User talk:Brandonfarris

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Age hacking scandal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please discuss and agree your edits before making them or you will see yourself blocked again. Mtking ^(edits) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicola Gobbo

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nicola Gobbo. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

James Campbell (journalist) et al

Let me make myself clear, I will revert any edit you or User:Garth M make to :

• James Campbell (journalist)
• The Age hacking scandal‎
• Crikey
• Nicola Gobbo

Where you have not discussed it first at the articles talk page. Mtking ^(edits) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandonfarris. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Campbell related edits

Hi Brandonfarris,

A thread's been started on my talkpage concerning your recent edits on Campbell and related topics. I don't have enough time at present to look into the details, but from what I've seen I reckon we might end up with an ANI or DRN discussion to iron things out. If there's any comment you'd like to make before we get to that point, please jump in on my talkpage and let me know your take on the subject. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 15:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for an indefinite period

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for serious violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and sustained edit warring. I have followed up on this post on the blog Pure Poison, and am satisfied that its account of your editing is correct. In short, it appears that you are using Wikipedia to push your views about Victorian journalists, and that your editing contains many clear-cut violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as described in the blog article. I also note the extraordinary degree of edit warring you've engaged in today with an IP editor who has been trying to undo some of your changes (I'll also be blocking the IP account for edit warring). I note that you were made aware of the blog post a couple of days ago [1] but have not responded to it despite the very serious issues it raises - which include that this account is being used to impersonate the journalist James Campbell and make him look silly. In fact, you have continued to add dubiously sourced negative material about people (eg, criticisms of Eric Beecher by Andrew Bolt and claims about cuts to Crikey contributor's pay that aren't fully supported by the source and don't quote Beecher's explanation of the cuts as presented in the article [2] [3] and repeatedly claiming that the David Madden (Australia) article is autobiographical, without providing any supporting evidence: [4], [5]) while continuing to puff up James Campbell (eg, [6]). 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. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note to any admins or other editors reviewing this block, I should note that I've had some prior involvement with removing some of Brandon's edits, and nominated an article he created for deletion due to notability and BLP concerns. I don't think that this level of involvement is beyond the norm for an admin keeping an eye on BLP articles, and is fully within the provisions of WP:BLPREMOVE. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have also deleted the The Age hacking scandal article created by Brandon. It was riddled with massive BLP problems (for instance, The Age's various responses to the allegations don't seem to have been included, people are called "victims" when nothing has gone to trial and, as a result, contested - and very serious - allegations about individuals are reported as being facts. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to any reviewing admin : Just to avoid any doubt in this matter, it, I am afraid, was an inevitable conclusion and I support Nick-D's block, Brandonfarris' actions appear to indicate he is not here to build a Encyclopedia, but to advance his own agenda. Mtking ^(edits) 10:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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).

Brandonfarris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely and without warning for reasons that I believe are insufficient to justify it. I think I have added some useful contributions that should be considered in context and not only by administrators also involved in editing the same articles. I was encouraged to use the Talk pages of articles before making changes by Mt and while unsure that this would work, gave it a go. Before that had much chance to work out, I've been blocked. If there's a view that I ought not write about Victorian journalists because I'm not doing a good job at it, I'd be happy to comply although I'm not really sure what the rationale would be. Addressing each point made by Nick-D:

