User talk:PrBeacon/Archive 3

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

pet project

efforts (stalled) to make SSCS-Talk page archives more useful..


  The Original Barnstar
… In recognition of your recent efforts at cooperation and content creation. — NRen2k5 aka TheHerbalGerbil (TALK), 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
After some time passes & even though we exchange light jabs occasionally, I consider returning the favor... [ barnstar tbd, possibly wildcard] -PrBeacon (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Against POV push

For the record, User:Cetamata is misrepresenting the situation and bypassing the normal channels of dispute resolution. This is how I and others see it: over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV, including the euphemisms "take" and "catch" as well as bogus research claims, while ignoring disagreements about these terms on the talk page and paying lip service to WP policies. Most recently, after I changed the terms back, he reverted my edits. So I warned him about 3RR [1] which he mistakenly thought was a formal report, yet he deleted it. He then retaliated at the Admin noticeboard. Instead of attempting to reach a resolution, he seems to be digging in & making things worse. . PrBeacon (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments removed, references to escalated dispute.

We can play this game if you really want. Calling you a jerk was grossly inappropriate. However, you are guilty to a certain extent as well and ignored that on the user's talk page and mine. WP:AOBF is part of a guideline. "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety" is considered directly rude per the policy Wikipedia:Civility. Stop accusing someone of POV pushing. This is devolving into a lame pissing contest. You asked where my objectivity has gone and I am thinking the same of you. I hope it is just a knee-jerk reaction on my art. I am sure we can get back to not being rude to each other with a little bit of effort.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've conceded as much on his talk page and yours, just before he made the remark. But I never called him any names. Those quotes from wp:npa seem to support my view that I can indeed question an editor's contributions with some latitude, including POV issues. And you know from my exchanges that I'm civil until provoked, especially with NRen2k5 last year: I give what I get. If an editor wants to push the argument instead of reach common ground, I'm willing to return the flavor. Not the best response in an ideal community, but I don't back down from bullies. As I see the escalation: we discussed, he reverted, we argued, he reported, we argued, he insulted. And yes Cetamata seems to enjoy arguing, despite his claims to the contrary. PrBeacon (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why this happened: [2]-- fed up with the "sh!t" i guess
Or the timing of this [3] & [4]-- self-righteous blowhard wiki-bully trying to bait another argument.
Really? You are going to call another editor a blowhard? I removed my stuff per WP:Blanking since I thought we were done squabbling. I had not realized that you took edit warring over to another page. So here is what I am thinking: You have made multiple uncivil comments. You have edit warred on two pages. You have bordered on forum shopping. You have lost your objectivity on related pages. I am pretty confident that you will be blocked if a report is opened on any of those. However, it is not constructive and from our previous attempts at working together I do not believe you are as negative as you are coming across. Take a few hours off and relax. Think about your edits and if we really need to spend this much time not improving articles. Strike out some comments, maybe make an apology or two, and get your emotions in check if they are not (I'm not you so don't know if they are). Hopefully this can all blow over without anyone's feelings getting to hurt.Cptnono (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop deflecting it on to other people. You have screwed up. Forget about him, Nren, and me and look at what you can do to not have people accusing you of edit warring and being uncivil. I'm not going to say two wrongs one right because that is stupid but make sure you aren't causing some of the trouble first. Cptnono (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
We just disagree. At least we can agree on that. But you keep saying now that I'm being uncivil: Where? (I dont count my own user-talkpage, since anyone who's likely to be offended is free to stay away) .. I may have posted some sharp rebukes but still in a diplomatic vein, and only after repeatedly provoked. And who else is saying that I'm being uncivil, aside from editors embroiled in the conflicts? By the way, you're doing a bit of the deflecting, as well. It seems like you didnt even read my reply above ("Yep, I've conceded as much..") & only reacted to the remark about the blowhard bully from before. You don't think it's strange he shows up here to effectivly wag his finger, say tsk,tsk and then jump in the middle of Cetamata's crusade? PrBeacon (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: the 3RR report on Fishing has been withdrawn.

Sea Shepherds and Violence

Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. -- (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You may think differently after you read more of my replies to the anti-SSCS POV-pusher there, but I appreciate the comment. PrBeacon (talk)
I might regret this but get in here. Started poking around more recently and think your counterbalance would be beneficial to the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've removed NRen2k5's self-righteous warning from here. I also posted the following reply at his Talk page: "When you can heed your own advice about not personalizing disputes and distorting the truth, I'll stop countering your pro-whaling arguments. Until then, keep your hypocritical warnings to yourself." PrBeacon (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey.. it looks an aweful lot like you are egging Nren on in the discussion of SSCS. I know the two of you have history.. it's probably best if you don't spend effort discussing him in that page. Making suggestions of edits would be cool but it seems like you are commenting about the person which he seems to be taking offense to.. -- (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps thats one way of looking at it, but as long as he pushes his anti-SSCS POV there, I'll continue to reply. I think the discussion about balance in particular is well worth it. Incidentally, I must say your assessment seems injudicious in light of your own testy exchange with the anon-editor#4 allegedly from San Jose. PrBeacon (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem being disagreed with. :) I welcome it, it's good for us. San Jose though was just flat out rude, I tried not to be rude back. Look at CPTnono, obviously sympathetic to the SS but I've got nothing but praise for the way that editor handles business. If we disagree it's all good. Anyway, thanks for scaling back a bit, we all have folks that get under our skin. Happy editing. -- (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I am pretty sure we can find solutions on the range of articles. I have and will continue to disagree with you but me getting the page locked sucks. And there is no winning and I am not always right so there is nothing wrong with working to find some consensus on this stuff.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Against POV push

For the record, User:Cetamata is misrepresenting the situation and bypassing the normal channels of dispute resolution. This is how I and others see it: over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV, including the euphemisms "take" and "catch" as well as bogus research claims, while ignoring disagreements about these terms on the talk page and paying lip service to WP policies. Most recently, after I changed the terms back, he reverted my edits. So I warned him about 3RR [5] which he mistakenly thought was a formal report, yet he deleted it. He then retaliated at the Admin noticeboard. Instead of attempting to reach a resolution, he seems to be digging in & making things worse. . PrBeacon (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments removed, references to escalated dispute.

We can play this game if you really want. Calling you a jerk was grossly inappropriate. However, you are guilty to a certain extent as well and ignored that on the user's talk page and mine. WP:AOBF is part of a guideline. "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety" is considered directly rude per the policy Wikipedia:Civility. Stop accusing someone of POV pushing. This is devolving into a lame pissing contest. You asked where my objectivity has gone and I am thinking the same of you. I hope it is just a knee-jerk reaction on my art. I am sure we can get back to not being rude to each other with a little bit of effort.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've conceded as much on his talk page and yours, just before he made the remark. But I never called him any names. Those quotes from wp:npa seem to support my view that I can indeed question an editor's contributions with some latitude, including POV issues. And you know from my exchanges that I'm civil until provoked, especially with NRen2k5 last year: I give what I get. If an editor wants to push the argument instead of reach common ground, I'm willing to return the flavor. Not the best response in an ideal community, but I don't back down from bullies. As I see the escalation: we discussed, he reverted, we argued, he reported, we argued, he insulted. And yes Cetamata seems to enjoy arguing, despite his claims to the contrary. PrBeacon (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why this happened: [6]-- fed up with the "sh!t" i guess
Or the timing of this [7] & [8]-- self-righteous blowhard wiki-bully trying to bait another argument.
Further (biased) comments removed.
We just disagree. At least we can agree on that. But you keep saying now that I'm being uncivil: Where? (I dont count my own user-talkpage, since anyone who's likely to be offended is free to stay away) .. I may have posted some sharp rebukes but still in a diplomatic vein, and only after repeatedly provoked. And who else is saying that I'm being uncivil, aside from editors embroiled in the conflicts? By the way, you're doing a bit of the deflecting, as well. It seems like you didnt even read my reply above ("Yep, I've conceded as much..") & only reacted to the remark about the blowhard bully from before. You don't think it's strange he shows up here to effectivly wag his finger, say tsk,tsk and then jump in the middle of Cetamata's crusade? PrBeacon (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: the 3RR report on Fishing has been withdrawn.


They were against MoS. Not going to get in an edit war over it but will certainly remove it if I see it pop up on my watchlist. And don't force balance. Try to find a way to include the info while staying withing the style guidelines. Also, your 3rr was reopened by the other editor.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just added a couple further templates. To be honest, I don't mind a few reverts if it is in an attempt to make an acceptable product. The problem is when it is controversial and there is obvious concerns on the talk page. But watch out. You are on a real slippery slope right now. I promise to not try to "get you" or anything. If you act like you were the other night that might change but hopefully we can all get a better rapport. Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
After some time to reflect, there remains a bitter residue. I still think you overstated my part in the conflicts -- worse, you admonished me (repeatedly, on several admin boards) for being uncivil yet you gave praise to Cetamata about keeping his cool & then only reprimanded him reluctantly. (Notice he never actually apologized to me). My calling someone's POV into question is a legitimate form of debate, whether you like it or not. Odd how neither of you replied to the observation about how Cetamata's 3RR report "looks like an attempt to weaken one side through a block." Then you contribute to the escalation with unbalanced & incorrect summary on the WP:POVN. And lastly, you stepped into a separate admin thread, gave false context against me and called for "a reminder that this behavior is not cool." (Which no one else thought necessary). Did you actually read Epipelagic's nasty comments on the Fishing talkpage? Arrogant, dismissive, patronizing. No I'm no saint but I don't get rude so easily, either. PrBeacon (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

more on SSCS talk

That works nicely. We can do it the other way around if you want. I'm rather new to Wiki, still don't know what works without surprising (oh, no....not that.....undo!, undo!, undo!) results. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ha, no problem. PrBeacon (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, heck, I didn't even take a look at what you had done with the archives until now. You must have spent all day on that. Amazing. And Thanks!  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone I asked said that if the archives weren't done by bot, that would mess up the search (I cringe to think of what that means). I know nothing of this stuff, but will keep asking around. Have a great weekend; :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on archive searching. Actually I didnt do much work, just copy&paste from the TOCs and made some quick observations. cheers, PrBeacon (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The "open seas" part of that lead sentence seems odd. Perhaps "international waters" would be more accurate? And how would you feel about moving that lead paragraph to the top so it is the first thing that people see, since it is at present somewhat buried? Sorry I've been lax on the article; illness and various other real life things going on. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Noticed that you were working on a related article, saw this and thought it might be of use. Oberonfitch (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

yikes. but thanks for the link PrBeacon (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, my thoughts precisely. I especially liked the "refrigerator in the trunk" aspect. But, so many things to admire and appreciate about the article. Where to begin? Oberonfitch (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC) The price you pay for illegal whale carcass is closure. As it should be. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


I haven't looked at PETA for a while, because the fighting got too much. I may take a peek again soon. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought...

