 * POV tag reversion (Revision as of 22:07, 2009 December 30): (I explained why the tag was placed. don't rm it until legit criticism is allowed in the article. right now, even innocous criticism is simply reverted out. that's POV, pure and simple)

Third time's the charm:
 * Second POV tag reversion (Revision as of 22:35, 2009 December 30 )(I've explained it at the talkpage. It's not about "lack of consensus for one poll"; quit removing the tag without addressing the underlying issues.)

S/he added a tendentious description of polling numbers, that I trimmed to include only relevant details. S/he then reverted the trim at:
 * Reversion:

A strong pattern of edit warring here. FWIW, The editor has been doing nearly the same thing over at Jimmy Carter: when a tendentious addition was not accepted, s/he slaped a {POV} on the top, and scattered rather random {fact} tags on the most ordinary sentences throughout the article, simply to WP:DISRUPT the article. Carter's isn't on probation, but the edit warring pattern and WP:POINTiness is very similar. LotLE × talk 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note, with interest, that Lulu has not chosen to participate in any way at the discussions currently going on at the Obama talkpage. As for the Carter article, Lulu would like to simply remove the POV tag without dealing with any of the issues that were raised at the talkpage. That's not how such things work. I'll leave the rest of this ludicrous complaint to be hashed out by whomever does such things. Unit  Anode  00:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to a related discussion I started before the current (and quite productive) discussion (which Lulu has avoided, at present) began on the Obama talkpage. Unit  Anode  01:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved that discussion to this page, immediately above, and collapsed it so as not to overwhelm things. Without commenting on the merits of Lulu's report, it is redundant to the above, and has probably grown stale now due to the passage of time.  A day later the parties are discussing matters on the talk page and have stopped commenting here.  I'm not aware of any precedent or rules on how this kind of RfE board should function, but I would think it is for enforcement of immediate matters of disruption that need attention and not longer-term examinations of editor conduct, or broader areas (e.g. the Jimmy Carter page) that are not covered under Obama probation.  Thanks and happy new year, everyone.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything sanctionable here, and it would have been better for Lulu to not file this report but rather engage directly with Unitanode. However I would strongly enjoin Unitanode to avoid any future edit warring and remember that the Obama article probation terms means that edit warring on those articles will be viewed even less charitably than is normally the case. Also adding POV tags to featured articles is not a particularly good idea for reasons which should be rather obvious (if a featured article is really not NPOV and someone is preventing you from fixing or even discussing it, then one should probably head off to WP:FAR). Sometimes talk page discussion takes awhile, and already some progress seems to be being made, so it's unfortunate that this situation escalated at all. It would be better if everyone would just sheath their rhetorical swords now and calmly discuss the article without commenting on one another. I'm off soon to celebrate the New Year, try not to hurt each other! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

JB50000
Following a discussion where tried to remove the "Professor" from Obama's article, JB5000 now seems dead-set on changing Obama's religion to non-denominational Christian or Protestant. He began here, then after reversion readded    his change four times within an hour and a half. He's been warned on his page about 3RR and the Obama probation, and responded to the news he was in violation of both policies by making a null edit on the page to again claim there was no consensus against his edit.

Upon returning to Wikipedia, his first edit was to reinstate his edit and place a note in the text instructing other editors not to revert.

This editor has been active on the talk page, but refuses to see the overwhelming consensus against him, and to stop reverting while the discussion is ongoing. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For ease of reference, I've personally tried multiple times    to get JB50000 to understand that he is edit warring on a page under probation. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion to Dayewalker...try polite discussion, not seeking to have someone blocked. Look at Josiah Rowe...his opinion does not agree but he is very persuasive is having a calm environment and ....


 * OFFICIAL RESPONSE BY THE ACCUSED

Instead of being constructive, Dayewalker's report fans the flames of edit warring. The Obama article is not up to professional standard and could use vast improvement. I've made some very reasonable suggestions, although the mindset of many is to just oppose, not discuss but revert. I always discuss.

I've also started a very constructive discussion with Josiah Rowe, who is not a regular at the article, and have made much progress with a reasonable editor like him.

I've also not edited the article much, except one time today, which is permissible. I did not know about the limit on editing until yesterday and you can see my editing today is limited to 1 edit and plenty of calm discussion (no name calling, just some reasonable ideas)

The improvements suggested are all very reasonable:

1. I discussed whether the political positions section should reflect his current position only or evolution of positions. I didn't forcibly advocate change but started a discussion on a valid topic.

