LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, [[US v. ALA]]

This user supports the fight against mental illness.

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 16:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Interesting question re WP:OUTING. I wonder what the result will be.

Interestingly, the complainant is an IP address making his/her first edits ever, and they were to complain about me. There are a number of editors whose accounts have been created and devoted solely to harassing me, some of which have already been indef blocked. I wonder if 208.95.83.51 is just the latest in the series.

Thanks again for the notice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You might consider the Wikipedia:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment section. At the very least, it would make anyone supporting the views of those you outted extremely cautious in any dispute with you. That's not a good thing. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. I can tell you I am in no way harassing Dcs47. It is an account that has not been used for about 2 1/2 years but for a single edit about 1/2 year ago. It has made only about 86 or so edits ever. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding concerns how other editors my view me, thanks, but that one person I outed was years ago when I was a newbie. I know not to do it anymore, especially since I have been recently outed multiple times and know it is not only against the rules but it is really a time waster for many as the offending material gets expunged anyway. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A second IP address whose only edit is about me has just arrived to comment at the AN/I. A pattern may be emerging. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A third IP address has joined the frey. Three strikes you're out. I now view the filing of that AN/I as harassment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I have reviewed this case. I find:

1. That your off-wiki activity violated our policy against outing.
2. That the account you outed being inactive is not a defense or excuse under policy or precedent.
3. That your activities here cross the line into using Wikipedia as a battlefield (WP:BATTLE).
4. That the IPs participation in noting your blog is suspicious but doesn't mitigate or excuse any of the behavior you did here.

I am blocking you indefinitely while discussion continues on the appropriate sanction for the case. This block may be undone by any administrator at any time based on admin judgement or the outcome of consensus discussions.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Okay, that's fair. I won't be able to comment there now. Will you incorporate into the conversation that one of the IP addys I supposedly outed a major sports figure? I think exposing abuse of Wiki policy for the reasons stated in my blog post and violating the privacy rights of a sports player could not be addressed if the issues were not raised. I raised them externally to Wikipedia. Is "outing" a person who used Wikipedia's anonymity to out a major sports player a problem? If so, how can one address the serious outing issue, as opposed to the "outing" of the real life outer? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite parse your third sentence - did you miss a word? If you can clarify what you meant I can copy it over to ANI. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There are alternate way to raise COI concerns. I think ArbCom is setup to handle something like that when someone needs to pass them information/evidence that normally can't be posted on WP. The biggest problem in your post is outting to a specific person - that's a huge no-no. I'm not touching the COI issue because for right here and now, it's not relevant. Both user names and IP addresses provide some anonymity which you stripped away from them without their consent. If they disclose the information on their own on wiki, that's something different. I kinda ignore the 2 years ago thing because if that's the case, then who would care? But you did care, and care enough to dig and post the blog. I'm guessing (as I said in ANI) that's related to the FCC decision. I don't think it's block-worthy though but I'm just a peon, so take that for what it's worth. Ravensfire (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from contacting ArbCom, there's a template {{Uw-coi}} that might have been useful here - put it on the user talk pages. There's some other templates {{COI}} that you can use on the article itself and explain why on the talk page (IP's from this range may come from organization XYZ). Basically, there are better ways to handle this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what Will Beback said, even if true, has nothing to do with what I said on my personal blog outside of Wikipedia. Further, I do not promote my view here, as he said, except within the confines of WP:COI, with which I comply. If Will Beback has a concern about me, he should raise them on AN/I, instead of typing them into Talk pages where I edit. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, you said, "I think LAEC has a valid point that there is an undisclosed COI from those editors, but it's not like that doesn't happen anywhere else." I agree. What makes this case different, however, and therefore newsworthy, is that person involved is a major player in a major organization, and that organization is a national leader in opposing the very things that its own high ranking member does when she acts anonymously. For example, the ALA opposed outing a 9/11 terrorist to the police, when that person's own deputy outed a major sports figure on Wikipedia for marital infidelity. For example, the ALA promotes "intellectual freedom" while anonymously propagandizing on Wikipedia to promote its own political interests. Lastly, I appreciate the support and guidance you have provided. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I'm now starting to get solid support at the AN/I. I thank all the editors doing so (including yourself), but I won't mention names so that my doing so does not get them in trouble. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-LAEC anon editors