On this edit, you might do a better job of convincing people if you aren't making statements such as belligerent pro-FNC crowd. I would be willing to help write such a statement. Soxwon (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I don't really believe some of those editors want to listen or reach consensus. And I think it's important to call them out on their ownership issues. PrBeacon (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to them, I was referring to the way it came across to people who haven't read anything and see what looks like personal attack. Soxwon (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Even on further reflection, I still don't see how that's a personal attack. (Note I struck the belligerent part, anyway). I suppose a counter-argument can too easily be taken as a personal slight, but there's no attack about it. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


backhandedly, 'Your choice'

(to understand the context, one might need to see the patronizing replies by Niteshift36 at Talk:Fox News Channel, lack of AGF and other incivility he likes to pretend is reasonable discussion)
We can keep this up or end it now. I'll let you decide. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

heh, that's just a lame way to say that you want me to stop. or else you won't. get a grip on your nerdrage. PrBeacon (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Take it how you want. I made the offer. You just rejected it. At least nobody can say I didn't try. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

anyone who can read. you didn't try. and guess what: I STOLE YOUR BULLET. oh noes. PrBeacon (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove the whole discussion for all I care. It's in your edit history. I made the offer. If you think there's going to be some apology or something, you're dreaming. I simply offered to end it as it sat. You've rejected that. No longer my problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
wrong again. your lack of self-awareness would be laughable if it weren't so confrontational. You did not make an offer to stop. You asked me to. And you also continue to post on the FNC thread after you said you moved the discussion. PrBeacon (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I said WE. WE means both of us. Not you. Not me. BOTH. I didn't ask you to do anything alone, save asking you to decide if you wanted US to stop this silliness or not. And yes, when you rejected this offer and started discussing it at the FNC article, I resumed responding. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
i rejected your non-offer? funny. but not really. your WE means I stop then you stop. but that means you get the last word. /pity the fool^ PrBeacon (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I'm giving you the last word at the FNC discussion. Go for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Since there is an active RFC about the FNC article, I'd like to propose that we archive the chunks that are mostly just you and I bickering back and forth so that any incoming editor won't have to sift through all that just to figure out what the issue is. What do you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove my posts to each of the 'sidetracked' subsections with an explanatory note. With some distance I realize how counterproductive the two exercises in debate were. PrBeacon (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

'Just stop now'

(first posted to Niteshift's talkpage, subsequently removed)
Can you see how arrogant and patronizing your replies are? You seem to be engaging in the same childish taunting at Talk:Fox News that you exhibited three weeks ago. I suggest you step back now and try to gain some self-awareness. Repeating yourself and getting personal does nothing to further the discussion. And just because you are careful to couch your remarks in somewhat diplomatic fashion does not exempt you from WP:civil guidelines. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC) [9]

  • I'm not getting personal and I haven't done anything that wasn't civil. I'd suggest that you are the one who needs to check yourself. If all you have are unwarranted allegations like these and presumptions of bad faith, do not post futher on my talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC) [10]
Unwarranted? "Don't take it personally that you said something contradictory to facts. I'm sure it was accidental, but no reason to get pissy about it." [11] That's tantamount to calling me a liar, accidental or not. How can you spin it any other way? -PrBeacon (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC) [12]


  This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Fox News Channel, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not remove another editors post if it isn't vandalism or violating a policy. None of that applied to the post you removed here [13]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Final? That implies you warned me already when in fact you didn't. Besides, as I just said in my edit summary, my removal of your old comment there was a legitimate attempt to keep the thread in order (since you have left it there while removing other comments) and you didn't give any indication that you objected until this warning on my talk-page, which is quite ridiculous. And not only because of your hypocrisy. According to your skewed logic, it's ok for you to refactor my comment (subsection title which is/was a part of the comment). -PrBeacon (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would also note that your edit summary's characterization "section titles aren't there for your own little rants" [14] is absurd: it's already an accepted subsection in previous threads there, and you don't get to decide what's appropriate. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop posting your nonsense here. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


14:49, 14 June 2010     Niteshift36   Talk:Fox News Channel ‎      (→in re Niteshift's fourth attempt to sidetrack discussion: changing another POV title from an editor that just doesn't get it)

03:42, 15 June 2010     Niteshift36   Talk:Fox News Channel ‎      (→another sidetrack: section titles aren't there for your own little rants)
04:18, 15 June 2010     Niteshift36   Talk:Fox News Channel ‎      (you don't own the page. I DO own my comments. Titles aren't to be used to push your POV. You call it a sidetrack, others call it discussion. 2 editors have changed your POV titles)

and 2 editors have reverted his changes to my titles
i could just let it stand... but I don't. and the universal order expands again

Fox News

It is clear and uncontroversial that Fox has a preponderance of conservative commentators which Murdoch justified as an attempt to balance the "liberal bias" in the media. But claiming that their news coverage has a conservative bias, something they strongly deny, requires high quality sources, not just comments from their competitors. If you want to proceed, you must find these sources which will be in scholarly books and peer reviewed articles about journalism. Google scholar is helpful in finding them. The advantage of these sources is that we could actually say that Fox News is biased (if there is an academic consensus) or that that is the mainstream view of FN. Remember too that you must find a source that states what the consensus or mainstream view is. TFD (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a couple of solid sources and I'll look for the consensus view. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up -- User_talk:Viriditas#Fox_.22News.22_Ch. notes to include here..


Thank you. It is nice to see that I might be getting better at not being a WP:DICK.

Some mention in the lead is more than appropriate. I am surprised you ran into so much resistance. I made a comment at EAR. And if you are watching the new season of Whale Wars, I'm not a fan of Sea Shepherd but that Bethune guy has grown on me.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, despite some of my rambling I never considered you an antagonist. I heard a vietnamese monk the other day talking about stopping others from fighting, how difficult it is when both parties want to continue fighting, and how they will often turn on the peacemaker. Anyway, thanks for reviewing my request. And yea Bethune is quite a character. He may make the otherwise plodding show more watchable. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ugh tell me about it... got a good shiner playing peacemaker a few months ago.
Don't take the other editor calling it an attack at EAR to personally. It is easy to feel like someone went behind their back to a noticeboard even if that wasn't the intent. When it all comes down to it you do have the sourcing and info. The only think left is finding the appropriate wording and weight.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

go ahead.."

Non-free files in your user space [15]

  Hey there PrBeacon, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:PrBeacon. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Corporate reaction in GW article

Hey PR. I just wanted you to know that I support an RfC as you suggested in the Global Warming discussion. Do you still think it's a good idea? Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, most certainly. The current refrain of "this article is about the science" reeks of WP:OWNnership issues and is probably NOT the result of past consensus, if such a thing even exists. I suspect this latter point is true because of the immediate yet unsatisfactory replies by several editors, notably WMC who is an admitted GW-denier. However, before I undertake to challenge the staus quo I'd like to do some more research into archives including admin threads and previous RfCs, RfMs etc., so i can't move ahead with this right away. Besides, I'm currently involved in another content dispute on two related articles (FoxNews and MMfA), so my efforts would be naturally divided. And while I would normally encourage you to go ahead with initiating an RfC, I think those regular editors at GW might have a defensive reflex against you because of your recent edits Note- I'm not attempting to judge them or you, just commenting on the possible conflict generated. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
notably WMC who is an admitted GW-denier - this is vaguely amusing but you might just possibly want to check your facts first. A browse of might be a start; or you could perhaps try looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence; or Any way round: welcome to reality; I hope you like it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
WMC, your reality is a skewed virtual one [link tbd], you realize that right? If your comment [link tba] a few days ago in Talk:GW was therefore sarcasm or facetiousness, then it's not very clear to the newcomers. See how you can come off as arrogant? I don't know you, you don't know me, so using snarky cliches like "welcome to reality" (even if that's a wink) don't have the effect that you apparently want or mean. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No. You need to start by stating clearly whether you still affirm notably WMC who is an admitted GW-denier William M. Connolley (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, try again. You don't get to give orders in this userspace. Until you change your tone & reply with some modicum of respect, please don't visit here again. In the meantime, you're free to search the Talk:GW page for the 'denier' comment you made. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor charging "vandalism" --not a good start for healthy debate

" (diff | hist) . . m Politico (newspaper)‎; 23:56 . . (-176) . . Weaponbb7 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by PrBeacon identified as vandalism to last revision by Arzel. (TW)) "

