User talk:Clubjuggle

Careful w/ edits

Howdy! You appear to have accidentally deleted a number of comments in an active talk page when posting. If it was because of an edit conflict, please be careful to make sure your edits don't happen at the expense of others. Sometimes it's necessary to copy your additions, then edit the page anew and paste them in to avoid this sort of thing. Cheers! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I actually did that, and for some reason the problem still happened. Not sure what went wrong, as it's the first time I've ever had this issue with an EC. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

It's the first one I've gotten here, and I really appreciate it. I'm just doing my best to make that article better. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain so that you will understand

Many of us prefer to avoid all of the drama and explaining oneself that come with having a Wikipedia account. Almost all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) change each customer's IP address at least once a year. So an IP editor may have an extensive edit history on hundreds of different articles, then lose that history involuntarily and appear to be an SPA.

Some cases are far more extreme. For example, an editor who travels frequently on business will hop from one hotel IP address to the next after just a day or two. Sprint, a wireless ISP with millions of customers, changes each one's IP address at least once a day.

I am a Sprint customer. I've been editing Wikipedia for about three years, including hundreds of articles. Assuming that an IP editor is an SPA violates WP:AGF. Please stop. 68.31.185.221 (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the word "even" in the headline. There are thousands of editors who only use IP addresses for various reasons. Few of us are vandals. A few others are driven by other, less than admirable motives. But most are just here to improve the encyclopedia.

We're not here with an agenda. We don't want the drama or the politics that go with having an account. We're not here to make friends or make enemies. We're not here to fight, or to gain power and abuse it. We just want to improve the encyclopedia.

We have no control over our ISPs. They change our IP addresses on their own schedules, and so we haven't got any histories to show you. In 24 hours or less, I'm history. But assuming that we are SPAs, or engaging in other behavior that treats us as second class citizens, is a violation of WP:AGF. 68.31.185.221 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want the benefit of a reputation you have to create a stable identity. The tools are available. We have serious problems with SPAs and sockpuppets on Wikipedia, particularly on the talk page you (the IP editor) have been editing. In nearly all cases they use the same argument you do: it is an assumption of bad faith, unfair, etc., to single them out. This should not be news, but we have to single out suspicious-acting accounts, and after we go through the time-consuming procedures most of them in fact do turn out to be editing in bad faith. If you have been editing Wikipedia for years you must be aware that an unregistered IP address with zero history who shows up to vote in a poll on a contentious issue where there is already vote-rigging simply cannot be taken at face value. Wikidemo (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

I've responded to your comments on my talk. Happy editing! Arkon (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I have your talk page on watch, so feel free to reply there and I'll see it. Cheers! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but

Please don't characterize legitimate discussion as "attacks"; such characterizations aren't exactly civil in and of themselves. Shem^(talk) 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should have posted my comment to Shem's talk page. Rick Block has done that with me, and it's a better way of addressing problems with another editor, now that I think about it. I wasn't attacking him (I think he's a very good editor, as I mentioned in my comment) but criticizing the way he's gone about participating. I agree with Shem's commment just above that it would be better (more diplomatic) to be a bit more exact in your language, but your overall point is sound. You might want to suggest on the Obama talk page that comments on others' specific behavior should be addressed on their talk pages. Thanks for the note, anyway. I'm going to redact my comment to Shem on the Obama page in order to try to keep the discussion closer to the topic.Noroton (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a fair criticism, and I do appreciate the feedback. In my haste to keep the discussion from spiraling further out of control I was probably less precise in my language than I should have been, and for that I apologize. My goal, as you have correctly concluded, is to keep the discussion focused and avoid the meta-discussions that dominated the last attempt at consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been an editor for about two years now, and this Obama article is the toughest page I've ever been involved with. I think you've taken on an enormous challenge by being involved. Expect to make more mistakes, I know I will; don't hesitate to point mine out to me. I don't know whether your efforts can keep us on track, but I don't see a better alternative. Noroton (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with your ground rules. You're placing cautions on my Talk page for questioning SCJ's truthfulness but encouraging others to use SPA tags. An SPA tag is quite clearly a challenge to the editor's motives. In effect you are giving one side in this debate, but not the other, carte blanche to constantly challenge the motives of the other side with such snide remarks as "all the established editors are on my side." WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the ground rules is welcome within the "proposed ground rules" section, however I disagree with your characterization on several fronts, to wit:

