User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reisman

Hi, I have been attempting to edit a bit for NPOV but it is a mile away from my interest field, I will say, to have a good look through the cites and check that there is decent reporting regarding the content. regards.Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'd rather be doing something else too. Thanks for leaving a note here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what else? Because of the same type of bias that the guy is displaying, media reports are frequently biased. It's like a bias echo chamber. They write biased articles, then they come here and use Wikipedia to trumpet them. Clever, really, but unfair and untruthful. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

re: Edit warring at Southern Poverty Law Center

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR does not apply in this case. The BIAS tag says do not remove until the dispute is done. The dispute is proceeding on the Talk page, and quite politely, I may add. To remove the tag knowing it says not to remove it borders on vandalism, though I have not accused anyone of having done such. I'm following WP:AGF. The proper thing to do would be to partake in the Talk page discussion instead of jumping in line on the number of people trying to use procedural means to stop my editing on pages that are being protected for obvious partisan reasons. That SPLC page looks like an SPLC brochure, hence the BIAS tag, and the community is working cooperatively to resolve the issue. Further, the tag gives notice of the issue so others can join in to ensure Wiki policy compliance. I will continue to restore the tag each time a partisan removes it, and 3RR is not valid in such a case. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR report has been filed here. TFD (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And 3 minutes later, I got blocked with no chance to respond. I have been forced to rewrite my reasoning on the unblock request below. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well look at that. It was 5 minutes after I received notice. 5 whole minutes. Guilty until proven innocent. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we see why such actions are brought against me. Because past ones can be used to justify current ones. I'm guilty of the past. See, for example, "Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked simultaneous to Courcelles' action above, after considerable thought, because I think you are all guilty of obnoxious edit warring. However, the user has edit warred a lot before. It now looks like you can talk about it on his talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)"

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Southern Poverty Law Center. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

The BIAS tag says not to remove it until the matter is discussed in Talk. Yet people keep removing it. The BIAS tag is not an edit. Rather, it is notice to the community of the existence of a dispute. It is an invitation to the community to join in on the dispute. It is the very nature of Wikipedia to create a community and build a page. The removal of the BIAS tag prevents that very purpose. It limits the people who will see and partake in the dispute. On the SPLC page, the tag was properly placed because the page looks like an SPLC brochure. The only criticism that exists is in the 4th to the last sentence of the entire huge page. Without a doubt that indicates the page is biased. I and others have been working cooperatively to address the issues. There are, however, partisans who are there to protect the page from losing its character as an SPLC brochure. One of those people twice removed the BIAS tag. Eventually he stopped after another editor convinced him of the legitimacy of the the need for the BIAS tag. He is also the very person who raised the 3RR issue, and in literally minutes may editing abilities were removed. That is unfair giving his twice removing the tag then being convinced otherwise. Essentially, you could argue I was set up. I could not even respond on the page on which he placed his complaint as a result of this block. For the above reasons, please unblock me forthwith as the block is totally unjustified in this particular case. Note, for the reasons that the BIAS tag is there to invite people to partake in the discussion and since the tag itself says it should not be removed until resolution, I ask others to restore the tag, and I will do it myself if needed. Doing so is righting a wrong, not edit warring. This block for edit warring is misplaced. From the 3RR rule: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Exactly. I added the BIAS tag. And such a tag is not "another editor's work." It's a tag. It's notice to the community. It's Wikipedia sanctioned notice to the community. The notice advises people not to remove the notice. The conversation is actively occurring, and, with me blocked, and with no BIAS tag to invite others, the SPLC page will remain an SPLC brochure. Certainly that is not in the interest of Wikipedia. Please, reverse this unfairness ASAP. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Tags can only be added with edits; they can only be removed with edits. Therefore, edit warring over tags is still edit warring. Furthermore, adding a {{bias}} tag is altering another editor's work by implicitly stating that it's fundamentally flawed and otherwise not suitable for the reader. --slakr^\ talk / 05:56, 22 November 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

initial denial of unblock is not based in Wikipedia policy. The denial reasoning is "Tags can only be added with edits; they can only be removed with edits. Therefore, edit warring over tags is still edit warring. Furthermore, adding a tag is altering another editor's work by implicitly stating that it's fundamentally flawed and otherwise not suitable for the reader. --slakr\ talk / 05:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)" But 3RR says, "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring...." The BIAS tag removal was vandalism. So my restoring the BIAS tag vandalism does not violate 3RR. How do we know removing the BIAS tag is vandalism? From WP:VANDTYPES. Quoting now, emphasis mine, "Vandalism on Wikipedia usually falls into one or more of these categories: Abuse of tags; Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {{policy}} and related tags." Those repeated removals of the BIAS tag were baseless in that the reasons given were either inadequate or untruthful, especially in light of the specific guidance given in the BIAS tag not to remove it ("Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved") and the polite conversation proceeding apace on the Talk page, including another editor's overcoming TFD's two previous removals of the BIAS tag. I was not edit warring. I was removing vandalism. I never said so in edit summaries for WP:AGF reasons, but it was still vandalism nevertheless. Removing vandalism is not a 3RR violation. Please unblock me forthwith. Thank you. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I actually read that amazing bunch of wikilawyering twice. If you want to pretend to be a lawyer, then let me say this: jurisprudence shows clearly that removing a tag in good faith is not vandalism in situations like yours - it may in and of itself be disruptive, but will never count as vandalism in relation to 3RR or edit-warring situations. Your block is 110% founded in policy, and additional complaints otherwise will lead to removal of your talkpage access for the duration of your block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 22 November 2010 (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.

What a friendly note. 110% friendly. Totally grounded in Wiki policy. Thank you.

I will bring this matter up on the 3RR page or with Jimbo Wales himself. This matter is wholly unjustified. 110% unjustified. The text "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" led me to believe the tag must not be removed until the dispute was resolved. Silly me for believing the clear language of the tag.

The 3RR text and WP:VANDTYPES needs to be changed to specify that BIAS tag removal is not vandalism despite the clear language of the template as it appears when placed on a page, or the BIAS template needs to be changed to remove the text "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" or to change it to "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved, but its removal will not be considered vandalism". Or 3RR application could be changed so that when someone appears to have acted in the best interests of Wikipedia or reasonably thinks he has, some leeway is given, like merely a warning instead of a block. On the other hand, that might be "wikilawyering", so maybe I should just shut up and let other people believe "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" actually means what it says.

