User talk:Fannielou

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Frances Fox Piven has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Frances Fox Piven, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rostz (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Frances Fox Piven

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frances Fox Piven. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. 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 wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rostz (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding Frances Fox Piven

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding persistent blanking and legal threat. The thread is persistent Francis Fox Piven blanking and legal threat. Thank you. —Rostz (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a no legal threats policy here, it would be in your best interest to take back any such statements made here before you are blocked. Heiro 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this [1] left by you on my talk page:

• WP:LEGAL-read this now and retract all legal threats you have made here, or an admin will block you as soon as one of them notices the thread at ANI
• WP:COI-conflict of interest editing
• WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY
• WP:3RR-3 reverts per day on a page
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Please read all of the pages. Heiro 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this [2], I didn't mean on my page, I meant the ones you have made on other users pages, which you have yet to specifically retract. All outstanding legal threats are blockable until you retract them. Go to those pages and retract those legal threats or an admin can indefinitely block you for them as soon as one notices.. Heiro 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, your editing privileges indefinitely with immediate effect. I note your concerns regarding the Frances Fox Piven article, and would suggest that you review Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) which details the type of assistance you may receive. I would note that Wikipedia article content is derived and referenced to other sources, and that threats of legal action are generally ineffective - since being blocked limits the opportunities for communication. I trust that you will avail yourself of the prodedures provided, that the legal threat is rescinded, and you are able to edit freely (but in compliance to the practices of the site) again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess my last warning was too late. Please see here Wikipedia:Appealing a block for the procedures to get the block lifted. This will entail a retraction of the previously mentioned legal threats. We have alot of policies, guidelines, and etc., (some of which I've already linked for you) that you as a new user do not yet know of. Please read up on the ones I've linked, as well as taking heed of what the poster above me has stated. Heiro 22:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Heironymous Rowe, Could you please explain to me how to do this? I'm happy to retract what Wikipedia considers a legal threat. I just don't understand what you are talking about. I've read what you told me to read, but I don't understand what it is I'm supposed to do. Lori Minnite

Indefinitely blocked again

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. 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. –MuZemike 22:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

You cannot threaten editors here with legal action and still be able to edit here, per our official policy. If there are specific issues in which needs to be worked out, you are free to contact [email protected] in which somebody may be able to assist you and your client regarding which issues are present. However, while the legal threat remains, we cannot allow you to continue editing. Regards, –MuZemike 22:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The simple way to get yourself unblocked is to unequivocally retract the threats that you have made, and commit to not making any more. You stepped into a pit here when you made those threats. There are ways to try to get what you want on the project, and ways not to do so. Any kind of threats to other users, especially legal threats ("We will contemplate legal action") are a fast track to being blocked around here. We exist by communication and persuasion, and using any kind of threats/bluster/intimidation are counterproductive to reasoned discourse. So make legal threats, you get blocked. But an "indefinite" block is not an "infinite" block. Legal threat blocks come down easy, but they also lift easy. Withdraw the threat, and show that you understand that such will not be tolerated, and the block can be lifted quite rapidly.

That said, you have another big problem. Edit Warring. Simply coming in like a Bull in a China Shop, and trying to force your desired changes on the article is going to also get you quickly blocked. Your changes have been opposed. If/when you are unblocked for the legal threat, instead of going and again making your changes, you need to go to the article's talk page and begin discussing your specific problems with the editors there. Wikipedia has an environment about it. A system in which things work. You are not doing your client any good if you come in and, by trying to force things, get yourself banned. Instead, if you really want to serve your client, make an effort to learn how to work within the system of how Wikipedia operates. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If the subject of a page has an issue about it then they can follow the advice at WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. Nothing in Wikipedia should be original research, it's just a collation of material published elsewhere.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collating information is not a neutral exercise, and the line you want to draw between "original" research and collating is fuzzier than you think. People have to choose what to collate and in so doing, they have to conduct research, evaluate sources, and exercise judgment about what to include. Not all research is good or exhaustive, not all sources are reliable, and the way people exercise judgement usually reflects their own interests, biases, and knowledge of a subject. For example, people who have created the biography entry for Frances Fox Piven have conducted very little research, they have at times relied on unreliable sources (i.e., Glenn Beck), and their own interests in creating this biography actually conflict with the subject's interests.

I retract what Wikipedia considers a legal threat and I promise not to do it again. Lori Minnite Lorraine Minnite 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

retraction of legal threat (see below)

Accept reason:

As Fannielou has unequivocally retracted her legal threat I have lifted the block.--Daniel 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My name is Lori Minnite. I request that my username, Fannielou, be unblocked. My account was blocked for making this statement in defense of my editing of the biography of Frances Fox Piven - at her request: "We will contemplate legal action if you fail to either protect the stripped down version of the entry - which includes only information on academic honors and publications - or, if you are not able to do that, eliminate the entry all together." First, I was unaware of Wikipedia's 'no legal threat' policy. But even if I had been aware of it, I do not consider "contemplating legal action" the same as making a threat. Regardless of how I interpret my own words, others do see it that way, and I would like to retract that statement now.

The real issue here is the involuntary inclusion of a living person via a biography they don't write or authorize, and in fact, object to, in the Wikipedia "community." Shouldn't a person be able to choose whether or not they are included in such a "community?" We first ask that the entry be deleted. Piven has been unfairly smeared by Glenn Beck for the past two years. She decided to try to do something about it after an article on his website, The Blaze, elicited some of the most vile, graphic, and frightening threats to her life you'd ever want to read. In her fifty years as a scholar and activist she has never before received death threats. Some people have sent what she refers to "death curses" to her directly (one, for example, simply said, "DIE YOU CUNT." These threats were generated by Beck's distortions and his repeated, unprovoked attack on her on his television show (he's mentioned her on his show more than 50 times since the spring of 2009). This is not "criticism," Beck has made no objective review of Piven's many books, articles, or he life and politicial activism. There was no invitation to a fair debate. In fact, Beck's obsession with Piven is bizarre and she would have done nothing had his mischaracterization of her and her work not resulted in threats that she has taken very, very seriously. If you look at the history of editing of the Piven bio on Wikipedia, you will see an equally unbalanced interest in the Beck affair, with people hostile to Piven trying to control the information in ways favorable to the view of her held by people who politically oppose her. Those of us who were her students and in my case, her co-author, can not keep up with trying to correct all the distortions and what we perceive as harrassment by these people.

If you email me I will forward your email to Piven and she will correspond with you directly about her concerns. For now, if you will not delete this entry about her, we would appreciate it if you would allow us to confine it to her professional vita. This seems only fair and would be constructive to those looking for more information about Piven's ideas. For those serious scholars interested in more of Piven's biography, her papers are available for review by appointment at Smith College.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. When various Wikipedia people have threatened me with having my account blocked because of the 'no legal threat' policy, I've not been able to figure out how to retract the offending statement. I hope this email will serve that purpose. Lorraine Minnite 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lori Minnite

That does seem to be a fairly unambiguous retraction of the legal threat. However, I do want to chime in that the subjects of Wikipedia articles do not receive any particular special authority or consideration in the content of their articles. Wikipedia is not censored. However, there are grounds for removing potentially libelous content and other violations of our Biographies of Living Persons articles (see link), which can be enacted if these policies are demonstrably violated. Additionally, all information on living persons (as the linked article explains) must be sourced or face removal. These would be the channels on which to base your concerns, I believe, to experience greater success. - Vianello (Talk) 23:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel for Piven, for being the target of the awful Glenn Beck's hatefulness. There are no death threats, no profanity, no hate speech in Wikipedia's article, though. I'm also a little confused by your retraction. You say that you don't consider saying that you are considering legal action to be a legal threat. Are you still considering legal action? You are welcome to sue Wikipedia, of course- that's your right- but Wikipedia's rules will only allow you to use the encyclopedia if you aren't involved or potentially involved in legal action. Can you state a little more clearly that you are not involved in legal action against Wikipedia, and do not plan to take such action in the future? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

On content and control of one's biography

I understand that Wikipedia does not consider the information it allows people to gather and the information it then promotes here as censored. But, of course, it's censored. Rules of engagement are a necessary means of censorship if civil discourse is the goal. You presently are censoring me by blocking my account for violating a policy I did not know existed, and when I was warned about it, could not figure out quickly enough how to retract.

