Politics555
Content removal at John Fleming (U.S. politician) edit
You have removed this content several times without any explanation or discussion. I encourage you to discuss your views on the article's Talk page rather than continuing to remove the content over and over. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- The statements are incomplete and not fully accurate as they reflect statements made by bloggers, not statement of fact. Anybody can make things up and post them and you cite them as fact. I will remove them until I complete research that gives both the conservative and liberal media. I will also be in contact with Wikipedia on your deliberate posting of deliberately distorted information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics555 (talk • contribs)
- What the article states is that bloggers criticized the comments. There are many reliable sources to verify that bloggers criticized the comments. You don't seem to dispute that bloggers criticized the comments. Thank you for taking an interest in improving the content rather than removing it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your line of reason is nonsense. You are saying that anybody can go to any blogger site and make any statement they choose, regardless of fact, and that qualifies for posting on wikipedia as fact. You obviously have no concern about the accuracy of Wikipedia. You apparently have a political viewpoint here and, as such, simply want to make a political point. Again, is Wikipedia about hitting politicians that you don't agree with or reporting what occured? Should Wikipedia devolve into that, then we have even bigger problems. The Jon Stewart reference is fair, but you simply ignored the Bill O'Reilly segment which had a much larger audience and was serious rather than satire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics555 (talk • contribs)
- Please assume good faith -- these kinds of personal attacks are really tiresome and aren't going to accomplish anything for you. No, it would not be notable if a blogger posts a statement. What is notable is if external third-party reliable sources report on the fact that many prominent bloggers have made similar statements, which is the case here. If you can provide external third-party reliable sources who reported on the Bill O'Reilly segment, in the same way that such sources reported on the Daily Show segment, by all means feel free to add that to the article. I have absolutely no objection to that. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The only personal attacks being made are being made by you creating an echo-chamber of false statements made by liberal bloggers with an obvious political viewpoint. You have posted their erroneous statements and we will work with the editor to not allow that. Just because SOMEBODY said it doesn't make it fact, no matter how much a celebrity they may be in the liberal blogesphere. The initial paragraph posted was an accurate account of what occurred. You are simply adding commentary which speculates and distorts what was said. I believe Wikipedia will accept a thoughtful analysis with a liberal viewpoint, but not wild and unsubstantiated statements that are intended to mislead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics555 (talk • contribs)
- Please review Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks, as well as the AGF guideline I linked above. Also, please note that you can sign your posts by ending them with four tildes ("~~~~"). Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
September 2011 edit
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at John Fleming (U.S. politician), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Coekon (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The statements are incomplete and not fully accurate as they reflect statements made by bloggers, not statement of fact. Anybody can make things up and post them and you cite them as fact. I will remove them until I complete research that gives both the conservative and liberal media. I will also be in contact with Wikipedia on your deliberate posting of deliberately distorted information.
Your line of reason is nonsense. You are saying that anybody can go to any blogger site and make any statement they choose, regardless of fact, and that qualifies for posting on wikipedia as fact. You obviously have no concern about the accuracy of Wikipedia. You apparently have a political viewpoint here and, as such, simply want to make a political point. Again, is Wikipedia about hitting politicians that you don't agree with or reporting what occured? Should Wikipedia devolve into that, then we have even bigger problems. The Jon Stewart reference is fair, but you simply ignored the Bill O'Reilly segment which had a much larger audience and was serious rather than satire.
