User talk:Will Beback/archive54

Name Violation?
Isn't User:Cicorp in violation of WP:CORPNAME, and why hasn't this been caught a long time ago? CI (stands for Creative Intelligence} Corp is a TM-related company. Offices in Fairfield other places anon IP posts are coming from . Fladrif (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has been impersonating you
Recently I discovered that someone has been impersonating me, setting up a fake blog on which he used the name stonemason89:. This person is not me, and the blog appears designed to impugn my character; the posts there imply that I oppose freedom of speech and there is even a link to the North American Man-Boy Love Association website, which appears to be a not-so-subtle attempt to tag me as a pedophile and/or sympathizer.

Anyway, two people are listed as "followers" of that blog as well, and they have the names Will Beback and Rock8591. I have a feeling this is yet another smear attempt. I posted a complaint about this blog to ANI; they said that the best course of action would be for me to post a disclaimer on my own user page, which I did. However, I also thought I should let you know about it too, since the blog also targets you. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Harvardlaw is back again
Hi. Thanks for your help with him before. He's back again... If you could help (again), that'd be great! Thanks. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! ~ Pesco  So say•we all 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cute
Cicorp designed the website, for cosmicintelligence.com. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see from above you are already aware of the myriads of ways this violates conflict of interest. Most interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I Am Online
So if you want to continue the back-and-forth-God-this-needs-to-be-archived ANI thread, please let me know. I am actively working on another ANI thread and will try to space myself between the two OR we could just discuss things here, whichever is easier for you. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded on ANI. Might want to keep an eye on the page via Watchlist. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have one request, could we possibly keep the ANI thread moving a little faster? I know WP:REALLIFE happens, but when ANI threads involve you (talking of myself), it is best to be there for it...and just waiting around for something to happen is kinda annoying. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I collapsed the diffs section on the ANI thread. Not trying to cover anything up, just making room.  Damned page is cluttered as it is.  Also, the cot/cob template was used in a thread below that on a diffs section, so I thought it was appropriate.  If I overstepped, let me know and I will remove the template. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request for enforcement against you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Will_Beback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumlin, Albert (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Give you the short version, it is an ArbCom case started by a sock of indef blocked User:Albert Sumlin. I marked the sock account with a sock template and will take it to AIV posthaste. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User was blocked, case closed. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sumlin, Albert
You're Welcome :) Glad I could help. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
 * Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
 * From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
 * User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
 * Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Thank you for your kind offer
But I do not communicate with other editors off-wiki. Fladrif (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

page move
Hi Will, trying to move this article back to Guti Hernández where it was a half hour ago and it has got a bracket attached to the title, could you move it back for me as it is not allowing me to do it for some reason? Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it has just been done, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Prem Rawat
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Prem Rawat was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK   11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

TMers
Thanks for your note, Will. Samantha Jones is notable. See my response on the LOTMP talk page. --BwB (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK
IP editors should be allowed to edit project space since the Sock puppetry page isn't protected. My edit was constructive, so why did you undo my edit? 71.94.158.203 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I currently don't have an account that I can edit with, so when I want to, I'll create an account. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It means that my accounts are blocked, but I can still edit this way. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talkback
Here. Might want to watchlist it. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and again. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and again. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seen your post before I signed off, so I replied. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 07:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will check out your reply to my reply in the morning. 'Night. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Will, I am going offline for the night. Had some dental work done on Tuesday (6/8) so I am not at 100%.  Feel free to leave posts on my talk page and I will respond later on today. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking policy
Hello, Will... FYI, I have reverted this edit of yours at Blocking policy. From what I can find, the text has been an accepted part of the page for at least two years (that's when I stopped checking, so it may be even older). Furthermore, the talk page includes a discussion about the addition of the (now removed) line "If a user is blocked indefinitely, he or she is considered a banned user until an administrator unblocks the user". As part of that discussion, the text you removed today was described at the time as a "more nuanced and accurate description". Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all - I've certainly done that myself in the past. Thanks for the note. --Ckatz chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Blood Libel
A gentleman named User:Steinberger insists that Blood Libel is not false by definition. I'm sure you acquire his drift... What can we do about it? -Galassi (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat 5, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Sock for you to deal with
Per our agreement, I have a sock for you to deal with. User:Agent4454, an obvious sock of User:Agent4453 (who is indef blocked) is back and continuing the sneaky date change vandalism. You can see the contribs here. Could you please take care of this user? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I have seen you about, but don't believe we have interacted before. I saw that you warned Steinberger with regard to edit warring. I reported him to the edit warring board. There are some serious disruption which has been ongoing for months on harm reduction articles. See, Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring where I reported him and this conversation User_talk:Steinberger for background. It would be nice if an uninvolved admin could keep an eye on things but if you are too busy, I understand. Appologies if I am disturbing you, I know you are busy with transcendental drama.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the situation Will and your block. My only remaining concern is that the other editor involved in edit warring has done another revert of the disputed content. It is a little more than 24 hours after I issued a 3rr warning to him, I am thinking User_talk:Minphie may need to be blocked as well? They both seem to not be responding to warnings in the way I had hoped. I wonder if full protection is justified for the harm reduction article for a week to allow things to settle? What do you think?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you semi-protect Blood libel so I don't have to war an IP over an (warranted) template? Steinberger (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reverts (again)
Why did you revert this edit? Articles don´t need useless spaces at the end of paragraphs. --Dezidor (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I only know what I read
But, I'll see what I can do. I feel like I'm in Wonderland reading the arguments. If ArbCom had any 'nads, this would have been unnecessary. Fladrif (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

