They're clearly at the point where they're desperately searching for some excuse to blame me for bringing up THF's behavior, so there's no point rebutting LAEC's silliness now. [[User:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan</font>]] [[User Talk:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty</font>]] 08:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
They're clearly at the point where they're desperately searching for some excuse to blame me for bringing up THF's behavior, so there's no point rebutting LAEC's silliness now. [[User:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan</font>]] [[User Talk:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty</font>]] 08:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
:I don't quite understand the first part of your comment, but I think LAEC's continued presence there is highly inappropriate and I intend to keep challenging it until someone else does, too. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
:I don't quite understand the first part of your comment, but I think LAEC's continued presence there is highly inappropriate and I intend to keep challenging it until someone else does, too. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
::Sorry, I'll spell it out. Look at the vote they added to the end. My old friend, Daedalus, would like to have an admin ''force'' me to close that report, and likely penalize me with a block or whatever. It's intentional boomeranging. [[User:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan</font>]] [[User Talk:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty</font>]] 08:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
..Cholo is one of those words that no English translation can adequately capture. It may not be the equivalent of the "n-word", but it is also almost universily used derogatively... --Jayron32.talk.contribs
i disagree with your characterization of it. from my experience in mexico i still maintain that it can be used without derogatory connotation, among friends. Something like vagabundo -PrBeacon
Sea Shepherds and Violence
Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
to clarify: Since there has been some speculation about this side project, here a few words to explain: this section is a scattershot collection of bits I was working on to counter what i see as tendentious editing at the Fox News article, some of which may be initiated by the company themselves. It's not such a stretch, they've done it before -- see below.
I made the user list of my own accord in order to look into this -- admittedly, a hasty list with comments on editors' general behavior patterns. An admin stepped in and asked me to remove it, which I did. -PrBeacon(talk)04:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to ask: has anyone requested CheckUser on the half-dozen accounts camped there to defend the article from balance? I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them works at FNC. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
sox, stop the patronizing:
{ { tb } } Some of your recent comments at Talk:Fox News cross the line of civility. You're patronizing other editors with snide remarks like "You need to read." Since you started a respectful dialogue with me earlier this year, I'll give you more slack than others who didn't. But now you're coming off just as belligerent as the hardcore FNC defenders. -PrBeacon(talk)19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I am trying to avoid another huge, unwieldly discussion such as what happened with the NC Donation section. I realize I may appear to be patronizing and apologize for that, but really I'm trying to just get to the meat of the argument, namely why you think that the material should go back in. I'll try to stop using potentially insulting language for the duration of the discussion. Soxwon (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree that the list is a personal attack. I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. They can always choose not to visit this page. However, I will move it soon since you asked. Is it appropriate to leave a blog link in its place? -PrBeacon(talk)14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Please keep in mind, if you publicly post lists like that off-wiki, it could be seen as a kind of off-wiki harassment, a posting of an "enemies list" which, in some later dispute, could much thwart whatever you hope to be doing here. You might also have a look at WP:AGF, for more about the thinking on this kind of thing on en.WP. See also Wikipedia:Battle#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I appreciate your response, but I'd like to remove the reference to harassment. I could just archive this quickly, or let you refactor that part of your post. Thanks -PrBeacon(talk)15:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said could be seen as. I don't see harassment here. I see personal attacks. You can remove/archive whole posts of mine as you please, it's your talk page, but I don't understand why you're not taking down the user list. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack.
