User talk:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous

EC ref

It is not the ref content but the format you have used. This comment is about the way you have constructed the ref, not about the content, and so should not be on the EC talk page.

Have you enabled the Wikieditor so you can see the line above with "Advanced", "Special characters", "Help" and "Cite" ?

The "cite" gives you a drop down menu with boxes to fill in for citing from web or books etc and would have given:-

<ref name="ECbiog">{{cite web|title=Eric Clapton Biography|url=http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/eric-clapton/biography|publisher=Rolling Stone|accessdate=6 January 2011|author=Mark Kemp}}</ref>

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery

"You should really voice you personal comments towards me on my talk page since they should be of no use to any other reader and wiki policy frowns on such venting on article talk pages.": You make a personal attack on me on an article talk page, and then you have the audacity to tell me I should not respond on that talk page. I'm done with you. This is a long pattern for you. Don't bother messaging me back. It will be deleted. Any further comments on the "puffery" issue go on the article's talk page. Cresix (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting sense of entitlement entitlement and immunity from criticism. Oh well. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whom

http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html Cresix (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. End of discussion. I'm not tutoring you in fourth grade grammar. Cresix (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Cresix (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Honor rally

The source actually uses the word "packed". We can either paraphrase or quote, but half-way in-between doesn't seem right. Please take another shot at it; I'm trying to limit my reverts. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "filled" is an excellent paraphrase of "packed." If we had to include the former then we would be obliged to place quotes around it so we don't seem to be trading in hyperboly while adding the WSJ said it, all of which adds length. On another note, the whole crowd size section is fortunately becoming briefer and it seems to have been done with consensus and reasonable discussion. If everyone could keep from becoming exasperated and in response try to ridicule other editors or, to be more fair, their edits or arguments, I think we can maintain comity. I think a RFC, or the like, might bring cooler heads to discuss what is and isn't a primary source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Stewart-Colbert rally, a lot of reliable sources have revisited the crowd count issue while comparing the two events. Though the WSJ may have said "packed", I've also seen sources (and photos) that note the folks at the Beck rally were mostly seated in lawn chairs with plenty of leg room, while much of the crowd at the Sanity event were moshed together like upright sardines. I'm sure editors of the Wikipedia article will pick & choose the sources that best support their own perceptions. Some reliable sources have tried to be fair, to varying degrees - but most agree that the Sanity rally was more crowded than the Beck rally, yet the Sanity attendance is usually described as only 215,000 people. It makes one wonder why we are even considering numbers in the Beck article in the 300K - 1 Million range, doesn't it? See (Variety), (Christian Science Monitor), (Bay-Net News). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Easy now. You've made a convincing argument regarding conversions. But fighting edit warring with edit warring rarely works, and in this case, had no effect on my seeing your point. And still, directing comments, angry or otherwise towards another editor in edit summaries should not happen. It was unneeded as can be and is completely against WP. All of this could have been settled easily and civilly on the talk page.