V Word
Looks like User:216.227.86.96, a potential sockpuppet of User:Agent4453, is creating some sneaky date change vandalism. Haven't issued any warnings (since they will list the V word in the edit summary), so I bring this to you. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverts done by other users continue. Want to take this user to AIV, but can't. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Damien, TM, and socking
Hi Will. I'm just curious about something. Given your rather strong, oft-stated, anti-socking views you gave in the TM arb case; how do you reconcile that with your willingness to unblock Damien in that AN thread given he's a known socker and even been socking this week? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a possible future RfA bid (Richwales)
Hi. I recently decided to prepare for a possible future RfA bid. I've written up a preliminary draft set of answers to the standard questions (plus some additional questions of my own), currently at User:Richwales/Drafts/RfA Q&A. I'd be grateful for any feedback you might be willing to offer. In particular, do you have any comments regarding what I'm saying (in my Q&A #5) about the run-in which you, I, and others had in 2008 with Psychohistorian (editing as a multi-IP anon) on the immigration articles? Thanks. Richwales (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Question on Comment Deleting
Hello. I have a question about how to delete currently irrelevant comments from the 'discussion' page of an elected official. How can I contact you to discuss in greater detail?

Question
An admin surprised me with Rollbackers, Autoreviewers and Reviewers access. I have used rollback a couple of times (still learning the others), but have a question. I am running into problems where I am rolling back obvious vandalism, but I can't warn them per our agreement. So far I haven't run into any problems taking them to AIV, but I fear I will soon. How should I warn users of vandalism, if I can't warn users of vandalism? Can't do it via TWINKLE, because it adds the word "vandalism" to the edit summary...which would break our agreement. What would be acceptable? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Might want to watchlist the page. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Breeze
I removed the e-mail facility because WP discourages off-wiki discussion of topics. Also, since some of the discussion becomes heated it is better for everyone not to "out" oneself. What in general did you wish to discuss? Is it possible to discuss it on personal talk pages? TFD (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

More on Richwales's possible RfA bid
Hi again. Thanks for your earlier feedback. I've added more to my Q&A (see here), and now I'm starting to worry that it could be too long (risking a TL;DR reaction from many would-be readers). Someone else said that very thing in the feedback he gave me — and he also warned me that the more detail I go into, the more likely that people will find something to latch onto that makes them decide they don't like me. On the other hand, I don't want to just give short, pat answers ­- that would be just as likely to boomerang in another way. What would you suggest at this point? Richwales (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a good one
Listen is the fridge stocked? Bears like to forage and fast food (meaning in a stream) sometimes escapes us. Seriously, have a good one! moreno oso (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep my food in a bear can. You can play with it but you can't get inside. But I can point you towards some tasty blackberries.   Will Beback    talk    21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch! moreno oso (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

{wikibreak} (Back)   Will Beback    talk    23:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

LaRouche on Obama
Hi, so my understanding of the various rulings regarding material from LaRouche publications (although perhaps my understanding is not entirely comprehensive given the vast extensiveness of these rulings over a period of many years) would be that these publications do not qualify as credible sources in most contexts, and cannot be used to back citations in the vast majority of articles -- that is, we could not cite LaRouche publications as sources in articles concerning medieval Venetian financial history, Jazz music, Alexander Hamilton, cold fusion, etc. However, the sole context in which they are appropriate as citations would be the limited number of articles with a high degree of direct relevance to LaRouche, his movement, and his ideology when the citations are merely used to explain these. That is, of course it would be inappropriate to cite LaRouchePAC in the article about Barack Obama to highlight LaRouche's claim that the Obama campaign was controlled by British financial interests, but in the article specifically about LaRouche in a subsection detailing his views about Obama, it would be appropriate to note the relevant statements made on this subject by the LaRouche organizations, and to cite the publications of these organizations. My understanding is that it is only appropriate to cite LaRouche publications in order to detail what views these publications were expressing, and it appears that there are many such citations throughout the Lyndon LaRouche article. (Just from the intro, we directly cite the Schiller Institute concerning Ramsey Clark's letter to Janet Reno, rather than finding secondary sources to confirm this. We can cite The Power of Reason in the limited contexts of describing what LaRouche said in The Power of Reason rather than attempting to find secondary sources describing what LaRouche wrote in the book, etc.) Adlerschloß (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * LaRouche's endorsement of Hillary Clinton in 2008 is obviously just as important an "event" as his endorsement of John Kerry in 2004 (which has been in the article for years), and it seems appropriate per my understanding of the rulings on these topics to employ citations from LaRouche publications to provide details regarding the LaRouche organizations' stated views on such events (that is, we should include LaRouche's reasoning for his defense of Clinton and opposition to Obama, just as throughout this article LaRouche's views are detailed regarding the details of his involvement in the Reagan administration's implementation of SDI, on the nature of the threat posed by AIDS, on events concerning the death of Jeremiah Duggan, etc.) Adlerschloß (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We see mention of LaRouche's support for Hillary Clinton here: "In 2008, the political activist and founder of the LaRouche Movement did not run for the Democratic Presidential nomination; however, his group supported then-Senator of New York and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." Also, mention of LaRouche supporters campaigning in early 2008 at a Hillary Clinton rally, holding anti-Bloomberg banners, here:  Adlerschloß (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking through the LaRouche bio article, a great percentage of the material in the entire article in fact seems to highlight actions by members of LaRouche's movement. We even see a photographs of LaRouche supporters campaigning on global warming and displaying a sign comparing Obama to Hitler. Much of LaRouche's overall notability/visibility, and media attention given to him, seems to come from actions performed by his supporters. Note the final paragraph in the section "LaRouche on Obama." The first two citations are from LaRouche movement publications and explain (to an extent) LaRouche's opposition to Obama's health care plan, his advocacy for a single-payer plan, and his characterization of Obama's plan as similar to Nazi policies. The next citations, from sources outside LaRouche's movement, describe specific actions by members of his movement (or interactions in which his members were involved) that received outside media attention, regarding their public campaigning in support for LaRouche's views on health care. I'd actually suggest a similar structure regarding LaRouche's support for Clinton and anti-Bloomberg campaigning (which received attention from sources outside the movement); as in the case of the paragraph concerning health care, LaRouche publications should be cited to explain proclamations by LaRouche that influenced actions by his supporters which received media attention. I'd again note that it seems inconsistent to mention LaRouche's endorsement of Kerry but not his endorsement of Clinton -- and these high-level endorsements of mainstream Democratic Party candidates are clearly notable within the greater context of LaRouche's political career, at least as notable as many other events discussed, and inclusion of these sort of events serves to add an adequate amount of nuance to the article, improve its quality as an overview on the subject, and also improves its overall usefulness to readers. Despite the high number of more sensational events in LaRouche's career, less sensational events which still received media notice should still be regarded as ones to be recorded in a decent bio article, unless we're actually deliberately going out of our way to further some political objective on the matter. Adlerschloß (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine. Adlerschloß (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference
Will, I found an article where the referenced link no longer goes to the referenced source material, and the page being referred to is now completley different (it's now a placeholder page with a ton of pop up ads). What is the best way to handle this? Do I remove the refence and add the "fact" tag to it? is there another tag to put in it's place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrat (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
A Russian nationalist edit warrior every couple of days reverts cited info in order to make it look marginal and partisan. Refuses to discuss anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Borealis55 .-Galassi (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking
Hope you're enjoying your vacation! When you get back, would you be so kind as to courtesy blank this page? Thanks! Dreadstar ☥  15:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you're back, can you please take care of this? Thanks! Dreadstar  ☥  23:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that the pages in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement have been courtesy blanked. As for an individual evidence page, I suppose that an exception might be made if the party committed to not being involved in the topic in any way again. Otherwise the material may be relevant in the future.  Will Beback  talk  23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't asked you to courtesy blank the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement pages, I've asked you to courtesy blank the evidence page on me that you created, as I've blanked the evidence pages I created, here and here. Since it's not deletion, courtesy blanking is perfectly acceptable and leaves the 'evidence' in the history for all to see and easily accessabile if it may ever be 'releveant in the future'.  You can respond here on your talk page to keep the thread together.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would we blank selected pages? If there's a commitment to staying away from the topic then I suppose there might be a reason, but that hasn't been forthcoming. What are your intentions regarding the topic? Do you see yourself as involved or uninvolved?  Will Beback   talk    00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, you have no intention of abiding by any of my requests and persist in attempting to set restrictions of your own. Sweet.  Stay off my user talk page.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, I've been keeping a distant eye on this since the case ended and I think some progress has been made in the TM area. For the record, the issue of blanking BOTH of your evidence subpages in your user spaces came up amongst the arbs. We decided it was a gray area and left it to you two --one the one hand it's in user space and users can delete their own subpages on the other hand it was used in arbcom case evidence. At this point, I'd say both of you do the same thing - keep both or delete both. And yes, you may need a break from each other for a few days ;-) <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Need your help
will, hope you are having a great break, by the images you post, i think its beautiful and inspiring. Will, I have an unknown editor coming and posting stuff on the article Emy Kat you have helped me improve and leaving no signatures. I have no idea who this could be, Could you be so kind to put this article on your watch list to help safeguard it ? I really appreciate it, thank you --♥Chita1234♥ 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chita1234 (talk • contribs)