User talk:Will Beback/archive31

Protection of Lyme disease
With all due respect (and I have a lot of respect for you), I disagree with the decision to fully protect Lyme disease. There is a clearly linked group of sock/meatpuppet agenda accounts warring to warp the article, employing personal attacks, incivility, disruption, and so forth. Wikipedia is being abused here, and administrative attention is needed to deal with the massive, abusive agenda-driven meatpuppetry. I don't think protecting the page is a step in the right direction, so I was wondering if I could ask you to reconsider. MastCell Talk 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dissapointed
WP:RETALIATION is a page that needs to be written, to highlight the perils of editors will face from time to time when involved in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AiV request
I've made an AiV request about the vandal. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 31 hour block.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Dice
There is a discussion about the relevancy of adding in Dice's name into the mention of Reagan's comments at Talk:Michael Reagan/Archives/2014. I would most likely be swayed by our input. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert: Diebold
I recently deleted a section on the Diebold page that showed they removed content from their own page. You reverted it, saying it was newsworthy. However, the article in question contains a sentence or two on it. I do not believe this is newsworth, and in fact libious. Although i cant cite policy at the moment, im very sure that for a section to be considered newsworthy, it must actually be the focus of the story. This is not. If im wrong here, please tell me so i don't make the same mistake in future. I shall wait for your reply before reverting again. Thank you! -- Me ta gr aph comment 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
Will, Thanks for your note. The answer is simple and I am sure you can help! Wikidās ॐ 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible return of Harvardlaw/David Jason Silver
Check out the recent edit history of the his favorite article and his other contributions, tell me what you think. Seems like his standard modus operandi... multiple edits done w/o preview, inclusion of info IRT Former Yugoslavia, adding redlinks in the article, IP addy in the range of that which he has used in the past.

I hate to sound like I'm being paranoid, but, knowing HOW MUCH DAMAGE the cat can do to articles if not put in check... maybe my suspicions are warranted?

Just let me know, thanks!

Supersquid (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't even look at the IP geolocation. I will keep that in mind next time.  I have seen his IMDB profile... something about that pic and his incessant self-aggrandizement just screams "serial rapist" in my mind.  Not to be judgmental, that is.  And the posts on his message board... ROFL!  I don't know if I should feel pity, disgust, or embarrassment for the cat.


 * Supersquid (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal sandboxes
... are better kept under your talk namespace. If you want to provide sources for evaluation, do not WP:COATRACK them, and add them to existing sandbox pages for scholars or journalists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You should stop in trying to pass a personal collection of sources and careful selected "quotes" from scholars and others as a sandbox page for that article. Why don't you add these sources to /scholars and /journalism instead? Why? Uh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you and Francis up to? Total chaos and disruption? What good is it to have two pages with the same material? What good is to to delete material that I added to the sources? Beats me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply shameful. Don't ever ask me to assume good faith on your comments, or edits. No way I or anyone else can extend you that privilege given your attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? What are you blaming me for this time? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of edit warring, not telling Francis to stop the shenanigans, and then doing this edit . Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider self reverting ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting, but my patience is not endless. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: LAPD
I removed Category:Municipal police departments of the United States from Category:Los Angeles Police Department because the LAPD category and its contents are not a subset of Municipal police departments. Yes, LAPD is a municipal department. But the contents of the LAPD category are not articles pertaining to municipal departments. Therefore, the LAPD category is not a proper subcategory of Category:Municipal police departments of the United States. An appropriate subcategory would contain a proper subset of the parent category. Wizmo (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PR bibliography
Thanks, yes I saw it. It's probably a good idea, but I'm no expert at such conversions (if you mean: automatic conversion, ie by bot). A few of them wouldn't have worked that way, like e.g. the Schnabel one I did this morning. Doing manually also allows to check & update where necessary (which of course could/should also be done after a bot operation).

