From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent Joehazelton (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · rfarb · rfcuser · lta · rfcu · ssp suspected socks)} from introducing vandalism to it. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. (protection log).

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Contents 1 AMA request 2 AMA reply 3 Image copyright problem with Image:Scoff img.asp.png 4 AMA reply 5 Roskam RfC, etc. 6 Mediation 7 Block 8 Calling to your attention a posting on the Adminstrators' noticeboard 9 3RR violation 10 3RR violation 11 A PLEA TO ANY OTHER ADMIN 11.1 Personal attack on Talk:Peter Roskam 11.2 Sockpuppets 11.2.1 BE WELL 11.3 To operators of this Animal Farm 11.4 Legal threats 11.5 Blanking

AMA request

I am new with wikipedi and I'm up against some real pros that know how to manipulate the wikipedia for spin. My goal is to have NPOV. What I ask is simply for some one, not bias, to review the edits and tell me, honsestly that these edits, over the last 3 or 4 week are NPOV or clever spin.

Also, one of the wiki admins is a confirmed democrate Gamaliel. This fact alone would suggest bias just by the fact he's human. Also on of the other editors also edit on the Tammy Duckworth page goethean as well. The edits this editor does on the Peter Roskam page are less positive then his edits on the Duckworth site. Again this would suggest a bias. This is just human nature and in my humble opinon, people with political aggendas can't help but be bias.

UPDATE, I will give Gamaliel the benefit of good faith and see were we go

I hope that my good faith will be rewarded with honest results.Joehazelton 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Any way I need help to fight this and to bring this article in a much more NPOV then it now is.

See the disscussion at [[1]]to see the wrangling that as so far has taken place.

Thanks and let me know if this is of interest to any advocate.--Joehazelton 05:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Joehazelton, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm really sorry to hear about your problems with bias, and I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

< Hey Joe! Hi I am LoveMonkey look at the hell that goethean put me through on the plotinus talk page because a group of new agers (goeths buds) did not like me editing out their original research were they try and obfuscate Plotinus and claim that he was too dumb to be able to tell the difference between christians and followers of gnosticism. Goethean got so angry that he has insisted that I leave wikipedia (more then once)and even started attacking many of my edits on other articles and deleting them under ridiculous reasons like npov or nonsense or original research. Just a heads up on a repeat offender one of many. Wikipedia really makes it very hard for knowledgable people to contribute by letting these people effectly silence knowledgable people(and in my case out of love for the greeks go too extreme measures to have valid history heard). LoveMonkey 05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Hey what article. LoveMonkey 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am no fan of political brick slingin' (man them @#$% things hurt). But goethean is from this politician's area in Illinois. So maybe he's doing his fair shake of mudslingin' for the DNC?Just a though why during active campaigning is any "labeling being allowed on wikipedia considering the ugly past of such things in the past..

1, 2. Oh well. LoveMonkey 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA reply

Joe, I've been asked by Steve, who wrote you supra, to assist you vis-à-vis, inter al., the Peter Roskam page. I am altogether willing to help you as you seek, in good faith, to better the project and to edit the articles about which you wrote such that they comport with the policies for which a consensus of editors exists (e.g., WP:NPOV and WP:RS); I must readily admit, though, that I am an anarcholibertarian who, as my userpage reflects, supports categorically the Democratic Party. Notwithstanding such professed views, though, and inasmuch as I subjugate personal concerns to project concerns, I am certain that I'll be able to aid you in a wholly unbiased manner. I know, though, that some of the difficulties you've encountered have been exacerbated by the off-Wiki differences betwixt editors, and so I'll surely understand if you'd prefer another advocate; in either event, please let drop me a message at your convenience, in order that I might help you or ask Steve to find another advocate to assist you. Joe 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply; I look forward to helping you however I can. If you'd permit me a day or so to review the history of Peter Roskam (and the attendandt talk page) and Tammy Duckworth—which I understand to be the two pages on which you've experienced troubles—I'd be much appreciative; I'll write you with something more concrete in a day or two. :) Joe 01:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Scoff img.asp.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Scoff img.asp.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BrownCow • (how now?) 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA reply

Edit one You're probably correct to have removed the reference to Duckworth from the lead not only in view of its being repeated infra but, more importantly, inasmuch as it's not lead material (WP:LEAD). The paragraph apropos of Duckworth and the attention paid by media to the race probably oughtn't to have been wholly excised—since we haven't an article on the race itself (and ought not to, I think), some relevant background, especially as regards the national following the race has generated, is in order. It should be observed that your His opponent, in the November general election, will be... formulation is a solecistic—the November general election clause is not independent; where one is editing a page about the editing of which there is some controversy, he/she might do well to be especially careful to avoid grammatical or syntactic errors, since other editors, having reviewed an edit perfunctorily, may revert in view of the style and tone of an edit and irrespective of its substantive merits.

