![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
… In recognition of your recent efforts at cooperation and content creation. — NRen2k5 aka TheHerbalGerbil ( TALK), 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
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.. --
68.41.80.161 (
talk)
00:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Noticed that you were working on a related article, saw this and thought it might be of use. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_re_us/us_whale_sushi_sting Oberonfitch ( talk) 08:08, 11 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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
(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]
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/whaling
Best wishes to you too...it was a pleasure. Oberonfitch ( talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
[18] "simply b/c you're not getting the response you wanted..."
[22] "..no one responds and they simply talk in JML's post."
[23] "Do not post here again."
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)
watchdogging..:
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)
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)
at least as far back as 2007:
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/fox-news-caught-sabotaging-wikipedia-entries/5486/
'Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP'
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia-is-on.html
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)
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)
|
'editor tracking others'
reply to
alarmist overreaction:
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)
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
|
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) regards(?)
|
in re userpage comments on conservative activism askew
(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)
by another FNC camper, denigrating anon-IP's comments as SPA |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Creepy stuff. How do I found out who did it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 05:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
|
[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]
- PrBeacon (talk) 20:43, 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)
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)
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)
"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...
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)
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)
msg to Kim, below (new section, to be appended here later) { { tb } } used User_talk:PrBeacon#SPLC_article.2C_contentious_edits
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
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.
[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)
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)
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)
...hounding
[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)
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)
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)
• spillover User_talk:Doc9871#Overlap
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)
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)
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)
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
Looks like more canvassing, or schoolgirl gossip:
User_talk:Drrll#Happy_Holidays
User_talk:Badmintonhist#Section_about_you_at_user_Talk_page
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)
...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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
… In recognition of your recent efforts at cooperation and content creation. — NRen2k5 aka TheHerbalGerbil ( TALK), 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
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.. --
68.41.80.161 (
talk)
00:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Noticed that you were working on a related article, saw this and thought it might be of use. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_re_us/us_whale_sushi_sting Oberonfitch ( talk) 08:08, 11 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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
(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]
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/whaling
Best wishes to you too...it was a pleasure. Oberonfitch ( talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
[18] "simply b/c you're not getting the response you wanted..."
[22] "..no one responds and they simply talk in JML's post."
[23] "Do not post here again."
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)
watchdogging..:
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)
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)
at least as far back as 2007:
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/fox-news-caught-sabotaging-wikipedia-entries/5486/
'Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP'
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia-is-on.html
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)
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)
|
'editor tracking others'
reply to
alarmist overreaction:
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)
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
|
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) regards(?)
|
in re userpage comments on conservative activism askew
(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)
by another FNC camper, denigrating anon-IP's comments as SPA |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Creepy stuff. How do I found out who did it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 05:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
|
[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]
- PrBeacon (talk) 20:43, 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)
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)
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)
"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...
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)
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)
msg to Kim, below (new section, to be appended here later) { { tb } } used User_talk:PrBeacon#SPLC_article.2C_contentious_edits
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
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.
[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)
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)
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)
...hounding
[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)
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)
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)
• spillover User_talk:Doc9871#Overlap
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)
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)
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)
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
Looks like more canvassing, or schoolgirl gossip:
User_talk:Drrll#Happy_Holidays
User_talk:Badmintonhist#Section_about_you_at_user_Talk_page
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)
...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)
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)