User talk:Bobbysev1

1RR violation

You are in violation of the 1RR rule at Murder of Seth Rich. Self-revert immediately or you will be blocked from editing. Geogene (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected an incorrect citation to the verbatim quote within the citation. Further, you reverted it and incorrectly cited a mistake on my part which was in fact your mistake. Please leave my correction and remove your claim of 1RR Violation. Thank you.

You added unsourced content to that article. You should self-revert. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene, Please read the source article and you will see that my edit was verbatim copied from the article, as cited in the study, including the included quotation marks from the article. Please stop asserting I am incorrect and properly fact-check your own work.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Geogene (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene, Will you please accept that you were incorrect regarding my article correction now that I have pasted from the article so you don't even have to read it yourself? This is absurd. If you want to report an opinion of only one side, just say so instead of denying the black and white truth of an article's words.

Edit warring at Murder of Seth Rich

You are continuing to revert other users in a restricted article. Last warning: self revert or you'll be reported for a block. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are promoting a false statement. The Wikipedia article as written when I edited it was blatantly wrong. It incorrectly quoted the source it referenced immediately afterwards. I simply corrected the citation. It is completely inappropriate for you to remove my edit that corrected the article and threaten me with ramifications for a correction. Please do you job as an administrator/editor and correctly cite articles, rather than harass those who correct your mistakes.

That is what the source (Newsweek) said. It said "serial killer". Not a thing about hired killers. Now, I will ask you once again, to self-revert your unsourced addition to the article, which is opposed by at least two other users. If you don't do that, I'm going to report you to the admins, and you'll probably be sanctioned. Geogene (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene, The last part of the second paragraph of the Newsweek article says, and I quote: "Instead, the report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” and that the killer is likely still at large." I'll note that “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” was the direct quote from the Profiling Project that was referenced both in the Wikipedia sentence and the Newsweek article. Please read the article and quit hassling me for pointing out a mistake that you clearly don't want stated though it's a direct quote. Quite frankly, I should report you for incorrectly hassling me but I'm not petty. Now please leave the article correction alone as I fixed it and go find someone else to censor because you don't agree with their politics.

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion, Why did you block me? I simply corrected a source to the verbatim quote, then was hassled by several users who refused to read the article in question (that was cited for the quote). Quite frankly, if this is not rescinded, it seems as if Wikipedia has no interest in the truth, but clearly just wants to go with the popular point of view (even when it's a simple as the popular point of incorrectly citing its own referenced source. Please explain this to me. I can't for hte life of me see why I am being blocked for simply fixing a misquoted passage. I engages in talk discussions with both users wo refused to respond or simply denied the clear quote from the article. If not about citing things properly, then quite frankly, what is the point of Wikipedia and where does it have value in accurate information?

You reverted three times (ignoring Cluebot) in an article subject to 1RR. This is a bright-line violation and will get you blocked every time, even if you think you're right. Multiple editors have contested your changes. Seek consensus, don't edit-war. You were also edit-warring at Fact checking. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion, First of all, Cluebot simply deleted my edit. I did not edit-war on the other article. I edited it a couple times myself and only rescinded it twice, ultimately giving in the the person who was hassling me on the Seth Rich page (even though he was wrong). In case you didn't realize, the person that didn't like my correcting the citation in the Seth Rich article, went into my history and challenged it on the other page (retribution). That's not edit-warring in my mind. It was he that challenged it and twice reversed it. Why is he not blocked for hassling me and twice reversing my edit? Regarding the Seth Rich article, it's incorrect for you to say "If I thought I was right". I clearly was right if you read the edit and source on the Seth Rich Page (provided by others). Being right does matter (apparently except here when rules appear to trump being correct). I simply corrected a source to the verbatim quote, then was hassled by several users who refused to read the article in question (that was cited for the quote). Quite frankly, it seems as if Wikipedia has no interest in the truth, but clearly just wants resolution to fall with the popular point of view (even when it's a simple as the popular point of incorrectly citing its own referenced source). The fact that three persons challenged a direct quote from a source I didn't add myself but simply corrected the quote from, means that resolution in this manner will usually fall to the 'bullies' or those that collectively agree on a point of view; so as to challenge it. When accurate, to stand up for the truth, lends to sanctions against the person who was in the minority unless they give in to the bullies. Please explain this to me. I can't for the life of me see why I am being blocked for simply fixing a misquoted passage. I attempted to engage in talk discussions with both users. One refused to respond and the other simply denied the clear quote from the article, multiple times, even when I quoted it to him. If Wikipedia sources are not about citing things properly, then quite frankly, what is the point of Wikipedia and where does it have value in accurate information? Further, you went and locked the article I edited indefinitely from edits, when it quite clearly is devoid of a lot of facts surrounding the incident (which I point out that I did not add). I don't see the point of that. Can you explain?