2. I suggested re-wording health care to focus on the Obama biography, not just current U.S. history. This is a good idea not proposed by anyone else. I wasn't trying to inject opinion, just help people focus on writing a good article.

3. I suggested that the Nobel Peace Prize be relocated to a different section, not the image section. It is an honor and an award, not an imagel Again, very logical and very constructive. (But again, opposition)

4. I suggested that the faculty rank of Professor and the generic term professor can be confusing so I suggested multiple ways to eliminate this confusion. I also suggested more succinct prose. No attempt was made to inflate his achievements or diminish them.

5. I suggested being more specific and increasing the information on the infobox to show that his religion is non-denominational Protestant (since corrected to non-denominational Christian because of references found). I pointed out that the Christianity reference has mistakes and may not be optimal and sought comparison with other Presidents in the past century (all of whom have a denomination). Again, this is for article improvement.

No POV is being pushed, just valid ideas and neither pro or against the President.

Sanctions would be counterproductive and punitive. Blocking as punishment is against the rules. Look at my history today--calm discussion, not too much discussion, only 1 edit. Very reasonable. If you want to see further evidence of things, see my user page (not user talk page), top paragraph. JB50000 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was hoping that after the drama filled edits and summaries JB50000 made yesterday that he would come back and edit in a more constructive manner. But the first edit he made was to re-insert the same material that he put in, and reverting multiple other editors(violating guidelines), on Thursday. This user refuses to understand WP:Consensus, WP:OR or WP:3RR, at the very least. As one can see, he still refuses to stop edit warring and seems to be searching for a battle ground. DD2K (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits like the one from DD2K does nothing to improve the situation, they just fan the flames and should be considered a blockable offense itself. Instead, DD2K should calmly try to reach out, like Josiah Rowe has done and which I've commended for his approach today.  3RR?  I thought I edited only once.  A just conclusion to this report would be to warn DD2K and ask him to examine himself...addition of comments like his worsen tensions.  That's what I've learned in the past day - calm, polite and logical discussion is the key to better editing. JB50000 (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary and recent developments requiring attention
This editor, User:JB50000, has shown to be a continued rolling ball of infractions, from the multiple issues of knowingly exceeding WP:3RR and other tendentious and | petty editing to his complete refusal to understand the concept of consensus to absolutely ignoring fundamental refutations in discussions he begins on the talk page, choosing instead to reassert his position and draw out threads. He edit-warred with me when I deleted a profane rant because he wanted to pick up on a few of the vandal's points, and rather than introduce them as his own, he preferred restoring or quoting the vandal and threatened me at my page — this was his very first acknowledgement of me whatsoever, despite the fact that I had made a lengthy and detailed explanation to him in a thread where he commented on every other response but mine. So his first-ever communication with me? | "Stop removing my comments from the Obama talk page or I will have you blocked." Irony that I and others look past several opportunities to seek redress when he exceeds brite line guidelines like WP:3RR at an article on probation, yet his very first comment to me is "I will have you blocked". Sort of the same spirit in which he petitions here against a perceived "tag-team" when in fact it was another instance of him refusing to accept consensus and discuss issues on a talk page first at a probation article, and edit only after he satisfies the community that his suggestion is valid and properly weighted and sourced.

Later, he edit-warred with me when I deleted entire posts with others' signatures that he had cut-and-pasted into his own RfC from another page, as if these two editors had weighed in on his RfC, without telling us where they were from or their context.

It's not being new and not knowing the ins and outs, it's being belligerent and tendentious and refusing to accept or look into another editor's knowledge or judgement about anything at all, while ignoring most every salient and explained objection.

He disingenuously raises issues or uses loaded words and ideas before turning around to claim he's not interested in raising those issues or words, such as several uses of the word "Muslim" in a discussion about Obama's Protestantism; several posts including quoting news articles at length about a campaign tactic to question the use of the phrase "Professor" while claiming he doesn't want to note there was a controversy or mention the campaign; and things like "There are indications that he had no religion as a kid but I don't want to get into a can of worms." Worms is all there is with this guy. (The article has for some time included several iterations of the lack of dogmatic religion in Obama's parents or grandparents during his youth and young adulthood, so not a particularly wormy issue unless you're trying to make it so.)

