User talk:Kossack4Truth
I'm a member of Daily Kos. I've been using Wikipedia for about four years and I've become fairly familiar with the culture, customs and bureaucracy of Wikipedians. So I thought I'd give it a go. Let's all play nicely with one another, and make this the great online resource it was intended to be. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article
[edit]Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama concerns
[edit]Hey thanks for your message on the FAR page. I'm ready and willing to "change", as Mr. Obama says so often (sorry, I couldn't resist!). I'll work with you, Kossack, and others but until the article is more netural, I have to keep my vote of removal. I'll start looking for some critical things about the Senator, and we need to being getting rid of the quotes used to describe his poisitions. Agreed? I'm going to drop this message to User:DiligentTerrier too, because he also voted to remove it. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I commented at your discussion. Here's a quote that Obama said of himself in his early years: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.... I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind." Now I'm not sure if that quote is entirely suitable, but the subject of the article where it is written is: this from the Washington Post. Here is a criticism of the book by Ann Coulter, some of the stuff in there is not suitable for the article, but the main points of racism certainly are. Happyme22 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama FAR
[edit]Hi there, I am just writing to inform you that we have apparently been conducting the Barack Obama FAR incorrectly. Your vote of "keep" or "remove" should be struck out and reinserted when the nomination moves into FARC (per the directions at WP:FAR). I was just notified of this myself; please see the bottom of the FAR page for more. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well Kosack you and I are going to disagree there. I think that there is some "hope" for the article, but as of now I still am endorsing a removal from FA status. Happyme22 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama comment
[edit]Actually, I am so completely appalled by the edits and comments that you, Andy, and the Locust have been making that I really don't care what any of you say or think or do. During the earlier page protection, we made excellent progress discussing ways to compromise and build consensus for changes to the article. As soon as page protection expired, you guys basically f***ed it all up. You all just went ahead and did your own thing, completely ignoring all the goodwill and compromise that had been carefully fostered before. I get that you hate Obama, but do you have to go and ruin Wikipedia just to proclaim your hatred to the world? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright
[edit]Please stop adding more Wright-related stuff without discussing it on the talk page first. You know that a consensus for the current paragraph has been painstakingly worked out over the last couple of weeks and just throwing new stuff in there like that is only going to restart the edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- And the same is true of your Rezko obsession. Why do you completely ignore the talk page consensus? Why do you continue to violate Wikipedia policies like WP:WEIGHT? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah if you can remain cool-headed, civil and respectful towards other contributors. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know that right now you're focused on Rezko, but since you recently added a paragraph to the Wright section I'd really appreciate it if you could comment on the current version. I'm trying to reach a real consensus here, and I'd like you to be included in it, if possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Rezko
[edit]Hoping for your input on this new proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that while you may not have technically violated the rule with more than 3 reversions within 24 hours, you have been edit warring against the spirit of wikipedia's 3 revert rule, ignoring the consensus on the talk page. --Matilda talk 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind, WP:3rr doesn't require that you be warned at any time before being blocked for edit warring. You can also be blocked for fewer than 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- (I have also left a reply n my talk page) I concur with Gwen Gale's comment above. You were adequately warned on your talk page about your edit patterns and with requests to use talk page and respect consensus. Are you seriously suggesting that you were in ignorance of wikipedia policies concerning editing behaviour? Particularly when one reads the diff which EdJohnston drew attention to? Having been warned, you may well be blocked again if you continue disruptive editing patterns.--Matilda talk 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Barack Obama
[edit]I've asked for advice at User talk:Floorsheim just under your comment there. Please take a look and if you have any advice about the same thing, please leave me a comment on my talk page. I'd value your advice. Thanks. Noroton (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008 actions related to Barack Obama article
[edit]
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barack Obama. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Barack Obama. 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Brotherjr has posted a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit War/Continual Ayers/Rezco/Write Debate. Please make sure you aren't violating WP:3RR either technically or in spirit. It would be better to try to work out controversial changes on the talk page, with a consensus. Please, Kossack, I don't want to see you blocked. Please be patient. Noroton (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
[edit]- The 3RR report was a bogus piece of crap, but I'm not sure you didn't vio 3RR with your edits after the ones listed. How do you count it up? Andyvphil (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Kossack4Truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was just following the discussion on the Talk page. The discussion went against collecting all controversies in one place. It appeared to me that consensus was going to allow these controversies to be present in the article, but per Jimbo Wales in WP:CRIT they had to be woven throughout the fabric of the entire article rather than collected in one "Controversies" section. I acted in good faith, following my understanding of where consensus was taking us on the Talk page. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In your unblock request you talk at length about presentation of content. However, you were blocked for edit warring, which is always deeply unhelpful, however strong your edits and sources may be. There is no reason to lift this block early if you don't acknowledge an understanding of 3rr and promise not edit war in the future. — Gwen Gale (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (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.