I do not object to rules that promote civility and fairness and accuracy of statements of fact. But we are dealing with a different problem here. The problem is whether a living person gets to have a say in how her biography is presented to the public, or whether what she considers personal information, such as her marital status, is divulged without her permission. Wikipedia allows this. In deleting sections of the Piven biography I was eliminating what she considers personal information she does not want disclosed on Wikipedia, and distortions of who she is - the discussion of the Glenn Beck attacks on her are out of all proportion in importance compared to her fifty years of scholarhship and activism. She doesn't have the time or the cyber skills to add the abundance of missing information regarding her own biography, nor does she have the time to constantly monitor her biography for additions and deletions to which she objects as distortions and invasions of privacy. She asks to be excused from the Wikipedia community.

My deleting was called "blanking," but what do you call it when persons unknown completely reject my editing - that is, they simply undo what I've done? Why isn't that a violation of your policies, too? I guess this is what I don't understand - why what one person called my "bull in a china shop" approach in "blanking" whole sections of the Piven biography isn't applied to other persons who simply reject in total these revisions. I understand now that I did not explain what I was doing. I hope you all have a better understanding now.

My request to have my account unblocked still stands, as does my request on behalf of Frances Fox Piven to delete the entry on her. As a compromise, she would allow the posting of what is, in essence, her curriculum vitae. I will not again make what Wikipedia defines as legal threats, and I'm sorry that I did not understand the rules better before wading into this world - a chore I would have most certainly never had done had not the subject of this biography asked me to do it for her. But I think it very unfair to a person who would choose not to be in your community to allow others to include her and to include her in ways she feels are personally invasive (such as the statement "She is Jewish," and the reporting of her place of birth, year of birth, the place of birth of her parents, and her marital status), and also distorts who she is and what she has done. The idea that she or others should have to post missing information or constantly police the entry is no solution for someone who would prefer not to participate in the Wikipedia community at all. Lorraine Minnite 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll do you a favor, and while you're sorting out unblock requests (and I'm afraid I'm still unclear on whether you're still considering legal action or not), I'll nominate the article in question for deletion on your behalf, so that a discussion can get started. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, FisherQueen. I never said we were considering legal action. I used the word "contemplating," which means something different, something less action oriented. Let me try again: I retract what Wikipedia considers a legal threat, specifically, this statement: "We will contemplate legal action if you fail to either protect the stripped down version of the entry - which includes only information on academic honors and publications - or, if you are not able to do that, eliminate the entry all together." I promise not to use this kind of language again. Someone named Hieronymous Rowe has said I have to retract everywhere I've made this statement, but as I tried to say to him, I don't understand how to do that. Is it possible for this retraction, and my retractions everywhere else I've tried to make them, to count as a universal retraction? Thanks for whatever help you provide in disentangling me from this nightmare. Lori Minnite Lorraine Minnite 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lori, You also seem to be under another slight misconception regarding Wikipedia. The "community" are those of us who edit articles here, volunteer editors. This is separate from the actual articles here. The articles that are here do have to be written within the rules that the community has devised to edit cooperatively and create encyclopedic content. Many of the concerns you have brought up can be examined under our policies, such as undue weight, verifiability and neutral point of view. With biographies of living persons this is especially true. Your client seem notable enough that it is unlikely to be deleted from here. What needs to be done is every fact in the article gone over to see if it is sourced to a reliable publication, while also evaluating it for due weight and neutrality. Hope this helps, Heiro 01:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think your unilateral retraction is probably enough, earlier is was before your block and it is better to retract it everywhere you posted it in that situation. Heiro 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(2xedit conflict)I have lifted the block as you have made it clear that you have retracted your prior legal threat and do not intend to make future threats. I think this is clear from the above comment. You are free to use normal Wikipedia channels to come to a resolution, but keep in mind Wikipedia policies about conflict of interest, which if you haven't seen can be found here: WP:COI. Your close connection with the subject makes neutrality difficult especially given your stated goal of deleting the article or removing select material. Piven is a public figure and all the information in the article currently comes form public sources. The wishes of subjects of articles should not be given extra weight in content discussions. --Daniel 01:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Daniel, The community of editors exercises discretion about what's in and what's out. The community of editors implements rules that put an undue burden on living subjects of biographies who wish to have no article about them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has presented a "biography" of Frances Fox Piven for some five years. This biography has been a place where people who have a political agenda against Piven have often successfully posted what amounts to propaganda, even if editors or other brave souls have tried to correct the record and enforce Wikpedia's content rules. I make no secret of my friendship with Piven. That doesn't mean I can't see a way toward an agreeable compromise that would present via her "biography" a list of sources for the many books and articles she has written, so that people who are interested in her life can do at least a little bit of work to find out for themselves what she thinks. That's what this is all about. Glenn Beck began the attack on Piven two years ago by citing an article she co-authored in 1966. He cited nothing else she wrote over the ensuing 45 years until January 2011, when he began citing a January 10/17, 2011 article she wrote in The Nation. He continues the distortions and it would be useful and a contribution to the knowledge gathered in Wikipedia to correct the record and provide a means for non-scholars, especially those who watch and listen to Glenn Beck, to have access to more of Piven's writings. The Beck attack and Piven's recent effort to respond to it do not define her life, so it simply is inaccurate to call the current grossly incomplete and therefore distorted Wikipedia entry on Piven a biography. The inclusion of personal information is also objectionable - it was left to stand in the article for some time before I tried removing it. I ask you - is it common for a relatively short entry on a not terribly well known university professor in her seventies to receive more than 350 edits over a five year period? Analyze the nature of the editing and you will better understand that the political attack on Piven continues in the illustrious cyber pages of Wikipedia, despite the community of volunteer editors' best efforts. What we have proposed as a compromise that addresses what the volunteer editors seem to think is a noteworthy subject who, nonetheless, wishes not to be included in Wikipedia because it takes too much time to police the content of her biography, is that any biographical article about her present what is the essence of her professional curriculum vitae. As a scholar, she is judged by the contents of this document. You can make it available to those who might go to an encyclopedia for more information about a person. Why not allow a Piven bibliography to stand as a most neutral professional biography? I can tell you that Piven includes a section on scholarly criticism of her work, along with references to empirical tests of her theories in her own c.v. and she could provide that here.