His posts lately often seem little more than opportunities to provoke, including | this completely irrelevant comment about his father's passport, which was followed up a moment later by | this nonsense edit cut-and-pasted in Chinese at an AN/I, and the piece de resistance for the evening, | this talk page comment where he writes:
 * "I saw on a Chantix TV ad that suicidal thoughts are possible when taking Chantix. I hope Obama does not have any of these because the red button is always close by for him to push. That's why drugs ads on TV should be banned."

and
 * "On TV, it also said that Obama is overweight. He must have gained all that weight eating fancy dinners like that served at the dinner where the Salahis shook his hand."

If by this point, with all of the leeway we've given this user and all of the efforts to guide him in the proper use of talk pages and other editorial considerations, these are the kinds of edits he is making, I respectfully request an administrator step in and prevent him from taking such sprees in the near future. When someone vandalizes an AN/I with the excuse they're "just being silly" — and presumably the Obama edits are in a similar vein, if decidedly more pointedly smeary and arrogant — there's nothing short of enforcement that is going to send the message that this individually or taken as a truculent rampage is wholly unacceptable behavior.

I can't imagine that if JB50000 gets away with such open provoking at this late date, anything short of a red-light administrative action will be taken by him as a green light to continue in this vein. I would add that in my four or five years here this is the first time I have presented a case for administrative action against an editor, and I would reiterate how our unpleasant experience with this editor has been borne with helpful suggestions, a good argument, and blatant warnings in return stretching back over a month and a half — since only a week after the previous problem poster there was banned. Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree on JB50000's recent edits, which have been quite insane. However, as I wrote below, apparently no admin comes by this page anymore. My initial request for someone to look into JB50000's edits has been ignored for almost a month now. I was advised by an admin to make any complaints about violation of the article probation to WP:ANI in hopes someone will actually see the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate for you to post your first post from this thread (or whatever variation/update you may like to make) at ANI, to start that effort? If you do, I will follow up by posting version of my recent post in the ANI thread (edited for length and to make sure I'm not repeating your points) and we can give interested editors a heads-up that the discussion has been transferred there.  I'm not up on the minutiae of the protocol but this seems preferable to cutting-and-pasting the whole thing there as if the discussion had transpired there.  Of course we would link from there to this page so anyone there can see the original here.


 * Or should we just request Admins from there come and review this thread as it is here? I mean, if this page exists, it should be monitored, and if it's not, it should be closed and everybody go to ANI in the first place, no?  Abrazame (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the best course of action, it may be best to just request an admin review this page. My initial report is a month old so it probably wouldn't be acted upon, but it does provide some context into the multiple problems editors have had at with the subject at that article.


 * Of course, it seems like there's at least two admins currently talking to JB on his talk page, and they both are quite puzzled by his actions last night. Maybe it would be better to start with them.


 * I'm going to be out for the evening, but I'll support whatever option you decide. Obviously, this has been an uncorrected problem for a while now. Dayewalker (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This new complaint is completely baseless. Obama's doctor and Obama MUST keep the suicidal side effects in mind. If not, the US is in danger. At NO time, did I suggest this should be in the article - I think that there shouldn't be mention of Chantix giving suicidal thoughts. Richard Nixon said he could pick up the phone and in 20 minutes 100,000,000 Russians could be dead. Al Haig then made sure Nixon wouldn't do anything crazy.

As far as getting fat through fancy dinners, many CEO's have this problem. Obama is fatter now than before, probably because of this. Again, at NO time, did I suggest this should be in the article.

These complainer's issue about my Chinese post was humorous just as many do in Wikipedia. But I never put humor in articles, because that is bad editing. Look at many of the user boxes, they are attempts at humor. Besides, the Chinese post was NOT about Obama or in Obama's article.