Edit two You were, I think, altogether correct to have removed the which handles cases... locution, which is rather tautologously restates personal injury firm, primarily because such detail is profoundly unencyclopedic. I also think you were right to remove the Cheney/Roskam picture, principally because, where we have a choice between two fair use images, ceteris paribus, we ought to choose the one that most narrowly represents the subject we seek to illustrate. The Carney paragraph tends toward the unencyclopedic, and so I understand your reasons for removing it, but some mention of Roskam's previous run is in order. The Hotline paragraph is quite poorly formatted but probably could have been culled, viz., in order that it should simply say that The Hotline, a notable subsidiary of the National Journal, avers that Roskam is successfully fundraising for the Republican Party; the legislative experience formulation, though, isn't particularly encyclopedic—the article should already offer an unbiased treatment of his legislative history—and probably ought not to have been included.

Edit three Your edit summary here is quite misleading; your edit, though largely good (see edit two) did not serve merely to correct spelling; Help:Edit summary—as well as common sense and WP:CIVIL—disfavor such edit summaries. Both Goethean and you appear on occasion to have made edits with less-than-complete or -accurate edit summaries, and that's something on which you might want to work in the future.

Edit four I rather imagine that the fact of an individual's membership in the Anglican Mission in America would suffice to make him repugnant to all that for which I stand, but I must agree that the paragraph explicating the church's views is no more encyclopedic than would be one describing Catholicism in the John F. Kennedy article; we link to the group/church in order that we shouldn't have to recapitulate information not directly relevant to the instant article. Were Roskam notably verifiably active within the group, an explanation would probably be appropriate; here, though, absent an assertion of relevance, an explanation is probably unnecessary, although I'm disinclined to agree the intimation in your edit summary that the paragraph was added to disparage Roskam; in any event, WP:AGF should govern. The FEC section is a closer question, and, once more, I think the level of detail to be unencyclopedic, but I think you might have removed too much; your edit produced a paragraph devoid of any detail from which one might discern what happened; In 1999, the Federal Election Commission investigated a mailing sent out by the Campaign for Working Families, a conservative political action committee then led by Gary Bauer, in support of Roskam; the Commission concluded that the CWF had acted improperly but determined that there was no coordination between the CWF and Roskam's campaign might have worked better.

Edit five This edit gives me pause and rather resembles an edit designed to disrupt to prove a point; after all, an external link or citation can't be {{dubious}} unless it fails to go toward the proposition for the proof of which it is adduced. If you meant to indicate that the external links and citations were unencyclopedic or imparted bias, you ought to have tagged each section about which you were concerned with a {{POV-section}}. FWIW, the Chicago Tribune external link likely didn't belong, but I'm inclined, in view of WP:EL and an April discussion about the Mike Gabbard article at its talk page and on WP:AN (I'm too lazy to find the latter; my apologies), to think the DCCC (again, full disclosure: my family donate to the DCCC and I have worked on campaigns for several Democratic HoR candidates, but I'm confident that my judgment is impartial) link permissible, as would be an NRCC page about Duckworth on her article (such a page does not seem to exist, though).

Edit six The Exelon section is off-putting as regards its sourcing; I would much prefer that we cited to a secondary source relative to the Exelon situation and the criticisms engendered by Roskam's involvement (I've argued that we should, under certain circumstances, use primary sources, at least where such sources are government documents, but there certainly is no consensus for our changing RS or V thusly). I certainly think that the presentation you removed ought to have been removed; most of the paragraph was wholly unencyclopedic. Were the paragraph to have been reworked to reflect that the Exelon situation has led to Roskam's being castigated in the media, it would likely be fine (at least were the unencyclopedic minutiae of the situation not fully enumerated), but only if the issue were understood as one to have received much attention vis-à-vis the campaign (I don't know enough about the situation to pronounce on that question).

Edit seven In a word, oy. In the first instance, the enumeration of PACs from which Roskam received contributions is unencyclopedic; a breakdown of the PACs by interest and a citation to a complete delineation would have been in order. However, your edit served to exacerbate the situation, introducing unencyclopedic material and concomitantly grammatical, syntactic, and ortographic errors. Were I another editor on the page, I might have had difficulty assuming good faith in this situation, but I would likely have taken your edit as a reflection of exhaustion over the intransigence of the other editors, which exhaustion would not have been wholly unwarranted. The first Sun-Times section you added was unencyclopedic; only the Emily's List issue, to the extent that it is raised by Roskam and covered by the media, would merit inclusion, and the formatting ought to have been much different. Again, the complaint by Roskam's campaign manager as to the out-of-district nature of Duckworth's contributions is probably notable (if the issue is framed by the Roskam campaign and/or the media as one of some import), but its presentation was, in tone and format, unencyclopedic, and the zip code breakdown ought at best to have been summarized—the level of detail was, to use what appears to be my word of the day, unencyclopedic.

Edit eight Again, this edit is marred by the presence of incomplete sentences and inappropriately jocular phrasings. The first part of the quote from the campaign manager ought to have been integrated into the paragraph supra, where it would have served well to illustrate the campaign's criticizing Duckworth (although I wonder whether such information might not better fit in the Duckworth article...no matter). The detail in the second insertion is exorbitant; the overall fundraising total ought to have been rendered as the first sentence in the paragraph supra, and the individual/PAC breakdown ought to have been appended to that paragraph as well. The rest ought to have been scrapped, IMHO.

