Zzalzzal

Welcome!

Hello, Zzalzzal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on HRC

You appear to be in a slow edit war on Hillary Rodham Clinton over a rather trivial matter of whether or not rounding should be used in relation to the Iowa caucuses. Please stop adding the content to the article and try to gain consensus on the article's talk page. Your current course of action is disruptive and may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Bobblehead, you appear to be an equal participant in exactly the same edit war. I can't be bothered to stick warning signs on your talk page, but they belong there as much as here.Quelcrime (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see below for a complete discussion of Bobblehead's and WastedTime's misbehavior and violation of policies and rules. I was unaware of the three revert rule. Bobblehead also misrepresented the situation to get me blocked - s/he failed to mention that WastedTime had repeatedly and surreptitiously changed my edits over the last month, which is violation of the spirit of the three reverts rule. If Bobblehead is in the business of UNBIASED reporting of violators of this rule, Bobblehead needed to report WastedTime before reporting me. Additionally, Bobblehead acted in concert with WastedTime on Feb. 18, 2008 to prevent WastedTime from getting auto-blocked - also a violation of the spirit of the rule (they each reverted my edits twice, for a total of 4 reverts). On Jan 18, Jan 19, Feb 1, Feb 7, and Feb 18, WastedTime surreptitiously reverted my edits, without expressing any counter-opinion in the discussions I had begun (Jan 6 and Jan 19) regarding this edit. Rather than simply reverting my first change on Jan 18, WastedTime should have engaged in the discussion; WastedTime never did this before Bobblehead requested that I be blocked on Feb. 18 (at which point, they began another discussion, and disregarded the consensus expressed). Unfortunately, I didn't know the rule before I was blocked, or else I could have reported WastedTime for repeatedly and surreptitiously reverting my edits (WastedTime was well aware I had tried to discuss: in the only reply WastedTime made (on Jan 6), s/he didn't express any objection to my proposal to list Iowa caucus results to two decimal points and in fact, agreed with me! Furthermore, in my Edit Summaries on Jan 18 and 19, I referred people to Talk!)Zzalzzal (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made three recent reverts on Hillary Rodham Clinton ([1] [2] [3]) . This has been in the past forty minutes or so. Another bad sign is that you're arguing in edit summaries instead of going to the discussion page. Please stop. You'll be blocked if you continue. --TS 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

ISSUES RELATED TO WASTEDTIME'S AND BOBBLEHEAD'S MISBEHAVIOR TOWARDS ME (AND OTHERS) ON THE HILLARY CLINTON PAGE

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS SECTION; YOU MAY ADD COMMENTS ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE PAGE, BUT NOT WITHIN THIS SECTION.

NOTE: Given that the consensus expressed in this Discussion has finally been respected by WastedTime, the following may seem less relevant. However, I feel it is important to provide full documentation of the history of this event, which goes back to Jan. 6 – to prevent similar behavior in the future on the part of WastedTime and Bobblehead. Making more people in the community aware of their behavior and documenting the relevant incidents may lead them to modify it.

This blocking me from the Hillary Clinton page because of "warring" is ridiculous. WastedTime and Bobblehead, who keep changing the official Iowa results (which I kept posting) to less accurate, rounded numbers, are the ones who are out of line; here is the HISTORY:

This issue goes back almost to the Iowa caucuses. On January 6, 2008 I posted in the discussion section of this page that I felt the official results (which are expressed to two decimal points) should be posted (see below for link to this discussion attempt). At the time, I hadn't officially registered in wikipedia (the page was protected at the time). After I officially registered, I changed the results to the official Iowa results (as no one had expressed an objection in my first attempt at discussion). WastedTime and others didn't debate me at that time. Instead, later, without any debate, WastedTime surreptitiously changed the official results I had posted back to the rounded numbers they preferred. I noticed this later, changed the results again and again attempted to engage in discussion, referring (in the Edit Summary) them to the Discussion section - neither WastedTime nor Bobblehead responded to this issue in the Discussion, but WastedTime once again changed the results back to their rounded numbers. Either WastedTime or Bobblehead reverted my changes without responding to my attempts at discussion on 5 different days: Jan 18, Jan 19, Feb. 1, Feb. 7, Feb. 18 (see log of "Edit Summaries" below).

(The relevant discussion pages containing my attempts to engage in debate have been "archived" but my discussion can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&oldid=185350822 under "2008 Iowa Caucus results" (dated Jan 6) and under "Presidential campaign of 2008" (dated Jan 19).)

In the Feb 18 discussion (which was initiated only shortly before I was blocked - I didn't see it until after I was blocked, thus, am I have been unable to participate in the first 24 hours), the consensus definitely favors posting the official Iowa results, out to 2 decimal points, rather than rounding the numbers. Nonetheless, WastedTime asserted his/her view that the rounded numbers are "stylistically" superior (how can a choice based style be superior to providing accurate information, especially when we're talking about official results carried to two decimal points vs. rounded results?). WastedTime seems unwilling to use the Discussion and respect the consensus which has been expressed. This is a violation of wikipedia policies. Instead, WastedTime simply argues in this discussion with anyone who disagrees with him/her. Bobblehead further acted against the consensus by removing all vote percentages from the results, and simply mentioned the candidates' places (06:17, 19 February 2008 Bobblehead ... (→Presidential campaign of 2008: Actual percentage isn't that important. It's all about the delegates, really.)) I cannot see any logic in this position; it simply seems an attempt to override the consensus that posting the Official Iowa Caucus results to two decimal points IS important. Bobblehead's and WastedTime's behavior is really out of line.

To argue that eliminating two decimal points from the article, which represents the Official Iowa results, is better than reporting the actual results, is ridiculous. Wikipedia exists to provide information to others, and the most accurate information is the Official Iowa results. Nothing is gained by listing rounded numbers, in this case.

*=*=*=*=*=Regarding the larger issue of WastedTime and Bobblehead violating wikipedia rules and policies, in spirit and in fact*=*=*=*=*=

WastedTime and Bobblehead ignored my attempts at discussion and surreptitiously undid my previous changes after I made them. If WastedTime and Bobblehead are acting together, to surreptitiously change edits (while not replying to the Discussion I initiated), are they not guilty of misbehavior? Unfortunately for me, they were aware of the 3 reverts rule and so WastedTime asked Bobblehead for help to avoid the sanction. I was unaware of the 3 reverts rule - but had I known, I would not have tried to get around it by calling on a friend (they also worked in concert in the discussion with me for this page on a different issue; in that case, I conceded the point).

Their behavior, which violates the spirit of some rules, and the law of others (i.e., respecting consensus), is frustrating, and not all of us who make worthy contributions are as savvy (and as dishonest) as they are. Their behavior drives away people like me who are genuinely interested in having wikipedia be as accurate and as good a source of information as possible. They have made multiple "undos" of my changes (all having to do with my reporting the Official Iowa results out to two decimal points, and their preferring rounded whole numbers) - but savvy as they are, knew better than to do this three times in 24 hours (or called in a "buddy" - Bobblehead - to do the deed). I wasn't aware of the rule, and until Feb. 18, had never even looked at my "talk page" so didn't know to check there for the warnings about the rule (although Bobblehead's warning really were disingenous, seeing as s/he had been participating with WastedTime's surreptitious undoing of my previous edits). Frankly, I've been shocked at their extremely unreasonable behavior, and in frustration, reverted their "Undos" today - which I wouldn't have resorted to had I been aware of the 3 reverts rule. A few hours later, I found out that there is a "dispute resolution" process, beyond the discussion page. Since WastedTime has finally agreed to respect consent, for now, I will not pursue additional avenues of dispute resolution related to their violation of these rules (other than placing warnings on their Talk pages). However, I will not hesitate to pursue these avenues in the future if they continue to violate rules and policies, in spirit or in fact.

I had thought the discussion page was the only way to resolve these kinds of disputes - and it didn't seem to be working with these two - they refused to discuss, despite my pointing out in the "Edit Summary" of my edits (see log below) that I had initiated a discussion. My attempts at initiating discussion on the discussion page are one of the suggested avenues to dispute resolution. Obviously, that approach failed miserably in this case because WastedTime appears to have no regard for consensus. In the discussion I initiated on Jan. 6 and Jan 19, no one expressed an opinion against listing the Iowa results to two decimal points, which can be viewed as a consensus. Also, in the Feb. 18 discussion, both WastedTime and Bobblehead initially ignored the consensus, although WastedTime finally consented in the face of the opposition (the "solution" WastedTime proposed at 03:27, 19 February 2008 ("placed third with 29 percent of the state delegate selections in the 3 January 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus, a fraction of a percent behind Edwards; Obama won with 38 percent") does NOT respect the consensus that reporting the results to two decimal points IS important (see comments in the Feb. 18 discussion page under "Decimal points on Iowa caucus results"; current link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton but that could change if the page is archived)).

Yes, I broke the 3 reverts rule, unknowingly. In contrast, WastedTime and Bobblehead were aware of the rule and violated the spirit of it (they simply asserted their will by reverting my edits more than 3 times, but never 3 times by one person within 24 hours), refused to engage in discussions I initiated in January on this issue (breaking a rule) and currently aren't really respecting consensus from the Feb. 18 that the two decimal places really do matter (breaking spirit of a rule at least). From reviewing some of the "editing" of others WastedTime has done on the page, I feel that WastedTime sometimes only respects his/her own "style" choices; there doesn't seem to be much room in his/her world for different styles of writing, reporting results, etc. Such an view of oneself, however, does not make one the authority on "stylistic" issues. While I respect the valuable contributions WastedTime has made to the page, this "controlling" attitude has likely prevented others from making contributions which are just as valuable. This ongoing battle has really quelled my enthusiasm for wikipedia, and shown me how some can get away with violating policies very easily. Such people make wikipedia very frustrating for those who encounter them, and many who could be making valuable contributions simply cease to contribute, rather than carry on a ridiculous battle with them on a fairly clear issue, much less to carry on the very time-consuming dispute resolution process! Accurate reporting adds 9 total characters to the page (including the decimal point) and makes it clear that 2nd and 3rd places in this contest were very close (which is relevant if someone wants to use wikipedia as a source of information - or is that not a goal of wikipedia? I thought it was.)