I think your revert [16] (of my revert) was inappropriate for a couple of reasons, including the fact the the issue in question has been brought up at a RFM and therefore should not be stricken pending mediation results. especially unexpected is your edit summary of 'vandalism' as well as the absence of any note on the talkpage. if you look at page's recent page history, you will see that it is in fact I who marked the sentence with the fact tag, not Arzel. he/she then removed the line without consensus or even talkpage discussion, either -- after s/he merely questioned Politico's bias at the RfM. thank you for understanding. i hope you will kindly undo your revert. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you ignored my first attempt to open a dialogue I see no alternative than to be blunt: your reply to the Politico talkpage does not belong on the RFM page for the MMfA-Clinton issue. And the section I started at Talk:Politico most certainly should not be collapsed or 'moved' without my consent -- check WP:TPG about refactoring other's comments. Also What is not vandalism, particularly when you think it violates NPOV. Further clarification can be found at the talkpage archives for WP:Vandalism. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that this isn't the first time he's charged vandalism & ignored the editor's follow-up rebuttal. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Our verifiability policy states that unsourced material can and should be removed if it is challenged: you don't get a free pass on including an unsourced statement that Politico is conservative-leaning or pro-Republican just because it is {{fact}}-tagged. And canvassing an AN/I thread is very unhelpful, especially when Blaxthos was just involved in a mediation on Media Matters for America. What purpose does keeping the AN/I thread open serve, other than making this content dispute harder to resolve? Fences&Windows 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the escalation. I recognize my part in this and the mistakes I've made, but at the time I felt justified because of past talkpage discussion and non-content issues already covered at ANI. A big part of the problem is that I think some editors feel free to ignore the talkpage and do what they want to an article. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia, imo, and it borders on offensive. At the least it discourages healthy debate.
  • I didn't think I was canvassing, just asking another editor for feedback User_talk:Blaxthos#Current_ANI: "please let me know..." -- I didn't say for him to post at the ANI and I didn't think he would. I can understand a small argument that it might be borderline, though I would disagree. (One question to clarify: are you referring to the current mediation or another one?)
  • I think the bigger problem of content was that the article is another partisan news source with protective editors/fans. For example, the Edwards snafu has been continually removed. (Politico announced the Edwards campaign was over, based upon an anonymous source. They had to retract the piece and it was a big embarassment in 2007). Last month I posted the primary source with quote Talk:Politico_(newspaper)#Bias. No one responded. I let it slide, unfortunately, for over a month when I got caught up in other issues. But I still felt that it was worth discussing and I'd hoped the others would say something about it. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, ignoring talk pages is not good, though there does seem to be discussion now. I can see why you contacted Blaxthos - but even the perception of canvassing is something to avoid when at AN/I, even if it wasn't your intention. A solution to this might be to advertise the debate to relevant WikiProjects, seek a third opinion, or even have an RfC. Have you got sources on the Edwards campaign incident? Also, to get a good response from other editors look for reception of Politico generally, rather than only digging up negative criticism. Fences&Windows 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize I didn't answer your first question, "What purpose.." The ANI notice is more than the content dispute, because Arzel is among the most entrenched at another article and he's fighting the same sort of content balance there. I haven't heard an admin weigh in on the retaliation issue spiling over from E.A.R.. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and feedback, again. At the talkpage I see some discussion from outside editors but I'm waiting to see if the two other involved editors actually want to collaborate. I see that Weaponbb7 continues to disparage the criticism in what seems like a defensive manner ("insidious") but says he doesn't really care about their bias(?) Also, he's fine with the article as is (as Arzel has edited it) despiyr the quote he calls "baloney" again. He appears to want someone else to write the actual content so he can shoot it down. And Arzel has not joined the new thread there. I expect them both to dig in their heels about changing the lead to reflect criticism, despite WP:Lead policy, as Arzel has done over at FNC.
   From what I've read Politico's general reception is mixed, depending on the source. They were big players in the 2008 election (within DC media circles, anyway) and usually careful to appear non-partisan. If I happen to feel a WP article lacks balance, especially in the lead, I usually find it mentioned already in the discussions, or at least more context. If it's not I'll ask there first. I rarely "dig up" only negative stuff (I'm not saying you characterize it that way). The current criticism of Politico was already in the article & talkpage when i got there in May. At Talk:Politico_(newspaper)#Criticsm someone mentioned the Edwards thing in light of a 'lone editor removing' it back in 2007. I reviewed the history and it was sourced but (to me) looked too minor to include in such a short article. Maybe the issue seemed bigger back then, idk. I can look at it later, but at the moment I'm concerned about those 2 editors who don't seem to acknowledge their part in the dispute. - 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC) revised -PrBeacon (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Thank you :-)

I actually haven't checked my user page since I left, but saw this and wanted to send it on to you in the event that you had not seen it.

Best wishes to you was a pleasure. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

to Rapier/SeanNovack

Get off your high horse. You, Badmintonhist, Niteshift36 and now Croctotheface are sidetracking every discussion by jumping on what you perceive is unfair or inappropriate commentary. Your hypocritical lecturing on article talkpages like FoxNews and MMfA is what's more distracting and unconstructive than the quick comments to which you reply. You accuse others of wiki-battling yet you can't see your own comments as patronizing and dismissive, even snide. So take it to WQA if you think it's a problem (heads up: others have tried already, only the entrenched editors see it as so offensive). -PrBeacon (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

His reply: further self-serving distortions and projections, ending with the petulant retort "stay off my user page". -PrBeacon (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
a thought..., if you are running into THAT much opposition, perhaps you are on the wrong side of an argument (or at fault in terms of behavior as the case may be, this just seems to be a general thing)? Soxwon (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That's just a weak way of saying you're right, or they're right. I can accept disagreement about content, debate about style, but not editors talking down to others. Especially not when they presume to lecture & scold while violating the very policies and guidelines they like to quote themselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To Trypto

I'm responding to you here (below) because I don't wish to clutter the ANI anymore than it already is. I see that you still have a need to get the last word in. Perhaps with some distance you can see the hole you're digging, but I doubt it based on your lapses in self-awareness.

from ANI thread
I've been following this ANI thread with interest, but I am not familiar with the background discussions of the image files, and I am deliberately not going anywhere near them. So I have no knowledge of the merits of the arguments. I also haven't crossed paths with J Milburn that I can remember. But, having read J Milburn's description at the top of this sub-thread, I have an intense feeling of recognition. It matches exactly the pattern of SlimVirgin's conduct towards me, ever since I was a newbie editor and committed the apparently mortal sin of editing some animal rights pages in ways with which SlimVirgin disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Trypto is piling on because he too doesn't like to be disagreed with and takes it personally. His mischaracterizations are familiar and tiresome.-PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
No, none of that is true. You previously tried to raise this at WQA, and were told by uninvolved editors there that your characterizations of me are without substance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That was a separate issue & your recollection is faulty or disingenuous. You have a long history of disputes with SlimVirgin which devolve into petty bickering since, when you lose the arguments on content and policy, you resort to snide and dismissive retorts. Much like others who disagree with SV, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually your claims at WQA were exactly the same thing. I'm sure disinterested editors here can judge for themselves the tone I use, versus the tone PrB is using. But I'm sorry that this thread, about the concerns raised by J Milburn, are being sidetracked by a pro-animal rights editor. The only part of what you said that is true is that I have a long history with SlimVirgin. It started when I was a very new editor, and was not at all as you described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that anyone cares: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Tryptofish bullying other editors on PETA article. WQA, as I described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you felt vindicated there because one (not plural, as you say here) outside editor simply called it "usual disagreement"? You even admitted to a mistake at the WQA. The two other editors there asked for diffs, but I decided to let it rest. The "intense feeling of recognition" you mentioned at the ANI is more like vengeance against SV, and you can't seem to let it go. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


Respectfully I disagree, and being unfairly admonished like that on a talkpage seems to vindicate the pro-FNC defenders. Was this in followup to the complaints received about the edit warring?
      Although I don't think the term 'faux news' is that big of a deal, I've struck it out of deference. But more importantly, the term 'disruptive' seems to be at least somewhat subjective in this case -- especially since I've made it clear that I'm here to improve the articles with balance. I would encourage any of those editors top take it to WQA to get an outside opinion if there is any semblance of a 'pattern' of such behavior, but I'm not going to invite this on any one article's talkpage because that just continues the distractions from improving the article -- distractions being a common tactic of stalling and killing discussion, btw. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To Soxwon, in re "bump"

[18] "simply b/c you're not getting the response you wanted..."

First of all, you're not really in a position to moderate the talkpage & I don't appreciate how you characterize a simple refresh. What WP policy supports your assertion that I'm not allowed to follow-up on a topic? You and other FNC-defenders may consider the thread 'dead' but as I said in my edit summary, "follow-up due, election cycle re-starting." [19] If the topic got archived anyway I'd resurrect it, as is any editor's prerogative. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
in re premature Archive [20] and revert [21] -- You don't get to give orders telling others where to post their responses. You are NOT the talkpage moderator. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

[22] " one responds and they simply talk in JML's post."

Maybe so, but that's not for either of us to decide. While normally i can appreciate housekeeping efforts to clean up talkpages, when there is disagreement you know that you should discuss it instead of charging forth. James' follow-up post does not act as a replacement for the previous discussion. If anything, his new thread should be folded into the existing one. Still, I might have also considered summarizing the older post (and linking its archive) in a new comment in James' thread, if I had been approached in a more diplomatic way than dismissive assumptions like "not getting the response you wanted." But I suppose that you didnt notice the small gesture of changing the "Bump" comment to something more specific/appropriate. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

[23] "Do not post here again."

Looks like he'd rather bury his head in the sand. Some folks just don't know how to disagree without being disagreeable. And then can't handle it when they get what they give.



to clarify: Since there has been some speculation about this side project, here a few words to explain: this section is a scattershot collection of bits I was working on to counter what i see as tendentious editing at the Fox News article, some of which may be initiated by the company themselves. It's not such a stretch, they've done it before -- see below.

