Niceperson907

Please stop adding unreferenced or badly-referenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CWC 14:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I sorta doubt that you are Iain Hall, who used to blog as "niceperson". If you wish to keep editing Wikipedia, please use a name that does not create confusion. CWC 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good morning. Firstly, as far as I am aware there are no legal proprietorial rights over pseudonyms, and no Wikipedia policy that prevents me from claiming an unused username. So I won't be changing my username because somebody "used to blog" with it. Secondly, I noticed you edited the Tim Blair page and removed information pertaining to his defamation action against Crikey. This information was correct and well referenced. The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source. I have reverted that particular edit. niceperson907 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia frowns on confusing usernames, and Iain Hall does/did edit here as niceperson (talk · contribs).
2. The news pages of the SMH are a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia-specific sense of that term. Gossip columns are not "reliable sources" in that sense, on the whole, even if printed in a newspaper. That particular gossip column is woefully inadequate as anything but snark.
3. There is no evidence that Blair and the Telly planned to go through with that defamation action. There is evidence that Blair had to initiate proceedings before Crikey would retract and genuinely apologize. You took that evidence out of the article! The "information" I removed was unencyclopedic; the information you removed was relevant and vital to the topic.

Therefore ...

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Tim Blair, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

... CWC 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop threatening me with a ban simply because I am using a nick you don't like and adding information you don't wish to see. It is an abuse of any moderator privileges you may have, and if necessary I will make complaints about your behaviour. Call in a third-party or raise a discussion about the matter, if you wish. The facts of the matter are that (a) Crikey in one of its blogs made allegations about Tim Blair (b) Tim Blair had his lawyers contact Crikey to remove the relevant blog post (c) Crikey apologised and made an undisclosed payment to Tim Blair. The Daily Telegraph was not a party to Blair's legal action, as you claim. To suggest that Blair did not 'go through with that defamation action' demonstrates a lack of understanding about civil law - action was initiated and carried through to the satisfaction of both parties, even if it did not result in a court hearing. All this information is widely known and mentioned in the sources I have provided, which appeared in a major daily newspaper. Information about false allegations and defamation action is relevant to Blair's role as both a blogger and a professional journalist. Your attempts to conceal this information is not appropriate and suggests some kind of protective agenda. niceperson907 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above, some cursory Googling reveals that you operate a blog with a link to Tim Blair at the top of your blogroll, and that you have regularly commented on Tim Blair's blog. I think your position here is compromised and that you should take no further arbitrary action, but let the Wikipedia community decide on this matter. niceperson907 15:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I need to apologise to you for using WP:Rollback instead of WP:Undo to revert you at Tim Blair. Using rollback implies vandalism, and you are certainly not a WP:Vandal. Unfortunately, I sometimes forget which is which, resulting in my issuing these apologies on a semi-regular basis. In your case, I made this mistake more than once, which is a dismal performance. I apologise. CWC 13:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)