Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 12 October 2009

BLP and Patrick Michaels

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? --TS 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Patrick Michaels

Your current editing at Patrick Michaels is completely unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EW, including the three-revert rule. Use the talk page to work this issue out. You risk being blocked if this behavior continues. Oren0 (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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 WP:BLPN? Oren0 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your message. I replied on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 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 WP:SPA 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Watts

Regarding this edit. Perhaps you should take some time and actually read the reference instead of assuming? Watts ran as a conservative (Quote emphasis mine: But the race took a turn when conservative candidate Anthony Watts opted out last week, saying there was “not enough Anthony to go around.”) - and that isn't opinion - it is a fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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 here, 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) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey look at that, you found a reliable source. Now go put it in the article. BluefieldWV (talk) 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 WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Anthony Watts

You've broken the WP:3RR rule on Anthony Watts, i suggest that you revert yourself, and be more careful in the future. Also consider using the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

its a BLP issue and not subject to 3RR ... or thats my understanding. BluefieldWV (talk) 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 seeMisplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR). 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. --BozMo talk 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? BluefieldWV (talk) 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: version reverted to - 1st 2nd
• Set B: original version reverted to - 3rd 4th

Which is clearly 4 reverts within 24 hours on the same article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Its BLP related, and not covered under 3RR. BluefieldWV (talk) 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). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. --BozMo talk 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? BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --BozMo talk 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. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly in your view makes it opinion, instead of news-reporting? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsreporting is void of opinion is it? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Try not moving the goal-posts and answer the question instead? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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? BluefieldWV (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Re : please see WP:NPA William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean as it applies to this kind of edit? A model Wikipedian and fine example to others you are. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --BozMo talk 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. ATren (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, happiness is congratulating another conservative edit warrior on removing well-sourced content from Misplaced Pages, isn't it? — goethean ॐ 21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)