User talk:123.243.76.19
March 2012
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
123.243.76.19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This IP was blocked for alleged innueudo regarding BLP of Bob Carr. What is alleged to be innuendo are actually statements of well referenced fact, that are clearly in the public interest and of historical note. It is a fact that Bob Carr accepted a position with a entity having extensive government commercial dealings just 10 weeks after leaving office. It is a fact that Carr's policies had generated extraordinary profits for that entity. It is a fact that ICAC had made recommendations against such post-separation employment and published a extensive discussion paper calling for legislative reform to prevent such risks of corruption. It is a fact that there were numerous media reports about the issues. It is a fact that the move was criticised by at least one opposition MP. It is a fact that Bob Carr had appointed the wife of that employer's chief executive as the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (no allegation regarding her conduct is made, but it bears relevance to the close associations between Carr/Macquarie/Moss and the fundamental conflict of the Commissioner to performing duties that may have required criticising her boss, her husband and/or his employer). It is extremely noteworthy that any and all criticism or potentially negative comments about Carr are being systematically erased. There is clear and obvious bias when a person of extensive public service is allowed no question of their record, or historical record of the criticism that exists is regarding their conduct. It is especially telling that the entirety of edits and content are being removed, without any identification of what elements are claimed to be innuendo. While no claims are made about rejection of any specific criticisms, there is substantial risk and likelihood that the political figure known as the 'Master of Spin' has paid PR professionals working to achieve such a perfectly unblemished public profile on Wikipedia, rather than genuine contributors. What would be innuendo is to note that like Bob Carr who graduated with a Bachelor of Art in History, the blocking admin's Wikipedia entries are almost exclusively History related (with an Australian focus) - Are you actually a sockpuppet Nick-D?
Decline reason:
All well and good and beside the point. To have your IP unblocked, you must demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and explain how you will modify your behavior to avoid issues like this in the future. You should not attempt to argue for article changes in an unblock request. Please read this guide and repost your request. Finally, accusing the blocking admin of being a sockpuppet is generally not a good idea. TNXMan 14:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
123.243.76.19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I accept and agree that the edit for which I was blocked can be improved to avoid inadvertent interpretation that acts of corruption necessarily occurred. Identifying facts that led to a situation of perceived conflict of interest was not intended as innuendo. The risk of such a perception of possible wrong-doing arising though, is actually a central issue and a precise reason such inappropriate conduct has been strongly criticised and recommended against by the independent commission, investigative journalists and others. I.e. to prevent such very questions having cause to arise from the facts. Such facts should not be deleted merely because they may create an appearance of impropriety. It is the facts themselves that cause such appearance, not the statement of those facts. It is the duty of those in leadership and public life to avoid such questionable behaviour, not the duty of independent observers to ensure a rosy picture is painted for them. I will concede that a clarifying statement can and should have been added to the effect of: "There is no evidence or substantiation of allegations that corrupt behaviour did actually occur." I assert that Nick-D's action of just deleting all my edits and blocking is in breach of Wikipedia DR policy Wikipedia:DR#Focus_on_content "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."
Decline reason:
The block has expired. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Wikipedia isn't the place to push innuendo or pursue your political interests. Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your automatic assumption that I am pursuing a political interest is completely unsubstantiated and I think indicates a probable bias on your behalf. The unfounded allegation is offensive. My only political affiliation or interest is as a citizen dependent that provision of it's services are made independently and in the public interest first. Carr resigned government at a time when he was under heavy public criticism (e.g. for poor transport services) and the coming election looked unwinnable with him as leader. Absolutely none of that huge amount of public criticism has remained in his public record on Wikipedia. What does remain now appears as pure advocacy, progaganda, promotion and political advertising. Hardly neutral, and smacking of all the issues "Wikipedia isn't the place for" on WP:SOAPBOX. Even if I were to say it quacks, has feathers and swims in water and you assume it's a duck, that's up to you. Whether it's a duck or not, it's not innuendo just for the fact that I state what is known and don't state whether or not it's a duck. It's fair that I imply if you're not a duck, then it's not a good idea to quack, wear feathers and swim in water when you're warned by independent regulators, etc. If you do so anyway (while getting paid $500,000 to swim with ducks and $130,000 not to be a duck at the same time), people still have the right to say "look he quacks, wears feathers and swims with ducks". Banning someone for providing neutral, well sourced statements of fact and wholesale deletion of self-evident corrections, accurate source references, etc. seems far more like pushing an agenda and pursuing a political interest. User:123.243.76.19
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)- Blocked for adding basically the same innuendo and smears to the Bob Carr article as soon as the previous block expired in clear breach of the core policy WP:BLP, not to mention WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. This block duration is set at one month in recognition of the fact that any registered accounts would be blocked for an indefinite period for such conduct. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