Edit nine Well, the presentation of the Anglican Mission in America prior to your edit is better than previously it was, but I think your edit summary is quite right, although, in view of the general unfamiliarity a reader might have with the Mission, and, more importantly, in view of the general preference for our explaining briefly those terms to which we link (relative to Catholicism, we might say a Christian sect), perhaps a compromise and encyclopedic formulation might have observed that Roskam is a member of the Anglican Mission in America, a branch/outgrowth/offshoot of the Anglican Church (unless, as above, if the fact of Roskam's membership in the church qua spinoff has become notable, either in view of his involvement therewith or of his being criticized by others for the fact of his membership).

Edit ten I understand your intent here, but this edit serves to introduce irrelevant material (or, at best, material best given elsewhere) and isn't particularly well-formatted. I imagine the impetus for this edit may have been the continued reversion to the untoward version (see edit nine) by other editors.

Edit eleven The same edit as in edit ten. Had I to choose between your version and that of Goethean, I'd prefer yours, but it would have been best if the two of you had collaborated on the talk page to produce a version to which each of you was amenable, since such version likely would have been most consistent with encyclopedic goals and purposes. I do observe that each of you did discuss the issue on the talk page, but much of the conversation there seems to have been unproductive, for reasons of which I'm not entirely sure, and so the issue devolved into a revert war, which should have been disfavored.

Edit twelve The same edit as in edit ten. Your edit summary here once might be construed as imputing malign motive to another editor, and whilst your supposition may well be correct, and whilst the version to which Goetehan repeatedly reverted was of inferior quality and served probably to impart POV (although, of course, my objections were in view of other concerns), you might have written more decorously). The revert warring betwixt the two of you wasn't productive, but I assign blame to neither of you, except to the extent that, even in the absence of a productive talk page discussion, it might have been best for one of you, upon the other's reverting, to begin a new talk page thread solicting other opinions or even to have made a request for comment.

Edit thirteen The seven months addition, though improperly formatted, seems fine, since a general biography would be expected to include the dates or durations of one's involvement in significant professional activities. Josh Marshall is definitely a notable blogger, and his Straight Answer Wanted List is probably notable, but the level of detail served improperly to impart bias or, at best, to diminish the encyclopedic tone. Your edit, though, also introduced unencyclopedic material that was, once more, written in informal English. A paragraph relative to prospective debates and any controversy over such debates or inferences as to the reasons for which one candidate might eschew debates—where such inferences are drawn by notable individuals and reported in reliable media—would have been fine, and I imagine that your text might have been reworked to such effect.

Edit fourteen An article (cf., an editorial) would not draw a conclusion as to why a candidate did not desire to debate, save for in situations in which a candidate explained such lack of desire. Goethean's formulation properly and consistent with WP:V reflects that the assertions are made by the Roskam campaign and/or the newspaper's editorial staff; although he fails to remedy some of the errors in the original text, he does seem better to express by whom and how the assertions are made, and so his version, from which you reverted, was likely preferable. Remember also that external links are surrounded by only one bracket, whilst internal links require sets of two brackets.

Edit fifteen I definitely agree with your removal of the Zorn external link, and, as I noted above, I think the Marshall section likely ought to have stayed but ought to have been culled.

Edit sixteen Although, as before, he fails to ameliorate each stylistic problem, Goethean does improve both the syntax and substance of the section here. Propol here removed the section altogether, explaining such removal on the talk page, perhaps persuasively.

Edit seventeen Again, reversion, even with talk page discussion, and especially where such discussion is not fruitful, ought to be avoided; where problems continue, an RfC (either as to article content or editor conduct) should be opened, and, in the case that a user's reverting becomes disruptive and in contravention of WP:3RR, a note ought to be left either at his talk page or at WP:AN/3RR.

Edit eighteen Once more, your edit summary here might mislead, especially since you append a new paragraph (one that, btw, appears to contain much unencyclopedic information; the fact of a debate's being offered is probably notable, but the details of such offer are not).

In its extant incarnation, there only a few problems for which I think resolution to be in order (the Social Security section ought to go or, at the very least, ought to reflect that Roskam's having voted on other bills but not on one relative to Social Security is something for which he is criticized), but, as you say, tendetious editing (assuming only arguendo that such editing occurred) seems to have stopped. Since, as an advocate, I am supposed, in addition to helping you better work on the project, to explain your views with respect to how an article might be improved to others with whom you've quarreled, I wonder if you might let me know a few things:

(A) Whether there is anything specific on the talk page—the parsing of which I found rather recondite—you'd like me to read, in order that I might express your position to other editors or might gain an appreciation for the areas in which problems have predominated.

(B) Whether there are any concerns you have with respect to the present iteration that you haven't successfully remedied via editing (especially after talk page discussion), in order that I might consider those concerns and help you try to address them.