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
October 2011 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to John Fleming (U.S. politician), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: John Fleming (U.S. politician) was changed by Politics555 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953613 on 2011-10-04T22:53:03+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
January 2017 edit
Hello, I'm Gamaliel. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to John Fleming (American politician) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The previous version was anything but NPOV. There was virtually no mention of DOMA and the state laws under which Fleming made his comments. Both sides of this issue were properly represented with the addition of my edits.Politics555 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Fleming (American politician). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I see you are at it again. See Fleming talk for discussion.Politics555 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I warned of violations. You are now notified of complaint to WP:ADMIN as required. Politics555 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan431 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Neutralitytalk 05:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked edit
I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Making unfounded accusations of sock puppetry against editors simply because you are having a content dispute with them is a personal attack. Your non-neutral edits at John Fleming (American politician) and edit-warring at the article are disruptive. You are warned that if this behavior persists after expiration of this block, you risk being reblocked for a longer time. See WP:GAB on how to respond to this block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You have blocked me for disruptive editing? I simply added important content for NPOV and Balance and every word was removed 4 times. I am not the disruptive editor. I offered sock puppetry as one explanation as to what the other editor(s) were doing. And the edits were fully NPOV. I have already requested dispute resolution from admin. Politics555 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Politics555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting to an administrator to remove this block. I have been blocked for 36 hours even though it was registered as 24 hours
Decline reason:
Procedural decline; you've provided no reason to consider unblocking you. And your "36 hours" doesn't make any sense. The block was placed less than 24 hours ago, for 24 hours. Yamla (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Politics555 (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Politics555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Despite what the time stamps say, the block was placed approximately 11 pm EST 28 Jan. 2017. It is now 8:12 30 Jan. 2017. As I stated in response to the block mentioned above, I complained about the actions of other editors who were violating rules. Yet, block action was taken against me. Since then another editor posted the following to Fleming's talk page calling me names (homophobic) and no actional has been taken against the editor: "You obviously have a very specific POV of homophobia and anti-LGBT bias. CNSNews is not a reliable source; it is an overtly-conservative house organ for the radical right. Happily, we have an indisputable reliable source which disagrees, and is currently cited in the article. Your claim that the ceremony "was against state law, and violated DOMA" is not supported by any reliable sources, and indeed, it would be a violation of several policies for our article to say that two people violated state and federal laws when no credible reliable source says any such thing. Unless you have anything else here, the consensus is pretty clear that your edits have been rejected on policy and consensus grounds. Conservapedia is thataway if you're interested in pandering to the vanishing anti-gay lobby. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)"Politics555 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In a choice over whether to trust your version of events or the timestamps, I'm afraid I have to go with the timestamps. The block is due to expire in a little under half-an-hour at the time of writing - I'm sure you can wait that long. Yunshui 雲水 13:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
January 2017 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui 雲水 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Mere hours after the expiry of the last block, you are continuing to push POV material without consensus. This is not acceptable; I have therefore reinstated and extended the previous block. Yunshui 雲水 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No, you are blocking me because I don't agree with your POV and you are censoring well-sourced content. Again, I request other editors and administrators to weigh in here.Politics555 (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an Admin but Yunshui (talk · contribs) is right.--Jordan431 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? be specific Jordan431. What is disruptive about the material? Now NorthBySouthBaranof, has re-edited the content I posted and left it largely intact. So, should he be banned, too? You guys are something else.Politics555 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Politics555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been absurdly blocked for 6 mos. for adding important and well-sourced content (not removing any existing content) to expand and clarify on Fleming's article that another editor with an opposing POV has actually re-edited leaving it largely intact. This block should be removed immediately. Again, I request other admins review and weigh in. The primary concept of Wikipedia is to build consensus. How is blocking an editor for 6 months who acts in good faith achieving this goal?Politics555 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Closing this request as a duplicate request, leaving 2nd request open RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Politics555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again, request removal of the block and fair, honest and unbiased treatment. Please refer to what Wikipedia defines as the way to build a consensus among editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. I can't find any place on this page that says that after posting edits that other editors can simply remove all good faiths edits, then when the first editor complains about the non-consensus action, he is banned! Wikipedia's definition and instruction is precisely what I did---post and get input and discussion from others. Again, clearly editors and admins with a specific POV choose to ignore their own rules and guidelines obviously afraid of differing views. I don't think such actions could be found to be consistent with the idea of tolerance or complying with the first amendment.Politics555 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You did return to disruptive editing without getting a consensus for your additions, and the block is sound - short ones weren't working, so a long one seems appropriate. That doesn't, however, mean you have to remain blocked for six months, as you can be unblocked as soon as you make a request that makes it clear you understand the problems with your approach and that you will change your behavior. You also need to drop your insistence that you have First Amendment rights here - you do not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
One unblock request at a time, please. Additionally, you claim your first amendment has been violated. This is categorically not true, and your unblock request is likely to be speedily refused because of the outrageousness of such a claim. See WP:FREE. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yamla, any reasonable person can see what has happened here. It is not what I have done or the way I did it that is being punished with banning, it is a slightly different and more complete POV about Fleming's actions and statements that deserves to be in the article which is easily backed up with open sources. That is a direct violation of the first amendment. Time and time again, SCOTUS has determined the antidote for speech you disagree with is more speech, not erasing content that is harmless and truthful. This takes us back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus which backs me up in every way. I am complying with Wikipedia guidelines, others are not, but I am being punished for posting verifiable content that is inconvenient truth to some on this board. I find it interesting that nobody actually has engaged in discussion in "talk" as you should, merely attacks against me and erasure of content posted. Will burning books be next? Politics555 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the First Amendment does NOT apply to a private website. The First Amendment is related to the United States Government, and not to privately run websites, like Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect, the First Amendment applies to any open source form of communication and governing bodies, such that admins must recognize. Wikipedia is not a private or confidential form of communication or forum. This is from Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia that you (anybody) can edit and contribute to. The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view." By its very governance, anybody can share information and express their POV as long as the combined content represents a NPOV. Because it is an open forum for anybody to communicate, the first amendment definitely applies. That is not to say that one can abuse it by using profanity or make personal attacks. But, I have not attacked others, only presented a grievance about their bullying behavior against my posted content and me. My content has been removed, not because I have removed others, not because it is extreme or obnoxious, not because it is unsourced, only because those removing it and banning me disagree with it. That violates the first amendment on its face as well as Wikipedia guidelines and standards. Politics555 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are deeply mistaken. I once again direct you to WP:FREE and specifically, this bit: "Some editors apparently believe that because the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered (and some Wikipedia servers are located) in the United States, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to it. This is mistaken. The First Amendment forbids government censorship of expression; it does not prevent a public charity such as the Wikimedia Foundation from deciding for itself what words and images will be presented on its websites, and how." --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It definitely does fall under the First Amendment but that has nothing to do with it's Washington location. Here is a quote from WP:FREE, "In sum, in the United States you have the right to speak your mind (with certain narrow exclusions) on a street corner, at a town council meeting, or in a letter to your elected representatives." Wikipedia is private in its ownership: a foundation. But, the foundation doesn't ban you or remove your content, other users (other people on the virtual street corner) do. Therefore, Wikipedia in its present form is more akin to a "street corner" or to a virtual town hall, rather than a private entity. Getting past that, Wikipedia encourages debate and multiple input to articles. Banning people and removing their good-faith content violates those important principles and rules. The goal is ultimately to create a NPOV, but that doesn't mean that every post must be neutral. It means the goal is that the totality of the article must be NPOV. My posts were intended to give balance to the statements that are definitely non-NPOV. Everybody thinks THEIR viewpoint is correct or even neutral. Only after several or many edits can you truly achieve a NPOV. That is what I tried to do which lead to an unfair 6 mos. ban, not by the "owner" of Wikipedia but by other users. Politics555 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- "But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home, to demand that a private newspaper publish your thoughts, or to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write—even if it's "the truth"". --Yamla (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Your "home or private newspaper?" Neither the internet nor Wikipedia function as a private residence or privately owned/operated news outlet. By definition it is not only open for everybody to "come in" but expression participation by all is the very