User talk:Rivenburg

Welcome!

Hello, Rivenburg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! deeptrivia (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 09:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

test.

B&B

Hi. I have been reviewing your edits and note that, basically, you are solely editing the one page (and its associated discussion page) in a manner which appears to be a vendetta against a now-deceased individual, to the detriment of the article. I have therefore blocked you from editing Wikipedia further on a permanent basis. The article concerned will be checked further to remove bias you have introduced. --AlisonW 14:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alison. I'd like to discuss this with you. What's the best way? Rivenburg 04:05, 25 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

My edits have cited reliable, published sources, such as the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and New York Times. Because I'm a journalist, I've tried to make the edits even-handed and preserve pro-Michel Thomas positions and citations (in some instances, I've even added material and cites in Thomas' favor). These contributions aren't a "vendetta." They are an attempt to have the Michel Thomas article be historically accurate and include mention of notable and verifiable controversies covered by the Washington Post (in 2005), L.A. Times (2001), Newsday (2004) and other reliable sources during the past 25 years. My edits have been reviewed and, in some cases, complimented by other Wiki administrators, whose suggestions I have done my best to follow during the last two years. So, I was surprised by the block and would like the opportunity to explain why I believe it should be rescinded. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I concur with AlisonW (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here - your edits strongly indicate you're on a campaign against the individual Michel Thomas, and your actions to that end are having an acutely detrimental effect on the articles in question. Anthøny 08:24, 28 October 2007 (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.

Note, you are perfectly able to take "...the opportunity to explain why [the block] should be rescinded..." - simply post underneath this message. However, do not make further use of the {{unblock}} template. Anthøny 08:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be kind enough to indicate what specifically about my edits indicates a "campaign against the individual," it would be easier for me to respond. Thank you. Rivenburg 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not propose to get into minutia, but there is a clear track record of personal animosity - and legal actions - between yourself and the now-deceased subject of this article and of your attempts to discredit him in the face of evidence to the contrary. As such, and taking a close inspection of your editing record to this article, it is clear that you are not a disinterested bystander editor seeking the required Neutral Point of View that Wikipedia expects and requires. --AlisonW 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have personal animosity toward Mr. Thomas. I found him an interesting character and we enjoyed pleasant lunches together after I interviewed him. Yes, he filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Times, but it was dismissed by four federal judges (and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court), who ruled the Times article wasn't libelous. Without getting into minutiae, the evidence in support of Thomas' claims has been disputed by multiple major newspapers, which is why the Washington Post's 2005 obituary, e.g., outlined criticism of Thomas' claim to have found a cache of Nazi documents -- and described how the prosecutor at Gestapo chieftain Klaus Barbie's trial told jurors that Thomas' testimony wasn't made in "good faith." Regardless of one's views on these issues, they seemed notable enough to merit inclusion in the Wikipedia article.

If I am not "disinterested," it is only because I have journalistic expertise in the subject. I'm an award-winning investigative reporter whose newspaper did extensive research on Mr. Thomas and had the results upheld as fair in court. One of the most respected editors in America, John Carroll, said he was "very proud" of the Times article; Newsday later backed up part of the Times story with independent research; and the Washington Post found the Times analysis so credible that it repeated portions of it and dismissed "rebuttals" from Thomas' side as unworthy of publication. Although I understand why the lawsuit filed by Mr. Thomas might give you pause about my neutrality, I am confident that if you look at the content of my edits, you'll see they are backed by proper citations, are NPOV, and preserve and even occasionally improve points I disagree with.

If a ban is going to be imposed, the same standard should be applied to those involved in Mr. Thomas' side of the lawsuit. For example, Wiki user Facts@mt.org was paid to promote a single side of Thomas' unsuccessful lawsuit, serving as private investigator and chief spokesman. In addition to an often hostile public campaign against the L.A. Times, his Wiki edits have repeatedly removed sourced material, contained personal insults and misinformation about Times staffers, and been reverted by neutral editors. Hardly an example of a "disinterested bystander editor seeking the required Neutral Point of View that Wikipedia expects and requires." Still, I don't think his voice should be silenced either. I just think the use of bans should be consistent.