• "...encouraging others to use SPA tags. An SPA tag is quite clearly a challenge to the editor's motives" - If you read WP:SPA you will note that it cautions established users not to rush to bad-faith assumptions, and to avoid biting the newbies. The WP:SPA essay explicitly reminds participants be extra-careful to assume good faith. To this point, no one has been tagged as WP:SPA. How about we agree to revisit the issue if it begins to become a problem?
• "In effect you are giving one side in this debate, but not the other, carte blanche to constantly challenge the motives of the other side with such snide remarks as 'all the established editors are on my side.'" - Immediately after that comment was made, I left a note on its author's talk page reinforcing the need to focus on content and asserting that any claims of consensus at this point are very premature, and also reminding him to focus on content, not contributors. I have sent several such reminders today (check Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle) to editors on both sides of this debate, in the interest of keeping the discussion focused. If we go back to the previous meta-discussion of contributors' behavior, we will not make any more progress than we did the last go-round.

For those reasons, and in the interest of keeping the discussion focused, I ask that if you have an issue with another editor, please either leave me a note here on my talk page so I can attempt to address it as mediator, or bring it up to the user directly (civilly, of course) on his or her talk page.

Our best chance at finding a consensus will be to set asside any personal beefs with other editors and to focus on improving the baseline text. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've got an issue with another editor. Shem, based on a "possible" finding at RFCU, has been running all over Wikipedia tagging IP accounts as my sockpuppets and even creating a new category called "Sockpuppets of WorkerBee74." I left a note on his User Talk page stating that his actions have been a lot like saying, "The guys who raped that white woman were black, and you're black, so we're stringing you up from this lamppost."

Take a look at his recent edit history. If you are really going to serve as a mediator here, you'll revert them. It would be a real challenge for me. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the RFCU only returned "possible" it's certainly looks to me that User:Shem has overstepped by tagging you as a "confirmed" sockpuppet. I'll file a report an WP:AN/I. To be perfectly fair, though (and in the interest of full disclosure), the findings of the RFCU does create grounds for reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry. I therefore must also file a report at WP:SSP documenting those observations, so those with more experience than myself in making those determinations review the facts and make an appropriate determination. I will continue to assume good faith on your part unless and until an official determination would me made to the contrary. This SSP report is not in response to your request, I was actually started working on it an hour ago but my phone rang. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I welcome any additional attention to the SPA/sock activity on Barack Obama-related articles, be it at AN/I, SSP, CheckUser, ARBCOM, or elsewhere. Shem^(talk) 23:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

File:Detective barnstar.png		The Detective Barnstar
		To Clubjuggle, for uncovering a host of IP socks at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 by deducing the meaning of their "Arbitrary section breaks." Shem(talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was some pretty nifty figure-it-outery. I kneel before Zod/Clubjuggle. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks guys! Now with regard to the article, I think the best course of action is to simply ignore him and let the process run its course. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

I just realized that you are in PA (from your comment in the sock drawer and your unhealthy Turnpike fixation). I'm in Swarthmore, which is at the bottom of the Blue Route. I used to commute to Allentown up the Northeast Extension when I was attending a business college there. Whereabouts are you, if you don't mind me asking? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm near Lancaster but I grew up in Bucks County. I also went to Lehigh University so I know the Allentown area quite well. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My wife and I are hoping to buy one of the new homes in Valley (once we've offloaded this place), so we'll only be a short hop down US-30. Small world, eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much so! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

that request

It came from WorkerBee74. I had assumed this, although the email as I looked at it didn't indicate who it was from. (I use AOL, and it hides the "Details" about the routing unless I click on that. I just looked now, and it's from WorkerBee74. Noroton (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack watch

