User talk:DHeyward/Archive 3

Welcome to the AMA! :-)

Hello, I'm Steve Caruso, the Acting Coordinator from the Association of Members' Advocates. I saw your message on my talk page and noticed that you've placed your username on the Wikipedia:AMA Members page, so I wanted to welcome you to the AMA! :-) It is wonderful to see another editor who is willing to help our fellow Wikipedians resolve disputes. This experience is ultimately rewarding, and usually only requires two ears to be a good listener with. :-)

At this point, I strongly suggest that you take a good look over the Guide to Advocacy and the AMA Handbook to get a handle on what we do here in the AMA, as well as subscribe to the AMA Alerts board so that you can stay in touch with the Association. :-) If you come across anything that you think should be in these documents, be bold. :-)

At this particular point in time, we have actually abolished our backlog (I cannot believe that this has happened :-) ) so there aren't any cases that need immediate attention. Where you could be used most is over at our Meeting page, where we are discussing where the AMA currently is and where we see it going in the future.

If at any time either on or off a case that you have a question or come up against a problem, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. No matter how big or small an issue or question may be, I'm here to help and I've got your back. :-)

Once again welcome and good luck! :-)

Looking forward,

אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA Member Page

For the sake of my (admittedly OCD) needs for alphabetical order, I'm moving your entry in the AMA Members list. I hope you don't mind, and I wanted to give you a heads up. Welcome! --\/\/slack (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tbeatty 23:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Swiftboating

They really hate being swiftboated (conservative meaning), eh? :) Crockspot 11:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gil Gutknecht

Hello. I was confused by a footnote which you inserted in this article[1] so I took it out. I thought it was in error but on rethinking it I realized it may have been meant to take that form. My apologies if that was the case. Kablammo 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was to take that form. I rewrote it as people keep getting confused as to what the pledge was. The pledge was the contract with america pledge which called for a vote on term limits in the first 100 days. It was fulfilled.--Tbeatty 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OR?

You altered the content I had added to fit your interpretation and wrote this as your edit summary "This was OR as it was an interpretation (and a wrong one at that)". Uh-huh my edit is OR, yet your interpetation is accurate, you don't even have a source to back up your claim. Are you an apologist for or member of the group? --Inahet 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am neither. It is obviously parody just like every other sign on their side. You can remove all of it if you wish but you may not leave your incorrect interpretation.

Let's look at another sign so you understand parody:

here. "Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, War has never solved anything."

is then your interpretation that PW is peace group and oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? I hope not because that is the same kind of parody/ridicule of a position. --Tbeatty 05:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Lifetime Channel Page "vandalism"

You have accused me of "vandalizing" this page. Not only is that not true, it makes no sense. The history tab shows the history of every edit to a page. I have no edited that page. --69.249.195.232 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This IP address did vandalize that page. Check user contributions. --Tbeatty 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Wasn't it? And swift boating is patriotic. And Max Cleland is Osama. And freedom is slavery. And ignorance is strength. And war is peace. And arbeit macht frei. What wonderous times we live in, when lies are truth. Derex 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What lies? It comes down to what is "truth." Politics is a giant shade of gray. You can believe that all the swift boat veterans were evil liars or you can believe that maybe they believed what they said and did. I believe we are more free then we ever have been. I believe we are at war now so we don't have to fight a bigger, bloodier war later. That's not peace but it's better than the alternative. Reasonable people can disagree and that does not make them ignorant. Nor does it make them weak. Personally I believe you are pretty well-informed yet we disagree politically (and I don't think we disagree because I am ignorant). There are also other people on WP who are not well informed from all sides of the political spectrum. Some will take a contrarian position to Bush just because it's Bush. Some will attack Kerry just because. That's not very well-informed.