Obama consensus
[edit]We are building a consensus on the Obama talk page, feel free to express your opinion when you have returned from your block, we are waiting for your return so your thoughts will be counted. We are going to make this as fair as possible, when you return please be civil, things seem to be gooding smoothly over there and we can do this like adults. Cheers. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively while on block you can make your wishes felt from your talk page, i will have your talkpage on my watchlist, i can transfer your thoughts to the Obama talk page. Any un civil comments will not be transferred. Yours. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on business travel (work related emergency) and will be gone until Wednesday morning. I am remotely piloting my desktop at home to send this, since I do not have my passwords here. No time for this nonsense anyway. Too much real life work to be done. Thanks for thinking of me. I choose Noroton's No. 7 option or failing that, reluctantly Scjessey's No. 6, or No. 5 as a last resort. Funny strange how this block has no real effect on me, since I don't have much time to edit the article anyway, but would like to participate to the limited degree my work allows. Next you should proceed immediately with a similar set of options dealing with Rezko, and a third set of options for Wright. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes we are going to do the same with each, I will notify that you want option 7. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you wait until consensus has been reached on Ayers before starting the discussion on getting consensus going on how to treat Rezko? The Ayers discussion is already confused enough without making it worse by throwing a new topic to discuss. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Impressive point
[edit]Hey, don't get blocked. We need you to make damn good points like this one:
- We have room for Obama to report that he fancies himself a pretty good chili chef. This article is packed with the kind of trivia that Obama's campaign manager loves to see. If there's room for that kind of fluffy trivia, we have room for a treatment of Ayers and his Weatherman past. We have a separate article for United States Senate career of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 980 words in the "U.S. Senate" section in this article. We have a separate article for Political positions of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 1042 words in the "Political positions" section in this article. Surely we have enough room for an equally detailed examination of the presidential campaign, including controversial figures such as Ayers, in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That blew me a way. Look both ways before crossing the street. Make sure the bills are paid for your Internet service provider. And thanks. Noroton (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Should I call the question?
[edit]I'm thinking of asking for a vote right now on the Talk:Barack Obama page for Option 4. I'd also notify people on their talk pages to ask them to vote. Thoughts?Noroton (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, as I look at the initial tally, Option 3 seemed to be the one that could get a definite consensus (as you know, it needs to be well over a majority). How's this?
Call the question now that we've discussed it in detail: Option 3 or not?
[edit]Please review the discussion between the initial tally ("!Votes (please move your votes to this section if they arent already and bolden them)") and this point, and perhaps previous discussions. For the sole reason that the initial tally seemed to give more support for Option 3 than any other choice, this is organized three ways around Option 3, but with total flexibility in voting for a preference. So after having seen additional discussion, which option do you support as a first or second choice? Please choose among the following choices, and if we get a consensus around one of them, we can go with that. Please keep in mind that we are trying to reach a consensus, which is something well over a majority:
Prefer something less specific than Option 3
[edit]Option 1 was to say nothing; Option 2 was to give Ayers name without identifying him and mention there was a controversy (Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.)
Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):
Prefer Option 3 as first choice
[edit]Option 3: Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
Please state your first and second preference here, in one place:
Prefer a different Option with more details than Option 3
[edit]There are several other options already described above, but none have a large number of supporters.
Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):
- 4 as a first choice, 3 as second choice and my vote can be used for either one that gets consensus. I still think 7 is the best, but I think 3 and 4 can get consensus support. If it looks like we get consensus support for options 5, 6, 7, 8, I'd go with themNoroton (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks
[edit]Disparaging other editors as "Obama fanboys" is unacceptable. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shem(talk) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take another look at the vote
[edit]I've moved my !vote into the "Option 3" column, and I don't think anything else could possibly pass. Could you support that option? I think that if you do change your !vote, now is the best time, because other people may follow once they see movement in that direction. Please think about it. Link: Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
With reference to your recent note on my talk page about issues concerning the Barack Obama article, please have a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing which says, among other things, "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices." Please be advised that, since I have never had anything to do with any of the articles you mention, I regard your note as canvassing; I politely request that you stop posting such notices to me or any other unconcerned administrator. If you have an issue with what you impolitely refer to as "Obama fanboys", there are appropriate avenues for you to ask for administrator attention and oversight. Find them and use them, but don't canvass. The only piece of advice I will give you in this situation is to take some time away from Wikipedia, fix yourself a cup of tea, and relax; you're showing all the signs (to me) of someone who is waaaay too invested in an issue, and that leads to burn-out and stress-related disorders. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Howdy
[edit]I'm not trying to flame you or push a point, I just wanted to give you a friendly warning, that you are pushing the WP:3RR Rule again. I know that you are passionate about the Obama controversies, but you might want to back off for a bit as the Admin's would not hesitate to impose another block and then you would not be able to participate in the discussions on the talk page.
Also, what I've found helpful to me, is to walk away for a couple days or more when I get too passionate over an issue. I stop thinking about it, I don't log back in to fight over it, and I just walk away. It does wonders for relaxation. You might want to try it as it might help a bit.
As always, have a good one! Brothejr (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sanctions
[edit]A topic ban on you is being discussed at ANI. Wikipedia:ANI#Sanctions... Modocc (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I won't block him, for several reasons. 1. He explained his edits on the talk page (less disruptive, if his edits were disruptive at all). 2. The warning you gave him was extreme; a friendly notice would have been better (anyone would have removed it). 3. His mentioning of the edit warring and warning on the talk page do not merit a block (and he's right that the warning was inappropriate). 4. The Obama article is a battleground; I suggest you take a break. See #36 and #38. · AndonicO Engage. 11:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikivacation
[edit]Saw that you are considering taking a wikivacation, at least from the Obama article. I think that might be a good idea. You've obviously put in more than your share of work, which I for one appreciate. If it weren't for your efforts, the article would be in far worse POV shape than it is now. I also know firsthand how frustrating and exhausting fighting a battle like that can be and I admire your endurance. Maybe when you get back, assuming you are taking a break, you'll find it easier to bring folks around to your perspective. It definitely requires a lot of patience and skill! --Floorsheim (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, I think it's a good idea. I think it's possible you've gotten a bit too angry at some points, and that can make you less effective. I've been in that position, made my own mistakes and regretted them. It seems to me that some of the opposition has to do with people habitually getting their information from different news sources and reading commentary from different sources, and these can present widely varying pictures of what's important in the campaign. So when someone says a certain topic is important, there can be a difference of opinion and a mutual suspicion that the other side is really sincere ("After all, didn't they see it on the news, just as I did?" vs. "After all, this was never on the news, or not on the news as prominently, and don't they know that? They must!"). Top that with disparaging comments, ignorance, our own stumbling efforts to get our points across, and the temperature's going to rise and rise. The trick in all this is to find effective ways of protecting the article from POV. I've held back a bit in recent days, but I'll stay involved for at least a little while longer. You've probably already looked over WP:CIV and WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. It might be worth reviewing them again so that if you're accused of not following them, you can link to them and say "Well, it says here that what I'm doing is just fine." Keep in mind that the followup criticism to that is often "But you're Wikilawyering, and the two responses to that are, (a) "No, I'm not: this is what the spirit of that policy/guideline is, and wikilawyering is limited to interpretations that go against the spirit", and (b) "If I'm wikilawyering, you should be able to point to the specific spot at WP:WIKILAWYER that I'm violating. Which one is it?" Anyway, that's my unsolicited advice. Enjoy the break. Noroton (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I took care of it, thanks for !!voting!! -- Noroton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Reporting of Scjessey at WP:ANI
[edit]How can you accuse me of edit warring when I made one edit? I even put an edit summary stating that the discussion was ongoing, so the text might change in the future? You should go to WP:ANI and withdraw your report before you embarrass yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read and heed
[edit]See this closing of the socking case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
See AN/I where I complained about your Obama talk page edits
[edit]This was too outrageous for me to just leave a note on your talk page. I'm really offended that you did that. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
please vote to keep . . .
