Talk:Allen West (politician)/Archive 3

Take a deep breath
I see there's been a lot of heated argument here. Let's all take a deep breath and step back for a moment. Look at the new coverage of West since he's taken office. In all of the major outlets there have been repeated stories about statements he's made. Whether you like those statements or not, he's clearly known for them, and he knows that and uses them to draw media attention. As the article currently stands we only have a couple of statements. We need a lot more to reflect the news coverage. Our coverage should be balanced and in compliance with WP:BLP, just as with everything else we do. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add something else. It appears that there's been a lot of recently vandalism on this article, and efforts to remove that vandalism are certainly appreciated. That said, there have been a lot of good faith edits as well that have been summarily reverted with little or no explanation. If you are policing this article, please keep WP:BRD in mind and include substantive comments with all of your reversions. And it isn't fair to revert all additions that you perceive as critical of West based purely on the previous talk thread. The thread above appears to be about a proposal for a separate "Controversies" section and apparently about alleged violations of WP:NPV. It is NOT about specific statements or controversies so it should not freeze edits concerning specific statements or controversies. If you feel that an edit violates WP:BLP or any other policy then please include that in your reversion comment so that we may move forward productively. There's no need for a small number of editors bickering over the minutiae of WP policy to put the entire article in stasis. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However, when a number of different editors have removed the same material, it should be kept out until the discussion is resolved. This has never, ever been about anyone liking or not liking the statements. That you would say liking it is a factor here really isn't the way to start. This has been about relevance, notability and recentism. Just because something gets reported on in the 24 hour news cycle for a day or two doesn't make it encyclopedic or notable. We need to look at the lasting-effect. I can't tell you how many times I've seen some battle to include the latest scandal/quote/earth-shattering event in a BLP, only to show that a year later, it hasn't been mentioned for almost a year. Further, this started with the allegation of sanitizing and the notion that we need a controvery section just for the sake of having one. That's bunk. BTW, the last time I looked, that "small number of editors" was at least 6 different, experienced editors. Just because all 6 or so haven't taken time to entertain the anonymous SPA shouldn't fool you into thinking it's only an couple of people. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Three points in response. First, you are one of the editors who has been good about this and has actually included substantive comments with your reversions, so thank you. It's others I worry about (such as Hello71, Glane23, and TyA). Second, I don't care how many editors are working together or how many similar reversions have been done already, every reversion should be accompanied by a meaningful comment. There appear to be multiple editors (some anon, but still multiple) who are trying to make the the same or similar additions, and each one deserves an explanation of why their own edit has been rejected. Third, you raise legit concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM but look at Wests political career, he is universally known for his rhetoric and the article doesn't reflect that. There comes a point where a pattern of statements made and reported on over and over and over becomes quite noteworthy and rises beyond the moment. IMO an article about West that doesn't talk about his rhetorical style isn't a complete article.--Nstrauss (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't say every revision needs a meaningful summary. When it has been removed the first couple of times, with responses, "ibid" is about all that is required, if that. Trying to force the inclusion while simultaneously claiming to be in a good faith discussion seems like bad form to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean reversion, not revision. Anyway, there are many inexperienced editors who don't know about WP policies or how to dig through the history, and we owe it to them to put comments when we say their contributions are not worthy of inclusion. Something as simple as "revision violates WP:RECENTISM" is often enough. Then at least the offending editor can go to WP:RECENTISM and learn how to be a better editor. As for your last sentence I honestly can't make heads or tails of it. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The last sentence isn't that confusing. The IP (and others) have tried simply forcing the material in, despite the fact that several editors have removed it (some with explanation) and while the discussion about it is going on. Aside from edit-warring, it's just bad form and makes one question the good faith intentions. I still disagree about the need for an edit summary, especially when that IP has been told via edit summaries and via discussion here more than once. The need to repeat is overrated. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kansas State Grad Year?
The infobox shows Mr. West received his M.A. in Political Science from Kansas State University in 1986. I've been unable to find any source for this. Considering his military career, it seems unlikely he would have immediately had the opportunity to pursue his M.A. Absent any source for his 1986 graduation, it appears more likely he received this degree while he was an ROTC instructor there in the early 1990s. Does anyone have a source for his degree year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidtash (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

K-State Grad Year?
The infobox shows Mr. West received his M.A. in Political Science from Kansas State University in 1986. I've been unable to find any source for this. Considering his military career, it seems unlikely he would have immediately had the opportunity to pursue his M.A. Absent any source for his 1986 graduation, it appears more likely he received this degree while he was an ROTC instructor there in the early 1990s. Does anyone have a source for his degree year? Liquidtash (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Statements
I'll renew my call for a "controversial statements" section or something similar for West. His primary claim to fame as a Congressman is for making heated political statements that draw a lot of condemnation from his opponents. That's a pretty vital part of his character. While there's a few of his remarks mentioned in the article, someone giving it a quick perusal would have no idea that he's anything other than just some random member of congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.204.144 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because we don't need to parse out a special section for so-called controversy. It is preferred that incidents be integrated into the article, making them less POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Allen west is out
Can we change the bio now to show he has lost re-election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.54.18 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * he is still in office. The article already reflects that he lost the election. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't that premature to say he lost? I'd agree it is unlikely in the extreme he could come back at this point but the absentees haven't been counted from what I'm hearing. While he would likely still be behind this may be close enough as is to require a recount anyway. Seems a little like we're taking sides to say he's out but I'd really be shocked if he wasn't. Then again how many recounts did Norm Coleman win before in the end Al Franken won. Skywayman (talk)
 * Last I looked, the article correctly reflected that West lost and is not conceeding, instead wanting a recount. I see no issue with that. We've had a couple of IP's showing up, "helping" with some of the dates. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just Allen West being a complete thug, it's exactly how he is, and he would not concede even if he lost by 20 percent.--Jack Cox (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is WP:NOTAFORUM for opinions about West.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We've had some problems with biased commentary of late. Folks seem to be wanting to plead West's case for him on here, and that's counterproductive. Also, the initial sentence accurately reflects that West, regardless of the outcome of his election in the Florida 18th, is the outgoing incumbent in the Florida 22nd. There has been some back and forth about that point, again from what seem like partisan points of view.elcid89 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are flirting with a 3RR issue. I'm going to be blunt with you: your willingness to edit war, while making allegations about "pleading his case" and bias makes me think that you have a strong POV and that accuracy isn't your true motivation. Regardless, more than one editor has reverted you, so you should consider some discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * *I am not edit warring. I seek accuracy and I detest editorializing. We are now post election, and we have three categories of Congressional members: Those that are incoming, those that are outgoing and those incumbents that are remaining. Post election, members should be identified as such until such time as the next Congress is seated, as which point "incoming" becomes "current" and "outgoing" becomes "former. We are not in the business of placating a particular point of view. Yes, some folks are incensed that he lost the election. I don't live in Florida and honestly couldn't care less, but in my view it is important, for the sake of accuracy, to distinguish between the aforementioned classes of Congressional members across the board. To differentiate them according to status is MORE accurate for the reader, which unless I'm mistaken is supposed to be what we're seeking to do here. Frankly, I've been searching for other articles in order to apply the same level of differentiation to them. In doing so, the reader instantly knows the most current status of the Congressional member in question. 3RR me if you like, but I submit that to do so indicates a degree of bias on your part as well.Elcid89 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring and hiding under an IP address won't change that. All your rhetoric about who is being placated is empty. You're pushing a pov, whether you admit it or not. Your claims about accuracy are nothing but smoke screen. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment violates numerous WP policies and does nothing of benefit. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not make the most recent edits re: "outgoing", and have abandoned editing this issue entirely since there seems to be a decided control / power issue going on here. My IP address begins with 173, which should be easy enough for you to verify. I resent the argumentative /authoritarian accusatory and condescending way in which you seem to be approaching this. After reading through your history, it seems to be the way that you approach conflicts in general on here Since you are obviously emotionally involved in this, perhaps it would be best if you asked another, detached moderator to assume control of this issue? Thanks Elcid89 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you resent anymore than you care that I resent your whiney tone or that you are acting like a SPA. If i'm "obviously emotionally involved" to you, then you are obviously not as bright as you think you are. You can't sit here and insult people, then expect them to AGF with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would remind you that the insults began with you, via your false allegations of sockpuppetry. You can't spout lies about people, and then assume that they won't respond to them. As far as AGF goes, I'd be happy to settle for a little professionalism, instead of someone who seems to approach this as though he were king of the sandbox. With regard to being personally involved, I'll stand behind that allegation. There was a double digit number of incumbents, from both parties, voted out of office. All of their wiki pages reflect their outgoing status without the slightest fuss, yet strangely, you are scope locked on demanding that this page, and only this page, be constructed differently. No thanks. Elcid89 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No my friend, it began when you breezed in here, making allegations of edits being partisan. Second, I'd love to see you stand behind your allegation. Considering that I've never met West, never met anyone that knows him and live far away from his district, making me unable to even vote for him, I'd love to see what kind of evidence you could produce to show me being personally involved. Fact is, there is no evidence and your inability to prove it will just illustrate your reactionary mentality. Lastly, just because you ran to a bunch of articles and made that change doesn't mean it was correct and isn't evidence of a consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not your friend, sorry. That said, I don't believe that I ever insinuated that YOUR edits were partisan. I noted that editing was going on which was partisan, and I believe that to be an accurate statement. In fact, a casual perusal of the edit history with regard to the "retired / was forced to retire" issue substantiates that. I have already stood behind my allegation above, and I continue to do so now. As far as evidence goes, I tender your complete lack of interest in any pages of any outgoing incumbents, all of which reflect the same status, beyond this one. Is this because you and West share a military background? Is it because both you and he are professed conservatives? I don't pretend to know, but as I stated, your interest in this page, and only this page, with regard to this concept is suggestive. I do not have a reactionary mentality. What I also do not have is a subservient mentality, which seems to be what is required here. In that regard, I am abandoning further interest in this article, not because I do not believe it to be in need of heightened accuracy, but because I believe that further discussion about it is pointless. In parting, I would suggest working on your people skills. This is not a dictatorship, and treating people who try to contribute with contempt and derision is not a productive strategy. Food for thought Elcid89 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you took it so literal. I didn't really think you were my friend. It is simply a much nicer term than the one that I wanted to use that would have clearly violated NPA. So your "evidence" is my lack of interest in other pages? Wow, that is dumber every time I think about it. This is a page I have made occasional edits to for a long time, so it was on my watch list. Now from looking at your edit history, you became a one-trick pony, running around to political articles that you'd never edited before, adding "outgoing" a lot. Apparently, you feel proud of that. Since I hadn't shown any past interest in those articles, for me to follow you around now, cleaning up your "improvements" would be the wrong approach. Frankly, it would also give you more of my time than you deserve. You suggest that I'm biased towards West because we were both in the military (note that absurd theory was put forth on Veteran's Day). Then by your theory, I would have supported John Kerry. Or that I would support Virgil Goode this past week. In other words, that theory is beyond flawed. Then you suggest it is because I'm conservative. Ok, at least that one is a little more plausible, but it falls apart when you couple that theory to my lack of interest in other articles you've "improved" as "proof". Your theory might hold more weight if there was something POV going on. The only thing you and I have really disagreed abot is the use of the word "outgoing" in the lead. Wow....yeah, that is such a drastic difference. As for the rest of your observations and commentary about me personally....well, again what I would like to say would violate NPA. Instead I will say "good luck my friend". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This issue is apparently settled, save for any acceptance by West and his campaign. Murphy's lead has increased to .69%, according to Salon.com today (Allen West's recount backfires), and the NY Times has an AP story that belies its headline, "Florida Election Officials Miss Deadline in House Race," http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/us/politics/florida-officials-miss-deadline-in-allen-west-recount.html neglecting the update to show the recount was in fact completed and released. Activist (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for Activism. Content must always, but in particular regarding living people, be presented in a neutral point of view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I agree. In fact I often make corrections to biased edits that are not factual or, without justification, reflect poorly on people or situations toward whom or which I am not personally well disposed. We have to strive for verifiable objectivity. Don't let my "tag" fool you. My edit today on this page is meant to correct and update the obsolete analysis of the evolving recount situation. Feel free to reword it, but AP has no longer "not confirmed" West's loss. Please read the NYT/AP story, or other reliable and easily available sources (i.e., Florida SOS) for confirmatory or other info. Activist (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * off topic comment, after 2000 you would have thought florida would have cleaned up its election and recount processes and procdures, but it does not seem like they have at all.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really "Florida"......each county has it's own election supervisor (and elected office) that makes most of the decisions about the ballots, machines etc. While the state laws govern them, it is ultimately the elections supervisor that decides how they are applied on election day.

UNDUE - "Controversy" sections make bad articles
Per numerous policies and guidelines, "Controversy" sections make bad articles, particularly about living people. WP:STRUCTURE, WP:UNDUE, BLP Controversy_sections etc. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CRITS is an essay, not a policy. And the controversial aspects of Allen West's career are the most notable things about him. 75.76.213.17 (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The controversial aspects aren't being ignored. But they shouldn't be parsed out, placed into a separate section and highlighted when they can easily be placed into the remaining body of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I'll renew my call for a "Controversies" section in this bio. Other public figures have them on their pages, but West's supporters seem determined to keep them off of his page. This is a mistake. West's primary notoriety is as someone who says provocative things. He's a one term Congressman whose national profile is entirely based on his willingness to say things that his opponents find outrageous.


 * First off, your allegation that it's a "supporters" thing is lacking in both good faith and evidence. I've never met him, never voted for him, never donated money to him and live nowhere near his district. Second,you and those like you, keep acting like information is being censored. Plenty of controversy exists in the article. It's simply not parsed out and highlighted. That is being NPOV and is the preferred method. Parsing it out won't make this article more informative or more neutral. About the only thing I could see as an "improvement" is that it will help the people who are too lazy to actually read find stuff to complain about. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your renewed call based on the fact that other articles are crap is not a very convincing one. The efforts should be to raise the quality level of the other articles and bring them into compliance with policies and guidelines rather than lowering the standards applied here.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, no politician's page should have a separate controversies section. This used to be a common practice, but was stopped on most pages as it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. There were wiki projects to do this for presidential candidates in the 08 and 12 election cycles, but I guess statewide official pages were ignored. For example, Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee had long controversy sections that were eliminated. Please keep in mind that I am absolutely not suggesting to remove something potentially negative, but rather keep it all in a chronological and neutral context rather than in a separate controversy section. Again, this is a common wiki practice - prior to running for president, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Giuliani, McCain, Fred Thompson, Chris Dodd and many others had controversy sections that have since been removed.


