User talk:Getoverpops

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You won't drop the stick about Southern strategy. Any good faith from others that you might have earned has been lost through the relentless battleground editing. As a result, we will never find out if you were right about the content issue. If you belatedly decide to accept the offer I made above, one that requires a one-month self-imposed topic ban from the Southern strategy across all Wikipedia pages, any admin may lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I will accept the self imposed ban but I still want to know what I did wrong. What post was edit warring? I was only accused of violating a 3RR rule, why am I now being accused of edit warring? What posts were not OK?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Getoverpops (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Though I STRONGLY disagree with this penalty and strongly disagree that I was engaged in an edit war, I will adhere to the no edit request for 1 month. Again I STRONGLY disagree that I broke any rulesGetoverpops (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per my statement above about the conditions for your unblock. No edits whatever about the Southern strategy on any pages of Wikipedia for one month. Expires 11 June. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:Can I again ask what posts I made that constituted an edit war? This is still where I am confused. I would like to return to the topic when the month is up and I want to make sure, even if I'm dealing with hostile editors, that I know what lines to avoid crossing. To this end I'm asking for your help in understanding where I actually crossed a line this time. Note: If you tell me to drop this question now I will not post on the subject again. I'm not trying to be disagreeable but I do feel I am not getting a fair shake and I do feel other editors are being dishonest with their claims against me. Getoverpops (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your position is that the so-called Southern strategy is exaggerated and there are non-racist explanations for it. Others point out that mainstream scholarly sources don't agree with you. All your edits at Southern strategy seem oriented to making the so-called strategy more innocent, for example with this edit. Other editors, especially in the thread at WP:NPOVN, state that actual articles published by scholars have a well-established view of the matter. If you consistently edit the article to portray the strategy in a more benign manner, you aren't in accord with the consensus. Achieving due weight isn't simply a matter of adding sources. It requires listening to others. It does not seem that anyone agrees with you on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:

Your first sentence is essentially correct. That said, I understand that wiki requires references and considers the weight of the references. To that end I would like to defend my position.

1. The sources I would like to add are mostly scholarly articles [] or books published by university presses. For example in the edit you cited I added 3 sources. All three authors are university professors in the area and the information cited was in university press books (ie peer reviewed sources). ^[1][2][3]. I also included an op-ed article by one of the authors I just referenced (Alexander). I believe that as a a professor in the field he counts as an expert opinion and I noted it in the edit I made. ^[4]. I hope you can see why I strongly disagree with the claim, primarily made by Scoobydunk who was not one of the previous editors of the article, that my sources are not reliable. I do not claim that they supercede all other sources, only that they are authoritative enough to warrant a place in the article as a counter point.
2. The other editors might claim there is scholarly consensus but they have not shown this. The current article actually has very few scholarly articles (Dan Carter; Black, Black, Earl and Merle; Bruce Kalk; Robin Corey are the primary ones). So we are, buy the numbers 4 vs 3 though I might have missed one and I didn't include Clay Risen in the list of those who see the shift as something other than racism (he was already in the Wiki article). That would bring the scholars to about 50:50 with regards to seeing the shift as a result of an appeal to racism in voters. To this end I believe any claim that the scholars are unanimous is questionable and that their is enough weight on the other side to warrant inclusion of the counter view. Note I am not arguing for excluding the original view, only including a reasonable section showing not all researchers agree here.
3. I do agree my edits show a mitigation of the southern strategy claim. However, that is what a body of the scholarship says.
4. I also agree that my addition of sources and quotes heavily favored the "against" POV. I would hope that others could enhance the "for" POV and we could come up with a new balance on the topic. Currently the article errors towards accepting the racist appeal model. Note that a number of editors have felt the same way. Talk:Southern_strategy#Weak_intro.2C_maybe_even_a_one-sided_slant[]. In the archive page contains several threads questioning the bias of the article and dating back several years. It seems clear that I am not the only one who felt the article was one sided.
5. I think it was too soon to claim the talk discussions were unanimous against my POV. The mediator in the current discussion has not issued a verdict. Several posts in the original NPOV[] support my view. Note these are editors who were not involved with the article.