I'm glad to see you can step up and admit that you edit warred. And repeatedly reverting two editors without discussing on the talk page rarely works, and in this case, had no effect on resolving a dispute. And still, failure to discuss should not happen. It was uneeded as can be and is completely against WP. All of this could have been settled easily and civilly on the talk page if you had bother to comment there before reverting. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such an admission: "fighting edit warring with edit warring".
I stopped reverting only when you finally produced a valid argument: A content dispute is not a valid reason to edit war.
BTW, I hope you now understand about discussion and edit warring.
Have a nice day. Cresix (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kettle to pot?: A weak analogy, but yes, I'd say you're the pot calling the kettle black. Now, let's end this and move on. Cresix (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at User talk:Sandstein, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sandstein 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to this edit, where you wrote that a living person has "degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards" without providing reliable sources for this allegation. Please remove it at once, and do not repeat such violations of our policy WP:BLP, or I will block you from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt, but, of course, may be wrong, but nonetheless suspect, that my source was read closely with understanding. My edit was in fact an accurate paraphrasing of Greenwald views, which Taibbi agreed with explicitly and McIntyre implicitly. BTW, Andrew Sullivan concurred with Taibbi. Those four eminent writers hardly compose a confederacy of dunces. Regards. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation you provide above does not make sense. In the edit at issue, you do not provide any source, including any source(s) named "Greenwald", "Taibbi" or "McIntyre", for your defamatory statement that a certain living person has "degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards". As I explained to you on my talk page, WP:BLP requires that material about living persons "challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Because you did not provide such a source in the text you left on my talk page, and did not remove the defamatory statement after I twice asked you to, I have myself done so and blocked you to prevent a reoccurrence of this violation of our policy concerning the biographies of living persons. If you continue to violate this policy, you must expect to be blocked for increasingly longer periods of time. Sandstein 18:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further detail. You are poorly informed and I shortly will address that. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, what are you talking about? The edit you keep linking to is a Talk page comment. Mindbunny (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I explained on my talk page, WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages. Sandstein 19:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply wrong and absurd. Editors don't have to provide reliable sources for the comments they make on Talk pages. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, I am interested in some sort of review of Sandstein's admin actions on Lara Logan. Let me know if you want to pursue it. Mindbunny (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MBunny, your support is very much welcome. I hope the block is recognized as unfair and reversed. My hope is that Sandstein recognizes that admin's should avoid haste, and sometimes may wish to seek counsel from possibly cooler, less hurried heads. I assume Sandstein is a good admin with much to offer; I have seen evidence of it elsewhere. And having been subjected to suppression, literally, I don't think it would do much good while better approaches should be tried first. At the moment, I'd rather not think about stronger remedies, and I hope moral suasion wins the day.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been wrongly blocked for accurately paraphrasing Glenn Greenwald's low opinion of Lara Logan's journalistic standards, which I told Sandstein was supported by RS's. But it seems my having not duplicated my sources on Sandstein's talk page has resulted in a block. The is a precipitous compication. Moreover, it may most unfortunately dampen and diminish the expression of appropriately worded, strong and supported opinions on talk pages. We have here a clear cut case of censorship directly contrary to Wikipedia's liberal tradition of encouraging the free exchange of views and ideas.

Now to address what the RS says about Logan's journalistic ethics - and how I related them.

Greenwald said: "These two segments [Hasting's reporting and Logan's criticism of it] should be put into a museum, or a journalism class, to illustrate what journalism is supposed to be (Hastings' views) and what it has actually degenerated into (Logan's)[emphasis added]."[1]
Who could fairly say I had defamed Ms. Logan when I wrote that Greenwald saw that "her views on Hastings heralded a degeneration of reporting standards [emphasis added]."[2] (Because an editor took exception to quote farming, I chose to faithfully as possible paraphrase Greenwald.)
Yes, I added my POV that she was by extension, corrupted and corrupting, a logically assumed implication of Greenwald's - let alone McIntyres' Taibbi's and Andrew Sullivan's - views. Even so this was expressed nowhere else but on talk pages, where axiomatically, I believe, POV is allowed and encouraged. I must stress that though there is nothing dematory about this interpreation of mine, I, of course, would not consider, condone or support such POV landing in the article without a RS to support it.
As for not supplying sources when they were asked of me, I am honestly unaware of such requests, probably because I had already supplied them in the Logan article. These solicitations could have been implicitly or explicitly asked for, and if such were the case, my missing them would be regrettable considering how events have since deteriorated.

Sandstein's blocking of me evidences a preciptous disregard for due process. The block was put in place after I made clear that I had not fabricated, distorted or mispresented Greenwald's low opinion of Logan. It would have been better if Sandstein had enquired what those sources were, rather than act on a presumption of bad faith. I would have gladly obliged, and we most likely would discussing a block appeal.

Now, in regards to any the above, if anyone could show me where I was fundamentally and facutally in error, I would be grateful. Nonetheless, I stand by my edits as accurate, and regard the accusation of my defamation of Ms. Logan unsound, unsuportable and hurriedly ill-considered.