After a great deal of research on how to pursue the dispute resolution process, I learned the following. At a minimum, Wasted Time and Bobblehead are guilty of the following violations of wikipedia policies and rules:

1. Their actions clearly fail to respect "consensus" on this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus).

2. They are also "gaming the system". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system for greater detail. One of the clearest ways they have "gamed the system" is discussed in point 4 of this page. "4. Relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy. The canonical example here is the three reverts rule, which limits editors to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The purpose of 3RR is to quench 'revert wars'. An editor who reverts three times in a 24 hour period and once immediately it is the next day, or repeatedly reverts twice only in a day, may well still be sanctioned, since the spirit of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Wikipedia against, has been breached."

3.Also relevant is point 7: Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.

4. I also feel that they are guilty of "Abuse of process" (defined on the same page as Gaming the System) in that they failed to engage in discussion with me and rather, surreptitiously kept changing my editing.

They may be guilty of other policy and rule violations that I haven't uncovered; I obviously am not an expert at the policies and rules, although I have done my best. They are far more experienced and clearly, pick and choose what aspects of rules/policies work for them, while violating other aspects of those same rules/policies. Bobblehead and WastedTime have so frequently worked together in concert that I have wondered whether they are one and the same person; at the very least, if they are two people, they have a very strong relationship of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" and back each other up all the time (perhaps they're a couple?). Hardly makes for good editing.

• * *

The relevant discussion pages containing my attempts to engage in debate have been "archived" but my discussion can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&oldid=185350822 under "2008 Iowa Caucus results" (dated Jan 6) and under "Presidential campaign of 2008" (dated Jan 19).

This is a log of all the times either WastedTime or Bobblehead reverted my change in which I cited the official Iowa results, carried out to the full 2 decimal points.
00:09, 19 February 2008 Wasted Time R (Talk | contribs) (145,113 bytes) (Undid revision 192365583 by Zzalzzal (talk) this is editorially inappropriate - see Talk)
19:13, 18 February 2008 Bobblehead (Talk | contribs) (145,765 bytes) (Undid revision 192363651 by Zzalzzal (talk) still not necessary.)
18:55, 18 February 2008 Bobblehead (Talk | contribs) (145,765 bytes) (Undid revision 192359526 by Zzalzzal (talk) This level of detail is unnecessary)
18:44, 18 February 2008 Wasted Time R (Talk | contribs) (145,765 bytes) (Undid revision 192355718 by Zzalzzal (talk) once again, inappropriate level of detail) (undo)
Note the 4 reversions (above) within 24 hours - but because WastedTime and Bobblehead were working in concert, they avoided automatic blocking under the Three Reverts rule, although they still violated the spirit of the policy (which is still a violation).
22:52, 7 February 2008 Wasted Time R (Talk | contribs) (153,005 bytes) (rv - for this general overview of the campaign, your "most accurate reporting" is unnecessary and inappropriate and inconsistent with the rest of the article)
22:50, 7 February 2008 Zzalzzal (Talk | contribs) m (153,039 bytes) (→Presidential campaign of 2008: Official IA caucus results are carried out to 2 decimal points therefore the most accurate reporting reflects this.)
17:36, 1 February 2008 Wasted Time R (Talk | contribs) (152,216 bytes) (rv - two decimal places is a ridiculous level of detail not used anywhere else in this general biographical article. She finished third by a small margin, that's all we need to say.)
17:32, 1 February 2008 Zzalzzal (Talk | contribs) m (152,225 bytes) (→Presidential campaign of 2008: Official IA caucus results are carried out to 2 decimal points therefore the most accurate reporting reflects this. Please do not re-edit.)
02:43, 19 January 2008 Wasted Time R (Talk | contribs) (139,747 bytes) (→Presidential campaign of 2008: remove NH recount until and unless it proves meaningful - see Talk)
02:20, 19 January 2008 Zzalzzal (Talk | contribs) (140,150 bytes) (Please see discussion before changing; the original version had relevantUndid revision 185188487 by Wasted Time R (talk))
12:01, 18 January 2008 Wasted Time R (Talk | contribs) (139,910 bytes) (rv details better suited for the campaign article (we don't need to know hundredths of pcts, and the Kucinich recount is pointless until it changes a result))
07:03, 18 January 2008 Zzalzzal (Talk | contribs) m (140,150 bytes) (→Presidential campaign of 2008: fixed typo in ref)

Assume good faith

Re. your edit comment here: Please assume good faith and refrain from attacking other editors. There are many plausible reasons to round the numbers to full percent. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

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.

TigerShark (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On being blocked

Your block will last for twenty-four hours. When it expires you may not be able to edit immediately because of what are known as "autoblocks". Please email or message any administrator if this happens and the blocks will be released and you'll be able to edit.

You were blocked for edit warring, not for having an unacceptable opinion (far from it!) If there is disagreement about article content, we have to discuss the disagreement and arrive at consensus on content, rather than fight over who can be the last person to edit the article. Please join the discussion on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton when you are able to edit again. --TS 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)