(C) Whether there is anything you might like me to communicate to any of your interlocutors with respect to your good faith or how you might hope better to deal with them in the future.

A few general observations, with which, of course, you should feel free to disagree:

• Gamaliel appears to have done a yeoman's job in trying to intervene and reestablish a civil atmosphere in which collegially to discuss the article toward its betterment, and his involvement with the article, pace your suggestion, certainly shouldn't be seen as having been motivated by his political views.
• There were many insertions undertaken by editors that were deleterious in view of encyclopedic standards, because they failed to adhere to a neutral point of view, because they affected an unencyclopedic tone, or because they served to add unencyclopedic information, and I must admit that I was quite surprised to find that so many less-than-constructive edits were made to the page. OTOH, several of your edits, designed as they were to allay your concerns about the bias of the article and the biases of other editors, served themselves to diminish the quality of the article, either in view of their substance or in view of their style. Even so, many of your contentions ought not to have been so cursorily addressed. In any event, several editors here appear, in good faith, to have made less-than-propitious edits, but I think everyone would have been better served to remain cool and discuss before reverting, although surely there is, in all of us, a recalcitrance-informed reflex to revert when we believe ourselves demonstrably to be correct and believe that those with whom we disagree cannot be acting but in bad faith (contra which, see Hanlon's razor). Even if you've frequently to disagree with another editor, though, try always to confine your remarks to the content with which you disagree rather than the editors to have added such content.
• Neither the tenor of the talk page discussions—which, as I wrote, were a bit too excursive for my tastes—nor the frequency with which wholesale reversions occurred was desirable, but I can't say that there's anything concrete I might suggest for you do in the alternative. On frequently trafficked pages, another user will often intervene to revert where one deals with a contumacious editor, but here the prominent dispute appears to have been between you and one other editor, such that neither of you felt confident that you might step away while preserving the integrity of the page.

In any case, let me know if there's anything further you need, specifically in reference to (A), (B), and (C) above, and I will help you in whatever way I can. :) Joe 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I apologize for not having gotten back to you, and I write to let you know that I'm not ignoring you. I'm taking some time to look into additional issues you raise and have also been rather occupied with several other tasks; I assure you that I will, though, write you in, at most, two days. Once more, sorry for the delay; I look forward to corresponding with you soon. Joe 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No Problem, Thanks --Joehazelton 05:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I apologize once more for the delay; I want to be a good advocate and give full consideration to the Roskam situation and simply haven't had the time (I undertook to update the news at the several sports and games portals with which I help, and, as is my wont, ended up devoting more time than I ought to have). I will certainly take some time tomorrow to look at what's been going on at Roskam and to give you some guidance relative to an RfC. I know that the situation is worsening and that you want to resolve the problems, but I ask you to be a bit patient with me and apologize once more for my dereliction. Joe 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Roskam RfC, etc.

Damn, things really seem to have devolved there, and I must say that I am rather concerned that your concerns are being marginalized;, and, even as I assume good faith in some of those with whom you've had occasion to revert war, it is increasingly difficult for me to apprehend other than bias in their edits. To be plain, when, alone, one complains of political bias on the part of several other editors with whom he has quarreled, it is common for other editors—amongst whom I must place myself—to write him/her off as a kook; here, though, you've made some very fine points that ought to be considered. Your interlocutors may well be acting in good faith, consistent with what they understand to be encyclopedic principles (consider, for instance, that there are those who construe WP:NOT very narrowly, opposing, for example, the use of any notability criterion at AfD), but I think they have improperly and less-than-civilly foreclosed discussion with you. If the issues are to be presented to other editors (for example, at RfC), they ought probably to be set out clearly and separately; I've attempted to set out what appear to be primary issues over which disputes are ongoing:

• Ought the article to include Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png, a scan of a full-page telephone book advertisement for the law firm for which Roskam works, and, if so, what size ought the image to take?
• Is an inclusion of the sundry forms of personal injury law practiced by Roskam's firm encyclopedic (per WP:NOT) and, if so, does WP:NPOV#Undue bias nevertheless militate against inclusion?
• Is the fact of Roskam's having missed a vote on Social Security reform, or the fact of the citation of that fact by a (probably) notable blog, encyclopedic, and, if so, does WP:NPOV#Undue bias nevertheless militate against inclusion?
• Is the adduction of the characterization by the Anglican Journal of the "extreme" nature of Roskam's church encyclopedic?
• Does the partial enumeration of political action committees to have contributed to the Roskam campaign, principally sourced relative to the contributions themselves rather than to criticism thereof by, inter al., the Duckworth campaign, constitute a cruftily unencyclopedic formulation or, if not, does such enumeration nevertheless improperly bias the Roskam article?