I made the user list of my own accord in order to look into this -- admittedly, a hasty list with comments on editors' general behavior patterns. An admin stepped in and asked me to remove it, which I did. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

continued from User talk:Viriditas My argument is partly distilled into defending this addition to the lead section. I think it summarizes the controversy subarticle and best represents the primary criticism. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also meant to ask: has anyone requested CheckUser on the half-dozen accounts camped there to defend the article from balance? I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them works at FNC. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who they work for, but we should be keeping tabs on how often they pop up to revert. Can you make a list? Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll look into it, maybe someone else can help.. and perhaps there is a way to automate it. By the way, your input at talk:FNC controversies would be appreciated -PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look in a few hours. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

sox, stop the patronizing:
{ { tb } } Some of your recent comments at Talk:Fox News cross the line of civility. You're patronizing other editors with snide remarks like "You need to read." Since you started a respectful dialogue with me earlier this year, I'll give you more slack than others who didn't. But now you're coming off just as belligerent as the hardcore FNC defenders. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am trying to avoid another huge, unwieldly discussion such as what happened with the NC Donation section. I realize I may appear to be patronizing and apologize for that, but really I'm trying to just get to the meat of the argument, namely why you think that the material should go back in. I'll try to stop using potentially insulting language for the duration of the discussion. Soxwon (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion should be on Talk:Fox News Channel where others can participate. PrBeacon, reverting is not helpful. Please focus on collecting diffs and evidence instead. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

'Fox News Caught Sabotaging Wikipedia Entries'

at least as far back as 2007:
'Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP' and

currently, 2010 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fox_News_Channel_controversies in re [24] and [25] campers, FNC defenders

first draft, admin request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User lists like this can be taken as (and are) personal attacks, which aren't allowed here. Whatever data/lists you might keep elsewhere (such as offline) is, as always, wholly up to you. Could you please remove that list from your userspace? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree that the list is a personal attack. I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. They can always choose not to visit this page. However, I will move it soon since you asked. Is it appropriate to leave a blog link in its place? -PrBeacon (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. Please keep in mind, if you publicly post lists like that off-wiki, it could be seen as a kind of off-wiki harassment, a posting of an "enemies list" which, in some later dispute, could much thwart whatever you hope to be doing here. You might also have a look at WP:AGF, for more about the thinking on this kind of thing on en.WP. See also Wikipedia:Battle#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I appreciate your response, but I'd like to remove the reference to harassment. I could just archive this quickly, or let you refactor that part of your post. Thanks -PrBeacon (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I said could be seen as. I don't see harassment here. I see personal attacks. You can remove/archive whole posts of mine as you please, it's your talk page, but I don't understand why you're not taking down the user list. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack.
Calling other editors trolls is a wanton personal attack. You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace. Please clean it up now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Sorry, to me that seems overstating it a bit. But I will defer to your judgement. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You can't move it to User_talk:PrBeacon/balancing_Faux, because that's in your userspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nor can you keep/update that page by blanking, putting in more content, then blanking it again. I've deleted it as an attack page. Please don't put it back. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Since I blanked it, once, then you deleted the blank page (which I'm fine with), it was not an attack page which you deleted. Perhaps one might argue it was a potential one, but to me it was more like a sandbox. And since another editor is now misrepresenting your comment, I'm striking parts to clarify. I apologize if this is inappropriate. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, tranquilo. I said I would move it, then decided to remove it completely. I didn't 'put in more content,' blank it a second time, nor intend to keep it. Pardon me for being bold, but I have to say your vigilance seems somewhat misplaced here. (Note I may strike this last comment, upon further relfection -- see, thats how i do) -PrBeacon (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't like telling someone what they can(not) keep in their userspace at all. My belief is that you haven't understood been aware of the policies and how things are done here to echo those policies, which in itself is ok, no big deal. If you have worries about the behaviour of some editors, ok, dispute resolution is where you should take them. You can also ask me, another admin or any experienced user for ways to deal with that kind of thing. A friendly tip: Stick to content and sources, not what you think about other editors. Most of the time, it will get you much further. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm familiar with the policies but I also take exception to bullies and other turf-hounds when they (a) fight to keep an unbalanced article, and (b) scare away more casual editors, as seems the case at FNC. Despite repeated intervention by uninvolved editors and admin, they continue to exert themselves with activist fervor in order to counter what they see as systemic bias. I don't disagree with that latter sentiment to some degree, but I just think most of them go too far. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, there is all of that and more, mostly on the high traffic articles. Cite sources. There is often more than one outlook on those topics and both (or all) of them can be echoed and sourced in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

while you're here: I'd just like to say I appreciate what I've read at Mr. Wales' talkpage in particular the exchange with Hans Adler, whom I respect from past discussions about Sea Shepherd et al. It made me think of the several occasions where one of the pro-FNC editors got away with a low blow, calling someone else a d!ck (with a link to a similar WP essay without admonishment. Apparently they missed the part which says, 'The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a d!ck".' -PrBeacon (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the worries about the d""" essay(s) is they get misunderstood and mis-used, a lot. I don't think it's ok to call another editor a d*** (even one who's, say, headed for a long block). I also don't think it's helpful to ask another editor if they're senile, even in idiom. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'editor tracking others'
reply to alarmist overreaction:

For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations [at talk:FNC] would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And calling it a 'BLP violation' is so ridiculous its (almost) funny. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the deletion log, which I think more closely echoes the outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
ruffled feathers .. "Alright, that's enough, this is simply degenerating..."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

PrBeacon has made a list of those who oppose him ("campers, FNC defenders")in this article and on Fox News Channel controversies, and expressed a desire to have those people subject to CheckUser. Drrll (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK allows tagging of "attack pages" for deletion. Collect (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok this is getting ridiculous. Wikiscanner exists for a reason people. Instead of trying to peg people who disagree with you as Fox News channel employees PrBeacon, you might wish to consider that they simply keep Fox News Channel on their watchlist. Soxwon (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm thinking of a BLP violation. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, an "enemies list"!! How COOL is that!! Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, the usual suspects think they're circling the wagons. For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC) revised

  • only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely...The admin first said "You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace" then when it was moved to a similar page it became "I've deleted it as an attack page". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
^Wrong again- Are you intentionally mixing things up or just confused? This is the request to remove it: [26]. And that was one admin's opinion, I disagreed and said I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. The 'warning' you refer to was for calling you a troll in a previous thread, since you bring it up. By the way, your earlier remark about a 'BLP violation' might be amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Re-write history however you like. Even go back and strike through another editors comments like you've done. It's in the history my friend. anyone who wants can see I quoted accurately. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope, you only quoted the second part accurately but that still doesn't make you right, especially since you're mixing things up. You're welcome to argue that you think it was an attack, but above you're simply misrepresenting what actually happened. The only deleted a blank page, not an attack page -- as i said there, only the potential.. If you're going to argue semantics and picky details, make sure the history backs you up, because it doesn't here.
Anyone can go see it in the history. I selected the appropriate quotes. I quoted accurately and in the correct order. Done here my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Assuming anyone else still cares by this point, which i doubt, you repeating youself doesn't make you any more right. Now it appears that you're intentionally lying about the facts: there was no official warning about the so-called 'attack page' and your attempts to refactor it are borderline pathological. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No official warning? Ok, whatever. There doesn't have to be a template or something to be "an official warning". You might want to consider re-wording your last response. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Guess you weren't really 'done here,' eh? Ok: the warning was not for the user list, as you orginally stated above and seem to be sticking to. Not sure I understand your last point, are you [27] threatening something? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You're correct, I thought I was done and probably shouldn't have responded. There is no threat. I just thought it would be sporting to give you an opportunity to reconsider something you may have said in haste without thinking just how far over the line you were stepping. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:DUCK. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont know why you needed that hitlist when someone else is already gathering data on editors actions.. User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Loosely tossing around terms like 'hit list,' 'enemies list' and 'stalking' shouldn't go unchecked, you guys are being overly dramatic. And I've changed this section's title because it's inappropriate, as the whole section may be. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
As I am not "pro FNC" , I find the new title offensive. Collect (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've changed it again. I've asked the earlier admin to weigh in on the section's appropriateness to this talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: is my list an "attack page" ?

indirectly related arguments, something else to consider:
FNC reverts and disruption particularly the comments from two outside editors [28]

"This is ridiculous. He is completely entitled to his own opinion, especially within his own userspace."

and [29]

"if a user suspects that others are editing in ways that don't benefit the project, then it's certainly right and proper for him to be allowed to document that, and he should be encouraged to do so, not discouraged. To call such documentation an "attack page" is way, way off the mark. ... So what if someone wants to run checkusers? I actually wish that would be done routinely re all frequent contributors to a given page. Socks are the bane of Wikipedia ... I can't at all fathom why anyone would feel they need to take such a suspicion as some kind of personal affront."

