User:Ohiostandard/Workinprogress2: Difference between revisions

< User:Ohiostandard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:32, 14 April 2011 editOhiostandard (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,699 edits test← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:47, 15 April 2011 edit undoOhiostandard (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,699 edits testingNext edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:

	{{cob}}		{{cob}}


			== In a nutshell ==

			Rklawton and Collect are incensed that I reverted deletion of a "see also" link in an article dear to them both, ], and then proposed adding content supported by almost every major news outlet in America, and by multiple books as well. Rklawton responded by threatening to delete any critical content on sight, calling the impeccably sourced material "crap", "sensationalist crap", "nonsense", "gossip", "rumor", "bullshit", calling my action "dirty", "rotten", and "low-life", and calling me personally "sneaking", "disruptive", a "wikilawyer", a "clueless noob", and "an ass". His pal Collect, who has been trying to keep this and other critical content out , joined in and filed an entirely frivolous ] report claiming I had insulted the two of them. They both think this is perfectly proper behavior, and they've given the community every reason to believe that they plan to continue it.

			<u>A Proposal</u>:

			So far, no admin has been willing to intervene, presumably because Rklawton is an admin himself, and his fellow admins know any block against an admin is likely to be overturned immediately unless it has nearly overwhelming community support. I propose the community offer that support. More particularly, I propose that we either tell the truth and formally exempt administrators from our policies against article ownership, battleground behavior, and personal attacks, or that we affirm the following resolution.

			<u>Resolved</u>:

			"Rklawton should be blocked for 12 hours for battleground behavior and ongoing personal attacks, and should be article-banned from ] for ownership behavior for a period of one week. These sanctions should not be overturned without a consensus to do so that's as broadly-based as that under which they were imposed. Any continuation of the behaviors that led to these sanctions after they expire should be met with a progressively increasing or indefinite article ban."

			* '''Support''', as proposer.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:47, 15 April 2011

Article content question: Does BLP apply to someone dead 40 years?
Does BLP really apply to someone dead 40 years? Or are we onto "general" article status? 50? 100? Merrill Stubing (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC) I think it depends what the laws are in your nation. In some cases, even the dead have publicity and other rights, and in some cases these rights are inheritable. It is probably best to apply a BLP-like standard, but since the person is gone, they won't be really affected by things, but heirs or family might be hurt financially or emotionally. -- Avanu (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Publicity rights only deal with commercial uses of a name or likeness, such as to endorse a product. So it isn't a concern on Misplaced Pages any more than trademarks are. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Merrill, were you responding to the BLPish claims you'd seen on the talk page for our Prescott Bush article? Misplaced Pages's policy about the biographies of living persons only applies to living persons, in any case, although I agree we should be mindful of a subject's dignity, whether living or not. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Strictly, BLP itself refers only to living persons. However, remember that anything dealing with a deceased person could impact their living children or relatives. Reveal that someone 30 years dead had an affair, and you could cause harm to their 30 year old son, for example. Best to have good sources, living person or no. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Especially where the living descendant is wikilinked to the article, I would suppose, in your opinion. European law, which would only apply if any editor lives in Europe, appears more protective now of the dead than does US law. IMO, de mortuis is good practise. Collect (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Article content question: Does BLP apply to someone dead 40 years?

Does BLP really apply to someone dead 40 years?

Or are we onto "general" article status? 50? 100? Merrill Stubing (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends what the laws are in your nation. In some cases, even the dead have publicity and other rights, and in some cases these rights are inheritable. It is probably best to apply a BLP-like standard, but since the person is gone, they won't be really affected by things, but heirs or family might be hurt financially or emotionally. -- Avanu (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Publicity rights only deal with commercial uses of a name or likeness, such as to endorse a product. So it isn't a concern on Misplaced Pages any more than trademarks are. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Merrill, were you responding to the BLPish claims you'd seen on the talk page for our Prescott Bush article? Misplaced Pages's policy about the biographies of living persons only applies to living persons, in any case, although I agree we should be mindful of a subject's dignity, whether living or not. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Strictly, BLP itself refers only to living persons. However, remember that anything dealing with a deceased person could impact their living children or relatives. Reveal that someone 30 years dead had an affair, and you could cause harm to their 30 year old son, for example. Best to have good sources, living person or no. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Especially where the living descendant is wikilinked to the article, I would suppose, in your opinion. European law, which would only apply if any editor lives in Europe, appears more protective now of the dead than does US law. IMO, de mortuis is good practise. Collect (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Rklawton and Collect are incensed that I reverted this deletion of a "see also" link in an article dear to them both, Prescott Bush, and then proposed adding content supported by almost every major news outlet in America, and by multiple books as well. Rklawton responded by threatening to delete any critical content on sight, calling the impeccably sourced material "crap", "sensationalist crap", "nonsense", "gossip", "rumor", "bullshit", calling my action "dirty", "rotten", and "low-life", and calling me personally "sneaking", "disruptive", a "wikilawyer", a "clueless noob", and "an ass". His pal Collect, who has been trying to keep this and other critical content out for almost five years, joined in and filed an entirely frivolous WQA report claiming I had insulted the two of them. They both think this is perfectly proper behavior, and they've given the community every reason to believe that they plan to continue it.

A Proposal:

So far, no admin has been willing to intervene, presumably because Rklawton is an admin himself, and his fellow admins know any block against an admin is likely to be overturned immediately unless it has nearly overwhelming community support. I propose the community offer that support. More particularly, I propose that we either tell the truth and formally exempt administrators from our policies against article ownership, battleground behavior, and personal attacks, or that we affirm the following resolution.

Resolved:

"Rklawton should be blocked for 12 hours for battleground behavior and ongoing personal attacks, and should be article-banned from Prescott Bush for ownership behavior for a period of one week. These sanctions should not be overturned without a consensus to do so that's as broadly-based as that under which they were imposed. Any continuation of the behaviors that led to these sanctions after they expire should be met with a progressively increasing or indefinite article ban."

Support, as proposer. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)