[edit]While I am looking for supporters to "keep," please weigh in however you see fit at
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abongo_Obama
There is a strong movement to delete articles on Obama's relatives. This is of special concern to me based on the alleged ties between Obama and Islam--which I believe are overblown.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome Back
[edit]Hi, just a note from an editor who is kindly disposed towards you. I think that you will get more of what you want if we are less confrontational. In fact, everyone will get more. Maybe we can all have clean slates, even Lulu. I proposed it and several seem to be working towards a nicer atmosphere. I welcome you to join us.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Topic ban from Barack Obama and related articles
[edit]Since there is apparently some confusion about this, let me try to clarify. This discussion left off with support for a topic ban of 4-6 months from pages relating to Barack Obama. You promptly "retired", rendering it largely moot. Now you're actively editing again and engaging in the same disputes.
Since you are now active again, the topic ban is in effect. Please do not edit any articles or talk pages relating to Barack Obama or the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, loosely defined. If you do, your account may be blocked from editing. I will post this sanction at WP:AN/I for yet another review, but I feel it is both justified by your editing behavior and supported by earlier community discussion. MastCell Talk 16:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The topic ban is definitely in force, now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A Pratchett quote
[edit]"Ah, thought William. 'Clearly'. That's a wallpaper word. When people say 'clearly' they mean there's a big hole in the argument."
Please bear this in mind in the future. DS (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee report
[edit]You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfert the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008 - AN/I
[edit]Please self-revert this. It is a personal attack.[1] Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to make this clearer
[edit]... I really don't. You are banned from dealing with the topic of Barack Obama and related issues on WIkipedia for the next 6 months, because of your extensive history of disruptive editing. Your topic ban was supported by a resounding consensus of uninvolved editors and administrators. That ban extends to WP:AN/I. Moving the same old disruptive behavior from Talk:Barack Obama to WP:AN/I is a fairly obvious attempt to game the system. Let me be clear: for the next 6 months, please confine yourself to the 2 million+ articles on Wikipedia that have nothing to do with Barack Obama. The next time you comment on this topic (or any related to Obama or the 2008 presidential campaign), whatever the venue, you will be blocked for violating your topic ban. MastCell Talk 03:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this post to MastCell's page. Kossack4Truth what MastCell outlined to you above is 100% correct and normal topic ban procedure. You could have been blocked for your interventions on ANI becuase you broke your topic ban. You have also gone to Talk:MastCell and made a post which is incivil and and assumes bad faith - I'm advising you now in the strongest possible terms to refactor or redact the comment you made to MastCell's page. This will be your only warning - further pointy behaviour, incivility and tendentious disruption of the project will be prevented--Cailil talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Whether or not you were supposed to do that, I think your comments at AN/I were very constructive, and they saved me some time. Much appreciated. I guess MastCell is right, though, you should avoid the topic as it relates to Obama. Thanks. Noroton (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
ANI report
[edit]You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion really isn't about you, K4T, and if what I've seen is correct, commenting there could be hazardous for you, just in case you don't already realize that. If you want to support CB, that's fine, but that wouldn't be the way to do it. I'm going to make some suggestions on his Talk page, and you might assist him in understanding them. They aren't about Obama, they are about process. --Abd (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin
[edit]I'm sure you're aware you've broken WP:3RR. Grsztalk 16:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- You've been blocked for four days for violation of 3RR at Sarah Palin, as well as your topic ban from all 2008 election-related articles. If you wish to appeal this block, add {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Kossack4Truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not aware of any 3RR violation and received no warning. Please review the diffs cited at WP:AN3. I removed paragraph "A," added paragraph "B," and then removed phrase "C." According to my understanding of WP:3RR this is not a 3RR violation, since there is no consistent "previous version reverted to," and since the edits complained of are spread over a period of nearly 48 hours; but if it is, please explain how that is and I'd be happy to promise never to do it again. I've been trying to enforce WP:NPOV on this article. My topic ban is on Obama related articles, not 2008 election-related articles, and this article is not about Barack Obama. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The interpretation below seems quite reasonable to me. You've been blocked enough times for edit warring to know when you need to stop editing and wait for a consensus to form. A look at your contributions shows that you were edit warring over at least two different parts of the article. The time span over which these edits took place is irrelevant. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:03, 28 September 2008 (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.
