User:John J. Bulten/Challenges
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Discussions about deletion of material related to Ron Paul
|
[edit] User COI
→ In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Moneybomb and related matters. (Link updated John J. Bulten (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
To user John J. Bulten: This is a reminder that if, in the pursuit of your conflict of interest, you continue to edit disruptively and tendentiously and to violate the civility and ownership of articles policies, you risk being blocked from editing this encyclopedia. Some of the suggestions for COI compliance may be helpful to you. — Athaenara ✉ 17:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notice of 24 hour block
This single-purpose account with a conflict of interest has been blocked from editing for 24 hours for persistent violations of the disruptive editing (definition) and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guidelines. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}, or email any administrator on the list of Wikipedia administrators, or email unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. — Athaenara ✉ 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unblock Request 1
Suspicious edit-history deletions, no explanation of what edits were disruptive, good faith very hard to find, etc.; much detail below. (Please consider this combined unblock request and request for admin investigation (ANI); I'd documented the first three suspicious deletions before realizing the block.) Something very very fishy is going on with memory-hole deletions of edits from edit histories! While I understand admins do things for protection, I cannot explain this. The prelude: New User:Newsroom hierarchies advocated removing semiprotection from Ron Paul, was quickly granted, and immediately began editing it; I naturally protested the protection removal and requested checkuser due to similarity with many past proven sockpuppets of banned user James Salsman User:Nrcprm2026. But then this:
- In my RCU edit I cited the new user's first four edits. The first of those edits no longer appears in the user's edit history and has been deleted, either by admin or by the invisible-revert trick (which I still don't fully understand). It was formerly just prior to the now-first edit of 11/30 12:40.
- Immediately after my RCU edit, I added diffs of the new user's four edits as my second RCU edit. That edit has also been deleted from the RCU page's history (it was formerly just after my first RCU edit, 12/01 01:24), presumably because it contained a diff of the new user's first edit and would be inconsistent to permit users to see the diff and not the edit in edit history.
- When I objected to the already-complete protection removal on my first edit to RPP, I made a second edit to that page, moving the section from "Fulfilled/denied requests" to "Current requests for protection", in accord with my first edit. That second edit was also deleted from the RPP page's history (it had formerly been just after my first RPP edit, 12/01 11:01). So my rerequest for protection, which has been approved by consensus on that article since Sep (except for Mr. Salsman evading ban), was deleted and reverted to just "strong opposition"-- shortly after the protection had just been suspiciously removed on behalf of a new editor with admitted former experience.
- While I was writing this, I was 24-hour blocked by Athaenara for claims of COI, on edits tangentially related to this suspicious new account; so I can't post this to ANI, nor (otherwise than here) warn admins of the suspicious activity connected with the new account! I would say there is at least probable cause that the block may be connected to the other fishy activity-- enough cause to unblock.
- Athaenara gave COI warning 12/01 17:10. I made only four edits between then and the block 12/03 01:21, civil I thought (unless there were some more deletions I don't recall). I have reviewed each and found that while I disagreed politely with other editors and provided reasoning, there was no intent to game the system or to disrupt. I had, of course, previously proposed a change to WP:V which I thought well-reasoned and which patched a gaping hole related to an open reversion battle of mine (from which of course I stopped reinserting after the third variation); but my proposal for policy change was subjected to criticisms of form and process and hardly any discussion of its merits. Most importantly, all week I have requested policy cites from the competing parties, and have met general resistance, while I regularly quote the policies in support of my edits. (Under WP:DE, I find "Techniques such as reverting need to be combined with sincere efforts to turn the user toward productive work.") No editor all week, except AnonEMouse, has demonstrated sincere efforts to productively engage my points, nor succeeded in looking beyond the knee-jerk reaction that I must be disruptive because, well, I'm just disruptive. (Orangemike has been polite and sincere but has mostly kept out of the dispute.)
I cannot conceive any explanation for all of the above on basic good-faith arguments. If it was IP protection, why remove my request for protection? If it was deletion of edits which some admin ruled to be COI, SPA, POINT, NPOV, DE, etc., why was Newsroom's edit deleted? While the block is not necessarily precisely related to the suspicious Orwellian deletions, isn't there a case that (a) the block came at suspiciously enough of a time to be open to removal and further investigation, and (b) the thorough stonewall from many parties to my requests for debunking my policy reliances, concluding in Athaenara's block without any detailed explanation after four reasonable edits, is a failure of WIkipedians at large to assume my good faith? I really trust(ed) Wikipedia. I'm still confident somewhere here my trust will be rewarded, even if I have to wait for AnonEMouse. John J. Bulten 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Could you also please add a "hangon" tag to Moneybomb? I warned that Elonka's edits would leave the article ripe for AFD, and there it happened, interrupting active ongoing mediation on that page. John J. Bulten 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two observations: (1) Only one edit by user "Newsroom hierarchies" was deleted. (2) The {{hangon}} template is for speedies, not for Afds. — Athaenara ✉ 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some responses that may help clear some things up:
- That missing edit, a redirect from my user page to talk page, was not whisked away in a sinister admin plot, but rather was deleted by a bot that saw it as a broken link (apparently because I had left my talk page as a redlink).
