- Alex Shih, just to clarify, if I might. Do you think, personally, on the basis of the sources that have been provided in the Michael Michael article, that he can be fairly accused of being involved in the murder of Charlie Wilson? I think you would agree with me that that is quite a serious accusation to make against someone who is still alive? Of course, having read the sources provided, you might feel that such a claim is indeed justified. In which case, I guess, you would feel it your duty to re-add that material. Personally, I'd recommend a little caution in that regard. Thanks for your time. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Alex Shih, I agree with Martinevans123. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123: @Drmies: Thank you both. I have explained my rationale and the follow-ups on my talk page. Alex Shih 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, Michael Michael has been reporting as saying he knows who killed Charlie Wilson. The gutting and edit warring on the article removed that little important bit. So no, that is not a BLP violation. — nihlus kryik (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- You have some better sources for that claim? Or is that The History Channel again? I think you'll find that, in the real world of libel and defamation, compliance with Misplaced Pages editing policies count for very little. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand your assertion that I need to provide sources. I stated the reason for the paragraph and why it was included and that it wasn't accusing him of the murder as you said. — nihlus kryik (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Murder of Charlie Wilson" is just the sort of neutral section heading you might find in anyone's article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a piss poor title, but you're trying to argue with the wrong person, as all I intended to do was clarify what happened. — nihlus kryik (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm all for clarification. That particular article, for example, looks a lot clearer to me in its present form. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, I'm disappointed because I expected you'd at least check the edit history before agreeing with this nonsense. The section heading "Murder of Charlie Wilson" was clearly listed as a subheading of "Career as Informant". Nobody was accusing the subject of murdering Charlie Wilson, but instead discussing the claim that subject knew the identity of the killer. This is as far from a BLP violation as I can imagine. AlexEng 20:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sourced to The Sun, AlexEng? Really? --John (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, John, I agree it could use a RS, but that's a far cry from the outlandish claim that the subject was being "accused of being involved in ... murder". It also doesn't excuse a 3RR violation, when the policy explicitly states
"but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense . This is especially egregious given the fact that 3RRNO was explicitly not used as rationale in any of the edit summaries, and the editor failed to participate in discussion which would have easily cleared this up despite urging to do just that. AlexEng 21:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- AlexEng, I don't understand why you're disappointed in me--if you have any expectations of me, you should know me, and if you know me, you know that "err on the side of caution" is my BLP mantra. I do not understand why a slew of experienced editors can't just let that be while the matter is being discussed. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, we've had positive interactions before, and I had never known you to rush to conclusions. Your words carry a lot of weight, so I had hoped you would be more careful before publicly stating your agreement. AlexEng 21:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- AlexEng, please don't overestimate the weight of my words, or the importance I attach to the BLP. My wording is actually pretty careful here considering I have not delved so deeply into the matter that I want to speak out in condemnation of this editor or that--but I have looked deeply enough to be convinced that the BLP was reasonably invoked, which is about all I can ask for. I can be stubborn and sometimes less calm than I want to be when it comes to being reverted, but I hope it has never happened after someone invoked the BLP with a reasonable claim. I believe this here was reasonable enough, and reasonable enough for an unblock. I agree with John, about on who the onus is etc., and that Hillbillyholiday could have left better edit summaries; sure. But note when the block came--quite some time after Hillbillyholiday had stopped reverting, so there also I don't think this was a really good block--Alex Shih, I'm sorry, but do I see this correctly, that the block came a day after? Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, to the bulk of your response – fair enough. However, I don't agree that the way in which Hillbillyholiday behaved is appropriate. If this were a case of a reasonable claim of WP:3RRNO by reason of BLP exception, it should have been stated... literally anywhere. Instead, I saw canned revert summaries, which only exacerbate an edit war. I should also point out that Hillbillyholiday was reported for edit warring 5 days ago, and the report was closed as "stale" because he announced a wiki-break. I would say a block was warranted then, but avoided by that announcement. When you add up 3 incidents in 4 days, you don't think a 24h block is warranted to halt continued disruption? AlexEng 00:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Why would we mention the murder on his article if he was not involved in it? Yet none of the reliable sources made the connection. Detailed discussion of this is one for the article talk page really. But you must accept that HBH's edits were absolutely correct, and that anyone reverting was egregiously breaching BLP. I agree the edit summaries could have been clearer, but really the onus is on those wanting to restore the material. --John (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just explained why: because he was thought to have inside knowledge about the identity of the killer, according to the last statement in that paragraph. Why would you assume that the presence of a section heading with the word "murder" implies that the subject is the perpetrator? The article is largely about the subject's career as an informant. I absolutely do not accept that his edits were right, and I'm going to throw that back at you: you must accept that HBH's edits were absolutely incorrect, and that his reversions were an egregious breach of 3RR. To reiterate what I said in my previous statement, whether he was right or wrong, edit warring is unacceptable. Surely you must understand that, at least, even if we don't agree on the content dispute. AlexEng 21:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- The version that made that allegation was sourced to The Sun and the Daily Mail which are not reliable sources. They can publish allegations like that and have the resources to fight a resulting legal case. WP:BLP and WP:ARBBLP are clear that we have a higher standard. It isn't a content dispute and it isn't a debate. You signed up for this and you consent to it with every edit you make. --John (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- John, can you clarify to which "allegation" you are referring? My understanding is that you're talking about the claim that the subject of the article provided information to police about the murder of Charlie Wilson. This is not contentious, nor would it be considered contentious by a reasonable person; the subject is a well-known police informant. The evidence for that particular claim is spotty, if at all existent. I think we agree on that bit. What we don't agree on, if I understand correctly, is the idea that it is acceptable behavior to revert without explanation 7 times on an article and refuse to participate in discussion. If it is your position that this fits the standards of behavior on the project, then I oppose this point of view. It is supported neither by policy nor by the linked Arb case, which specifically points out that incivility is prohibited. AlexEng 23:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- It seems I didn't look back far enough. So, just to clarify again. Did that article suggest that informing on the identity of the killer of Charlie Wilson was part of Michael's "Career as Informant"? Not quite as serious a claim as that he was involved in the murder, but a wholly unsubstantiated claim nevertheless? User:AlexEng, you're suggesting that it would be acceptable to leave the article in that version which suggested (very strongly to me, obviously) that Michael actually was involved in the murder? Are you intending to revert that last deletion by HBH? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Martinevans123, I'm suggesting that a discussion, as initiated by Tenebrae in the article talk page would have easily cleared up any misunderstanding. At the very least, if he was serious about improving the article, he could have changed the section heading to be clearer rather than revert without comment 7 times. I'm also suggesting that this editor has actively refused, in the past, to engage in talk page discussions when asked. AlexEng 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- And I'd have to agree with you, over the potential value of a Talk page discussion. I just think that your notion of "serious" and that held by HBH are currently "divergent." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that may be true. I just hope we don't diverge in our notions of "disruptive." AlexEng 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is it just me or does the relevant link on the Charlie Wilson (criminal) article lead to The Sun's thoughtful advice to Kylie Jenner from Justin Beiber?! JezGrove (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Situations that happen taint your mind, especially in this industry. Especially for girls.” Sorry, but yes, it's just you Jezza. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, you're right. It seems The Sun has changed their URL structure since 2013, when the article was accessed. Here's an archived version, but there's a paywall. I don't think it worthwhile to replace the broken link with an unreadable version, though. AlexEng 22:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we should canvass John for his view of using a paywall for The Sun. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- It turns out there's a version without the paywall. I suppose I'll replace the old link. AlexEng 22:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ouch. Best not tell John, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Phew, thank God Michael Michael wasn't accused of something REALLY heinous like tabloid journalism or backing Remain (take your pick .. ) JezGrove (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
|