I reiterate - this is a second-best choice for Piven. She would prefer the entry be deleted entirely. Lori Minnite Lorraine Minnite 01:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To let you know, the criticism section has been removed entirely from the article, which we hope is an improvement on yours and Frances' part. In my opinion, the article looks fairly neutral as it is now written and presented.

Also, there is currently an articles for deletion discussion on the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Fox Piven; you may comment there if you like. Just to let you know, however, that the early consensus is so far to keep the article (in which I unfortunately had to agree with also) but with suggestions to remove the contentious material from the article (which I hope we have done) as well as placing the article on some sort of protection. Regards, –MuZemike 01:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest changes on the Piven talk page. C.Vs are not generally encyclopedic and are usually not included in articles. Other editors are aware of these issues and are already working on the Piven article. I don't have any special say, so appealing to me isn't going to have much of an effect. What I strongly suggest is that you assume good faith with those you will be working with. Most editors here do not have an agenda and are only trying to improve the encyclopedia. It is certainly possible that with your help the Piven article can be improved, however I will reiterate, the wishes of subjects are generally not given weight in content discussions. There are many biographies on Wikipedia that (rightfully) give a far more negative impression of their subjects than the Piven page and their subjects cannot come in and change them to a preferred state. The section regarding Glen Beck has been removed for now, but there is no guarantee it will not be replaced if consensus supports its inclusion. --Daniel 01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice that, as a result of the discussion, the article is currently semi-protected- it cannot be edited by new or unregistered people. That should help with the vandalism and nastiness of Beck's minions, anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

Hello, The Wikipedia community consists of the active participating editors on Wikipedia. It does not consist of the subjects of the 3.5 million articles on Wikipedia. Shortcomings in the article about a notable and famous person like Frances Fox Piven will be addressed by improving the accuracy of the article through consensus, not by deleting the article. You will gain nothing by lecturing interested editors about what you perceive as the shortcomings of our policies and procedures. You will gain much by learning about how we operate and working with interested editors to improve the article. See the writing on the wall, realize that the article will continue to exist, and cooperate with us to make it more accurate and more representative of your client's entire career. That is the only realistic positive outcome for you here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of this has already been explained to her, some of it here by myself, as well as quit a few other editors above. No need to keep biting her, let the situation sink in and give her a little time to come around to our system. Heiro