Finally, since I have addressed the only issue of my block, I sincerely hope the goal posts do not move and other edits are not brought up. But of course, we can drive off those bridges if we come to them. Regards,

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:BLP requires that you source anything potentially negative about a living person. While sources may exist, you didn't use them - you just flatly stated that this named individual has degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards. If you had removed your post and replaced it with a more detailed analysis, as per the one you posted above, then you might have been ok - if you made clear that "these sources said this", rather than you making the statement. The entire point of BLP is that we source any such statement when we post it, which you didn't do. It matters not one bit whether you're right or not - your statement doesn't hold up to scrutiny because you provided no sources, as required by BLP. So, You were asked to remove a post that violates BLP, and you chose not to do so - and were quite properly blocked for it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the admin logic presented here, if an editor says on a Talk page, "George W. Bush is dumb" and doesn't provide a reliable source documenting said dumbness, the editor should be blocked for BLP violations. According to these admins, "WP:BLP requires that you source anything potentially negative about a living person," even in Talk. This is absurd, it is admin abuse. It is a blatant corruption of BLP rules, which are not intended to prevent criticism. Mindbunny (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to criticize people, we're here to post when other people do so in reliable sources. And it's easy to do - "These sources describe this person's journalistic standards as "degenerate" (source) and "corrupting" (source)", for example. Clearly, the sources exist - see above - so providing them should not have been a problem. Without the sources, at least in this instance, you're left with what amounts to defamation of a living person. Note also that The Artist was not blocked for posting the material, but for refusing to edit the post to add sources, as required by BLP. "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced..." (from WP:BLPREMOVE) is the relevant requirement. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not defamation to give an opinion. It is not defamation to say Bush is a blockhead, or [[Mel Gibson] is a creep, or Logan is a degenerate reporter. The BLP requirements for sourcing are 1) for adding opinions to articles, not making comments in Talk, and 2) The Artist had given sources in the article, which he was paraphrasing. Maybe my research in the matter is incomplete (these things can get complicated very quickly), but it looks like sources were given in the article, The Artist (sharing the source's opinion) expressed that opinion on a Talk page, and was blocked for it. That is biased, abusive blocking. Mindbunny (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate sounding obsequious, but if I had in fact not sourced what I said of Logan in the article, I would also view it as reckless and defamatory. And I think calling Bush dumb is not as serious a statement as calling Logan corrupt, and care should be taken in such cases.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, it's a matter of interpretation. Defanmation, however, refers to factually false and harmful statements. For example, I accuse you of committing a crime, the accusation is baseless, and the accusation harms you. Negative opining on the merits of someone's reporting is not defamatory. It is critical. Mindbunny (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you are right, and admin's could be more careful about accusing others of defaming people. I still agree with the policy that such statements, whether defamatory or near defamatory, need sourcing on talk pages, even in duplication. Even so, I do appreciate you regarding the block as unjustified. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have to protest and re appeal while relating a mitigating factor which establishes that I was acting in good faith. I have not "flatly stated that this named individual has degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards" I did in fact source in the article that Logan had "degenerate" journalist ethics. It seems the policy is that such such statements have to have duplicate sourcing on talk pages. Since that is a reasonable and fair policiy, and I will try as best as possible to abide by it. Given that, I don't see any purpose in maintaining the block, especially after I have had a chance to relate a mitigating circumstance. I will now prove that I had assumed that Sandstein knew of my sourcing in the Logan article. This is all clearly indicated by my above communication to Sandstein, which reads : I doubt, but, of course, may be wrong, but nonetheless suspect, that my source was read closely with understanding. This demonstrates that I was not acting in defiance of the good admin, but simply operating in good faith on an false assumption. Seven minutes later, I was blocked, which shows that I was given no chance to correct the my misaprehension. And it's hard to draw from that that I was stubbornly resisting