• Jonathan Tweet, "In an article this long, the counterpoint deserves mention. It's a notable but apparently minority view. I'd like to see a section in the main body talking about this contrary view, and mention of it in the lede. "
• RightCowLeftCoast, prior to my adding several sources said, "As it can be verified, the view should be given a mention. But unless more than the academically written source, and the NYT article, are the presently provided reliable sources, it shouldn't be given its own entire section. Although I might not agree with the stereotype that south=racist and thus southern strategy=racist strategy, if that's what most sources write (even if the sources themselves are biased), that's how the weight is".
• Juno, "Competing explanations for the political realignment of 1968 must be mentioned and the first paragraph must be rewritten to note the contested nature of the theory. "

RightCowLeftCoast was the most involved 3rd party mediator. He never issued a final view one way or the other. Scoobydunk, admittedly also an editor who previously was not involved in the article, was the primary reason the replies grew so long. I was taking a lot of space to respond to his accusations.

While I see the value of consensus and perhaps in a months time we can try again. I hope you are starting to see my POV on this issue and can see that I was not engaging in an edit war vs just trying to improve the article. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue.Getoverpops (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:I understand if you are busy and if you aren't able to reply to my questions at this time. I would be interested in knowing if you feel I have made my case for both why I think my information was valid for the article and that I was not intentionally engaging in destructive editing (I really did very little actual editing of the article). ThanksGetoverpops (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Getoverpops, if you're asking me to modify the restriction I am not willing to do so. After June 11 you'll be able to use the article talk page to try to get support from others. Please refrain from any further discussion of the article until your restriction expires. If you raise content questions about the Southern strategy here on this talk page, that is technically a violation, so please don't do so. EdJohnston (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:At this point in time I'm asking if you feel that I have made two parts of my case. First, that I did not go against any NPOV settlements and that second, the information I wanted to add does meet the standards for reliability. If you don't want to lift the ruling so be it but given that just a few edits above you gave a telling of events that I think is not supported by the facts I would like to know if you see my side of the issue. Consider this, a temp ban often is a cooling off period for editors. That is understandable. One of the things that would help is simply knowing that even if I didn't handle things correctly, I wasn't off base in my view of the facts (the numbers above). Otherwise you end up with that feeling not unlike when you are in school and you know that other kids lied to the teacher and you got in trouble for it. You believed the accusations based on your post above. Even you feel the month off is still a good idea I would like to know if my above argument is sound. Getoverpops (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Getoverpops, there is nothing more to be said until June 11. Your behavior could become the official illustration for not dropping the WP:STICK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:In that case I will await your reply on the 11th. Getoverpops (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:I know it isn't the 11th but it has been two weeks. I would be interested in knowing the answer to my question above. ThanksGetoverpops (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Per our conversation on your user page from May 11th and the above I would like to know what I did one month ago that constituted an edit war.

