User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Ban

LAEC, if you contest your block I would propose a topic ban on articles related to libraries and censorship, and a civility/AGF parole. They are two separate issues. You are a known activist regarding libraries and censorship, and you have used WP as a platform for your advocacy on those topics. Also, you have consistently failed to assume good faith or acted harshly in regard to other editors. I warned you in November that I was concerned about these issues but I haven't seen a change in behavior. I would support your unblock if you agree to these restrictions.   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban would fix everything here. We have a user who loudly complains about being outed, despite having links to a blog and website where his identity can easily be found. The same user who complains about being outed goes on to out an anonymous IP on his blog. I would support lifting the block if the blog post was removed and a topic ban was put in place. AniMate 13:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, based on a number of factors, I am beginning to feel that you are pushing hard for your solution and will have no other. What's that link to the I Did Not Hear That essay? I said above that Magog the Ogre has said my editing style is now totally acceptable, even on the pages about which you complain. But you did not hear that. You did not hear when Magog the Ogre said it. You did not hear when I mentioned what he said. You did not hear the others who have supported me, some of which support came in direct response to your persistent efforts to topic ban me. You have now used the ANI to leapfrog to your position, and leapfrog right over Magog the Ogre and others, and I believe the blocking admin has not yet even finished his determination. I think what you are doing itself evidences a lack of good faith, the very thing you claim about me for lacking when dealing with the numerous harassers who devote themselves to me. So no, your solution is not acceptable as it leapfrogs over others involved here, including the blocking admin, ignores the extremely detailed and positive comments about my editing improvements by Magog the Ogre, and seeks to accomplish the very goal apparently sought by the apparent ALA supporters/new IP addys at ANI, namely the removal of my external blog post that is not only newsworthy, but other news outlets are already linking to it. Why some editors have even commented that the problem is what's reported in my external blog post, not my reporting it in the first place.

In summary, I prefer to remain blocked while the community sorts this out. The blocking admin has been far fairer to me than Will Beback, by far. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I do appreciate Will Beback's asking Westbender on Westbender's Talk if Westbender is a sock, not in so many words. If you want to see that, look fast, as Westbender has a habit of deleting my comments and those favorable to me. Thanks, Will Beback, apparently you are listening to me after all and are looking into whether my concerns are legitimate and even compelling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot recommend ever lifting this block. In November you successfully lobbied to have a number of edits oversighted because they outed you. You go on to post an entry to a blog that is linked from your user page that outs an anonymous user. You know that outing isn't acceptable as demonstrated by your campaign to have edits oversighted and at your blog admit your outing of the IP addresses is "something I learned later I should not have done". It seems to me you've clearly violated WP:Outing and have also run afoul of Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment. You have deemed your blog post newsworthy, and as long as it remains you should not have your editing privileges restored. AniMate 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with not lifting the block, at least until the blocking admin comes back with his promised review of the situation. You are confusing my on Wiki activities with my off Wiki activities. It's easy to do in this particular case so I don't blame you one bit. Conclusory statements finding me guilty before the blocking admin completes his review serve no positive purpose. Others have deemed my blog post newsworthy, 2 others, so far. I can't help that though I welcome it. I also welcome the comments of editors here that my blog post raises serious issues, far more serious than my writing a blog post external to Wikipedia about a potentially serious incident. Your implication that I should voluntarily self-censor myself is understandable but drastic, and ironic since the ALA is the nation's leader in opposing "censorship", the brand new IP addys may be ALA members or supporters, and the ALA anonymously promoted Free Press. I see the push here to have me voluntarily limit my on Wiki activities and self-censor my off Wiki activities before the blocking admin has completed his review. But I choose to remain blocked as I await his results. I even see Will Beback is starting to get the picture based on his comments on Westbender's Talk page.

So let me create this new subsection, "LAEC proposed solution".

LAEC proposed solution

How about this. As I go from page to page and see people pushing ALA propaganda, and I proved that in my off Wiki blog post, how about if do a 0RR where I first discuss the issue on the Talk page. If the usual page protectors show up, then I escalate to the appropriate board. Perhaps I can even avail myself of a mentor to help me through the issue. It is not my fault the ALA and/or its acolytes are using Wikipedia to promote unencyclopedic material, that I have the knowledge to identify this, or that they themselves battle me. How about instead of addressing the issue by reversion, instead I use the Talk page and go to a mentor if it becomes evident that wiki policy is not being observed. A number of people would be adequate mentors. How about the blocking admin, for example. Magog the Ogre has already said I am unusually amenable to guidance, and KimdvLinde has already helped me to stop responding to the attacks of the various harassers, besides, some are now blocked. So that's good. Now I'll do 0RR on pages within my COI, use Talk, then escalate to the mentor if needed. Cool? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your response above only shows a continued elaborate attempt to justify your behavior, perpetuate a persecution myth, and remove any idea of personal culpability. COI and advocacy, violations of WP:AGF at the drop of a hat, off-wiki harassment, and edit warring (for all of which you have been blocked) are not some diseases that we should be patient while you slowly heal from... you've made it very clear that you're just trying to learn how to fight your battles without sanction. I have zero faith that you're here to constructively build a consensus-based encyclopedia, and I do not support removing your indefinite block. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If I were in your shoes, if I had solid evidence that the ALA or anyone else was abusing wikipedia to push a personal agenda that I personally oppose, I would take it to a trusted admin, preferably via e-mail rather than openly (and potentially libelously if you get it wrong), to ask the admin to look into it. On-wiki, I would divorce myself from the entire issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I raised the issue off-Wiki. On-wiki, this is only an issue because of the AN/I, and I could not help that. Indeed someone suggested removing the link to my blog post, etc., and I agreed with that. But it never happened. And here we are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, raising it off wiki was the wrong response. You did NOT contact an admin you trusted, you went to your own blog. Removing the link to your blog would not have helped.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have been clearer and said to do it privately, not visible to the world, be it on or off wiki. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have been clearer too. I raised no issues off wiki intended to address resolution of on wiki issues. The relevant accounts are years old anyway. What I raised off wiki was issues of deception at the highest levels of the ALA that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, but for the evidence of said deception being entirely on Wikipedia servers. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It might have occurred to you that they would fight fire with fire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you seem not to realize that regardless of how you did it, you outed an on wiki editor. Whatever noble cause you have, it is not okay here, and if you want to do that, you better not edit here. You basically have to make a choice. Do you want to fight a fight off-wiki outing wikipedia editors, or do you want to be a wikipedia editor? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The blog post was not an outing. Indeed, Baseball Bugs already noted at the ANI that she outed herself. Further, I am not prosecuting my "noble cause" at Wikipedia. Besides, getting back to my proposed solution, any problems whatsoever of the like occurring so far will be completely alleviated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if this is your response, I feel that the indef block is justified. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

