Talk:Will Fowles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Re-insertion of contentious material regarding arrest

@SpringStreetUpdates, you have now edited to re-insert contentious material that has previously been removed twice. Please note that WP:BLP states "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment”. Given that no charges were laid and no conviction obtained it is more than enough to state that there was an accusation of serious assualt and that the police later stated that no charges would be laid. Any further addition of material is gratuitous and a WP:BLP violation.
Given that the material in question has been removed WP:BLPUNDEL applies, which states "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first".
You need to obtain consensus prior to reinserting anything similar to this material again. This is not optional. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the arrest was reported widely by media outlets from a police statement. It was a significant event relating to the subject of the article. It is not contentious that the arrest occurred. It is a fact, not a claim to be debated. Removing this fact from the article creates an information gap. The information that you added to the article, to state that no charges would be pursued does not make sense without the context of a police investigation or an arrest having occurred.

I have now looked at the edit history of the article page and can see that you have been active in removing neutral, factual, notable information on multiple occasions. Are you the subject of this article, or acting on behalf of this person, in order to game Wikipedia? SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Accusing TarnishedPath of being biased and “gaming Wikipedia” is extremely poor form. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider such a statement. TarnishedPath has been editing appropriately for 17 years, and is totally correct in taking this discussion to the talk page. Read WP:AGF as well as WP:BLP. GraziePrego (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @GraziePrego, I have no issue with this discussion being on the article's talk page, I agree that is appropriate for the recurring removal of content from this article to be addressed.

I note that along with @TarnishedPath you have also been active in removing neutral, factual, notable information on multiple occasions. Are you the subject of this article, or acting on behalf of this person, to game Wikipedia? SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpringStreetUpdates, perhaps read WP:BLP to try and understand why editors might be editing in a certain way prior to launching into unsubstantiated accusations. It's really not helpful to go about accusing people of having conflicts of interest when you have no evidence. You need to assume good faith. TarnishedPath^talk 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is repeated editorial behaviour which goes against Wikipedia's purpose - directed at a specific article. I suggest you consider WP:BLPUNDEL, which states "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". @TarnishedPath you are continually removing undisputed facts that are based on extremely reliable sources. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If you believe you have evidence that I am engaged in misbehaviour take it to WP:AN/I and you'll find out how that works out for you. Otherwise I suggest you drop the accusations, because they're not going to get you anywhere. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

These are not accusations but statements highlighting chronic misbehavior on this article. This information belongs on the talk page for this article so that it is visibile to other editors and users of wikipedia. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond further unless you have anything productive to write. Note: you've been advised of WP:BLPUNDEL and your obligation to obtain consensus. If you restore the material without obtaining consensus I will take you to WP:AE. TarnishedPath^talk 04:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof for your reasoning to repeatedly remove notable facts is on you @TarnishedPath. It is also unclear why a veteran editor would be suggesting WP:AE when WP:DR would be the more appropriate step. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, it is certainly an unpleasant surprise to also be accused of editing in a "gaming" way, or of being Will Fowles (this one is quite funny as well as being unpleasant, though.). I think a quick look through my many contributions should make it pretty clear I'm here to improve Wikipedia as a whole in many areas.

Secondly, interesting that you mention WP:DR, @SpringStreetUpdates- is this your first Wikipedia account? I find it quite odd that a user with only 3 days of experience would immediately offer an opinion on which method of dispute resolution is superior. GraziePrego (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia but competent with this material. That is a good segue to say that as a new user with no interest in this specific article, that this is beyond my interest and capabilities to continue with attempting to edit anything related to this notable content which is repeatedly being removed.

I would prefer to continue my energy constructively in Wikipedia on my subject matter of interest. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, this quote directly supports @TarnishedPath's actions, not yours. TarnishedPath has acted absolutely properly. The content has been deleted "on good-faith BLP objections", as provided by TarnishedPath. You then correctly state that the next course of action is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Not sure what you're complaining about, and I don't see how you can so clearly misunderstand something you are yourself quoting. GraziePrego (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpringStreetUpdates, I suggest reflect on Grazie's advice. What you've written so far is not likely to lead to any understanding between anyone. TarnishedPath^talk 03:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)