Please take note of the last part of WorkerBee74's comment where he mentions my wife. I responded to what I considered to be a pretty unreasonable personal attack with this warning. I would like to request that you drop him a note to remind him of the importance of civility, because I don't think he will listen if it comes from me. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, in the context of your previous lighthearted comments about Mrs. Scj's contributions I have a difficult time calling this a personal attack. I will continue to keep an eye out, though. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not editwarring

I am attempting to add, word for word, a version that has consensus. It is painfully obvious that it has consensus. I'm trying to be very careful in adding it word for word and I'd appreciate any help in that regard.

The obstruction now is in regard to sourcing. It is ludicrous to challenge sourcing like this. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times. This is the gold standard of sourcing. It is ridiculous to pretend that these sources are inappropriate.

I suspect that the goal of certain editors is to delay these edits as long as possible (preferably until after the election) by insisting on discussing each one for weeks, and only one edit may be discussed at a time. You enabled any such effort by reverting an effort to post the obvious consensus version in the article.

Kindly revert your edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No benches

1. No one is required to assume good faith after repeated examples of bad faith. Read WP:AGF. I appreciate your motives and goals, but telling me to accept this kind of behavior is not going to be productive.

2. Speaking of productive, I recently went through the initial diffs you posted about WorkerBee74 at AN/I. I could hardly find an example of rude behavior outside of heated discussions in which WorkerBee74 was getting about as much as he was giving out, often in the face of Scjessey's trademark goading -- the same type of thing he was trying to pull on me just now, the same type of thing he constantly pulls. I don't think you posted at AN/I out of bad faith, but I think there's a bit of tunnel-vision in your targeting people on one side of the issue. I understand you think WB74's a sock, and he's certainly an SPA, and being an SPA certainly should raise anybody's suspicions, so I can't fault you for being suspicious, but you might want to focus a bit more energy on Scjessey's POV-pushing, impolite, almost totally unconstructive behavior.

3. When I call Scjessey out on his goading and other totally unconstructive behavior, I'm not attacking him, and I'm attempting to keep the discussion on a constructive path by answering whatever substantive points are buried in the rudeness. I am going to point out his misbehavior and move on to substantive points whenever it comes up in discussion. If you think I've been impolite myself in the current discussion, please point it out to me, because I'm trying not to be.

4. And in that edit war between Scjessey and WorkerBee74, why wasn't the equally contentious Scjessey blocked for edit warring as well? I found no difference in his behavior. Noroton (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. True enough. I probably should have cited WP:COOL.

2. While on the one hand, I agree, he did make combative posts directed at multiple editors. the suspected sockpuppetry was a factor. The AN/I report was to request an administrator look at the entire pattern of behavior, not only the combative posts.

3. Pointing out his unconstructive behavior "in-band" probably won't help your cause. It's only going to serve to get his back up, and make him even less likely to focus on your substantive points. The best way to focus on the substance of the discussion is to focus on the substance of the discussion. You can't control your counterparts' actions, but you can control your own.

4. I was not a party to the complaint or the discussion that triggered it, so I honestly don't know. Probably best to address that question to the blocking admin. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a one-revert rule on the Obama page?