- Specifics of the topic ban: The next time you comment on this topic (or any related to Obama or the 2008 presidential campaign), whatever the venue, you will be blocked for violating your topic ban. That's a sentence from a comment by MastCell, higher up on this very Talk page. The Sarah Palin article is related to the 2008 presidential campaign, so it is included in your ban. Regarding the proper definition of 3RR, see the language at the top of the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]I've blocked this account through 8 November 2008. You have once again violated your topic ban on articles relating to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election and Barack Obama, this time by editing Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please don't attempt to game the restrictions yet again; I'm sure you're aware of the relevance of ACORN as a line of political attack against Obama. If I'm wrong about your motivation for editing the article, I look forward to your improvements to our ACORN article when your block expires after the Presidential election; fortunately, Wikipedia has no deadline. You may of course appeal this block by the usual means. MastCell Talk 21:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Kossack4Truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish I could understand the boundaries of this topic ban because if the boundaries would stop expanding, I would be more than happy to obey the topic ban. I just need to understand where the boundaries have expanded to this week. First it was just Barack Obama. Then it was anything having to do with the presidential campaign, including Sarah Palin. Now it's apparently anything remotely connected with politics in any way, shape or form. Because if anyone ever mentions a subject during the same conversation that Barack Obama is mentioned, it becomes part of the topic ban whether I'm aware of the conversation or not. MastCell claims that I had to be aware that ACORN is being used in some sort of criticism against Barack Obama. I was unaware of that, and in any event, it is a strained and unreasonable expansion of the topic ban without community support. This topic ban was a community action. It should not be subject to unilateral expansion by one admin acting alone. Furthermore, the length of the block is excessive. Further discussion of the edit in question below. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is a close association between ACORN and the 2008 election, and allegations of vote fraud related to this organization have been a big part of the election strategy against Obama. I'm very surprised that you haven't read about that, because you seem to be someone who is following the election pretty closely. It does seem that your passion for the election is making it hard for you to resist editing those articles, and since the topic ban doesn't seem to have been effective in preventing you from adding your side's talking points to articles, a full block seems like a reasonable solution. The length of the block appears to be until just after the elections, which seems like a reasonable date. Of course, politics will still exist after that date, and users who are here to crusade "4 Truth' generally end up indefinitely blocked or even banned for point of view pushing anyway, but I'm willing to let you have that chance. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 13 October 2008 (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.
A detailed listing of investigations into fraudulent voter registrations by ACORN workers dates back to September 2004. [2] Bullet points have been used since July 15, 2008. [3] Yesterday User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, a frequent problem editor on politically charged articles who has been blocked numerous times, unilaterally decided to chop the bullet list down to a single, far shorter paragraph. [4] [5] There was no consensus for this edit, so I was reverting it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
[edit]I'm assuming you have your e-mail enabled but haven't looked. I'll e-mail you here in a bit when I get a chance. I'm not sure how it works, like if when I e-mail you via wikipedia if it discloses my e-mail address. I'll give you my e-mail in the message if it doesn't. Landon1980 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, just keep on going with your attitude but then don't wonder when you're judged by it. And if you don't like WP I'm wondering why you're always coming back to such a "hostile site". Is it just that you like to complain or what is it? You might want to answer those questions for yourself unless you already know the answers. Anyway, happy editing, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I asked you politely (here [7]) turning it down a tune or two, but you seem to do quite the opposite following (all of) your edits. Sure, you don't have to listen to me. I'm not your daddy, I'm not your Mommy, I'm just another editor here but yet, trying to encourage you to restore your good faith is as hard as smashing a concrete block with my head. Guess I better give up and let you run into the brick wall as you seem to have chosen. Good luck.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
New AN/I report
[edit]You are mentioned in an AN/I report here. This is a courtesy notice. --GoodDamon 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
indefinite block
[edit]I have placed an indefinite block on this account, because the discussion here indicates that this account is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:BryanFromPalatine. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the tagging has changed, it may not be obvious that these past suspected socks may also be connected to palatine (these are from when k4t was seen on his own) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kossack4Truth Bali ultimate (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
unblock
[edit]Kossack4Truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is discussion on ANI including someone (Digital Ninja) who recommends a 7 day block. I concur. I have looked at a few of the edits and the ones that I looked at are reasonable. I am also thousands of miles from Chicago so I cannot be this person. There have been reports of Obama supporters banning everyone else. I am an Obama supporter and feel this is very anti-Wikipedia. I recommend reduction of ban to 7 days with the condition that this user will be calm, cooperative, and edit well afterwards. We need to reach across the aisle, not play secret police and executioner
Decline reason:
I don't think that creating a sockpuppet to advocate for your unblock is a good approach. In any case, BryanFromPalatine is a banned user, and that includes his socks, such as this one. MastCell Talk 23:55, 12 November 2008 (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.