Nor can you keep/update that page by blanking, putting in more content, then blanking it again. I've deleted it as an attack page. Please don't put it back. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I blanked it, once, then you deleted the blank page (which I'm fine with), it was not an attack page which you deleted. Perhaps one might argue it was a potential one, but to me it was more like a sandbox. And since another editor is now misrepresenting your comment, I'm striking parts to clarify. I apologize if this is inappropriate. -PrBeacon(talk)01:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tranquilo. I said I would move it, then decided to remove it completely. I didn't 'put in more content,' blank it a second time, nor intend to keep it. Pardon me for being bold, but I have to say your vigilance seems somewhat misplaced here. (Note I may strike this last comment, upon further relfection -- see, thats how i do) -PrBeacon(talk)16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't like telling someone what they can(not) keep in their userspace at all. My belief is that you haven't understood been aware of the policies and how things are done here to echo those policies, which in itself is ok, no big deal. If you have worries about the behaviour of some editors, ok, dispute resolution is where you should take them. You can also ask me, another admin or any experienced user for ways to deal with that kind of thing. A friendly tip: Stick to content and sources, not what you think about other editors. Most of the time, it will get you much further. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm familiar with the policies but I also take exception to bullies and other turf-hounds when they (a) fight to keep an unbalanced article, and (b) scare away more casual editors, as seems the case at FNC. Despite repeated intervention by uninvolved editors and admin, they continue to exert themselves with activist fervor in order to counter what they see as systemic bias. I don't disagree with that latter sentiment to some degree, but I just think most of them go too far. -PrBeacon(talk)16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there is all of that and more, mostly on the high traffic articles. Cite sources. There is often more than one outlook on those topics and both (or all) of them can be echoed and sourced in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
while you're here: I'd just like to say I appreciate what I've read at Mr. Wales' talkpage in particular the exchange with Hans Adler, whom I respect from past discussions about Sea Shepherd et al. It made me think of the several occasions where one of the pro-FNC editors got away with a low blow, calling someone else a d!ck (with a link to a similar WP essay without admonishment. Apparently they missed the part which says, 'The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a d!ck".' -PrBeacon(talk)16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the worries about the d""" essay(s) is they get misunderstood and mis-used, a lot. I don't think it's ok to call another editor a d*** (even one who's, say, headed for a long block). I also don't think it's helpful to ask another editor if they're senile, even in idiom. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations [at talk:FNC] would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon(talk)17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the usual suspects think they're circling the wagons. For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon(talk)17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)revised[reply]
only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely...The admin first said "You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace" then when it was moved to a similar page it became "I've deleted it as an attack page". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^Wrong again- Are you intentionally mixing things up or just confused? This is the request to remove it: [4]. And that was one admin's opinion, I disagreed and said I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. The 'warning' you refer to was for calling you a troll in a previous thread, since you bring it up. By the way, your earlier remark about a 'BLP violation' might be amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. -PrBeacon(talk)00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write history however you like. Even go back and strike through another editors comments like you've done. It's in the history my friend. anyone who wants can see I quoted accurately. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you only quoted the second part accurately but that still doesn't make you right, especially since you're mixing things up. You're welcome to argue that you think it was an attack, but above you're simply misrepresenting what actually happened. The only deleted a blank page, not an attack page -- as i said there, only the potential.. If you're going to argue semantics and picky details, make sure the history backs you up, because it doesn't here.
Anyone can go see it in the history. I selected the appropriate quotes. I quoted accurately and in the correct order. Done here my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming anyone else still cares by this point, which i doubt, you repeating youself doesn't make you any more right. Now it appears that you're intentionally lying about the facts: there was no official warning about the so-called 'attack page' and your attempts to refactor it are borderline pathological. -PrBeacon(talk)03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No official warning? Ok, whatever. There doesn't have to be a template or something to be "an official warning". You might want to consider re-wording your last response. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you weren't really 'done here,' eh? Ok: the warning was not for the user list, as you orginally stated above and seem to be sticking to. Not sure I understand your last point, are you [5]threatening something? -PrBeacon(talk)03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, I thought I was done and probably shouldn't have responded. There is no threat. I just thought it would be sporting to give you an opportunity to reconsider something you may have said in haste without thinking just how far over the line you were stepping. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loosely tossing around terms like 'hit list,' 'enemies list' and 'stalking' shouldn't go unchecked, you guys are being overly dramatic. And I've changed this section's title because it's inappropriate, as the whole section may be. -PrBeacon(talk)00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"if a user suspects that others are editing in ways that don't benefit the project, then it's certainly right and proper for him to be allowed to document that, and he should be encouraged to do so, not discouraged. To call such documentation an "attack page" is way, way off the mark. ... So what if someone wants to run checkusers? I actually wish that would be done routinely re all frequent contributors to a given page. Socks are the bane of Wikipedia ... I can't at all fathom why anyone would feel they need to take such a suspicion as some kind of personal affront."
Thanks, I'm well aware of the policy. Especially the part that says "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and stop if there is any objection." If you recall, we'd both removed our comments from a similar subthread this past summer, but I suppose we've become more entrenched since then.. -PrBeacon(talk)01:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both removed ours before. It was actually a clean up to remove our back and forth from distracting from the discussion. But there was a prior agreement to do so. Honestly, not arguing etc, doesn't it look a little weird to remove half of a conversation and leave the other half up with no context? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe.. but before I go any further with that answer, I'd like to know why, since you're being honest/non-argumentative now, you've allowed the subthread in question to devolve so easily into you repeating ridiculously pointy questions? ("Do you have anything to say regarding the topic of the discussion?") And why you're so intent on mischaracterizing what happened with the user list above (aka 'attack list' in your eyes), at the Fox News talkpage? I can agree that I went a bit far with the idea which Viriditas and I were discussing, but isn't that obvious enough by now..? -PrBeacon(talk)01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not come to this thread to debate with you. I made a polite, non-sarcastic, non-argumentative, civil observation here about the removal in hopes that it wouldn't turn into some sort of debate. Apparently that was a mistake on my part. Sorry for wasting both of our time with the attempt. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in re userpage comments on conservative activism askew
Howdy! I don't want to seem unwelcoming nor do I have any complaint whatsoever about any of your edits. I just noticed you userpage and wanted to point to Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE, in case you've never seen it. Be careful that editing does not tend toward advocacy for a particular belief or cause. Identifying a systematic bias is important, and addressing it is part of writing an encyclopedia. But be careful that advocacy is left at the door (especially when you think others are advocating for contrary positions). In any event, thanks for the work on Wikipedia and I hope my concern here was completely misplaced (as I say, it was only brought about by your userpage, rather than any edits). If there's anything I can help with, or if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to drop me a line. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
point taken, thanks. that was written quickly upon my return from an extended wiki-break. i know not all editors believe in the flagpole approach to balance, but i think it's a practical necessity given the entrenched activism i've seen on several controversial pages. -PrBeacon(talk)04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(newer draft) - countering Arch-Conservative Activism(arch.., as opposed to moderate & reasonable -- as I said at FNC controversies, true conservatives and libertarians should be ashamed of what FoxNews sells under the GOP banner)
contentious tagging
by another FNC camper, denigrating anon-IP's comments as SPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
in re Other editors' qualifying remarks..(To T.A.aka.M.A)
In the future, please feel free to remove the SPA tags that another editor places after your comments simply because s/he doesn't agree. A month or so ago I noticed the tags on comments from IP#69, some of which signed Mr Anon so I assume it's you, at the then-current talkpage for Media Matters, now in Archive 6 and Archive 7. The editor who placed them has demonstrated a lack of sufficient NPOV and therefore is in no position to play moderator or pass judgement. btw I've posted this note at the talkpage for IP#69, too. -PrBeacon(talk)19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the edit history of the talkpage -- I think they were all added by Rapier (a.k.a SeanNovack). I was going to either remove them when the threads were still active, or at least comment on it at the talkpage, but first I asked about it at Talkpage:SPA and the only reply there was that you didn't object so it didnt seem to be an issue. -PrBeacon(talk)05:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it's your call. But I have to say I'm surprised to hear that. Since SPAs are generally considered a big problem on Wikipedia -- because of "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas", thus tagging someone's talkpage comments is NOT in good faith. Accusing someone of such, then going so far as to label every one of their talkpage posts with the comment, "69.228.156.201 has made few or no other edits outside this topic" he seemed to be trying to discredit your contributions. -PrBeacon(talk)04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No malicious intent there, and I don't appreciate the implication. At the time of those edits, the WP:SPA tag was accuraate and appropriate. Since further edits to establish the account have been made since (after all, before that T.A. was editing from an anonymous IP address) then I have no issue with the tag being removed. Rapier (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. You didn't agree with his edits or his talkpage discussion so you attempted to frame them as less than equal to your's or any other (regular) editor. MrAnon may not care but that doesn't make it okay. -PrBeacon(talk)03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's repeatedly asked for examples of his arrogance, hypocrisy etc, then used my lack of response to these requests as proof that he didn't make such comments, I'll give two early examples of patronizing and dismissiveness: [9] -- "don't be dense."[10] -- "Not a fine point, no point at all, on either case. You have just reached 'fringe' argument status" ... All downhill from there. Rapier just doesn't know how to disagree without being disagreeable, yet still has appointed himself to be the one to call others out on their uncivil discussion? Thats hypocritical, much like his compadre Niteshift. -PrBeacon(talk)20:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, examples. Thank you, I'd forgotten that you were the one trying to insist that MMfA was a good source to use for FSN. I'll apologize for those phrases, as I didn't intend to hurt any feelings. I can be blunt when an argument that has been refuted several ways is continually put forward, and that's what happened there. If a person approaches me with a reasoned, supported argument that takes into account wiki policy, even if I disagree with it, I have no problem engaging in discussion. When people on either end of the political spectrum (see the argument in the Talk:Brady Campaign section where I was equally blunt with a fool that wanted Brady classified as a "hate group" after District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) push an opinion and continually ignore Wikipedia policies, then eventually I'm going to saw them off. Should someone get barked at before they are reasoned with? No. I don't see examples of that in my editing, and if I've done it then I hope someone will call me out on it because I'll be in the wrong. Rapier (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where was your reasoning before the "barking"? The specific MMfA argument was against "admitted bias" -- I'm not rehashing it here, I'm clarifying your characterization of it -- and it was not refuted several ways nor continually put forward. Those were your very first replies to me on wikipedia and they set a tone thereafter -- I can certainly find more examples -- yet you still seem to believe that you have a right and duty to call others out. So the apology might seem more authentic if you hadn't qualifed it in several ways. The issue is not hurt feelings, it's a matter of civil discourse which includes the idea that others are allowed to have a different opinion than you and perhaps a different interpretation of policy. You and others seem to ignore that general conceit when it doesn't fit your purposes. -PrBeacon(talk)02:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PCRM + talkpage
[since he removed my request from his talkpage] To Kelly2357-
(in re[11]- revert of other editor's removal)
Please do not remove the talkpage section again. It is not a forum debate about gays, as you stated in your edit summary, and I do not believe it violates WP:TPG. Perhaps the title is borderline appropriate, but TPM's various factions are a legitimate point of discussion. -PrBeacon(talk)21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you explain how the current subject and discussion relates to directly improvement of the Tea Party article as opposed to just debating the factions within the Tea Party.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believe I've already given sufficient reason for its restoration [17]. The burden is on you to explain why it should be removed, especially after two editors have restored the section -- the reasons you gave in two edit summaries [18][19] are not accurate. Perhaps you can state your objection at the talkpage and let others weigh in. -PrBeacon(talk)21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is not relevant is because it refers to talking about the Tea Party in general and does not relate to discussing how the article can be improved. Talking about who controls entry to the TPM and about Factions in the TPM are not relevant to the improvement of the article. The whole discussion started with an article on a "turf war" and not any portion of the article. This talk is all unrelated to improving the article and is therefore a forum.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying something isn't relevant because it doesn't already exist in the article is rather nonsensical, isn't it? Nothing is in an article before it gets added to an article. Duh. The talk page pointer to the news articles was a request for further input on its appropriateness as content for the article. Your repeated attempts to hide that discussion indicate something other than concern about WP:FORUM violations (which this clearly is not). Xenophrenic (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That above comments by Xenophrenic are not what I have said and even a cursory reading of what i have said is nothing like the comments made by Xenophrenic. I have said it is not relevant because it doesn't discuss improvements to the article it is just a discussion on homosexuals in the tea party and factions in the tea party. Wikipedia discussion pages are not for talking generally about the article subject, they are there to discuss improvements to the article. If it doesn't exist in the article and the talks do not start of by introducing it as a constructive addition to the article then it is simply posting to talk in general about the subject at hand as opposed to talking about how to improve the article at hand. Also assume good faith and do not think that just because someone opposes something you are doing means they are trying to hide something or subvert things, this is the reason why nonsense discussions escalate in to edit wars when editors take it personally. Do not take it personally and actually discuss improvements to the article. See WP:OwnershipandWP: AGF. The discussion being talked about is not constructive and does not relate to improvements to the article. Also please state how this does not violate WP:Forum as the discussion is just a general talk about who is and is not a member of the TEA Party and does not talk about improvements to the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to strike the above as nonconstructive and overly repetitive, but I'll let it stand for now. You don't need to be lecturing other regular editors about what talk pages are for. What or what doesn't relate to improving the article is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but you don't get to moderate the talkpage according to what you think is appropriate. You're misinterpreting policy and yes it does appear like you just don't want that sort of talk on the Tea Party page. I mentioned that the term "faction" does not appear in the article. I await other editor's input before I proceed to recommend changes to the article in this regard. -PrBeacon(talk)19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to strike another users’ constructive and well-reasoned comment is unconstructive and does not assume good faith. Simply stating comments are repetitive is not a reason to dismiss them. When comments clearly devolve in to forum posts then it is right to redact the posts and not encourage discussions which are off topic. As for lecturing other users that is not what I did I simply stated Wikipedia policy which should be followed. Stating I am misinterpreting policy is nonsense as it clearly seems that the header of the talk page warns against forum posts which may be redacted without warning. Simply stating you posted the word forum in a context demonstrates the talk had devolved into discussing generalities of the TPM and not the article at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is just a discussion on homosexuals in the tea party and factions in the tea party.
No, it is not, despite the intentionally provocative header. In fact, the cited sources say absolutely nothing about gays in the tea party. The discussion is about whether social issues are a concern of the tea party, along with fiscal issues. The present Wikipedia article needs to explain that aspect of the TPm in clearer detail. This is obvious from the cited sources, but perhaps they were deleted before you got a chance to review them.
If it doesn't exist in the article and the talks do not start of by introducing it as a constructive addition to the article then it is simply posting to talk in general about the subject at hand as opposed to talking about how to improve the article at hand.
Incorrect. Your personal opinion on what defines a "discussion on article improvement" precludes numerous other legitimate examples, such as presenting new source material that can be used to refine existing article content if consensus exists to do so — a popular method with editors of articles prone to edit warring.
No, thank you. If there is a particular part of those lengthy essays that you wish to bring to my attention here, you can quote it here. Allow me to demonstrate:
Hi, Lucy-marie! I noticed you have repeatedly deleted discussions from an article talk page, despite being reverted by at least 4 other editors, and you cited WP:FORUM. Regarding deleting discussions like that, WP:FORUM instructs us: "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines", which further advises us: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection".
