| Revision as of 21:06, 19 October 2009 editBozMo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,164 edits please← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:48, 12 July 2010 edit undoBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,480 edits ←Redirected page to User talk:WVBluefield | ||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ==BLP and ]== | |||
| I understand your argument that consensus doesn't apply to problematic content in biographies of living persons, but in this case aren't we dealing with a matter of public record? --] 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If no relevance is indicated, doesn’t it seem like someone is trying to poison the well with information that is designed to bias the article and is not directly related to the subject? | |||
| Does the WCR have any other funder and why arent they mentioned in the article's lead. | |||
| I believe they call this guilt by association. ] (]) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring at ] == | |||
| Your current editing at ] is completely unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with ], including the three-revert rule. Use the talk page to work this issue out. You risk being blocked if this behavior continues. ] (]) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Its a BLP issue as I have explained, I don’t have to justify its removal on those grounds, other editors have to justify its inclusion. I am just trying to get editors here to play by their own rules. ] (]) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :BLP is sometimes an exemption from 3RR but not in this case. As far as I can tell, it is not the factual accuracy of the material that is under dispute, but rather its relevance. That is purely a content matter and not one where it is acceptable to edit war. If you believe that this is in fact a BLP issue and the talk page isn't working for you, may I suggest ]? ] (]) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. Thanks for your message. I replied on my talk page. -- ] (]) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi BluefieldWV, I've had a look at the BLP/N issue and whilst I sympathise, I don't think you're going to win this argument. (See my response at Michaels' talk page.) I'd be interested to discuss it here though if you think I'm wrong. FYI, I am an ] editor largely devoted to BLP issues that are inflicted on climate change skeptics. I believe that Oren0 is also skeptical of climate change theories, and I think he's giving you good advice about the edit-warring. ] (]) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks. It does seems like a tough argument to make. The threshold for what constitutes legitimate criticism here seems to be awfully low for some topics and inversely high on others. ] (]) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Watts == | |||
| Regarding edit. Perhaps you should take some time and actually read the reference instead of assuming? Watts ran ''as a conservative'' (Quote emphasis mine: <small>But the race took a turn when '''conservative candidate''' Anthony Watts opted out last week, saying there was “not enough Anthony to go around.”</small>) - and that isn't opinion - it is a fact. --] (]) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Actually, no where in the article does Watt's self identify as a conservative or that he ran as a conservative so its the opinion of the reporter that Watt's is a conservative. Thanks for trying. ] (]) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You will have to learn to differentiate between Op-Ed's (opinion), editorial (opinion), columns (part opinion) and a newspapers regular journalistic articles (not opinion). But if you really really want Watt's confirmation of what is a fairly regular and completely non-controversial item - you can find it , where Watts makes fun of someone who is implying that he is "..a conservative, he can't possibly think for himself..". (notice how that one was an editorial) --] (]) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hey look at that, you found a reliable source. Now go put it in the article. ] (]) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, that one is actually not a reliable source. Where as the other one ''is''. You really need to read and ponder ]. --] (]) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR on Anthony Watts == | |||
| You've broken the ] rule on Anthony Watts, i suggest that you revert yourself, and be more careful in the future. Also consider using the talk-page. --] (]) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : its a BLP issue and not subject to 3RR ... or thats my understanding. ] (]) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, if it was for you would be wrong (whereas if it was to delete an obvious allegation about the individual you might get away with it see]). However I cannot see a clear 3RR violation. I strongly advise you to post alleged BLP violations on the noticeboard and not try 3RR yourself especially for relative trivia. --] ] 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It was for that, and I honestly dont see how I was wrong. Any material on that page must be accurately sourced, and if not sourced properly, must be immediately removed correct? ] (]) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmmm Bozmo, with regards to "However I cannot see a clear 3RR violation" - i see it as a clear 3RR violation against two different sets: | |||
| :::* Set A: - | |||
| :::* Set B: - | |||
| :::Which is clearly 4 reverts within 24 hours on the same article. --] (]) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Its BLP related, and not covered under 3RR. ] (]) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(e/c)As Bozmo says below, using BLP as an excuse for breaking 3RR is a very bad idea. And in this case the only even remotely BLP related issue is the "conservative" title - which ''is'' sourced to a reliable source (even if you wont accept it as such). --] (]) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The policy says you can get exemption for "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." That is worded as a double test. In this instance, in my judgement there is only a very faint and subjective degree of "libellous, biased, or controversial" in this statement and not enough to justify a 3RR violation. I have certainly seen people blocked for 3RR much more obviously biased material being reverted into BLPs and most admins on 3RR would only excuse you if the content was so harmful as to make minutes matter. Personally I would have blocked for it and I would have refused an unblock for it but perhaps I am more aggressive on 3RR than some. --] ] 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did try the BLP board, but there doesn’t seem to be much action there, at least from disinterested parties. I will try and find another way the next time I run into a situation like this. I would add that an editor is adding material that he knows and admits cannot be found in the reference he is linking to, but adds it because he "prefers" it. What is the recourse in dealing with an experienced editor who is deliberately flaunting the rules? ] (]) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Kim, Sorry that's too technical for me, perhaps I am old and out of date. I would only block if someone did the same revert or partial 4 times but I guess others are better at technicalities. --] ] 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(e/c)Its just 2x2 reverts, nothing really technical. The two first reverts where of "conservative" (which had earlier been reverted by others), and the 2nd two reverts where of a sentence (regarding what surfacestations purpose is) that had also been reverted earlier. Therefore 4 reverts in