Did you see I added "doubtful" at the bottom of the Raw list for those entries I'm not sure about? If you have any help there, would be welcomed! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dandelion Luv
What did you mean by the comment on my page? I didn't say anything bad and there are references. Did you have to delete the whole thing? The whole thing couldn't have been that bad? dandelion luv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion Luv (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem - nothing said contradicted the link you sent, IMHO. Just deleting a whole section seems pretty contrary to me. Do you do this type of thing often like the other person indicated on my discussion page? dandelion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion Luv (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Let see you applying the same standards
..for this comment:


 * or seriously consider reading about the subject of cognitive dissonance.  It is now my turn to ask you who has inhe past have commented about this type of language, to tell the editor above to refactor the obvious personal attack, and to remind her that these pages are under probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing
Contrary to Wiki policy against harassment (Posting another person's personal information is harassment) John Brauns continues to use "Derek" when referring to me. I have removed the references twice and WillBeback once and asked Brauns to stop doing it. But he continues to do it. Brauns has already threatened to blackmail people on Wiki so this harassment is serious, deliberate and sustained. I expect the admins involved in this discussion to ban Brauns indefinitely, if not permanently.Momento (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits
It doesn't look like there is much hope for a serious discussion of Views of Lyndon LaRouche, but if you would make the edits you called non-controversial, I would appreciate it. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to edit protected page - Sahaja Yoga
Hi Will, under the heading of "Belgian court ruling" there are two suggestions which seem to be agreed on. One is to the introduction section and the other is an addition to the "Cult allegations" section. Could you please implement those changes? Freelion (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. Freelion (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will, we have two more editprotected requests which have been agreed to, if you wouldn't mind doing the changes. They are the insertion of the HRWF reference to the end of the "cult allegations" section and a rewritten version of the 3rd paragraph in "The term" section. Both of these have consensus. Freelion (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection of Illegal immigration to the United States
I have requested semi-protection for the Illegal immigration to the United States article. A question came up in the discussion on the talk page about the multiple IP addresses you reported to be owned by User:Psychohistorian. I would appreciate your input. Terjen (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian lawyer's opinion
See User_talk:Jossi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And then read the newspaper source about what the judge said. Clearly he was assessing maturity and financial independence to grant emancipation for the purpose of marriage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, even if this is a chicken and egg thing, there is still the interesting premise within Colorado's higher education guidelines, fostered by the Colorado Legislative Council in 1972, stating that "the marriage of a minor results in his emancipation." As an example of this put into practice, one finds Colorado State Statues Classification of Students for Tuition Purposes Title 23, Article 7, Section 103 Presumptions and rules for determination of status, (2)(j): "The marriage of a minor results in his emancipation."


 * Although there doesn't appear to be a statutorily defined emancipation process in Colorado, I personally think Colorado Code 19-1-103 (Definitions) speaks volumes: "The term may include...any such juvenile...who is married". So that, coupled with the rules within Colorado education, would lead to the conclusion that a minor who is married is thereby considered by the State of Colorado to be emancipated. The quote from 1974 does not appear to state that the minor had to go through a petition to grant emancipation first; merely that the minor obtained a court order to allow marriage. That court order may indeed have included whatever persuasive arguments and evidence needed for the minor to secure a positive outcome from the judge - but that doesn't constitute an emancipation proclamation, especially in a state without a defined process. I would therefore conclude that your take on this is correct.


 * Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My autobiography
I can't wait to write one, because I am sooo going to refer to my mother as "the individual responsible mainly for my travel planning for the first 16 or so years of my life", ya, I'm sure that's the most accurate way to describe her... I might throw in that she was my personal nutritional overseer too. :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma
Will, could I ask you to have a quick look at Six Sigma? There's an IP/new user who keeps inserting his (private, and mistaken) "Opposing viewpoint". I think I'm out of reverts. Cheers, Jayen 466 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma
Hope I'm doing this right...

I was not aware of the 3 reverts rule. Sorry.

I believe I am the one being frivolously edited here. Jayen has posted a mathematical absurdity and has set himself up as the ultimate authority on this topic, editing and removing content he doesn't like, but which is as legitmate as what he has posted.

Do we really need a citation to support 4th grade math?

denton (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric Arthur B.