You only get one revert on that article. One. I ignored the Cluebot revert and you still had three. You may not edit-war even if you think you're right. You must gain consensus, that's why we sanction edit-warring. Use the article talkpage rather than just reverting. That's where the work takes place, not in multiple reverts. Given that you were edit-warring on another article, it's important that you understand that you can't do that simply because you want to quote more extensively from a given source. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you ignored Cluebot, I only undid other person's reversal twice (once each Snooganssnoogans and Geogene). One time I edited my own edits. As far as the whole consensus, how is an edit supposed to be made when the challenger(s) of the edit refuse to read the article and then claims the correction is a lie? Essentially, you are telling me that if bully(s) exist, who refuse to concur with someone else, the minority position always loses. If that is indeed true, I will never edit, nor read Wikipedia ever again as it simply constitutes public consensus, as opposed to focus on legitimate facts. How is it correct that someone who is wrong, supported by others who are either apathetic or proponents of a certain point of view, can bully others into Wikipedia disseminating information that they want? This to me violates the whole principal of open sharing as it is simply majority opinion. BTW, the quote in question was identified as a quote but was not only incomplete, it was misquoted ("Killer" was replaced for "murderer" and portions of the quote were deliberately left out to alter what was said). It needed to be fixed even if the rest of the sentence wasn't added. Thank you for following up. It would be good to know what remedies exist as I still don't feel I did anything wrong, and was bullied by others who didn't like the full quote being posted. I did attempt to get consensus and was ignored or lied to in the response, while being threatened with sanctions (for being right).

(1) [1], (2) [2], (3) [3]. You may not have noticed that your third revert still stands because other editors have respected the editing restrictions that you're ignoring. Please note that other editors have pointed out that your preferred edit involves a fringe theory, which is subject to additional scrutiny, however well-sourced, and which must gain consensus for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please learn to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OkBobbysev1 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did note the current status of the article. I do however question, as someone else did on the talk page, and as was cited in the Newsweek article, that it is a fringe theory. Someone was murdered and nothing was taken of their significantly-valuable and readily-stolen and easy to sell possessions (watch, necklace, cell phone). While that is not the point I was attempting to make, I don't think it's unreasonable to place a high consideration on the fact that Seth was intentionally murdered. Just because someone may have targeted him doesn't mean it was about the DNC emails. While it could be, that would be a lesser likelihood. Unfortunately people are intentionally murdered all the time across the country for all manner of reasons. Simply stating it was a potentially a hired killer is not a fringe theory based on the known facts. It's a plausible option. Not likely more or less credible than a murder during a botched robbery that wasn't similar to recent robberies and for which nothing was stolen. Anyway, that's my two-cents. It seems as if the bully pulpit prevails here by manipulating the well-intended rules to their benefit. It's sad really. Truth should be the decider. Also, it seems likely it wasn't edited again because you locked, as opposed to the challengers complying. Bobbysev1 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't fully-protected, it's just restored to its earlier level of protection, which had lapsed. Both the extended-confirmed protection and the 1RR restrictions are the product of extensive drive-by disruption and violations of the biographies of living persons policy, which applies to recent deaths. Any editor with more than 30 days tenure and 500 edits can edit the article as long as they haven't reverted more than once. You should read the talkpage archives [4] for talkpage discussion concerning that Newsweek article, it's not a new matter. Thanks for signing! Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]