Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 22 May 2009 (→Wikifan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPPJ-BLP

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Responded to your comment on Tim Burton

Hi. I had some feedback on your comment. And a suggestion about modifying the article. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff again

Hi Kevin - Theo789 is back, ignoring consensus and editing as he pleases. He's quoted you in support of his position on neutrality on the talk page - I don't know if you agree with him or not, but I figure it's best if you speak for yourself and decide where you want your comments posted, so I figured I'd mention it here. Meanwhile, any suggestions about how to get him to understand how things work around here? He doesn't seem to have learned from his block, not surprisingly. Thanks Tvoz/talk 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

José Reyes (shortstop)

Protection was, as Wknight observed, unjustified here, even under the most liberal interpretation of our protection policy, and I have no doubt that a consensus for unprotection will be borne out at RFPP. It is only right, though, that I offer you the opportunity to unprotect; please let me know (here is fine) when you've a moment whether you will unprotect or whether you'd prefer that I take the issue to RFPP in order that a broader discussion might be had. Thanks, 68.76.147.212 (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected, we'll see how it goes. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - 4 vandalism attacks since unprotection occurred.--VS 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much as I expected. Also interesting is that the 3 articles I have noticed being unprotected by request are all sports people. Kevin (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep me too. For this one I almost re-protected (even outside of our work at Lar's page vandalism is pretty well at the excessive level IMO). I left it because of the discussion you had had and the fact that others were also reverting - nevertheless I'd be happy to protect again if the same types of edits continue.--VS 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection was clearly justified. Vandalism continues, and it's taking an excessive amount of time for it to be reverted. Enigma 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It already meets my criteria for re-protection, but I'm waiting for the vandals to make me a stronger case. Kevin (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related note...

Could you also unprotect the Larry Bird article? I looked over the history, and it's not like there's like 7 IP's vandalising the article every day!! I've seen articles getting locked up until 2010 here...you might be interested in reading my subpage about this. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the vandalism level was lower than that, but was still significant. Out of interest, what level do you think would be acceptable? Kevin (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, protection is justified only if multiple IP's every day for at least 48 hours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlp1991 (talk • contribs)

I totally disagree when we are talking about living people, but we'll see what happens now I have unprotected. Hopefully better than the one above. Kevin (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so good. Enigma 21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abtract's arbitration enforcement

How is this an interaction between User:Abtract and User:Alastair_Haines? The diff does not indicate that it is a violation of the arbitration (although it could be -- the complainant should have included a second diff showing that though). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration remedy defined interaction as Abtract editing or reverting an article that AH had recently edited. This is what the diff shows. As this was after several previous blocks for breaching the same remedy, I took a broad view of "interaction". Kevin (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The diff shows that Abtract and EGMichaels recently edited. The article's edit history (which the complainant did not include) shows the most recent edit by AH is three months old, and AH's edits then were reverted by other editors, not Abtract. (I'm also not sure that broadening the definition of interaction is needed here either, but that's beside my primary question.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

? (Four months, not three months.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that the block was appropriate, but perhaps you should seek the opinion of another WP:AE regular? Kevin (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to unblock him myself, but I thought I would check with you first. Is there a reason for blocking him, or is the arbitration enforcement to become "to never edit an article that AH has ever edited"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I though I had made my reasons clear, but go ahead and unblock if you really want to. I suggest re-opening the WP:AE request also if you do. Kevin (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason you gave was that the diff provided shows Abtract editing or reverting an article that AH had recently edited. The diff doesn't show any editing by AH, and the article history shows that AH's most recent edits were from January (not recent) and reverted by other editors (no interaction from Abtract). Right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that Abtract was gaming the system by making that edit, and that the block was appropriate. As I have already said. As I also said I have used my interpretation of the remedy, and if your is different you may unblock. Kevin (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan

Kevin, there seems to be no talking sense to Wikifan on the ElBaradei article. We've all tried, but to no avail. It seems like a waste of time. I'm ready to give up. NPguy (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I hear your frustration. I'm not ready to give up yet though. Kevin (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kevin I've responded to your post a few edits up and would hope you respond in kind. NPguy, I've done the same for you. You've held on to the inaccuracy that the coverage has been limited to Israeli-based media and interests. I devoted 3 well-crafted paragraphs explaining to you simply why that is a complete falsehood. Overall, I'd say I've been the one "talking sense." I always use policy and sources to back up my rationale. Everything I say is supported by available information. Not opinion, not agenda, just what is out there. I do agree, however that this is a major waste of time and am disappointed that the discussion has not followed a more-strict path of policy instead of relying on every user's POV regardless if it conflicts with reliable sources and standard (and indisputable) policies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this "strict path of policy" you mention? Multiple editors have said that policies are open to some interpretation and require editorial judgement to implement. Those same editors have also said that their opinion is that the El Baradei-Israel connection does not warrant it's own section. Your continued repeating of the same arguments in the face of this opposition seems to me to be tendentious editing. I think you should consider accepting the opinion of the majority, and let us move on. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

By strict path policy, I mean justifying extreme disputes and accusations with policy and accurate information. For example, many statements directed at my posts were rather short-sighted and factually inaccurate. The following accusations were made by NPguy, IP, and you:

• The sources are editorials and are therefore not reliable or relevant - Wrong. The sources are not editorials, or "op-eds" as many users like to say. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter, at least not to the degree of completely ignoring them.

• The information is predominantly covered by only Israel-based media and has not been followed by "world media" - Wrong as well. Reliable mainstream sources from North America to Australia published unique stories on ME/Israel.

• The sources are criticism of ME and therefore violate policy x. Wrong again. The information is not characterized by POV or individual arguments. The reports are objective and generally factual, those who interpret criticism or negatives does not mean the sources themselves qualify as critical opinion. Though it might paint a bad/good (depending on who you are) image of ME, it still has nothing to do with criticism policy.

• BLP policies are subject to interpretation by editors. Wrong, with exceptions. The 3 core policies of BLP: NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR are policies. They are generally-accepted standards and are not meant to be a guide (and therefore prone to interpretation) by users. If I remember correctly, you referred to the policies as a guide and are allowed to be "interpreted."

It is you who has engaged in, or acted indifferent towards, tendentious editing. Not a single user has confronted or remotely approached the policies and sources I listed. I am not arguing users do not believe a unique section is warranted. I've been explaining why that is wrong. Whatever repetition you've assumed is likely the product of me simply repeating arguments that went unrecognized or unseen. Even so, I still responded to off-topic and red-herring accusations, which derailed discussions and forced us back. If you could please examine the sections I linked in "random section break" and come back with a dispute that goes beyond "user x, x, and x believes a unique section is not warranted" please do. I've requested you do this 4 times now. Take your time. :D If you have a specific dispute, please quote it in exact-form. If you deny the violations/accusations I mentioned above the have been asterisked, list them now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)