 * I'm curious as to why I get a talk page "just to know it's official" note for inadvertently posting this guys identity on another website, yet you've seen no reason to say anything to him when he repeatedly posted my name and other personal details in the main text of a wikipedia article? More details in the response on my talk --Insider201283 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted a further reply re "outing" on my talk. Main point was there is nothing for "oversight" to do with regard my commentary. The discussion with knervma was in regard to a post on my blog, not wikipedia, where as part of a larger article I mentioned the EAB posts and who he was. I edited it once I was aware of the potential problem with Wikipedia rules, I never once "outed" him on this site, unlike his repeated attempts in the main Amway article. In addition I think EAB's latest post on Talk:Amway is heading into the realm of harassment. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be interesting for you to learn that 'Insider' has quietly slipped the real name of whom he believes to be 'Eric Arthur B.' back into his 'thetruthaboutamway' blog article. This is after he'd assured you that he'd removed it. At all times, 'Insider' poses as victim.Eric Arthur B. (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat
I find it easy to believe that the Sacramento Bee would talk about LaRouche's policy overlapping with Reagan's, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would say that LaRouche was "labeled an ultraconservative Democrat by some, and a nut by others." I suspect that this was an editor's personal formulation, which is why I am requesting a quote. I'm sure another, more verifiable source can be found if this one is unavailable or nonexistent. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sepulveda
Move back if you so wish. Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP
This is not the question; the bot run is removing the "Date of birth missing" cat from individuals who are unquestionably public figures, such as John Yoo. In addition, articles for individuals whose year of birth says "born ca. 1970" have also had the "Date of birth missing" cat removed. These edits were wrong and the bot operator needs to go back now, by hand, through all the edits and reverse the mistaken ones. Badagnani (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that the individual is a highly public figure and we don't know his birth date. Regardless whether you believe it should be included or not, the "Date of birth missing" cat was properly placed, and improperly removed. Further, many articles for individuals whose year of birth says "born ca. 1970" also had the "Date of birth missing" cat removed entirely, and not moved anywhere. These edits were wrong and the bot operator needs to go back now, by hand, through all the edits and reverse the mistaken ones. It's not helpful to our project to cover for a bot operator who refuses to go back and clean up after his/her mistakes; that is really unacceptable. Badagnani (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot operator did not move the category to the talk page, s/he blanked it. That shows a lack of initiative to actually fix problems that is unfortunately often shown by bot operators, preferring to blank a problem rather than actually fix it properly. I see that the bot operator has not gone back and fixed any of his/her mistakes (as I have rarely see any bot operator do when informed of his/her mistakes; they generally prefer to leave it to whichever non-bot operator noticed the error, and ask them to do it by hand, so that they can get on to their next bot task). Badagnani (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
I must object. You deleted this edit:, but you left this one intact:. Please either restore my edit, or remove Cberlet's. --Polly Hedra (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking My IP Address
Um, hi, I didn't edit anything with this IP address and you blocked me, I have an account, so I use that, but I had NEVER vandalism or edited the pages that "69.224.32.79" apparently did. I think this is a mistake or someone is using my IP address. I am VERY SURE that no one uses my computer other than myself, so I think this is a mistake. Anyways, I hope that people won't like come to my house and accuse me of vandalisming on Wikipedia. Thanks. 69.224.32.79 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)69.224.32.79

Michael Savage
Hey, good on you for spotting that last bit of silliness and removing it. Very sneaky of the guy to slip it into the middle of the quote, where I missed it! Btw, were you aware that (last year) we had somebody -- possibly Mr. Savage himself -- editing under the name MichaelSavageConservative? He terrorized several articles until I joined forces with another editor to put a stop to it. Cgingold (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sexual identities template
hi - reasoning for removing ex-gay from the navbox was at the time i figured it wasn't actually a sexual identity (more like the rejecting of a former sexual identity (gay)). I guess it could though, depending on your perspective. User529 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted ex-gay back into template per your suggestion and rv'd template back into article. also cmt'ed on template talk page. thx, User529 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet
Please unprotect the page Chip Berlet and notice it for the request for deletion list. Thank you. Sorry. Just not worth the effort any longer. Nothing is changing. Waste of time.--Cberlet (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I rally appreciate your efforts, but if RFD is not a good idea, then I request that the entry be deleted, just like Dan Brandt's entry was deleted. Fair is fair. And please delete my Wikipedia user account. Been a pleasure working with you. I'm leaving.--Cberlet (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification on how or if this action is applicable to the Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case. Cla68 (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma, again
Will, please help! I have another OR warrior. Jayen 466 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More Mark Dice from a month ago
A month ago I put up some info on the Michael Reagan page. I saw my post was removed almost immediately, and figured it wasn't worth making a thing. Evidently, the question of adequate sourcing got hot a little while after I put it on there. It looks like some sec/tert sources came online not too long after, so all is well and the issue is nicely sourced and presented now.