As for Bernard Goldberg, I am not surprised he sees himself as a Kennedy liberal. A lot of people of his generation see themselves that way. Some are called Reagan Democrats and that's why I was sceptical of the "conservative" label. In any case, when I first started editing Wikipedia, Gamaliel reverted every label I ever put and I didn't understand why as it seemed pretty self evident (e.g. "liberal media watchdog group Media Matters"). He didn't have an issue with labels of conservative groups or people but I understand that as well. I eventually understood what he meant and what his standard is and I agree with it. There is no objective standard of political labels so either they are self-identified or they are the opinion of a (sourcable) third-party. Gamaliel spends his time editing Wikipedia in a way that he believes improves it the most. That includes removing labels that he doesn't agree with (or in Wiki-speak, labels that are unsourced). I do the same thing.--Tbeatty 06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

reasonable people can disagree. but some disagreements require that people are unreasonable. i can work just fine with plenty of fairly clear conservatives, to the extent they can be labeled. and i consider them friends. mongo, kaisershatner, voldemort, theronj, jdavidb, ed poor, etc. they are reasonable people. i am a reasonable person. i haven't made up my mind about you. but from what I've seen, you're for the most part failing the "shoe on the other foot" test. which defines reasonableness for me. what gamaliel does is his to account for. Derex 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't do tests. But your "shoe on the other foot" is that there is another definition of "swiftboating". That would be the right foot. I am certainly not advocating that the "left foot" version of "swiftboating" be deleted. I have not trimmed it or tried to water down what was already written. But why are you advocating that the "right foot" be deleted? Can you not see the right foot? --Tbeatty 05:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I would have the grace to admit that I'm wrong about notability. I've done things of that sort a billion times. More than once I've been amused when some crazed right-winger attacks me as being against a move that I myself made. I think it's a flat lie that BG is a liberal. But I put it in because that's the standard, didn't I now? Would Bush v. Gore have been decided the same way, with reversed names? In another universe perhaps. That's the shoe test. I ask myself about it every time. If you can't pass it, you're just another pov-pusher. I recall once trying to make that point to you with the Steele article. Your skull is evidently point proof.Derex 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User NBGPWS

I hate to bother you with this, but since he has been so persistent in violating numerous rules I feel compelled to report more mischief caused by NBGPWS.

Specifically, on his talk page, where he has already deleted my comments with respect to his spam/canvassing campaign twice, and will probably do so for a third time.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my

You do make friends, don't you (above). Here's another one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House Morton devonshire 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Runway widths

BTW, just wanted to let you know that I removed this information. There was some discussion on Talk about it -- both runways are physically 150' wide, but the shorter runway is painted to restrict its usable width to 75'. The was likely invisible (or at best, not particularly obvious) to the pilots considering the lighting conditions at the time.--chris.lawson 05:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

PW

What's your opinion about whether the Alexa stats should stay in or go? I think they're OR and just not relevant, but I will defer to your judgement. Reply on my talk page. Thanks. Morton devonshire 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppet Factory

"Neocons move against Information Clearing House.: Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House. Please provide your views." Posted on the ICH website. Morton devonshire 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes!!!!!11111oneone They are on to our cabal! Someone alert teh Rove stat! :) Crockspot 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a cabal? I must not have been invited to all the meetings. --Tbeatty 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the "Disinformation Terrorist" cabal. See [2]. Morton devonshire 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, User:Wikizach 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ICH

I will need your help for awhile at Information Clearing House to keep the propagandizers at bay. Morton devonshire 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider for deletion

Would you consider placing this one up for Afd? The Big Wedding Morton devonshire 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your editor review

Hi! I've reviewed you at WP:ER, but thought I should leave a note here about it. I may come across as very critical of your work, but please don't lose heart about it: my review is motivated largely by my own failed RfA (under my old username), which was opposed because I acted in pretty much the same way you currently do - the only difference being that I was mainly active at NewPage Patrol, rather than Recent Changes.

I'd rather not see your own future RfA suffer for the same reason mine did, so please make an effort to be more careful with warning vandals. It'll do you well in the future, and I'd certainly like to see someone such as yourself gain adminship in the foreseeable future. Happy editing! :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 08:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Khukri

Tbeatty Khukri is reverting my posts not the other way around. 132.241.246.111 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tbeatty see my talk and contribs for true story please. Cheers muchly Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah go see the stuff I wrote then edited out and he returned. 132.241.246.111

I don't think your edit to Gannon was vandalism. But it did violate 3RR. --Tbeatty 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I'm leaving it alone. 132.241.246.111 22:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Plame

This needs to get out more.