LM now you're just deflecting everything and it's clear that this attempt to reason with you is in vain. (Just as I considered doing with the previous comment, I am striking that as unconstructive etc.) I see there is a pattern in the way you interact with other editors and talkpage topics you don't like. Don't post here about this again. -PrBeacon(talk)05:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
L-M has copy&pasted in order to continue arguing at her talkpage and linked to it from the TPM talk.. now with others responding. But I have to say a couple things look odd there, like I'm writing to myself "To PrBeacon..." (which she changed from the above original) and then later like I'm saying she can't post about it on her own talkpage (!) "Don't post here.." Ugh. (Something I hadn't noticed before, brought up by another editor: Lucy-Marie isn't even a participant on the TPM talkpage. Which begs the question: why the self-appointed moderator role?) -PrBeacon(talk)06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is NOT considered a personal attack
"pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" -- From NPA:What is considered...
All due respect Kim, he didn't agree to that. At best it was a conditional assent, though it may be the closest he's capable of without official warning or sanction -- I don't know, I haven't seen his block log but I know he was edit-warring on this article recently. But his partial agreement is insufficient given his continued attitude of arrogant denial. His lack of acknowledgement of, or even apparent self-awareness to, his poor approach to editing this article, or any article on a controversial subject, makes it impossible to resume assumptions of good faith. He speaks of the current discussion on the talkpage as though it were due to his persistent aggression, and thus 'his' consensus. How long must we assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary? From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." By the way, I still think my question is appropriate, perhaps with a bit of exxagerated effect in the manner they seem to understand better. So, how can two users be objective enough about one article when they slag it in another? Each of them istrying to talk out of two corners of his mouth. -PrBeacon(talk)04:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to chill. The details, the call for diffs, the volume, it's just too much right now. Besides, chilling is more in line with your suggestion with which I am now complying.
I see you are just starting to get the picture and I see you are seeking to intervene. I prefer to let that process continue. I think either the guy will stop attacking, or he will continue, and either way it will obviate the need for me to comply with questions that only arose precisely because of that guy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No one's attacking you. I'm questioning your agenda-driven editing. That's fair game. Continuing to play the victim card doesn't excuse your poor approach to editing and engaging discussion on talkpages. And for the record, piling on to the ANI discussion after Dylan got topic banned is grossly inappropriate [20]. -PrBeacon(talk)12:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have invited me to comment here, so I am. I prefer to remain chilled as to you.
As to Dylan, his behavior that resulted in his topic ban is substantially similar to his behavior that he uses on other pages. I noted that with the purpose of the hopes that what Dylan learned from his Sarah Palin topic ban experience might also be applied elsewhere. Besides, I have edited certain Sarah Palin pages so I am not uninvolved in that matter. Unfortunately, it appears from Dylan's subsequent comments (after the ban) that he really has not learned much. Just look, for example, at how he is treating the person who banned him, who just said, "One can't deal with that by trying to wear down other editors, not only is it against the policies, but it only gets their hackles up even more." Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're certainly entitled to feel that way, but posting on ANI elevates the complaint and exposes your actions to similar judgement: you are guilty of the very same contentiousness that you accuse him of. Normally I'm inclined to remove false statements here that only serve to extend a certain self-delusion, but at least you didnt claim another personal attack. And I note that you did not address that issue as I replied, here nor at the SPLC talkpage. What policy do you believe supports your continued assertions that you are being attacked?
Regarding the question of FRC crusade, you still have not answered -- and I note that that is precisely where another contentious editor with whom I share a history of disagreements (see below) showed up there out of the blue. (Kim moved his comment into a new section, but you can check the history if you don't believe me). Since he & Badmintonhist no longer deserve the benefit of doubt, I can only assume they canvassed for it.
Anyway, if you were just upfront about it, it likely wouldn't be an issue. Plenty of editors have interests, most probably. The challenge is to be as objective as possible in the subjects we're interested in, for whatever reason. -PrBeacon(talk)22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
digging a hole for yourself
prepping for WQA or some other avenue, possibly, as his disruption continues...
User:Niteshift36 doesn't know when to quit. Early on at FNC, after he arrogantly dismissed my first comment there as willful blindness, I made the mistake of engaging his petty bickering, then soon called him out on his freakish need for the last word (which he's now projecting back on me) that is part of an issue which actually affects collegial WP: thinly veiled attempts to wear other editors down. Apparently, (to him) everyone else is to blame for his arguments quickly devolving, anyone who dares to disagree with him gets a quick dose of his patronizing argumentativeness, and no one from his ideological camp seems to care what a trainwreck he makes. Lately he tends to parrot the tired cliche "Stop living in the past" as though he should so easily get a second-second-second-chance... It's not about a grudge so much as a matter of respect. He has to earn it back, not just assume it returns so easily.
Eventually I moved away from the articles he edited regularly but it didn't take him long to follow, obviously he's tracking my contributions and watching my talkpage [21], yet he cries that I'm the one who's wiki-stalking. (I just know it's eating him up that the ANI was recently archived without another-last-final-parting shot). By the way, he's been Blocked for sock puppetry before (in addition to being blocked three times for editing warring) so it's really not much a stretch to wonder if he's doing it again. -PrBeacon(talk) 18 December 2010
My reply to an editor's concern about undue mention of conservative groups at SPLC (talk):
To be clear: these two groups are specifically mentioned because of their objection to being listed, apparently [they were] thought notable enough to include and survive over time -- I think that's what Kim meant by 'artifact' of editing -- not by coincidence. In the past others have been mentioned as objecting to the designation. Besides, hate groups are not so easily ascribed to any part of the political spectrum. For example, isn't the Nation of Islam considered right-wing? I believe TFD has mentioned Laird Wilcox's work before on this. -PrBeacon(talk)05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's first response to me in this thread, part of a pattern continued from articles on Fox News, Media Matters and others, and the ensuing exchange:
Who considers NOI to be conservative? They are black separatists that believe that black scientists created the world on a plan that repeats every 25,000 years and a number of other fringe theories. They are far from conservative. Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find disputed the designation doesn't seem like any sort of balance or pattern. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do some digging before you make such a blatantly false allegation. I never added either one. As far as I can tell they were both added by editors who are sympathetic to conservative causes. -PrBeacon(talk)06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What allegation? I haven't made ANY statement about any editor. I don't know who added them. I don't care who added them. Who added them is completely immaterial to the discussion. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but everything I say isn't about you. Read it again, realize that you have imagined some allegation (maybe surprise me and admit it) and stick to the topic, m'kay? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then choose your words more carefully, especially given our history of disagreements. And while you're at it drop the sarcasm. You clearly said "Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find..." (my emphasis) -- this is not an imagined reference to me when it comes directly after my comment. That's a natural implication of your (sloppy) word choice. I know that you don't appreciate it when others do that to you. Perhaps you assumed I was defending the questionable content as status quo -- that would be another mistake. As Kim said, the section should be reworked anyway and I don't give a damn if conservatives are mentioned with their objections or not. -PrBeacon(talk)03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh give it a rest. You (PRBeacon) want to ignore the rest of the entire conversation and manufacture an allegation because of a generic "you"? See, unlike you (yes, PRBeacon), I don't enter every conversation carrying the baggage of every conversation I've ever had with you (PRBeacon). If you (PRBeacon) bothered to get past your (PRBeacon) own sense of self-importance, you'd (PRBeacon) see that I said almost the exact same thing at the start of this discussion. In fact, I avoided contributing in some of the other discussion you (PRBeacon) were involved in because I predicted that you (PRBeacon) wouldn't be able to have a conversation without dragging everything ever said into it. Stop manufacturing drama where there is none. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He doth protest too much: I think he does carry baggage, since I only said 'history of disagreements' and he went off on that.
Heh, ' give it a rest ' and then that ridiculously pointy reply? Get off your high horse and stop trying to re-frame what I said. It's a stale old tactic of trying to wear down other editors because you have nothing more substantial to add. You're free to move along and suggest a re-write of the section, as others have already agreed to. Yet you prefer to focus on the partisan angle, apparently. -PrBeacon(talk)05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NS36, Try to contain your scorn. After you failed to AGF at [[22]] and thus lost my respect, you don't get it back until you give it.
"obsession" ?! [23] --from that little snipe at ANI soon after the SPLC exchange (copied above), anyone can guess who's doing the tracking. and more than a bit of projecting.
then, even after he protests 'keep me out of it' he can't resist replying again... [24]"I'd like to hear you explain why" -- that guy is the most flagrant Last Word Freak i've ever seen. i guess he thinks he's being constructive. i'm sure no one else there cares. As i've already said elsewhere, it was probably a mistake to mention him there and link to his ridiculous trolling at SPLC. but the timing was too much to ignore, at the time. i've since considered removing it but, based on the last 'sidetrack discussion' at Fox News, i doubt he would respond in kind & remove his comments. -PrBeacon(talk) 17 December 2010
but wait, there's more: digging a hole for himself [25] since anyone can see he's projecting, 'craving' last word etc.
trouted
Whack!