and intentionally unresponsive. If that misunderstanding had been caught and dealt with at that point, as it could have easily been done, all would have been correctable and the punative aid of a block would not have been needed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your comments were inappropriate and appear to be intended only for disruption. You are lucky the block is only 48 hours, and I will extend it if I see more of such behavior. Prodego ^talk 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The denial adds up to nothing more than a punative "Yeah but", and smacks of a moving goal post, which makes me launch with little repetition of my previous defenses a new appeal. It's presumptuous to claim my comments at issue were "only intended for disruption." This is, besides being brought up for the first time, is a truly baseless and ludicrous charge lacking specifics. I had good reason and was entitled to explain why I think so poorly of Logan's professianal ethics. I did so in the context of protesting an editor who unfairly brought up a settled matter in a context of a discussion I had nothing to do with, nor wanted anything to do with. And at that point I had good reason to suspect that my sourced and supported disparagement of Logan's low standards as lacking in virtue would be framed out of context and pulled into a fray I wanted no part of. Now, though I have answered and disposed of all previous charges, I hope the new one is found to be groundless as well and no further goal posts are moved. Of, course, a reviewing admin may not agree, but I have no obligation to agree or accept as valid, or sober, such a judgement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You made a statement that a particular person was degenerate and corrupt. You have since then attempted to justify doing so on the grounds that there are sources that indicate that some people hold that view, but you did not say that some people hold that view, you stated it as a fact. You were given the opportunity to remove the statement, and chose not to. No amount of arguing about the context, the behaviour of others (see WP:NOTTHEM) etc etc gets round the essential fact: you asserted that a person was degenerate and corrupt, without substantiating it, and declined the chance to revert. It is also completely irrelevant that some editors posting on this page somehow think that potentially defamatory statements are for some reason acceptable as long as they are made on a page with "Talk:" in its title. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The declining admin is empirically incorrect, has moved another goal post and did not consider, or acknowledge, a mitigating factor when ruling, No amount of arguing about the context, the behaviour of others (see WP:NOTTHEM) etc etc gets round the essential fact: you asserted that a person was degenerate and corrupt, without substantiating it, and declined the chance to revert. Summary of appeal arguments: I did not defame anyone. I was purposeful with my comments. I sourced my comments. No real chance to revert was provided. I have't used NOTTHEM as a defense. The context/my purpose is the mitigating factor. An editor was drawing me into a rape discussion using a separate but settled matter, and it was reasonable to assume that editor might distort my low views of Logan's journalistic ethical "virtue" as a somehow an attack on her honor as a woman, not as a reporter, and to take preemptive action, as I did. There was hardly a "chance to revert" offered. The Sandstein could have let me know he had not seen the sources and could ask me where he they were, or that they should also be on the talk page, and I would have. But there was too much haste and that admins part for that to occur. Seven minutes after my undefiant reply, the block was placed. Re: NOTTHEM. What are other editor's views on BLP doing in this appeal? I have not to referred to them until now. Moreover, beside not enlisting them, I have not joined in agreement with those points of view, and could not have been more clear that I now am aware of and agree with the BLP policy sourcing possibly defamatory statements on talk pages, even in duplication. Finally, why is this block still in place? When I make strong comments on a talk page that should be sourced, I'll be sure to do it without protest. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Ignoring BLP for a minute, you were asked to stop making disruptive comments about Lara Logan (specifically, about her 'hotness'), and you responded by making different disruptive comments about Lara Logan (specifically, about her integrity). None of those comments had anything to do with improving the article, and I can only interpret them as intended solely for disruptive purposes. Your unblock request is declined. The block will expire in about 27 hours, at which point you can edit again. When it does, if you continue to make the same sort of comments that resulted in this block, you will be blocked again. Three different admins, plus the blocking admin, have reviewed your block. Please stop posting unblock requests at this point. Prodego ^talk 15:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This [[3]| diff], which I was unable to add the appeal, may help and admin in understanding the street brawl I was thrown into.