1. You keep trying to justify the outing. The blog post was an outing.
2. Baseball bugs is incorrect. The remaining info does not out her. The relevant info has been long ago over-sighted.
3. You are using wikipedia edits for you noble cause off-wiki. Outing people off-wiki does not gel with on-wiki activity. You have to choose (which means that if you want to stay on Wikipedia, you delete your blogpost).
4. The proposed solution is insufficient. 0RR is a start (for the whole wiki), but a ban to all pages related to AFA, censorship etc is required. The reason for that is your tendency to discuss the editors, not the content. If I was to propose a deal, I would propose a ban on addressing the editors (ANYWHERE) on 24-hour block sanctions (with incremental increases if you return to previous incidents after coming out of a block). If you are here to make an encyclopedia, that wouldn't be an issue. For serious issues related to other editors, I would propose a trusted admin to be contacted off-wiki. I hear already one objection from you, what about responding to other editors. Well, you do not have to respond to them, focus on the content.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. So you are a ban advocate who seeks that I should voluntarily self-censor. The section above is for discussing such a ban. See above where I addressed such a ban is inappropriate where we still await further input from the blocking admin. I also address how Magog the Ogre has provided solid and substantial evidence that I have been editing quite appropriately under his guidance. I have even followed your own guidance and now let the attacks go--like when Blaxthos attacked above and all I did was thank him. So your proposed solution is premature, draconian, and partly based on old information. Thanks for contributing here, however, and thanks for your excellent advice that I follow. I will continue to seek your advice, if you don't mind. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on having you outing remain, than yes, I agree with the indef block. And as you can see below, Magog the Ogre suggests the same. If that is unacceptable, you're out of here.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the ALA person had outed herself here. What I meant was that she apparently acknowledged, off-wiki, that she was indeed the source of some of the IP edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that outing? Can be send by e-mail to me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about statements made by the ALA lady that were quoted in LAEC's blog, which kind of started this whole discussion. Now, if she was mis-quoted, that would be another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

--Quote removed--

If that quote is accurate, then the ALA lady has essentially outed herself and admitted to at least some of the charges leveled against her, albeit in a Watergate-style "non-denial denial". If the quote is not accurate, then LAEC has some 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And below, Magog the Ogre says, "At one point, the librarian outed herself." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, the outing was in this edit [1], which referred to this WP:ANI thread, which leads to the over-sighted edit summary here (at the bottom. The IP-number is user:24.225.240.212, which is not in use currently, so untraceable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And if I may ask, HOW did she/he out herself here? Where is the name in the link? This is someone who wants to keep the link between him/her and his/her workplace separated. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

By admitting to being that user, Dcs47, assuming that user was telling the truth and not some troll trying to sabotage the ALA leader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dcs47's post only says that the post outted her, they don't actually say who they are. The post with the bad edit summary has been deleted, so from just looking at it, only LAEC's blog post provides the link right now. Dcs47 did not out themself - once the IP's post was removed, you can't tell who Dcs47 is. There is no link on-wiki between Dcs47 and a specific person. Ravensfire (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no direct link because the information was suppressed. If you wanted to do the job right, you should have suppressed everything connected with it, including Dcs47's confession, and not just the post that led to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the outing was removed, and as such, the outing on the blog is based on inference, Not actual evidence. An inference that could very well be incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a Watergate-style argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Unless you know what was said in the edit summary, you don't know. What I suspect is that the IP-address was LEAC, and he knows because he wrote it. Alternatively, LEAC has seen the edit summary at the time. If neither, he has no way of knowing who it was and it is inference. Admission that some info is correct does not links it to a name. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, what am I going to believe, your non-denial denial explanation, or my own eyes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see what I see. I do not see a name linked to it. But the admission below clarifies everything. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I was the IP address, when I was new at Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you made an error of outing someone, and than 2.5 years later, you use the same information to out the same person for a second time, now knowingly and willingly.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clever, but no. She outed herself, as I explained, and as Baseball Bugs and Magog the Ogre said. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's just bizzaro-world logic. You outed her. She tried to get help, and in response to an admin's query confirmed the information. Your post is deleted. And it's her fault. That's just wrong. And that you can't see any harm is even worse. Ravensfire (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LAEC, herein lies the problem:

• At one point, you outed yourself. You weren't quiet about it at all [2]. But then you came back and asked that no one out you, ever, no matter the circumstances. The point is you didn't want your behavior on-wiki to be linked to you personally.
• At one point, the librarian outed herself. Then you brought up information about her on your blog in a way that she quite likely would not want linked to her personally.

What goes for the goose, goes for the gander. If you're going to claim that the blog post was appropriate on the grounds of keeping someone accountable, then you've already discredited your own argument, as I have shown above. The fact is that we frown heavily upon outings, on-wiki or off-wiki. The only thing I can think that will work in your favor at this point is to scrub the post from your blog altogether. Mind you, this is not an easy decision, because it means you've had to censor yourself in a way.

My recommendation, if you want to altogether avoid a topic or site ban, is to follow a 0RR restriction on all articles related to libraries or political activism, excepting only obvious WP:BRD reversions and vandalism. And to delete the post on your blog. And to stick your head out, beg for mercy, and ask what can I do to stay in good standing with the community and continue to be a Wikipedia editor? I love Wikipedia, and I want to contribute in a wholesome and neutral manner? It might mean you have to go for a time with a topic ban, and can only come back if you've proven you can edit neutrally elsewhere. Not an ideal solution from your perspective, but better than an indef ban, certainly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if you want to be able to have both, you'll probably have to take your request to ArbCom. I don't see that turning out well for you though. As Wikileaks has shown us, harassment and the push for transparency can be one and the same. Mind you, I think even if you were a long-time editor and administrator, I think your post would have caused an uproar too; so I don't think you're getting the shaft treatment more than anyone else might in your situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Except for deleting my blog post, your solution is essentially my proposed solution, only better. Perhaps. I would still like a mentor. My trouble comes in handling various advocates, like Blaxthos, who removed quotation marks from a quotation because, he said, the quoted material was true. If I had a mentor, at the first Blaxthos attack, for example, I could go to the mentor for guidance. Obviously there are better ways of handling people like that and my way has not been completely successful. A mentor would really help.