False allegation
[26] Now my stalker is claiming I was blocked for socking. I'll really enjoy seeing him prove something that never happened. I've never even been the subject of a SPI. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't flatter yourself. We all know the bare term 'stalker' is ludricous when used in the online context here. YOU are the wiki-stalker. How else do you explain showing up at SPLC and starting a fight? (Anyone familiar with the edit history can see you posted [28] right after my questioning your two pals about their FRC crusade) I'm sure you've noticed that I left the Fox News article to you fanboys. YOU chose to come to SPLC. Unless it was more off-wiki canvassing between you and your boyfriends. -PrBeacon(talk)09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea sure that's what it is. Keep believing what you want to believe. You got blocked. Whether it was a mistake or not, who really knows. The fact is, it remains on your log. and 'LMFAO' really? are you 12yo? So who's talking to themselves now eh -PrBeacon(talk)09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in re ANI, another editor's allegation of SPI
(posted at User_talk:Cptnono & User_talk:SlimVirgin, two more experienced users whose opinions I can respect even when we don't agree)
"If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[31] ... and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here." - Doc9871 [29]
My response is directly below his. [30] I probably made a mistake in mentioning the another editor who just resumed his snarky retorts from a few months ago, elsewhere, and who just replied at ANI too.
I wasn't directly involved in the dispute at the Palin article or at the ANI. But from our discussions at the SPLC & TPM articles, I considered Dylan to be a reasonable minded editor. I wasn't aware of his aruments at Palin. In the ANI, I posted a couple of small points to support his right to defend himself. I don't know how to read that wiki-stalk thing that Doc linked [31], other than noticing that the same list for him & Dylan [32] seems similar -- and it shows nothing more than overlapping interests. If and when a CU is performed, I expect an apology from him but I'm not about to write that at ANI as it sounds as petty as his post does. But his accusations seem too serious to just toss out there. Regards, -PrBeacon(talk)07:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry, PRB. I don't have the time to look at the diffs right now but should be able to tomorrow. Without looking into it in depth, I would see if getting a check user to clear your name is acceptable. I thought Dylan was alright but he has kind of rubbed me the wrong way lately. You and I have not always agreed but you have always seemed more than decent and the mannerisms just don't seem to be there so I assume the allegation is ridiculous. Besides seeing if getting a check user is allowed, the other advice I would give right now is looking at what you might have done to get on the wrong side of the accuser. I am not saying you are to blame but I have noticed that when I start getting frustrated I usually had at least some part in it. That doesn't excuse anyone else crossing the line ad it might be too late to realistically come to an understanding with the other user but consider it. No matter what, continued allegations against you are going to be maddening.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I have no history with the Doc. I can only assume he chose to attack me because I was one of the few voices of support for Dylan (albeit very mild on the spectrum, there, especially compared to how many folks are attacking Dylan for speaking his mind though yes too aggressively and frequently). I happen to think he's right in principle as far as the bigger picture goes (Palin vs. GOP), though i'm doubtful the 'Africa' barb is worth mentioning. And I really don't know enough about CU so I guess I have another thing to read up on now. Thanks again. -PrBeacon(talk)08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
looked like
...hounding
first two posts are responses at User_talk:SV
[33] * What is this, a canvassing[34]? AN/I is highly visible, and there's no need to assemble a legal team, PrBeacon. If you're not related to Dylan Flaherty: I am wrong and would apologize. I didn't bring up the sock allegations, but you two are "thick as thieves", and that is shown in the editing histories of your accounts. Cheers... Doctalk07:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[35] I should think someone with experience on wp would know the difference between asking for advice and canvassing. Slim, since you may not want this continued on your page, I've decided to copy it to my talkpage. And there post my response to the Doc's equivocation. -PrBeacon(talk)08:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then, Doc: do you always assume the worst of editors you don't know at all? And then actually voice those assumptions at not at just any old talkpage but the main public forum for grievances? How would you respond if someone accused you of secretly working for Palin -- and asked for a checkuser to see if you & anyone else matched her known staffers' locations?
Surely you know that editors who have mutual interests are going to naturally run into each other at various articles. You may not have started the SPI discussion but you certainly fanned the flames with such misplaced certainty and recklessness. Even still, you continue to cast aspersions so easily with phrases like "thick as thieves" -- if we knew each other i might be able to take this with a grain of salt. But sarcasm and innuendo are often lost here, and the result is just nasty bickering. -PrBeacon(talk)08:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...fighting against Dylan to be secretly working for her -- and asked for a checkuser to see who matched her known staffers' locations?" What "staffers"? What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious you two "don't know each other" too well, since neither have commented on each others' talk page. Odd. I wasn't aware that Dylan was a "her" or that she had a "staff" - just that the appearances at AN/I and elsewhere are becoming a problem. You seem to have a similar approach, and your defense of Dylan at AN/I seems a little strange. Doctalk09:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[ [ The 'her' refers to Palin, see my revised comments (which were posted before your 09:04 reply) -- I was simply offering an analogy to something you might find ludicrous, or not ([37]). But now I see that you're not active at the Palin article in question. ] ]
The unfortunate thing about this relatively minor side mess is, you could have asked first instead of floating your thoughts at ANI. Or at least see what a POV-warrior that User:LAEC is how his opinion of Dylan's editing is far from objective.