Anyone who gets anger and provoked by this should not be in WP. JB50000 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't speak for Abraz above, but I've never posted out of anger. I've made posts dealing with your behavior (including posts here, at various talk pages, and on your talk page) out of frustration with your posts. Above, you claim your Chantix comment was not at the Obama page, this diff clearly shows otherwise. Regardless of where your post went, it was inappropriate. Dayewalker (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I AM SORRY http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADayewalker&action=historysubmit&diff=347243600&oldid=346680601 JB50000 (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As an update, JB50000 has blanked the part of his statement above where he claimed he didn't comment on the Obama page. So that my comment above makes sense, he made that claim here . Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)  That's called editing to fix an error.  Besides, I said I was sorry on your page and you still act mad by blanking out my apology.  Sorry. JB50000 (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * JB's recent edits are simply inappropriate, fair and square. JB, if I see any more horseplay from you like the inappropriate insinuations on the Obama talkpage or the trying to post Chinese when you had no idea what you were saying, I will block you for disruption.
 * And by the way, when responding to people's comments please do it on a new line. Responding on the same line as the original comment, like you did in Dayewalker's comment above and many other places I've seen, makes it difficult to follow the discussion. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I submit that | this edit, JB50000's decision to publish essentially the same post I removed from the Obama talk page on my own talk page just now, is the one step further you suggested would garner him a block. Obviously, as the person who reverted it, I already read it there and know where to find it in the history should I need to refresh my memory.  I don't need it to be reposted at my talk page, and it should be obvious I didn't intend to discuss it.


 * He says he never meant to suggest that any of this should be in the article, yet not only does he post it at that article's talk page — which is exclusively for discussion of what should be in the article — but a day after I read and remove it from there, he posts it at my talk page. Clearly he is doing what I suggested he is doing, which is A) misusing an article talk page by trying to tarnish the subject, and B) seeking to provoke editors.


 * It is blatantly disingenuous to post links and open discussion of the topic at my page in the guise of an apology for opening up discussion of the topic at Obama's page. Note he is not stating he is sorry for his inappropriate posting, he is sorry that, in his estimation, I am mad.  Of course he's not sorry that I am mad, it has long been his intention to make people at that page mad, and clearly it was his impression I was mad and could be made more mad that motivated this post at my talk page.


 * What he's saying, then, is that he intends to abuse Wikipedia talk pages by bringing up issues whether or not he has any intention of adding them to articles, for the purposes of tarnishing the subject and making people mad; and furthermore that he intends to ignore the purpose and effect of judgement, such as a revert of such non-editorial discussions, by pushing and provoking editors with such at their own talk pages. I request that action be taken now.  Abrazame (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This harsh (and inaccurate analysis) is about to make me cry. Sorry. 对不起 Es tut mir leid  انا اسف

JB50000 (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not sorry, and you're not fooling anyone. Abrazame (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Abrazame, that post was made before I warned him, so it's not a blockable offene.
 * JB, intentionally doing things that you know will get on other editors' nerves (in this case, posting machine translations in languages you don't know, when you've already been criticized for doing so) is not a good way to win any support. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 07:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tag team editors (Fat&Happy/Johnuniq) and inserting information not supported by the references
At least two editors are going against consensus and inserting wrong information. They insist on putting mention of Bo, the dog in the Barack Obama article. The citation that they use says that the dog is a gift to Malia and Shasa. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/politics/13obama.html?_r=2 (EXACT QUOTE FROM THE REFERENCE a gift from Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and his wife, Victoria, to Malia and Sasha Obama) and http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/12/Meet-Bo-the-First-Dog/ (EXACT QUOTE FROM THE REFERENCE a gift from Senator and Mrs. Kennedy to Sasha and Malia) It is not a gift to Barack. The talk page discussion discusses that the information is trivia and is not about Barack. There was also discussion about other trivia and it was decided that both trivia (swearing in twice, which is directly about Barack) and Bo the dog are trivia.

