| Revision as of 15:04, 30 September 2006 editDHeyward (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,753 edits →Block← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:06, 30 September 2006 edit undoDHeyward (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,753 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| *] Created ]. ] | *] Created ]. ] | ||
| *] Created ], ] | *] Created ], ] | ||
| *] Created ], ] | |||
| {{AMA alerts}} | {{AMA alerts}} | ||
| Please add comments to the bottom. | Please add comments to the bottom. | ||
| == Welcome to the AMA! :-) == | |||
| Hello, I'm ], the Acting Coordinator from the ]. I saw your message on my talk page and noticed that you've placed your username on the ] page, so I wanted to welcome you to the AMA! :-) It is wonderful to see another editor who is willing to help our fellow Wikipedians resolve disputes. This experience is ultimately rewarding, and usually only requires two ears to be a good listener with. :-) | |||
| At this point, I strongly suggest that you take a good look over the ] and the ] to get a handle on what we do here in the AMA, as well as subscribe to the ] board so that you can stay in touch with the Association. :-) If you come across anything that you think should be in these documents, ]. :-) | |||
| At this particular point in time, we have actually abolished our backlog (I cannot believe that this has happened :-) ) so there aren't any cases that need immediate attention. Where you could be used most is over at our ], where we are discussing where the AMA currently is and where we see it going in the future. | |||
| If at any time either on or off a case that you have a question or come up against a problem, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on ]. No matter how big or small an issue or question may be, I'm here to help and I've got your back. :-) | |||
| Once again welcome and good luck! :-) | |||
| Looking forward, | |||
| <small>]</small> <tt><b><font color="#0033CC">]</font></b></tt> <sub><B><font color="#000000">(]/])</font></B></sub> 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====AMA Member Page==== | |||
| For the sake of my (admittedly OCD) needs for alphabetical order, I'm moving your entry in the ] list. I hope you don't mind, and I wanted to give you a heads up. Welcome! --] <small>('']'')</small> 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No worries. --] 23:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Swiftboating== | |||
| They really hate being swiftboated (conservative meaning), eh? :) ] 11:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Gil Gutknecht == | |||
| Hello. I was confused by a footnote which you inserted in this article so I took it out. I thought it was in error but on rethinking it I realized it may have been meant to take that form. My apologies if that was the case. ] 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes it was to take that form. I rewrote it as people keep getting confused as to what the pledge was. The pledge was the contract with america pledge which called for a vote on term limits in the first 100 days. It was fulfilled.--] 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == OR? == | |||
| You altered the content I had added to fit your interpretation and wrote this as your edit summary "This was OR as it was an interpretation (and a wrong one at that)". Uh-huh my edit is OR, yet your interpetation is accurate, you don't even have a source to back up your claim. Are you an apologist for or member of the group? --] 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am neither. It is obviously parody just like every other sign on their side. You can remove all of it if you wish but you may not leave your incorrect interpretation. | |||
| :Let's look at another sign so you understand parody: | |||
| :. "Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, War has '''never''' solved anything." | |||
| : is then your interpretation that PW is peace group and oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? I hope not because that is the same kind of parody/ridicule of a position. --] 05:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Lifetime Channel Page "vandalism" == | |||
| You have accused me of "vandalizing" this page. Not only is that not true, it makes no sense. The history tab shows the history of every edit to a page. I have no edited that page. --] 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This IP address did vandalize that page. Check user contributions. --] 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Yes== | |||
| Wasn't it? And swift boating is patriotic. And Max Cleland is Osama. And freedom is slavery. And ignorance is strength. And war is peace. And arbeit macht frei. What wonderous times we live in, when lies are truth. ] 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What lies? It comes down to what is "truth." Politics is a giant shade of gray. You can believe that all the swift boat veterans were evil liars or you can believe that maybe they believed what they said and did. I believe we are more free then we ever have been. I believe we are at war now so we don't have to fight a bigger, bloodier war later. That's not peace but it's better than the alternative. Reasonable people can disagree and that does not make them ignorant. Nor does it make them weak. Personally I believe you are pretty well-informed yet we disagree politically (and I don't think we disagree because I am ignorant). There are also other people on WP who are not well informed from all sides of the political spectrum. Some will take a contrarian position to Bush just because it's Bush. Some will attack Kerry just because. That's not very well-informed. | |||