Anyway, I'm hardly defending Dylan there. I noted the OP's improper header link to WQA and later I voiced concerns about the overly-quick ANI closure and topic ban. When he started replying to every single post and point early on, I probably should have advised him against that -- but it actually seemed like a couple of the doubtful editors (like ErrantX and BaseballBugs) changed their mind there. I've seen Dylan do some great collaborative work at the Tea Party Movement and Southern Poverty Law Center articles, two subjects that could not be more different in many ways. As I've already said, I wasn't aware of the extent to which he pushed against others at Sarah Palin (tl,dr) but I can understand the idea of worthy debate because of my own experiences trying to balance the Fox News article earlier this year. -PrBeacon(talk)09:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd been "active" at the Palin article, I would be in the edit history there. If open proxies are involved with you and/or Dylan, a CU would be "inconclusive". I wouldn't have raised the issue at AN/I unless I thought there was a very good chance that you two are related. If you are not related, I will apologize profusely to both of you. Until then, I am quite suspicious of the similarities in editing style and subjects edited, and I encourage a CU to clear all doubts. Cheers :> Doctalk09:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again I think you're replying to an earlier version of my most recent response. I know I can look at edit history but that takes a bit more work and I wasn't that keen on it. I had a quick look at talk archives but since you don't sign your full name, that search won't turn it up. Anyway, I dont know what you're talking about with the CU details but I have nothing to hide so do what you have to do. But I still don't think it's okay to shoot first (with the accusation) then ask questions later. -PrBeacon(talk)09:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then: question. Why did you make this edit to an article you had never edited before (or since) your comment? You didn't "follow" anyone there? Doctalk10:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall exactly but I noticed you singled that out at ANI. I might ask, What exactly is your interest in Koch? Of course you're free to check my contributions and see if there is an obvious flow from other articles. I'm not aware of any policy that prohibits me from moving around as I please. It's starting to look like you're hounding me for your own reasons. You've had your say here, please move along. -PrBeacon(talk)18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something odd about your posts aside from the obvious and arbitrary bullet point. Your quick accusations reek of a petty vengeance that I've only seen from Niteshift36. And this apparent wiki-stalking now looks like it is connected [38]. Or could it be that I am inclined to see a connection where there is none? (Ask yourself that same question) -PrBeacon(talk)19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment on this, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with any of it, so it's hard to know what to look at. If someone wants to direct me to something specific, I'd be willing to take a look. SlimVirgintalk|contribs05:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@PrBeacon: A connection between me and any other account is "unlikely" considering my personal distaste for socking: CU/SPI away if you don't believe me. Wikistalk can be misleading, it's true, and I was definitely surprised at how many articles I have in common with Niteshift36 (whom I'm never met until this stuff happened). I've responded at AN/I here[39], and all are welcome to comment there. Cheers :> Doctalk05:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Slim, it's no big deal. I've never been accused of socking before so it was a new experience. The conjecture and finger-pointing came from folks who seem to see open discussion differently, to say the least-- somewhere between the 'Socratic' method and a crapshoot of illinformed probabilities[40]. (Attn: Doc, if you continue replying here, please wait a few min. because I often rewrite -- and no i don't need a lecture on Preview, thx) -PrBeacon(talk)10:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've just now realized I'm not an "admin"[41]. As if that actually matters. Some admins are "selected" and some are "born". You won't see me at WP:RFA, so have no worries. See you in the funny pages... Doctalk11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're inferring the wrong thing from my clarification. Please stop assuming the worst and reading into things. (classic overthinking) I knew before that you weren't sysop. But the distinction I made is for the perspective, not specific to you. And I thought it important enough to make clear in that comment since it could be misread as encouraging a battleground mentality, which I am not doing. If you're still confused by my sometimes peculiar word choice, just ask. Don't assume so much. -PrBeacon(talk)11:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're clearly at the point where they're desperately searching for some excuse to blame me for bringing up THF's behavior, so there's no point rebutting LAEC's silliness now. DylanFlaherty08:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the first part of your comment, but I think LAEC's continued presence there is highly inappropriate and I intend to keep challenging it until someone else does, too. -PrBeacon(talk)08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll spell it out. Look at the vote they added to the end. My old friend, Daedalus, would like to have an admin force me to close that report, and likely penalize me with a block or whatever. It's intentional boomeranging. DylanFlaherty08:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