At the ANI, the blocking admin said, "Can we get a better, neutralish party review of the anti-LAEC anon editors behavior? I haven't seen good coverage of that aspect of it and would like to review that as well... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)" He said this in response to the repeated negative comments of Will Beback and likely the detailed, positive comments of Magog the Ogre who indirectly refuted what Will Beback said, if only by its following Will Beback's comment, and the positive comments of Baseball Bugs and Ravensfire.

I'm obviously not a neutral party. But I suppose it would not hurt for me to attempt to list people/IPs to perhaps assist those responding to Georgewilliamherbert. I'll build this a little at a time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

removed an "enemies" list so to speak at the request of the subjects, who were offended and felt it unencyclopedic, Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a starting point. I'll be in contact with the other admins about that list shortly. Although, as I said, I may or may not be "neutral" anymore... hopefully enough to be "neutralish" . Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of these editors specify why they harass me. They say I'm a book burner, for example. Not true, but that's what they say. I could look through some diffs for such comments, if you wish. So they have external prejudices that they prosecute on Wikipedia. And they do so effectively.

Consider, for example, that some of the things you said about me are false and can be directly sourced to one or more of the above-listed people. Per what I learned from KimvdLinde, I try not to respond to the attacks (as opposed to what you said about me at ANI which is the exact opposite). I suppose the consequence is that the lies contained in the attacks are sometimes believed. Oh well, that's the price, I suppose, of attempting compliance with community input. Similarly, I suppose Will Beback is not aware of the extent to which I'm the opposite of what he claims, but I give him the benefit of the doubt that he has heard too much from the above-mentioned people to separate fact from fiction. During one of the gang attacks on me is when he first got involved in taking notice of me. Now he only sees what he was told at that time. Oh well, that's life.

Be that as it may, I try to abide by all things Wikipedia, and I am extremely happy that you have noticed. (Others have as well, just not so eloquently as you.) If I use an external blog to expose something unethical at a minimum, it's whistleblowing, not harassment. If the ALA is anonymously promoting a Free Press cause that the Wall Street Journal exposes, then that is evidence that I am whistleblowing, not harassing. It's news, not harassment.

There are laws protecting whistleblowers. There's a reason. Just consider how the three IP addys just got me blocked. I'm blocked, but from what? From not posting blogs? From not posting on Wikipedia where I am currently editing in harmony with everyone? As a show of good faith, I'm not even contesting the block. So this incident appears to be interesting for more than just the immediate block.

Thank you for your obvious interest in truth, justice, and the American way, which I hope does not make you "non-neutral". Watch, someone will accuse me of having you in my back pocket--or was he one of the blocked ones. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I for one have no issue with Magog's neutrality on these points. They seem to be doing everything right in how they are participating in this. We want engaged admins, who can stay neutral...

It's going to take some time to review the contributions histories of all those.

Thanks for cooperating on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Np. Take your time. Good things come to those who wait. And I'm involved in nothing of great urgency at this time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you are doing me a great service. Those harassers have a whirl of misinformation swirling around me--it even results in my getting indef blocked ;) . If you do what I think you will do, your result will go a long way toward putting out the fires. That would would really be nice and greatly appreciated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For example, there's this, "The problem with LAEC is larger than his interactions with supposed ALA members. He accuses all sorts of editors of harassing him, seeing conspiracies against him on all sides, and routinely fails to assume good faith. Will Beback talk 08:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)" If your determination, Georgewilliamherbert, is that editors are in fact harassing me, that puts an end to arguments like we see here from Will Beback.