| :As for Bernard Goldberg, I am not surprised he sees himself as a Kennedy liberal. A lot of people of his generation see themselves that way. Some are called Reagan Democrats and that's why I was sceptical of the "conservative" label. In any case, when I first started editing Misplaced Pages, Gamaliel reverted every label I ever put and I didn't understand why as it seemed pretty self evident (e.g. "liberal media watchdog group Media Matters"). He didn't have an issue with labels of conservative groups or people but I understand that as well. I eventually understood what he meant and what his standard is and I agree with it. There is no objective standard of political labels so either they are self-identified or they are the opinion of a (sourcable) third-party. Gamaliel spends his time editing Misplaced Pages in a way that he believes improves it the most. That includes removing labels that he doesn't agree with (or in Wiki-speak, labels that are unsourced). I do the same thing.--] 06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::reasonable people can disagree. but some disagreements require that people are unreasonable. i can work just fine with plenty of fairly clear conservatives, to the extent they can be labeled. and i consider them friends. mongo, kaisershatner, voldemort, theronj, jdavidb, ed poor, etc. they are reasonable people. i am a reasonable person. i haven't made up my mind about you. but from what I've seen, you're for the most part failing the "shoe on the other foot" test. which defines reasonableness for me. what gamaliel does is his to account for. ] 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't do tests. But your "shoe on the other foot" is that there is another definition of "swiftboating". That would be the right foot. I am certainly not advocating that the "left foot" version of "swiftboating" be deleted. I have not trimmed it or tried to water down what was already written. But why are you advocating that the "right foot" be deleted? Can you not see the right foot? --] 05:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I would have the grace to admit that I'm wrong about notability. I've done things of that sort a billion times. More than once I've been amused when some crazed right-winger attacks me as being against a move that I myself made. I think it's a flat lie that BG is a liberal. But I put it in because that's the standard, didn't I now? Would Bush v. Gore have been decided the same way, with reversed names? In another universe perhaps. That's the shoe test. I ask myself about it every time. If you can't pass it, you're just another pov-pusher. I recall once trying to make that point to you with the Steele article. Your skull is evidently point proof.] 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==User NBGPWS== | |||
| ::I hate to bother you with this, but since he has been so persistent in violating numerous rules I feel compelled to report more mischief caused by NBGPWS. | |||
| ::Specifically, on his talk page, where he has already deleted my comments with respect to his spam/canvassing campaign twice, and will probably do so for a third time. | |||
| ] 01:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Oh my== | |||
| You do make friends, don't you (above). Here's another one ] ] 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Runway widths == | |||
| BTW, just wanted to let you know that I removed this information. There was some discussion on Talk about it -- both runways are physically 150' wide, but the shorter runway is painted to restrict its usable width to 75'. The was likely invisible (or at best, not particularly obvious) to the pilots considering the lighting conditions at the time.--''']]''' 05:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==PW== | |||
| What's your opinion about whether the Alexa stats should stay in or go? I think they're OR and just not relevant, but I will defer to your judgement. Reply on my talk page. Thanks. ] 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Meatpuppet Factory== | |||
| "Neocons move against Information Clearing House.: Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House. Please provide your views." Posted on the ICH website. ] 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh noes!!!!!11111oneone They are on to our cabal! Someone alert teh Rove stat! :) ] 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's a cabal? I must not have been invited to all the meetings. --] 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it's the "Disinformation Terrorist" cabal. See . ] 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Invite to ]== | |||
| Biographies of Living Persons ] requires a higher[REDACTED] standard since the ] in December 2005. Articles like these involve ] and ] It has been 6 months, and[REDACTED] still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles. | |||
| Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via ]. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies. | |||
| I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named ], a group devoted to ], ] and ] and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. ] 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the ], an informal mediation initiative here on Misplaced Pages. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here: | |||
| : ''']''' | |||
| I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, ] 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==ICH== | |||
| I will need your help for awhile at ] to keep the propagandizers at bay. ] 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Consider for deletion== | |||
| Would you consider placing this one up for Afd? ] ] 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your ] == | |||
| Hi! I've reviewed you at WP:ER, but thought I should leave a note here about it. I may come across as very critical of your work, but please don't lose heart about it: my review is motivated largely by my own ] (under my old username), which was opposed because I acted in pretty much the same way you currently do - the only difference being that I was mainly active at NewPage Patrol, rather than Recent Changes. | |||
| I'd rather not see your own future RfA suffer for the same reason mine did, so please make an effort to be more careful with warning vandals. It'll do you well in the future, and I'd certainly like to see someone such as yourself gain adminship in the foreseeable future. Happy editing! :) ]<font color="green">]</font>] (<span style="font-size: smaller;"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></span>) 08:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Khukri == | |||
| Tbeatty Khukri is reverting my posts not the other way around. ] 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Tbeatty see my talk and contribs for true story please. Cheers muchly ] <sup>(] . ])</sup> 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah go see the stuff I wrote then edited out and he returned. ] | |||
| :I don't think your edit to Gannon was vandalism. But it did violate 3RR. --] 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah that's why I'm leaving it alone. ] 22:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Plame == | |||
| This needs to get out more. | |||
| <nowiki> | |||
| David Corn of ''The Nation'' revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of ] purchased by Iraq.<ref name=corn>{{cite news | url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn | title=What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA | author=David Corn | publisher=The Nation (web only) | date=September 5, 2006}}</ref>. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire ] and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. <ref name=CIAreport1></ref><ref name=CIAreport2></ref> | |||
| </nowiki> | |||
| --] 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Tbeatty, could take another look at ]. I really believe Orsini is engaging in original research to forward a negative POV in discussion about Barbara Schwarz. The more I discuss things with Orinisi, the more I see flaws in Orsini's argument which seems to be based on a lot of OR and an anti-scientology POV. It seems that pushing Orsini's POV is more important to Orsini than keeping the discussion focused on the actual issues: possible violations of WP:BLP on the ] article. Also Take a look at these differences which suggests that you are partially correct in your concern of an anti-scientology bias of some of the editors, specifically Orsini, Tilman. I am thinking of gathering differences of all the negative unsourced claims Orsini has made. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed with this problem? --] 11:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The first step would be an ] (request for comment). After that there is an ArbCom. Keep in mind that Fred Bauder is an ArbCom member so I suspect that his take on this is where the ArbCom will end up even if he recuses himself.--] 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. I am considering filing an RfC for the ] article and a seperate RfC on Orsini. --] 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :HResearcher, why don't you move on and keep this to where it belongs. This has all already been discussed. Fred Bauder is a top guy and is watching the show. Please stop taking this to new "battlefields" each time that you're not satisfied (this is now the third one). What's next? Call Jimbo on his cellphone? --] 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Tilman. HResearcher is only upset because he cannot provide any references for his own unsourced and purely POV claims. ] 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is certainly no reason to follow this editor around to my talk page. --] 17:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tilman, I'm asking Tbeatty to take another look into the discussion, especially considering the comments from Orsini who constantly extrapolates (original research) to make negative comments about a living person ]. From Orsini's comments, Orsini is obviously biased against Barbara Schwarz' religion. I believe Orsini is pushing anti-scientology POV to impugn Barbara Schwarz / Scientology. That is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V. Now Orsini is trying to say that I am being uncivil because I am challenging Orsini's comments. If nothing else works, maybe I'll call Jimbo Wales on his celphone :) --] 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi again, Tbeatty. I'm about to file an RfC on Orsini, would you be willing to endorse it. Let me know, then I'll file it for your review and if you find it acceptable you can endorse it. --] 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==It's Over for "Truth Professor" Jones== | |||
| BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See . ] 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Howdy== | |||
| ] ] 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Escort/prostitution == | |||
| It seems that ] is defined as ] on WP. See also ]. ] 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's fine. They are euphemisms of one another. But one is still a crime and the other is not. That is a distinct difference that should be noted on BLP's regarldess of the internal linking of Misplaced Pages. --] 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Er, ok, and who are you? Well, anyway, i will ] for your comments. ] 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :What comments were those? The only ones I made on that page was '''Delete'''.--] 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nevermind. I see you are commenting on the NPA warning I left on your talk page. Please refrain from Personal Attacks.--] 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Indeed i was responding your comment on my talk page ... Thanks for responding, I didnt see that you were also involved in the AfD debate, which I think is quite an interesting one. By the way, for your contribution, you didn't just say '''Delete''' you said: "'''Delete''' per Mongo. More cruft by Striver." - which seems to me to be less a comment on the content, more a comment on the contributor. ] 11:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The content is cruft and the contributor is striver. I don't believe that is a PA just like pointing out personal attacks is not a personal attack. --] 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==prisonplanet.com== | |||
| Would you agree that we can change the wording describing this site? | |||
| ==quote== | |||
| :I don't understand your reference to "wp:point". I'm just trying to write a good article, and I took your precedent of adding detail to heart. By the way, of course you added a quote, the one about "lies, deceit, and fraud". Or was that your personal opionion? ] 01:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure you do understand WP:POINT as well as how to write a good article. Those three words described what the anti-Murtha people believe. If you can paraphrase the definition differently (more succintly? Mor accurately?) go right ahead. I felt it was short enough to include. I oucld have uses bigger words but it would have meant the same thing. "pejorative for prevaricating chicanery and/or dishonesty by politicians seeking higher office." Is that more encyclopedic? | |||
| :] go fix a POV problem (undue weight), instead of creating one. ] 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done. --] 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with you about Klausutis. It deserves a few sentences in the Scarborough article, though. ] 00:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notability (books)== | |||
| Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where ] was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does ''not'' have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. ] | ] 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at ]. For the Arbitration Committee. ] 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == BC/AD vs. BCE/CE == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| A user asked me not to change dates from CE to AD; user stated, "the date formats should be left the way the original creator intended them to be." | |||
| BC/AD has been used for 2,000 years. Changing this format seems like iconoclasm or historical revisionism. Is the "original creator" of a Misplaced Pages page a kind of uncontestable being? | |||
| Best regards, | |||
| North.east | |||
| :No, the orginal creator is not uncontestable. In fact almost all current dates have been modified to reflect the current leap years. George Washington's birthdate, for instance, moved a year in the number column when the calendar new year was changed from March to January. Common practice should be the standard, not the creator. that said though, I am not familiar with the difference between AD and CE. As I understand it, they are basically the same so what's the problem? --] 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Redirect Bill O'Reilly to Bill O'Reilly (commentator)== | |||
| In hindsight, I shouldn't have used that edit summary. I apologize. --] 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Defamatory comment== | |||
| is not acceptable. Please read ]. ] 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block== | |||
| ] '''You have been ] from editing''' for violating Misplaced Pages policy <s>by violating ].</s> If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your ''']''' by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from ] instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. <!-- Template:block --> After I refactored your intitial defamatory comment , you then proceeded to make another one . You supplied a reference, but the reference does not substantiate your statement. You are blocked for 24 hours. I suggest you spend the time considering how you can refrain from making such comments in future. ] 05:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| More detailed explanation . ] 06:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The link you provided was fine, but perhaps your wording in your comment needed to be toned down on the second edit.--] 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <<unblock|absoutely ridiculous - see below>> (expired) | |||
| The first comment I made on a users talk page about Steven Jones. Tyrenius refactored it because he thought it was defamatory. Absolutely acceptable, although easily verifiable through citation. I provided a reliable source link for my statement. Without providing comment about why he thinks the sourced statements are incorrect, he applied a block. Here are two statements in the sourced article . | |||
| 1. "He has since backed away from a statement that government officials and international bankers were responsible for the attack, but he still maintains that bombs, not planes, destroyed the towers." | |||
| : | |||
| 2. "Jones maintains that his paper had been peer-reviewed three times when it was published in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies," an online publication of 9/11-related research. The professor's work may well have been reviewed by scientists more qualified in engineering than he, but the 9/11 Web site is hardly a neutral party.... BYU is seeking disinterested parties who have expertise in structural engineering. These experts will look at Jones's findings from a strictly scientific point of view rather than through the filter of conspiracy theories." | |||
| This means that BYU doesn't believe that Jones work was peer reviewed and that he mischaracterized when he said it was. | |||
| At best this is a content dispute on a ''users talk page.'' But none of what I wrote is a blcokable offense even if Tyrenius believes that articles contents do not support my statements. He should have refactored the second comments and explained why he thinks a sourced statement is incorrect. This is an abuse of adminsitrative tools. | |||
| And lastly, Tyrenius is an active editor and participator in these articles frequently voting the opposite of my position on these Articles for Deletion. He should have deferred any action to other administrators. It is clear from his talk page that other administrators did not agree with his actions. | |||
| --] 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your point 1. I see you have chosen to repeat a defamatory comment. There is no justification for accusing Jones of lying. The source merely says that he "backed away". The primary meaning of "lie" is "make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" (Longman dictionary). There is nothing in your source to indicate that Jones intended to deceive, merely that he changed his mind, which is something entirely different. If you had used the source accurately, there would have been no problem. The fact is that you chose to make your own POV interpretation, which is a defamatory one. | |||
| :::Interesting that Jones never claims what changed his mind. I hold that to be prima facie evidence that he knew he overstepped what he could prove. | |||
| ::You removed a warning 10 minutes after it was put on your talk page, and did so with a flippant edit summary. This does not indicate you were taking this matter very seriously. | |||
| :::You used a non-standard warning. I would not have removed a template warning. Your "flippant warning" was summarily rejected. --] 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your point 2. Again you go further than the article and again there is an accusation of wrong doing, which is not accurate to the source. You can see a fuller exposition here.. The key point is the conclusion of the article, which says: | |||
| :::''They will determine if Jones's version of events is plausible or if he has been irresponsible in his research, either by going beyond his expertise or ignoring facts that contradicted his hypothesis.'' | |||
| ::This clearly states there is as yet no conclusion on misrepresentation or otherwise, since the purpose of the new review is to determine this. You have made an unjustified assertion. | |||
| :::Incorrect. The investigation itself is prima facie evidence that the University believes there is a problem that warrants an investigation. They do not launch these investigations without a belief of wrongdoing. The investigation will either validate or invalidate that belief but the belief itself is in place. --] 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You were warned and chose to ignore the warning. I am not aware that I have been in any content dispute with you over this subject, and this is not a content dispute. It is a removal of potential defamation. It is established that we should err on the side of caution in these matters. I have had nothing to do with articles on these subjects until the last few days, and AfD has no relevance here. Please don't make these kind of innuendos. I was in agreement with you on ]. I'm not frequently in disagreement with you, because I haven't participated frequently for a start. | |||
| ::: You used a non-standard warning. You did not warn that I would be blocked if I edited again. let alone if I edited and provided a source. --] 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The block was reviewed by, and discussed with one admin, ] on my talk page. I gave my reasons and invited him to shorten or remove the block and he declined. Instead he also left a caution for you. | |||