Prior to our undertaking a content RfC, I think it might be best these specific questions be offered at Talk:Peter Roskam in order that, whilst the article is locked, a focused discussion might be had; indeed, I've been bold and offered such questions (you should, of course, feel free to revert me) at the article's talk page, and have left notes at User talk:Propol, User talk:Goethean, and User talk:Gamaliel inviting each to join the discussion (indeed, an RfC will simply invite other editors to visit the article's talk page, and it's unlikely, one regrets to observe, to draw new participants). I will also ask Xoloz, a well-respected admin (and a self-professed liberal, such that conservative bias can't/shouldn't be ascribed to his efforts), to weigh in on the issue, and, in the event that he can't, I'll try to find another editor to offer an outside view, perhaps at WP:3O. I know that it must be frustrating to encounter what you perceive as biased editing—which perception isn't at all unreasonable—that tends to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia, but I assure you that, with encyclopedic purposes and cordial collaboration in mind, I will do all that I can to improve the quality of the Roskam article and ensure that your wholly legitimate concerns get a fair airing. Joe 04:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, once more, for my tardiness in replying; I will tomorrow hop over to Talk:Peter Roskam, where I hope I might be of assistance. Joe 05:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm very sorry for having neglected the Roskam issue; my oversight is inexcusable. I will definitely participate in the discussion tomorrow—you are quite right that such long protection is to be disfavored, and I hope we might resolve extant disputes. Joe 06:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I know I've been particularly bad at getting back to you of late, and I sincerely apologize; you've deserved better. I'm reviewing the Roskam talk page—where it is plain that the issues about which you've written remain unresolved—and, although I understand your frustration at your being stymied in your attempts to improve the article, I hope you'll neither leave the project nor act, as many—largely understandably—do when discomfited by the caprice of other editors, to disrupt the encyclopedia. I will try to summarize those concerns that remain (not only for you but for any editor sincerely interested in comporting his/her work with encyclopedic standards) and note them on the Roskam talk page (you should, of course, feel free to add any that I miss), and I'll then recommend that informal mediation be pursued; if the editors warring over the page agree to mediation at WP:MEDCAB, an outside opinion will be offered. I'll help you with a mediation request (and with any user conduct RfC you think appropriate), and I'll then have little advocacy left to do, although I'll continue, of course, to observe and, where appropriate, participate, in the Roskam discussions with, as you, encyclopedic purposes in mind. You should, then, expect a more complete note (here and at the Roskam talk) in the next day, and we'll go from there. Again, please accept my apologies, both for my having been so tardy in my response and for my having promised replies earlier; I'm altogether flighty and disorganized, but you ought not to have suffered in view of such failings. Joe 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll write this evening at Talk:Peter Roskam, but I don't see you as having really imputed malign motive to any contributor; you might, though, be better served to focus on effect rather than on intent (an edit may not be intended to impart bias to an article, but it may be of a biasing character, and a user's insistence on making the edit need to be attributed to his bias but, instead, to his being, for lack of a better term, wrong; see also Hanlon's razor). I don't think your conduct warrants blocking, if only because there isn't any great disruption to prevent, and, if you should be blocked, I will intercede with Gamaliel to seek a more equitable resolution, viz. one that serves encyclopedic purposes. One hopes that a content RfC/mediation request will help resolve the situation, though, and I'll have something concrete on that tonight. Joe 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I find several of your edits at Talk:Peter Roskam to be personal attacks. Many of your other comments are counterproductive, like: I'm ole school. I don't scare easy. Give it you best shot bud. What a joke. Please improve your conduct. Propol 01:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your name calling and label making and other incriminations is not very good conduct either, as well as using bold face threats of blocking and labeling my rightfully and justify concerns is not how you win friends and influence people. I call in to the light your editing histories and let the denizens at large judge for them self's your neutrality, based on deeds, rather than what you say. Enough said. Joehazelton 05:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

One quick item, lest you should continue to encounter problems: I don't find most of your Roskam talk page comments to have been indecorous, but, again, I think you have tended to comment on contributor rather than on contribution; I certainly understand the underlying impulse, but such commenting has had a less-than-productive effect.

Actually, one other thing: It's less-that-ideal for one who has been blocked for 3RR to continue to edit under an IP where such editing serves to exacerbate the situation at the article on which he has revert-warred. If one is blocked for 3RR, it's fine, IMHO (although those who adhere strictly to WP:BLOCK and WP:3RR might disagree), for him to contribute to talk page discussions or to the project generally, but I see that you've made an edit to Roskam under the IP. You are to be commended for openly identifying yourself, and I don't think you've used the doppelganger (a more accurate term than sockpuppet in this specific situation) account disruptively or abusively; nevertheless, you'd be well-served to be a bit more circumspect and to leave the Roskam article alone until your block expires (and certainly not to edit war thereafter). My bad; thought Joe was blocked and using the IP to evade the block.