• Generally I don't believe he has substantiated his claims that I have violated Wikipedia's BLP in any respect
• I note he blocked the other accounts for 72 hours only, for editing the same articles, in circumstances where they had clearly engaged in sockpuppetry of some kind
• I deny impersonating James Campbell or any other subject of any other article, and no credible evidence of that claim has been made here or anywhere else. For the record, I am not him (or any other person in Wikipedia) nor am I acting on his or anyone else's behalf nor I have ever met him or communicated with him in any way.
• In relation to the Eric Beecher article, the source on the question of whether his publication was paying contributors was on his own site and raises a genuine issue about whether journalists will be paid for their work (as has been the case traditionally) or not (as is increasingly the case, eg HuffPo etc.) I included it for that reason not because it's an attack. (I note that the administrator that blocked me has had extensive edits on the Crikey article [7] I also note that it appears some of the users editing Beecher's article (and removing content I thought was interesting that I'd added) are employees of Beecher's site and have written about it on his site to encourage readers of his site to edit Wikipedia in a manner they think is consistent with their interest. This doesn't sound to me like a very healthy development but I'll leave that for others to consider and to devise a response.
• The David Madden (Australia) article is largely unsourced and in my view clearly autobiographical. I urge others considering my blocking to look at it and make their own judgment. I'd put the tag there ahead of making some changes to it and to encourage others to do the same.
• The Age hacking scandal article I had modelled on the News_International_phone_hacking_scandal article. They are not exactly the same although they do involve similar legal and ethical issues. The article was well-sourced and balanced although that will be difficult to judge now it's been unilaterally deleted. I don't fully comprehend why Nick-D has 'speedy deleted' the article. Whatever happens with my block, I hope that article is independently assessed because it was 1) well-sourced, 2) contained no libel, legal threats or material intended to harass/intimidate 3) nor did it contain "attack" material against individuals which appear to be the requirements of the "speedy delete" (G10) which was made. Perhaps his position on it might change if the Police charge those involved or the Parliamentary hearings occur as has been publicly mooted. Perhaps the whole scandal will go nowhere, who knows. Whatever happens, though, I don't think anything in that article justifies the block, there wasn't a single element of it unsupported by sources that I thought seemed reasonable to use, including mainstream newspaper articles, links to official reports and journal articles etc.

Essentially I think the punishment here greatly outweighs the crime. I acknowledge though that in attempting to combat edits that I thought clearly involved vandalism and sockpuppetry, I engaged in edit warring and also may have in so doing violated the three-revert rule, although I tried not to after it was pointed out to me. I won't do that again and will instead in future try to draw in other users who might be able to help build a consensus around the articles.

I'll comply with the block if that's what is deemed appropriate but I think my errors have been ones of enthusiasm and that I've actually tried to be a keen and avid reader of Wikipedia policies to ensure that I was staying on-side with them.

If unblocked, I'll do better, use the Talk pages more (as I was starting to) and avoid the articles that seem to be keenly protected by the administrator who blocked me. On a positive note, I think I can write reasonably well and had hoped to contribute to many articles about areas of interest (which are much broader than Victorian journalists I promise!) over the next few months while recovering from a serious operation which has kept me in bed and with not much to do other than use my laptop. Whatever the result I wish you all well :-)

Decline reason:

As per my comments below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

--Brandonfarris (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that you were blocked without warning is patently false, as you were warned a full day before the block - and that warning is still on this very page as I type this. Articles must be neutral in tone, particularly when living persons are concerned - and, as I go through your contributions, I see multiple incidents where you edit-warred to keep even the most trivial mentions of criminal activity. In one instance, at Nicola Gobbo, you fought to keep mention of a 1993 drug conviction in the article - but the editor you reverted had not removed it, he simply condensed an entire paragraph into a one-line reference that served your purposes just as well. Yet you edit-warred over it. Another example is this edit to the same article, which is both unquestionably negative and serves no editorial purpose.

So, you need to become familiar with our Biopgraphies of Living Persons policy. That's step one.

I'm also concerned about your repeated accusations that other editors are either editing in bad faith or are employees of subjects - or even the subjects themselves. Even if you were right about some of your points regarding these articles, your edits have poisoned the discussion. It is clearly impossible to collaborate with you on any of these subjects, since any editor who disagrees with your contentions is labeled in some fashion - non-neutral, biased, subject to a conflict of interest, etc. And this type of editing cannot continue. So, if you're willing to work with other editors to solve these problems, great. But I cannot unblock you until you've convinced myself or other admins that you are sincere in your intent to create neutral articles in collaboration with other editors. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Brandonfarris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept the edits that have been hitherto objected to were not reasonable and accordingly would accept the following binding edit restrictions:

1. A topic ban on "All Australian journalists BLP articles broadly constructed"
2. A topic ban on "The Age and all related articles broadly constructed"
3. Adherence to WP:1RR on all other articles

for a period of for three months from the unblock.--Brandonfarris (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I accept the edits that have been hitherto objected to were not reasonable and accordingly would accept the following binding edit restrictions: # A topic ban on "All Australian journalists [[WP:BLP|BLP]] articles broadly constructed" # A topic ban on "[[The Age]] and all related articles broadly constructed" # Adherence to [[WP:1RR]] on all other articles for a period of for three months from the unblock.--[[User:Brandonfarris|Brandonfarris]] ([[User talk:Brandonfarris#top|talk]]) 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I accept the edits that have been hitherto objected to were not reasonable and accordingly would accept the following binding edit restrictions: # A topic ban on "All Australian journalists [[WP:BLP|BLP]] articles broadly constructed" # A topic ban on "[[The Age]] and all related articles broadly constructed" # Adherence to [[WP:1RR]] on all other articles for a period of for three months from the unblock.--[[User:Brandonfarris|Brandonfarris]] ([[User talk:Brandonfarris#top|talk]]) 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I accept the edits that have been hitherto objected to were not reasonable and accordingly would accept the following binding edit restrictions: # A topic ban on "All Australian journalists [[WP:BLP|BLP]] articles broadly constructed" # A topic ban on "[[The Age]] and all related articles broadly constructed" # Adherence to [[WP:1RR]] on all other articles for a period of for three months from the unblock.--[[User:Brandonfarris|Brandonfarris]] ([[User talk:Brandonfarris#top|talk]]) 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

--Brandonfarris (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brandonfarris (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion : Maybe if Brandonfarris would like to agree to a voluntarily topic ban on "All Australian journalists BLP articles broadly constructed" along with a WP:1RR on all other articles both for three months that might go to indicate how sincere he was to "contribute to neutral articles in collaboration with other editors" ? Mtking ^(edits) 00:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the very serious problems with Brandon's editing (The Age hacking scandal article may have been considered libelous given some of the phrasing used and how sources were treated) and the fact that this appear to have constituted a campaign against certain individuals, I don't think that an unblock would be at all a good idea. Note also that the articles they added BLP violations to cover more than just journalists. I'm concerned that Brandon is still refering to his edits as being "reasonable" given that he'd been warned about serious problems with them before yesterday's edit war. As he had also been blocked for edit warring previously as well, he had no grounds to think that the edits or edit warring were OK. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive suggestion. Happy to agree and totally abide by toa voluntary ban of that kind and to other restrictions deemed appropriate to give editors comfort that I'm serious about editing in a constructive, good faith, helpful and positive manner.

Given the administrator Nick-D's views about The Age hacking scandal article (and the fact that it's difficult now to point to the good/bad aspects of that now it's deleted) I won't respond other than to say I didn't believe anything I wrote there violated Wikipedia's policies in any respect but that I won't be revisiting any of that material for fear of causing offence or breaking rules I may not fully comprehend yet. I will resist the urge to defend the article (let's just say I don't agree with Nick-D's characterisation of it and it would be dishonest of me to say I did.) But I get it that he has a different view, he's an administrator and I will abide by it, given his greater expertise.)

As I said above, I'm going to avoid BLP issues, if given another chance, by avoiding writing about individuals at all for a while and to see if I can make a contribution in other areas with which I am familiar but haven't yet explored like geography and history, while avoiding controversies. If I don't prove true to my word, which will be retained here, then I could always be banned then. But I think I can make a nice contribution, if given a go. I would accept any form of topic ban that gives comfort and enables me to move on positively from here. --Brandonfarris (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"I should have stepped away and solicited others to get involved" ... no, that's canvassing. You discuss on the talkpage with other editors. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Further to my suggestion above and the valid concerns of Nick-D my i make the revised suggestion :

That, Brandonfarris updates his unblock request, so as to make it clear he accepts his edits were not reasonable, and to include reference to voluntarily but binding edit restrictions :

1. A topic ban on "All Australian journalists BLP articles broadly constructed"
2. A topic ban on "The Age and all related articles broadly constructed"
3. Adherence to WP:1RR on all other articles

for a period of for three months from the unblock.