(unless they have something to hide)
thus, a revised list may be forthcoming. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

further nonsense, reluctantly saved for now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

in re talkpage trolling: comments removed from Talk:Fox News Channel -- You know... then restored ... -PrBeacon (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


My fault for failing to provide the wrong link. This is the relevant policy. Sorry for the confusion! Soxwon (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm well aware of the policy. Especially the part that says "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and stop if there is any objection." If you recall, we'd both removed our comments from a similar subthread this past summer, but I suppose we've become more entrenched since then.. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You and I both removed ours before. It was actually a clean up to remove our back and forth from distracting from the discussion. But there was a prior agreement to do so. Honestly, not arguing etc, doesn't it look a little weird to remove half of a conversation and leave the other half up with no context? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe.. but before I go any further with that answer, I'd like to know why, since you're being honest/non-argumentative now, you've allowed the subthread in question to devolve so easily into you repeating ridiculously pointy questions? ("Do you have anything to say regarding the topic of the discussion?") And why you're so intent on mischaracterizing what happened with the user list above (aka 'attack list' in your eyes), at the Fox News talkpage? I can agree that I went a bit far with the idea which Viriditas and I were discussing, but isn't that obvious enough by now..? -PrBeacon (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not come to this thread to debate with you. I made a polite, non-sarcastic, non-argumentative, civil observation here about the removal in hopes that it wouldn't turn into some sort of debate. Apparently that was a mistake on my part. Sorry for wasting both of our time with the attempt. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, that's not quite right either. Feel free to try again. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

in re userpage comments on conservative activism askew

Howdy! I don't want to seem unwelcoming nor do I have any complaint whatsoever about any of your edits. I just noticed you userpage and wanted to point to Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE, in case you've never seen it. Be careful that editing does not tend toward advocacy for a particular belief or cause. Identifying a systematic bias is important, and addressing it is part of writing an encyclopedia. But be careful that advocacy is left at the door (especially when you think others are advocating for contrary positions). In any event, thanks for the work on Wikipedia and I hope my concern here was completely misplaced (as I say, it was only brought about by your userpage, rather than any edits). If there's anything I can help with, or if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to drop me a line. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
point taken, thanks. that was written quickly upon my return from an extended wiki-break. i know not all editors believe in the flagpole approach to balance, but i think it's a practical necessity given the entrenched activism i've seen on several controversial pages. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(newer draft) - countering Arch-Conservative Activism (arch.., as opposed to moderate & reasonable -- as I said at FNC controversies, true conservatives and libertarians should be ashamed of what FoxNews sells under the GOP banner)

contentious tagging

by another FNC camper, denigrating anon-IP's comments as SPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
in re Other editors' qualifying remarks.. (To T.A.aka.M.A)
In the future, please feel free to remove the SPA tags that another editor places after your comments simply because s/he doesn't agree. A month or so ago I noticed the tags on comments from IP#69, some of which signed Mr Anon so I assume it's you, at the then-current talkpage for Media Matters, now in Archive 6 and Archive 7. The editor who placed them has demonstrated a lack of sufficient NPOV and therefore is in no position to play moderator or pass judgement. btw I've posted this note at the talkpage for IP#69, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Creepy stuff. How do I found out who did it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You can check the edit history of the talkpage -- I think they were all added by Rapier (a.k.a SeanNovack). I was going to either remove them when the threads were still active, or at least comment on it at the talkpage, but first I asked about it at Talkpage:SPA and the only reply there was that you didn't object so it didnt seem to be an issue. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing shows up on the talk pages. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, it was Sean. I don't have a problem with it, and think it was all in good faith. Thanks. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well of course it's your call. But I have to say I'm surprised to hear that. Since SPAs are generally considered a big problem on Wikipedia -- because of "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas", thus tagging someone's talkpage comments is NOT in good faith. Accusing someone of such, then going so far as to label every one of their talkpage posts with the comment, " has made few or no other edits outside this topic" he seemed to be trying to discredit your contributions. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No malicious intent there, and I don't appreciate the implication. At the time of those edits, the WP:SPA tag was accuraate and appropriate. Since further edits to establish the account have been made since (after all, before that T.A. was editing from an anonymous IP address) then I have no issue with the tag being removed. Rapier (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Baloney. You didn't agree with his edits or his talkpage discussion so you attempted to frame them as less than equal to your's or any other (regular) editor. MrAnon may not care but that doesn't make it okay. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
His response: [30] -- claiming he doesn't care while continuing to whine and rationalize his own poor behavior. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I accept Rapier's explanation, and also have no problem with the tags getting yanked. I'm just too lazy to care about it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Since he's repeatedly asked for examples of his arrogance, hypocrisy etc, then used my lack of response to these requests as proof that he didn't make such comments, I'll give two early examples of patronizing and dismissiveness: [31] -- "don't be dense." [32] -- "Not a fine point, no point at all, on either case. You have just reached 'fringe' argument status" ... All downhill from there. Rapier just doesn't know how to disagree without being disagreeable, yet still has appointed himself to be the one to call others out on their uncivil discussion? Thats hypocritical, much like his compadre Niteshift. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, examples. Thank you, I'd forgotten that you were the one trying to insist that MMfA was a good source to use for FSN. I'll apologize for those phrases, as I didn't intend to hurt any feelings. I can be blunt when an argument that has been refuted several ways is continually put forward, and that's what happened there. If a person approaches me with a reasoned, supported argument that takes into account wiki policy, even if I disagree with it, I have no problem engaging in discussion. When people on either end of the political spectrum (see the argument in the Talk:Brady Campaign section where I was equally blunt with a fool that wanted Brady classified as a "hate group" after District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) push an opinion and continually ignore Wikipedia policies, then eventually I'm going to saw them off. Should someone get barked at before they are reasoned with? No. I don't see examples of that in my editing, and if I've done it then I hope someone will call me out on it because I'll be in the wrong. Rapier (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Where was your reasoning before the "barking"? The specific MMfA argument was against "admitted bias" -- I'm not rehashing it here, I'm clarifying your characterization of it -- and it was not refuted several ways nor continually put forward. Those were your very first replies to me on wikipedia and they set a tone thereafter -- I can certainly find more examples -- yet you still seem to believe that you have a right and duty to call others out. So the apology might seem more authentic if you hadn't qualifed it in several ways. The issue is not hurt feelings, it's a matter of civil discourse which includes the idea that others are allowed to have a different opinion than you and perhaps a different interpretation of policy. You and others seem to ignore that general conceit when it doesn't fit your purposes. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

PCRM + talkpage

[since he removed my request from his talkpage]
To Kelly2357-
(in re [33] - revert of other editor's removal)

Hi. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine instead of simply reverting another editor's removal and saying "see talk page," where you have not yet justified its inclusion. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC) [34]

response: another revert [35]
then responded to newer change, instead [36]
and removed comment [37] "fixed" (!)

-PrBeacon (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

TPM talkpage

To Lucy-Marie, at the user's talkpage [38]
Please do not remove the talkpage section again. It is not a forum debate about gays, as you stated in your edit summary, and I do not believe it violates WP:TPG. Perhaps the title is borderline appropriate, but TPM's various factions are a legitimate point of discussion. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please can you explain how the current subject and discussion relates to directly improvement of the Tea Party article as opposed to just debating the factions within the Tea Party.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe I've already given sufficient reason for its restoration [39]. The burden is on you to explain why it should be removed, especially after two editors have restored the section -- the reasons you gave in two edit summaries [40] [41] are not accurate. Perhaps you can state your objection at the talkpage and let others weigh in. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason it is not relevant is because it refers to talking about the Tea Party in general and does not relate to discussing how the article can be improved. Talking about who controls entry to the TPM and about Factions in the TPM are not relevant to the improvement of the article. The whole discussion started with an article on a "turf war" and not any portion of the article. This talk is all unrelated to improving the article and is therefore a forum.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying something isn't relevant because it doesn't already exist in the article is rather nonsensical, isn't it? Nothing is in an article before it gets added to an article. Duh. The talk page pointer to the news articles was a request for further input on its appropriateness as content for the article. Your repeated attempts to hide that discussion indicate something other than concern about WP:FORUM violations (which this clearly is not). Xenophrenic (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That above comments by Xenophrenic are not what I have said and even a cursory reading of what i have said is nothing like the comments made by Xenophrenic. I have said it is not relevant because it doesn't discuss improvements to the article it is just a discussion on homosexuals in the tea party and factions in the tea party. Wikipedia discussion pages are not for talking generally about the article subject, they are there to discuss improvements to the article. If it doesn't exist in the article and the talks do not start of by introducing it as a constructive addition to the article then it is simply posting to talk in general about the subject at hand as opposed to talking about how to improve the article at hand. Also assume good faith and do not think that just because someone opposes something you are doing means they are trying to hide something or subvert things, this is the reason why nonsense discussions escalate in to edit wars when editors take it personally. Do not take it personally and actually discuss improvements to the article. See WP:Ownershipand WP: AGF. The discussion being talked about is not constructive and does not relate to improvements to the article. Also please state how this does not violate WP:Forum as the discussion is just a general talk about who is and is not a member of the TEA Party and does not talk about improvements to the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to strike the above as nonconstructive and overly repetitive, but I'll let it stand for now. You don't need to be lecturing other regular editors about what talk pages are for. What or what doesn't relate to improving the article is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but you don't get to moderate the talkpage according to what you think is appropriate. You're misinterpreting policy and yes it does appear like you just don't want that sort of talk on the Tea Party page. I mentioned that the term "faction" does not appear in the article. I await other editor's input before I proceed to recommend changes to the article in this regard. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Threatening to strike another users’ constructive and well-reasoned comment is unconstructive and does not assume good faith. Simply stating comments are repetitive is not a reason to dismiss them. When comments clearly devolve in to forum posts then it is right to redact the posts and not encourage discussions which are off topic. As for lecturing other users that is not what I did I simply stated Wikipedia policy which should be followed. Stating I am misinterpreting policy is nonsense as it clearly seems that the header of the talk page warns against forum posts which may be redacted without warning. Simply stating you posted the word forum in a context demonstrates the talk had devolved into discussing generalities of the TPM and not the article at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
it is just a discussion on homosexuals in the tea party and factions in the tea party.
  • No, it is not, despite the intentionally provocative header. In fact, the cited sources say absolutely nothing about gays in the tea party. The discussion is about whether social issues are a concern of the tea party, along with fiscal issues. The present Wikipedia article needs to explain that aspect of the TPm in clearer detail. This is obvious from the cited sources, but perhaps they were deleted before you got a chance to review them.
If it doesn't exist in the article and the talks do not start of by introducing it as a constructive addition to the article then it is simply posting to talk in general about the subject at hand as opposed to talking about how to improve the article at hand.
  • Incorrect. Your personal opinion on what defines a "discussion on article improvement" precludes numerous other legitimate examples, such as presenting new source material that can be used to refine existing article content if consensus exists to do so — a popular method with editors of articles prone to edit warring.
See WP:Ownershipand WP: AGF.
  • No, thank you. If there is a particular part of those lengthy essays that you wish to bring to my attention here, you can quote it here. Allow me to demonstrate:
Hi, Lucy-marie! I noticed you have repeatedly deleted discussions from an article talk page, despite being reverted by at least 4 other editors, and you cited WP:FORUM. Regarding deleting discussions like that, WP:FORUM instructs us: "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines", which further advises us: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection".
Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
LM now you're just deflecting everything and it's clear that this attempt to reason with you is in vain. (Just as I considered doing with the previous comment, I am striking that as unconstructive etc.) I see there is a pattern in the way you interact with other editors and talkpage topics you don't like. Don't post here about this again. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
L-M has copy&pasted in order to continue arguing at her talkpage and linked to it from the TPM talk.. now with others responding. But I have to say a couple things look odd there, like I'm writing to myself "To PrBeacon..." (which she changed from the above original) and then later like I'm saying she can't post about it on her own talkpage (!) "Don't post here.." Ugh. (Something I hadn't noticed before, brought up by another editor: Lucy-Marie isn't even a participant on the TPM talkpage. Which begs the question: why the self-appointed moderator role?) -PrBeacon (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What is NOT considered a personal attack

"pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" -- From NPA:What is considered...