123.243.76.19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The blocking admin has provided no explanation, justification, information or communication to support his initial or subsequent claims of policy breach, even to educate on policy or otherwise that a new user was blocked. My appeal was open (not declined) when the block expired and the claimed "basically the same" material, actually had extremely significant and material changes, including proposed changes to address the admin's prior claim of innuendo. The claim of "innuendo" requires "indirect intimation". The edits make a very direct, open and evidenced statement that Bob Carr acted to place himself in a position of clear conflict of interest. This statement is consistent with discussion paper guidance from the Independent Commissioner's paper (The Hon B S J O'Keefe AM QC), previous Ministerial Codes of Conduct, numerous public media reports, etc. The criticism is fair and consistent with WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Publishing well sourced, fair and known criticism of politicians in Wikipedia does not constitute breach of WP:BLP and has strong precedent. Warranted criticism does not equate to "smear". Additional material was added to alleviate the blocking admins claim of innuendo and this constructive rectification is now being used to reblock under claim of WP:UNDUE weight. Regarding WP:SYNTH claim; the material cites "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" making it entirely consistent. No alternative facts have been provided that would establish a lack of NPOV, or constructive recommendations for change provided. The blocking admin is in breach of WP:BP#Preliminary:_Education_and_warnings for failing to provide explanation and warnings (of any sort) prior or after blocking, and WP:BP#Explanation_of_blocks for failing to substantiate his claims or reply to offers/examples suggesting how the material could be improved. He is also in breach of WP:BLP#Summary_deletion.2C_creation_prevention.2C_and_courtesy_blanking and Wikipedia:DR#Focus_on_content for summary deletion without an attempt at improvement, including deletion of unrelated, self-evident corrections (such as heading "After state politics (2005..." instead of 2006). The admin has a substantial personal contribution record in Australian History, is a member of WP:WikiProject_Australian_politics and is blocking in a subject area with which he is involved in, in breach of WP:BP#Conflicts_of_interest (not to mention sharing specialist hobbies / interests / subject matter expertise with the subject person). The admin's block was based on the claim of "pursuing political interests", which is entirely unsubstantiated (actually the opposite is more likely true), suggesting an impartial assessment and jumping to conclusions indicative of strong feelings on a hot political topic, breaching WP:INVOLVED. The duration of the block would only be appropriate for intentional, clear and gross violation of Wikipedia policies. My attempts to understand, rectify and seek guidance on how any policy was breached and how to avoid it, is clear in my unblock request (declined due to block expiry) and my talk replies above; to which I have been re-blocked without a reply or substantiation. In any case, this entire matter could have been taken to Talk:Bob_Carr, instead of attempting to silence first.
Decline reason:
Clearly required block based on the contributions, and rather than address the concerns as per WP:GAB, the editor is misquoting and misunderstanding policy. With the added vitriol and attacks, it is obvious that the blocking admin is correct in preventing disruption. Thanks to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and that it is obvious that this won't change, I am removing access to this talkpage for the duration of this block. Wikipedia follows WP:CONSENSUS and is intended to be a collegial atmosphere - learn that during the next month (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Inappropriate content WP:UNDUE. College of scholarly discourse & mentoring? Might look like black-bagging & 'guy-with-the-gun' consensus. 121.91.89.172 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi BWilkins,
I appreciate the further input.
My query to Nick-D about possible sock-puppetry is withdrawn.
I was surprised that Nick-D's original block was applied with no information apart from a WP:BLP link in the template User_talk:123.243.76.19&oldid=482155204.
Without knowing further what his actual concern(s) were, it was difficult to know how to address them. As a new user and a first incident, to be blocked without discussion, explanation, warning or advice, I felt this wasn't particularly an act of good faith. Nevertheless, I was somewhat hasty to jump to a query of sock-puppetry against Nick-D, and he should have still received my assumption of good faith regardless.
The next day, this hint was posted - "Wikipedia isn't the place to push innuendo or pursue your political interests. Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP".
Queries in my unblock request weren't answered and I received no further information or discussion regarding:
(1) whether I had correctly interpreted the blocking admin's concern. (2) opinion on my proposal for correction.
On that basis, I added content which I'd attempted to substantially modify to address the concern as perceived. I was then reblocked for a month (and told it deserved indef block). I had agreed there was a concern with the initial content, and this was acknowledged by TnxMn301. There was no view provided on the modified content, including whether it was "basically the same" as asserted. I'm not sure whether I was expected to assume his silence as ongoing objection. If the content had been disagreed between two editors, a simple revert would have been enough to indicate that consensus wasn't established and discussion could have moved politely to Talk:Bob_Carr for resolution, or seeking others opinions. Instead, blocks were always applied before discussion. This was and remained my contention.
I propose that we deescalate this and seek community consensus on the content and how to resolve the WP:UNDUE issue via Talk:Bob_Carr. I would appreciate if you may provide positive confirmation, or state your objection.
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
December 2012
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Trailblazer Project has been reverted.
Your edit here to Trailblazer Project was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqN59beaFMI) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |