User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Reliable sources

Just because a source doesn't agree with you doesn't mean it is not reliable. You're summarily rejecting sources because they are not "wikiworthy", despite them clearly complying with WP:RS (MMFA and PFAW for example). Then you turn around and say that there's no sources so you delete the material. That's unsupportable. Orpheus 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus. The PFAW link says 180,000 is the circulation. Another link says almost 500,000 is the circulation. The main problem with PFAW is that it may be wrong. Look, I admitted the other source may suffer from the same problems as the PFAW source. But I suggested we get the real value from a real source, not from a biased source one way or the other.

As to the PFAW source not agreeing with me and therefore it is unreliable to me, that is a silly argument. I have not counted the number of AFA Journal subscriptions. All I see is PFAW says 180K, the AFA says almost 500K, unbiased sources make this their business to track, and we should be using those unbiased sources. So I don't even know the number, supposedly according to you, so it could not possibly conflict with my nonexistent view. Frankly, who cares anyway? The point is to get accurate, encyclopedic numbers, not biased numbers, whether they be from PFAW or from AFA.

As to summarily rejecting sources, when an article is suggested from the past and no link is made and no search can find it, it is really hard to argue that I am rejecting sources. There where no sources there in the first place! I even asked for a clarification so I could evaluate the artile, and I was rebuffed with suggestions I was too lazty yo get the article myself. This does not build confidence that the asserter of the source is a serious editor.

Further, the same person (I think you) asserting other sources that, when examined critically, do not support the assertions of that person, does not mean I am rejecting sources "because they are not wikiworthy." Rather, they are rejected because they to do support the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, there is no need to evaluate the wikiworthiness of a source if the source simply does not support an editor's assertion in the first place!

I and the others are ready, willing, and able to add anything encyclopedic to any article. But the sources provided so far do not support the assertions claimed or they simply are nonexistent. This has nothing to do with bias or favoritism or anything like that. This is just that the sources asserted either do not support the assertions or are just plain nonexistent.

Now as to "Then you turn around and say that there's no sources so you delete the material. That's unsupportable." Well, it is totally supportable where 1) the sources are non existent, and/or 2) the sources do not assert what the editor claims they assert.

Really, you can go on and on for decades until your fingers fall off from constantly claiming why nonwikiworthy sources should be used because it's the thought that counts, but that would just be wrong. Can't you simply provide proper sources? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim PFAW must be incorrect, but the source you stated is from over 10 years ago. I hardly see something that old as having an accurate number. A more recent source, 2001, from AFA's web site states it is 350,000 in circulation [1]. Even more recent sources, 2005, including the Washington Times, said the AFA journal is approaching 200,000 monthly circulation. [2][3] Maybe the AFA wants to make it seems like there are more in circulation then there really is, or maybe there used to be a lot, but now there isn't. Who knows, but it seems that the PFAW's number is close to the Washington Times, which is a reliable source and that source you stated, which is almost 500,000, is way off, even according to the AFA themselves. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! Real sources! I'll take a look. The point here is accuracy. But I have to do something else now, so l8r. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PFAW is a "real source" also. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But the sources provided so far do not support the assertions claimed or they simply are nonexistent. I object to that - the New York Times articles I quoted are not nonexistent, they're just not online. You have the ability to check - your local library will have archives of the New York Times (unless some pressure group has had it removed because of liberal bias or something) and you have the date, so it should be easy enough to find the article. The other sources do support the assertion, but you're trying to redefine things so that they don't. It's the whole "advocates censorship vs censors" redefinition. The AFA does the same thing in their FAQ. "Are we anti-gay? No, of course not. We just want gay people to stop being gay." (I paraphrase) Orpheus 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look. Hillary Clinton just called for a "legislative fix" to halt talk radio she opposes. Trent Lott is interested in something similar. Is it right to go on those wiki pages and add the Censorship category? The American Library Association refused to allow access to it training seminars. Shall I add Censorship to them, the USA's self-arrogated Censorship police? Daytime TV stations no longer show jingoistic cartoons. Is that Censorship? Millions of parents worldwide don't want their children to view pornography. Shall we go into all of the wiki pages of all individuals and add the Censorship category? Shall I go on?

And you cited to an NYT story that cannot be produced and no other sources. Are we supposed to be impressed with that? This is an encyclopedia. It's called Wikipedia. It's not called Orpheusopedia.

In Orpheusopedia, one gets to cite to articles that no one else can examine that requires going to a library with a microfiche room, and there is no need to cite to any other article because only that one will do. Further, in Orpheusopedia, any suggestion that Orpheusbo Wales is not providing good sources is immediately met with the most vociferous and obnoxious behavior that has at its heart the goal of making people give up out of sheer exhaustion so as to allow Orpheusbo Wales to say anything he wants in Orpheusopedia whether or not it is true.

I'm not going to check into this, but one has to wonder if you treat Wikipedia like Orpheusopedia here, have many other wiki pages are similarly infected? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of questions you have. Here are my answers.

• Is it right to go on those wiki pages and add the Censorship category? — I am not familiar with the subject, but if people are advocating censoring radio and it is something they are largely involved in it, I don't see any reason not to. Although, I'm not too sure because sometimes people use categories different on biography articles.
• "The American Library Association refused to allow access to it training seminars." — I'm not familiar with the subject, so I don't think I can provide a good answer.
• Daytime TV stations no longer show jingoistic cartoons. Is that Censorship? — Yes it is
• "Millions of parents worldwide don't want their children to view pornography. Shall we go into all of the wiki pages of all individuals and add the Censorship category?" — Again, I know some people treat categories a little different on biographies, so I don't know the answer.

In reply to your complaint about citing newspapers without an online version, this is not in violation WP:VER policy and is accepted throughout Wikipedia. There does not need to be a web version to be a reliable source. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling - remember WP:AGF. Your lengthy diatribe on "Orpheusopedia" is quite uncalled for. Furthermore, there is in fact such a wiki, although it reflects your views rather than mine - perhaps you should be editing the AFA page at Conservapaedia. I will reiterate: Good sources that can no longer be found on the web are still good sources, still reliable sources, still compliant with WP:RS and still (regardless of your personal opinion) "wikiworthy".

As for your examples of censorship, I would say that Hillary Clinton and Trent Lott are both advocating censorship, and if either of them actually achieved something along those lines I would add them to the censorship category in a heartbeat. So far it's just posturing and has had no effect - the AFA has indeed had an effect (negative or positive depending on your point of view). The ALA and the "millions of parents" are only attempting to censor or restrict that which they have direct control over (seminars, their own children, what have you). That's not censorship. If the AFA confined itself to permitting only "family friendly" material in its own seminars, then more power to them - that's one of the rights you have in a free country and I would march in the streets in their support if someone tried to make them show something they didn't want. Daytime TV stations are a grey area. If they were pressured by the government (threats of large fines etc) then it's definition censorship. If they were pressured directly by private groups (the AFA, NOW, NAACP, whoever) then that could be argued as censorship and belongs in an article, but wouldn't be suitable for a category (not direct or factual enough). If they were pressured by the government because of (in whole or in part) pressure from a private group, then the private group is indisputably advocating censorship and the label is appropriate in a category.

I ask once more - have you looked at the other articles in the censorship category? Do you think they belong there? Do you think the AFA belongs with Thomas Bowdler and the National Legion of Decency? Orpheus 05:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't had the time yet, but I will, and not merely to respond to you, but to keep an open mind as to what's best for the wiki article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean the other Wikipedia articles in the category, in case you think I meant the external links I posted. Incidentally, calling it the Christian bible wasn't POV, it was an attempt to be more specific - can you think of a better qualifier? Orpheus 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove this?

I don't understand why this had to be removed, [[4]]. It provides info about the AFA. Do you think it needs to go somewhere else? Citadel18080 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, everything except the categories. Citadel18080 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Pobody's nerfect. It's okay if it goes back. But those cats that guy keeps putting in against weight of all evidence and wiki policy should not be put back. Thanks for your help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, someone (209.86.73.147 - first edit ever) just added this, "AFA does not do lobbying. They have no lobbying presence in Washington DC. This has been expressly prohibited by Don Wildmon. I talked to him in 2000 and it has not changed. Steve Ulrich AFA of PA Associate Board Member" --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good addition, assuming it can be sourced. I'd heard that the AFA did practice lobbying, but I could be wrong. By the way, what are your thoughts on mediation? Please post a response here. Citadel18080 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation fine. I so stated there. Thanks for alerting me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should rethink your method

This sort of behavior and namecalling is completely unconstructive. It's clear to anyone looking over User:Christopher Mann McKay's edits that they were made in good faith. Intentionally misidentifying them as "vandalism" can be considered harassment and disrupts the project, read WP:VAN, WP:DE and WP:HAR. Frankly you are lucky User:Christopher Mann McKay has been as patient as he has with you, many other wouldn't. You should really reconsider your method of engaging others at American Family Association, you'll get farther if you drop the threats of vexatious dispute resolution and namecalling, and focus on learning and rely upon the guidelines and policies more. FeloniousMonk 06:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone looking at this page should know there is a long history at that AFA talk page about which FeloniousMonk is apparently unaware, although understandably so since he/she only recently became involved and the page is huge. FeloniousMonk's comments here appear to me to be in furtherance of attempts at intimidation he/she started on the AFA talk page (like by announcing he/she was an admin in the fashion he/she did). Here's a guy/gal calling me deceptive for raising a legitimate (and even compelling ;) ) issue, then complaining that I'm name calling when a vandal repeatedly violates wiki policy again and again, perhaps a dozen times or more, even when three other editors are trying to stop the vandalism just as I am, and even despite repeated warnings. To this day the vandalism stands. Such blatant violations of wiki policy on a steady, persistent basis cannot possibly be anything else other than vandalism. The guy even stated he will not stop it even if it goes to mediation.

I am totally unfamiliar with stopping people from using wikipedia as a personal soapbox. Hence the need to reach out for help, though accurately but inartfully (by saying THE VANDALISM IS PERSISTENT!), that FeloniusMonk refers to as "namecalling." Well, people reading should know I am not intimidated, and every single other admin with which I have had the pleasure to converse has been totally friendly and helpful, often going out of their way to help. Not FeloniusMonk. Sorry to say that. No, he/she has to come to this page to restate what he/she stated on the AFA talk page. Do I go to his/her Talk page and spread the same junk there that he/she spreads here? No. So everyone please ignore him/her. Admins are almost always, used to say always, really terrific people.

Now I'm looking at the vandalism page the admin points me to, claiming I'm "misidentifying" vandalism. Just now I looked for the first time. Am I "misidentifying" vandalism? The page says, emphasis mine, "NPOV violations -- The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned." And if anything, a guy who adds POV categories that are supposed to be indisputable (according to wiki policy pointed out again and again by numerous editors) over and over again, over the deletion of the POV/nonpolicy cats by numerous editors, despite efforts to discuss the matter, despite numerous warnings (although FeloniusMonk complains about the form of one of those warnings), and who says even mediation won't shake him from his POV, is persistent, is he not? So now I see the vandalism page backs me up on what was plain common sense to me.

Watch, the admin will come back, see the intimidation is not working, and pile it on thinker and heavier. Get the digitalis. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our polices concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as I predicted in the above section, FeloniusMonk has apparently taken action against me, this time apparently by getting KillerChihuahua to do the dirty work so that the vandals he supports can continue violating policy without one of the numerous people like me trying to get them to comply with wiki policy.

Mind you, editors on that page support me in my efforts to stop the vandals,[5] even explicitly backing up my arguments that KillerChihuahua just blocked me for.

Regarding KillerChihuahua, should anyone ever need information about how he operates, look closely at what happened in this matter because to me it is a clear abuse of discretion.

Does anyone know how I can contest the block and how I could report KillerChihuahua's abusive action? Thank you. Oh forget it. I'll just take a day long vacation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this look like vandalism to anyone: [6]? Is blocking me for edits like this not an abuse of discretion? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You were not blocked for vandalism. You were blocked for disruption and a pattern of harassment, intimidation, wiki-lawyering and gross personal attacks which continued after a clear and unambiguous warning. To request unblock, place {{unblock}} on this page, with a reason why you feel you should be unblocked. Note to any admin who may wish to review: please contact me for details on block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For at least 4 months that page has been vandalized and vandalized in the fashion I described above over and over and over again. I and others attempted to attract the attention of those who might be able to assist us is stopping the vandalism. Over the course of months, essentially nothing has happened. Then you and FM come along at the end of that period, see only our strident pleas for help, characterize this as wiki-lawyering and committing personal attacks for calling vandals vandals, and suddenly I'm the one blocked by you while the vandals have turned that page into a near total hit piece.

At no point along the way of over 4 months of dealing with vandals did you or FM provide any assistance whatsoever, so far as I recall. Now you ride to the rescue of the vandals and block me for calling them the vandals they are in accordance with wiki policy.

But I suppose I'm not allowed to point this out -- it's wiki-lawyering, right?

The fault here is not me for calling vandals vandals. The problem here is wiki policies have been of no assistance in stopping the soapbox, vitriolic edits by people who stated they can't stand the subject matter and those who stick to policy are "anti-gay right people."

That AFA page is a total POV joke. Everything is written from one point of view and everything is essentially one one topic, the topic the vandals are promoting, by some coincidence. Yes, some is better now, but recent edits have only restored and worsened some of the policy violations that go on month after month and nothing can be done to stop the vandals. Better to stop me from complaining so the vandals can continue to vandalize in peace, right?

I am not an AFA guardian. I want the truth published in the manner as prescribed by wikipedia rules. For almost half a year no one has assisted the numerous editors fighting the vandals who always find some excuse for the vandalism. Then you and FM come along, decide you do not like the exasperation I and others are feeling, and react by blocking us! Me!

What's also bad is you took my comments, separated them out into a new subheading you created that marginalized my comments. I am sure that is a violation of some policy, to take someone's talk comments and set them apart with an ad hominem title for a section. If you ever do anything in wikipedia, run for some election or something, I want people to read this and know you are in my opinion not living up to your duties as an admin, and you will likely not live up to any other duties either.

There is a serious problem with wikipedia if vandals get to demonize some organization online for months in violation of wiki rules and those calling out for help are stifled, literally censored. Ironic, since the application of the "censorship" cat is being challenged. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to realize that there are two, not one, things going on here. One is the content dispute. You may be completely and utterly in the right there - I make no comment or judgment. The second is your behavior towards other contributors, in which you are completely in the wrong. You continue to use "vandalizing" and "vandal" (18 times in the post above) to describe edits with which you disagree, and the editors who made those edits. You post very long polemics in which that is the main topic. This is disruptive, it has become harassment, and it violates AGF, CIVIL, NPA. For this, you have already been blocked. Please try to separate the two. No amount of posting or wiki-lawyering by you will ever justify characterizing good-faith edits with which you disagree, for whatever reason, as vandalsim, or the editors as vandals. You seem to think repetition will make your claims valid. I assure you, repetition merely makes you seem obsessed with vindictive nastiness. I sympathise with frustration and exasperation. I have no sympathy for your continual attacks on others and wanton disruption of Wikipedia. Figure out how to express your concerns about the article, any percieved problems with POV or original research, or undue weight, without insulting and attacking other editors. If you wish, I will assist you. Post what you want to post on the article talk page here first, and I will help you rephrase in such a way that you are not violating any policies. But I tell you now: unless an edit has PENISPENISPENIS, THE AFA ARE GAY CHILD MOLESTERS, or something similar, they are not vandalism and your bull-headed insistance that they are is counter-productive. Do not use the word "censorship" to try to twist "I have been blocked for being rude and nasty and refusing to even try to be civil" into you being a victim; this will not wash, any more than your hostile accusations of vandalism do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are so wrong, as evidenced by your first post being directed at me and essentially your next action being to block me without warning. You claim there was warning but I am aware of none, even when trying to find it. In fact that may be a basis for my seeking assistance regarding you from WP:ANI. To me you just took what FM said, made a post or two, then went right for the block. And your explanation of vandalism completely ignores the plain language of the vandalism policy. And your suggestion that I write things here first for your approval sounds ominous, like I'm in KillerChihuahua time-out or something, like when you separated out my comments by resectioning the Talk page, and there is no excuse for that.

Others have recognized you were wrong as well and wrote me at my personal email address, since thanks to you I could not respond. Even people who are not editing the AFA page wrote me. While one is in KillerChihuahua's personal pound, it is encouraging to hear from others who recognize the harm done and support me.

Be that as it may, I sense you are willing to work constructively on improving that page, and that is the goal of any wiki editor, except vandals. So let's all just forget this silly episode and move on, okay?

Like the addition of lobbying linked to a GLAAD article. Have you read that linked article? It is pure propaganda. Lobbying is what, seeking to change government to your advantage, right? Well the AFA only sought, like millions of others, to change a company's actions, not a government, and one editor said lobbying efforts stopped years ago, and I suggested that should be investigated, and the GLAAD article itself does not even mention the word lobby, and that's wiki worthy? That editor who I call vandal for his category policy violations doesn't need to work with the community to determine the accuracy of the lobbying claim and posts up a single GLAAD anti-AFA article to prove it?

But that's a mere content dispute, one of dozens that are infected by personal bias and admitted animus toward the AFA.

Exactly what do you suggest in the case that I claim, for the sake of argument, is pure vandalism as I described above? Is that supposed to continue unabated? Are the words in the vandalism policy meaningless? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning was here.

My offer of assistance was genuine; you may of course decline. You may also wish to give it a try; you can always ignore my advice and post whatever you want on the talk page, although further attacks, accusations of vandalism, or harassment may lead to another block.

I am not editing the article, nor am I taking a position on content of the article. If the GLAAD article does not mention lobbying, but is being used to support an assertion in the article that the AFA lobbies, perhaps you could discuss rephrasing on the talk page, if the source meets RS, or suggest removal of that content, if the source does not meet RS. Try to do so with courtesy and respect to your fellow editors.

You need to understand blatant personal attacks, even ones you think are based on a policy that you believe allows you to say such things, are not allowed. Instead, assume that other editors were doing what they think is right. I understand that you are only trying to insert correct information into the article, but you need to understand the article is the community's article, not yours, and acknowledge others' opinions, even if you don't agree with them. In addition, it would be helpful to thouroughly read WP:CIVIL and learn how to deal with an opinion you don't agree with, and how to cite policy without harassing other editors. Writing for the enemy may also help, and beware of the tigers. All of these links have information and approaches you may find helpful in working with editors with whom you disagree, without calling them vandals or otherwise attacking them. And possibly most importantly, remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not by "winning arguments" with fellow editors. Keep in mind that policies are not sticks to beat others over the head with, but outline acceptable practice and behavior, yours included.

Let me know if you have further questions, or if I can be of assistance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "winning arguments" and I wasn't adding much, only trying to stop the near half year long vandalism that apparently will go unchecked under the watchful eye of people who will block me on another whim. Wikipedia is an excellent idea, however there is simply no way to ensure its policies are enforced. I think I will simply give up editing the article as you have made clear to me that malformed complaints about policy violations are of greater concern that actual policy violations.

Your warning was that I was violating policy, not that I would be blocked. "Call another editor here a vandal, either directly and specifically or as a general attack as above, and you will be in violation of NPA. ... Consider yourself warned." There was no warning of being blocked. Further, I had no knowledge from your statement that you had the power to block me for attempting to stop months-long vandalism or any other reason. You abused your admin powers, and you are threatening to do so again.

The vandals are vandals if they are defined so by wiki policy, not if you or I say they are or aren't. I predict that when the vandals have perfected the page to match their own soapbox, they will unilaterally remove the NPOV tag, just as almost everything else they do is despite, not with, the community. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no respect for vandals. There's a reason why they are called vandals. No one is supposed to respect them. Vandalism has nothing to do with "an opinion you don't agree with." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I found out about this dispute, and thought I might be able to help, just a bit. I've noticed that you have a me vs. them mentality with the editors who you deem vandals. I can understand your frustration at having information you see as NPOV being removed from the article, and having others not understand that all you are trying to do is improve it. However, all the other editors in the dispute are trying to do the same thing, and, unfortunately, your views on what is NPOV in this situation differ. You must remember that Wikipedia is a community-based encyclopedia, and that, even if you dislike another editor, you both have a common goal, and that is to improve the encyclopedia. Your mentality that everyone is against you is completely false, because, here at the 'pedia, we're all on the same team. You can say "these people are vandals because of X and policy X which states X", but you need to understand that they're working with you to improve the article, and debate is a natural part of the improvement process. It's how you handle yourself in the debate that counts, and calling everyone who disagrees with you "vandals" doesn't move anything forward, and, in fact, hinders the improvement of an article you strive to improve. Hope this helps a little, Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not me vs. them. True, I deem them to be vandals, but so does wiki policy, as I explained above. The issue here is really not a content dispute at all. The issue is the categories, the policy regarding the categories, the half a dozen editors trying for almost half a year to stop 2 editors from violating that policy, the persistent nature of the vandalism in restoring the categories despite clear wiki policy and repeated warnings from multiple editors, and the total failure of the wiki community as a whole to be able to stop the vandalization. The reaction to my ineffective efforts to stop that vandalism has only been a recent development. Did you see me quote ~a above (or maybe on AFA Talk)? He agrees with the vandals, but he stops short of the vandalism and adheres to wiki policy. The vandals defied, are defying, and stated they will continue to defy wiki policy. I do not have a mentality that everyone is against me. In fact, numerous editors have backed me up, and some even wrote to me during the abusive block. Further, this being wikipedia, the policy matters, not whether people are with me or not--as an individual, I'm irrelevant. What is relevant here, however, is wiki policy being totally ignored on the issue of those categories. If I am not eloquent enough to help people to see the vandalism for what it is, that does not mean the vandalism is not occurring. I do not call the vandals vandals because they disagree with me, as you claim. I call them vandals because they act in a manner that is defined as vandalism by the wiki policies. And no one has yet explained to me how the actions they have taken in light of the wiki policies (small p) involved do not call for the vandalism to be called vandalism. What is hindering the improvement of the article is not my "behavior" after multiple month-long attempts by numerous editors to stop the vandalism, rather it the vandalism itself. So long as attention continues to be turned on me for leading the effort to stop the vandalism, the vandals continue the vandalism. Look, those categories are still there to this day despite wiki policy. The vandals are still vandalizing. Efforts to stop the vandalization are literally blocked. The vandalism is the problem, not me. But I do appreciate your attempt to assist. Please assist in counteracting the vandalism. Once the vandalism stops, I will stop trying to stop the vandalism. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just heard a rape trial proceeded where the judge refused to allow the word "rape" or "victim" in the courtroom as it was supposedly prejudicial, and the women lost the case, and the alleged rapist went free. [7] Similarly, I am not allowed to use the word "vandal," and I get blocked for doing so, and the alleged vandal goes free. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) The short version of why you were blocked is that you insist on characterizing good-faith contributors as vandals. In this section on your talk page, you have used the word "vandal" a further 65 times, and continue to insist that policy supports you. It does not. If you see vandalism, report it to WP:AIV, as instructed on WP:VAN, and stop calling other editors vandals just because you disagree with them. This is vandalism. Please click on that link, so you can see actual vandalism and compare it to what you have been calling vandalism. I say again, if you continue to do so, you may be blocked again. This is not a "threat" it is me trying to protect the project from your hostility and disruption, and editors who are making good-faith efforts from your harassment. Read the pages I linked to above, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TIGERS, WP:HAR, WP:WFTE, WP:NPA. Read also WP:NAM#Be considerate of the opposing view. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 19 July 2007