Of course I'm using a broader sense of the term 'conflict of interest' as it relates to personal agendas and biased POV. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


I had LAEC to agree to deal with the content only, hoping others would follow suit, so could you please reconsider your last post at the SPLC page?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All due respect Kim, he didn't agree to that. At best it was a conditional assent, though it may be the closest he's capable of without official warning or sanction -- I don't know, I haven't seen his block log but I know he was edit-warring on this article recently. But his partial agreement is insufficient given his continued attitude of arrogant denial. His lack of acknowledgement of, or even apparent self-awareness to, his poor approach to editing this article, or any article on a controversial subject, makes it impossible to resume assumptions of good faith. He speaks of the current discussion on the talkpage as though it were due to his persistent aggression, and thus 'his' consensus. How long must we assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary? From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." By the way, I still think my question is appropriate, perhaps with a bit of exxagerated effect in the manner they seem to understand better. So, how can two users be objective enough about one article when they slag it in another? Each of them istrying to talk out of two corners of his mouth. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that basically means a collision course. I will keep trying. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


From User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling to Kim:

I prefer to chill. The details, the call for diffs, the volume, it's just too much right now. Besides, chilling is more in line with your suggestion with which I am now complying.

I see you are just starting to get the picture and I see you are seeking to intervene. I prefer to let that process continue. I think either the guy will stop attacking, or he will continue, and either way it will obviate the need for me to comply with questions that only arose precisely because of that guy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No one's attacking you. I'm questioning your agenda-driven editing. That's fair game. Continuing to play the victim card doesn't excuse your poor approach to editing and engaging discussion on talkpages. And for the record, piling on to the ANI discussion after Dylan got topic banned is grossly inappropriate [42]. -PrBeacon (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You have invited me to comment here, so I am. I prefer to remain chilled as to you.
As to Dylan, his behavior that resulted in his topic ban is substantially similar to his behavior that he uses on other pages. I noted that with the purpose of the hopes that what Dylan learned from his Sarah Palin topic ban experience might also be applied elsewhere. Besides, I have edited certain Sarah Palin pages so I am not uninvolved in that matter. Unfortunately, it appears from Dylan's subsequent comments (after the ban) that he really has not learned much. Just look, for example, at how he is treating the person who banned him, who just said, "One can't deal with that by trying to wear down other editors, not only is it against the policies, but it only gets their hackles up even more." Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well you're certainly entitled to feel that way, but posting on ANI elevates the complaint and exposes your actions to similar judgement: you are guilty of the very same contentiousness that you accuse him of. Normally I'm inclined to remove false statements here that only serve to extend a certain self-delusion, but at least you didnt claim another personal attack. And I note that you did not address that issue as I replied, here nor at the SPLC talkpage. What policy do you believe supports your continued assertions that you are being attacked?
      Regarding the question of FRC crusade, you still have not answered -- and I note that that is precisely where another contentious editor with whom I share a history of disagreements (see below) showed up there out of the blue. (Kim moved his comment into a new section, but you can check the history if you don't believe me). Since he & Badmintonhist no longer deserve the benefit of doubt, I can only assume they canvassed for it.
      Anyway, if you were just upfront about it, it likely wouldn't be an issue. Plenty of editors have interests, most probably. The challenge is to be as objective as possible in the subjects we're interested in, for whatever reason. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist's recent edits, POV pushing

msg to Kim, below (new section, to be appended here later) { { tb } } used User_talk:PrBeacon#SPLC_article.2C_contentious_edits

NS digging a hole for himself

prepping for WQA or some other avenue, possibly, as his disruption continues...
relevant bit of possible canvassing: User_talk:Drrll#Votevets.3Dliberal

User:Niteshift36 doesn't know when to quit. Early on at FNC, after he arrogantly dismissed my first comment there as willful blindness, I made the mistake of engaging his petty bickering, then soon called him out on his freakish need for the last word (which he's now projecting back on me) that is part of an issue which actually affects collegial WP: thinly veiled attempts to wear other editors down. Apparently, (to him) everyone else is to blame for his arguments quickly devolving, anyone who dares to disagree with him gets a quick dose of his patronizing argumentativeness, and no one from his ideological camp seems to care what a trainwreck he makes. Lately he tends to parrot the tired cliche "Stop living in the past" as though he should so easily get a second-second-second-chance... It's not about a grudge so much as a matter of respect. He has to earn it back, not just assume it returns so easily.
      Eventually I moved away from the articles he edited regularly but it didn't take him long to follow, obviously he's tracking my contributions and watching my talkpage [43], yet he cries that I'm the one who's wiki-stalking. (I just know it's eating him up that the ANI was recently archived without another-last-final-parting shot). By the way, he's been Blocked for sock puppetry before (in addition to being blocked three times for editing warring) so it's really not much a stretch to wonder if he's doing it again. -PrBeacon (talk) 18 December 2010

  • My reply to an editor's concern about undue mention of conservative groups at SPLC (talk):
To be clear: these two groups are specifically mentioned because of their objection to being listed, apparently [they were] thought notable enough to include and survive over time -- I think that's what Kim meant by 'artifact' of editing -- not by coincidence. In the past others have been mentioned as objecting to the designation. Besides, hate groups are not so easily ascribed to any part of the political spectrum. For example, isn't the Nation of Islam considered right-wing? I believe TFD has mentioned Laird Wilcox's work before on this. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The editor's first response to me in this thread, part of a pattern continued from articles on Fox News, Media Matters and others, and the ensuing exchange:
Who considers NOI to be conservative? They are black separatists that believe that black scientists created the world on a plan that repeats every 25,000 years and a number of other fringe theories. They are far from conservative. Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find disputed the designation doesn't seem like any sort of balance or pattern. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Do some digging before you make such a blatantly false allegation. I never added either one. As far as I can tell they were both added by editors who are sympathetic to conservative causes. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What allegation? I haven't made ANY statement about any editor. I don't know who added them. I don't care who added them. Who added them is completely immaterial to the discussion. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but everything I say isn't about you. Read it again, realize that you have imagined some allegation (maybe surprise me and admit it) and stick to the topic, m'kay? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Then choose your words more carefully, especially given our history of disagreements. And while you're at it drop the sarcasm. You clearly said "Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find..." (my emphasis) -- this is not an imagined reference to me when it comes directly after my comment. That's a natural implication of your (sloppy) word choice. I know that you don't appreciate it when others do that to you. Perhaps you assumed I was defending the questionable content as status quo -- that would be another mistake. As Kim said, the section should be reworked anyway and I don't give a damn if conservatives are mentioned with their objections or not. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh give it a rest. You (PRBeacon) want to ignore the rest of the entire conversation and manufacture an allegation because of a generic "you"? See, unlike you (yes, PRBeacon), I don't enter every conversation carrying the baggage of every conversation I've ever had with you (PRBeacon). If you (PRBeacon) bothered to get past your (PRBeacon) own sense of self-importance, you'd (PRBeacon) see that I said almost the exact same thing at the start of this discussion. In fact, I avoided contributing in some of the other discussion you (PRBeacon) were involved in because I predicted that you (PRBeacon) wouldn't be able to have a conversation without dragging everything ever said into it. Stop manufacturing drama where there is none. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • He doth protest too much: I think he does carry baggage, since I only said 'history of disagreements' and he went off on that.
Heh, ' give it a rest ' and then that ridiculously pointy reply? Get off your high horse and stop trying to re-frame what I said. It's a stale old tactic of trying to wear down other editors because you have nothing more substantial to add. You're free to m o v e a l o n g and suggest a re-write of the section, as others have already agreed to. Yet you prefer to focus on the partisan angle, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

NS36, Try to contain your scorn. After you failed to AGF at [[44]] and thus lost my respect, you don't get it back until you give it.

  • "obsession" ?! [45] --from that little snipe at ANI soon after the SPLC exchange (copied above), anyone can guess who's doing the tracking. and more than a bit of projecting.
  • then, even after he protests 'keep me out of it' he can't resist replying again... [46] "I'd like to hear you explain why" -- that guy is the most flagrant Last Word Freak i've ever seen. i guess he thinks he's being constructive. i'm sure no one else there cares. As i've already said elsewhere, it was probably a mistake to mention him there and link to his ridiculous trolling at SPLC. but the timing was too much to ignore, at the time. i've since considered removing it but, based on the last 'sidetrack discussion' at Fox News, i doubt he would respond in kind & remove his comments. -PrBeacon (talk) 17 December 2010
  • but wait, there's more: digging a hole for himself [47] since anyone can see he's projecting, 'craving' last word etc.




