User talk:Horus829

October 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Libertarian Party of Virginia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Tartan357 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the page was incorrect based on an improper understanding of the nature of the PAC vs a local corp used to protect against a dispute from a local tidewater group over the name. The changes are valid and have been reverted. Horus829 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Libertarian Party of Virginia, you may be blocked from editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above, The information on the page was incorrect based on an improper understanding of the nature of the PAC vs a local corp used to protect against a dispute from a local tidewater group over the name. The changes are valid and have been reverted. Horus829 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Libertarian Party of Virginia. Tartan357 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit you undid did include the proper reasoning, and your continued revision of edits despite the talk page containing links to their veracity is counterproductive. Horus829 (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Libertarian Party of Virginia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side of that, the talk page contains discussion as to why the initial changes, that have been reverted multiple times by the same small number of users, were valid. I stand by the accuracy of the content of the initial edit, and it is that edit I am reverting to when it is repeatedly changes despite evidence to the contrary. Thanks, Horus829 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Groups post is not a reliable source. You need reliable sources to support the assertion that the state-level party still exists. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally the public facing business email list of the national party. That is a public facing statement by both the National Party Chair and the National Party Secretary as to the matter. Elsewhere also contains official parliamentary opinions by a registered parliamentarian, which is admissible in a court of law. Horus829 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But which at best rises to the level of a self-published source, which is of limited use. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect for a few reasons.

-First, while the two org's are linked by bylaws requirements, they are fully separate entities. A link published by the national party is not under the control of the local party, and is not a self-source. You can also see that national link of affiliates. https://www.lp.org/state-affiliates/

- Second, that would be the same in the case of the rogue former chair. That person going to a news outlet, and claiming, without evidence, that the party was dissolved, since getting someone to repeat a claim is not itself evidence.

- Third, the PAC and the Corporation are not the same entity, and are indeed not linked, as the PAC has no minutes showing

The preponderance of evidence, from the state party itself, and the national party which has authority to validate this, is that the affiliate still exits. The evidence to the contrary is the statement of the former chair, and a a link to a auto generated state form regarding a corp that is not actually associated with the PAC.

If anything, the initial changes made to claim that the party was dissolved, were accepted with a very low standard of evidence, and certainly far below the evidence to the contrary. Horus829 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the two organizations are not related, the national party's listserv is inadmissible as a source. Self-published sources may only be used to support statements about the speaker. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a local affiliate is affiliated with national is wholly up to national.

- National clearly states that there is both an affiliate, and that it is the one at the link. The bylaws for the national party are also found on their website, and describe this process.

- The local affiliate clearly states it is still in existence, still maintains its structure, and financials.

Nothing previously cited can controvert those two assertions effectively, therefore the change will be reverted to more accurately reflect the true conditions of the party. Horus829 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability requires us to go with what has been reported in independent sources, not what self-published sources are saying about the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The website of a national political party is a verifiable source for information about itself and any of the local affiliates that choose to affiliate with it and it chooses to affiliate with.

If the national democratic party page claimed during the 2020 election that its presidential nominee is Joe Biden, one would certainly cite that page as a verifiable source, and correctly so. Here is additional news as to the lack of validity of the original claimed dissolution. At a bare minimum this would significantly call into question the original edit that was made claiming dissolution https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2022/09/libertarian-groups-dispute-virginia-chapter-dissolution/ Horus829 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we wouldn't. We would cite the news coverage of the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the resources as well. Horus829 (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Libertarian Party of Virginia and List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States)) for a period of 1 month for edit warring, disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a grossly unfair action to take given that multiple sources have been provided to state that the contents originally changed in the page were done so in error, and that the changes I made were factually correct, which should be the underlying goal for any article disseminating information.

When you stated your intent to revert, which was the point at which Drmies blocked you, you had zero reliable sources to support your position. You ~~now have one~~ still have none, and even it the discredited source you found acknowledges that the vote for dissolution happens; it just questions the validity of it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC) edited 21:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, Independent Political Report has actually been discussed at RSP and found to be unreliable. Tartan357 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Horus829 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My repeated good faith edits to improve accuracy were reverted repeatedly and without proper explanation to display factually inaccurate content. Understanding the 3 revert rule, this essentially ended up as a trap for someone trying to prevent misinformation. The talk page of the edit in question contains multiple links as to the veracity of the information added in the edits, and an imbalanced standard of evidence is being imposed to correct improper edits, especially when compared to the standard used for the improper edits themselves. Horus829 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You edit warred to preserve improperly sourced edits, and seem to think both of these things are okay. Furthermore, you seem to have a conflict of interest of some kind. There are no grounds here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Horus829 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I continue to feel that this action was not warranted and that it lacks the base assumption of good faith that is intended to preside over general actions. I have provided links to verify the correctness of information to a degree higher than those made to make the initial incorrect changes, and I request other independent opinions as to the matter. Thanks,

Decline reason:

"Correctness" is never a reason to continue an edit war, nor does it provide an exception to the three revert rule. You have provided links but not reliable sources. Your conduct demonstrates a lack of understanding of core Wikipedia policies, which is necessary for any editing but especially for editing in areas that are prone to conflict, like American politics. Given the history of LP articles, 331dot's assertion that you have a conflict of interest is plausible, but whether you have a conflict of interest or not, your conduct is inexcusable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Horus829 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With respect to Mr CFRED, I do not feel is additional review of by block constitutes the independent review that was requested, given that he is also involved in the talk on the article as well. I would refer to the content of the previous block appeals for additional information. Thanks, Horus829 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined for the same reasons C.Fred declined your unblock request. Please be warned, continued WP:BLUDGEONing may result in an increased block. Yamla (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.