core idea of its existence. Governance in most cases, is turned over to users, not a private owner as in a newspaper or blog site. Wikipedia operates in an open, public environment, the internet. Regardless of what you may say about Wikipedia being private, it functions as a public forum and as such freedom of speech applies as it would in any public forum. More importantly, Wikipedia has created its own set of rules and guidelines by which ALL users should follow and not use as a weapon to shut down others' speech, especially political speech. So, whether you argue the Constitution or Wikipedia-created rules, shutting down a user just because another user or admin disagrees with the content is a clear violation. Politics555 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- The US 1st Amendment only restricts Government from preventing free speech, and does not apply to private owners of web sites (In this context, "governing bodies" does not apply to the management/operational structure of private organizations). The Wikipedia web sites are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a private charity and has no obligation to provide a free speech forum. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you'll still be wrong, and you still won't get any free speech rights here other than what is granted by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"(Speech) granted by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use?"---Precisely my point. Editors and admins have not been complying with those terms fairly and equitably with regard to my posted content. Politics555 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- That might be part of your argument, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I should add that when you say "By its very governance, anybody can share information and express their POV as long as the combined content represents a NPOV", you appear to be fundamentally misunderstanding WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not achieve NPOV by balancing the POVs of its editors - editors' POVs are forbidden from being included in articles, period. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That may be true in theory, but that is not how it actually works. News outlets attempt to push their own viewpoints while suggesting they are not biased. It is the biggest game in the media and it is played right here as well. The reason for adding content that I added was because of the obvious lack of content giving a NPOV in the article, instead of a slanted one. It reflected a specific POV and needed to be brought to neutral. Only other editors can balance what are biased posted content. And, don't begin to tell me that doesn't happen. Here is an excellent article that demonstrates what I have described here. It is a fantasy Holy Grail to write a truly NPOV article. But, that is why you should have multiple editors. However, we find out that a small group of editors/admins attempt to control the content rather than the idea of free exchange, debate and reaching a consensus. http://mediashift.org/2006/04/wikipedia-biasis-there-a-neutral-view-on-george-w-bush107/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia. There are constant battles over these things. Politics555 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not claiming it always goes according to plan, but your words suggested that you thought Wikipedia is supposed to work by making articles balance the POVs of editors - and it is not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot things that are intended to work one way but end up working entirely differently when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. What is the point to referring editors to rules that are routinely violated? I followed the rules in my post and ended up with a 6 mos. ban. Those who attacked me and vandalised my content saw no retribution. Therefore, Wikipedia has a set of rules that are not strictly or closely followed and a culture that is entirely different. I simply try to navigate them both. Politics555 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- In my experience, the NPOV rule generally works pretty well in practice, those who violate it usually get stopped, and editing with the attitude that "Other people sometimes break the rules, so I will too" is largely unsuccessful. The suggestion that the rules don't always work does not imply that they are routinely ignored and not enforced. I disagree that you followed the rules, and nobody vandalised your edits. That's my take on it, and I'm not going to argue in circles. If you want another admin's take, feel free to make a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, for such non-NPOVs to be stopped, somebody has to act. I attempted to correct a non-NPOV content by adding more well-resourced content. I did not remove any content, only added more to acknowledge the need for NPOV. That is what I did and was banned for 6 months. Here is a part of WP:Vandalism: "The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." That is what was done to my content 4 times with no more explanation than it "didn't improve the article." I was banned for 24 hours for attempting to report the vandalism. Then I created a new section and expanded the subject, most of which was retained by a follow up editor who has a drastically different POV than me. Then I was banned for 6 mos for "disruptive editing." Politics555 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Politics555 I am not interested in debating with you. You are one of almost 30 million registered users of the English Language Wikipedia. If you think you are the first one to declare your "constitutional right" to use somebody else's property as your soapbox all I can do is tell you that you are mistaken. I would encourage you to read WP:FREE as noted above, and WP:FORUM while you are at it. Beyond which if you do not alter your pattern of editing when you come off block then my experience suggests you are in the express lane heading for a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
ANI edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Home Lander (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Home Lender, since when does an observation become a threat? Politics555 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have closed the ANI discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017 edit