But I still await the input of the blocking admin. Further, you yourself said my editing has much improved. This current ANI is not even for editing on Wikipedia. As to outing myself, I never revealed such information and the link you provided does not show it, unless I missed something. Yes, you can easily get it by clicking around, but not directly on the site pages I link, and that's what the rule says. Further, my outers did so as part of ongoing acts of harassment. Except Will Beback. His outing me was misguided but not harassment. And I did not use the blog post "on the grounds of keeping someone accountable". Accountability of a 2 1/2 year old account is not on my radar screen. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a regular user's opinion here: While I don't necessarily disagree with your cause, I don't think that fighting for causes is appropriate within the visible part of wikipedia. Such a battle should be fought off-wiki, or behind the scenes as I said earlier. Wikipedia itself is not supposed to be used as a "battleground". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. That's partly why I raised the non-Wiki issue off Wiki. (Another reason is that I seek no Wiki relief regarding a 2 1/2 year old account on Wiki). There is a battle here though--it's the one where people are glomming together years worth of past editing and seeking that I either A) be permanently banned from Wikpedia or B) self-censor my freedom of speech on my off-wiki blog, or something along those lines. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that it subjects your own editing to scrutiny, due to being on the opposite side of that battle, even if you're "ethically" right in the bigger picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hence my call for a mentor, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the outting though. The "confirmation" post linked is actually in response to someone (you?) outting her via edit summary. That post has been deleted, so from on-wiki information, you cannot say who that person is. She did not out herself - you have. At a minimum, you need to acknowledge that, remove the outting and state you won't do it again. Ravensfire (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As LAEC points out, that's from several years ago. However, the blog in question seems to be dated recently, which is presumably what sparked the complaint, and undercuts the "it was years ago" argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me somewhat, of the recent Fat Man discussion; namely, can a user be held accountable on-wiki for something done off-wiki. LAEC's fatal mistake was in not letting this sleeping dog lie. If he had recent, independent evidence of inappropriate behavior by the ALA babe, then it could have been a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comment, Ravensfire. The key question then is what is an outing. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the person committed a criminal offense. Would it be an outing to reveal, off Wiki, the identity of the criminal? I don't think so. Let's look at an actual situation. A 9/11 terrorist was in a library and the librarian called the police. The ALA argued that the police should not have been called because library privacy laws were violated. See here. "I would have felt better if she had followed the Florida law. I suspect most people faced with the same situation would have done what she did". Does anyone here think the library privacy law trumps national security interests? Does anyone here think identifying a criminal is an outing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OUTING. If you link an editor to a specific person when that editor did not do so, you have outed them. The rest of your post is window-dressing. What's relevant here is your actions - what others have done or said outside of this is a different issue. It smells of you trying to distract - please focus only on what's happening here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please specify the exact sentence of concern. I'm missing it.

I do see, however, emphasis in original, "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material". The person did not comply with that. She confirmed the information. I saw it. Others saw it. It's public now. Through her own actions, not mine, and not Wikipedia's either as WP provides guidance not to confirm the information. Perhaps the present situation illustrates why WP:OUTING says what it says. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If the accused issues a response that acknowledges the truth of such outing, then the accused bears some responsibility for the whole thing. Instead of suppressing just the one link, you should have suppressed all the evidence. Meanwhile, ironically, Dcs47 has never been blocked, despite the allegations of conflict of interest. Something is not quite right here, and it's not just LAEC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read my comment at ANI, that's what I've been maintaining all along. I would hate to see us block LAEC and have his opposers run free, while quite frankly his behavior, while less than honorable, is better than theirs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of his opposers have been blocked already. If others are acting inappropriately then they can be blocked too. I don't like the idea that the best way to deal with one POV pusher is to add another from the opposite direction, or that bad behavior should be tolerated in order to maintain that purported balance.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Question - How on earth is LAEC expected to remove the userboxes on this page and his user page (that continue to display the link to the "outing") if he can't edit his own userspace? Can an uninvolved admin do it? If it's "outing" that's such a serious issue, why is WP still "hosting" it by leaving these links up? Remove the userboxes that link to the very reason he was indeffed. Doc talk 06:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the issue -- the block isn't for linking an outing from within Wikipedia, it is for engaging in outing (EOF). Removing the infoboxen is a token gesture at best, and doesn't address the (multiple) core issue(s) of participating in those kinds of behaviors in the first place. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think WP:OUTING needs a serious "brush-up". So many editors confuse this issue, and needlessly. The stuff in the userboxes doesn't need oversighting, though: gotcha :> Doc talk 06:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Really "NOT" thrilled that the admin that revoked the talk page privs is the exact same one that made this edit. Intimate knowledge of "scare quotes" in an article that LAEC is deeply involved in a "content dispute" in could bring clouds of "gray" onto the horizon of clarity for some uninvolved observers. Maybe I'm not "AGF"ing again, but I think an admin wholly uninvolved with a content issue like one of the main ones LAEC is "battling" over would make a more "unbiased" call in regards to revoking his talk page access. I don't really know... Doc talk 09:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc, the tragic situation is that I was one of the background mentors of LAEC who got him to back of from the more toxic interactions. It has resulted in the necessary criticism at my address from other editors who claim he could stay this long because admins like me were bending backward. If you read the above exchange, you will see that I was trying to let him back of from the outing, which obviously failed as explained above. If anything, I was instrumental in him staying longer at wikipedia, but at the same time, I am not blind and things were going to far. If I had not been involved with him, I would have increased the block earlier. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC) PS. I do not consider this bad faith, but a legitimate question to be asked. I hope my answer satisfies.

Please do assume good faith. It's not unusual for an admin, after blocking a problem user, to review the contributions to repair the project. Admins are sometimes known as the janitors of the encyclopedia because the job involves cleaning up messes.   Will Beback  talk  09:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been getting a lot of the "assume good faith" stuff recently from the "higher-ups". The "last bastion". Nothing I've said has been "incivil" or blockable by any standards, but I'm told to "observe" my good faith. I always have and I always will. No worries there, mate :> Doc talk 09:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you re-read the policy? WP:AGF. Assuming that people do things because of bad motives, as you did above, is exactly what AGF addresses. People have been banned for repeated violations. I have no reason to think you're in any danger of that. However LAEC has made numerous serious violations of AGF along with violations other behavioral and content policies.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have never "condoned" LAEC's misdeeds: and that is abundantly clear. I have pointed out the possible misdeeds of his detractors; and for that I catch a ration of shite. AGF? It's a "shadowy" thing that is intentionally ambiguous. I know how both sides of it work (on any issue)... Doc talk 10:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, KimvdLinde's edit is from the 15th, and he wasn't blocked till the 22nd. Not only was it a good edit, that really doesn't make her involved. Is there any evidence of bias-causing bad blood between them? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No there isn't. I appreciate Kim's understanding of my question: it was not in bad faith, and I am more than satisfied by the answer. Thank you :> Doc talk 00:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Pause archiving

Hi,

Would it be possible to pause the archiving of this page? I suggest the archiving only resume when/if LEAC can edit own talk page.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable plan. I've commented out the archive template, which should stop it.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Continued outing