I'm an uninvolved editor in this dispute who happened to see one of your unblock requests, and I'm trying to make sense of what happened here. While I don't think WP:BLP should be used to warn this user (let alone quickly block) for an opinion on a talk page, there are other alternatives that would be more appropriate. The edit in question appeared to be a personal attack regarding a third party rather than defamation. Still, Sandstein had plenty of other options here, and a block was probably premature. After all, it was on his talk page, and he could just remove the comment himself per WP:OWNTALK whether there was a policy violation or not.

I personally had no idea that WP:BLP could possibly apply to talk pages since they're not biographies, and a hasty block based on a technicality of the policy that is counter-intuitive to the policy's name is never a good thing. Blocks are supposed to be preventative in nature, but when they're used in place of working things out by talking, that's just punitive. We should all remember to have a little more WP:CIVILITY on Wikipedia, no matter what we think about other people. I hope everyone comes from the RFC feeling that something good got accomplished. --Tathar (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the block, and subsequent denied appeals completely astonishing. It simply does not violate BLP to express a negative opinion about a person. To equate WP:BLP with a prohibition of critical commentary is to rationalize censorship. The block is abusive, and part of series of really borderline, yet one-sided judgement calls by Sandstein. Mindbunny (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something seems fishy about this whole thing. I'm getting the impression that everyone involved (including Sandstein) could have done something differently to improve the situation. However I still don't know enough about the circumstances that led to the block. I'd like to help everyone come to an acceptable solution if you're interested. --Tathar (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the RFC on Sandstein, below. I suspect it will just turn into a popularity contest with most people siding with the admin and/or not really digging into the issue to understand it (or be swamped by the denizens of all the Middle East political issues). But there's nothing to lose. Mindbunny (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to discuss the issue on this page so I can better understand everyone's take on the issue and encourage more thorough civil discussion before we start talking about RfCs. Artist, Sandstein, would you be willing to participate here? --Tathar (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed myself towards the BLP matter (and I actually see their point, which still makes me wonder what's the point of the block), the alleged stubborn defiance issue and the new alleged you-were-just-pissing-all-over-the-place-cuz-your-just-a-punk-and-I-got-your-number-now-buddy matter (I hope on one takes that literally and gets butthurt and punitive). As far as admins being careless, sloppy, too much of in a hurry and prone to moving goal psots, that's all out of my hands. The worst they can do is block me another day or whatever. Sandstein has already stepped in it and shot his wad. Why I would care what he has to say at this point is beyond me. I can't muster the curiosity or interest in hearing further from him on this silly and unneeded block. But shoot, I've been surprised before by the decency of some folks. I proudly regard the doo doo lists I have made it on to as distinctions I'm glad to possess. BTW, the "bleating deacon" phrase keeps popping into my head. Dunno why, tho. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

I'm going to continue the above discussion here since the previous section's getting too large for me to continue there. Artist, by "the new alleged you-were-just-pissing-all-over-the-place-cuz-your-just-a-punk-and-I-got-your-number-now-buddy matter," could you explain what you're referring to? Also, I'd like to bring in an uninvolved administrator, User:GorillaWarfare, to help with the discussion since I'm not comfortable with editing BLP topics myself. --Tathar (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I want to get involved here, or if you all need me to do so. However, even if I do, I'm going to wait for Sandstein to reply to the latest barrage of posts. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a good idea. I'll step back for the night as well and re-approach the discussion tomorrow. --Tathar (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a reference to my latest denial of appeal and my latest appeal. It might be a good idea to see what the appeal brings; resolution or a new goal post movement? Who know? I appreciate the honest brokering/mediation your doing, but I think the appeal process is where I should keep my focus for the moment. These things usually blow over. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually talked with GorillaWarfare on this matter in IRC where I mentioned that I was concerned that Prodego's decline reason served to instigate more than help the situation. --Tathar (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego's most recent comment is actually well-said. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove your most recent unblock request for now and just air your grievances here. Once the problem's resolved here, I'm willing to suggest a new unblock request. --Tathar (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have a strong tendency to support each other as a first resort. The second denied appeal above didn't even attempt to address any points. Just "The block is right and you are wrong, now eat it or I'll block you some more." Power leads to powertrips... Mindbunny (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with GorillaWarfare before on other cases of post-block discussion mediation. From those experiences, I'm confident that she will approach this matter appropriately. --Tathar (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have the right to file appeals when the rulings are erroneous and constantly bring in new dubious facts and arguments. In short, I get to reply to new charges.

