User talk:Watchingobama

Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's vandalism guidelines and avoid warning editors for editorial decisions that are clearly not vandalism. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

When you wipe out an article, that is wrong. You and 2 others were tag teaming so you got a friendly reminder to stop this. Deletion discussion is proper, wiping out is not. Watchingobama (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no deletion. The page was redirected to Barack Obama. Page blanking is another story altogether. Your stated mission is to correct bias regarding Barack Obama. It is a laudable goal and worthy of support from the Wikipedia community. Badgering users who disagree with your viewpoint does not fit that goal and will get you banned in short order.  Frank  |  talk  20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

Do not template warn established editors such as Tvoz (talk · contribs). Doing so indicates a lack of respect and ignorance of the ethos and principles of Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cate Edwards AfD

Please format and transclude the AfD correctly. WP:AFD contains instructions. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Instructions are confusing. Watchingobama (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Put this at the top of Cate Edwards: {{subst:afdx|2nd}}
2. Paste this in the Edit summary: AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cate Edwards (2nd nomination)]]
3. Select the "Save page" button.
4. Once the page has reloaded, select the link saying "this article's entry" (or click on this link)
5. Once you are in the AFD for Cate Edwards, paste this: {{subst:afd2 | pg=Cate Edwards | cat=B | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ (Make sure to replace "Reason the page should be deleted" with the reasons why you believe that Cate Edwards should be deleted)
6. Paste this in the Edit summary: Creating deletion discussion page for [[Cate Edwards]]
7. Select the "Save page" button.
8. Select this link: articles for deletion log
9. Paste this below the line that says <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->: {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}}
10. Paste this into the Edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cate Edwards (2nd nomination)]]
11. Select the "Save page" button.

However, if you are still confused, just let me know why you want to delete Cate Edwards and I will submit the AFD on your behalf. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly help you with the AFD, but you need to have a better reason than "Because Malia Obama has been nominated for deletion". The most common reason a biography is nominated for deletion is because it doesn't meet the notability requirements for a biography, that there are concerns with it violating the biographies of living people policy, or that it is being used as a coatrack for another person. One thing you could do is review the article's previous AFDs for ideas:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cate_Edwards

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cate_Edwards 2

If you still want to nominate the article for deletion, just leave a message for me here or on my talk page and I'll start the process. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think all should stay but we need equal treatment. Either keep all the kids, including Obama or delete them all. Watchingobama (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - if you think all should stay, then nominating them for deletion could be seen as bad faith, and a disruptive attempt to use process to make a point. You have been blocked because of that type of disruption. No one disputes your right to discuss the issues under consideration, but the problem arises when you change the nature of the debate (by adding articles after over 30 people have commented) and revert other editors rather than addressing their concerns (as when you re-added the articles to the AfD). You indicate an intent to edit productively, and that's great - but you will need to show that you are sincere in your intent to edit in a neutral and undisruptive fashion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MrZZ. The correct thing to do is to unblock me. Otherwise, you are just creating a war and making Wikipedia seem like it is for censorship (after all, administrators are Wikipedia represenatives or are seen as such). Note that someone else added an article to the AFD after it started but they are not blocked. This type of action makes Wikipedia look biased and unfair even if you didn't set out to make it that way.

I added Children of American Politicians because you created it to try and get around the result of the Malia AFD just to make a point. Please stop acting like Wikipedia is some big conspiracy against little black girls. Grsz^talk 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As for intent to edit, just see that I productively edited Malia Obama, including finding references that weren't there before. I also corrected something on Ann Durham and Michelle Obama. Nothing I edited was bad (I didn't add obsenities or blanked out pages). So by blocking me, it looks like some people disagree with my AFD opinion and want to throw me in prison for it (so blocking is used as a political tool of censorship, that's the net effect). Please stop this and unblock. The AFD will run it's course and things will be over. If you block, things will not be over as there will be unresolved conflict in Wikipedia. So even if you mean well, the blocking action CAUSES harm, not resolves it. Watchingobama (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

It's apparent that you're not here to edit constructively, so your account has been blocked indefinitely. Nakon 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I contributed constructively but only yesterday, someone tried to delete the article. Block them, not me.Watchingobama (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Watchingobama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock. I have edit constructively including vastly improving an article. It was only AFTER people didn't want it to be an article did people start fighting. By blocking me, you are favoring one side and intimidating one side not to vote in the AFD. You are also wrongly accusing me of a single purpose account as I am not fixated only on Malia Obama. I found good references and added facts that wasn't already in Wikipedia. These facts are not in dispute so I did improve Wikipedia....so please unblock. Things will settle down after the AFD is settle! NEW INFORMATION: Nakon seems to be blocking to censor. I wrote a very reasonable comment on AN asking for administrator advice but Nakon deleted it and then blocked me. If that isn't heavy handed censorship, what is? Watchingobama (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm reluctant to unblock based upon this, because your request doesn't indicate that you understand what you did that was wrong, or that you are not going to do it any more. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:08, 2 May 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.

See what you are doing. You are attacking me. Are you helping Wikipedia? You are destroying it and also creating enemies. If you want to make a point, reduce the block to 3 hours and the point is made. OK

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Watchingobama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

FisherQueen seems willing to unblock if I "understand what you did that was wrong or that you are not going to do it any more" So I will explain, then please contact FisherQueen to unblock or just do it for her. I will not be overzealous in explaining a point, such as why Malia Obama should be treated like other similar articles. While I do not agree with the way that I was blocked and strongly disagree with the duration and the net effect, I am willing to let it go and let Malia's article expire. See, I am a reasonable person. I created the article, found references, formatted it, etc. That's good intentions!

Decline reason:

Apart from your editing, I have a serious problem with your username, an issue no one else has raised but is just as relevant. It implies a single-purpose agenda, as your user page confirms, which can make it hard to get along with other users. Between that and your issues, I see this block as entirely justified. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 2 May 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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Watchingobama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

please contact FisherQueen to unblock. If Daniel Case disagrees with my username, I will change it. If you look at my article on Malia Obama, you will see that it is very reasonable. I met FisherQueen's criteria for unblock by self-contemplating and explaining. On the other hand, if you deny unblock and refuse to contact FisherQueen, think of the implications of heavy-handedness, trying to block me then immediately acting to close the AFD debate--that looks bad on Wikipedia's part. I am willing to let it go, but you please don't hold a grudge and continue blocking. Thank you. Again, contact FisherQueen. You should also alert Mangojuice, who has suggested steps for unblock, see beloe

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=please contact FisherQueen to unblock. If Daniel Case disagrees with my username, I will change it. If you look at my article on Malia Obama, you will see that it is very reasonable. I met FisherQueen's criteria for unblock by self-contemplating and explaining. On the other hand, if you deny unblock and refuse to contact FisherQueen, think of the implications of heavy-handedness, trying to block me then immediately acting to close the AFD debate--that looks bad on Wikipedia's part. I am willing to let it go, but you please don't hold a grudge and continue blocking. Thank you. Again, contact FisherQueen. You should also alert Mangojuice, who has suggested steps for unblock, see beloe |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=please contact FisherQueen to unblock. If Daniel Case disagrees with my username, I will change it. If you look at my article on Malia Obama, you will see that it is very reasonable. I met FisherQueen's criteria for unblock by self-contemplating and explaining. On the other hand, if you deny unblock and refuse to contact FisherQueen, think of the implications of heavy-handedness, trying to block me then immediately acting to close the AFD debate--that looks bad on Wikipedia's part. I am willing to let it go, but you please don't hold a grudge and continue blocking. Thank you. Again, contact FisherQueen. You should also alert Mangojuice, who has suggested steps for unblock, see beloe |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=please contact FisherQueen to unblock. If Daniel Case disagrees with my username, I will change it. If you look at my article on Malia Obama, you will see that it is very reasonable. I met FisherQueen's criteria for unblock by self-contemplating and explaining. On the other hand, if you deny unblock and refuse to contact FisherQueen, think of the implications of heavy-handedness, trying to block me then immediately acting to close the AFD debate--that looks bad on Wikipedia's part. I am willing to let it go, but you please don't hold a grudge and continue blocking. Thank you. Again, contact FisherQueen. You should also alert Mangojuice, who has suggested steps for unblock, see beloe |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You might want to read "What about X?" for why that argument was so generally dismissed. However, you should understand that the reason you were blocked is because you did more than just vigorously argue your point: you were disrupting the Wikipedia process for deletion debates by adding those other articles, and when others tried to fix your error you simply reverted them. I'm glad you are willing to abide by the result of the debate. Before unblocking you, though, I think that because this came up partially from your inexperience on Wikipedia, there are some things you should read first and then give us your response. Specifically:

1. Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule for why your use of repeated reverts/undos is problematic, and what the rules and expectations are in this area. (These are aimed at edit wars in articles as opposed to in a debate, but the same principles apply.)
2. Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people for Wikipedia guidelines and policy relating to which biographical topics are considered appropriate on Wikipedia.
3. WP:BUNDLE (a section of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) for policy on when AfD nominations can be made as a group.
4. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: a policy you were violating.

I'd also like to hear about what you'd like to accomplish on Wikipedia next. Mangojuice^talk 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice, you are being reasonable. Other people are not, like the people who just block you permanently and don't even try to fix the situation. That just creates retaliation, at least some would. What do I want to accomplish on Wikipedia next? Certainly, not Malia Obama. Just finding good references and inserting facts. Even if you disagree with Malia, you have to agree that the references found (New York Times, USA Today) were solid references. The lady in the news that just killed herself, her article lacks references about that she died. If you look at the Malia situation, you'll note that I just did some work and only later people attacked it. So I intend to just continue work like before (and probably be a little careful if others attack that new work). After all this explanation, if you still don't unblock, I don't know what of control Wikipedia wants? Sorry, sorry, sorry. Watchingobama (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

I see at least four warnings on this very page explaining that a block (or my own possibly-misused word: ban) was imminent. I think the user's request for a 3 hour block to make the point is merely a ploy to get back to disruptive editing sooner. My own edits in this situation have assumed good faith, and I support lifting a block if there's consensus to do so, but I think it must be longer than a few hours. Somewhere between a few hours and indefinitely obviously covers a lot of ground, but probably on the order of days to weeks would be good.  Frank  |  talk  18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is punishment. Banning is not for punishment. I won't re-create Malia Obama if unblocked. Now stop punishing me and unblock. Please don't poison the atmosphere of Wikipedia. I'm sorry. Are you trying to provoke anger, instead???? If so, you are not yet successful but you are doing a good job at provoking. Watchingobama (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll double it. 6 hours. And I'll be in bed by then so you get an effective ban of longer. OK? Watchingobama (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

what is crime? what is punishment?

Vandals get banned for 24 hours. They intentially commit a crime. I did not. I get executed (permanent ban). What is crime? What is punishment. Please help!

I confess, vandals don't. Watchingobama (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)