I have blocked this user from editing his user page as he keeps using it to further his cause of the blog post. Contact me off wiki if needed. I have contacted oversight. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good call. If he wants to be unblocked, he can contact ArbCom. AniMate 23:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Where? I don't see any comments bad enough that they were oversighted, revdeleted, or even reverted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See e-mail. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a very draconian move given that he already has an indefinite block. Can't comments by him that you/other admins see as furthering an outing be suppressed while still allowing him a sliver of speech solely here? Drrll (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any place for LAEC right now on Wikipedia, and what that place is. If he agrees to stop all behavior Kimvd mentioned in that email (can't be repeated here, I assume). At the moment, I don't think the punishment fits the crime. There are other issues, but indef block without chance to appeal except to arbcom is less than ideal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

He has my e-mail and he can contact an independent admin by e-mail to review the case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I know I've said most of this before, however I see a number of admins bending over backwards to try and justify this editor's behavior, or excuse it by saying others' behavior has been worse (as if that makes it okay!). Regardless of whether anyone believes that LAEC's chosen library censorship cause is appropriate or not, his behavior on Wikipedia has been inexcusable and he has made it clear that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Look back over the last three years and you can find countless examples (and blocks!) for harassing and outing Wikipedia editors (this isn't the first!), violating AGF, playing the victim, and tendentious editing (both about the ALA stuff and right-wing causes). How many blocks and outings does it take?

1. 14:00, 20 February 2007 - Blocked for edit warring
2. 06:54, 17 July 2007 - Blocked for personal attacks
3. 07:41, 13 September 2007 - Blocked for legal threats and disruption
4. 10:32, 28 September 2009 - Blocked for edit warring
5. 20:06, 5 June 2010 - Blocked for edit warring
6. 23:15, 21 November 2010 - Blocked for edit warring
7. 22:57, 25 November 2010 - Blocked for edit warring
8. 15:07, 27 December 2010 - Blocked for personal attacks, harassment, and outing
9. 17:00, 28 December 2010 - Revoked own talk page access, for continued harassment

Does anyone really think that things have suddenly changed such that LAEC is going to change his outlook, give up his cause, and become a model Wikipedia editor? While it's admirable to hope so, it should be wicked clear at this point that he's only interested in doing perimeter testing to find out exactly how much he can get away with while still fighting his battles. Has he taken any responsibility for his actions, or acknowledged his culpability in the matter? Even if he does from this point forward, hasn't he shed crocodile tears in the past? I don't see how any admin can honestly and objectively look at this editor's historical behavior (on Wiki and off) and conclude that his objective is congruous with Wikipedia's. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I stated as much above and on ANI. I think LAEC is entirely capable of editing on Wikipedia in a manner that doesn't break any of our rules or norms. As I stated above, he's gotten better since I blocked him (he learned his lesson when I spelled it out to him explicitly, I think). Other admins are encouraged to look at the behavior and see if they find anything disruptive. Besides the obviously stupid stupid outing on his blog (but the question is, if he says he didn't know and apologizes and removes the post, is this a bannable offense?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's bannable, but we have not consistently required banning for that.

Was the message not clear that removal of the post is a precondition to rehabilitation?

If not, let me say so clearly now - I'm not a big one on apologies, but if the post remains active on the blog, then at this point I believe the only credible outcome is maintaining a permanent block. The post being there is incompatible with ongoing Wikipedia editing.

We have gotten more on-wiki on the behaviors of LAEC's critics, which I am still reviewing, and he sent me a few emails related to that. Whether LAEC is unblocked or not, a very close scrutiny of those other editors is warranted and will be forthcoming. LAEC, I have not responded to your emails, but I did get them and am looking at the issue. I believe your email rights are still active here, if you have more evidence.

But - regardless of what they did, the blog post outing has to come down, for an unblock to be appropriate.

IMHO, of course. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Magog, can you point to articles and talk pages where you've seen LAEC edit in a more responsible manner than he had in the past?   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just for clarity's sake, any user who has had their talk page or even their access to WP's email system revoked may appeal by directly emailing the ban appeals subcommittee. You don't actually have to be banned to appeal to them, despite the name. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Usually they stop at unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first; I don't know that this should necessarily have to go there or BASC, though it can if LAEC finds the private email discussion or followup here unsatisfying. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Will: I have not noticed anything beyond 1 revert per day per article. For LAEC, the improvement comes not in what he has done as much as what he hasn't done.

You'll notice that on his hot-button articles, like SPLC or Charles G. Koch, his only reverts have been to restore tags [3] [4]. He has appropriately taken everything to the talk page and used other methods of dispute resolution. He's made extensive use of the talk page. I cannot understate what an improvement that is over when I first observed his behavior. His edits have not introduced any NPOV problems that I've observed either; currently the worst I could find is calling someone an illegal alient rather than an illegal immigrant [5]. Now he did revert the fact that SPLC labels several groups as a hate group from their articles [6], a label that apparently they give about anyone who breathes and disagrees with them; this is not POV pushing in my book.

In fact, as LAEC pointed out above, he discovered wholesale portions of the SPLC were directly copied from their website - if anything, that would be fixing a NPOV problem. Mind you he hasn't always gone about it the best ways (e.g., what does this accomplish?), but it seemed less like disruption and more about not properly communicating in his post. This was the same article that I blocked him for edit warring over a bias tag (i.e., it seems that he was vindicated in his assertion that it was biased, and other editors were simply boxing him out of the discussion by saying "he's disruptive, end of story"). Mind you, I'd never heard of SPLC before seeing LAEC, so I have no ax to grind.

The only conduct that hasn't improved to acceptable levels is: a) his persecution paranoia, and b) the way he's removed comments by his "persecutors" (i.e., Westbender and PrBeacon) from his talk page. I've addressed both issues with him directly [7], and he has improved. And he still has lots room to improve. I realize his failure to improve from the beginning comes across as cluelessness, but hey I'm pretty clueless in some areas too; I just happen to be good at editing Wikipedia. :)

I think if you look through LAEC's recent contributions, I'm fairly sure you'll find the same thing as I did. In short, he's not acting like a POV warrior because he's not really doing any warring.

By all means let me know if you disagree, and why. I think I'm a reasonable guy. I could be wrong, and I certainly don't want to take sides in a dispute, whether left-right, or other. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This continued allegation of me being a 'persecutor' of LAEC should not go unchallenged, whether or not it's in scare quotes. As I've explained in depth at my talk page and elsewhere, I have nothing to do with this outing issue, the ALA nor LAEC's crusade. After disagreements at the SPLC page, I responded to LAEC's hounding of another editor at two ANI threads. How does this equate to harassment? I noticed LAEC's disruption escalating lately ever since another editor encouraged him to "enjoy the battle" at SPLC (and that same editor is doing the same at another's talkpage: "having fun with all this? I sure am!" [8] "Yeah, enjoying the debate there!" [9] -- So how inappropriate is that? -PrBeacon (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis. I think you're overlooking some important issues. I'm compiling a general list of recent problem edits, but it'll take a while. But just some quick responses. Since he was unblocked he has continued to assume bad faith or directly accuse other editors of malfeasance, has frequently reverted other editors, has made sweeping deletions of sourced material, and has made POV edits. What you call his "persecution paranoia" is so strong that he seems to divide everyone into two camps and he apparently believes that those who don't agree with him are in a conspiracy to harass him. That gets disruptive. One of the traits I've noticed is to accuse other editors of the same violations he's committing. He often charges that editors engage in soapboxing and advocacy, for example. He makes so many harassment accusations that they are themselves a form of harassment. Like many POV pushers he has a flexible view of editing, making opposite-type edits depending on the circumstances. I'll present evidence for these assertions shortly. The bottom line is that LAEC has been editing for four years, and has received plenty of feedback about his errors. His comments here seem to show that he thinks he's done nothing wrong.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the kid hasn't yet done anything that warrants being banned from his own talk page. LAEC has been waist-deep in controversy for some time and I see the undeniable logic in keeping him away from that indefinitely. Is there any hope that we can retain his worthwhile editing through some form of indef topic-ban? - Schrandit (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If he commits to not linking to his off-wiki writings then it should be possible to lift the talk page protection. But we really should wind down the discussion here in any case. It's not clear what he wants to do and it might just be best to leave it be, especially considering the calendar.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore talk page access

I am assured by email by LAEC that 1) all links to anything to do with outing, including the blog post, have been removed; 2) that LAEC will not restore any links of that nature. The original reason to block him from this page was "I have blocked this user from editing his user page as he keeps using it to further his cause of the blog post." I can't vouch that LAEC will not present his case here, but I have been assured he will not post links of the type which are of concern. I assume that extends to all information which might be of concern as well. I think he has a right to bring his case to ArbCom, however little chance it has. I request that he be unblocked from this page in order to facilitate discussion of further moves, toward ArbCom or otherwise, and so other editors can discuss with him here. Communicating by email is frankly cumbersome and lacks the needed community give-and-take, and per Magog the Ogre I don't think this user has completely used up his welcome at Wikipedia. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LAEC has my e-mail, if he sends me an e-mail with the promise not to discuss links, names, workplace or references to the person in question, I will restore his access to this page. If he wants to discuss those details with arbcom, I suggest he contacts them directly because the crucial part is discussing the case in detail, which was the reason to block him from this page in the first place. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re ArbCom, some of the principles of the case without the details might do well here, I think. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Discussions about the general policies, etc are fine. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access restored

LAEC has promised per e-mail not to post any outing information on this talk page. I have therefore restored his talk page access.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. In preparing to contest the remaining block, I consider the following relevant to my circumstance:

• Facts and Friction: Wikipedia's Quest for Credibility, by Stephen Hutcheon, The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April 2007.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, what in particular, or isn't that something you can say? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I see a number of parallels, some of which may help me to structure my response. I'm just a little busy at the moment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Legit

Just stopping by to say hello. Perhaps in the not far distant future you can give me a brief overview of what happened to you. I didn't really follow it, but noticed after the fact that you had received some sort of suspension. I try to steer clear of the Wiki "justice system" stuff. However, in the future, if you feel that you're being unfairly put upon for largely political reasons (not saying that's what happened this time) let me know. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, I saw that the Southern Poverty Law Center page and the Judith Krug page were advertisements involving wholesale copying from the web sites of the relevant parties. (The latter was when I was so new I was an IP address and was a model of what not to do on Wikipedia, but the page was created by the person's employees and was a wholesale copy of the org's web page on the person, and I intuitively knew it was wrong to do that.) I tried to apply Wiki policy and that ruffled many feathers. In addition, I successfully proved Media Matters for America links are spewed about Wikipedia by the hundreds like propaganda for MMfA and in violation of various Wiki policies and that won me no friends among the zealots who promote MMfA. I lead the effort to change the obviously biased "Censorware" page to the Content-control software page and boy did that cause me no end of trouble. I won some of my biggest detractors on the Banned Books Week page where editors sought to add plagiarized material as a means of using Wikipedia to further the propaganda. If it's plagiarized it's propaganda, is it not? And I didn't make too many friends either when I was accused of all sorts of nasty things for leading the effort to stop adding the cat "Homophobia" to pages of individuals who zealots wanted to label as such using cats. Never mind that I got a barnstar for major edits to the Jay-Z page, all zealots could see was someone editing pages in a manner that rattled the cages of those seeking to keep the pages as little protected kingdoms, sort of Jimmy Wales's free advertising gifts to the SPLC, MMfA, the American Library Association, what have you. This is why people who are not zealots see my edits differently, like Magog the Ogre who has been forced to repeatedly defend me from those using years of evidence again and again to wipe away the present and to ban me.

So in a nutshell, I brought a number of positive changes to Wikipedia but gathered people who believed I was opposing their agenda along the way. As a result they called me or implied I was a Nazi, a book burner, a guy who sells Internet filters for alleged Christian hate groups, etc., and who filed often frivolous claims against me, WP:LAME, as Magog the Ogre put it. As a result when you pile all those claims into a single pile it looks really bad. You have to work hard to tease out that I have merely been seeking compliance with Wiki policy and have been successful in doing so almost all the time, though clearly not in the best way, but Magog the Ogre and KimvdLinde guidance has resulted in major improvements. Had I not been so successful, I am sure they would not have worked together as they did to turn a simple alleged outing matter into a permanent banning of a valuable Wikipedia editor, according to what Magog the Ogre said, and he's not someone promoting MMfA, the SPLC, the ALA, etc. I mean it's so bad I exposed someone I am no longer allowed to mention doing something I am no longer allowed to mention in support of her organization I am no longer allowed to mention, yet her supporters started the effort that lead to my being blocked, and her supporters were a number of the people who had created accounts just to harass me and bring about this very banning and who files some of the complaints against me.

I am going to do something to contest this block, but it is really sad that I have to in the first place. I just do not have the time at the moment. Meantime I continue to use Wikipedia in real life, continue to see problems I could fix, and continue to be blocked, all for annoying many political partisans along the way. C'est la vie, right? I want to start a new page. Would someone consider Micki Dahne? http://mickidahne.com/ She was in a major tabloid for many years for what she did and still does, and so on.

Why don't you email me and maybe we'll talk more that way. Thanks so much for writing.