By the way, Will Beback listed at the ANI a long series of supposed transgressions. Naturally, I cannot respond there. Some are serious but some actually went my way, like the MMfA one, so long as I follow WP:BRD. Further, as Magog the Ogre stated, my editing has vastly improved. So the relevancy of past errors that have since vastly improved is almost zero. Your determination could put an end to Will Beback's regular statements about my past editing habits, and to similar claims from others. So please, take all the time you need. I see some editors suggesting the block be removed. That's nice. Thanks everyone. But I'm content to wait this one out. I am happy people are finally looking into what's going on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC, are you saying that the list of people above are all connected to ALA? It looks like several of them are the same person, but I see no indication that Dylan came here to harass you because he works for the ALA.   Will Beback  talk  10:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. I do not know if any of them are connected to the ALA. I am sure some of them are not connected to the ALA. I know of ALA members who edit on Wikipedia, but, other than the subject of my off Wiki blog post, they do so appropriately and within the confines of Wiki policy. Of course, no one's perfect, but I think you get what I mean. And I am a former ALA member--I can't afford the dues anymore.

Oh, let me add that on one of my blog posts off Wiki, someone anonymously commented that I was wrong about something that appeared on an ALA web site. I wasn't. The ALA changed the web site in response to my exposing how they covered up a rape and blamed the child victim. Within minutes the anonymous poster shows up to say I was wrong. That person has to have been connected to the ALA and have sufficient power to change a web page there. I strongly suspect that person is the very one named in my recent blog post. Plus, on other blogs she used her real name. So it should not surprise anyone of the possibility of a connection to the ALA for some of the people listed.

And when you say "It looks like several of them are the same person", would you please specify? At a minimum, your observation confirms some of what I have been saying. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm being accused of being "anti-LAEC" in this list. I came across his blog post, was familiar with Wikipedia policies against outing, and posted it to the administrative board for followup. I'm not related to any other account, either. --208.95.83.51 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You're a Florida-based account, as were several of the complainants, which puts your argument on shifting sand in more ways than one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cites to blog post in question

It is relevant that the blog post in question is being viewed as newsworthy:

• "Tech at Night: Net Neutrality Reactions Continue, ALA, Copyright, Trademark, the New Madden Curse," by Neil Stevens, RedState, 28 December 2010, hyperlink to my blog post omitted from this excerpt:

It turns out the fraud behind the Net Neutrality movement runs ever deeper than we knew: The ALA has been astroturfing for Free Press and its front group Save the Internet, over on Wikipedia. Can we please just make Wikipedia run ads already, forcing the site to bend to the will of market forces instead of its army of astroturfers and shills?

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How is this relevant to your behavior on Wikipedia?   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre raised the legitimate and even compelling issue of whether the blog post under examination at the ANI was whistleblowing or was harassment. It was whistleblowing. That others external to Wikipedia see it the same way is highly relevant to the issue raised at the ANI. They also see it as whistleblowing. Since no harassment is involved, the ANI request is groundless.

That said, I am perfectly willing to let the blocking admin take his time to sort things out as his findings should go a long way toward stopping your repeating my past history as often as you do. Did you see what Magog the Ogre said? Do you find any legitimate and even compelling reason to doubt him? You complain about my not assuming good faith. After the findings are made known, I am certain you can see that continuing to raise those old issues against me would itself be a violation of good faith. I am certain you would not do that--that's a large reason why I look forward to the findings and am encouraged by all those supporting me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wikileaks. This is not a whistleblowing venue, it's an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT for a list of things that Wikipedia isn't.   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. You missed the key issue, however. 1) Whistleblowing was the term Magog the Ogre used in the ANI, and 2) any whistleblowing done, if any, was done external to Wikipedia. I did not use Wikipedia for any whistleblowing, and I have even been careful not to repost the link to my blog post. 3) We are here only because another apparent ALA supporter went to ANI in his/her first edit ever and magically knew a) where to go, b) how to link hyperlink, and c) how to use wikilinks, etc. Then, as comments came in where it appeared people either supported me or just shrugged their shoulders, more brand new IP addys joined in the fray to keep adding concerns. That's why we are here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)