Mtking ^(edits) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC) See comments below. Mtking ^(edits) 02:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In response, to Mt, that's fine with me. I'll update accordingly. --Brandonfarris (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, re canvassing, that's what I meant. I didn't mean canvassing in a destructive way, I meant doing what I did which was write on the Talk page and encourage others to comment on my suggestions and improve them while walking away and letting others get into it. BTW, while Nick-D deleted the The Age hacking scandal, it appears that this morning the Victoria Police attended their premises to gather evidence in relation to it. But I'll leave that for others to deal with. [8] On the canvassing question, policy permits:

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

That is not only my stated intention but what I was - very belatedly - starting to do. I would like to continue down that righteous path, if given a chance by being unblocked. --Brandonfarris (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In response, to Mt, that's fine with me. I'll update accordingly. --Brandonfarris (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Mtking, Brandon's BLP problems extend beyond articles on journalists, so those conditions are inadequete. Setting a three month period on the conditions is also not at all sensible or in line with WP:BLP given the degree of the BLP problems here. Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you think is appropriate then ? Mtking ^(edits) 02:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Following Nick-D's comments above and on my talk page, withdrawing my suggestion, for the record, I still support the original block, my suggestion was a good faith attempt to see if this editor could be rehabilitated, but if others feel it is not going to work out, I accept that. Mtking ^(edits) 02:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick, given that the main issue here is violation of the BLP policy, would you consider unblocking Brandon with a topic ban on all BLP articles? At a glance, that seems pretty restrictive, but there are a ton of other articles out there to work on. The topic ban could be reviewed in, say, three months if Brandon's work in other areas shows that he's developed into a good editor. And if not, well, there's always WP:ROPE. Although I agree with the need for this block, in my personal opinion there's a potentially decent editor here who just needs to be pointed in the right direction - maybe mentorship would be a way forward? Yunshui 雲‍水 09:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. A ban on BLPs, broadly construed, and entering into mentorship are, in my view, necessary conditions, along with conditions 2 and 3 in the list he's agreed to above. Brandon, I'd also appreciate it if you could describe in more detail what you hope to work on if you were unblocked and the sources which will be used to support this editing - "geography and history" are very broad topics and don't provide an indication of the encyclopedia articles you're hoping to write/improve. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, very interested in US history, from the time of the founding fathers until Prohibition etc., the grand adventures of European monarchs and rulers, you name it, in history, I'm interested in it. I'm not super-strong on Australian history, to my undying shame, but would love to learn more. Beyond that, I'm very interested in earth sciences, geology and all that and also in matters relating to town planning and I suppose that's really what I meant by geography. It wasn't a good subject for me at school! I'll let you all work out the appropriate breadth and length of topic ban and other directions, please just let me know. Mentoring sounds good, and something I really should have pursued by the sounds of it to avoid these troubles. Thanks for making the effort to work something out, I appreciate it very much. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm prepared to unblock you if you agree to the following conditions:

1. A topic ban on BLP articles broadly construed for an indefinite duration initially, but subject to review after three months. You can ask that I conduct this review on my talk page, or ask other admins to conduct the review via WP:AN, though I'd like to be notified if you take the second option.
2. A topic ban on The Age and Crikey and all related articles broadly construed for three months (note here that most articles concerning living journalists fall under WP:BLP)
3. Adherence to WP:1RR on all articles for three months
4. That you immediately seek and actively engage with a mentor. You may find Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user useful for this, though you can also approach potential mentors directly.

It goes without saying that you should also take extra care with your editing. I find WP:10SIMPLERULES to be a good summary of how people are expected to behave on this website, thought it doesn't have any official standing per-se. I'm going to be out of town for most of the weekend, but I'm sure that another admin will unblock you if you agree to the above. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, agree to those conditions above and appreciate the generosity of spirit behind them. Enjoy your weekend. --Brandonfarris (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicola Gobbo nominated for deletion by another user

Notice: The article you created, Nicola Gobbo, has been proposed for deletion by another user. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)