Oh wait! Badmintonhist! Aren't you the guy who wrote something on my Talk page that one of my harassers, PrBeacon, claims repeatedly is one of the reasons I should no longer edit, because you told me to "enjoy the battle" or something? Well, for your information and for his, I do not "enjoy the battle". At the same time what's right is right, and what's right is following Wiki policy. What's not right is leaving pages as advertisements or leaving MMfA links as advertisements simply because enough partisan editors can gang up on someone enough times over the years to get him banned. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You assertion that "and continue to be blocked, all for annoying many political partisans along the way." is incorrect. See your own block log that states: "Off-wiki outing of other Wikipedian".-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for something a bit briefer and bit less flamboyant, Legit. You don't want to break out of your stop too abruptly after being ticketed for speeding. And you certainly don't want to get on the wrong side of the generally affable, but nevertheless sword-wielding, Kim. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

He, I think casual sword carrying should come back in fashion. Reminds me when Governor Jeb Bush saw the sword when it was parked against a pick-nick table (love the easy weapon laws in Florida). ;-)-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: When I said "enjoy the battle" I meant the fun of sharp discussion and debate but not stuff that ought to land anyone in trouble here. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kim, why does your Talk page link say "at venus"? And please, enjoy the venus. Badmintonhist, thanks for writing here. Enjoy the sword. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

because people kept referring to me as a guy (kind of the default assumption here at wikipedia), and I was sick of it, so, I thought that I would invite people to venus, as in Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. And yes, I think the Venus de Milo is wonderful to look at.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see on the Scott Lively page AV3000 just added what looks like a combination of recentism (an article from yesterday) and POV or OR or whatever it is when someone picks and chooses to cast someone is a certain light. And the page is one of those frequent targets for soapboxers. Will someone please take a look at that to see if the edit violates one or more Wiki policies? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Becritical's reverted SL edit indirectly led me to this comment. Recentism (a non-policy essay) regards the long-term value of information, not the published date of the source, which in this case is primarily concerned with the changes in SL's life following his 2008 move from CA to MA and supplies long-term context to his biography. Regarding POV/OR, my goal was to add balance to the biography, which mostly concerns his gay-related activism; I chose the two direct quotes to succinctly report his expanded activities while not ignoring his continued opposition to homosexuality. So much for good intentions. AV3000 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did say "what looks like" indicating it was my opinion and others should think independently. Further, I did indicate the page is a frequent target for soapboxers indicating that that fact may have influenced my opinion so people should be extra careful to do that they think is best. I never said anything about you personally. I did read the article as a result of your adding it. It had quite a few positive things to say about SL. I was a little surprised that your focus was on what it was on, but that may have just been because of the context preexisting in the article. Besides, the quote stays to this point essentially as you left it, so "so much for good intentions" doesn't really apply in this situation. People are allowed to suggest something a day old with an edit summary of "add recent info" is recent and might be OR/POV without comments such as "so much for good intentions". So, AV3000, if my comment lead you to believe I was implying you did not have good intentions, I am sorry for that. That was not in my mind, however. Since it appears the day old news story is staying in the article, please consider adding some of the positive material from the article as well. I think it is significant that he has a thousand people join his rallies, the Mayor attends his events, and people on the street know him well and say hello as a direct result of his many attempts to bring positive change to a depressed community. Most people leave such cities to stew in their own juices but SL is making a positive effort to change that to both the people and the real estate, the media has noticed, yet somehow the article was used to highlight yet again his alleged antigay stances. The whole Wiki page is about how he is antigay. Along comes positive news and what gets added? That he's antigay. Perhaps a section on his positive influence in Springfield, MA, would be appropriate. Am I a bad person for pointing out the entire article is about how he is antigay? Am I off base to wonder why a positive article is added to the page to repeat he is antigay and leave out almost all the positive he has done? No. I'm not. This little incident is a little bit of a microcosm of the trouble I get into simply for seeking the application of Wiki policy on articles where some political agenda is regularly promoted, and no, I am not saying AV3000 is doing that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that my banning from Wikipedia has not stopped some of those involved in my banning from behaving as they do on the SPLC Talk page, Badmintonhist. Why is that kind of behavior allowed to persist? Are you, Badmintonhist, the next to be removed by them from editing on the SPLC page?:

• "As usual he's counting on wearing other editors down, but I'm getting closer to taking this kind of continual disruption to the next step in WP:DR. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)"

Such behavior has absolutely nothing to do with me, apparently, since I can no longer edit. Will anyone do anything about this? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

I see that you are active on multiple Wikipedia projects. One of the most productive things you could do with this time is to use it to increase your level of participation on those projects. - Haymaker (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

advice for a new user

Hi LegitimateAndEvenCompelling,

Recently, I noticed a new user greatly expand an article which he had possible conflict of interest with. I welcomed and warned the user. Is there anything I should add when welcoming the new user?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

New users are to be handled with kid gloves so as to make them feel welcome and not scared off. It appears that you have done that quite well. As they make future mistakes consider providing positive guidance as well. The mistakes they make are newbie mistakes. Sometimes only time makes a difference, but the guidance of other Wikipedians can provide a quicker result. I was helped in that fashion. As you know, sometimes people will never adhere to community rules and must be banned. Right, KimdvLinde? ;) But it appears you, Kevinkor2, have done well by the new user.

I see he added a pile of material that can only be considered as an advertisement. I opposed advertisements on a number of pages and I was eventually banned as an indirect result because of the obvious proponents of those pages protecting the advertisements, like the editor who removed the quotation marks from the quotation claiming the quoted material was true anyway--he joined in to get me banned. Consideration could always be given to finding the value, if any, in what was added and editing it accordingly. That way you are not just reverting edits, though that is sometimes the best remedy. The page is lacking a lot of material--it's a stub--but consider helping to expand it somewhat in light of what the newbie added. The Boy Scouts for America page, for example, gives the Scout Oath and other things that could be considered advertising if it were not otherwise compliant with Wiki policy. So find the good stuff in what the guy added and consider rewording and adding it back in where appropriate, with RSs, of course. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to reply to someone on an unrelated topic, and not find a way to bring up your perceived injustice? This is tiresome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.103.221 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your 3rd edit ever on Wikipedia. Under what Wikipedia user name do you usually edit? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Will someone please examine the second edit ever of "173.166.103.221"? For the Polka Floyd page he just removed a quote and a ref with the edit summary, "just pulling a direct quote from an article isn't helpful". Since his third edit was of a personal nature given just above, I sense yet another person is looking at the pages I edit and removing material. In this case, I created Polka Floyd. The removed material does not improve the page--it just makes it less interesting. And given the page has a Refimprove tag, removing refs, especially without improving them, is not ideal. Naturally I would resolve this myself, but I do not now have the permissions to do so. By the way, his first edit ever was reverted on the very next page edit. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Stalker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.103.221 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, you appear more of a stalker at the moment than LEAC. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And the answer your question. You are not newbie by any stretch of the imagination. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jessamyn West (librarian)

Nice going, Jessamyn West! She appears in the New York Times for her editing here as User:Jessamyn at Wikipedia. Will someone please consider adding this to her page or to her Talk page? http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/more-about-power-than-gender "Where Are the Women in Wikipedia? Why are there so many more men than women contributing to a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? More About Power Than Gender," February 3, 2011.