I don't see as any further talk page participation or article edit-warring will be particularly propitious, and so I have suggested at Talk:Peter Roskam that you would be amenable to mediation; I am hopeful that the others involved will accede to the request in order that the situation can be diffused and, most importantly, in order that the project might be bettered, both (a) with the improvement of the Roskam article and (b) with the retention of good editors who otherwise disagree. Should the others agree, we can request assistance at WP:MEDCAB that a third-party visit Peter Roskam and assess the situation; such third-party will also seek input from the involved parties, and I will help you, of course, to express your concerns. If you should require any help from me in the meanwhile, please feel free to write (especially should you continue to experience problems with blocks, etc.); otherwise, I expect I'll write in a day or two in view of what might develop at the Roskam talk. :) Joe 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Got your message. I'm an idiot; I assumed that you were blocked (and didn't take the time to consult the block log) and using the IP to circumvent that block. Forget what I said about that, then; many editors forget to log in, and sockpuppetry is not the appropriate term for such editing. I'll comment the template out straightaway. Joe 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and I see you already (quite properly) removed the template. If only I'd learned to look at the top of the freaking page before writing. In any case, my advice about being especially careful to comment only on contributions (I understand, of course, why you might feel frustrated and inclined to comment otherwise, but such commenting will serve neither the project nor you) stands (and I think you've generally done fine in this area), but the rest ought to be disregarded; I've struck out the irrelevant text... Joe 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Block

Your behavior on the article Peter Roskam has long been inappropriate and contrary to the policies of this website. This latest taunt is really too much. Adults do not address each other in such a manner. I have blocked you for six hours. I hope that is enough for you to finally get the hint that this sort of behavior is inappropriate. Gamaliel 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As well as your behavior as a administator (one with long hisory) is inappropriate and contrary to published policies of this website, to allow such a libelous entry, the accusation of Plagiarism to even stand. It is shameful and unacceptable, as per WP:BLP So much for your leaders words...

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons....

^[1] Block me, but the truth in you actions and history of your behavior is noted.Joehazelton 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not been blocked for removing libel. You have been blocked for your insulting and patronizing behavior towards other editors, which has continued over a long period of time despite multiple warnings. Gamaliel 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, MY insult is due to your INACTION and as such I have no confidence in your ability to fairly arbitrate this page. My research on you, and how you act on wiki suggests that ( I do have research and fact to back that up if given the time and space to elaborate.) Now if this was an article about widgets and the like, well being polite and compromise is in order, but this is biography of a honorable man, and as such, I get little mad when I see how shabbily he is treated on this so called bio just with some editors who insist one putting horns and a tail on this man with clever character assassination, Non Causa Pro, and the like that borders on Libel. My question to you is WHO do you answer TO???? if I DON"T agree with you. Where is the rule of law ?, WHERE TO I GO TO HAVE MY day in court? Tough questions. Joehazelton 22:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC) BTW my name in the RL is Mark so as to make it fair. I"m just a simple IT guy, a little child, so educate me why I should not believe that Peter Roskam is not getting the short shaft on pseudo bio being administered and edited by known hard core Democrats? I'm just to simple not to ask such a little question? ^this is were Gamaliel removed my word he did not like^ Joehazelton 22:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel Roskam is being treated unfairly, but there is no reason you could not have brought up your concerns in a civil manner. Your repeated failure to do so is the reason we have this problem. You wish to see it as an ideological conflict, but it is a conflict arising out of your behavior. BTW, I prefer to be addressed by my user name. Thank you. Gamaliel 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sorry that you see only one side and did not address my questions which I will outline simply again...

Question One, Who do you answer to????

Ouestion Two, Who do I go to, if I Don't agree with you, the god of Peter Roskam Wikipedia article???

Statement One, Roskam is being treated unfairly... thats a fact which I can back up. And my contention, again which I can back up is, why do you, as an administrator, why you allow such garbage to flow on it with out any moderation except slapping me around because I call to task the injustice of it.

Closing statement... Do you job, show me and the others that are watching this closly that you are really doing what you are saying (being a non-bias editor, commited to NPOV).

Joehazelton 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not answering all of your questions. The blocking notice should show you how to contact the Wikipedia Unblock mailing list, where you can make an unblock request.

I take no sides in the content dispute regarding the Peter Roskam article. My concern is that editors work harmoniously and within the rules of Wikipedia. Your behavior has violated those rules and has prevented cooperative editing. I understand that you feel that the article is unfair and that you concerns should be addressed, but that does not give you license to break those rules. That is the key problem here, one that you have continually ignored and refused to address. Gamaliel 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The other editors don't cooperated and violated those rules and have little respect for policy so why should there be any cooperative editing take place? ITs a two way street, this concept of " work harmoniously and within the rules of Wikipedia". Is not MY WAY or HIGH WAY, which is the policy that mr Popol seems to be following. Again, Enforce the policy equally and fairly. Warn Propol of his voliation of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and the big one, his volation of WP:Civilty Make me belive that good faith is not just a cruel joke.Joehazelton 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is Propol currently violating WP:Civility? Be specific. Gamaliel 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that you can use the {{unblock}} template on this page to have another administrator review your case. Gamaliel 23:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Template:Unblock for instructions on how to properly use that template. Gamaliel 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling to your attention a posting on the Adminstrators' noticeboard

You should be aware of a posting on the Administrator's noticeboard (WP:ANI) with respect to your editing of the Peter Roskam article. I read the initial posting and left a quick review; and have just followed up with a longer response.