False allegation

[48] Now my stalker is claiming I was blocked for socking. I'll really enjoy seeing him prove something that never happened. I've never even been the subject of a SPI. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

[49] *LMFAO.....apparently he's not able to read a block log very well. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. We all know the bare term 'stalker' is ludricous when used in the online context here. YOU are the wiki-stalker. How else do you explain showing up at SPLC and starting a fight? (Anyone familiar with the edit history can see you posted [50] right after my questioning your two pals about their FRC crusade) I'm sure you've noticed that I left the Fox News article to you fanboys. YOU chose to come to SPLC. Unless it was more off-wiki canvassing between you and your boyfriends. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea sure that's what it is. Keep believing what you want to believe. You got blocked. Whether it was a mistake or not, who really knows. The fact is, it remains on your log. and 'LMFAO' really? are you 12yo? So who's talking to themselves now eh -PrBeacon (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

in re ANI, another editor's allegation of SPI

(posted at User_talk:Cptnono & User_talk:SlimVirgin, two more experienced users whose opinions I can respect even when we don't agree)

Hey, I'd like to get your feedback on something -- here or at my talkpage, please. Another editor, User:Doc9871, just accused me of being the main account for User:Dylan_Flaherty at an ANI over the Palin article:

"If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[31] ... and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here." - Doc9871 [51]

My response is directly below his. [52] I probably made a mistake in mentioning the another editor who just resumed his snarky retorts from a few months ago, elsewhere, and who just replied at ANI too.

I wasn't directly involved in the dispute at the Palin article or at the ANI. But from our discussions at the SPLC & TPM articles, I considered Dylan to be a reasonable minded editor. I wasn't aware of his aruments at Palin. In the ANI, I posted a couple of small points to support his right to defend himself. I don't know how to read that wiki-stalk thing that Doc linked [53], other than noticing that the same list for him & Dylan [54] seems similar -- and it shows nothing more than overlapping interests. If and when a CU is performed, I expect an apology from him but I'm not about to write that at ANI as it sounds as petty as his post does. But his accusations seem too serious to just toss out there. Regards, -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry, PRB. I don't have the time to look at the diffs right now but should be able to tomorrow. Without looking into it in depth, I would see if getting a check user to clear your name is acceptable. I thought Dylan was alright but he has kind of rubbed me the wrong way lately. You and I have not always agreed but you have always seemed more than decent and the mannerisms just don't seem to be there so I assume the allegation is ridiculous. Besides seeing if getting a check user is allowed, the other advice I would give right now is looking at what you might have done to get on the wrong side of the accuser. I am not saying you are to blame but I have noticed that when I start getting frustrated I usually had at least some part in it. That doesn't excuse anyone else crossing the line ad it might be too late to realistically come to an understanding with the other user but consider it. No matter what, continued allegations against you are going to be maddening.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have no history with the Doc. I can only assume he chose to attack me because I was one of the few voices of support for Dylan (albeit very mild on the spectrum, there, especially compared to how many folks are attacking Dylan for speaking his mind though yes too aggressively and frequently). I happen to think he's right in principle as far as the bigger picture goes (Palin vs. GOP), though i'm doubtful the 'Africa' barb is worth mentioning. And I really don't know enough about CU so I guess I have another thing to read up on now. Thanks again. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

looked like


first two posts are responses at User_talk:SV

[55] * What is this, a canvassing[56]? AN/I is highly visible, and there's no need to assemble a legal team, PrBeacon. If you're not related to Dylan Flaherty: I am wrong and would apologize. I didn't bring up the sock allegations, but you two are "thick as thieves", and that is shown in the editing histories of your accounts. Cheers... Doc talk 07:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

[57] I should think someone with experience on wp would know the difference between asking for advice and canvassing. Slim, since you may not want this continued on your page, I've decided to copy it to my talkpage. And there post my response to the Doc's equivocation. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
So then, Doc: do you always assume the worst of editors you don't know at all? And then actually voice those assumptions at not at just any old talkpage but the main public forum for grievances? How would you respond if someone accused you of secretly working for Palin -- and asked for a checkuser to see if you & anyone else matched her known staffers' locations?
      Surely you know that editors who have mutual interests are going to naturally run into each other at various articles. You may not have started the SPI discussion but you certainly fanned the flames with such misplaced certainty and recklessness. Even still, you continue to cast aspersions so easily with phrases like "thick as thieves" -- if we knew each other i might be able to take this with a grain of salt. But sarcasm and innuendo are often lost here, and the result is just nasty bickering. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"...fighting against Dylan to be secretly working for her -- and asked for a checkuser to see who matched her known staffers' locations?" What "staffers"? What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious you two "don't know each other" too well, since neither have commented on each others' talk page. Odd. I wasn't aware that Dylan was a "her" or that she had a "staff" - just that the appearances at AN/I and elsewhere are becoming a problem. You seem to have a similar approach, and your defense of Dylan at AN/I seems a little strange. Doc talk 09:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - It must have been a "Freudian slip" on your part, but you did say "Dylan" and not "Palin" at first[58]... Doc talk 09:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
[ [ The 'her' refers to Palin, see my revised comments (which were posted before your 09:04 reply) -- I was simply offering an analogy to something you might find ludicrous, or not ([59]). But now I see that you're not active at the Palin article in question. ] ]
      The unfortunate thing about this relatively minor side mess is, you could have asked first instead of floating your thoughts at ANI. Or at least see what a POV-warrior that User:LAEC is how his opinion of Dylan's editing is far from objective.
      Anyway, I'm hardly defending Dylan there. I noted the OP's improper header link to WQA and later I voiced concerns about the overly-quick ANI closure and topic ban. When he started replying to every single post and point early on, I probably should have advised him against that -- but it actually seemed like a couple of the doubtful editors (like ErrantX and BaseballBugs) changed their mind there. I've seen Dylan do some great collaborative work at the Tea Party Movement and Southern Poverty Law Center articles, two subjects that could not be more different in many ways. As I've already said, I wasn't aware of the extent to which he pushed against others at Sarah Palin (tl,dr) but I can understand the idea of worthy debate because of my own experiences trying to balance the Fox News article earlier this year. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If I'd been "active" at the Palin article, I would be in the edit history there. If open proxies are involved with you and/or Dylan, a CU would be "inconclusive". I wouldn't have raised the issue at AN/I unless I thought there was a very good chance that you two are related. If you are not related, I will apologize profusely to both of you. Until then, I am quite suspicious of the similarities in editing style and subjects edited, and I encourage a CU to clear all doubts. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Again I think you're replying to an earlier version of my most recent response. I know I can look at edit history but that takes a bit more work and I wasn't that keen on it. I had a quick look at talk archives but since you don't sign your full name, that search won't turn it up. Anyway, I dont know what you're talking about with the CU details but I have nothing to hide so do what you have to do. But I still don't think it's okay to shoot first (with the accusation) then ask questions later. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay then: question. Why did you make this edit to an article you had never edited before (or since) your comment? You didn't "follow" anyone there? Doc talk 10:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall exactly but I noticed you singled that out at ANI. I might ask, What exactly is your interest in Koch? Of course you're free to check my contributions and see if there is an obvious flow from other articles. I'm not aware of any policy that prohibits me from moving around as I please. It's starting to look like you're hounding me for your own reasons. You've had your say here, please move along. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Something odd about your posts aside from the obvious and arbitrary bullet point. Your quick accusations reek of a petty vengeance that I've only seen from Niteshift36. And this apparent wiki-stalking now looks like it is connected [60]. Or could it be that I am inclined to see a connection where there is none? (Ask yourself that same question) -PrBeacon (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with any of it, so it's hard to know what to look at. If someone wants to direct me to something specific, I'd be willing to take a look. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

@PrBeacon: A connection between me and any other account is "unlikely" considering my personal distaste for socking: CU/SPI away if you don't believe me. Wikistalk can be misleading, it's true, and I was definitely surprised at how many articles I have in common with Niteshift36 (whom I'm never met until this stuff happened). I've responded at AN/I here[61], and all are welcome to comment there. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Slim, it's no big deal. I've never been accused of socking before so it was a new experience. The conjecture and finger-pointing came from folks who seem to see open discussion differently, to say the least-- somewhere between the 'Socratic' method and a crapshoot of illinformed probabilities[62]. (Attn: Doc, if you continue replying here, please wait a few min. because I often rewrite -- and no i don't need a lecture on Preview, thx) -PrBeacon (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You've just now realized I'm not an "admin"[63]. As if that actually matters. Some admins are "selected" and some are "born". You won't see me at WP:RFA, so have no worries. See you in the funny pages... Doc talk 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope, you're inferring the wrong thing from my clarification. Please stop assuming the worst and reading into things. (classic overthinking) I knew before that you weren't sysop. But the distinction I made is for the perspective, not specific to you. And I thought it important enough to make clear in that comment since it could be misread as encouraging a battleground mentality, which I am not doing. If you're still confused by my sometimes peculiar word choice, just ask. Don't assume so much. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

spillover User_talk:Doc9871#Overlap

...but instead of responding directly, Doc sees another opportunity to scold and lecture. [64]. I really don't understand why he's defending such an obvious POV warrior who has no clue about his own involvement in disputes. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Now, you know that's not quite accurate: I responded on my talk page here. I may "scold and lecture", but I know what happens in these situations. If you don't want to listen to me that's fine: Dylan refused because he feels there is no "future" and he's where he is now. Every situation has a POV: Israel and Palestine, China and Tibet, Vegans and barbecue aficianados, mail-carriers and dog-lovers. When anyone is "pushing their POV", they must do it by WP's rules to keep it here. Of course a Liberal Democrat is going to disagree with a Conservative Republican: both views are valid, and both must be included according to WP policy. There's room for both, but only if both conform to the community standards. Both sides of any issue often make the mistake of confusing their need to express their viewpoint by any means necessary with the requirement to follow the "law", and these editors are either a) corrected in the ways they must operate here or b) cannot/will not play by the rules and are excluded. Laws change, but until they do they must be obeyed. Since WP is not a soapbox, I'll stop preaching to you here ;> You and Westbender (talk · contribs) have a big wiki to explore - so continue to do so. Peace :> Doc talk 08:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about after my reply to that, how you turned your attention to someone you think is hounding LAEC .. as if that makes a difference to considering LAEC's poor behavior. I'm well aware of the wiki concepts of balance and different viewpoints, but you don't seem to be aware of his crossing the lines too often, or else you simply won't acknowledge it. Unless I missed where you admonished him, too, at one of the ANIs where he jumped in to pile on..? Apparently, his distortions of the conflicts are tacitly condoned by admins' silence -- or so he seems to think. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It's all moot[65] at this point. Happy editing! :> Doc talk 02:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead horse