I don't want to get anyone into trouble but if you want to know the names, it is Fat&Happy and Johnuniq. Please warn them as I don't seek blood by asking for their block because I am a nice person. JB50000 (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fat&Happy is now being an aggressive bully and inserting facts not supported by the reference. Enforcement is now needed. JB50000 (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment-JB50000 needs to be put on probation from the Barack Obama article, and all related articles, for a few months or until he can agree to stop reverting against consensus and call his additions/reverts 'consensus' when they are clearly NOT. This last case is just a small part in what is an ongoing disruption problem by this editor. There was no consensus from any other editors to remove the 'Bo the dog' portion, and the only editor that wanted to remove the mention was JB50000. The insignificant mention of the dog should be beyond any controversy, but every edit seems to be controversy with JB50000. Check the contributions and the edit summaries for the bizarre reasoning of the reverts and changes. Some examples are 1 with the edit summary of "False information removed. The source says the dog is a gift to Malia and Sasha, not Barack. See talk page. Trivia and false information is not allowed, sorry.", even though the portion was in the citation is in the Family and personal life section of the article and the sentence quoted the source as stating "Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo". This is just one of a long list of WP:Battles this user is obviously instigating on the Obama article. There can be no logical reason for these actions, other than probing for some kind of way around Wikipedia rules or just wanting confrontation. This needs to be stopped. DD2K (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidence against the tag team - None of them discussed anything on the talk pages. The talk pages support what I say with no disagreement.  The talk page section was there for well over a week, almost two.  The article MUST follow the citations, particularly for this article.  Being sloppy is allowed elsewhere but not in this article.  The White House and New York Times references say the dog was a gift to the daughters.  It did not say the dog was given to Barack.  This article is about Barack, not the daughters.  Tag teaming to establish article ownership is prohibited.  Tag teaming to edit almost correct but wrong information (not supported by references) is prohibited.  Real and responsible editors would say "let's look into this...Oh, I see you are right about the references".  DD2K is wrong to escalate the situation.  The charges against me are in an above section and were shown to be baseless and false.


 * The only battle that JB50000 is willing to fight is for the Wikipedia article to be properly referenced and neutral. People who insist on illogical stuff can't do it for this article because of the special nature and article probation.  Those who read the evidence in the section above this will see that everything advocated is for article improvement and is completely neutral.  By using a tag team to stop even minor improvements, they can stop major improvements.  This obstructionist disruption by the tag team must stop. JB50000 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside to everyone using this page, apparently no one ever looks at this page anymore. You have only to look at the case made against JB50000 above to see proof of that. I was advised by an admin to take violations of the Obama probation to ANI for immediate scrutiny. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am aware of this discussion and would be happy to explain my position if required. However, since I have made a grand total of one edit to Barack Obama (and 8 to the talk page), and since my edit had an accurate edit summary ("Undid revision 345177059 by JB50000 (talk) reliable source shows it is not false; only 9 words + ref; item has an article so it's not trivial") and was simply restoring material that is well established in the article, and well sourced, I do not think any further comment from me is warranted at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP user signing as Anthony Ratkov
An IP user signing his talk page posts as "Anthony Ratkov" has added a large number of alleged political scandals starting at talk:Political_scandals_of_the_United_States. Several deal with Obama, including a particularly egregious case of Birther OR. I've made the mistake of trying to engage with arguments. The IP is adding anti-Obama, "pro-white" content elsewhere. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by DDK2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=382367342&oldid=382367065

DD2K has removed valid and reasonable comments from the discussion page. That page says to bring complaints here. Please enforce the rules and punish DD2K —Preceding unsigned comment added by France is the greatest (talk • contribs) 19:17, September 1, 2010
 * User:France is the greatest (the above person) is re-opening nonsense discussions and adding ridiculous questions about Obama being Muslim. Clearly not a new User.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am saying that he is NOT a Muslim. You mean you are advocating that he is.  If so, you shouldn't be here, go to nazi.com
 * Everard is not a new User because new Users do not remove other people's comments. It seems that Everard has no justification for accusations so he resorts to smearing me calling me "not a new User"  You are correct, I signed up in 2009, not new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by France is the greatest (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 1, 2010
 * I see at least three users who have reverted your Talk page comments as unproductive. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent & edit conflict) A sleeper account for sure, and the approach is unhelpful to say the least. There have been a number of IP edits with a similar tone lately, not sure whether a logged-in account was doing this too, or even it is worth the trouble to find out.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon and Everard are doing the same thing. Removing useful comments that they disagree. Then they call me a sleeper. I am not a sleeper spy.

I have been reading Wikipedia for about a year and never met so nasty a bunch of editor(s).
 * The editor just violated 3RR - blatantly and aggressively, after a warning. Seems to be trolling as well.  I think we're done here, this is a matter for ANI/EW.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)This user(User:France is the greatest) and BAMP are sock puppets of Gaydenver/JB50000 I may file a SPI case, but it looks pretty ducky to me. Dave Dial (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I am holding back on the 3RR report because the editor agreed not to revert further today.  However, the socking does appear likely - this would be very strange behavior for an inactive editor.  For any editor, in fact.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indef. blocked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)