There is also a page for articles that discuss Wikipedia.

Thanks.

Anyone feel like unblocking me yet? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer the last question: No. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Anyone else?

Get a load of this response to the article about Jess. Anyone care to help out here?

"TimothyBarrus

"Paris

"February 3rd, 2011 9:17 am

"My own Wikipedia entry is a mishmashmess of lies, innuendo, gotcha snark, political correctness, political incorrectness, guess-work, assumption, fact-checking with blogs (as we all know blogs are never opinionated), literary agendas, spit, spite, meanness, and deliberately maintained falsehoods perpetrated by people driven with a vile need to punish. They can't even get where I live right. They CHERRY-PICK, and construct their so-called facts in such a carefully maligned way so that the twisted picture they have painted is maintained only by pieces of a puzzle they desire to be seen. They conveniently ignore three-quarters of the work I do, they have not read a single one of the books I have written; which they claim to be experts on, and they quite simply have no idea what they are talking about because they are intransigent about maintaining a fiction they proclaim is real. They are beneath contempt. They are not editors. They are a mob throwing stones. They conveniently TOTALLY LOCK DOWN AND PROHIBIT any correction WHATSOEVER. The thing is patently absurd. The only thing they're expert at is pure rubbish. They even go after me on Facebook (I am not even on Facebook) where anytime anyone in a thousand countries writes my name, they quickly display it on a Tim Barrus Wikipedia page that was designed to humiliate me which is as juvenile and it is laughable. There are many people in the world with my name. I assume some of them are on Facebook. My apologies to them. Wikipedia is a snotty little group of spoiled brats."

I love this sentence: "They conveniently TOTALLY LOCK DOWN AND PROHIBIT any correction WHATSOEVER." So I'll ask again, anyone feel like unblocking me yet, other than the person who blocked my Talk page access? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh, you think that because you can add something positive, that the banning reason just disappears? As far as I can tell, your haven't taken down the blogpost in question. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am never taking down that post. I am never going to self-censor to satisfy the desires of the few who have blocked me from editing. I note KimvdLinde assisted the person using anonymity to propagandize for Free Press and net neutrality in further removing from Wikipedia evidence of that person's activities. Free Press and the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom would benefit by my self-censorship about their astroturfing. Ironic, is it not? And KimvdLinde is their de facto enforcer to force me to self-censor.

I think it is clear from KimvdLinde's lastest comment that I may not edit on Wikipedia because KimvdLinde is attempting to have me remove a blog post to essentially assist her in expunging evidence of wrongdoing in the real world by a Wikipedia editor. Clearly that is not the goal of Wikipedia policy. However, at this moment, I have KimvdLinde ensuring I stay off Wikipedia and I cannot find the means for someone to break this cycle. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Exposing off-wiki former editors harassing off-wiki?

Hi Legitimate and Kim,

I noticed a question in Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Exposing off-wiki former editors harassing off-wiki?

Is there any advice you two think I should include in my response?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was confused by what I read there. I think the claim was that the person was being harassed by someone who last edited 2 years ago. The question was would it be okay to use evidence from years ago to "out" the editor. If that is the question, my answer would be yes since if the editor was no longer editing, and a 2 year lapse would make that a good assumption, he is not a Wikipedia editor, so outing rules that apply to editors would not apply to non-editors, even if they were former editors.

While I am writing, I saw something that appeared to imply I was harassing the person I am claimed to have outed and that my alleged outing was itself the incident of harassment. Exposing potentially illegal activity is not harassment. You know the saying, "If you see something say something," right? Well if you see something then say something, are you a harasser? Of course not. And neither am I. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I've sent an email to KimvdLinde, and was relieved to hear that this has nothing to do with your predicament, Legimate. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. By coincidence, I'm about to blog on this predicament again, only it's going to be an aside in the blog. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

request

Hello, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

here

I was about to strike your name per your request. Then I reread what I said. You are both anti-LAEC and anon, therefore the list stays as is. Yes, you have a name, PrBeacon, but it is a pseudonym, essentially the equivalent to an anonymous name. Yes, anon IPs have a different meaning in Wikipedia than pseudonyms, but I was speaking in the general sense. In the general sense, you are anonymous. Since you also attacked me relentlessly, sometimes appearing solely to harass me and never to make substantial edits, I stand by what I originally said.

Further, the description to which you object, namely, "anti-LAEC anon editors", was directly from the blocking admin, not from me. I only quoted his words. My characterization was only an "attempt to list people/IPs to perhaps assist those responding" to the blocking admin. I see no problem there since such people including yourself became an issue of concern to the blocking admin as is evident from his statements.

And it was not "basically an attack list" as you put it. Rather, it was a list of people attacking me. Some of them have been permanently banned for doing so. It was made in response to the blocking admin's concerns. Besides, I see your behavior has not significantly changed since I have been forced out in part by your actions--you just have at least one new target.

Not on the list due to the timing, one guy's first edit was to attack me after I was blocked and KimvdLinde put him in his place (thanks, KimvdLinde, if I did not already say so). So the list is legitimate and even compelling, and the attacks have continued even during this period of my being blocked, which is now dragging out for a very long period of time, with one of the blocking admins requiring that I first self-censor my own works published outside of Wikipedia.

So if you "take the issue up with someone authorized to properly address it", I will oppose such a move as best I can under the circumstances in which you have no small part. You helped get me blocked from Wikipedia, now you seek to get me to remove truthful material from the single page I have left to edit.

That said, if you remove all of your many personal attacks and false statements you spread liberally around Wikipedia for a significant period of time in a manner that may have helped to get me banned, and if you do so in a manner so that people know you are retracting your statements for being untrue, then I will no longer consider you to be "anti-LEAC" so I will reconsider your request. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LAEC - you should not be using this page for anything besides unblock requests. If you are going to post another unblock request then go ahead. But this isn't a soapbox for making attacks on other editors.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not an attack. It is a substantive response to his demand that I should remove material or it will be removed for me. It is intended to prevent his being successful in removing truthful information.

Further, this page may be used to respond to questions or concerns people leave for me. PrBeacon left such a concern for me. I responded. I am allowed to respond without false accusations about a "soapbox for making attacks on other editors".

