User talk:67.176.248.164

About Me

My user ID from several years ago, and the only ID I ever used prior to this, was 'Jzyehoshua' - my political views are as seen here and here. I had no intention of returning to Wikipedia until the last few days when seeing edits remove longstanding material in an objectionable fashion. I had my account banned by request after a disagreement with editors on the Barack Obama page who'd been reported on by World Net Daily and FOX News in arguably one of the most publicized cases of editorial/administrative abuse by Wikipedia. At the moment expect to stay only to see the current dilemma resolved. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 67.176.248.164, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Haymaker (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback and what it means

I don't "have a dog in this fight", so my role in the disagreement between you and WikiManOne is that of an observer and possible third opinion. I just read your comment regarding his having Rollback rights, and thought perhaps you should take a look at WP:ROLLBACK, which delineates what that right is and how it is intended to be used. I have Rollback rights as well, but I am also not an administrator...I use Rollback as part of the ongoing countervandalism effort on Wikipedia. It can be argued that because of my having Rollback I have more frequent contact with admins, but that is expected in fighting vandalism, since only an admin normally blocks an editor (it can be done by bureaucrats as well, but bureaucrats are also typically admins). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I'm not that familiar with all the administrative privileges, I'll admit, but it did strike me that, as you said, such a privilege would appear to have contact of some extent with admins, as well as some privileges, which is all I'm saying. Now, what sway or privilege exactly he holds, I don't know; all I know is that he was clearly the driving force behind having a clearly biased and unfair edit made, that no administrator acting responsibly should have made, and especially had page protected afterward. Therefore, I can only conclude bias at the administrative level given the nature of the edit and subsequent page protection afterward, and conclusion, if not at an administrative level, then by those with some administrative privileges (such as rollback). --67.176.248.164 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have mentioned...it also takes an admin to protect a page, and the admin will review the protection request as well as the background info and discussion on the page nominated for protection prior to placing any protection on that page. Page protection is NOT arbitrary in nature, and if an admin is involved in editing a page, they will not protect that page afterwards; rather, they will go through the normal process and ask another admin to protect it, in which case the second admin will review the request normally. Wikipedia tries to maintain certain safeguards against such abuses, and in my experience those safeguards have been largely successful. In fact, I have yet to personally come across an instance where an administrator has abused their tools, although I have come across several instances where I disagreed with an administrator. That's the nature of Wikipedia, though; it's edited by humans, and humans don't always agree, which is why the concept of consensus is so important. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have zero doubt in my mind about the inappropriateness of this edit in question, as well as the subsequent page protection after what was a very disputed edit to remove all mention of major controversies from a controversial page at a time of a public scandal involving the institution it mentions. Gross negligence on the part of an administrator does not go far enough to explain this, in my opinion. Compliance between an admin who avoids editing the controversial pages in question and editors who remove controversial material at a time of public scrutiny seems the likeliest, and logically only explanation to my mind, given the unusual nature of the edit and events in question. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As I'm not an admin, and have not participated in any of the discussion in question beyond a very cursory examination, I can't speak to the procedures or thought processes that led to the edits in question or the placement of page protection. As I stated earlier, mine is the viewpoint of an outside observer. What I'm seeing right now is a hot-button topic being soapboxed from both sides of the fence, and each side has its own points it wants to make. Mine is more of an academic background, and as such, I try to stay away from such heated arguments, because there's always someone that's going to come away from the experience feeling that they got the heavy end of the hammer dropped on them. I have to say that in such cases I don't envy the admins their jobs. With all that said, I think perhaps it would be best for me to step back and let the admins do what they're supposed to do. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was no discussion I could see prior to the edit - it was made, and discussion occurred only afterward. Then despite strong disagreement from both myself and JGabbard as seen on the talk page, the edit was made and promptly page protected by admin NuclearWarfare. I realize this is a controversial issue, but the objective facts of the case are that A) a full section mentioning controversial details about Planned Parenthood was deleted without prior discussion, B) there was no consideration given to alternatives via the discussion on the page afterward, and C) an admin page protected the edit after it was re-reverted. That a whole section on controversy that had been around who knows how long, dealing with an institution in the news for yet another controversy, would be deleted without prior discussion and then page protected to preserve it, should appear not just suspicious, but criminal. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, as someone who's researched the enforcement history of the Barack Obama and Global Warming pages, I'm well aware that there is a very definite history of this going on. It is common on such pages, when the subject arises to a peak of public attention due to notoriety in the news, for edits to remove all mention of controversy with an admin then page protecting to keep the controversy away from the page - even when that controversy was previously mentioned on the page for years without change. The explanation given is then 'consensus' even when numerous editors disagreed, and even when there is no reasonable basis for making the edit in question, and it violates NPOV or other guidelines. Furthermore, editors who disagree are tricked into edit warring - a whole section will be removed on controversial material, and then to keep the new change in place, a group of editors will take turns playing musical chairs to keep the new change intact, reverting to force editors to violate the 3RR rule without breaking it themselves, and then playing dumb during the dispute process. An admin will often page protect the controversial new edit. This has happened many times now, several of which I have been present to attend. I am actually, in my opinion, doing an exemplary job of not blowing up over seeing tactics that I've witnessed on Wikipedia a number of times already, and maintaining a civil tone even though I see full well that history is repeating itself like it does each time. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Obama page of course was at the center of one of the biggest media embarrassments to Wikipedia in its history, when admin abuse was reported in the news as protecting the page from mention of controversies, after which a number of bans were issued to users I later ran into, who would then repeatedly get the bans commuted for 'good behavior' despite continuing to be involved in incidents of harassing members off the site. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Planned_Parenthood#outdent.2C_discussion_continues_4's talk page.