David Corn of ''The Nation'' revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of [[Aluminum tubes]] purchased by Iraq.<ref name=corn>{{cite news | url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn | title=What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA | author=David Corn | publisher=The Nation (web only) | date=September 5, 2006}}</ref>. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire [[nuclear weapons]] and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. <ref name=CIAreport1>[https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/july_dec2002.htm#4 Dec 2002 ODCI (CIA) Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions]</ref><ref name=CIAreport2>[https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html Jun 2002 ODCI (CIA) Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions]</ref>

--Tbeatty 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz

Hi Tbeatty, could take another look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz. I really believe Orsini is engaging in original research to forward a negative POV in discussion about Barbara Schwarz. The more I discuss things with Orinisi, the more I see flaws in Orsini's argument which seems to be based on a lot of OR and an anti-scientology POV. It seems that pushing Orsini's POV is more important to Orsini than keeping the discussion focused on the actual issues: possible violations of WP:BLP on the Barbara Schwarz article. Also Take a look at these differences which suggests that you are partially correct in your concern of an anti-scientology bias of some of the editors, specifically Orsini[3], Tilman[4]. I am thinking of gathering differences of all the negative unsourced claims Orsini has made. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed with this problem? --HResearcher 11:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The first step would be an WP:RfC (request for comment). After that there is an ArbCom. Keep in mind that Fred Bauder is an ArbCom member so I suspect that his take on this is where the ArbCom will end up even if he recuses himself.--Tbeatty 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am considering filing an RfC for the Barbara Schwarz article and a seperate RfC on Orsini. --HResearcher 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

HResearcher, why don't you move on and keep this to where it belongs. This has all already been discussed. Fred Bauder is a top guy and is watching the show. Please stop taking this to new "battlefields" each time that you're not satisfied (this is now the third one). What's next? Call Jimbo on his cellphone? --Tilman 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tilman. HResearcher is only upset because he cannot provide any references for his own unsourced and purely POV claims. Orsini 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly no reason to follow this editor around to my talk page. --Tbeatty 17:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tilman, I'm asking Tbeatty to take another look into the discussion, especially considering the comments from Orsini who constantly extrapolates (original research) to make negative comments about a living person Barbara Schwarz. From Orsini's comments, Orsini is obviously biased against Barbara Schwarz' religion. I believe Orsini is pushing anti-scientology POV to impugn Barbara Schwarz / Scientology. That is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V. Now Orsini is trying to say that I am being uncivil because I am challenging Orsini's comments. If nothing else works, maybe I'll call Jimbo Wales on his celphone :) --HResearcher 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Tbeatty. I'm about to file an RfC on Orsini, would you be willing to endorse it. Let me know, then I'll file it for your review and if you find it acceptable you can endorse it. --HResearcher 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Over for "Truth Professor" Jones

BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See [5]. Morton devonshire 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Ryan Morton devonshire 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Escort/prostitution

It seems that escort is defined as prostitution on WP. See also male escort. Crockspot 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. They are euphemisms of one another. But one is still a crime and the other is not. That is a distinct difference that should be noted on BLP's regarldess of the internal linking of Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TerrorStorm_(2nd_Nomination)

Er, ok, and who are you? Well, anyway, i will assume good faith for your comments. Mujinga 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

What comments were those? The only ones I made on that page was Delete.--Tbeatty 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see you are commenting on the NPA warning I left on your talk page. Please refrain from Personal Attacks.--Tbeatty 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed i was responding your comment on my talk page ... Thanks for responding, I didnt see that you were also involved in the AfD debate, which I think is quite an interesting one. By the way, for your contribution, you didn't just say Delete you said: "Delete per Mongo. More cruft by Striver." - which seems to me to be less a comment on the content, more a comment on the contributor. Mujinga 11:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The content is cruft and the contributor is striver. I don't believe that is a PA just like pointing out personal attacks is not a personal attack. --Tbeatty 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

prisonplanet.com

Would you agree that we can change the wording describing this site?

quote

I don't understand your reference to "wp:point". I'm just trying to write a good article, and I took your precedent of adding detail to heart. By the way, of course you added a quote, the one about "lies, deceit, and fraud". Or was that your personal opionion? Derex 01:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you do understand WP:POINT as well as how to write a good article. Those three words described what the anti-Murtha people believe. If you can paraphrase the definition differently (more succintly? Mor accurately?) go right ahead. I felt it was short enough to include. I oucld have uses bigger words but it would have meant the same thing. "pejorative for prevaricating chicanery and/or dishonesty by politicians seeking higher office." Is that more encyclopedic?