You have now taken the exact same issues from the above section and moved them to two different articles. Your initial edits at these articles could be seen as the start of a BRD cycle, but once you were reverted by two different editors, rather than discussing the issues you simply added the material back. It is bad form to fail to obtain consensus in one article and then simply shift to another article to try to obtain the same results. It would also be silly to have three separate discussions on the same issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@North Shoreman:Yes, I made the edits and I have since added the discussion section. You are trying to start an edit war by reverting without justification. I have asked you to move the conversation to the talk pages and I have added the talk section. It is now your turn to move things to the talk section rather than just reverting my edits. That certainly looks like an edit war on your part.Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You've reverted twice at each article. Following BRD you should have initiated discussion after the first time you were reverted. With the revert on each article you were told that there was an ongoing discussion at Southern Strategy -- rather than making your case there, you reverted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@North Shoreman: And if you notice in both cases I addressed that concern and you have replied to neither talk page but you have tried to claim edit war again. Now to the two pages, first we have the Southernization article. In that case I added references that talked about the shift in overall politics towards or away from the south. That is not a discussion of the southern strategy and thus what we discuss on the SS page shouldn't mater. You have a better argument on the Solid South page. However, as I noted on the talk page (where we should be having this current discussion) there is a large consensus that the GOP's success in the south was not due to appeals to racism (note that statement doesn't mean appeals weren't made) but due to other factors. The Solid South article made such a claim without any references what so ever. I added both the point reference (carter) and a counter point reference. Why was that incorrect. Even on the SS page BEFORE I joined Wikipedia the article had a reference that said what I'm now saying. It's hard to claim that I'm adding new stuff when my reference is one that was long in the SS page. Now can we move these conversations to the article pages?Getoverpops (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Getoverpops_reported_by_Scoobydunk_.28Result:.29. Thank you.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked you indefinitely for your resumption of edit-warring at Southern strategy. I read the discussion you had with EdJohnston in May when Ed unblocked you after you agreed not to edit the article for one month. Even then, I could see that you only reluctantly agreed to the article ban, that you failed to have any insight into your behavior, and that even after agreement you continued to battle for your content position. The fact that one month later you resumed the same battle demonstrates to me that even after a month's reflection, you still have no insight into your misconduct. I have no confidence that a shorter block would be for the benefit of the project. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Getoverpops (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I would like to request this block be lifted. I understand if you wish to put a time on it as a clear and final message. I understand I was on a short string when returning however, I don't think this last warning should rise to the 3RR. I see two reverts and two edits which were simply Scoobydunk and I going back and forth on the refinement of a sentence. I would ask that the indefinite be changed to 30 days with 1 revert discretionary sanction limit on the topic. The concern had been excessive reverts and that would address the concern. I believe the content I wished to add to the article is fully in goof faith and within the spirit of Wikipedia but my understanding of the revert rule has been lacking. With this proposed limit (allowed under [sanctions]) I think you can feel confident that my edits will not be seen as disruptive while at the same time removing the punitive nature of a indenfiate ban on a user who went through a great deal if effort to find reliable sources relating to the article in question. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

I see you edit-warring here and here, in addition to the main Southern strategy article. What I haven't seen is any edit that wasn't Southern strategy-related during the enforced timeout. What I also don't see is an acknowledgement of the problems with your own editing; the proposed sanctions would only make the edit-wars slower, but they clearly wouldn't stop the problem. Huon (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Huon, Thank you for the input. I think I am unclear on what counts as an edit war. My objective is to improve an article for which I have an interest and to do so using sound arguments and references. I was under the assumption that some level of back and forth is part of the give and take process. I would understand if my edits were simple vandalism but I hope you agree that they are at least not that. I also hope you see that I try to be diligent in my research on the subjects and try to give detailed explanations as to my thinking. Again I hope you can see fit to give me a last chance. I will also expand my horizons as far as other topics are concerned. Could I offer one last proposal. A topic ban for some period. During which time I show via other topics an ability to edit within the system. At that point the topic ban would be lifted. Please understand that my intent is to improve the article through the inclusion of quality sources. My intent has never been to disrupt.Getoverpops (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

To the moderators (Bbb23,EdJohnston : I see a new edit war is starting to form on the Southern Strategy article. I have nothing to do with those edits. Getoverpops (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, it is clear that I have failed to understand how my edits have been seen as edit warring. I hope you can see that in this last week I have been trying to edit boldly yet within the rule. I spent some time to day reviewing the 3RR rule as well as the edit warring rule. As I really felt that I had been within the rules I was hoping you would dialog with me to help me understand where I have failed. I would like to ultimately return to Wikipedia editing but I understand that I would have to avoid this subject area. Would you be both willing to help me better understand my mistakes and, if possible, come up with a plan to reverse the indefinite block. Thank you,Getoverpops (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You've been back at AN3 so many times we now have a large dossier on you. You began editing on March 20 and since then you have received three edit warring blocks for the same thing. If there was any possibility you would wake up and start following policy you would have done so by now. Giving you more advice would be a waste of time since you've ignored so much of it in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Thank you for the reply. Again, I feel much of this has been confusion on my part about the rules combined with an enthusiasm for the topic in question. Much of my confusion revolves around the nature of the 3RR rules. In this final instance I thought since the edits were not undos but back and forth refinements of the text those were not reverts. I felt that my edit before the 30 time out was within the spirit of the BOLD cycle. That is what I was trying to discuss with you at the time and tried again on the 11th. I feel like I'm trying to stay in the rules while dealing with editors who were dismissive of my sources because I was a new editor. I see these thing from the POV of someone who is making a good faith effort to improve the objectivity of the articles I worked on while trying to be totally within the rules. Anyway, I would like to attempt to reform my account and do so on topics that are totally unrelated to Southern politics. That is why I'm asking to be given one last chance. I totally understand a time out and will agree to forgo editing on topics that could be seen as related to the one's I've previously worked on until such time as you are convinced I have understood the mistakes I made. I look at the other indefinite blocks and feel they were for things like sock puppets vs simply being very passionate about a given area of history. With that said, would you please consider something other than an indefinite block? I would really like to have the chance to reform my account.Getoverpops (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm done here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, again, thank you for your time. I hope that in a month or so you might reconsider.Getoverpops (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Sorry, one last thing. I want to reiterate that I am not associated with the recent IP edits on the Southern Strategy article. I hope you believe me in that regard. I certainly wouldn't risk enflaming Admins with that sort of thing while asking for a final chance. Again, sorry to bother you again.Getoverpops (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ed, but I don't think the IP's edits were at all similar to yours. Please take at least a month before you start asking for anything again. Actually, I wouldn't recommend unblocking you until at least six months have elapsed (standard offer). I also will have no more comments here if you continue to post messages and pings. Give yourself a break, and give us a break from this.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the advice. I will cool it for a while.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Getoverpops (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I've been thinking about the comments from the moderators and the way I was editing prior to my block. I've also spent a good deal of time looking at how other editors have handled disputes and edits when disagreements are involved. RightCowLeftCoast has been one of my study cases. I see that he actually makes few article edits. He makes short and direct arguments on the talk pages and cites wikipedia guidelines as justifications when ever possible. He clearly wants to avoid taking the comments of others personally and is willing to disengage when it seems that people aren't interested in cooperation regardless of the quality of his arguments. These are things I was not doing. I would like to be given a chance to edit again now that I've spent the time off really looking at how others get changes made vs "win arguments". Please consider this an understanding of my previous mistakes and consider lifting my block. Thank you Getoverpops (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If it will help I would be happy to propose {{2nd chance}} edits or talk section proposals (again using the 2nd chance template) to show that I really have not meant to be disruptive, have spent time learning better ways to handle disagreements and wish to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Getoverpops (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances a standard offer approach could be taken for this case. PhilKnight (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

PhilKnight, Thank you for the reply. I would like to ask for consideration of something less than the 6 month time frame. My reasoning is thus: My previous issues were due to a failure to really understand the 3RR. When I got back from the 30 day suspension I was trying to avoid a 3RR violation because I knew I was on thin ice. What I failed to realize at the time was what counts as a revert. Regardless, I was wrong in my understanding. Since getting this block I have really spent some time trying to understand how to get changes made around here (my old method clearly was not it). Having now carefully read some of the guidelines that apply to me (!) the blocking policy notes that blocking is not meant to be punitive ( WP:NOPUNISH ). At this point my account is at a crossroads. If I have learned my lesson and edit within the guidelines then there is no reason for a continued block. That would only be a punishment at this point. Alternatively, if I screw up, then I think people will decide that I will never learn and thus the block would likely be permanent with the logic that permanent is the only fix to protect the site ( WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE ). With that in mind I would like to ask for consideration for a shorter than 6 month period before the rest of the standard offer could be considered. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Getoverpops (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What a hilarious story arc this user has.50.58.246.98 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)