- A checkuser has already confirmed that I am "unlikely" to be a sock of BenB4, etc. Since I have made zero abusive edits in the short history of this account, I would request that John WP:AGF now. I'll say it again: I am not a sock, I am not a blocked user, and this is my only active account.
- I requested unprotection of Ron Paul because it is against WP norms and policy to leave articles protected indefinitely unless they are under significant threat of ongoing vandalism. I also wanted to edit the article, and found myself unable to do so. So I requested unprotection, which was perfectly normal, appropriate behavior for someone who wanted to contribute to a wiki.
--Newsroom hierarchies 06:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That may answer 1 of my 5 points, but note the article has been vandalized nine times in the day or two since becoming unprotected.
- Athaenara, please answer my implicit question: Between your warning and your block, which of my four edits were tendentious or disruptive, and why? Per WP:APPEAL, I am supposed to learn something from being blocked, but there is no indication what. Per WP:BLOCK, the explanation should be clear and specific, not generic. John J. Bulten 14:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Athaenara, but the guidelines cited - disruptive editing (definition) and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - look specific enough to me.
- As I've said you elsewhere, recognising that quasi-legal tactics - gaming the system - are unwelcome on Wikipedia would be a good thing to learn. Gordonofcartoon 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Notice of 48 hour block
This account has been blocked from editing for 48 hours for continued violations of the WP:POINT guideline and for continuing to harass neutral editors. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}, or email any administrator on the list of Wikipedia administrators, or email unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. — Athaenara ✉ 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unblock Request 2
I know allegations of admin abuse require clear proof, but it may be below. See, I wouldn't mind so much if I knew what bad behavior I was doing. I have in good faith begged and pleaded for anyone, anyone with expertise or experience to explain what was blockable; please take the time to review considerately. At virtually every turn, when I requested a policy clarification as a 2-month user, if I even got a cite, it was only to a whole policy page, and never with a diff to my alleged offense. This behavior is so consistent from so many users that it is hard to explain, much less to provide sources for this possibly exceptional claim. But let's please start with what points I do get, and the questions I need answered first by you, the reviewer:
- (N.b. I wrote this the first hour of block. I trustingly clicked Save and did not realize that there would be an edit conflict due to the edit warrior (below) closely following me and stating her block agreement "sadly" (huh?) and giving nuanced advice and compliments (unhelpful). This minor frustration can be gotten past, but of course this request is now many hours late. PLEASE at least quickly indicate willingness to answer.)
- See whole discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:POINT is intended to refer to my politely proposing a change to WP:V (my first policy suggestion) and disclosing what I regarded as an edit war about the issue. Instead of any comments on the merits (except one positive one), I received consistent criticism about my poor formatting followed by refusal to address the merits because (apparently) it was obviously unnecessary to answer. Q. When one has made a policy suggestion in good faith and one receives zero discussion on its negatives and significant negative discussion on one's person and presentation, is one refusing to get the point if one continues politely requesting the specific demerits of the proposal that would indicate nonconsensus on its merits?
- See whole user discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:HAR (first I've heard of this charge against me) is intended to refer to my appropriate-level user warnings in response to an editor using obscenity and assuming bad faith-- this is only the most reasonable guess, of course. After he stated he was entitled to assume bad faith, he changed up and claimed facetiously he really was assuming good faith. My links there indicate specifically what behavior I referred to. I know of no other case which might come near to harassment. Q. When one uses edit warnings in full compliance with policy and is met with continuing bad faith, is one harassing?
- See whole COI discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:DE is intended to refer primarily to my first extended correction of a user charging me with COI, along with a suggestion that the accusing user may also have COI. Certainly I might have been overstrong in that edit (I recognize not noticing the 200-word limit, but I adverted that myself). But again, there was no indication of why a donor to a political candidate has the sort of close relationship envisioned by COI. There was one attempt at googling me (and I'm not looking up the personal details policy right now) which turned up nothing undisclosed besides my blog comments-- but this was described as "considerable involvement of ... promotional activities". Recall there are about 60,000 Ron Paul Meetup volunteers, and nearly that many donors. If I worked for a 60,000-member workplace there might be a bit more point, but even that would be debatable in good faith. Q. Is every political donor or Meetup member forbidden from editing candidate-related articles neutrally, or only those who willingly disclose the relationship?
- As near as I can tell, there is a further potential application of WP:POINT (which by the way is an application of the rule, convenient to the generic, that a generic warning is fungible with any warning). Apparently I don't realize that, in some sense, these users are every one justified in refusing to explain specifically any of their adverse actions against me, and that I am being disruptively pointed if I explain specific charges against them, citing policy and diffs. And there I do admit not understanding. The policies are no Procrustean bed, but very specific. I am completely unfamiliar with operating in such an environment other than to do one's best to WP:AGF, to complain properly and carefully, and to accept potential suffering for it. However I'm essentially barred by generic threats (yes) from complaining specifically, and I'm completely certain that a generic, unsourced complaint from me (as appears to be the majority practice here) would be met with similar apparent ridicule. Further, these editors repeat each other's unsourced charges and act like there's consensus. But there has been no good-faith attempt by this bloc of editors on reaching consensus with me. Q. Is asking good-faith questions, doing one's best not to be offended, explaining why the attempted answers seem deficient a case of failing to get the point when one honestly believes one's stated views of the policies have not been seriously answered?
There's much more, but I would really appreciate you answering these 4 questions before working hard on the unblock (ordinary research expected of course). I am here to answer anything (like backup of any charges I make). While there may be exceptions to your answers, isn't it common sense that this much statement of the case is probable cause for further investigation? Not proof beyond reasonable doubt, just sufficient cause to interest you. I will only allude to the leadup events such as Athaenara's complete failure to explain the blocks meaningfully, the edit war that started the whole thing (three disjointed reversions of my sourced insertions without any explanation of their questionability, while I fully demonstrated reliability when asked), the third opinion who bowed out after difficulty answering several of the questions (I may have worn that editor down, but I thought it was a mediation route), and of course the AFD that's scheduled to close without me. I've had a rough week or more, and have only had glimmers of hope here and there, and no one willing to mentor me into how to deal with these questions. Please help. John J. Bulten (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict:)
- Sadly, I support this block. John, I know this may be tough for you to hear, but I am genuinely offering this advice from a position of good faith: If you wish to continue as a Wikipedia editor, it is very important that you tone down your rhetoric. Every time I've checked my watchlist over the last couple days, it seems like I saw you making another accusation, or that you were trying to warn or discredit anyone who disagreed with you. Your actions draw the picture of someone whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is to promote a political candidate (Ron Paul), and to intimidate other editors from undoing your edits. These long messages that you've been posting where you confuse the issue, and level counter charges and personal attacks on other editors, are not collegial behavior. It really seems to come down to a classic example of WP:SOUP. But we're not the Internal Revenue Service here -- it's not about engaging in extensive debate tactics or trying to find tiny loopholes in policy, it's about following the spirit of the policy, and working in a cooperative manner with other editors. Your behavior has already been discussed at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, and you were already blocked once for disruption. But instead of learning from this, and acknowledging the consensus of other editors, you continued to issue personal attacks and accusations of bad faith, which further decreased your credibility.
- Please, when this block expires, if you'd like to genuinely have a voice in discussions on Wikipedia, I recommend that you:
- (1) adopt a more civil tone;
- (2) Stop throwing accusations and warnings at everyone who disagrees with you;
- (3) Show that you're interested in working on multiple topics on Wikipedia, not just the Ron Paul articles;
- (4) Avoid aggressive behavior concerning topics with which you are personally involved; and
- (5) Keep your posts short and focused.
- As I've said elsewhere, I think you have many good qualities which would make you a wonderful editor on Wikipedia. You write well, you have great attention to detail, and you have a passion for subjects that interest you. If you can figure out how to use your abilities in a way that makes you a good member of the team, I'd love to see you continue at Wikipedia. If not though, perhaps it would be best if you found some other hobby. :/ --Elonka 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(See also User:John J. Bulten/DR1.) (link updated John J. Bulten (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Remove autoblock request
Got an autoblock while logged in, more than 12 hours after the related "second block" expired. Completely confused and see no reason for it, felt I should have been able to edit.
[edit] False Block
I apologize that my name appeared under your false block notice. A vandal or sock I blocked earlier must have been angered and reincarnated themselves to spam my block notices. My sincere apologies for any problems this may have caused. Happy editing! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Annoying
Please, just stay off of Wikipedia. Your edits are particularly annoying, and while you believe you are helping, it really just angers those who are actually contributing.--TheEveryone
- The preceding comment was placed at the top of my talk page at 12/21 00:53 by 65.31.197.77. I'm so glad to know my edits are so effective as to generate anonymous complaints and directives. A sure sign that one is on the right track. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aggressive cross-posting
Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Troublesome page move
The last time you moved 1 E+4 m to 1 myriametre I reverted this as the move to me appears to be breaking up an established scheme based on the dissenting notion of a single individual. I firmly believe that attempts to garner a consensus or at least posting ahead a proposal for such actions ought to be conducted. Now that you have insisted on enforcing your action again, please be advised that you have through this also created a large number of double redirects. Please take the necessary steps to follow up this situation. __meco (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Summary style
There's been some recent discussion. You mentioned that you tried to get something to work last fall. You might be interested in User_talk:Geometry_guy#Your_help_is_requested and WT:Summary style. I butted in and reverted in my role as watchdog on style-related pages; that is, I thought presenting this new idea as a fait accompli was a bad idea. I'm also supportive of the general idea, but I have very little time to push it. If you want to grab this and lead a discussion in some wider forum so we can get things moving, I'll be happy to lend support. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