I put it up there originally because people like me go to wikipedia first for quick information on a topic like that controversy. I certainly had no interest in promoting some guy like Dice.

I put it up as a current event as I figured it would get edited soon, and it looks like it did end up being contentious and frequently edited. I gather I just jumped the gun. What's better to do about this kind of issue?--Pballen (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Berlet AFD
I thought the AFD got closed. I don't have on watchlist, and I've been a bit pre-occupied. Sceptre (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from the deletion request, there's no dispute, thus no reason for the page to be protected. And I'm as weirded out by the tagging as you are. There's no reason those two tags are 50kb. Sceptre (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
I have a question, which I hope you will perceive as non-antagonistic. Having read the ArbCom decisions, I am aware of who HK/Herschelkrustofsky is. From this edit and others where you mention him, I have the impression that he looms larger than life, like if you, SlimVirgin, Cberlet and Dking were the Fantastic Four, HK would be Doctor Doom. My question is this: has there ever been any actual hard evidence that the ghost of HK still walks among the Wikipedians? In this edit you seem to concede that there is not. I recall that you banned MaplePorter, who struck me as one of the most civil of the LaRouche editors and one who did a lot of constructive editing, for the crime of "suspicious possession of an image file." Is it not possible that after the demise of HK, there was just a procession of new LaRouche supporters, who have a reputation for being egregious, and who all hold views that reflect LaRouche's? --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy gabs adds 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Italianlover07
Just read your remarks on Italianlover's Talkpage (User_talk:Italianlover07)... Bad news, I'm afraid. It hasn't helped a lot. Channel &reg;   00:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Synanon
Will wrote this to me: Thanks for your contributions to Synanon. You are indeed a unique resource for this article. However please be aware that Wikipedia has special rules about sourcing information. It isn't sufficient for an editor to have personal knowledge of a topic. Everything in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable using generally available reliable sources. Inline citations are now the norm. Fortunately, the Synanon saga was (eventually) covered thoroughly by both journlaists and scholars so there is no lack of sources available. Another norm of Wikipedia is to work consensually with other editors. It may be uncomfortable for an expert such as yourself to have to explain editing decisions to those who aren't nearly so familiar with the topic, but it goes with the territory. To that end, please use the Talk:Synanon page to discuss your edits. Again, thanks for your participation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My response: You are wrong that Synanon has been thoroughly digested by journalist and scholars. While most book are accurate as to facts, save Janzen's, no one has what I have which is Synanon's owne records and tape recordings on it descent and directives to get the enemy. I just gave you the complete and accurate overview. I can always post it elsewhere, but I admire what you do and thought it belonged here. But for illness I would have done it years ago.

My problem is I have about 40 or more boxes of documents, Synanon tapes, every magazine and news article, news broadcast from conception up until about l980. Every event corrected and edited in event is absolutely accurate. But I am anemic and cannot pull out every source at this time. Eventually I will be doing that for USC archives. To do every citation would take a year of work. I also have my own 3-volume history being written for USC.

However, everything about Synanon was put together in volumes with volumes of exhibit in IRS vs. Synanon. I can cite that over and over if you wish. Or I can cite legal files of Paul Morantz.

I have given you a gift...the true story with events no scholars or jounalist ever knew about. I could double it in size, triple it or more and still add events and incidents no one ever knew. Like how did we get all the hot Synanon documents and the story about the Dederich confession (no one knows about it) or about cover ups and everyone that went to jail and for what crimes.

In Synanon you have one of the great stories of 20th century. I just gave it to you accurately. My illness and time prohits the type of sourcing you want. Let me know if my suggestions suffice. You think Scholars (?) who read stories know more than someone who fought them for 8 years? Your summary "Synanon" to the right of the page is also inaccurate. Synanon Germany is not an affiliate, at least they denied that for many years. The important people list is totally wrong. I also helped provide information in the building of Synanon's website. Query George Farnsworth.

I am mentioned in 3 other of your articles (for writinf Deadman's Curve) and plan on editing articles on other cults I fought and your piece on Humanistic Movement. Someone is starting one on me and imagine I will edit that (if allowed). I will be giving untold stories in my fight with Werner Erhard. But other than a few articles it was done in the town of Parlier and with LAPD. I have a few letters, but what happened I witnessed. I was there. If you want me to stop say so. I can write it and just post it elsewhere. But as I said, I am a fan of your cite and found it very resourceful for research.

