User talk:Roland0469

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Mary Beth Buchanan, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Safety Cap (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

I have blocked you indefinitely due to violations of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Wikipedia is not the place to resolve serious legal issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:48, 15 April 2011 (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).

Roland0469 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The information that I added to the biography was accurate, a brief warning would have sufficed. After the warning, I respected the wishes of the wiki community. An indefinite bad is extreme treatment considering that I was in good faith trying to contribute to the knowledge base of the wiki community. I feel extremely badly treated by this user - Fred Bauder considering that I was never informed that such a serious penalty could possibly result from my actions. I am seriously doubting both the integrity of the wiki community at this point, and the accuracy of information contained in these wiki pages given that independent contributions are so arbitrarily expunged.

Decline reason:

Due to what looks like intent to harass via outing, I have revoked talk page and email access, and as such, am declining this unblock request. –MuZemike 01:04, 16 April 2011 (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.

I am not at present assessing your unblock request, as I am unable to read the edits which led to your block, so I am referring it back to the blocking administrator. However, I see that thirty seven of your edits have been removed by "oversight", which means that they are considered so severely unacceptable that even administrators are not allowed to see them. The ability to use oversight is given only to a very small number of administrators who have proved reliable, who have provided full personal identification, and whose work is monitored by the Arbitration Committee. It would be surprising if any such oversighter made arbitrary use of their power, stepping outside the closely defined uses of oversight to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations, especially on so large a scale. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused about our WP:BLP policy; it applies to any discussion of living persons, not only in biographical articles about them. The primary reason for you block was sustained violations of this policy in the PH(x) article. The edits are now supressed in the history log (indicating a severe violation), so I cannot view them, but other discussions seem to refer to a back and forth game of posting links to primary sources in order to disparage another party. This is completely unacceptable. You were supplied a link to the policy earlier in the day, and Fred's block came roughly 30 more problematic edits later and only a short time after your final edit. I will send Fred a note to see if he wants to comment further. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide the suppressed information which a link to an external site which is now deleted itself. I think appeal in this matter should be to the Arbitration Committee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Randi Wright for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randi Wright is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randi Wright until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]