Wikipedia rules almost always result in a just decision. Not this time, or at least not when enough people oppose someone who sees the Southern Poverty Law Center page as the SPLC advertising brochure that it is and think it's fine that one of the page's protectors can stop someone like me positively engaged on the Talk page in discussing the meat of the BIAS tag concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia policies, guidelines, essays, and instructions make requests of editors. "Please use an edit summary". "Please sign your talk posts". Failure to follow those requests is not vandalism. There's no policy that says a {Bias} tag must be left on an article until there's unanimous agreement to remove it. (Though that's a good goal.) And there's certainly no exemption from 3RR for edit warring over tags.

More worrisome is your failure to listen to input. You were told that you were wrong about the revert issue, but you went ahead anyway. Since then several admins have explained to you that you are interpreting the rules incorrectly, yet you continue to insist that you are right. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption. Do you still insist you are correct? Will you continue to revert the {Bias} tag when your block expires? Will Beback talk

Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it's not therapy, and it's not a justice system. It's an encyclopedia project. The rules and procedures it has are just whatever's necessary to help get the job done. They aren't an end in themselves. A core policy is "ignore all rules that get in the way of accomplishing the goal". That said, this block seems to be in full compliance with all of Wikipedia's policies and principles. Will Beback talk 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a fundamental injustice in this particular instance. I am considering taking this matter to Jimbo Wales. My 3RR block was basically for believing the words in the BIAS tag that say the tag should stay up until the dispute is resolved and for believing that tag removal in such an instance was vandalism, which WP:VANDTYPES says it is, or so I believe. I promise you those two things backed me up in restoring the BIAS tag, or so I understandably and innocently thought. I will be proposing changes as a result of this debacle, as I described above. That way the next guy doesn't innocently fall into the same trap. Once that happens, it will be clear what are the rules, and I will act accordingly. I am hoping the decision will be BIAS tag removal will be vandalism in the circumstance where active Talk is occurring about the issues presented, as it was in the SPLC case. Until then, I won't be restoring that tag in violation of 3RR anymore as it is currently applied in this case, despite the language right in the tag and in VANDTYPES. I think WP:AGF has been totally lacking in this case. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continually arguing, and threatening to run to mommy, perhaps just use your block as an opportunity to take a break and calm down, and return to the project with constructive energy. Westbender (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just ended my previous comment with, "I think WP:AGF has been totally lacking in this case." Thank you, Westbender, for illustrating the point yet again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "continually arguing" is really funny. I was warned of the block then blocked 5 minutes later. I got 5 minutes to respond and I was unable to do so. Guilty until proven innocent in 5 minutes, which is impossible. I mean I had written a response and when I went to post it I was already blocked and my response was never considered. So I got no argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WHere did I not assume good faith? I'm offering advice, that I suggest you take. Westbender (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"[C]ontinually arguing"? "[T]hreatening to run to mommy"? That's advice? That's good faith? You have a pattern of continually harassing me, as you have just done. Have you had enough fun yet? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that was descriptive. The advice was to go take a break and come back refreshed. Westbender (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Running to mommy" is not "descriptive". Your word games never end. That said, the "break" is oddly welcome. I see you are enjoying it as well by removing certain encyclopedic content from the Banned Books Week page. You left in that the ALA has been criticized, but you removed what is was criticized for. Well, I suppose it's better than the SPLC page which has essentially no acknowledgment of criticism whatsoever. It will, eventually. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The community can judge my edits. Westbender (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me help them. I just looked at your edit history, Westbender. Right from the very first edit ever of your total of 19 edits, you have been preoccupied with reverting me or editing otherwise related to me, except for 2 unrelated edits. Should I feel honored? There are not enough edits to even begin to consider if WP:HOUNDing is involved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF, and enjoy your block. Westbender (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I did, but given your continuing words games and edit history, it seems I and only I am the target of your edits here at WP. At some point it becomes apparent good faith is lacking. I am not saying I have yet reached that a conclusion on the issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There, I just edited idiot anal retentive jackass. Happy now? Westbender (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I was heavily considering to step in and undo my block, but your inability to admit fault is stopping me. If you can admit, as you've been told numerous times, that you should not have revert warred over the template (as policy does not support it), and that you will not continue to revert war to get your version, I will unblock you. In fact, if you'd taken into account WP:GAB as advised, you'd probably already be unblocked. But I'm not holding my breath. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Listen, I know this is not what you want, but you were honest, and I'll be honest too (as I have been). Honestly, I thought the policy viewed the BIAS tag removals as vandalism. I thought that because of WP:VANDTYPES and because of the text of the tag itself warning people not to remove the tag. With that in mind, I kept reverting the vandalism and stating I would continue to revert the vandalism. As it turns out, the community has informed me I was mistaken. I get that. But I also see this as a huge, major hole into which anyone can fall, totally innocently, like I did. So, since I really am contributing to Wikipedia and seek its improvement, and since I see a major flaw in this narrow instance that allows someone to believe VANDTYPES and to believe the words in the tag warning people not to remove it, I will bring this matter up for discussion on the Talk pages of the 3RR rule and the BIAS tag template. I think a few minor tweaks would have prevented this whole thing. I know no one wants to hear me say I am faultless, but isn't there anyone out there who can stand back for a moment and see the pitfall into which I fell, decide some tweaks would prevent such incidents in the future, then not hold me guilty of incomplete or inaccurate policy guidance that apparently does not align with community views on the matter? I followed Wiki policy to the best of my ability, even the literal wording of VANDTYPES and the BIAS tag. I hereby admit I am guilty of not understanding the policy is really what's in the community's mind, not what's written in black and white. But my sense of justice says changes should be made to prevent this from happening to the next victim.

Now, given that, if you wish to continue blocking me, well, what can I say. If I were in your shoes, I would remove the block immediately then participate in the discussion I will be raising on the 3RR and BIAS tag Talk pages, or raise it myself, or guide me in how best to raise it. A simple tweak is likely all that's needed. Perhaps people will even decide removing the BIAS tag is vandalism, like it appears to be in writing but not in practice--that would be the ideal end point in my opinion. For once, someone please do what's right, not what's popular. Please unblock me.

Whatever you decide, I will not further restore BIAS tags more than twice unless and until the policy or policies have been clarified, if ever. I now understand the community finds that to be edit warring despite the language of VANDTYPES and the BIAS tag itself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC was warned that he was on the verge of violating 3RR, but proceeded to do so. He did not fall into that hole, he jumped in. The suggestion that he will continue to edit war, "I will not further restore BIAS tags more than twice", is an indication that he does not get the issue here at all. The last time he was blocked for 3RR, for the same article, he asked to be unblocked so he could discuss the issue, and that was granted. I suggest that this time he wait until the block expires before pursuing changes to the rules under which he was blocked. Will Beback talk 00:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was warned, by people like you who were already seeking other means to stop me from editing, and who made excuses like that the BIAS tag is not really seen by anyone so it is not needed. You yourself, for example, despite your being s sysop, outed me on two pages in an effort to intimidate me. And here you are again ensuring the guy you outed, the guy you ordered to stop editing for COI reasons, the guy you helped stopped editing for 3RR reasons, remains blocked to further your agenda to cast me now and in the future as a bad person. You have unclean hands, Will Beback. But, thank you for illustrating the whirlwind of people like you and Westbender who will bend over backwards to assail me and who initiate these procedural actions to stop me from editing. Simply put, you can't or won't reason on the Talk pages, so you find procedural means to stop me. That's your problem. not mine. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of following the advise of people supposedly trying to get you blocked, which would have prevented you from being blocked, you decided you knew better and so you were blocked anyway. You can blame others, but it wasn't anyone else's fault. And no one was outed. You freely post links all over Wikipedia to your websites, which contain you name and address, and you've even added quotations from yourself to Wikipedia articles. Will Beback talk 01:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't stop, do you. Apparently, my response to Magog the Ogre was so effective that you felt the need to continue to come back here again and again to further mislead people.

You know the guy who started this 3RR action against me that resulted in a block 5 minutes later? TFD? Magog the Ogre told him, "There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you. There is plenty of agreement in the discussion over this that you were wrong to edit war over this." I'll bet that really bothers you, You even responded, "I agree with Magog the Ogre that there should not be a repeat of that."

But your attention is turned again and again to me, and not TFD. TFD, the guy who said, "The POV tag does not in fact attract people to the discussion because it is only seen by people reading the article." Wrong--why have the tag in the first place if it does not do that. TFD, the guy you assisted in this block of me: "It was not my intent to support the edit war over the tag." So, having done all this damage, having outed me twice, you continue to come back here and further spread your one-sided misinformation. People won't be buying it much longer. As to adding links, yes, a few, long ago, and I have thanked you for finding and removing them. Your half-stories never stop. I really don't know what bee got in your bonnet that you repeatedly come after me as you do.

"And no one was outed." Will, I was outed. Twice. By you. You even reverted yourself and properly hid the edits, though history comments revealed you might restore your outings. Fred Bauder got involved. You are flat out lying. You are a disgrace. Your sysop rights should be reviewed due to your actions and your admissions against your own interests. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote Westbender above, please "use your block as an opportunity to take a break and calm down". You can make your points without attacking your fellow editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy is outright lying, and he's an experienced editor and sysop who should not be outing me then lying that he didn't. This is my Talk page and I'm allowed to respond to him without it being considered a battleground. I'm not seeking him out and falsely smearing him like he is doing and has been doing here and on other pages for many days now. Even you have corrected him when you pointed out that, contrary to what he said, "I looked at LAEC's edits to Jay-Z, a non-political, non-censorship topic, over the last year. They appear to be constructive. I saw one post on the talk page over the same period. It seemed reasonable as well. To the extent that one can generalize by looking at one article, I would judge that LAEC can edit constructively on non-political, non-censorship topics." So thanks. I can. At the same time, I respond when falsely accused. Do not confuse that with battleground. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Walter Siegmund's contribs. He is one of the people seeking to ban me: "I think a topic ban is overdue." Mind you, I never recall this guy ever once getting on a Talk page and discussing the issues with me. The guys going for the topic ban are just seeking a means to prevent my edits in the first place, likely because I have been effective on other pages in obtaining consensus for applying Wikipedia policy. If that happened on the SPLC page, for example, it would no longer look like an advertising brochure. So it is no surprise he has come here to support the others seeking to ban me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no rule that people need to engage with editors before engaging in a discussion about their behavior. And this line "The guys going for the topic ban are just seeking a means to prevent my edits in the first place, likely because I have been effective on other pages in obtaining consensus for applying Wikipedia policy." reveals some paranoia, let alone bad faith. Westbender (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment about bad faith from the guy who said, above, "There, I just edited idiot anal retentive jackass. Happy now? Westbender (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From WP:OUTING:

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. (emphasis mine)

You've posted links to your personal information. Your website clearly says who runs it. That's not being outed. If you would like to protect your personal information, remove all links to the websites you run, otherwise anyone can easily discover your real identity. AniMate 05:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not posted links to that information. No page I link from Wikipedia has my name or address. Yes, if you search around on sub pages you will find it, but there are no direct links to that information. I do not link to my name and address. I do not want my name and address on Wikipedia. It is an outing. Besides, his reacting to the outing was to delete and hide the edits. So even he knew it was an outing. That said, thank you for participating here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unless unintentional and non-malicious ..., attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." I am not requesting an immediate block on Will Beback under this rule. I avoid using procedural means to stop others from editing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't malicious, since it's reasonable to assume you weren't trying to keep your identity secret. All it takes is one click on your website and it's right there. Perhaps if you want this information to remain private you should remove the links to your website or update your website to remove your personal info. I get that you don't want it posted here, and that's why I think Will removed his posts. However, you make it so unbelievably easy to find your personal info, I would have assumed you didn't care about that being posted on Wiki, since anyone who is editing with you could look. You posted the links so people would open them, right? You can't complain too loudly when people post things you have made easily available. For the record, could you give us a list of what we can and cannot post from your website? Perhaps you could leave a note there saying "X is not to be posted on Wikipedia, but Y can be." AniMate 05:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, AniMate, I see and appreciate your point. Setting that aside and having nothing to do with you, it is unfair to apply a double standard to me. Why are we here? I am being blocked for not strictly adhering to Wiki policy when I restored BIAS tags removals despite the tags text and despite VANDTYPES. It seems strict policy adherence applies to me and common sense does not. Then, when I go to exercise Wiki policy to protect my privacy after Will Beback outs me, suddenly a double standard applies. Now, common sense applies and strict adherence is not demanded.

AniMate is right, common sense should apply instead of strict adherence. However, if common sense applied instead of strict adherence to policy, I would not be blocked at this moment. There's the double standard.