You are the person who turned the outing request into a referendum on my past 5 years editing here. You pushed more than anyone to get me blocked. Each time Magog the Ogre and others vigourously defended me, you came back to repeat the past five years of history. Now you come back to make false accusations about soapboxes and attacks. So even after I am blocked, you come back for another helping. I will likely use this behaviour of yours when I make my unblock request. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it is my impression you and PrBeacon worked together to bring about my being blocked once the ball got rolling. It is no surprise to me you both came back during the block to continue on the path of using procedural means to stop my editing since I was having success after success in applying Wikipedia policy to pages being protected. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with your block which is for off-wiki harassment. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. However, you had everything to do with the matter of my being blocked for a claimed pattern of conduct over a long period of time. The off-wiki harassment was just the hook upon which the rest was hung. If not, explain Will Beback's repeated listing of supposed transgressions over years of editing. If not, explain your communications with Will Beback regarding my being blocked. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed PrBeacon, Will Beback, and KimvdLinde are on the AN/I page regarding the FRC page. Interesting, especially given their significant contributions in my being blocked in part for edits on that page. For the record, the SPLC's characterization of FRC as a hate group should not be in the lead paragraph, unless the goal is to soapbox for the SPLC. If I were unblocked, I would go there and say so. Might that be part of the reason I remain blocked and those very three continue to comment here as they do? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have conceded a small part in this dispute so I will reply here, though somewhat reluctantly. I'm puzzled how you think our POV disagreements constitute "everything to do with" the secondary issues of your block -- can you provide a few diffs so I know what you are specifically referring to? Because the way I see it, over the course of a month (end-Nov to end-Dec) we had common disputes on article talk pages which escalated when you chose to view them as personal attacks and respond accordingly. Worth repeating: though you both deny it, I still think that Badmintonhist's encouragement of your battleground behavior was one of the tipping points. Then you piled on to another editor's public flogging at two ANI threads so I challenged your characterizations there. I'm also not sure what you mean by "communications with Will Beback..." Diff(s) please? -PrBeacon (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not supplying diffs to satisfy your continuing need to WP:BATTLE. What Badmintonhist said on my page did not "encourage" me in the slightest and I have no idea why you continue to say that again and again, now even after I am blocked. I did not "pile on" anyone. I joined others in making comments about a person who was eventually indefinitely blocked and determined to be a WP:SOCK. Such determinations cannot be made if people do not make comments such as mine. But, even while I am blocked, you feel the need to come back and repeat your one sided views unfailingly intended to cast me in a negative light. At this point it is truly remarkable that you continue to come back again and again to continue to make false accusations about me, all the while continuing your battles with others. I suppose the reason is you know the blocking rationale is weak, you know I will eventually come back, and you feel you must continue to do the best you can to continue to spread false information about me so that my future edits are easier for you to oppose. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Then we can assume your claims are baseless. Sorry to see you revert to your stonewalling tactics. And for the record Dylan was not 'determined to be a sock' that was a false claim and had nothing to do with his block. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Clever try, as usual. My claims are not baseless. It's just that I'm blocked and responding to your latest comments that I now perceive to be attacks is simply a waste of time. Stonewalling? What, I'm stonewalling in responding to your apparently never-ending false claims while I'm blocked partly as a result of your previous false claims? You call that stonewalling? Let's make this easier on both of us. Do not edit my Talk page further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry LAEC, but you are blocked for a single reason only, and that is the outing. Anyway, I like your idea of not editing your talk page anymore. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry KimvdLinde, if I'm blocked as you say, explain why Will Beback used my entire past history of editing to counteract nearly each and every attempt by people like Magog the Ogre to speak highly of my editing. Explain why the blocking admin needed to look into the issue of the series of people who have dedicated entire accounts just to attack me. The outing, as you call it, got the ball rolling. The pile on by Will Beback, etc., is the real reason why I am not editing.

And I see PrBeacon has gone to complain about me again, again with the false or misleading claims, in yet another procedural move against me--I'm not even editing, mind you--this time to Magog the Ogre. Instead of inviting MtO here he complains there so I cannot respond--and he knows better thanks to notice from Kevinkor2 on PrBeacon's Talk page regarding his current attack. I am so happy I have asked PrBeacon to stop editing here further. Consideration should be given to whether PrBeacon's own edits are worthy of oversight. By the way, I clearly explained above with numerous and legitimate reasons why I will not remove PrBeacon's name from my list made in response to an admin's concerns. And I suggested above he remove his attacks as a precondition for my removing his name, but it is clear he prefers instead to double down--even while I'm blocked. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever reasons others bring around, it does not change the actual reasons you were blocked. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the only reason for you to be editing this page is to request an unblock. Since you are not doing that, and are using it was a platform for discussing unrelated issues, I'm going to request that it be protected. That will prevent anyone from editing it.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to respond to requests? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I will request an unblock. Until I do, I will respond to requests or, unfortunately, continued attacks. I see nothing wrong with that. Of course you are the key person who acted to respond to nearly every positive comment about me by reraising my 5 or so years of editing here. So it would not surprise me that you would again move to block my ability to edit or even to ask for an unblock. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Contact Me Using the E-mail This User Link

Everyone, Will Beback is seeing to it that no one can talk to me further here. I think this is unnecessary as I have told PrBeacon to stop writing here. Be that as it may, contact me using the E-mail This User link. I am always happy to help. This may be the last message I will be able to write, thanks to Will Beback:

Will Beback: Full protection', indefinite duration. The editor was blocked December 27. His talk page privileges were removed the next day due to abuse. After a request by email and a promise to avoid future abuse his block was modified on January 1. He has made no effort to post a formal unblock request and the page has become a platform for unrelated issues. The talk page should be protected until such time as the editor seeks to place an unblock request.

I will eventually ask for an unblock, I'm just a little busy now. Thanks to all of you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. For the record, I oppose full protection of this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the reasons outlined in your block log. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

your email

I got your email. Please understand, I don't like the list, I don't think it was helpful and it's even less helpful now. I don't see it as a personal attack or smear as such, but it does stray into WP:BATTLE.

As for being locked out of your own talk page, given the reason in the block log and the history there, I'm not going to unlock it.

Good faith volunteer editors are blocked here all the time. This is because, in trying to help build the encyclopedia, one must also give meaningful heed to how things are done here, sometimes foregoing how we would want to see things done ourselves. It looks to me as though, in a few ways, you have not done this, hence the outcome of an indef block. The pith is likely that you have not stuck to citing sources and gathering consensus but rather, have tried other means, which is not on here, even if you believe in good faith that you're fixing flaws.

For now, the only way forward I can think of, is for you to email arbcom. You may need to acknowledge why you've been blocked and undertake not to stir up such worries again. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)