When will the threats against me for following policy end? When will you stop abusing your position, like when you blocked me without proper warning? The vandalism is vandalism, and the vandalism continues. It is not a content dispute or an NPOV dispute--it is vandalism in the plain meaning of the language used to define vandalism. Your admin powers should be reconsidered in light of this whole debacle. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. The problem is your insistance that it is, and your disruptive campaign of personal attacks, failing to assume good faith, and harassing editors with whom you disagree. If you wish to invite others to examine my actions regarding this, feel free to post on WP:ANI or open an Rfc about it. Telling you that if you violate multiple policies and guidelines you may be blocked is neither a "threat" nor is it "abuse" - it is helpful information which I advise you to apply to your actions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You say it is not vandalism. I say it is. I point out the exact policy that makes it vandalism. You have not specified why that policy does not apply, other than just saying it doesn't. Good. Finally the attention is being placed where it should be. Explain to me exactly why it is not vandalism. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, telling me those things is not a problem. The problem, however, was that you actually blocked me. Without warning. When I asked for the warning that I must have missed, you supplied one that was not a warning you would block me. The block was abusive, your language was not. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate with you, but rather to point out that you keep claiming you were not warned you were going to be blocked; however, according to WP:BLOCK: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior accordingly, before blocking." KillerChihuahua knew you were aware of the polices and your policy violations before he blocked you, as he could tell by the numerious warnings directed toward you to stop violating policy, which were made on your talk page and on the AFA talk page. I made it clear you were in violation of policy ([8][9][10]). Felonious Monk made is clear you were in violation of policy ([11][12]). KillerChihuahua has also make it clear you were in violation of policy ([13]). One does not have to state "Stop or I will block you" to be considered a warning. You have been sufficently warned, so please stop claiming otherwise. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fellow editors, the issue here is not the block. The block was, as Christopher Mann McKay pointed out, perfectly acceptable by policy. And, to explain, LAEC, because you've brought up a very valid point: you have warned other editors that they are adding POV to the aricle, and they peristed, which would indeed be vandalism. There is, however, here anyway, a catch. The editors are not violating NPOV. WP:NPOV states, and I quote, "The [NPOV] policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly". In other words, it is not about including the most neutral information you find in the article, it is about presenting all major views fairly. This can, and, in this case does, involve adding POV to the article, but only when it is fairly balanced out by the opposite view. So, the editors are not vandalizing, they are making sure that one POV is not given "undue weight" by adding the opposite view, thus creating NPOV. Bringing this full circle, the issue is the fact that you say your fellow editors are vandals, while all they are doing is what they think is best for the article, and you are too. As I have already said, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Debate is a natural part of collaboration, but we must remember that accusations and insults are not. If we can remember not to make such accusations, the project moves forward, and everyone wins. Remember, we as editors have no enemies, because we are all working for the same goal: to provide the most reliable and highest quality information possibe. Best wishes, LAEC, and hope this helps some more, Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You might find an Editor Review useful to get other opinions. Citadel18080 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you all believe this?

Citadel18080, I'll look into what you say, but time is limited, and the issue may become moot if people respond positively to the below. I am sure we are all in the same boat--we have real lives and can only spend so much time on this type of thing. The time I have spent recently on this block issue has meant my work on the AFA page and others has essentially stopped, block or not. And I do not doubt there is a person here who doesn't think I make valuable edits.

Arky, you have really helped. The main way you have really helped is by setting an example of how to perform admin functions in the professional manner in which every previous admin I've dealt has acted, until this AFA page. Further, finally someone has admitted that I have a legitimate and even compelling argument regarding my claim of vandalism. Then finally someone has explained why I might be incorrect. That is pure class.

Now Arky, respectfully speaking, the issue, and apparently I have not explained it clearly enough, has nothing to do with POV, NPOV, or any material at all inserted into the body of the article. Everybody, let's set that aside in our minds. The behaviour of which I am complaining has nothing to do with the editing of the material in the article. It is material that is not part of the article that I claim is the locus where the vandalism, if indeed that's what it is, is occurring. Specifically, that would be the categories at the bottom of the page. Policy says the categories must be, what, something like obvious and non controversial. The cats in question are not obvious and, even if they are, they are obviously controversial and have been for months, almost half a year. Multiple editors have removed the cats in question based explicitly or implicitly on that policy. Even an editor named ~a who admitting he thinks the cats apply but because they are controversial and nonobvious they should not be added to the cats. Yet two editors have restored those cats perhaps a hundred times now despite all policy and even despite specific efforts to resolve the cat dispute. And those two editors, or at least one of them, has stated he will continue to restore the cats because to him they are obvious and there is no controversy. Are you all getting a better picture of this now?

Christopher Mann McKay, you are one of the two editors constantly restoring those cats despite policy. I want you to be clear that not one thing you say or do to the body of the article, no matter how outlandish or unsupported by the facts, has anything to do with vandalism. Again, you are not a vandal for any of your article edits and I never said you were. The vandalism I claim you are doing, and I think I am starting to make progress on getting people to see this, has to do with changes that are not in the article at all. Rather, they are the categories. You are violating the policy, small p, regarding the cats. And you have done so in a fashion that amounts to a violation of the vandalism policy, in my opinion, and I hope people are starting to understand what I am saying, because someone has to stop it if I'm right.

KillerChihuahua, how about a compromise? You admit you may have acted too hastily in blocking me in the circumstances as I have just restated them, and in exchange I will not further advance any arguments regarding the issue of vandalism in the AFA article or the issue of your block and treatment of me, or FeloniousMonk's treatment of me. I am not asking you to admit you were wrong, simply that you may have acted too hastily. We are all humans and we all make mistakes. Admit you may have acted too hastily and in exchange I'll forgive/forget what you have done and I won't raise the vandalism issue further in the AFA article. I think that's fair. Other than this, you are a valuable editor in other articles, so your help on this page might be just as valuable. Do you have a counteroffer or are you agreeable right now?

Arky, thanks again. We would not be here without your calm and measured approach to be emulated by all, including myself. Given the new information I have provided, or rather the better explanation I hope I have provided, perhaps you can assist in the same manner by addressing Christopher Mann McKay and Orpheus so that they will not keep reinserting the categories in question until the community comes to a consensus on the issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason you are calling me a vandal is irrelevant. The fact you call me a vandal and complain about it over and over on the AFA talk page is unjust, as my edits are all in good faith. Also, you continue to accuse me of violating policy; however, as I have previous stated numerous times, WP:CAT is a guideline and is not policy. I would appreciate it if you would reframe from claiming I am violating policy, as that is taken somewhat seriously. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing this now. There is no reason for you to raise this now. Further, you consistently use the now maddening excuse about the policy/guideline distinction. Irrelevant. That is why I have been saying policy (small p), specifically to encompass all policy, no matter its name, type, or format, not just large p Policies.

By the way, Orpheus just restored the cats Hal Cross removed, yet another editor, yet again. Per the policy (small p), the cats should not go in until they are approved, not as Orpheus and you keep doing to keep them in until the discussion is over.

What Orpheus did is the precise vandalism, in my opinion, of which I complain. So it continues to go on unchecked. No one can stop it. Half a year. Steady full on violation of cat policy. There simply is no excuse. This has nothing to do with the content of the article itself. These are cats. This is not a POV/NPOV argument or a content dispute. This is just the cats, a violation of cat policy, the up to this minute violation of that cat policy, a refusal to compromise with the other editors, the multiple warnings, calling the editors you oppose "anti-gay right people," and the potential violation of the vandalism policy. And I am not the only one raising my eyebrow on this anymore. Arky said that I "brought up a very valid point: you have warned other editors that they are adding POV to the article, and they persisted, which would indeed be vandalism." Only POV is not the issue; adherence to policy (small p) is the issue.