Again, I will annotate it where it can be but I can't set forth evey source. Primarliy I will cite Morantz-Synanon case files and IRS vs. Synanon Summary judgment books. But I can't list the 100's of tapes of Dederich telling Synanon history that I have listened to. Please advise what you will accept. Does annotation follow every knew fact, sentence or paragraph?

There is some irony that my article on John Walker Lindh is cited as authority re Synanon but I wrote that on recall.

Again, my time is limited. I wanted to help history as few who have looked at Synanon had enough facts to understand it. I will work with you, if I can, but it is your decision what you want to do. Also, I made changes as re-editing. Once it duplicated itself, another certain lines run long. I think you guys got on this and that was impressive. But in my condition it would be impossible to read, analyze and memorize all your rules. I don't want to break any but your system is a little too much in my condition. I have Red Blood Cell Aplasia and get blood transfusions evey two weeks.

I wanted to correct the "scholars and journalits" before I eventually go.Paulmorantz (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani
A user you have recent interaction with is the subject of an ANI discussion here. Please feel free to comment. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

San Bernardino page "edit war"
The San Bernardino.CA article should be reverted back to the way it was prior. Honestly I cannot believe the things I have been reading every time I check in on the San Bernardino,CA page. Some things don't even make sense and its very obvious and apparent to me that whoever decided to add there irrelevant contribution on the so called "ethnics Demographics" section is not from this city and does not know anything about it period. I had my contribution on there for months on end with out some ignorant jerk coming in and changing/deleting everything I wrote. I was born and raised here and truly believe that my write up is far more informational and accurate than the gibberish that person keeps writing. So I request that you observe this page carefully.

I also am irritated by the fact that most likely the same person who is deleting my contribution is also adding there irrelevant section they made up as "Public Safety" I also have had my contribution on that section for months with out any interference and I believe it should remain as is since its a serious problem in the city that NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. So please refrain from touching that section. This is not an attack on anyone on here I'm just stating my frustration with some people on this website and the lack of cooperation the administrators on here have with issues like these. Whoever is editing this page seems to be doing so deliberately and its like you are rewarding his or her stubborn non cooperative behavior.--Robert jones 714 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert jones 714 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question-User Impersonation
I hate to bring this up again especially when I am supposedly on a wiki-break for about a year now. But when I was cleaning out my watchlist and user talk page the other day, I found that an impersonation issue that I approached you about a year and half ago (see here) has sorta developed an interesting twist. I was told the account has been blocked, but when I checked the logs for that account, I noticed there was no logs at all besides the user creation log. So, unless I am interpreting the situation incorrectly, that account is still active and can be used for edits. Is there anyway for you or another admin to delete said account so I can set up a doppelganger or at least reblock it as an impersonator? Typer525 Talk 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * oh sorry, I didn't see that log when I checked (here) should have remembered that block logs are slightly different than regular logs. Sorry for bothering you and thanks for clarifying. Typer525 Talk 13:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility accusation from IP editor — heads-up
Hi, Will — You might want to note, if you hadn't already, that the multiple-IP-address editor who might or might not be Psychohistorian is accusing me of unrepentant incivility in connection with the discussion about whether or not to use the term "anchor baby" in the article about birthright citizenship in the US (see the "Anchor Baby" section of that article's talk page). The issue has spilled over onto the talk page of another admin (Cireland; see the "Seeking advice on dealing with an accusation of incivility" section of his/her talk page). I'm not sure where this will lead — and CIreland may very possibly have the situation completely under control, so I'm not necessarily suggesting that you'll want to take action on it yourself at this time — but I did want to make sure you were aware of it. Richwales (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the threads and found Richwales had done nothing wrong. His accuser was playing victim by inflating nothing into something. The result was unnecessary disruption to gain an article description of an otherwise legitimate controversy.
 * The multiple-IP-address editor seems to be pushing a POV, including article edits that may rise to a WP:COI violation. On the talk page he pushed just hard enough to have stepped over the line of tendentious debating at least two or three times, including being unresponsive to several challenges about OR that he wanted to insert.
 * From an analysis of the multiple-IP-addresses, that editor appears to be a paid employee of an institution engaged in apprehending USA illegal foreign nationals. Under the provisions of WP:COI, it appears that this editor should not be editing articles that discuss USA illegal foreign nationals without prior consensus on those articles' talk pages. Milo 05:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)