However, I do view what Will Beback did as malicious, especially in light of the surrounding circumstances that continue to this very moment as he is collecting diffs and seeking other fora to ban me. Also, I have been outed repeatedly before, but by newbies, so I did not view it as anything other than newbie exuberance. Will Beback is not a newbie. He is a sysop. He should or could have seen I was protecting my identity on Wikipedia. As it turns out, 2 people from West Bend, WI, outed me--not Westbender though, who just leaves uncivil comments during my block. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote a few days ago on this page, you appear to be using Wikipedia for advocacy and am researching your past edits to see if there is sufficient evidence of it for community action. I just came across this discussion, Talk:Banned_Books_Week#Proposing_RS_for_controversy, and these edits:[1][2][3], based on this source.[4] Rather than trying to keep your identity private, you appear to have been trying to promote yourself and your activism. Since you'd already been editing Wikipedia for four years when you did that, I assume you knew what you were doing. The fact that you are attacking everyone who disagrees with you, and assuming bad faith for their actions, shows another disconnect from Wikipedia norms. Will Beback talk 08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, based off the feedback I'm getting form others and from you, I'm going to unblock, so you can participate on the discussion on the talk page. A few things to keep in mind for the future:

If in doubt, err on the side of caution. If there is any chance you're breaking a rule, don't do whatever it is, get community input first. You can try posting at WP:EAR, WP:AN, or even WT:AN3.
Take advice from other people, even if it's with a grain of salt. Will Bebeck above is a perfect example; he's an admin who's been here a long time, so he knows what he's doing. To quote the Bible: "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid" Proverbs 12:1 (a good saying regardless of one's faith).

If you have any questions, let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I missed one thing: Will Bebeck is right. Stop edit warring - now and in general - or I'll have to reblock your account. Again, I'm not being very diplomatic about it, but I'd rather be blunt and a dick about it than block you and be polite about it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally!! Thank you!! And your history comment about WP:LAME says it all!! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SPLC-o-pedia

Look at that. We are here because people are ensuring the SPLC page remains like an SPLC brochure. Yet the SPLC itself gets directly added into the Wiki page of yet another organization, just today, just now, in National Organization for Marriage. Lead section, no less, front and center.

No criticism should appear on the SPLC page, but the SPLC itself gets to have its own POV broadcast on the many Wiki pages of all the groups it labels the way it does which is primarly for fundraising purposes. And one more just now got labeled in that fashion.

Does anyone see a fundamental problem with this--no criticism on the SPLC page, but SPLC POV to encourage fundraising gets placed on all Wiki pages of all its targets? Is this SPLC-o-pedia? Think. I'm not opposed to SPLC. It's just that one way or another, Wikipedia policy is being flouted by people using a double standard to promote/protect the SPLC. The solution is to allow the SPLC page to contain criticism just like any other page.

Notice the other double standard. Like Westbender left in that a controversy exists on the Banned Books Week page but removed the contents of that controversy, notice in contrast how the National Organization for Marriage now contains both the existence of and the substance of the SPLC's POV claims. That's another double standard.

Are there people out there willing to apply Wikipedia rules to do the right thing and apply Wikipedia rules consistently to pages being protected by the many promoting the SPLC, and to the SPLC page itself?

Here are more sources for criticism of the SPLC:

John Egerton, "Shades of Gray: Dispatches From the Modern South," Dec 1991, Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 978-0807117057, page 222
Steven M. Chermak, "Searching For a Demon: the Media Construction of the Militia Movement," 30 Nov 2002, University Press of New England, ISBN 978-1555535414, page 94
Gregg Lee Carter, "Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia," 31 Dec 2002, ABC-CLIO Ltd, ISBN 978-1576072684, page 338
John B. Parrott, "Being Like God: How American Elites Abuse Politics and Power," 28 Aug 2003, University Press of America, ISBN 978-0761826156, page 99

Will someone please add them to the SPLC Talk page? I can't. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And, this just in, the American Family Association has just been festooned with the SPLC propaganda. At this point I think we can start to call it what it apparently is being used as, may we not? You can't really label dozens of organizations as hate groups by adding the SPLC tattoo, can you?

From the AFA page, added by 128.172.134.91 on his second edit ever, who then moved on to festoon Bryan Fischer with the homophobia/SPLC tattoo:

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a watchdog group monitoring neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, announced that it would officially include the AFA on its list of homophobic hate groups, citing remarks made by Bryan Fischer.ref http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda, Intelligence Report, Winter 2010 issue

From the NOM page, added by Exploding Boy:

The Southern Poverty Law Center included NOM on its winter 2010 list of anti-gay groups, a list based on "propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." ref name=SPLC cite web |url= http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners |title= 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda |publisher= http://splcenter.org |accessdate= 2010-11-22 |last= Schlatter |first= Evelyn /ref

Is anybody seeing a pattern here? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Try minimizing your commentary about what else is happening and speculations as to other editors biases. Just wait out your block, and then engage with the community constructively. Also, given your propensity to focus on criticism sections of articles, I'd hope you've read through this essay Wikipedia:CRITICISM. Westbender (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC page has a near complete lack of criticism, not criticism that lacks compliance with WP:CRITICISM. However, thanks for providing that link. I'll use it and WP:BRD as I take actions to seek Wikipedia compliance in all those articles the SPLC has been added to as a means to label many people and organizations in possible violation of WP:BLP, etc. And I have no "propensity to focus on criticism sections of articles". Rather, I see pages that are written as advertising pamphlets and adding criticism is one way to resolve that. For example, the Judith Krug page was a near word for word copy of the version that appeared on the American Library Association's web site, and she worked at the ALA for 4 decades. Criticism, among other things, is now present and the page is now Wikiworthy. Soon, the SPLC page will become Wikiworthy, as will all those pages where SPLC has been added prominently, like in the lead section, to promote the SPLC's POV that benefits its pecuniary interests. There's no other explanation for the prominence of SPLC quotes as to how evil various groups are, while at the same time the SPLC page itself has almost no criticism at all. I'm not anti-SPLC. What I am is pro Wikipedia. Wikipedia is improved if, for example, the SPLC page is accurate and not merely an advertising brochure. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You do understand it is the community that decides what is "wikiworthy", right? Not you with some magic, infallible, wand. Westbender (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Westbender, I know you are new here. I promise you, I have worked many times with many different people improving many different pages. Your comment, "Not you with some magic, infallible, wand," is just you again violating WP:CIVIL. Even Will Beback warned you of this when he said on your Talk page, "Comments like this one aren't helpful.[5] Even when an editor is being uncivil that doesn't give everyone else permission to act the same way. See WP:CIVIL." I really fail to see the apparent joy you get out of using your time to come here and harass me, as almost all your edits ever on Wikipedia are somehow related to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Try editing now

Sorry I forgot about your autoblock (as usual). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! It works! Thanks! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias warring

Please don't edit war with the bias template. You'd be more productive if you focused on describing such biases on the talk page rather than getting banned for readding a template. Thanks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. So I reverted once on general principles particularly given his history comment, twice on the strength of what you told him, but I won't do it further. And I did add a section to Talk asking people to assist in this area. Again, I won't do it further today. Thanks for commenting here. Let me say I see he has said things on his User Talk page that were intended to prejudice you against me. I am certain you will keep an open mind. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:3RR does not entitle you to up to two reverts, as you seem to imply above. ONly revert when policy and consensus allows, not on "general principles" or "history comment[s]". You're playing with fire. Westbender (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but, as usual, the way you cast what is happening is not the complete truth. I also referred above to "the strength of what [Falcon8765] told him." Here is what Falcon8765 told BalancedAndFair: "Regardless, insulting other editors is not acceptable, despite whatever actions they may have taken. Please don't do it again and discuss whatever issue you have civilly. The template itself doesn't need consensus to be included as long as the person who added it starts a discussion, it's used to invite editors to join such discussion, see {{NPOV}}. Thank you." Westbender, please stop spinning everything I say. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bryan Fischer. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Westbender (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Westbender, you consistently make uncivil comments about or to me, and nearly 100% of all your Wikipedia edits are devoted to me or to reverting my edits. Now, you may be engaging in template abuse, whatever that is, but I have heard people speak of it.

I have not been edit warring on that page. I reverted an edit that restored an incorrect reference and removed a citation tag. I also reverted an edit that removed a BIAS tag.

Although the tag was removed in a disruptive fashion for the second time, I did not revert further. At this point, the BIAS tag is gone. I will not restore it. I have merely continued on in Talk discussing the page, just as Falcon8765 recommended.

No edit warring is taking place, not even close. Prove it otherwise. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic; my edit history is irrelevant to the fact that you reverted multiple times, thus, edit warring. Perhaps you should go find some other article -- outside your off-wiki domain of interest -- to improve. Perhaps there's something here you can do, without causing controversy. Westbender (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I said, "No edit warring is taking place, not even close. Prove it otherwise." Your response is that I "reverted multiple times, thus, edit warring." Please provide the diffs proving edit warring on Bryan Fischer. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted at least five times since 23:02 UTC last night. Given your block log, it's probably lucky for you that I've decided to protect the page instead. And yes, it wasn't just you that was edit-warring - it takes two. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim here is that I am edit warring on Bryan Fischer, hence the title of this subsection named "Bryan Fischer". Black Kite, you are known to me to be an experienced editor. In your opinion, do you see me edit warring on Bryan Fischer? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Given your block log, it's probably lucky for you that I've decided to protect the page instead." Now I understand why people make false claims about edit warring, like this current Bryan Fischer one. If enough smoke piles up, eventually some may see fire.

To think that I was so close to being blocked again, by you this time, just for making normal edits on the Bryan Fischer page, simply because a newbie who dedicates almost 100% of his edits to denigrating me or reverting my work comes here and makes a false claim of edit warring which is simply not true even in the slightest. That is truly outstanding that that is the hair line trigger it takes for people to block others. Just make a false allegation, then let others view all the false allegations as a whole and block the guy again.

Show me the diffs where I edit warred on Bryan Fischer. If there are none, then this matter is void ab initio. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You were edit warring with me [6][7], which was an extension of the edit warring you were doing here: [8], [9]. You moved the edit war to a different page, and now you're taunting someone to call you on it. Done.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go update the SPLC page. Seems the Family Research Institute has been deemed a hate group. About darn time. Have a great Thanksgiving! --BalancedAndFair (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For the Bryan Fischer page, you produced two edits. One reverted your revision that removed a citation tag and moved a ref from the correct sentence to the wrong sentence. The other reverted your removal of the BIAS tag. When you removed it a second time, I did not revert again, nor will I. Neither of those edits is edit warring. Thank you for proving that this Bryan Fischer subsection is void ab initio as no edit warring occurred on Bryan Fischer.

And stop outing me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As to your first paragraph: Wrong! As to your second: the "stop outing me" charge didn't work when you were using it against Will Beback, and it's not working now. Stop using Wikipedia to push advocacy for your off-Wiki censorship hobbies. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. 3RR is a fairly bright line, and if you make more than 3 reverts - of anything - on the same article in 24h then technically you should really be blocked. On Bryan Fischer, your multiple edits (UTC) at 23 November 23:02-23:07 were removing content added previously, you then readded the BIAS tag at 23:51 (another revert) and then two standard reverts at 24 November 17:03 & 17:55. Now that's anything between four and seven reverts depending on how you count it, but regardless it's contrary to WP:EW/WP:3RR. Not only that, but your 17:03 edit summary was "rv v" when it clearly wasn't vandalism. Still, this is all moot now because the page is protected, so can we please work out if Fischer is notable or not on the talkpage? Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked BalancedAndFair indefinitely for coming here with the sole intent of harassing you. That said, stop edit warring, now, and pay attention to the warnings. I'm going to unlock the article - I highly suggest that if you reinstate the the bias tag, and another editor removes it, that you let it be. In fact, I highly suggest you abide by WP:1RR per day because I will be watching you. Please use the talk page for disputes; do not simply revert other editors. Please do not take this as harassment from me: if you can abide by community norms, you will have my utmost support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FINALLY! THANK YOU! What a huge weight off my shoulders! I have BalancedAndFair, Westbender, and Will Beback after my every move, the first two with the nastiest of behavior, I have Will Beback and BalancedAndFair talking together about gathering diffs to start an ANI and ban me, and never once does anybody help me in the slightest, until you. Fred Bauder helped me with Will Beback's outing of me. BalancedAndFair outed me, I informed OTRS, but that was yesterday and I know of no response yet. So, once again, THANK YOU so much! I'll follow your suggestions about 1RR, etc.

I think the problem is a group of editors assume everything I do is a problem because they assume I have an agenda in mind instead of Wiki rules. When someone who does not know I'm supposed to be bad comes along, then there's no problem. For example, last night someone added the SPLC's anti-gay claim to the lead paragraph of some page, I reverted that for POV. That edit of mine is the very type that has been drawing instant attention to me by BalancedAndFair, Westbender, etc. That guy who first added it immediately added it back in. Ckatz reverted it again, thus removing it, then remarking on the Talk page that that other editor violated BRD. EXACTLY! I really feel this is the reason why the likes of BalancedAndFair, Westbender, and Will Beback spread as much misinformation about me as possible (like I'm being accused of calling people demons!!) so that they can prejudice editors against me, instead of doing the right thing, like Ckatz and Fred Bauder did, and like you have just done.