Lastly, although I understand that blocks can be imposed without warning, Wiki policy recommends that "administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." I received no such indication. On the contrary, over a two-year stretch, my edits and sourcing have been watched and in some cases praised by editors who said the original article written by Thomas' legal team was "inherently non-neutral, editorial, and without serious concern for what is encyclopedic." I believe this block is therefore unfair and one-sided. Thank you. Rivenburg 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABC

Rivenburg wrote an email to the arbcom, asking for us to review this block. We've decided to unblock him, with a caveat. He may not edit the Michel Thomas article. He's free to use the talk page to make suggestions and whatnot, but he shouldn't be editing the article himself due to his personal involvement with the subject. Raul654 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is the caveat permanent -- or is it temporary while the ArbCom reviews the situation? If it's temporary, I'll also refrain from using the talk page during the review. Otherwise, I would ask the ArbCom to consider an analogy: If Richard Nixon had unsuccessfully sued journalist Bob Woodward for libel, would Wikipedia block Woodward from editing a Wiki article on Nixon, a subject on which Woodward is clearly an expert? Would Woodward's books and speeches critical of Watergate be regarded as evidence of "personal animosity" toward the dead former president? I'm guessing not, especially if he backed up his Wiki edits with footnotes to reliable sources, as I have done. Reporters often write and speak about subjects they have covered extensively. In an era in which journalists readily pounce on colleagues for unethical behavior, not one mainstream news organization has questioned my conduct or the L.A. Times' coverage of Mr. Thomas. Quite the opposite. Newsday backed up part of the Times article with independent research. The Washington Post found the Times' conclusions credible enough to repeat them (with no rebuttal from Thomas supporters) in the paper's 2005 obituary of Thomas. Other journalists have had me speak about Thomas at a national journalism conference, as well as in classes and seminars at USC, Occidental and newspaper newsrooms. Moreover, four federal judges ruled that the Times article wasn't libelous and that Thomas' lawsuit was meritless.

My edits on the Michel Thomas article have been fully sourced with citations to reliable publications -- and they have strived to preserve both sides of well-publicized controversies about Thomas. In contrast, the edits by members of Michel Thomas' legal team give undue weight to original research designed specifically to bolster his unsuccessful lawsuit. Mr. Thomas' evidence might appear on the surface to be persuasive, but it has been rejected by the mainstream journalism community and the U.S. legal system.

To continue the Nixon analogy, if Wikipedia did block Woodward from editing an article about the former president, wouldn't it apply a similar block to members of Nixon's legal team? I submit that the block in this instance is unreasonable and isn't being applied uniformly to Thomas editors with similar personal involvement. Thanks for your consideration. Rivenburg 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely for evading the above-noted topic ban, specific to your edit to the Michel Thomas article. Checkuser data and page history review indicates that you have also made multiple edits to this article while not logged in to your account over the past several years. Please cease and desist. Risker (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit the content of that page. I merely added a link for an existing citation. I made a similar edit on Jan. 31, 2009, updating a broken link. User Steve keeps a close watch on the page and didn't object either time, so I thought it was OK to improve links. Rivenburg (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The added link bolsters Rivenburg's "scarringly sceptical" angle on Thomas that he has campaigned for since his LA Times article was published in 2001 -- which led to the defamation suit against him, the subsequent rallying of Thomas's WWII comrades, and the awarding of the Silver Star. It's been nearly three years, and Rivenburg apparently could not resist temptation, perhaps thinking he could slip in something seemingly innocuous without anyone noticing his violation. That user Steve has not yet stepped in is irrelevant: blocked means blocked. NV Researcher (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation was already part of the Wikipedia article. The link simply enables readers to view the original source, a 1987 Chicago Tribune article that previously wasn't available online. Giving readers full access to an existing citation is innocuous to anyone but NV Researcher and the rest of Mr. Thomas' legal team, who don't want Wikipedia readers to see any of the numerous mainstream newspaper articles (NY Times, London Express, Washington Post, Newsday, Le Monde, etc) that contradict Mr. Thomas' war claims. As to the rest of NV Researcher's comment, Mr. Thomas' defamation lawsuit was thrown out of court by four federal judges, who ruled that the L.A. Times article was NOT libelous. The Silver Star was given for actions never mentioned in the Times article and not at issue in the libel case. Rivenburg (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]