Please maintain a cool head here. I have found that tempers have flared and would not like to impose blocks to either party for incivility.

— ERcheck (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I noted on ANI, perhaps it is a good time to go to dispute resolution rather than good faith editors being blocked. — ERcheck (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Gamaliel 02:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have extended your block to 31 hours due to your use of an anonymous IP to evade the block. Please do not attempt this again. Gamaliel 02:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Gamaliel 02:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MY question to you is when are you going to recuse you self since you are a known hard core democrate and very colorfull editor in the blue water internet?...I don't reconize your fairness in regards to POPOL's and Gothena 3RR violations as well.

You only apply it to me but not them??? Why??? WHY do you do it??? Well the answer begs..of any fair mind editor/and or admin sould look closly at their 3RR violations... Unblock me so I can file on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard the blantant bias being shown on the Roskam's Article and don't insult my intellgents to say that it's not so...it is so...

Also, MY QESTION ..WHO DO YOU ANSWER TO????? Remeber this is,There is a "rule of law" and No one is above that rule, even you.Joehazelton 02:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If other editors on the Roskam article have violated the 3rr, you can report them on WP:AN/3RR yourself when you are unblocked. Or you can report them to me, right here on this page. If you demonstrate another editor violated the 3RR, please post the diffs here. (If you don't understand that, see WP:AN/3RR and read the instructions there.) I will then act upon the 3RR violation.

I'm not going to recuse myself because you don't care for my political beliefs or because of vague allegations about my supposed "colorful" past - lord knows what the hell you are referring to there. You have accused everyone you meet of bias but you have no evidence, and it's become very tiresome. It can be frustrating to have to work with other editors who disagree with you, but if you cannot deal with that, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the website for you. Gamaliel 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Then PRAY TELL, how do I file, the procedures I need to follow to file a 3RR complaint.Joehazelton 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As I told you in my previous comments, instructions appear on the 3rr page, which I linked to twice. Gamaliel 01:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A PLEA TO ANY OTHER ADMIN

PLEASE LOOK at this article and the players here and the apperent bias editing and judge, not what I say but on the facts, and find how the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are getting back seat to political agenda. I need help to quash this abuse that is now happening.Joehazelton 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on Talk:Peter Roskam

This comment constitutes a personal attack against me. Please discuss content, not contributors. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I believe that it constitutes a personal attack on me as well. This user has been previously warned (but the warnings have been deleted from the user's talk page). Joehazelton has been blocked for incivility, but the behavior has not improved. Propol 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For the personal attack I have removed from this page I have blocked you for one week. I have spent a great deal of time attempting to get you to act in a civil manner so you could work with other editors to deal with the issues you are concerned about. Instead, your behavoir has escalated, you still attack everyone you come into contact with, you claim bias without evidence, you claim rulebreaking like 3RR violations without evidence, while breaking those rules yourself. You raise legitimate, significant questions about the article, but your behavior has convinced me that you are not the right editor to address those questions. If you wish to return after the end of your block, please remember that you will not be able to solve any of the problems you see here by attacking and yelling at everyone, and that you will not be allowed to flout the rules of Wikipedia indefinately. Gamaliel 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why bother, any legitimate points I make get quashed any way. This is Kafka on steroids. Black is white and 2+2= 5. Even what I write, on my own talk page gets censored. Lets make it clear, the Roskam Bio is hunk steamy fly bait. No amount of Wikibs will change that fact, unless you begin to enforce WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. What I see, is rules so convoluted and twisted and enforcement so uneven, bias, its waste of time. The only problem this hunk of fly bait, is allow to slander and libel across the World Wide Web, with the requisite damage which it does. I hope to god, that if Roskams sees his bio and the twisted trash here, that he does something about it and changes the law to allow you to answer for the Slander Clowns that run wild here.

Now, MY QUESTION IS... WHO DO YOU ANSWER TO????

Now go forth, and slander...and destroy, like the Borg hive your part of and Pray to the JIMBO GOD that the laws are not changes and your not hauled before a real court of law.

Your talk page hasn't been "censored". I have removed personal attacks you have made as per Wikipedia policy.

You have plenty of avenues at your disposal to insure that your concerns are addressed. Mediation, WP:RFC, WP:BLP/N, etc. You can discuss your points with other editors and recruit others to view the article. You can do all of this without ranting and yelling and swearing and insulting. Why this is so difficult for you to understand is beyond me. Gamaliel 15:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I have extended your block to one month for using two sockpuppet accounts, User:Fisherking and User:Chitownflyer, to evade your one week block. That they are your sockpuppets has been confirmed by an IP check. I would have been content to ignore your sockpuppetry had you not begun to engage in the same edit warring and incivility that eventually resulted in your original block, and at that point I had no choice but to act. Please take this time to cool off and when you return to Wikipedia please abide by our rules and policies, especially rules concerning civility. I will consider unblocking you or shortening your block if you give me some indication that your behavior will change. Gamaliel 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