| ::] 16:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::MONGO never reverses blcoks. THat is not the same as agreeing with your position. --] 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Had I come across your unblock request sooner, I would have unblocked you immediately. Tyrenius clearly blocked you over a content dispute on a user talk page and irrelevantly cites ] which covers biographies only. Your comments regardless of whether libelous or not would never have been interpreted as the opinion of the Wikimedia foundation itself by any court. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you might need to look into this a little more closely. The block was reviewed and discussed with ], whom I invited to shorten or remove it. He declined, and also left a warning. You can find the dialogue on my talk page. Content disputes aren't relevant to user talk pages: they happen in articles. ] is a helpful guide to the sensitivity that needs to be exercised over matter about living people in wikipedia. Defamation is not acceptable anywhere, articles or talk pages. It is still published, and it is the project that will get the blame and attendant publicity. Check out ], which says '''It is Misplaced Pages policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history''' (where they are not even cached by Google). Your comment above indicates you would leave a libel in place on a user talk page. Not a good idea. I hope also that, before reversing a block, you would first discuss with the blocking admin, as is accepted practice, and not unblock "immediately". If an admin makes a block, they have a reason to do so. ] 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I questioned the block as I saw it as a bit of a grey area issue. You seemed to be actively engaged in a dispute (I may be wrong on that) with Tbeatty and since he did reference his comment (which still needed to be toned down a bit) the second time he made it, there is not libel issue as the essence of the statement supports the comment that he is on paid academic leave, a very rare occurance for a tenured professor...I can think of one other instance recently and that is ]. Colleges rarely put academics on paid leave unless there is something very serious to examine. I don't revert other admins generally since I do trust them to make decisions based on an assumption of good faith and I deplore it when admins fight over areas that are vague...it's ridiculous when admins go around accusing each other of this as it breeds nothing but hostility. If this situation can't be resolved, and Rfc is desirable as it has no "teeth" raelly and canbe a learning experience for all parties. I don't encourage them generally, but that is an option. For what it is worth, no libel issues are involved if commentary such as that is referenced since that provides the basis for the comment and we can't know anything we can't reliably reference.--] 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As far as I know, I am engaged in no dispute with Tbeatty, apart from this one over defamatory comments. (If I have had any other edit dispute with him, it has not registered as such in my mind, so is not material.) The source did not justify Tbeatty's conclusion, and there is no way round that. To misrepresent something is an act of wrongdoing. There is no proof that he misrepresented the reviews of his work. The college seemed not to find them suitable. That is different to saying he misrepresented them. Your explanation is feasible, but not relevant to Tbeatty's statement. I gather that the extremity of his claims was the prompt for his paid leave, not that he had misrepresented his research. However, I agree with you about admin actions. As far as I am concerned this previous incident is finished. I don't even believe the user was online during the block, so it is making a mountain out of a molehill. However, the fact that he has now repeated the first statement which I warned him about does need to be addressed. I find it quite unacceptable, and in breach of what is acceptable to state about living persons. RfC is going to take up a huge amount of community time. ] 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tbeatty, I think Tyrenius' blocking you was a mistake, based on his misunderstanding of ], and contrary to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need ] about BLP. Defamatory comments have no place on wiki. Sensitivity should be shown when making comments about living people, wherever those comments are made. ] 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the only wikilawyering is being done by you. I sourced my claims and stand by them. Your opinion is just that: your opinion. Trying to torture my comments as being so egregious as to warrant a block when I have sourced the background for them is somewhat high-handed. I personally find it offensive that you continue to claim that I am defaming someone. That in itself could be interpreted as a WP:BLP violation if you want to wikilawyer it. Please stop making that accusation. I am not guilty of defamation or libel and your continued accusation is unwelcome. --] 05:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tbeatty, I came across this looking over my watchlist. Do you need any assistance? <small>]</small> <tt><b><font color="#0033CC">]</font></b></tt> <sub><B><font color="#000000">(]/])</font></B></sub> 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think so. 3 admins have pretty much said the block was invalid and excessive. I have yet to see another example of a content dispute over BLP turning into a block other than Tyrenius'. If Tyrenius continues to abuse his administrative authority I think going to ArbCom or AN/I would be the next step but I hope he would learn from this mistake and we can move on. --] 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I retroactively endorse Tyrenius' block. While I strongly appreciate the work you have done keeping the 9/11 related articles NPOV and keeping the conspiracy cruft to the minimum we cannot make potentially defamatory comments on Wiki which can create serious legal issues. Regardless of your or anyone else's opinion of Jones(mine is very dim) you can't put possibly defamatory on your pages. Misplaced Pages is about writing an encyclopedia not personal advocacy. If you want to accuse someone of lying please do so on a personal webpage. ] 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, of course, ] is non negotiable, but the comment was made in usertalk pages here and on one other page...so I highly doubt that any issues of libel would have occurred...and I find a lot of this situation to now have gone into the realm of surreal. If we went around deleting/blocking every single person that has made a comment as Tbeatty did, we'd be very busy indeed. Now that the policy has been made more strict, I intend to uphold it of course as it is written. Indeed, at some point, comments such as "mine is very dim" may become borderline attacks as well...something I hope we can avoid, but I think you can see where I am going with this. There is a range of reasonableness that we need to expect, and from what I can see, I would have thought it would have been better had Tyrenius gotten someone else to do the block...but what's done is done and the best thing is to move on.--] 04:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : After more thought I've decided to bring this matter up ] to discuss there. The point you raise especially in regard to the long term effects is very good. ] 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| - Regarding your most recent comment, while I would have probably refactored again and sent a note to you, knowing violation of ] is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is a foundational matter and so we can't afford to be loose about it. ] 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| --That's complete BS. Sourcing a negative statement for the first time is not grounds for blocking. Ever. Point me to a legitimate blcok that happened when someone readded a statement with a source and was immediately blcoked because the opinion of the admin was that the source was inadequate. The blcok is indefensible. THere is a HUGE difference between policing articles for WP:BLP and blocking editors who add content you disagree with. --] 06:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I fully and completely endorse this block. That is not to say that every single case of this type deserves a block; admins must make careful judgments about particular cases. (And this is why also think it was appropriate for MONGO to question it.) However, since Tbeatty continues to come out with this claim that this is about "the opinion of the admin was that the source was inadequate" I see no sense of understanding what the problem is at all, and frankly people who cannot comprehend the need for absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons have no business editing[REDACTED] at all. | |||
| :The first comment was bad enough. But to come up with a "source" which does not back up the claim *at all*, and to continue to make the claim, is just so far beyond unacceptable that if you don't understand it, I don't know what else to say about it.--] 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my opinion, the source supported everything I said. We can have a difference of opinion. I made the statement twice on a talk page. The first time was without the source. The second time was worded differently with a source, and I was immediately blocked for it. If the block trigger is pulled when statements are sourced, then admins have a lot of work to do. We can come to consensus about the content and what the sources say, but if we are going to block people who in good faith source their statements, then we are doomed. If you can point me to another block where the sequence was: statement, refactored, statement with source, blocked, I'd appreciate it. --tbeatty 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And thank you for refactoring your own BLP violation. --] 15:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Policy== | |||
| Having consulted more widely off-wiki, I stand by my action. If you haven't yet had feedback, you can get details from ], ] or ]. I tried to email you, but your email is not enabled. ] 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is discussion at . ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks== | |||
| {| style="background-color: lightgreen; border: 2px solid black;" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | Hi, Tbeatty, and thanks for supporting me in my recent ], which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --] <sub>]</sub> 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == DRV == | |||
| Would you please look at my ]? Thanks, — ] <small>]</small> 08:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:06, 30 September 2006
- /Archive1 Created May 1. 2006
- /Archive2 Created August 24, 2006
- /Archive3 Created September 30, 2006
Please add comments to the bottom.