I believe I am starting to get traction in the minds of people who are perhaps starting to see that what you and Orpheus have been doing in defying the community for almost a half year, regarding the cats now, not the article itself, may indeed be vandalism. The vandalism policy would be empty words if it does not apply in this case.

Taken seriously? I hope so! I hope someone finally pays attention to exactly what you are doing regarding those cats, not the article itself, instead of how I mumbled and fumbled in trying to get you to stop what I believe to be vandalism. No one has yet addressed the facts I raised to determine the validity of my claim. but it's a matter of time, I'm sure.

How about this. You have been spending about a half year ensuring the article contains cats in violation of the cat policy (small p), in my opinion. Now this talk about the cats can't drag on for much longer, so how about agreeing to keep the cats out until people agree they should go in. You've had your way for a while, how about a compromise and do it my way, and Hal Crosses way, and ~a's way, and Citadel18080's way, and Pollinator's way, and on and on for a while. That's fair, isn't it? Will you compromise and remove the cats while the argument proceeds as a show of good faith for having them up for almost a half a year now? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the categories are in, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays they're out, and Sundays can be shared on a rota basis.

You haven't, in my opinion, given a good reason for removing the categories. I think that it is self-evident and uncontroversial that the AFA is involved in some way in the public debate surrounding censorship and discrimination. It is a valuable resource for Wikipedia readers to be able to find related articles showing all sides of those issues. The category does not say "Organisations that censor". It says "Censorship". No pro or anti qualifiers, no point scoring or POV. It just groups articles together that in some way relate to censorship.

That is why this is a content dispute, no matter how much you say it's a vandalism issue. Without a convincing reason why the categories should be removed, I can't see any reason to support taking them out. That's my position - when the community comes to a consensus, the article will reflect the consensus.

I might add that the way to resolve this is to put out a request for comment and see what other editors think. If there's a powerful and convincing argument either way, then that's what the article should reflect. If there's an overwhelming yawn in response then perhaps that's a sign that this is a storm in a teacup and not worth spending quite so many words on. Orpheus 06:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fancy words, but Orpheus, one of editors taking the action of which I complain, has just said essentially that he will not compromise. He will not compromise. Exactly as I have been saying is part of the act or omission that is covered by the plain language of the vandalism policy.

He will not compromise? Is that acceptable? Is the vandalism policy meaningless or toothless? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I wouldn't compromise, and I object to you putting words in my mouth. You, on the other hand, have said in the past that "Those POV categories have got to go." I simply don't think that your reasons for removing the category are any good. Orpheus 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus is playing words games, a hallmark of his edit and edit history comments. He says he didn't say he won't compromise. Well, that is correct, but in almost half a year he has never compromised not even once on this issue, and he continues to act in the fashion I am suggesting may be vandalism, to this very day, or yesterday. Even here and now he had the perfect opportunity to even offer to bend even a little but no such offer is made.

Further, POV is involved in every single edit everyone ever makes. It is impossible to avoid. POV is not an issue where the policy on vandalism does not make it an issue, however. The issue is as the vandalism policy states and the category policy (small p) states, neither of which address POV. So even my own statement quoted by Orpheus about POV edits is irrelevant.

Further, the constantly repeated reason, "I simply don't think that your reasons for removing the category are any good," is irrelevant. Reasons are not required under the cat policy. Yes, there must be conditions fulfilled for the cat policy to apply, but the reasons for those conditions are not a part of that policy and are therefore irrelevant. By Orpheus's constantly stating the reasons are not good enough to satisfy him, he makes a statement that sounds reasonable but is based on thin air--reasons are irrelevant to the issue of whether certain conditions apply regarding cats in an article. The cats are obviously controversial and should be removed. The reasons the cats are controversial is irrelevant to the removal. It may be relevant on the Talk page, but the cat policy only test for the existence of certain conditions, not the reason for those conditions. Therefore, Orpheus's refusal to budge being based on him not seeing a "reason" to remove the cats until they are discussed is 100% irrelevant.

Those who recently got involved in this: imagine for a half a year a guy refuses to work with the community, constantly claiming there is no reason to follow wiki policy when no such reasons are even required, only the satisfaction of certain conditions, and you will begin to understand how severe this vandalism case has become, how the wiki community as a whole has failed to apply its own rules to it, and why anyone could get frustrated about the total failure of the wiki system, while a potential smear is maintained for almost a half a year in a public forum and there is no end in sight to the smear and the wiki policy violations that allow it to go unchecked. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, LAEC. I can see that the heated debate here has continued. Both sides bring up some great arguments, and I commend them for doing what they believe is best for Wikipedia, but all the same editors continue the debate, not new, fresh eyes. I see an ample opportunity for community "intervention" (sorry if that's a bit strong of a word...). Perhaps a request for comment would do the trick? I have watched this debate since I heard about it, and think it is time for some other opinions and views to be put in to help aid this argument in moving forward. Once again, compelling arguments, but we could do with some fresh meat. Not an order, but a suggestion, Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm game. I just don't know how to go about it. And the questions I asked above have essentially gone unanswered. Oh, isn't a Request for Comment already entered, per AFA Talk page: [14]?

By the way, for the first time I've seen, real, substantive arguments were made on the cat issue by both sides, not just one. Let's see if I can get a link: [15] and look for all arguments made by everyone on July 25, 2007. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NLP

Thanks for your contributions to the NLP article and discussion. It is not an easy topic to cover because there are no agreed upon definitions even within the various schools of NLP and the research literature is limited and, at times, confusing. I've marked that phrase you added to the end of the introduction with a dispute tag. I want to encourage you to stick around, you write very well and the article is in much need of some editing. I'd appreciate help with cleaning up the article including some of the less controversial sections. Many thanks in advance. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. That article is very hairy, you know, long winded. It needs serious work. I'll stick around. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please have another look at the rapport subsection. I added an example from the FBI bulletin and attempted to make a link between that example and quote from Singer. Is this ok? The overt mimicry that Singer describes is of someone who has not had any real NLP training. Rapport mirroring was never intended to be overt. ----Action potential ^{t c} 07:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC) On second thoughts I' not too confident of the quality of my source for that FBI example. ----Action potential ^{t c} 14:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying the change I made is okay? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes your edit was fine and makes a good point. I only changed your text slightly to introduce it and tie it in with the interviewing example. I think its good to have an example for and one against where there is significant disagreement. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! I like your style. I am having trouble bringing balance to another article where the organization's members, one a high ranking member and a sock puppeteer, refuse to allow balance. Apparently, to them, the organization's rules for what is to be presented publicly trump wikipedia rules for how to write encyclopedic articles. If I find I can make no headway, I may ask you to have a look, if you don't mind. But right now, I'll save you from the group think one must endure before the light of wikipedia can shine. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I modified the opening section on the NLP article including that view concerning how the claim about pseudoscience should be represented. The opening section is now 3 paragraph. Can you please take a look at what I've done. I wanted the second paragraph to be a broad overview of what is different about NLP. There needs to be more cohesion and flow between these three opening paragraphs. The third is to cover research and criticism. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Will look into it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I just made more changes to the second and third paragraph. ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and what do you think about what I just added: "In addition, NLP is criticized for being pseudoscientific. Nevertheless,"

I think it adds something to the summary that is discussed in greater depth below and rounds out the picture well since most of the summary is glowing.

I gotta be honest, though, this NLP subject is rather confusing, at least to me. Isn't their a way to significantly cut out on the stuff only interesing to NLP pro and con enthusiasts and go for a more general wiki audience approach? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AP - you sure are working hard on that article. I love to see you chopping out whole sections. The bloat is un-bloat-lievable! Have fun! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is still confusing. I'll try to cut it down some more. I'll see if I can replace some of the confusing stuff with wikilinks if people want to read more. That way it can be kept simple. ----Action potential ^{t c} 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I'm looking at the GA and FA criteria. It will take a fair bit of work to get it to FA standards. Any suggestions? ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

With the headlines. I was thinking of changing them to more readable ones. Like rename "meta model" to "Specifying questions" and "milton model" to "Artfully vague language". I think they're more descriptive and compelling for readers who have little knowledge of the topic. ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Very good.