 * In this specific article, it seems an unneccessary amount of weight is being placed into the controversy section as opposed to the tenure section. What's more is that calling progressives as "communists" might not even be relevant enough to be mentioned. In my opinion, the battle to keep a controversy section here and extend as much irrelevant info as possible about some meaningless topics seems counterproductive. MavsFan28 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of the most controversial statements West has made aren't even listed. And claiming that West calling progressives communists "might not even be relevant" is disingenuous. He did say it. By that reasoning all of the things Joseph McCarthy said and accused others of should be struck from his article. William J Bean (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We are here to write an encyclopedic article, not to call out all of the "controversial" statements he may have made. A separate section for "Controversy" is completely unneeded and unnecessary and inappropriate. Any "controversies" that have actual meaning and impact should be covered within a standard chronological description of his life. If the "controversy" is not sufficiently impactful within the description of his life, there is ABSOLUTELY no rational for it to be called out in a separate section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Murphy is his successor not Lois Frankel
With the new lines drawn for the districts, West's district changed in name but the person he went up against in the race for the 18th District of Florida is NOT Lois Frankel but it was Patrick Murphy. Any news paper could of told you this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.215.5 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life
The education and employment and affiliations of West's wife is certainly germane to the article. I assume she got her PhD when he was serving at Ft. Riley, near K-State. She got the FAU board political appointment because of her husband's position in Congress, from his political ally, on a board that has been receiving considerable recent public scrutiny. If you think these well-sourced details need deletion, I suggest you first undertake a more extensive task on the Clarence Thomas page which reads:
 * Thomas's wife remained active in conservative politics, serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and as founder and president of Liberty Central, an advocacy group associated with the Tea Party movement.[172] As of 2011, Thomas's wife stepped down from Liberty Central to open a conservative lobbying firm touting her "experience and connections", meeting with newly elected Republican congressmen, and describing herself as an "ambassador to the tea party".[173][174]
 * In January 2011, the liberal advocacy group Common Cause reported that between 2003 and 2007 Thomas failed to disclose $686,589 in income earned by his wife from the Heritage Foundation, instead reporting "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be reported on his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms.[180] The following week, Thomas stated that the disclosure of his wife's income had been "inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions".[181] Thomas amended reports going back to 1989.[182] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 05:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What we "assume" isn't that important. It's worth noting that her bachelors is from K-State and she was a professor there as well. We could just as easily assume that she has strong ties to the school. I removed the "appointed by Rick Scott" part because, aside from the fact that the source doesn't say that (yeah, I know it's true, but it's not sourced, is it?), who appointed her really isn't that important. This isn't her bio. Nor is the identity of her current employer so notable that it belongs in her husband's bio. Her membership on the board is, however, notable and should stay in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What the source notes is that she was appointed by the governor of Florida in May, 2011. That governor of course was Rick Scott, a close political ally of her husband's. The FAU board of trustees is a subject that is drawing considerable attention at the moment, in large part because of the stadium naming controversy of which she is a part, but also because of an examination of all of the qualifications of board members (some of whom should have been disqualified by their respective histories of litigation). She certainly was qualified for the appointment, but it is difficult to believe that she was not chosen over perhaps 10,000 other qualified persons because, in large part, she is married to West, a sitting congressman at the time. I think it belongs there and if you want me to post a source that confirms that Scott was the Florida governor in 2011, I'd be glad to do so, but it seems excessive. I'm assuming we don't want to burden this or any other pages with an unnecessary abundance of citations. I think it belongs there and I'm going to check on some sources this past week which will make it crystal clear why it's germane and should remain. I'm not looking for an edit war, and I hope you're not as well, but in my opinion, your view that the information is not notable does not comport with the facts in the case. Activist (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, this is NOT an article about her. It's about Allen West. Second, just because a source says something doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. If I find a source that mentions that Allen West like chocolate cake, should that go in here to? Third, most of what you are doing here is simply presumption. You are simply guessing about why she was appointed. This is a bio of Allen West. If you have some conspiracy theory about why his wife was appointed, put it in her bio. Additionally, when BLP material is challenged as contentious, it normally stays out of the article while being discussed. Please don't force it back in until this is concluded. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No one seems to have "discussed" the article except you and I. You originally contended that I did not provide a source. In fact I had; you simply overlooked it. You also suggested that I put the info on "her" page, or add it to "her" bio. She does not have a page or a bio. If you want to create one, feel free, but I'm not building it, just like I'm not about to build one for Clarence Thomas's wife, the dynamics of whose political activity, covered on the Justice's page, has a marked similarity to that of Angela West's. The position of the FAU Trustees is gaining an extraordinary amount of national attention since they sold the naming rights to the Owl's stadium to the controversial GEO Group for a paltry $6 million. The student body is more enraged to find it will be named after a for-profit prison corporation almost entirely in the absence of student input. They have been upset with the prior conduct, both personal and financial, of the Trustees, for the past couple of years. After Abraham Cohen, a former FAU Trustee,  who works for GEO Group,  scrubbed the corporation's Wikipedia page of its "Controversies" section and made many other edits, the subject drew national attention. (GEO spokesperson Pablo Paez has also been editing the page, and others associated with the corporation seem to have but are identified only by their IPNs.) George Zoley, the GEO Board Chair, also chaired the FAU presidential search committee and he only made two federal campaign contributions this past election cycle. One, for $500, was to Allen West. Angela West was appointed by Scott as a Trustee. GEO Group gave $82,000 as a contribution to Scott's inauguration celebration which you can see at: http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/banking/republican-party-rick-scotts-inaugural-committee-rake-in-big-bucks/1146029  GEO major investor Bank of America was the second largest contributor to the inaugural. GEO also gave Scott $100,000 for his "Let's Get To Work" Committee. http://www.letsgettowork.net/?page_id=3  That's tied for the 8th largest contribution from any source. Scott has also tried to privatize every state prison in South Florida, 30 this past year, 29 the year before that, almost certainly a contract intended for GEO,  headquartered in Boca Raton. The legislative effort to do so was led by the Florida state Senate President Mike Haridopolos who had gotten huge contributions from GEO Group's PAC and many of its executives. After backing another Republican gubernatorial candidate, in 2010, GEO gave the Florida Republican party $455,500 only after Scott won the primary, a vast amount when compared to the still generous $55,000 it gave the party in 2010 before the primary, and $70,000 in all of 2009. The numbers are at: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor_details.phtml?c=3798&t=1&d=1282931187 So I haven't claimed on Allen's page that there is any "conspiracy" as you've speculated. However, there is a legitimate interest in how Angela West wound up on the FAU board of trustees which seems quite obviously related to her husband's former position, therefore germane to the page. I'm not looking to include the original research you've just impelled me to endeavor, just the simple fact that she was appointed to the board by Scott that you seem so anxious to eliminate. If you think this needs to be referred to a notice board, by all means do so, but in the absence of your taking that initiative, I'll restore your deletion tomorrow. The name of her employer doesn't particularly interest me, though I could do some research on that as well, if you'd like. Meanwhile I'll let your deletion of that employer identificaton stand. However, I've thoroughly answered your objections, I think. This issue will not be "concluded" if this simply remains a disagreement between us.  Activist (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you looked at the archives, you'd see the other dicussions. You did a lot of typing and unfortunately, almost none of it deals with the topic at hand. This is the bio of ALLEN WEST.  It is about him . It's not about his wife. It's not about the naming rights of a stadium, GEO Group or all this other silliness. You need to understand this basic principle. No, she currently doesn't have an article. If you want to talk about here then YOU write an article. It's not my responsibility to create a space for you to engage in your conspiracy theories and WP:SYNTH. Botton line: You've shown no policy or guideline based reason for including the info. Fact is, you haven't even tried to use policy to support it.