I never used the phrase "hotness." ( Predego. Slowing down might prevent such minor but silly errors.)
My sourced comments on Logan are in the article, so yes, they do pertain. And since there is no acknowledgment of my arguments of purposefulness, I can only see bias and prejudice on Predego's part when making a judgement of desruptiveness.
I protested an old matter being dragged into a discussion I wanted out of, so I took preemptive action to point out that I should not be drawn into the argument, and the only virtues of Logan I cared about were journalistic. Other admins should see read the actual exchange.
Really, what is disruptive about this? ' "Shoot, what's a guy gotta do? I already said I'd quit talking about Logan's appearance after being kindly asked to do so. Which, BTW, which was entirely removed from the boring-to-me-rape discussion. The only virtue of Logan's I care about is her degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards[you know, the one's stated and sourced in the article].

Excuse the additions to my appeal, and I'll make this my last appeal. I have shown the declining admins to be wrong and inconsistent well enough. I now have a lower than ever regard for admins as a class. Regards.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 12:50 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You still do not seem to have grasped the proper way to request unblocking, despite several people explaining it to you. Combine that with your combative attitude below and I have removed your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Having declined one of your unblock requests I will leave this one to someone else. However, if I had not already declined one I would be declining this one and removing your talk page access. We have wasted enough time over your unblock requests, and this one does not even attempt to give a reason for unblocking. You also still do not seem to have understood WP:NOTTHEM. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you never said "hotness". You said "hella fine and hot", my apologies for the paraphrasing. I'd support removing talk page access and extending the block to a week (or more). Prodego ^talk 16:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proper word is "misquoting, to be exact, but, nonetheless, the apology is acccpeted. Good luck with getting my ass bounced off my talk page. We shall see. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What more do you want? I just announced my last appeal, so blocking my talk page access would be pointless. Long ago I said I'd cease making comments on Logan's attractiveness, so I don't know why that keeps getting mentioned. More recently, but in good time, I agreed with and found the BLP policy to be reasonable. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the timestamp of your comment about your "last appeal" is 16:50, whereas my comment above is at 16:47. You must have been aware of this - you should know when you edited your own talk page. Don't try to distort history, the original version of this appeal is here. I told you exactly what you need to do in the last unblock request I declined, part of which was to stop making unblock requests. Prodego ^talk 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, boy do you catch on quick. Did this addition I left in the appeal help you? "Excuse the additions to my appeal, and I'll make this my last appeal."The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since an administrator has blocked Artist's ability to edit his talk page, I can no longer help mediate the underlying dispute. I'll leave with a note that I believe the talk page block to be premature since I intended to address Artist's actions that led to the original block. --Tathar (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revocation of talk page access is entirely appropriate. User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous submitted --five-- unblock requests in less than 24 hours. He was even instructed to stop making them. Despite this he continued and even became belligerent (see his last two postings right above your comments). His block expires in roughly a day. Whatever his perceived injustices are, he can air them out then. That is, if he chooses to be civil about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. I just feel that the situation could have been resolved through civil discussion rather than a series of unblock requests and refusals. I'm confident this would have ended differently if I had stepped in earlier, without there being any hard feelings as there are now. --Tathar (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The five times unblock requests are nobody's fault but his own. Another day away might be perfect to calm things down. If there's a "situation" after his block expires, we'll deal with it then. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm probably going to pull out of this discussion. It's really up to the admins at this point. --Tathar (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I just feel that the situation could have been resolved through civil discussion"?? It seems to me the user was given plenty of opportunities to discuss things civilly. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]