By the way, would you mind quickly looking at this and seeing if you would like to add anything? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electoral_fraud#ALA Thanks. If you have a chance, of course.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look this early this week. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I looked again at the article as it has changed recently. Here's my opinion. To improve the article further, the main science views have to be presented much more clearly, especially in the lead section according to how the sources have presented them. So, definitely views on pseudo-science need to be stated a lot more clearly in the lead section. There also seem to be issues of cult activity that have been glossed over. That also needs prominence in the lead section because it is a key research issue. So basically, to improve the status of the article, the obscure NLP jargon needs cutting, as you have been doing, because all it does is misinform the reader, and the science views need keeping together in sections with critical conclusions presented properly to make them obvious rather than have them mixed up with discussion or speculation. The more recent science conclusions (which are obviously highly critical) also need much greater prominence in the lead section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi LAEC, I think its a little too strong now. If you read closely the scientific statements that Lilienfeld and Devilly have made, you'll see that Devilly and Lilienfeld concentrate on VK/D. Devilly says that no peer-reviewed literature has yet been published on it. Lilienfeld says something similar. They are both talking about NLP together with treatments such as EMDR which are widely used by practitioners in the field but have little empirical support. Also you need to keep it in context. Lilienfeld and Devilly are on the extreme end of the empirical validation / evidence-based treatment debate. ----Action potential ^{t c} 08:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion timeframe

I'm curious to know where you got six months from as the length of time the category dispute has been going on at American Family Association. As far as I can see, there was a brief discussion in March which ended with consensus to keep the cats (silence is considered consensus here), and then the more recent edition came up about six weeks ago. Normally I wouldn't bother being so pedantic, but you keep bringing it up in talk pages - can you tell me your reasoning behind the figure? Orpheus 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's nothing really, just a round figure. I know talk had gone back at least 4 months, so saying about a half a year is about correct. Listen, CMM finally changed those cats into ones in line with wiki policy, as I have been requesting even resulting in a block for using capital letters or the like, and the history for that edit says it was a minor edit. Near a half year long controversy fixed with a minor edit. Well if that's minor, certainly at least 4 months being casually called near a half year is also minor.

As you and I work on that page and others in the future, I fully intend to continue to work with you in a wiki friendly manner, following wiki policy, the rule that guides us both here. I will not hold grudges or count past experiences against you, and I hope you will extend to me the same courtesy. It's been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to more such work. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the general atmosphere at that page has lightened considerably lately, for the better. If only Hal would share your attitude towards cooperation. Perhaps you could have a word on his talk page and share your insight on the subject? I'm making an effort not to respond directly, to avoid escalating. One thing though - the talk hasn't gone back four months. It started six weeks ago, with comment. The previous, brief mention in March came up and went away again very quickly, with no continuity into the current discussion. Saying it's been going on for half a year is quite misleading to anyone who might review the talk page.

Rest assured that I don't do grudges (never have - waste of time) and try to consider all Wikipedia editors based solely on the current discussion. Sometimes that's difficult, but we all do what we can. Orpheus 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal is new guy/gal feeling his/her oats. I think only time will help--newbies, including me formerly, are newbies. Besides, I have left some very "can we all get along" type messages prominently on that page that I am sure he has read. Also, I have not been further involved in that issue since it was resolved, and I stated I agreed with the resolution, so that should be a hint as well. So I won't go to Hal's home page at this time.

As for reviewing the Talk page, that would and its archive would take days to review, so I doubt anyone will. ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello again, LAEC. Just a tip, not looking for a debate ;)

Your talk page is over 170KB long, which is, well, very long indeed. I suggest you archive it. If you need any help doing this, feel free to ask me, but, otherwise, happy editing. Arky^¡Hablar! 01:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll look into it. Have to pick peaches now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's been so long and I haven't done it yet. If you wish, you can take a stab at it, although I don't view myself as a big hit grabber that has a need for the page to load quickly and efficiently. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Article?

I'm not sure what you're doing but it doesn't appear to be an article or related to Wikipedia. If it is not related to Wikipedia, please take it elsewhere as this is not a free webhost. Thanks! --ElKevbo 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, it is related to wikipedia articles. You will see that I am currently involved with a sock puppet on the American Library Association page about the very case I am discussing in this matter. While I am producing the article, several parts of it are a direct reflection of my work here in wikipedia. And so to get better educated in the matters I edit, I am working on something that discusses those issues directly. Do not be surprised if you see whole sections "lifted" from the work I am doing now and placed in various Talk or article pages.

My writing of this article is useful for me to organize my thoughts. My thoughts being those I have already raised in various wiki articles. Now I am just getting further educated on these matters, and others at the same time. I am actually sitting here and reading the case. The stuff I learn will be directly reflected in wiki articles I am currently editing and will continue to edit.

I write plenty of other articles, but never any here. Why? Because they don't relate to wikipedia articles I am editting. Why am I doing it now? Because it does relate to wikipedia articles I am editting. Becasue then I can easily cut and paste the parts I want to use, already in wiki format.

Under these circumstances, do you still see any problems? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'll assume good faith even though I find your politics and your continued insistence on dragging them into this encyclopedia repellent. Happy editing. --ElKevbo 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Meh." That's funny! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives Complete!

Your archives are done! Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! Wow, I look organized! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

Canvassing for support in a thread concerning a topical ban is offputting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please do not canvass users to take part in discussions as you have been doing aggressively of late: [16], [17], [18]. Wikipedia's policies forbid canvassing, which has a disruptive effect and undermines our ability to reach a neutral consensus in discussions. Further such canvassing will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia for a time. WjBscribe 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

It is more than a little disappointing that your response to a request that you clarify or disavow two legal threats was to canvass for support at a community topic ban discussion. As an immediate measure you are blocked for those threats. For that canvassing on top of long term disruption as described at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposal_to_ban_User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling_from_library-related_topics, I would now support a full siteban even if those threats were withdrawn. Gaming the system is not the way to earn goodwill among Wikipedians. Durova^Charge! 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I never saw your "request that you clarify or disavow two legal threats" until after you blocked me for not responding to you. Further, I was blocked by you without any input from me whatsoever. None. Further, a former ALA Councilor removing a potentially legitimate addition of a single external link to the main stream media on an ALA created and maintained stub page resulted in my questioning her bias so she sought out a person who immediately responded by threatening to ban me. Apparently you did him that favor. Then, seeing the bullying was serious, I commented that I did not know what to do about it and I asked for help on the YALSA talk page. And seeing how the ALA person contacted another for help, I did the same, obviously thinking this was appropriate. Apparently it was not, but I did not know this, and for this I am banned for over a year? And you said such outrageous, untrue things about me? Is this Wikipedia or is this a gang-up-upon-athon?

Since you said the block was for not responding and for canvassing, and seeing that I was not aware of your request and not aware that doing what the ALA person did was wrong, please remove the block forthwith. That means now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your numerous attempts to canvass for support demonstrate that you were aware the CSN thread existed. I have evidence that those attempts included offsite solicitations. This was a direct assault on the credibility of the community sanctions process. You may appeal your ban to the arbitration committee by e-mailing a clerk if you wish to request a case. Durova^Charge! 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what CSN thread means. You have exceeded your authority. "Direct assault"? You would know. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize you blocked me permanently when I did not respond fast enough to you because I was at work? Does anyone in the world think that's fair, let alone on Wikipedia?--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Excerpts in the Talk Page

Hello. How are you? Why have you inserted excerpts in the talk page for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings? Please reply to my talk page (User talk:Mayfare). Thank you. --Mayfare 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot respond on you on your Talk page. You see, I have been permanently blocked from editing for adding an external link that was wikiworthy and contained noncontroversial information to a stub page but a person who was a former member of the subject of the stub page claimed it did and claimed I added it for that reason then got help resulting in my being summarily banned permanently and instantly without my having responded even once just because I asked for help after she set the example. (And all my requests for help were reverted, ensuring no one helped me.)

So here I am getting Barn Stars for Jay-Z, actively editing Neuro-linguistic programming, asked to contribute to the Scouting Project, adding a Criticism section to Library Bill of Rights that this person allowed, then, because I reversed the removal of an external link by a member of the organization about which the site is written, the person got people to ban me immediately. One is writing below to make it look like he really cared and he really tried when all he did was enforce one former American Library Association member's total control over ALA pages and especially anything I do in that area. She must be watching my contributions page because sometimes the steady reverts happen within minutes. Indeed she has gleefully, I suppose, gone and reversed at least one of my edits on an ALA-related page that I can no longer respond as a direct result of her actions. How sportsmanlike. One editor has even come to my defense, but it is of no avail because the ALA people are louder and have more fellow members than I do and they apparently tired of me taking wiki pages they wrote and turning them into real wiki pages, not puff pieces, and have, over time, built up a reservoir of bile. Just look, for example, at the YALSA talk page to see I said not one bad thing about the ALA or YALSA, but she just assumes if I add it it must be negative. Though I can show hundreds of edits that were fine and dandy and noncontroversial, even on ALA pages, even on the ALA page itself.

Therefore, take my nearly 4,000 edits over the course of a long period of time and just discard them because I dared to stop members of the American Library Association, including at least one sock puppeteer who is a very high ranking member of the ALA, from using Wikipedia as another outlet for the ALA's propaganda. I still will not reveal that person's identity on Wikipedia because it might violate some rules.

Therefore, I won't be much help further on the page you asked me about. If I added it, it was likely to supply information (as in original quotes) on the Talk page about the issues raised on the Talk page (for eventually inclusion in the article) so that people would be educated about the topic while they talked. Based on my experience here, I'll assume that was a no no as well. Why do people need to be educated and follow wiki policy when the group approach is so much better at ensuring the group message gets broadcast on Wikipedia's dime. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it came to this

LAEC, for what it's worth, I really am sorry it came to this.

I spent a lot of time and effort trying to help you fit in with the Wikipedia community. Different editors have also spent a lot of time trying to help you understand wikipedia policies-- both the letter of the policies, and the SPIRIT of the policies. There's been an RFC, a mediation, a mentorship attempt and several blocks-- all of which really are sincere attempts help you to understand how the system works.

After all this, it's simply not acceptable for you to argue "I didn't know the rules!", "The rules aren't fair!", and "She started it!"-- all in the same breath. If you're acting in bad faith, you're obviously not going to stop. If you're sincerely just not understanding that your behavior is disruptive, then I regret that a set of words simply doen't exist that would anyone could say that would help you. If there was anything that anyone could say that would let you "see the light", one of the many editors who have talked to you about your behavior would undoubtedly stumbled upon the right words by now.

In the end, I think it really just comes down to motives. You're not trying to write neutrally, you're trying to write persuasively. That's a fine and noble goal-- but the rest of us here are trying to write neutrally. And your persuasive & adversarial style just isn't doesn't mesh with Wikipedia's neutral & collaborative style. Irreconcilable differences, as they say in the marriage world.

I really am sorry it didn't work out for you here. I've never asked for anyone to be banned before. I wish I hadn't had to ask. I hope I'll never have to ask for anyone to be banned ever again.

Good luck to you.

--Alecmconroy 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. You got me banned for life while I never had a chance to respond. Real sporting. Do you feel good about yourself now?

You can drop the fake tone now; I won't be editing here anymore, thanks to you.

Here's an example of the totally false impression you make. You say, "You're not trying to write neutrally, you're trying to write persuasively." Yet the matter on the YALSA page that resulted in my being banned did not include any writing by me whatsoever! It was merely a link to an external main stream media document about the subject! It was not even controversial! It was up for a long time until an ALA member (surmised using WHOIS mapping to the home base of the ALA and knowing at least one of them practices sock puppetry regularly-something about which you never showed concern) took it down! And it was on a stub page!! Aren't we supposed to try to make an effort to build stub pages? I merely added the link instead of adding text expressly to avoid added in any of my own text!!!!

I mean I went out of my way to try to help build that page, at least one possibly two editors agreed with me about the link, I added no words of my own, the link is not controversial, yet here you are telling people, "You're not trying to write neutrally, you're trying to write persuasively. " That is an example of the kind of arguments you make -- totally not based on reality but politely and carefully worded to make it appear to be legitimate. I'm LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, you are not. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why my banning from Wikipedia by former ALA Councilor is wrong

Oh wait, this banning is even more outrageous than I thought!

First, I just looked at the history from half a year ago and found that, despite what I said above, I actually DID add a controversy section (here) containing a link to a main stream media source and to an ALA press release, I had just forgotten. Sorry, I apologize for not remembering. I also added the external link to support the new section I added (here). Then former ALA Councilor Jessamyn removed the newly added section from the ALA's YALSA page BUT LEFT IN THE EXTERNAL LINK! (here)

About six months later the IP address mapping to the ALA's home town (here) removed the external link (here) in its first edit ever on Wikipedia (here) and I put it back (here) in accordance with wiki policy and practice. Then Jessamyn, all this time later, ensures the link stays off the page after I put it back, even going to the extreme of getting me banned for material she chose not to excise about 6 months ago! And I never reverted her removal of the newly added section!!! Yet I am banned for disruptive editing!!!!! The ALA and its members create and maintain this ALA page, I try to build the stub, my work is removed, and a link left in by the ALA for about 6 months results in my banning after I revert an ALA IP address's first edit for removing the link six months later!!! Wow!

This is rich. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you wish to appeal your block, you may do so. However, it is highly inappropriate to use your talk page as a soapbox, while insulting numerous contributors. I am not commenting on the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of your complaints. I am purely commenting on the attitude and behaviour being displayed here. I would politely request that you remove your inflammatory comments, as they will reinforce the perception that you should be banned and hinder any efforts on your part to have the block reduced or removed. If you continue to use your page in this fashion, it will be edit protected. Thank you for your understanding. Vassyana 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for telling me. I guess I will try to appeal the block, but the appeal goes to the guy who blocked me.

I will leave this here, however, as it is the basis for my appeal. It shows proof that I was not disruptively editing, among other things. As to identifying individuals, the identity of these individuals is relevant to their actions -- just any old unbiased person is not the case here, and people determining the injustice of this perpetual block definitely need to know that I got banned for editing pages of which the banners are or were members. Also, as to the claimed "legal threats," that old issue died long ago, as someone commented, but it was reraised to help justify the block. Therefore, right now, I withdraw any statements perceived as legal threats that were made at any time including very long ago.

Now this banning was for alleged disruptive editing and for alleged legal threats. I have explained them clearly here. So for the time being I will leave in my original comments, unless explaining what led to the block is not allowed. If I am not allowed to defend myself by explaining what happened in my first post in this simple, small section, then please let me know before the page gets "protected." Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Vassyana, I have removed the language I believe that flagged your interest. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere thanks for your understanding. Vassyana 14:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dittos. And I have asked Durova for his consideration giving him only the link to this very section on my behalf. Honestly, I'll bet everything would be much better if we could all just talk together instead of relying on a few paragraphs and links to a few more paragraphs. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Rogue Editor" Durova Banned Me Permanently - I Demand Reinstatement

Durova banned me permanently and in an unfair fashion where she did not even wait for me to get home to respond to her banning based on half year old false information. Now I have learned that Durova has single handedly caused a major rift at Wikipedia for banning people like me in the manner she did!! I demand immediate reinstatement and all related negative information or actions be reverted.

"Durova then voluntarily relinquished her admin powers, and over the weekend, the Arbitration Committee admonished her 'to exercise greater care when issuing blocks.'" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/

Apparently, my impression that certain admins ganged up on me (after a kick start from non-admin Jessamyn) turns out to be a true fact, according to the article. Quoting now:

"Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power.

"Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt."