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not engaging in any conspiracy theories. I'm merely noting a pertinent fact. You've claimed that anyone should know that Scott appointed her because he appoints everyone to the board. In fact there are only six gubernatorial appointments to a 13-member board, three of whom were appointed by Charlie Christ, it seems. I am baffled by your determination to erase this information from West's page and by your behavior in this matter. I wouldn't begin to speculate on your motivation. However, it seems that you are not abiding by Wikipedia guidelines, in your efforts to exclude this relevant, but hardly negative, information. I only discovered your uncivil comments about me today. Twelve hours ago I requested you communicate with me on my Talk page but instead you attacked me, without giving notice, on the Noticeboard. Then I went to your Talk page and saw that you have removed my collegial request to discuss the matter. Activist (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, I responded here to you. That is where this discussion belong. It doesn't belong on your talk page. Second, my comments at the COIN preceed your posting on my talk page. So get your facts striaight. Now, most importantly, you are avoiding the most basic point here: This article isn't about her. And yes, all your babbling about who gave what to whom and when is pretty much conspiracy theory when you start foisting it onto the page as some sort of relevant event. In the end, you've argued about what is or isn't true, but WP:TRUTH isn't the determining factor here. Try reading some policies (instead of complaining about not being notified of a discussion you were already involved in) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

New personal issue

 * You've once again scrubbed negative information about West without any basis. The story about the FAU trustees became a topic of national discussion. Rather than using Talk pages you're once again making your argument for your deletions in subject lines. You have been dismissive of edits by me and many others, have personally attacked us on these pages, have engaged in edit wars, and even seem to have stalked editors, visiting many unrelated pages to contest edits made by those with whom you disagree. I don't know what your overarching agenda is, but West is a person who thrives on controversy and who even managed to get himself censured in a military that has a long history of protecting its own perpetrators of bad behavior. Please stop using terms like "babbling," and "foisting off," to characterize those with whom you disagree. It appears that you spend a huge amount of time editing Wikipedia.  I don't know if it's your job or your avocation. But by politicizing and deleting clearly factual and important information, you tend to render any edits you make on any subject as suspect, though they might be worthwhile. Activist (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, if you keep ranting in attack mode, making allegations about agendas and using temrs like "scrubbed negative information", then you have zero expectation to get responses free of sarcasm. If you want to discuss the issue like a grown up, then discuss it. If you want to keep making your false allegations and making incorrect conclusions.....well then I'll disregard you as the unproductive, personal issue driven editor that you've given the appearence of all along. But this is your final warning about making your unsubstantiated allegations towards me. Prove them or stop making them. But continue and find yourself at ANI. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of "substantiation" for my contentions. If you would like me to collect and disseminate them, that's fine with me. You have left a substantial paper trail. If you care to subject your behavior to scrutiny we can certainly look to unbiased third parties to determine who is conforming to both the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. You continue to describe my edits in the most pejorative possible language, as you have done to others. By using terms such as "ranting," "grown up," are meant to be intimidating and personally insulting. I suggest you start taking your own advice. Activist (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to substantiate it. If you can, then go to COIN. You know where it is. Go there and make the allegation. But if you make it outside of there one more time, it will go to ANI. Keep playing the victim. Everyone can see how you throw tantrums, then try to act like you're getting picked on when you get spoken to the way you've spoken to me. And yeah, my advice to grow up still stands. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This restoration is because intimidation and rashness is a chronic feature of West's behavior, not a fleeting issue. It's a pattern that resulted in his separation from the service. The fact of the student's complaint filing is not at issue. It's the behavior that provoked the complaint, as evidenced by West's own threatening posting on his Facebook page. Please refer to the linked Sun Sentinel story. Activist (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As you see, another editor removed it, so we can now dispense with the whole "it's just you niteshift" thing (just like before). You're approaching this with the wrong mindset and that is where the problem begins. You're looking for a "pattern" and building a case because you have a point of view you want the article to reflect. It's almost like you're building an indictment. That's the wrong approach. We include an incident like this if it is is significant in the long term. Thus far, it's a person making a complaint. Period. Yeah, the media covered it. That doesn't make somethign notable. More media movered Jessica Simpson tweeting a picture of her pregnant stomach. That event didn't automatically become notable either. WP:RECENTISM is a good rule of thumb, especially today in our 24 hour news cycle. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A reminder of the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and the WP:TPG apply. This page should be solely for discussing how to improve the article, what the reliably published sources and how we can best present them accurately, with appropriate weight, without inserting our own personal interpretations into the article in accordance with our over riding responsibility to not harm living people nor use Wikipedia as a platform for "disseminating the truth" about our cause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)