User talk:Antwerg

Welcome

Hello, Antwerg, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing an encyclopedia

Please note that we are writing an encyclopedia, and not casting tar on every person who has ever been accused of a crime. Content, both in article space and on talk pages about living people must be handled with great care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Material confirmed by the spokesman of the Metropolitan police and published in a reliable source by a named journalist has been supplied. If you wish to suppress the Jimmy Savile investigation from coverage here, your recommended action is to nominate the article on it for deletion.Antwerg (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material is not going to be added to the article because of WP:BLP issues. The benchmark would be coverage in reliable sources (BBC, broadsheet newspapers etc), not the blogs or obscure websites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was disclosed by just the manner of news source you desire, as well as the source that I've supplied. In all its publicised versions it's been made amply clear that no consideration has been given to laying a charge.Antwerg (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The story clearly and unambiguously identifies a claim of "guilt by association" of an unnamed actor. So if that is your best sourcing, you got a long way to go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source does not give his name. After what happened with Lord McAlpine and the landlord of Joanna Yeates, there is a clear potential for libel if a person is linked to something without being charged or convicted. This is why it is not in the article. This is not going into the article unless he is named in the mainstream media, which is unlikely to happen unless he is charged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I've supplied certainly does give the name: in the title, no less. Once again, as it says, it has been confirmed by the Metropolitan Police. Last I checked, WP:RS has not been renamed WP:Mainstream Media and the John Edwards extramarital affair and Monica Lewinsky sex scandal are two stories which came to awareness without any help from "mainstream media". Gee, and I here I was thinking that the issue with Lord Macalpine was that he was wrongly identified as another person.Antwerg (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of this came about because someone on Twitter named the person, probably after a leak from his friends in the police. There is a certain amount of inconsistency here, because it has been reported that other celebrities have been arrested. However, I could not find one mainstream UK media source which named the person here, which means that either the Attorney General for England and Wales asked them not to do it, or they took legal advice and were warned of the risk of libel if they did. Needless to say, people have been naming him freely in the blogs, although the mainstream Australian media did not, despite leaving little doubt about who it was. This leads to an issue with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Even if true and sourced, a Wikipedia article does not have to report if someone gave a negative breath test for drink driving. There is also an element of WP:RECENTISM here, and it would be a pity to give this undue weight when it appears that the mainstream UK media has decided not to name the person involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add the tweet was also deleted. There are screenshots of it, but the person who tweeted it has not done any further updates. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, we cannot allow such material to remain on the talk page, per WP:BLP. Further attempts to add it back will more than likely lead to a block.--ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate the section heading, Wikipedia is here to create an encyclopedia. We are not here to break the news, nor to fix everything bad in the world. We wait for other reliably reviewed sources to cover content and we attempt to present various content items in an article within the appropriate context and framework to reflect their importance in understanding the subject. If you want to do something other than that, you will need to find another forum such as a personal blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information has been published by a reliable news organisation of career professional journalists that has no track record of censure (no record of censure whatsoever) by the Press Complaints Commission in the UK or the courts in that country. The journalistic author discloses its source as the Metropolitan Police themselves. It is corroborated by your beloved lamestream media in essential aspects such that it begs the question to be put to you: are you holding to the view that its realistically possible that there were TWO prominent UK-based Australian entertainers both over the age of 80 which had their homes raided on the same day and were both interviewed under caution by the same police taskforce at the same time?Antwerg (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

The user Antwerg account was created two days ago so it is ok to have no idea how things are done at Wikipedia. However, the disruption has to stop, and if the fact that multiple experienced editors disagree with you is insufficient, and if you persist, this account will be blocked. It may be hard to grasp how a website that "anyone can edit" is also generally free from gossip and opinions from random Internet users. The reason is simple: experienced editors remove edits and talk page comments that violate policy. In the case in question, WP:BLP and WP:DUE state that we do not use accusations in articles, particularly of living people. The accusations are not even that—they are just reflections of the fact that of course the police have to interview everyone who knew people that are associated with a major crime, and all the article could say is that there are hundreds of people gossiping on the Internet, while media outlets are repeating same to boost sales. That is not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The update they have publicised makes no reference to gossip but to the official sources that were close to operational task force. You are making that up. Facts in it are corroborated from other sources (eg. the Daily Telegraph). Further there are no denials or corrections from the person or any other quarter that would tend to raise a doubt.Antwerg (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification Please see ANI where I have raised this matter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antwerg, Auroranews is not a reliable source. The fact that it has a well-constructed website does not make that any less true. The site has virtually no google presence, and it has literally zero cites in mainstream media. In other words, it does not "have a reputation for fact-checking". That said, the content you are trying to add is also absent from the mainstream media. The one source you offer retracted it. So, here is your final warning. We take biographies of living persons very seriously. If you add that content again, to any page, without a reliable source, you will be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish to assail the reputation of the news organisation take that up on the article talkpage where I have raised it with any examples of their having peddled false information which I, personally, am completely unaware of to date.Antwerg (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. As just the bright line rule you have already qualified for a block. The fact that your editwarring has been to insert material contrary to WP:BLP despite being warned several times is just frosting on the cake of your block if you foolishly decide to enter that content again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of 'edit warring' has no application to my act of supplying my own comment to talkpage discussion.Antwerg (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, WP:BLP applies to any Wikipedia page, including talk pages. Let's be clear about this, even if true, the material involved fails WP:BLP and WP:DUE. Talk pages should allow for freedom of discussion, but the consensus is that this material has issues that make it unsuitable for it to be added to Wikipedia. Unless a major news organization reports this, it will not be added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported by "major news organizations" ad infinitum. At the time, with the understandable benefit of forestalling other targets of the investigation from the knowledge that the investigation was closing in on them, the person's name was not reported. The task force has subsequently reported, making that no longer a consideration, and as the Aurora News article exemplifies .Antwerg (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are now going round in circles on this. None of the mainstream sources actually names the person, although in the best traditions of jigsaw identification they have left little doubt about who it is. WP:OR says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." It is worth looking at this Daily Mirror story which gives a good summary. it says that "TV criminologist Mark Williams-Thomas claimed the showbiz figure in the latest arrest was a children’s presenter, who cannot be named for legal reasons." Personally, I think that he needs a boot up the bum for doing this, but that is just my 2 cents' worth.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for anyone whose comments may have been mangled above. I have been removing the info as Antwerg is posting it here as well. BLP policy applies to user talkpages as well as article talkpages. Do not repost the info or name the person as you have been doing. Not only will you be blocked, but you may lose talk-page access as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 08:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked as a single purpose account that is here only to push for the inclusion of content that has been repeatedly revision-deleted as violating WP:BLP. You may be unblocked if you credibly indicate that you understand why that is problematic, and that you want to work on something different (and useful). Sandstein 08:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Max Semenik (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]