Based on my being permanently banned in the manner exactly as described in Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia by "rogue editor" Durova, I seek immediate reinstatement.

Further, I make myself available to anyone who wishes to see exactly how Durova forced me out of Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Durova banned me permanently and in an unfair fashion where she did not even wait for me to get home to respond to her banning based on half year old false information. Now I have learned in the media ("Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia") that Durova has single handedly caused a major rift at Wikipedia for banning people like me in the manner she did. Further, I have felt ganged up on, and now it is revealed by Durova and now the media that that is exactly what may have happened. Durova has refused to unblock me. I demand immediate reinstatement and all related negative information or actions be reverted. See my talk page and all my history and edits for more information.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for these two legal threats as per WP:NLT. I cannot find any evidence that you have unconditionally withdrawn these threats and your unblock request does not mention these. However, it is entirely possible that you have and I was unable to find your unconditional withdrawal. If so, please feel free to re-request an unblock. If not, you are not eligible for unblock consideration. — Yamla (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I note that in your edit subsequent to me starting to edit this page, you withdrew the legal threats if such they were. This was removed by me during an edit conflict. Please feel free to issue another unblock request where you explicitly and unconditionally withdraw all legal threats. You do not necessarily have to agree that you made legal threats, wording along the lines of "I do not believe I made any legal threats but if I did, I hereby unconditionally withdraw them" would be plenty sufficient. --Yamla (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|Durova banned me permanently and in an unfair fashion where she did not even wait for me to get home to respond to her banning based on half year old false information. And if what I said was actually perceived as legal threats, I note I have already withdrawn them, and if not, I do right now. To restate, I do not believe I made any legal threats but if I did, I hereby unconditionally withdraw them. Now I have learned in the media ("Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia") that Durova has single handedly caused a major rift at Wikipedia for banning people like me in the manner she did. Further, I have felt ganged up on, and now it is revealed by Durova and now the media that that is exactly what may have happened. Durova has refused to unblock me. I demand immediate reinstatement and all related negative information or actions be reverted. See my talk page and all my history and edits for more information.}}

Thank you. Note the "conspiracy theories" are based on the facts as presented in the "Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia," namely, "the list's existence is confirmed," and many more statements like that. Further, Durova being the one who blocked me, my unblocking should have been immediate without need for reason -- when a prosecutor is found to have colluded with a judge to obtain convictions, all convictions made by that prosecutor are immediately suspect and are made null and void nunc pro tunc. That is exactly the case here. Durova is the main villian in that "Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia" article who, acting like a prosecutor, colluded with others to ban people, exactly as she did to me. This is not my theory, this is a fair reading of that article. Based on that alone, anyone banned by Durova should be unbanned immediately. If current Wikipedia rules do not cover the situation as presented by Durova according to that article, then consideration should be given to adding a condition. For example, where a person who bans people is found to have banned people in the manner disclosed in that article, all such persons ever banned by that individual should be unbanned immediately without the need for further process since all such bannings become tainted. As it is now, even given the Durova situation, I was still required to provide a reason, and when I raised the Durova situation in the article and cited the article, including the gang behavior, those concerns of mine were set aside. They should not have been. I expected to get unblocked with something like a message saying oops, we're sorry you got caught up in this, of course we'll unblock you, please don't be discouraged and continue to post here. Instead I was initially rejected, and my legitimate and even compelling concerns I raised based on that article were discounted. Be that as it may, I'm happy to be back and happy to be unblocked, but it wasn't the most understanding of processes given the circumstances of Durova's serial and serious misconduct that even Jimbo Wales acknowledged, according to the article. It would be good to see the policy improved to include this type of situation in the future. As the article says, "The problem is that their false positive rate is about 90 per cent - or higher," says Kelly Martin. "It's possible that every last person Durova has identified is innocent."

I had to say all this because your comment makes it look like I'm a conspiracy nut when I was merely repeating what was already proven as reported by the media. And so we are all clear what I have been saying is in the media, here it is:

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/

And I can see their point very clearly: "The problem, for many regular contributors, is that Wales and the Foundation seem to be siding with Durova's bizarre behavior." Change the policy and I'll change my mind. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a personal or corporate account

Looking at your user page I was wondering if this account User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is for a person or corporate entity. The reference to the safe libraries web site as "your website" appears to point to a corporate body holding the account, whereas some of the discussion reads like an individual. My understanding and advise I have received is that accounts are supposed to be for individuals*. Information relating to this is at at Wikipedia:Usernames#Sharing accounts and also m:Role accounts and Wikipedia:BFAQ#Can my company have an account?. An example of an individual account for a representative of a corporate body can be found at User:Alcoa, the discussion there and at the talk page illustrates some of the issues. To avoid the question if you are editing as an individual it may be useful to frame the website intro differently. Paul foord (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note I am not an admin and am curious. Paul foord (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand how it appears I, an individual, am a corporation. Please elaborate. Or perhaps just suggest a possible "reframing." Just add in that I'm an individual? No one else has access to this account. It's just me.

Am I missing something? I'll bet yes. But what?

Note the question arose in the past so I changed my name (as required) from SafeLibraries.org to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Should I change my name again? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "personal" website userbox points to an organisation not an individual website {{User:Blast san/userboxes/User website here|www.SafeLibraries.org/}} Paul foord (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I think I can clear this up now. I am an individual. One person. No one else uses my account.

From the links you graciously provided, thank you, I get these guidelines:

• "For copyright reasons, it is against policy for two or more people to share an account for any reason." I am not two or more people.
• "Additionally, usernames that match your company name, or website name, could be inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy." Right. Hence I have already changed the name from SafeLibraries.org to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling.
• "A role account is an account that is not associated with a particular person, but with an office, position, or task. Those doing the task use the account only to do the task. They have other accounts for other work." I have no other accounts. I am not representing an office, position, or task. Therefore, it is not a role account.
• "For reasons of attribution and accountability, you are not allowed to share your account or password with others." I share nothing with no one. I and only I have access to this account.

Okay, I believe that clears up that. Have I missed anything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

POV edits/vandalism

You had no reason to remove a sourced section from the AFA article.

• two of the four sources in that section were not from MediaMatters
• the MM articles were included because they were quoting the AFAs own publication, as you conveniently overlooked.

Similar manipulation of content to suit your POV will be treated as vandalism. BLACKKITE 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

BlackKITE and all who visit. I went out of my way over the course of weeks to politely and carefully lay the foundation for the removal of material based on unwikiworthy sources. I have raised the issue on the talk pages of the wiki page in question, the MMfA source, and the Reliable Source Noticeboard. I have provided notice that I would seek to remove the paragraphs based on the results of the discussion on the Reliable Sources Notice board. That discussion having come to the conclusion that MMfA's worthiness depends on what's included and why, I have removed the material from the AFA page according, including providing a specific example of how the MMfA cite is not wikiworthy.

Along comes BlackKITE here on my home page with the claim that I am a vandal or about to become one.

I am not a wiki expert. I would like help from someone with regard to BlackKITE's claim given the above.

You know what really spoils Wikipedia? You go about your business working within a community to build consensus, you go several places to ensure you are taking the right steps, you get attacked personally but you never respond in kind, you provide advance notice that you will be removing information based on shoddy links, the shoddy links can be seen by anyone who looks at them honestly to be totally biased political attack web sites especially in the manner used in the section I removed, you say if the material is added back it needs improved links in light of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard outcome, then some person, in this case BlackKITE, swoops in and accuses you of vandalism or of potential vandalism. It really doesn't feel good to be accused of that. If this were the real world, that might be a crime, in this case libel. And that's what spoils the fun of working on Wikipedia, as well as not knowing what to do to stop such behavior.

I totally fail to understand why people can feel so powerful that they can push others around like dirt. The last person who pushed me around by banning me had her administrator powers stripped precisely because of the number of people she was pushing around like dirt and banning. Now BlackKITE comes along, pushes me around like dirt, and starts the process needed for banning. Too bad the bodies have to pile up before action is taken. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)