They're clearly at the point where they're desperately searching for some excuse to blame me for bringing up THF's behavior, so there's no point rebutting LAEC's silliness now. Dylan Flaherty 08:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the first part of your comment, but I think LAEC's continued presence there is highly inappropriate and I intend to keep challenging it until someone else does, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll spell it out. Look at the vote they added to the end. My old friend, Daedalus, would like to have an admin force me to close that report, and likely penalize me with a block or whatever. It's intentional boomeranging. Dylan Flaherty 08:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said on your talkpage, it probably should have been closed earlier -- the head-banging will make you dizzy for a few days. And I can admit to getting a bit caught up in the side argument with LAEC , but I still think his behavior there and at the previous ANI was at least worthy of a warning from an admin. I may pursue this. He seems emboldened more than before at the SPLC page when Badmintonhist came along to support him, to 'enjoy the battle' etc, and thus encouraged that his skew is the right view. Anyways, take it easy. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
That's an understatement. If Wikipedia were run competently, people like LAEC would be blocked for weeks if they dared to pile on to an ANI. Dylan Flaherty 09:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

project credibility

Apparently User:LAEC is still deflecting blame for all of his disputes, while thumping his chest about the fallout. He seems to feel vindicated by another user's banishment. And quite proud. [66] "I have seen a number of editors who battled with me ... blocked indef recently. One more to go and it should be smooth sailing for me after that." Simply sickening. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that editors like him are the ones destroying WP's credibility. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

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. The thread is Outing by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Thank you. Doc talk 09:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So once again you accuse me of wrong-doing at ANI. I think someone should look deeper into your part in the overall mess with Dylan and your encouragement of editors like LAEC. And at the least give you warning about speculating so loosely and carelessly. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I also note that you waited 40min before notifying me. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no time limit for notifying that I'm aware of. The thread directly above this one on this page is... indicative of your interest in this editor. I mentioned you at AN/I because I had to. I'm still "neutral" to what it is you are actually fighting about, and I've never said "I support LAEC's behavior/POV". Doc talk 10:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You had to? And what are we fighting about? I'm not convinced that you really understand the different messes which he (LAEC) has created. As I just restated at ANI, his disruption has gotten worse ever since he was encouraged to "enjoy the battle"... And it doesn't matter if you're neutral about the issues, clearly you prefer to scold others who challenge him -- while at the same time giving him a free pass. And I've got nothing to do with the ALA. I merely made a quick comment about book banning/burning at Dylan's talkpage, after LAEC went there to gloat over Dylan's topic ban. So my name appearing on LAEC's list seems to be merely petty revenge -- for that and possibly for questioning his FRC/SPLC interests. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes you've said he's wrong, now, at the latest ANI. But in the same breath you qualified that with mentioning the "anti-LAEC" editors, a group in which I am lumped. By you. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not by me. You wrote this "speech" on your talk page after seven days of not editing a thing: and you wonder why you're considered "anti-LAEC"? Come on, now. As for Dylan again... I caught Dylan "gloating" once at RomanHistorian (talk · contribs)'s page and let him have it. So what? I am not on LAEC's side and I am not on your side: I am on the side that lets the wiki be edited smoothly. I apologize for calling you a SPA: but your "interjection" after a week-long absence seems suspicious. The thread has been closed, LAEC is blocked, and you are free to edit anything you wish to. Have a good one :> Doc talk 10:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Week-long absence? Your investigative powers are not nearly as good as you seem to think they are. This was a holiday break. Some of us have real lives. If you'd asked here instead of floating another false accusation there, maybe you'd find another valid reason for the delay: after seeing Dylan go down in flames from beating his head against a wall, while LAEC gets away with his piling-on/hounding of Dylan at those two ANIs (as well as his taunting Dylan on Dylan's talkpage, see the follow-up on Gwen Gale's page), it's natural to lose some confidence in the WP project as a whole and consider giving up for awhile. Then return and explain this frustration in so many words. You think you're being helpful but you're just coming off as judgemental. While I should normally appreciate your apology, it seems still-qualified by the misplaced suspicion, and I still think it should be contained in the ANI thread where you made the accusation, for others watching there and for the archive record. But I guess you'd rather get it closed early than admit you made a mistake. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC) revised
Furthermore, my comment above (hardly a 'speech') had nothing to do with the ANI report about the outing and ALA. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned your name at the AN/I thread so I had to alert you: that is unrelated to the outing or the ALA. I am not accusing you of involvement in those issues and have not previously - your name was mentioned in an AN/I thread by me and I notified you as I am supposed to. And it was a "speech" on your talk page: an "anti-LAEC" edit.
03:10, December 20, 2010 was the last edit before 01:40, December 27, 2010: that's a week between edits, unless my "investigative powers" are off. And that's the first thing you posted after a week off - why? Of all things, why would you continue with LAEC as the very first thing? There's no need to alter the AN/I thread: all is visible to everyone in perpetuity, and I can't change that. Happy editing, and have a great New Year :> Doc talk 11:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No, earlier you said you mentioned me at ANI because you 'had' to, so that's what I was asking about -- not about alerting me here. As for my comment above, you oddly cling to the misnomer 'speech' in a continued attempt to mischaracterize it -- a 3-4 line post is not a speech, it's a minor rant on the situation. And you ask Why? I posted that after the holiday break.. Did you not read the rest of my reply? I'm sick of abusers like LAEC getting away with that crap. In fact, he should still be held accountable for his other disruptions, and it seems like Will Beback is the one who will make the next ANI report. Regardless, I don't owe you an explanation. Now is the time that I ask you (again) to move along. I don't appreciate the ill-informed suspicions, hasty allegations, qualified apologies and the incongruous comments like Cheers, Happy editing etc -- which inevitably seem snarky, given the circumstances and your failure to AGF. -PrBeacon (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I do want to apologize again for calling you a "SPA" - I was seriously not correct there, and I shouldn't have said that. Westbender is a different story, but he has stopped editing concerning LAEC.[67] LAEC has now had his talk page access revoked for his indefinite block and would have to go to ArbCom in order to get unblocked. I've apologized to you again, and it's unlikely we'll encounter each other based on the things we edit. So... (Insert non-snarky closing salutation here) Doc talk 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
And I have stricken the SPA comment at AN/I. Doc talk 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

SPLC article, contentious edits

{ {tb} } used
note, originally posted before starting new section at Talk:SPLC - more questionable edits by Badmintonhist

Kim & Doug, I wanted to revert at least two edits by User:Badmintonhist from a few days ago -- I used the rollback link but only one was reverted, I guess the intervening edit by BeCritical affected that. [68] They all seem to be euphemistically toning down what the SPLC criticizes. And I have not seen sufficient edit summary from Badmintonhist on the talkpage for his last round of changes -- looked more like a brushoff. I am posting this here as a sort of rough draft of a new talkpage section for the article, if he doesnt start the discussion anew. I also want to focus on discussing the edits not the editor, but he has not answered earlier objections to what seems like POV-pushing. And he appears to be slowly gutting the article in the manner I've described here and previously. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC) revised 12/31

The second part of his reply at Talk:SPLC - more questionable edits seems nonconstructive and distracting (not to mention petty and snide), though perhaps it's his only way to respond to disagreement about the edits (and his lack of sufficient response earlier):
  • I don't really blame Beacon, however. He needs practice actually editing articles rather than being mainly a heckler and kibbitzer on talk pages, and I'm rather proud of him for attempting to do some substantive editing here. [69]
He should know by now that his sarcasm doesn't have the effect he wants, especially when it's coupled with what appears to be his POV pushing. (Perhaps I shouldn't have encouraged that with an earlier comment about Ignatius..) I think that he, of all people, should not be criticizing anyone else's preferred way of collaboration. Some of us are more comfortable discussing things on the talkpage, first. His remarks are reminiscent of "enjoy the battle" comments at LAEC's talkpage, which in hindsight seemed to be just the encouragement LAEC needed to escalate his disruption to the point of indef blocked. (Yes, technically he was blocked for outing someone and then arguing about it -- but Will BeBack's comments, at ANI and LAEC's talkpage, were of a broader scope and likely to include LAEC's warring at SPLC). -PrBeacon (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like more canvassing, or schoolgirl gossip: User_talk:Drrll#Happy_Holidays

More enjoy the battle mentality: "having fun with all this? I sure am!" [70] "Yeah, enjoying the debate there!" [71]
And hypocrisy: "presumably intelligent people who are presumably making an effort to suppress that bias is quite something" (compared to their 'contributions' to Fox News and other conservative causes)

in re Usertalk gloating

From possible canvassing thread at User talk:Drrll

...Go ahead with RSN thing if you like. I have always tried to avoid stuff like that. I must admit, however, that the one time in over three years that I asked for outside help, the mediation over Hillary's involvement with Media Matters, it worked out quite well didn't it? Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it did work out well. My theory is that the outcome of that is one reason a certain involved editor is still holding grudges against you, me, and others. Just a theory. Well, I went ahead and posted the item at RSN. Not so sure how well I worded it. Drrll (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there might be a beacon of truth in what you're saying. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Drrll's 'theory' is about as flawed as his odd connection with Badmint. I was not directly involved in that MMfA dispute -- Drrll even tried to (improperly) keep me out of the mediation discussion. All that back & forth nonsense over what could/should have been settled at the talkpage itself, it's almost laughable that those two think that was some sort of victory in their 'battle' -- almost, except that their gloating belies the other attempts to appear so carefree about it all. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "PrBeacon/Archive 3".