total. --] (]) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: And as I stated, the term "conservative" was used by the reporter to describe Watts, not Watts himself and was not phrased as such, a violation of NPOV. The purpose of surfacestations was being deliberately misinterpreted as the source material was not reflective of the articles text. ] (]) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The phrase used by the referenced article (which isn't an op-ed or any other opinion article) is this: "But the race took a turn when conservative candidate Anthony Watts" - you seem to have the mistaken idea that if something isn't stated by the subject itself, then its opinion, this is incorrect. As for the description of surfacestation, i very much disagree that its an incorrect description of the project, in fact it is completely in-line with what Watts and Pielke Sr. have described it as. --] (]) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: It is an opinion and needs to be stated as such. And like I have told you several times before, if you beleive that your description is accurate, you should have no problem finding a source that agrees with you. ] (]) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::What exactly in your view makes it opinion, instead of news-reporting? --] (]) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Newsreporting is void of opinion is it? ] (]) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Try not moving the goal-posts and answer the question instead? --] (]) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: It is an opinion because there is no verification in the article and no information given to back this statement up. Its best to state the facts and let people make of them what they will. Why do you have such a hard time with that and feel the need to interject your opinion so often? ] (]) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Sorry, but there is no requirement in ] or ] that requires a secondary reliable source to have verification or to back up their statements. We rely entirely on the secondary sources editorial process for that. Please once more read up on what is and isn't considered opinion sources on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::::::::::We differentiate between pure opinion sources such as Op-Ed's and editorials, and regular reporting (which isn't considered opinion). Thats how an encyclopedia works. --] (]) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == NPA == | |||
| Re : please see ] ] (]) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : You mean as it applies to ? A model Wikipedian and fine example to others you are. ] (]) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) Actually on my rather pedantic definition I don't think calling someone's single edit "bullshit" counts as a personal attack because it is playing the ball not the man. If you had said "another BS edit" or similar implying something about the individual I would have agreed. Lack of courtesy, civility etc etc fair enough but not a NPA violation I feel. I am not very impressed on how anyone is behaving on that page. --] ] 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Bluefield, it's uncivil and inappropriate to call another editor's actions bullshit. Although I disagree with WMC's actions on that page, please do not cross the line into incivility. ] (]) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2009 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]{{#if:Anthony Watts (blogger)| at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)}}</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> per a complaint at:'']''. ] (]) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=My edits were made to correct what I believe was a clear cut BLP issue involving the use of ] in the article. There currently exists a , and the consensus from several uninvolved editors is that this is a BLP violation. At the very minimum I should have been warned, along with all other involved parties but not blocked for enforcing what has been advertised as a guideline in which there is to be no compromise. ] (]) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)|decline=The content you removed was not an obvious BLP violation. Whether or not it should be included is a content issue to be decided via ]. Your block is a correct application of ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Bluefield, it was very disappointing indeed that an editor who was violating every rule in the book took this action to have you blocked and that an administrator actually listened and acted. The consensus is finally that the material was violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:V and there's no doubt it was inside a WP:BLP. By any literal reading of the WP:BLP, you did the right thing. Please don't be disheartened as change happens slowly. As I said above, you just need to accept that 3RR has teeth and is a lot easier to enforce than BLP. ] (]) 08:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::How exactly was Verbal "violating every rule in the book"? And why exactly was the block wrong? BluefieldWV had been warned several hours before the block happened, but chose to ignore it. --] (]) 23:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see, I wasn't aware of that a warning had been given but even so, the policy is clear that material should be removed when a good faith editor objects to it and that 3RR doesn't apply when unsourced material is repeatedly re-inserted into a BLP. As you'll note I am not endorsing edit-warring, even if the BLP does state that it doesn't apply in this scenario. In fact, I believe that the BLP policy needs to be changed so that it no longer states that 3RR doesn't apply. I can't imagine any scenario where that advice could lead to any outcome other than the most unfortunate one where a good faith editor who was defending BLP ends up being blocked. Further, it would also stop a lot of edit warring disputes from occurring in the first place. ] (]) 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would advice that you take another look at this, then consider whether your statement about "unsourced material" is correct or not. Then think abit about why the request for unblock was refused. Perhaps you may even want to consider appologizing to Verbal. --] (]) 18:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: My statement about "unsourced material" is absolutely correct. You cannot support a statement by appealing to non-existent statements in an FAQ. Not asserting P is not the same as asserting not-P. Not listing an intention to publish as a goal of surfacestations.org at the FAQ is not the same as stating positively that there is no intention to publish. ] (]) 10:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well allow me to ignore 50% of the reverts as well, and ask you how is conservative ''not'' sourced? --] (]) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Its actually comical to see the way shit goes down around here. The notice board’s consensus was that the inclusion of the material was a violation of WP:BLP’s policy, and somehow I was still blocked and my appeal for an unblock was also rejected. “All BLP’s are equal, however some are more equal than others” should be the policy around this fucking asylum. ] (]) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Warning removed with apologies. <font color="green">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 17:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks! ] (]) 17:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Please please == | |||
| Please tell me you are accurately portraying these (very hard to find) sources ? Can you provide a copy? --] ] 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:48, 12 July 2010
Redirect to: