Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::] is making a valid point, and I thank her for it: she confirms facts which I have attempting to make, it angers those, such as herself, in Misplaced Pages's upper echelons when the project is asked to hold itself accountable for the actions of those it has raised up. Risker is also correct: I am furious that an article I care about can repeat damaging allegations about a living person, but not strongly stress those allegations are completely unproven. It is also a fact of life that in a written article, a company is frequently linked with its chief executive, founder or owner, or is it that Misplaced Pages is of such unique, global importance it needs no introduction or references? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::] is making a valid point, and I thank her for it: she confirms facts which I have attempting to make, it angers those, such as herself, in Misplaced Pages's upper echelons when the project is asked to hold itself accountable for the actions of those it has raised up. Risker is also correct: I am furious that an article I care about can repeat damaging allegations about a living person, but not strongly stress those allegations are completely unproven. It is also a fact of life that in a written article, a company is frequently linked with its chief executive, founder or owner, or is it that Misplaced Pages is of such unique, global importance it needs no introduction or references? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Giano dear, the chief executive of the WMF is ]. That you're so intimately aware of Jimmy Wales's social life concerns me somewhat (although surely not nearly as much as it might concern Wales or his family), but you have no sources at all that suggest that his social circle had anything to do with the wikipedia-related allegations involving the article subject. ] (]) 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Giano dear, the chief executive of the WMF is ]. That you're so intimately aware of Jimmy Wales's social life concerns me somewhat (although surely not nearly as much as it might concern Wales or his family), but you have no sources at all that suggest that his social circle had anything to do with the wikipedia-related allegations involving the article subject. ] (]) 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::*Thank you ] for your telling observation. However, I clearly said "''chief executive, founder or owner''"; what I clearly did not say was that "''his social circle had anything to do with the wikipedia-related allegations.''" You really must try not to read things between the lines which are clearly not there. Since you mention it first though, I do feel as Jimmy Wales is the high profile public face of Misplaced Pages, his very widely reported acquaintanceships with leading members of the Labour party ought to make it imperative that these allegations are not left to hang in thin air for the good of all concerned. You and I both know that Mr Wales is not only the public face of Misplaced Pages; he's also straight as a dye; however, unlike you, I am old enough and ugly enough to know that others possibly may be less kind in their assumptions. One can't help seriously wondering, Risker, if you have spent too long at the cosy heart of the exclusive Wiki-family and have ceased to be as objective and PR-focused as once you were. I really don't see the problem with Misplaced Pages officially announcing the allegations are true or false, or does the integrity of the project no longer matter. There's also a moral obligation to the subject of these allegations - or are Wikipedians now above moral obligations. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
None of your reverts was an exception to WP:3RR. After the block expires pls discuss your edits with the opponents by means different than the edit summaries.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I feel very strongly about this and am quite happy to remain blocked for it. However, it is difficult to know which of the facts I wrote are so disputed by Misplaced Pages: A former Arb, Admin functionary with access to most of the queues on our email system who is also a member of Wikimedia UK used knowledge gained from his Misplaced Pages privileges to publicly denounce, in the British national press, a politician standing in the national election taking place on Thursday. It now seems having caused a national shitstorm to rage over this politician's head that there is little if any concrete evidence to substantiate these claims. Worryingly, it seems this lack of evidence must not be reported on Misplaced Pages, nor must it be reported that Misplaced Pages is investigating this admin's claims. Similarly, Misplaced Pages forbids it to be mentioned that the project has, to date, been unable to substantiate or disprove these claims. The former Arb at the center of this also claims to have consulted other senior Wikipedians - who are they - until we know, a lot of people will unavoidably fall under suspicion.