BE WELL

You accusation is so one sided, the rule of law so non-existent and Kafka like with Orwellian regulation, that any thing I would say would be dismissed and/or ignored any way, so I will not waste my time and bother with trying to grovel and beg for mercy to some of the little men swimming in this large, dank, gray water Blog, which includes you, unwilling to engage in fair debate, in the light of day, in a forum of which the rules are equally applied, as well as where logic and argument are respected. With that said, it has been an education of the real truth of Wikipedia. You, MR Gamaliel turn me from a believer to one who now believes that Wikipedia presents "a clear and present danger" to the "internet at large" due to it's ability flood the search engines with libel, slander and misinformation on an industrial scale never seen in history out side of that of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. It would appear to me that the Admins and operators of this Superblog, are answerable to no one, a face-less hive of which will, in due time, hurt enough people with lies and misinformation to cause the "REAL WORLD" to react and make you and it's operators ( the ones that have a Real Name) to answer before a real jury of real people. In the simple words of Mr.Jason Scott (a keen observer of Wikipedia), Wikipeida is a "ball of shit". So, with that I bid you a-due. For I will spend my spare time and efforts in a. Getting my man elected, b. Telling my man and any men in my very humble sphere of influence that Wikipedia should be shut down, and those that run it should answer for the pain and suffering it has cause due to it's libelous and misinformation which Wikipedia tries to pass on for truth. Wtg you have now made another enemy in less then 3 weeks... BE well.Joehazelton 04:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that on our first encounter you immediately accused me of bias, I can't imagine any scenario where you wouldn't think of me as an "enemy", so your declaration doesn't particularly bother me. I'm sorry your experience on Wikipedia has been a negative one, but you only have yourself to blame for your behavior on this site. We have ample means and methods of addressing your concerns and none of them include ranting, insulting, cursing, personal attacks, and the use of sockpuppets. Whatever faults the article has, they do not justify this repeated negative behavior. Gamaliel 05:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim will love and protect you, now go drink the CoolAid.

For Mr Goaethan, I have seen your blog, it's very nice, you game is very clear. Teach how Rosie and her kind, the Hollwood, limo set love and respect the little people in flyover land and want to do good for them, with their money becuase the little people in the 6th congressional district, don't know any better. The democrat "leet" are know what is good. BEWELL. Joehazelton 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To operators of this Animal Farm

I no longer respect wikipedia due to policies and editing that encourage slander and libel and bias so powerful, that it would make a pig farm smell sweet. Wikipedia is no longer to be trusted and further more I have written a letter to Peter Roskam as well as to others, to make him (them) aware of this place and why laws must be changed to shut down this slander farm and to have those that allow it stand accountable.

Wikpedia is only a partisan "blog" and a blog with out control or accountability or even good faith, that will some day, I hope, have to answer in a real court of law. In the mean time, nothing on Wikpedia should be consided factual or reliable. What is publish here is only the opinions of those with the clout and knowlege of asinine wikilaw to keep 2+2=5 a wiki fact.

I deleted rest, as an act of defiant vandalism, due to fact is no longer relevant or meaningful.

Now the democratic shills and goons can have run of Roskam's article (for proof of their credentials, run a google search on the names of the main editors on Roksams article and see the real truth, I have)

In the end, lies and untruth is the stock and trade of wikipeida and the back lash will come, like Sherman in to Atlanta. Joehazelton 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

I have removed the comments you posted to Talk:Peter Roskam. Leaving aside the issue of your continued block evasion, some of you comments could be interpreted as legal threats and we have a clear policy against such threats. Please do not violate this policy again. Gamaliel 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

HEY YAHOO! YOU HAVE the ballz to accuse me of things I did not do. Your playing fast and lose with them numbers... ace.

In regards to your policy, this what I think of you, your agenda and the agenda of your democratic buddies

                      |_|                       |_|
                      | |         /^^^\         | |
                     _| |_      (| "o" |)      _| |_
                   _| | | | _    (_---_)    _ | | | |_
                  | | | | |' |    _| |_    | `| | | | |
                  |          |   /     \   |          |
                   \        /  / /(. .)\ \  \        /
                     \    /  / /  | . |  \ \  \    /
                       \  \/ /    ||Y||    \ \/  /
                        \__/      || ||      \__/
                                  () ()
                                  || ||
                                 ooO Ooo       

The only policy, I listen to is Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna and the only rules I respect is the US Constitution and its constituted leaders, not little polpot demigods like yourself.

YOUR RULES ARE NOT RELEVANT, I will fight and expose the lies, misrepresentations, and assignation of character, which you and your educated garbage peddlers are pushing on this super bog of dung. Joehazelton 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Given your continued juvenile outbursts and your declaration that you have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policy, I see no choice but to make your block permanent as I see no indication that your behavior will ever change. You will be unblocked if you can convince myself or another administrator that you are capable of acting within our rules and policies and capable of treating other editors with respect and civility. Note to other administrators: I have no objection to anyone lifting this block if you are willing to monitor this user's behavior. Gamaliel 14:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Please stop ceasing blanking your user talk, or it will be protected from editting. Thank you. Ryūlóng 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)