Here go fix a POV problem (undue weight), instead of creating one. Derex 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tbeatty 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about Klausutis. It deserves a few sentences in the Scarborough article, though. Derex 00:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability (books)

Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Wikipedia:Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

Hi,

A user asked me not to change dates from CE to AD; user stated, "the date formats should be left the way the original creator intended them to be."

BC/AD has been used for 2,000 years. Changing this format seems like iconoclasm or historical revisionism. Is the "original creator" of a Wikipedia page a kind of uncontestable being?

Best regards,

North.east

No, the orginal creator is not uncontestable. In fact almost all current dates have been modified to reflect the current leap years. George Washington's birthdate, for instance, moved a year in the number column when the calendar new year was changed from March to January. Common practice should be the standard, not the creator. that said though, I am not familiar with the difference between AD and CE. As I understand it, they are basically the same so what's the problem? --Tbeatty 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Bill O'Reilly to Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

In hindsight, I shouldn't have used that edit summary. I apologize. --Tbeatty 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Defamatory comment

This comment is not acceptable. Please read WP:BLP. Tyrenius 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by violating WP:BLP. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. After I refactored your intitial defamatory comment [6], you then proceeded to make another one [7]. You supplied a reference, but the reference does not substantiate your statement. You are blocked for 24 hours. I suggest you spend the time considering how you can refrain from making such comments in future. Tyrenius 05:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

More detailed explanation here. Tyrenius 06:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided was fine, but perhaps your wording in your comment needed to be toned down on the second edit.--MONGO 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock|absoutely ridiculous - see below>> (expired)

The first comment I made on a users talk page about Steven Jones. Tyrenius refactored it because he thought it was defamatory. Absolutely acceptable, although easily verifiable through citation. I provided a reliable source link for my statement. Without providing comment about why he thinks the sourced statements are incorrect, he applied a block. Here are two statements in the sourced article [8].

1. "He has since backed away from a statement that government officials and international bankers were responsible for the attack, but he still maintains that bombs, not planes, destroyed the towers."

[Refactored here by MONGO to remove comment by Tbeatty]

2. "Jones maintains that his paper had been peer-reviewed three times when it was published in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies," an online publication of 9/11-related research. The professor's work may well have been reviewed by scientists more qualified in engineering than he, but the 9/11 Web site is hardly a neutral party.... BYU is seeking disinterested parties who have expertise in structural engineering. These experts will look at Jones's findings from a strictly scientific point of view rather than through the filter of conspiracy theories." This means that BYU doesn't believe that Jones work was peer reviewed and that he mischaracterized when he said it was.

At best this is a content dispute on a users talk page. But none of what I wrote is a blcokable offense even if Tyrenius believes that articles contents do not support my statements. He should have refactored the second comments and explained why he thinks a sourced statement is incorrect. This is an abuse of adminsitrative tools.

And lastly, Tyrenius is an active editor and participator in these articles frequently voting the opposite of my position on these Articles for Deletion. He should have deferred any action to other administrators. It is clear from his talk page that other administrators did not agree with his actions. --Tbeatty 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point 1. I see you have chosen to repeat a defamatory comment. There is no justification for accusing Jones of lying. The source merely says that he "backed away". The primary meaning of "lie" is "make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" (Longman dictionary). There is nothing in your source to indicate that Jones intended to deceive, merely that he changed his mind, which is something entirely different. If you had used the source accurately, there would have been no problem. The fact is that you chose to make your own POV interpretation, which is a defamatory one.

Interesting that Jones never claims what changed his mind. I hold that to be prima facie evidence that he knew he overstepped what he could prove.

You removed a warning 10 minutes after it was put on your talk page, and did so with a flippant edit summary.[9] This does not indicate you were taking this matter very seriously.

You used a non-standard warning. I would not have removed a template warning. Your "flippant warning" was summarily rejected. --Tbeatty 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point 2. Again you go further than the article and again there is an accusation of wrong doing, which is not accurate to the source. You can see a fuller exposition here.[10]. The key point is the conclusion of the article, which says:

They will determine if Jones's version of events is plausible or if he has been irresponsible in his research, either by going beyond his expertise or ignoring facts that contradicted his hypothesis.

This clearly states there is as yet no conclusion on misrepresentation or otherwise, since the purpose of the new review is to determine this. You have made an unjustified assertion.

Incorrect. The investigation itself is prima facie evidence that the University believes there is a problem that warrants an investigation. They do not launch these investigations without a belief of wrongdoing. The investigation will either validate or invalidate that belief but the belief itself is in place. --Tbeatty 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You were warned and chose to ignore the warning. I am not aware that I have been in any content dispute with you over this subject, and this is not a content dispute. It is a removal of potential defamation. It is established that we should err on the side of caution in these matters. I have had nothing to do with articles on these subjects until the last few days, and AfD has no relevance here. Please don't make these kind of innuendos. I was in agreement with you on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors. I'm not frequently in disagreement with you, because I haven't participated frequently for a start.

You used a non-standard warning. You did not warn that I would be blocked if I edited again. let alone if I edited and provided a source. --Tbeatty 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The block was reviewed by, and discussed with one admin, MONGO on my talk page.[11] I gave my reasons and invited him to shorten or remove the block[12] and he declined.[13] Instead he also left a caution for you.[14]

Tyrenius 16:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO never reverses blcoks. THat is not the same as agreeing with your position. --Tbeatty 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Had I come across your unblock request sooner, I would have unblocked you immediately. Tyrenius clearly blocked you over a content dispute on a user talk page and irrelevantly cites WP:BLP which covers biographies only. Your comments regardless of whether libelous or not would never have been interpreted as the opinion of the Wikimedia foundation itself by any court. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you might need to look into this a little more closely. The block was reviewed and discussed with MONGO, whom I invited to shorten or remove it. He declined, and also left a warning. You can find the dialogue on my talk page.[15] Content disputes aren't relevant to user talk pages: they happen in articles. BLP is a helpful guide to the sensitivity that needs to be exercised over matter about living people in wikipedia. Defamation is not acceptable anywhere, articles or talk pages. It is still published, and it is the project that will get the blame and attendant publicity. Check out WP:LIBEL, which says It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history (where they are not even cached by Google). Your comment above indicates you would leave a libel in place on a user talk page. Not a good idea. I hope also that, before reversing a block, you would first discuss with the blocking admin, as is accepted practice, and not unblock "immediately". If an admin makes a block, they have a reason to do so. Tyrenius 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I questioned the block as I saw it as a bit of a grey area issue. You seemed to be actively engaged in a dispute (I may be wrong on that) with Tbeatty and since he did reference his comment (which still needed to be toned down a bit) the second time he made it, there is not libel issue as the essence of the statement supports the comment that he is on paid academic leave, a very rare occurance for a tenured professor...I can think of one other instance recently and that is Ward Churchill. Colleges rarely put academics on paid leave unless there is something very serious to examine. I don't revert other admins generally since I do trust them to make decisions based on an assumption of good faith and I deplore it when admins fight over areas that are vague...it's ridiculous when admins go around accusing each other of this as it breeds nothing but hostility. If this situation can't be resolved, and Rfc is desirable as it has no "teeth" raelly and canbe a learning experience for all parties. I don't encourage them generally, but that is an option. For what it is worth, no libel issues are involved if commentary such as that is referenced since that provides the basis for the comment and we can't know anything we can't reliably reference.--MONGO 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, I am engaged in no dispute with Tbeatty, apart from this one over defamatory comments. (If I have had any other edit dispute with him, it has not registered as such in my mind, so is not material.) The source did not justify Tbeatty's conclusion, and there is no way round that. To misrepresent something is an act of wrongdoing. There is no proof that he misrepresented the reviews of his work. The college seemed not to find them suitable. That is different to saying he misrepresented them. Your explanation is feasible, but not relevant to Tbeatty's statement. I gather that the extremity of his claims was the prompt for his paid leave, not that he had misrepresented his research. However, I agree with you about admin actions. As far as I am concerned this previous incident is finished. I don't even believe the user was online during the block, so it is making a mountain out of a molehill. However, the fact that he has now repeated the first statement which I warned him about does need to be addressed. I find it quite unacceptable, and in breach of what is acceptable to state about living persons. RfC is going to take up a huge amount of community time. Tyrenius 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I think Tyrenius' blocking you was a mistake, based on his misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and contrary to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Biographies of living persons. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need wikilawyering about BLP. Defamatory comments have no place on wiki. Sensitivity should be shown when making comments about living people, wherever those comments are made. Tyrenius 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the only wikilawyering is being done by you. I sourced my claims and stand by them. Your opinion is just that: your opinion. Trying to torture my comments as being so egregious as to warrant a block when I have sourced the background for them is somewhat high-handed. I personally find it offensive that you continue to claim that I am defaming someone. That in itself could be interpreted as a WP:BLP violation if you want to wikilawyer it. Please stop making that accusation. I am not guilty of defamation or libel and your continued accusation is unwelcome. --Tbeatty 05:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I came across this looking over my watchlist. Do you need any assistance? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. 3 admins have pretty much said the block was invalid and excessive. I have yet to see another example of a content dispute over BLP turning into a block other than Tyrenius'. If Tyrenius continues to abuse his administrative authority I think going to ArbCom or AN/I would be the next step but I hope he would learn from this mistake and we can move on. --Tbeatty 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I retroactively endorse Tyrenius' block. While I strongly appreciate the work you have done keeping the 9/11 related articles NPOV and keeping the conspiracy cruft to the minimum we cannot make potentially defamatory comments on Wiki which can create serious legal issues. Regardless of your or anyone else's opinion of Jones(mine is very dim) you can't put possibly defamatory on your pages. Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia not personal advocacy. If you want to accuse someone of lying please do so on a personal webpage. JoshuaZ 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, WP:LIVING is non negotiable, but the comment was made in usertalk pages here and on one other page...so I highly doubt that any issues of libel would have occurred...and I find a lot of this situation to now have gone into the realm of surreal. If we went around deleting/blocking every single person that has made a comment as Tbeatty did, we'd be very busy indeed. Now that the policy has been made more strict, I intend to uphold it of course as it is written. Indeed, at some point, comments such as "mine is very dim" may become borderline attacks as well...something I hope we can avoid, but I think you can see where I am going with this. There is a range of reasonableness that we need to expect, and from what I can see, I would have thought it would have been better had Tyrenius gotten someone else to do the block...but what's done is done and the best thing is to move on.--MONGO 04:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

