User talk:Spotfixer

Extra vigilant fact tagging

Yes, these additions seem less than helpful but in actuality we do need to find sources to support what we state. It feels a bit crummy to have someone appoint themselves the fact police thus directing other volunteers what work they should focus on, yet articles generally improve when targeted in this way. I find it a bit distasteful and uncollaborative but there you go. -- Banjeboi 06:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for providing adequate citations to articles, so that's not the issue at all. Unfortunately, there's a bit of history here, with User:Schrandit showing a pattern of throwing citation requests at articles on topics that don't fit his religious/political stance. Some of these citation requests are reasonable, and I've done my best to fulfill them. Others are absurd, such as demanding a citation for a citation.

In any case, your efforts to add citations have certainly been noticed and appreciated. The very best defense against bogus citation demands is to make sure that there is an excess of citations in place. Perhaps this is why some of the more controversial articles sometimes seem to be composed mostly of citations. Spotfixer (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheela Lambert

Seems much better now, sorry the ride got bumpy there. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem much better now, due to your efforts. Thanks for taking this petty dispute as an opportunity to improve an article instead of just treating this as a game.

I keep hearing that we're here to work on an encyclopedia, and that it's not a battlefield. People like you add a core of truth to that otherwise dubious claim.

In any case, I'd like to imagine that this article is in good enough shape now that it won't be a target for further cite-spam attacks. Spotfixer (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion at Young Earth creationism

It seems inappropriate. It was not vandalistic. It had an edit summary. I understand that you did not like it...but a revert was not impressive. All the best.sinneed (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to revert your reversion, and change whatever you feel is appropriate.sinneed (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate changes now. Spotfixer (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed.sinneed (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

" keeping the one that made sense", why no, actually. But you digress.sinneed (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that our edit war continues

I saw that you reverted most of the edits I made yesterday. I, of course, re-inserted them. Have any ideas on how we could end this mess? Come to some sort of a resolution? - Schrandit (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you accept the consensus and stop warring against it. Spotfixer (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edit of the FAIR article. This article has recently been under attack by a few individuals who seem bent on defending the actions of white supremicists by "sanitizing" anything they disagree with, using specious claims and wikilawyering. I hope you will continue to defend the truth, and resist bullies. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Always glad to help keep articles honest. I ran into the FAIR article because Schrandit has a history of using citation requests as a way to censor articles he disagrees with. A quick look at his user page and contributions log should make it entirely clear what sort of bias he edits from, and therefore which articles he censors. In any case, now that I'm aware of the article, I will keep an eye on it. Spotfixer (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus on these articles, there is just me and you. If I requested third opinions on all of them would you abide by those? - Schrandit (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Illegal immigration to the United States

I don't know why you are refusing to participate in the article talk page, but if I can convince you to read that talk page, I think you'll understand why I made the edits I did. NPOV is required. Proper sourcing is too. I believe the article can have both. Poor sourcing can't really achieve npov. So far, I've been working on the sourcing. It's something I'm good at. But I want you to feel that I support the article being npov. I hope you will agree that the article must be BOTH properly sourced as well as npov. Let's work together on this article.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on doing anything here until my block expires. Spotfixer (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Conscience clause (medical)

Hello Spotfixer, I reviewed your 3RR report. By looking that the edits, I see that you and Schrandit have essentially been reverting each others edits; while he broke the three revert rule by the letter, I think that your reversions contributed to this edit war, and were not in the spirit of 3RR. I have blocked you for 12 hours pursuant to this. I have been in challenging editing situations as well with other editors, but reverting an editor over again is not an appropriate way to resolve disputes, even if you feel very strongly about the situation (BLP's excepted). I ask that you discuss your differences on the talk page after the block, and pursue other dispute resolution mechanisms if this is insufficient. As always, if you disagree with this block, you are welcome to use the {{unblock}} template for another administrator to review the situation. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 05:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your block is in error, but other than going on record, I'm not going to bother disputing it. Spotfixer (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction

Spotfixer, I am writing in response to your remarks on my talk page.

You are more than welcome to review any edits I make to any page, and to make whatever edits you believe will enhance Wikipedia. (That is the goal, correct?) I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that prohibits me or anyone else from focusing on articles on subjects deemed by some to be controversial. If you believe I am mistaken, please educate me. There is no need to make accusations of vandalism that have no basis; this violates Wikipedia policy on civility. Also, I believe that some of your reverts of my edits have been excessive (see Wikipedia policy on reverts), and I can see from your talk page that others have expressed concern (and even taken the step of temporarily blocking your contributions to a page) due to their view that you have engaged in "edit wars."

While I appreciate and share your concern about the quality of the encyclopedia, I must say that your note on my talk page conveyed a "thought police"-type tone that I find dissonant with the purposes of Wikipedia. Perhaps this was not your intention.

Have a nice evening. 74.70.44.210 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Big words, but you're missing the point. Yes, people don't like it when I revert their partisan edits, but there's nothing they can do about it. In particular, anyone who adds partisan claims backed only by unreliable sources, such as blogs, should expect to be reverted. Speaking of which, are you a sock puppet of User:Skoojal? Spotfixer (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Spot, in case this editor does not respond, I would love to involve myself in another sockpuppet case, but also be warned, that I will not do so immediately, as the last case I worked on was extremely taxing on me, and I need to take a break from disputes for a bit.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a joke, this is a serious offer, if any area of wikipedia, I've contributed to sockpuppet investigations the most.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, I continue to take issue with your false accusations and derogatory tone. I did not "miss the point." I am not a sockpuppet of Skoojal or anyone else. (I have actually disagreed with Skoojal on certain edits in the past.) I have not made partisan edits backed by unreliable sources, and I defy you to find even one edit that I have ever made that was not based upon a reliable source. If you revert an edit of mine in good faith, that is your prerogative. If you begin to make wholesale reverts of all of my contributions based on your false belief that I am a vandal (and you seem to be moving in that direction), I will have to consider requesting mediation from a third party. I hope that will not be necessary, and that you will comply with the Wikipedia policies with which you (properly) expect others to comply. I would remind you -- again -- that your own behavior towards me violates Wikipedia policies on civility and on assuming good faith. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Having just spent the better part of an hour cleaning up your wholesale reverts to the same-sex marriage in New York article (many of which were unnecessary reverts of minor edits), I would request that you kindly make the minimum revert that you believe to be necessary, rather than reverting dozens of other edits that are not relevant to your concern. If you continue with the broad-brush reverts, I will seek third-party Wikipedia involvement. I also note that many of your other edits contained untrue assertions in the edit summary (such as accusations that the cited sources are insufficient when they are not), and several of your reverts have been corrected by other editors before I even noticed them. Your behavior is counterproductive, violates Wikipedia policy, and is starting to border on harassment. I would respectfully request that you refrain from crossing that line. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, blogs are not a reliable sources, not even if they're blogs you like. That's because anyone could just put up a blog with whatever they want in the article.

When you want to change an article, it's up to you to justify those changes. When your desired change includes unreliable sources, the entire change becomes suspect. In such cases, it's often better to revert the whole thing and examine each part of the change individually before allowing it. After all, once we have evidence that you either don't know what a reliable source is or just don't care, we can't assume the rest will be any better.

Now, I'm going to look at your last round of edits, and I may well revert some or all of them, as I see fit. It's my job to keep people like you honest. I can do this while following all pertinent Wikipedia rules, including those regarding civility. Remember: just because something makes you angry doesn't mean anyone else was uncivil. Spotfixer (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, even though you have completely dismissed and disregarded the concerns I expressed, I have already addressed the one valid concern you expressed; I believe I have removed and replaced every blog citation that you pointed out with a more appropriate source. I will be careful not to cite to them in the future. However, I completely disagree that my having made the error of citing to a few blogs renders every edit I make suspect and justifies you in reverting all my edits, whether or not there is any real reason for you to do so. I am not angry, but I continue to not appreciate your patronizing tone. Also, false accusations of vandalism, bias, and sock-puppetry are not civil; you have not assumed good faith at all in our interactions (quite the opposite). I think an apology is in order. I will be keeping an eye on your edits as well. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The air of righteous indignation doesn't suit you; it comes across as false. Yes, I asked if you were a sock-puppet of a specific user because that's what it said on your talk page. If this is incivility then all administrators must block themselves immediately. Likewise, I am well within my rights to question the validity of your edits, particularly as some lacked a reliable source. In short, you need to focus on content and avoid personal conflict. That's the last I'll speak of this. Spotfixer (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism are not civil. You don't get it, and seem unwilling to get it. Also, there is nothing on my talk page that says or suggests anything about being a sock-puppet, so that is baloney. I would suggest that you take your own advice about avoiding personal conflict; you are the one that started -- and perpetuated -- this one. There will be no conflicts between us provided that you refrain from making off-the-wall accusations and sabotaging my edits for no reason. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't deny things on wikipedia, you know, in this diff, a sock tag is clearly added to the page by a user who is not spotfixer, well, at least it is clearly added to the talk page of the IP you claim to be, as, although you sign every post as 74.70.44.210, you are obviously 208.105.149.80, as sinebot keeps signing all the comments of the actual person who added them. Now, given this info, I'm going to add the sock to this new talk page of yours.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what happened. I had looked on the wrong talk page and that is why I did not see a sock and did not understand what was being referred to. My mistake. I do edit from two different computers that I regularly use, so you are correct that I am both 74.70.44.210 and 208.105.149.80. I am not Skoojal, however. I will go ahead and create a new account in the hope that this will quell your suspicions. I will call myself "BoulderCreek," so you will know where to find me. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new account won't quell anything, as someone who socks usually finds a way to evade their accont creation block by using a slightly different IP than their other account. Nothing will quell my suspicions, especially after the sock tag placed on the other IP address was added by an admin here at wikipedia. And lastly, the only thing ever capable of quelling my suspicions is SPI that comes back negative. Promises or account creation will not do anything.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am now BoulderCreek12. And you are free to be as suspicious as you want to be. Hopefully my having an account will help to avoid similar future problems/confusion/suspicion from others. Have a nice evening. BoulderCreek12 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Faith. 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. Onorem♠Dil 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Unlike User:Hardyplants, I believe that you are acting in good faith. However, it turns out that I am conspicuously avoiding an edit war, while he is editing against consensus, throwing out false accusations and consistently assuming bad faith while be uncivil. Spotfixer (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

As a courtesy, I need to let you know that I've brought your name up at AN/I as a possible sock puppet. arimareiji (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's got to be one of the funniest accusations I've seen in some time. Thanks for lightening my day. I've replied on ANI to share my mirth. Spotfixer (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Abortion

Hey, thanks for the note. I will have to lock it if they keep warring; however, right now I'm hoping that I can settle this acting as a user and not having to heft around admin rights to make people be sensible. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. I'll be on the article's talk page, doing my part. Spotfixer (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(copied)

Which page do I report editing against consensus on? Spotfixer (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My talk page, preferably. Causes the least clutter. You could also nudge my pal User:Juliancolton if I'm not active. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me some diffs? Sorry for the trouble; I'd hunt 'em down but I have some work to do on the side which needs to be in tomorrow. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

No, it's my own fault for not tracking down the links. And, in fact, doing so has helped me get a better understanding of what's going on here. What happens is that Schrandit follows a consistent pattern of just barely staying within the letter of (most of) the rules while working as hard as he can to push his conservative, religious POV everywhere. He's essentially gaming the rules, not only WP:3RR but also WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

I like to sometimes clean up articles or add new things I found, but Schrandit is much more focused. Almost all of his edits are POV-pushing, with a few vandalism reversions tossed in for flavor, but no actual effort to improve articles. For example, he likes to add citation-required and dead-link tags, or simply remove sentences because he says they lack citation. This would not be a bad thing at all, if only he were honest and impartial about it. Instead, he selectively attacks only those things which he dislikes, and this has been noticed by a few people, most recently Andrew_c. He is quick to remove citations or demand them, but never takes a moment to search for a reliable source, except in support of his POV.

His edit comments are often condescending, unclear or just plain dishonest. He likes to keep inserting sections that were removed for their bias and irrelevance, ignoring consensus. Basically, his strategy is to keep on keeping on and hope some of his tricks don't get caught. On busy articles, this doesn't work well, but it can be effective when used on those which lack enough editors to notice and oppose, where it often just leads to edit wars.

All of these links are from the last day, and they're typical of the bombing runs he's known for. He is an inveterate POV pusher who works hard to damage articles that say things which offend his delicate sensibilities. So far, he has been directly involved in two of my three blocks (and indirectly involved in the other). I've been dealing with him as best as I can, but my patience is short. Spotfixer (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should mention he's holding a grudge for me. While I was writing this up, he went after me again. Spotfixer (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to drag my name through the mud I've got a right to defend it. Everything I have done here, save one mistake, has been within the rules of this encyclopedia. The same cannot be said of your self. I often do tag unsourced statements as unsourced and dead links as dead, just like wikipedia guidelines permit. When we initially clashed I made strenuous efforts in accordance with the DR guidelines but you shrugged those off. It is possible that I am a monstrous person but you seem to be the only one bothered by it, I'm on good terms with the rest of the project. - Schrandit (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very clear what's going on here. Also, the word you were trying to spell is "rebuttal". Now you know. Spotfixer (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of animosity between you two. I think the main issue is that, as far as I can see, the human element to this conflict is being completely eschewed. You'd both get a lot further if you stopped doing things because policy dictates so (for example, don't be civil because there's a giant page telling you to do so, but be civil out of common sense). Speaking of which, do try to be less bitey? The veiled insults aren't going to do much but complicate things... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to be tactful about a matter that I could speak much more clearly and directly about. The short, tactful version is that I can see right through him. 07:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at [[:Rick Warren]]. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kevin (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:ANI

I guess you would also think then that 48 hour blocks all round is a bit harsh also. It's only the though that some may have acted under the belief that this is a WP:BLP issue that I haven't yet. And that possible saving grace does not apply to those reverting to add the section. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does. You'll note that my last edit on Rick Warren explained why I had good reason to believe that I was not violating WP:3RR.

What I said was: "Violations of 3RR are vandalism, hence reverted automatically. Also, this edit does not violate 3RR, regardless, because TeleD edited in between."

In short, I do not believe that I did violate 3RR, so the block seems pointless. I'm also going to point out that, for the second time in a row, I've asked someone to revert their blatant 3RR violation, reported them when they refused to, and gotten banned for the trouble. Do we have a new, secret policy called "punish anyone who reports 3RR"? If you're not going to let us report violations, what recourse do we have but reverting? Think about it. Spotfixer (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that violations of 3RR are just that, and not vandalism. If you genuinely believe that you did not commit WP:3RR, then use the {{unblock}} tag. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The last time I read WP:3RR, it was not a violation to revert back to a version after someone else did. That's not what I'm reading right now. If so, then I may have unintentionally violated the current version of the rule. For what it' worth, as my edit comment made clear, I was under the impression that TeleD's edit in between meant that I was not in danger of violating the rule. Spotfixer (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So I decided to read up on the rules to make sure I understood them. Here's what I found at the top of WP:VANDALISM when I checked just now:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, the insertion of nonsense into articles or otherwise replacing legitimate content with vandalism.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

Quite frankly, it's not at all clear to me that you are correct when you say that his edits weren't vandalism. As I saw it, he was deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by removing a well-cited and appropriate sentence. He knew it was true and verified; he just didn't like it so he censored it. If reinserting something despite multiple warnings is vandalism, as the example states, then so is deleting something despite multiple warnings. I have also seen cases where a 4th reversion was reverted by an admin on the basis of the fact that it violated WP:3RR, not because of its content.

I acted under the belief that my edits complied with the rules, just as you say he did, yet he is not blocked and I am. I find this to be less than just and request that you either block him or unblock me. Spotfixer (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, that would be completely useless. How would blocking him do anything for your predicament? Aside from giving you the feeling of success, that is. We're trying to be constructive, not supportive of every second editor's vengefulness.

Anyway, I agree with you; you were only acting based on your interpretation of a policy. However, unfortunately, yours is a minority view, while his is commonly accepted. So, you both acted under the same motivation, except he acted through a means which is allowed by the community. Also, 'well-cited and appropriate' can be argued here, as two sources were related to Savage and one was only a minor mention (which, by BLP policy standards, is equivalent to building a house on matchsticks).

However, that's just an outside opinion; I'll let Kevin comment further if he'd like. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see "completely useless", look at what good blocking me is doing. The pages in question are protected, and I had already stopped editing them by the time I reported the edit war. What I got for my trouble is a block, which is a pretty clear signal that I can't count on fairness from admins.

As for what blocking him might do, I would think it would motivate him not to INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE 3RR. Spotfixer (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you, to allow you to take part in discussions re Rick Warren etc. I will caution you to restrict yourself to less than 3 reverts per day, unless it is obvious vandalism such as page blanking or penis jokes etc. Even if others are edit warring, there is no need for you to do so. Report it at the appropriate place, then step away. Kevin (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you did the right thing. Spotfixer (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:AN/3RR

The term is brand new and not notable. If, every time Rush Limbaugh created a new term to mock his enemies, conservatives rushed to Wikipedia to add the new derisive term and tag anyone remotely connected to it, it would be no more justifiable than this insertion. Why not wait for consensus?--Lyonscc (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been refuted solidly. Unfortunately, this block makes it difficult for me to participate and clear my name. Spotfixer (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also ask Manutdglory outright to declare whether he has a conflict of interest over Saddleback Church, since there is some talk that he attends it. Being a member of an organization, like the RCC or SBC, isn't necessarily a COI, although it could be. But going to that specific church is very obviously a COI. Spotfixer (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)