Please, keep an eye on me. I encourage that 100%. You may be Magog the Ogre, but I view you as Magog the Angel. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and actually I suggest you pay attention to Will. He's been around a long time and he doesn't come to Wikipedia with an ax to grind (at least that I know of). Even without reviewing his comments to you, I imagine it is entirely possible and even if your best interests for you to heed them - again, even if he isn't on your "side." Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And I'll bet with one less person harassing me, it'll be easier for me to edit without wild accusations being made about me that draws the attention of others, including Will. I have always respected Will. About 2 weeks back he changed like overnight and adapted the Westbender/BalancedAndFair way of viewing my edits. Maybe BalancedAndFair being indef blocked will help resolve that issue. Then there's another issue with Will. After going through that recent WP:LAME incident, I brought my concerns to the likely fora for discussion. Will Beback showed up to poison the well so, e.g., the first response to me was "I don't think this has been a problem for anyone but you. Calling other editors 'CABALDEMONS' is a personal attack - please assume good faith." I don't know why anyone would be interested in discussing the substantive issues after that. Since Will was a participant in that recent 3RR incident and even outed me, we already know how he feels, so his giving the tipoff to everyone else who might respond that my concern is really nothing is another problem I am sensing with Will. And Will being as respected as he is makes his statements like that have even more effect. Indeed, no one else has responded. There's no discussion. I really do not appreciate Will's doing that, and I do not think it benefits Wikipedia to cut off debate. He's not on anyone's side if he's cutting off debate and prejudicing people against others. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

you sure like to bloviate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.166.43 (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Hate group. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

Hi. I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Heck I even followed BRD and encouraged a newbie to do so and he responded by attacking me. So, on the talk page I even said, "I'll be practicing 1RR for a while so I won't revert it myself". I couldn't be more careful. Would you please explain what was the transgression this time? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And let me ask you this. Assuming I get the usual stream of people only making ad hominem comments about me, am I allowed to just remove them off my talk page instead of responding? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

On another page an editor said to me she was really pleased to work so well with other editors. Actaully, it was the Bryan Fischer page. She said, "Incidentally, I'd like to congratulate all the participants in this talk page for its welcome absence of trollery. We don't all agree all the time, but we can disagree in a constructive way. (Sanity rather than fear is being retained)." Really, I'm confused as to this latest block. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove anything you'd like from your talk page, save unblock requests during your block. I recommend you don't remove any constructive comments, as it's seen as a type of disruption. Also, to address the issue: you did not follow BRD. You reverted twice. Given that this is your third edit war since I unblocked you on your own recognizance, and I specifically gave a warning regarding more than 1RR, I've had to block your account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand. I specifically reverted a guy once. When he restored it, I simply asked him to consider BRD, and after he attacked me, I went to the Talk page and asked the community to look at it, specifically saying I could not revert further due to 1RR. There was another guy with a different edit though similar, and I only reverted him once as well. I simply do not see what you are saying. Sorry, I suppose I must be really think. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1 2. Cmon bro, you're trying to tell me you didn't know you'd reverted twice? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

One reverted was this: The Family Research Council is classified a hate group for its broad opposition and denigration of LGBT people.

The second reverted was this: /ref The Southern Poverty Law Center has also designated the Family Research Council a hate group. ref name="SPLC-18-List" cite news|last=Waddington|first=Lynda|title=Groups that Helped Oust Iowa Judges Earn 'Hate Group' Designation; SPLC Adds American Family Association, Family Research Council to List|url=http://iowaindependent.com/47947/groups-that-helped-oust-iowa-judges-earn-hate-group-designation%7Caccessdate=25 November 2010|newspaper=Iowa Independent|date=23 November 2010 /ref ref name="WaPo hate" cite news|last=Thompson|first=Krissah|title='Hate group' designation angers same-sex marriage opponents|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112405573.html%7Caccessdate=25 November 2010|newspaper=Washington Post|date=24 November 2010 /ref

They are totally different edits made by different people.

Further, I did not revert further after the other guy failed to practice BRD.

Are you telling me that's a violation? If it is, can you not see I had awareness of 1RR and attempted to follow it? If there was a problem, why did you not just give me a hint. Now you have given people more ammunition to continue to harass me. I really do not appreciate this in the slightest. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy who wrote that nasty comment above already laughed at me for being blocked again. Is this really necessary? Does it look like I'm going wild? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reread 1RR. I made a mistake and assumed edit warring meant warring with a single person. Now I see "An editor must not perform more than [one] reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." So now I see it pertains to the page, not just to people. I'm guilty. I apologize. I understand now. I will not violate 1RR further. Will you please unblock me? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will consider it. The problem is your editing behavior overall lends to edit warring before discussing, and I see that as a problem. Give me a bit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My behaviour is fine with other editors who behave, mainly polite and/or experienced editors. Look at the Talk on Bryan Fischer, for example. Someone even praised how great it was that we were all getting along so well. Then TFD showed up, made ad hominem comments about me, ignored the work we did as a community, and he's the guy who kept removing the BIAS tag that I reverted before I knew what would happen. I am telling you ther are quite a number of people like TFD who harass me on a regular basis and make false claims about me that causes other to doubt me, like you. Please, go look at the Bryan Fischer Talk. See that it's like a mini microcosm of what I face simply because I make edits that people think are political on pages they are protecting. Look at what TFD said. Was that right? Look at what Tom Northshoreman said about me. How about the botton of SPLC talk -- see Dave Dial and Blaxthos? Do you think I have a fair chance as all with people like that protecting pages? How about this. People bring actions against me but I don't do it back. Do you suggest I start doing that? Balxthos called me a vandal for adding a BIAS tag that people are discussing and the article is improving. Should I do anything about that? Should I start fighting back instead of letting these people tag team me? Please, guide me. It is totally silly how these people gang up on me, complain about me, and suddenly I'm the bad guy. It's not that way with decent editors though. Ask Black Kite. Heck even ask Limulus who was originally really annoying with me. Ask the other editors on Bryan Fischer or on just about any other page where I am not drawing personal attacks. TFD, Dave Dial, Blaxthos, Westbender, Tom Northshoreman, these are people who go on the attack instantly and work together to stop me from editing. It's really quite frustrating. I saw you warned TFD, but that was it. He really suffered no consequences for his behaviour that been gone on for what, years? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I've unblocked you again. I can't well block you for violating BRD when you only do it twice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And you can see below I'm trying to take some action to control the harassment. Thanks again. And if there is such a thing as removing "unjustified" blocks from my block record, that would help cut back on harassment as well. You have been a doll. Magog the Angel. No need to respond. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I Will Remove Harassing Comments, Templates, and Outings

New news for my Talk page.

I will be undoing all harassing comments as minor edits and without comment.
I get to determine whether or not it is harassing. If, for example, it sounds polite but it is really just a lull in a continuation of a pattern of harassment, I will remove it.
Any comments or history notes that are WP:OUTINGs will not only be reverted as minor edits and without comment, but will be handled as an OUTING, wasting everyone's time, so just don't do it. I do not want my name or address on Wikipedia. The web sites of mine that I link do not contain my name or address on page I link from WP. Every single time I am outed, it has been malicious in nature. I have been outed about 5 times by about 4 editors, including 1 sysop.
Even if not strictly viewed by me as harassing, any comments that contain any content that relates to me personally or to any other editors will be removed, and I get to make that determination.
Harassment that consists of templating me for rules violations will be reverted as well. See WP:HUSH. If you are one of my regular harassers and you find a legitimate reason to leave a legitimate template, ask someone to leave it for you.
A look at my Talk page reveals a pattern of harassment by a number of people, some of whom have dedicated entire accounts to attacking me or reverting my edits on certain pages in a manner that violates a number of WP rules and policies. One has even been indefinitely banned due to this. I simple will not allow my Talk page to continue to be used in this fashion.
The results of leaving such personal attacks and the like on my Talk page has not been good for me as the complaints, when viewed by otherwise objective sources, begin to get people to thinking where there's smoke, there's fire. I'm removing the smoke.
The above rules may change as the WP:CABAL members change tactics to evade this rules.
It is hoped that a reduction in the harassment left visible on my page will result in a reduction of my being blocked, and that these rules will further that goal.
These rules are intended to be observant of WP:HARASS. That says, e.g., "If you feel you are being harassed, first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). It is hard to over-emphasize this." Undoing all harassing comments as minor edits and without comment is intended as the means by which I will act calmly. It is hoped things will become WP:CIVIL as a result.

Everyone else is welcome to continue on as if the harassers never visiting my page nor outed me. Thanks everyone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that [10] is a legitimate attempt to discuss with you; I suggest you reinsert it and/or take it to that discussion page. Otherwise it looks like you're refusing to discuss and/or ignoring it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That comment is, taken by itself, legitimate, this time. However, there is context. The context is that that user has never missed an opportunity to harass me, so far as I recall. He often starts with innocuous, reasonable looking concerns, but they escalate from there. Indeed, while writing this there was an edit conflict, and I found and removed another comment of his intended to speak about my editing habits generally, instead of that single page. So, before I even get to respond to you, I have already been handed evidence on a silver platter. And I overwrite that comment. Further, his entire use of Wikipedia has been, right from the beginning, except for a few edits here and there, directed at me, my edits, or the pages I edit. Further, there are people external to Wikipedia who, working together, harass me for perhaps years now. Entire web sites are devoted to harassing me. I am 100% certain he is among those who harass me externally. I will not have discussion with him under these circumstances. As a result, I fully expect that my level of feeling harassed will drop significantly, and the other harassers he attracts with will be gone as well. I do speak with him on Talk pages though, just not mine, and I speak on substantive issues. He can bring the issue up there and I will discuss--I will not let him harass me by forcing me to move his comment there. Let him do it. If his comment is important to the page, he can speak there, I'll see it. There will be no more harassment by him on my Talk page. I'm done with that. And what a relief that is to me. I'll bet it'll be a relief to many others who have to deal with fewer WP:LAME incidents as a result of the reduction in his ability to start them in the first place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To Westbender, I suggest that if LAEC doesn't want you commenting on his talk page, you don't. To LAEC, if you don't want people commenting on your talk page, I suggest you point them to the talk page of the article where there's a problem, and discuss it nicely there. Is this so hard, guys? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I welcome comments. But not those from WP:BULLYs. Those days are over. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

discussion at {{Bias}}

Hi LegitimateAndEvenCompelling,

I have started a discussion at Template talk:POV#change message.

Maybe we can plug the hole that all of us editors at SPLC fell into.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll take a look. And thanks for your support on the SPLC Talk page. When people are coming at you like those people do, a voice of reason willing to stand up is especially welcome. I believe part of the reason for the loud group attack to is send the message to intimidate others from getting involved. Thanks again for your support. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Westbender (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Kevinkor2, I have read something that totally vindicates my view that, like the BIAS tag says, the BIAS tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved or language should be updated to say otherwise. See Alecmconroy's comments at Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#Proposal to add language to deter edit-wars over the NPOV tag: "we should clarify what the tag means, and sort of 'raise the burden of proof' for someone wishing to take the tag down...." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For lending support to my arguments at the SPLC article's talk page. It certainly seems to me that Wikipedia policy favors the kind of editing that I made in the lead. I plan to take a good look at the whole article over the next few days. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. If you have not already noticed, the people opposing you now are the very ones protecting the page for a long time, usually with the absolutely meanest of ad hominem argumentation. They will stop at nothing to bring procedural complaints against you to force you to stop editing, or they will work as a tag team to wear you down and get you to give up. They will read this and cry to high heavens that I am saying this in bad faith. No, it is simply fact, and I say it to urge you to dot your i's and cross your t's so that you too do not fall prey to the pack. I mean really now. If they were not working as a pack to beat down any and all comers, why would people like you have to come to the Talk pages of people like me to thank me? Why would putting quotation marks around quotations that they want instead to appear without quotation marks as fact set in stone be so controversial but for the pack mentality? Don't give up, Badmintonhist. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Legit, you're probably a lot younger than I am so don't feel that I'm being too condescending. Don't take all of the nonsense too personally and get too worked up about it. After all, Wikipedia is really just a hobby for folks with time on their hands. True, lot's of ordinary people use it for information but it's not taken seriously as a reliable source by anyone with brains. How could it be when anyone can change an article at any time? As for some of your less than welcoming colleagues, learn to enjoy the battle (if it comes down to that). For example I've had all sorts of run-ins with Blaxthos over the three years or so that I've been editing. Believe it or not he actually awarded me a barnstar early on. Humorous comebacks are the best ways to deal with his crappola which, admittedly, can be annoying. Though extremely partisan he is also, at times, amenable to reasoned argument, especially when he sees the tide starting to turn against his position. At any rate try to have fun with it all and DON'T LET THEM SEE YOU WHINE.Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good advice. I'll try it. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(: I just reread WP:LAME. I especially liked the bot edit-warring with iteself! :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism

High, i remembered that you provided me with some much needed and very helpful information when i had issues with people wanting to change my user name and now these same people are involved in an issue with the above mentioned article.

I was wondering if you could give me some help and possible input from your outside opinion regarding the lead of the Article Unite Against Fascism. There have been many arguments with regards to this article due to the fact that a LEFT WING label has been added to the lead which 2 sources provided (one from the times, one from the IBT) would you be able to tell me if these sources are adequate for applying the left wing label and if possible leave your input on the Unite against fascism discussion page. Personally i believe the sources are adequate to apply the label and this label is being rejected by users (such as Snowded) because they have a non neutral POV. If you could help me it would be brilliant news. Let me know. Many thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I saw the NPOV Noticeboard issue on the topic and I commented with what I believe to be a fresh point of view, although there was just too much for me to read there and elsewhere to see if such a point of view was not already supplied or if I could have contributed more effectively. However, I think what I said makes sense and I hope it helps. After quickly looking at it, it appears to me that "left-wing" is reliably sourced and not undue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion notice: smallcaps and LORD

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Time?

Well, I obviously cannot get home in time so I can do what I needed to do. Chill. Or better, maybe respond to my detailed response to you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to chill. The details, the call for diffs, the volume, it's just too much right now. Besides, chilling is more in line with your suggestion with which I am now complying.

I see you are just starting to get the picture and I see you are seeking to intervene. I prefer to let that process continue. I think either the guy will stop attacking, or he will continue, and either way it will obviate the need for me to comply with questions that only arose precisely because of that guy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Be aware that Dylan deleted your comment. THF (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I restored it. I'll be going off the computer for a day or so. If he does anything like that again, please restore it. Further, if there was any action I should have taken other than merely readding the comment, please let me know, or please take such action yourself if you have standing to do so.

If any action is taken by anyone to temporarily ban/block/whatever him, please include the link here. He just called me a troll for making extremely polite comments on his Talk page in the "Redemption" section, then he banned me from further writing on that page. He said I was trolling, which he says is different from calling me a troll. I have requested help from User_Talk:Gwen_Gale#Q on this. I read an admin's comment suggesting not to ban people because they may change. In that spirit I wrote something very friendly. I was rebuffed as a troll (by DF and PrBeacon), a harasser (by DF on Gwen Gale's Talk page), etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DF

I think it would be best to restore your name to that list and avoid further trouble. Then take it to a friendly admin and ask them to erase the whole list, as it's basically an "enemies list" anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll do it myself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I informed the blocking admin, and asked him to semi the page while he's there, which should fend off the IP impostor(s) riff-raff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I had in mind to remove the others for the reason you are but sensed that would not be so hotsy totsy if I were to do it.

I have seen a number of editors who battled with me or created accounts just to battle with me blocked indef recently. One more to go and it should be smooth sailing for me after that.

I would like to apologize to you. I think I may have said something not so hotsy totsy to you in the past, but please forgive me as I believe it may have occurred while I was under assault from one of those indef accounts. Sorry.

Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, although I don't recall anything specifically. I let most insults slide off, like the snow on the Metrodome roof (well, maybe that's not the best analogy). As long as they don't call me an "upstart", I'm OK. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You're an "unkempt youngster". Like James Taylor... Doc talk 12:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What do do?

I'm wondering if you would be willing to offer an opinion on this. It really puzzles me... the user most involved in those articles is trying to establish notability by sources such as [11] [12] [13]. He has a good point that the show has aired around the world. Yet, does that fact alone establish notability? Does it offer enough third party sources to make an article? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's my conclusion. These stories are about something supposedly wildly popular in parts of the world where, due to language issues, references I understand may be hard to find. So it is not surprising to me to see a paucity of RSs. On the other hand, there may be lots of them but I just don't understand the foreign languages involved. Perhaps there's a foreign language Wikipedia that should write these articles, while the English language one simply points to the other.

Calm-sah-hahm-needah, but I'm going to choose not to get involved in that discussion since I don't want to even accidentally step on anyone's toes simply because I may be missing out on the whole picture.

That said, it does raise an interesting point in my mind. Like criticism of liberal cause célèbres like SPLC or positive news about conservative interests, is it really absent or is it just absent from the mainstream media for political correctness reasons and the bias of the MSM? Are stories about Pukka really absent or is it just absent from the mainstream media for language reasons and the bias of the MSM? Regarding the latter, I just don't know, so I choose not to step into that arena.

Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes that was helpful as your idea that it might be better just to point to different 'Pedias might help solve the issue. I think WP:MAINSTREAM answers your thoughts about media. WP seems to take the most traditional or most oligarchical approach rather than necessarily the most rational. You might have a newspaper which was a very RS, versus an opinion piece in the NYT, and WP would choose the New York Times ever day. I guess it's the worst alternative except for the others. And if the most widely revered sources get infiltrated by a certain POV, it would take many years for it to change. Also, the university system tends to turn out liberals, and many of what we call RS tend to pick up university grads. The argument is over whether the liberalism is the result of education or the education system is the result of liberalism, right? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming here to ask me questions. While I didn't exactly answer this time, please write again. Each situation is different. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, just for you, I did some original research today. I went to a large comic book store. It had manga as well. The one guy said he did not know/hear of anything Pucca, but the other would know as he was experienced in that region. The other guy never heard of Pucca. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I should have checked back here earlier. That's great :P I currently have no idea what path to take, without a change in WP policy. I was thinking that if it hasn't established notability for a year/half year/month (whatever) after the first notability tag is inserted, then it can be deleted without discussion, or deleted at AfD if no notable sources are found during the discussion. But as to doing anything about these articles which litter WP without such a rule, I give up. Any thoughts? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there is some appropriate notice board or village pump or something to raise this issue with. My advice would be to get all the ducks in a row on your first post wherever that may be, but too much detail might be overwhelming. That said, know that I am just taking a random wild guess. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I know there are a lot of editors who would be behind a push to actually apply the sourcing and notability rules and delete what can't be sourced, but getting the energy behind it would be difficult. I should probably check the histories of the policy pages and canvass those users. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen people get blocked for what appeared like legitimate canvassing. So go carefully with that. Perhaps just posting to the board alone would already attract the attention of the people who watch the board. Again, that's just a guess on my behalf.

As an aside, let me say it's been a pleasure editing with you. No, we do not always agree, but that's besides the point. After going through the recent you-know-who affair, one realizes how appreciative he is to edit with others who adheres to Wiki guidelines and work cooperatively to build a better encyclopedia. So thanks very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been great working with you too (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)