After more thought I've decided to bring this matter up WP:BLP to discuss there. The point you raise especially in regard to the long term effects is very good. JoshuaZ 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

- Regarding your most recent comment, while I would have probably refactored again and sent a note to you, knowing violation of WP:BLP is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is a foundational matter and so we can't afford to be loose about it. JoshuaZ 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

--That's complete BS. Sourcing a negative statement for the first time is not grounds for blocking. Ever. Point me to a legitimate blcok that happened when someone readded a statement with a source and was immediately blcoked because the opinion of the admin was that the source was inadequate. The blcok is indefensible. THere is a HUGE difference between policing articles for WP:BLP and blocking editors who add content you disagree with. --Tbeatty 06:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully and completely endorse this block. That is not to say that every single case of this type deserves a block; admins must make careful judgments about particular cases. (And this is why also think it was appropriate for MONGO to question it.) However, since Tbeatty continues to come out with this claim that this is about "the opinion of the admin was that the source was inadequate" I see no sense of understanding what the problem is at all, and frankly people who cannot comprehend the need for absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons have no business editing wikipedia at all.

The first comment was bad enough. But to come up with a "source" which does not back up the claim *at all*, and to continue to make the claim, is just so far beyond unacceptable that if you don't understand it, I don't know what else to say about it.--Jimbo Wales 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the source supported everything I said. We can have a difference of opinion. I made the statement twice on a talk page. The first time was without the source. The second time was worded differently with a source, and I was immediately blocked for it. If the block trigger is pulled when statements are sourced, then admins have a lot of work to do. We can come to consensus about the content and what the sources say, but if we are going to block people who in good faith source their statements, then we are doomed. If you can point me to another block where the sequence was: statement, refactored, statement with source, blocked, I'd appreciate it. --tbeatty 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for refactoring your own BLP violation. [16]--Tbeatty 15:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy

Having consulted more widely off-wiki, I stand by my action. If you haven't yet had feedback, you can get details from MONGO, Tom harrison or Netsnipe. I tried to email you, but your email is not enabled. Tyrenius 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion at Wikipedia Blocking Policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, Tbeatty, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)