Are there currently special rules for reverting on the Obama page? If Shem and others revert, I'm going to revert back, up to the 3RR while discussion continues, unless there's a special rule imposed on that page. I'm more than willing to be reasonable about this if people can just respond to my reasons. Noroton (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

I have been extremely careful to make sure my comments have addressed issues with content, particularly with the new section you started. Can you clarify what you mean by "attacks" you say I have made? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly another puppet problem

I believe recent Barack Obama editor User:Round55 may be yet another sock of User:Improve2009, but I do not have enough supporting evidence to file a report (just a familiar editing pattern). After being banned, User:Improve2009 came back to edit under User:Scjessy and User:Scjessey02 as a retaliation for being banned, but I had these usernames blocked for obvious reasons. Do you know anyone with checkuser privileges who can check this? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hostility

I'd considered posting this to Talk:Barack Obama, but it's more appropriate here: Your tone towards me is becoming increasingly dismissive and hostile, and I don't appreciate it. Your link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, an essay concerning AfD discussions, wasn't even germane to the subject. Had you actually read the essay itself, or were you simply using the link because it had the letters "WP" in front of its name?

No one threw this sort of frustration toward Noroton when he vetoed Rick Block's version based upon not liking the word "scrutiny," and I really don't appreciate the double-standard. To summarize: While you presumably entered this discussion to play the role of a "fair broker," I don't think your recent comments are reflective of that role at all. Shem^(talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I remembered its context incorrectly. I've struck the offending text and apologized on the talk page. I'd appreciate if you would do the same with your "deference" assertion, which strongly implies that I'm somehow blindly yielding Noroton's opinions without thinking it through or researching the facts. I've taken what can be viewed as the "pro-Obama" side on a number of issues (most notably and most inistently the judgment text), and what could be viewed as the "anti-Obama" side on others, so to suggest (and I'm not saying you did so intentionally) that I'm blindly following anyone is grossly unfair.

My frustration is not with your stand on the scrutiny/criticism issue, but rather with the difficulty I've had in getting you to engage in a meaningful discussion on the matter (I won't bring the ad hominem arguments into this, because there have been more than enough of those flying around, but they do nonetheless contribute to my frustration, because in some cases yours have been in place of, not in addition to, substantive discussion). I've presented substantial evidence that there is support for the use of "criticism" in similar contexts. You have questioned the value of that evidence, but have not presented any countering evidence of your own. I've asked what standard of evidence you would even consider, and have not received a response. I've offered to consider a much lower standard of evidence than I feel I've met, and you have not responded. On the other hand, comments like these compel me to wonder whether you ever intend to respond (and, if so, when), or, indeed, if there is any standard of evidence that you will even consider (and, if so, what that standard is).

I do appreciate the feedback here, as well as the opportunity to respond to your concerns. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, Clubjuggle, I actually reckon the most offensive thing about your behavior is how you pretend I've not already made my case for supporting "scrutiny" over "criticism." Showing that a word's been used (often poorly) in other articles doesn't in any way illustrate why it should be substituted for another. The question here is this: Why must "scrutiny" be changed to "criticism"? I don't find complaints of "limpness" even remotely persuasive in answering that question. Shem^(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your immediate use of a red herring following our exchange is discouraging. Shem^(talk) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We were both posting at the same time. I did not see your post on my talk page until after I had made mine on the article talk page. I am acting in good faith, please treat me as such. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our edits must have crossed, as I've replied to this question on the talk page. it is, however, a restatement of the argument I've presented previously, most recently here.

I'm not contending you haven't presented arguments. I'm asking for evidence in support of the argument that the use of "criticism" would be somehow contrary to Wikipedia policy, or if no such support exists, for you to concede that point so we can focus in which, if either, is the better word.

I can't help but notice that I've been responsive to your claims of offense, but you've not responded to mine. Also, would you mind responding to my questions above? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Implicit and Explicit

I hope this can get us somewhere! I think I might have hit on something. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could say that Obama "agreed with criticism that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety" instead? That would give us this choice:

1. Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.
2. ''Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama agreed with criticism that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

-- Scjessey (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your new version

A work of genius. I particularly like your use of "nonetheless" to setup the sentence for a softened note of criticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tool to help break up arguments

Need an awesome tool to break up fights on Talk:Barack Obama? Make people watch this! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's ties to radicals

On the Barack Obama page, you have censored my citation of a report that documents Obama's ties to bomber William Ayers. I already opened a new section on the talk page of the entry before you highhandedly acted against me. Syntacticus (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment on my page, I have been entirely civil. I did not call you or anyone else a name or say anything disparaging. You have censored my edit. I don't know why but you did it. How can you not believe Obama's ties to Ayers are not relevant? The issue have been covered extensively by the media. Obama admits he knew Ayers but downplays the significance. It is newsworthy and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Let history decide its overall importance. Syntacticus (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You are mistaken.

There is no issue of defamation here. Obama admits he has ties to William Ayers but downplays their significance. It is newsworthy and has been covered extensively by the media; therefore, it must be included in the entry on Obama. In any event, I write from the United States where defamation against as prominent a figure as a major-party presidential candidate is virtually a legal impossibility. Syntacticus (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on polling

Here's something to consider. I've been thinking more and more about polls. They seem to give those who are only casually interested a chance to muck up the works. If you simply chose one version that you liked and thought would get support and asked, in the text, without announcing you were doing a poll or announcing anything: "How's this version, guys?" You would get a response from the interested editors, and the editors with less interest would either miss the whole thing (and not care) or see it later and be more willing to accept the consensus already forming on the page. The more elaborate we make the request, the more divergent the views we're going to get, and those same editors with divergent, nonconsensus views, then exit the scene, inhibiting a new consensus. That's the way it seems to have worked previously on this page. Maybe it won't matter much now, and I sure hope so. Wikipedia doesn't explain consensus well at all, but it seems to be a kind of balance between sheer numbers, adherence to policy and extra weight given to those editors most interested in the subject and willing to talk it over. In some of the other consensus discussions I've seen, somebody just announces "we have a consensus" or, even more common, they just act on it and put in the edit summary "per consensus on talk page" and the bold editor seldom gets challenged. Maybe that wouldn't work here, but I think my first idea would: Just casually ask, get some responses, wait a bit and implement with an edit-summary announcement. If we do have to have a poll, I think having one or two options should be the maximum, because the more options, the less likely any one of them is to get consensus, and we just slow down this glacial process even more. That's my thinking anyway (which changes every few months). Noroton (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not editwarring

I am adding the consensus version of the Rezko material to the article, word for word.

Word for word, Clubjuggle.

Please do not enable the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade to obstruct this material until after the election (their obvious goal) by discussing, and discussing, and discussing, and discussing, and discussing, and discussing the SOURCES, for God's sake. We're talking about the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times and that is the gold standard of sourcing. Kindly revert yourself. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, I noted in particular there was nothing close to a consensus for "simultaneously". If you wish for others to consider your opinions, you would do well to present them calmly and rationally, to focus on the issues, and to refrain from commenting on your fellow editors or your perceptions of their motives. When you attack people they are not inclined to hear your point of view. That's just human nature. Treat our adversaries with respect if you expect the same in return. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I briefly hinted at this at Talk:Barack Obama, but I'm concerned with your ability to accurately perceive and broker consensus in Talk discussions. While some editors (including myself) were off-wiki for the July 4th holiday, you created a a poll whose options totally excluded the preferences of several of the article's editors. When I returned from the holiday and objected to this, you falsely claimed that "except for you, it appears all editors fully support the change," which is quite a stretch.

In summary: I also have my concerns about you, but I'm cordial enough to bring them directly to you rather than try dragging your name through the mud in an AN/I discussion about a disruptive, personal-attack-addicted sockpuppeteer. I was initially supportive of your attempt to broker as an uninvolved editor, but my confidence in your ability to serve that role's been greatly diminished. I'm sorry if you find this bluntness "confrontational," but hope you can take some constructive criticism without subsequently juxtaposing the critic's name alongside a serious problem editor in retaliation. Shem^(talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to respond to your concerns, when I get back from lunch if time permits, or otherwise, when I get home. In fairness, however, I would appreciate a response to mine and will wait for that before responding further. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you stop construing my good-faith approaches as "confrontational" and deliberately juxtaposing them alongside AN/I discussions on disruptive sockpuppeteers. I'll grant you as much courtesy as you've offered me. Shem^(talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not deliberately juxtapose anything. Also, I am not questioning your good faith, only your approach. In fact, if you reread what I wrote, you will find that I was quite careful to point out that your activity did not rise to anywhere near the level that would require any kind of sanction, but simply wanted a second pair of eyes to look at the situation My only reason for making the request there was that it was intended as a reply to that specific admin, since he was one who had not been previously involved in the discussion but had already taken the time to familiarize himself with the situation. I was also quite clear that I was open to guidance myself, if he had any to offer. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your use of "on a related note" is a very deliberate juxtaposition to the WorkerBee discussion, nor do I reckon you'd convince many editors of otherwise. Shem^(talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I see you struck through it while I was offline, which'd seem to indicate you're aware of what the language implied. Shem^(talk) 22:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may note that I struck that text at 21:41 UTC after carefully rereading it for anything that may have inadvertently offended. The wording was perhaps careless, but most certainly not intentional. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to continue with you at length given your portrayal of my words as "confrontational," but let me explain what I've seen since returning from the July 4th holiday:

I returned from a 3-day holiday weekend, and after objecting to your newest straw poll and characterization of consensus, you shortly thereafter injected my name into a discussion on WorkerBee74 with the preface "on a related note." I've already expressed concerns that you've become slightly hostile toward me after I started landing opposite your proposals, and this recent episode hasn't done much to convince me of otherwise.

I'd humbly posit that you've gone from "outside opinion" to "involved" in the Barack Obama dispute, and may no longer be the best of brokers when it comes to analyzing a discussion for consensus. Most recently, you singled me out while completely disregarding the input of User:Tvoz, which was a pretty grievous oversight. You described your recent wording at AN/I as "careless"; perhaps you've become careless in other matters, too.

When I worried you were being dismissive towards other editors, I brought it up directly with you, as I'm doing again right now. When you felt I was being "confrontational," you injected my name into an AN/I discussion about a disruptive editor with a compulsive personal attack/sock problem with wording that was careless at best. You tell me which one of us has shown more courtesy and good will to the other, Clubjuggle. Shem^(talk) 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Once you've responded to my questions, I'll be happy to respond to yours. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo fixes

You may wish to re-read your post here as a typos has broken an intended link to User:WorkerBee74 and in another case, changed the intended meaning of your comment.. At least, I hope you did mean to say "threat opponents with respect" --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Thanks for the warning; I am aware of the rule and of the problems going on with that article. I did attempt to gain consensus with the parent WikiProject of this article, and did so. In accordance with that, I have replaced the earlier versions of the edits. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did see that, however, having been reverted, it would probably be prudent to initiate a discussion on the article talk page as well. I support some inclusion of the Phillies' history of struggles in the lede, but it needs to be more neutral than what you have proposed. The 10,000 loss number (being a rather arbitrary milestone) definitely warrants mention in the article, but a more general statement of the history would be more appropriate for the lede. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I did not write that statement; it has been part of the article for an extended period of time and was left in when the article was re-written, and through its promotion to B-class. The number is important because it is a unique record; it has never happened in the history of American professional sports. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to move forward on Talk:Obama

I don't know if it will do any good, but I've WP:CANVASSed the last 11 user names that participated in any Rezko discussions (the one's whose names still appear on the page). It may help get us out of the current rut. My sympathies with the rough treatment you've gotten from Shem. I think you can guess exactly how I feel about that. Please don't give up just yet. Noroton (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Response

It is complete different situation. I reported that user and they are trying to defend themselves in my report, plus that is what they did to me all day long and no one came to my help, and that is what I reported. Shake 3000 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)