User talk:Jaymax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Advice sought

{{helpme}}

Folks - I know you're offering help - but it would be more helpful if, rather than just resetting the template, again -- you got as far as the bit a few lines down where I say in bold no less, "I still need help on this." I need to know whether this admin is behaving reasonably (I can't imagine that he is, but I'm not around here enough to know for sure); if so, what makes it so, and if not, what should I be doing about it.

The section below is something I pasted to User_talk:Seraphimblade But it's gone - and I didn't get a response.

User:SwatJester seems to want to ban any discussion of L&Ws senior attorney involvement in sending bizzare 'cease and desist' letters on the Latham & Watkins page - refusing (until yesterday) pretty much any discussion, and referencing solely an OTRS ticket as suitable justification - now article edits have been locked because someone dared to bring it up again.

So - what to do? What's the point in User:SwatJester referencing an OTRS ticket number, if no one is allowed to know what it says, and he refuses to rationally debate his reasons for making the edits?

The OTRS system is accessible only to highly trusted people, as it contains some private personal information, which should not be released. If you want to edit that page, you can type {{editprotected}} onto the talk page of the page you wish to edit. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I get that OTRS is private - but shouldn't the editor still have to justify reasons for removing other peoples consensus edits? In terms of {{editprotected}} - thanks, but I'm not looking to edit the page any further at this time - there is no point when this particular 'highly trusted' user is the one ensuring that the article does not mention noted recent events involving this company acting for one of their less reputable clients. I still need ongoing help and advise on this. Thanks. Jaymax (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Refer bottom of Talk:Latham & Watkins and below

[edit] Advice - stuff being deleted and editor refusing to give rationale

Hi. I've been an extremely rare occasional contributor for years - random stuff where I had something to add - maybe edits to 5 articles total.

Anyway, a couple of us were adding some content to the Latham & Watkins page in the light of their odd (not just my opinion - ref abovethelaw and lawdragon blogs) involvement with the Church of Scientology vs Anonymous stuff thats going on worldwide (L&W in US only on this so far)

It was early days - and the first contribution was highly POV, and a couple of us were editing to make it NPOV over time. Someone came along and rePOV'd it - and then this editor came along and removed the whole section. We queried this on his talk page, he refused to give any substatiable reason, I asked him to engage on the article's discussion page, he then deleted my section on the discussion page, and the comments on his tak page - not only the topic, but any discussion of it was purged.

L&W Diff shows the reasonably NPOV version.

And here's the edit wiping the whole section L&W Diff

Note the OTRS reference given in the reason.

L&W Discuss Diff is the removal of the subject from the article's discussion page.

See L&W section on this history of the users discussion page User's talk Diff and User's talk diff for the removal a few days later.

Note the ending comment: I read it as "I will not enter into a discussion about whether this content van be made valid, and you will not be allowed to re-enter the content" - hence - stuck - seeking opinions/advice.

Perhaps this OTRS stuff really does carry so much weight that it need not be justified? I'm prepared to debate the 'weight' issue - but just because the L&W article doesn't currently discuss huge controversial notable international clients, with a documented track history of illegality, surely doesn't mean that such content is inappropriate for the page [yes those last seven words are POV - and I'm prepared to debate it - find compromise if reqd]

Sorry for the tl;dr - would appreciate whatever - even a pointer to somewhere else. I'm infrequent on here. Jaymax (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I spent some time looking through all the diffs you provided. First this isn't really an issue for helpme. But for discussion on this I would go first to the talk page of the article(Talk:Latham & Watkins), the blanking admin (User talk:Swatjester), and if those first two fail the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But looking through it would think you would need more sourcing, and that still does stick out as POV to me as well. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time! fwiw I've already tried starting debate on the talk page (deleted by swatjester) and on his talk page (deleted by swatjester) - until yesterday when finally he started debating - I thought since I'd started down the helpme route I would see where it headed - your input has been useful. Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)