I also pointed out that our high profile founder (living in London) is known to be acquainted with many Labour politicians; I draw no conclusions from that, I'm quite sure he's beyond reproach; but possibly others may draw other conclusions, therefore, it seems to me that it is essential that to retain the integrity of Misplaced Pages, the project either proves or refutes these allegations or at least makes it very clear that they are unproven before Britain goes to the poles on Thursday. I am sorry if others find that unreasonable. To me, it seems only fair. Misplaced Pages should stay above politics. Giano(talk)13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Giano, I mention the name of the article here since the blocking admin didn't, and your editing of Grant Shapps concerns a matter relevant to Misplaced Pages governance. I can't really blame User:Mariamullins for reverting your original edit here, since you had only sourced the bit about Jimbo being close to leading figures in the Labour Party, not the rest of your sentence (which was the most important part). But once you had added a link to the arbitration case in your second edit, I've no idea why she and others kept reverting you, calling it "opinion" and "soapboxing". It looks like fact to me. Here, I see Mariamullins reverting you again, with the same edit summary as her first revert: "opinion and unsupported by the linked article". That edit summary made sense the first time, when you had only one source, not the second time, when you had two. What about it, Maria, did you not see that there were two sources the second time? Ymblanter, you blocked without comment at AN3; yes, Giano had violated the 3RR rule, and we know it's a "bright line"; but don't you think the actions of the reverting users worth remarking on at all? Bishonen | talk18:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, you're an admin and you really think that a link to Misplaced Pages arbcom case is an appropriate reference?! Especially a case that is being held in camera, and has not yet been decided, so there is nothing to see on the case page but the statements of various Misplaced Pages editors. BabelStone (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I left a justification at AN3, just to reiterate now that I blocked the user for five reverts, not for the content of the reverts which may be good or bad. The piece contained two sources, one of them RS, and need to be properly discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
If I may chime in Giano, I think part of the problem could perhaps be said to be that you didn't use an edit summary in the first couple of edits. Had you described exactly what you were doing/why you were doing it, it is possible that you would've had more support/less opposition. Far from a guarantee, but a possibility. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
So in general we disqualify Misplaced Pages as a reliable source. But the guideline goes on to say:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; The article is not based primarily on such sources. - Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources #Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Now, unless you can show that Giano's cite breaches one of those five criteria, it is clear that a relevant Misplaced Pages ArbCom page can be used as a source about Misplaced Pages ArbCom. Have a think about that and consider whether you owe 'Shonen an apology. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all for your support (or lack of). However, at the moment I have no wish to be unblocked and edit a project of which I feel thoroughly ashamed to be associated with. Editors such as the admin concerned are picked up, given ridiculous amounts of authority with no idea how to use it or maintain the ethics associated with such power, and then when they cock up are dropped like red hot potatoes and hung out to dry - who takes responsibility for appointing these people to such authority? No one. Politicians, rightly or wrongly, are defamed on the eve of major elections, and who takes responsibility or even cares? No one. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages is just yet another lawless, ungoverned and unaccountable internet site which makes up its rules according to whim and passing political persuasion. Giano(talk)19:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoa .. hang on a second. Obviously I'm late to the party, and I'm just a dumb American, but apparently there's an issue here. I see this:
Indeed, I will add now the remark. There were three reverting users, now of whom crossed 3RR's--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
And that tells me that the issue is not with an individual user, but it's a page protection issue. That's "admin 101". Ymblanter, you may want to rethink your approach here. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight, but it's pretty obvious, and document-able with our WP:RS that there are issues here. If Giano can/does document a BLP something, and he's proven it with refs ... it becomes a real issue when we try to hush that up. Let's not play the "we can't say that on wiki" game please. — Ched : ? 05:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Ughhh ... I'm looking here, and I'm just seeing the surface. I have no idea what to say here. There is SOOO much being done behind closed doors, and an admin. comes in and blocks for someone who posts what is public knowledge. Block me now if you must, but I'm going to say it outright onwiki ... what you did was one of the asinine knee-jerk things I've seen in a long time. You say 3 other people are violating ... yet I don't see you blocking them. Your actions are reprehensible. You should be blocked for your partisan and foolish actions. — Ched : ? 05:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with what you write. For the record, I never do anything behind closed door, I am never on IRC or smth. I was patrolling AN3 as I always do. I checked that there was an edit warring in which one user made five reverts, and three other users each one to two reverts. I blocked the user with five, checking first that their reverts are not an exception listed in 3RR. I have never heard about any of these four users before the incident. What I have done was strictly within policies. In the future, before leaving such posts, you may want to learn assuming good faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
First apologies for stepping in between Risker's post. I wasn't saying YOU did or said anything behind closed doors, only that there are developments going ON behind closed doors. Yes, you can stand behind the "revert" thing, and document it. I simply feel that blocking rather than protecting a volatile page was a very poor choice. All things considered,, I think you made a VERY poor choice. — Ched : ? 06:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to be the exception here. First off, there are third party sources that refer to the current investigation; there's no need to reference Misplaced Pages pages, and frankly it's rather silly and terribly self-referential. In fact, it's the kind of think Giano would make fun of if someone else did it. More importantly, though, he was adding information completely irrelevant to the article subject - it's about Grant Shapps, not Jimmy Wales, and there is absolutely no link between Jimmy Wales, his wedding, and Grant Shapps. It was a BLP violation on so many levels it isn't even funny - and again it is exactly the kind of editing that Giano would be furious about if it had occurred on an article he cared about. I'm quite disappointed that Giano succumbed to the idea that it would create some sort of internal outrage about the situation. It hasn't. Risker (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Risker, I think you know how much I respect you ... but I'm going to disagree with some points. How on earth is posting document-able facts a BLP violation. Pointy - yes, that's a given. But in this day and age, no. You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar .. you pay the price. Misplaced Pages should never be a platform for political gain ... regardless of country. — Ched : ? 06:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh ... and - I would say that it IS an article that Giano cares about. Oherwise he wouldn't have bothered editing it. I'm not trying to be a jerk (even though it's something I excel at), I'm just saying that "he doesn't care about the article" comment is not valid. — Ched : ? 06:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Ched, why in heaven's name do you think that Jimmy Wales's wedding plans are suitable for publishing in the article about a politician who had nothing to do with them? Why do you think it was at all suitable to include references to Jimmy Wales at all in that article? And...well, bottom line, the reason there is an arbcom case is because there are serious, serious questions about whether or not the article subject did indeed have his hand in the cookie jar. Giano, as to you, I'm not ticked off that you're trying to prove a point; I'm ticked off that you're trying to do it in an article about a living person by implying that another living person was instrumental in skewering the article subject. Make all the points you want in Misplaced Pages space, or other places, but not in articles. Having generally respected Wikipedians screwing around with content that way pretty much devalues the entire project. So yes, I'm angry that you're messing around with articles. One of my better defenses of some of your points was that you didn't screw up articles to get your point across. I can no longer say that. Risker (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Risker is making a valid point, and I thank her for it: she confirms facts which I have attempting to make, it angers those, such as herself, in Misplaced Pages's upper echelons when the project is asked to hold itself accountable for the actions of those it has raised up. Risker is also correct: I am furious that an article I care about can repeat damaging allegations about a living person, but not strongly stress those allegations are completely unproven. It is also a fact of life that in a written article, a company is frequently linked with its chief executive, founder or owner, or is it that Misplaced Pages is of such unique, global importance it needs no introduction or references? Giano(talk)08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Giano dear, the chief executive of the WMF is Lila Tretikov. That you're so intimately aware of Jimmy Wales's social life concerns me somewhat (although surely not nearly as much as it might concern Wales or his family), but you have no sources at all that suggest that his social circle had anything to do with the wikipedia-related allegations involving the article subject. Risker (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Risker for your telling observation. However, I clearly said "chief executive, founder or owner"; what I clearly did not say was that "his social circle had anything to do with the wikipedia-related allegations." You really must try not to read things between the lines which are clearly not there. Since you mention it first though, I do feel as Jimmy Wales is the high profile public face of Misplaced Pages, his very widely reported acquaintanceships with leading members of the Labour party ought to make it imperative that these allegations are not left to hang in thin air for the good of all concerned. You and I both know that Mr Wales is not only the public face of Misplaced Pages; he's also straight as a dye; however, unlike you, I am old enough and ugly enough to know that others possibly may be less kind in their assumptions. One can't help seriously wondering, Risker, if you have spent too long at the cosy heart of the exclusive Wiki-family and have ceased to be as objective and PR-focused as once you were. I really don't see the problem with Misplaced Pages officially announcing the allegations are true or false, or does the integrity of the project no longer matter. There's also a moral obligation to the subject of these allegations - or are Wikipedians now above moral obligations. Giano(talk)17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Giano: Difference between revisions
Add topic
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BabelStone (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
