Content deleted Content added
→Waterboarding: corr |
|||
Line 206:
:::::Erring on the side of caution? Is that what I did wrong? In ensuring that Wikipedia is not exposed to any claims of bias or liability for libel? By ensuring that there is no "work around" for [[WP:BLP]] violators by defining a particular action by living persons as shockingly criminal, when there has been no court ruling finding any of them guilty? Seriously. Is erring on the side of caution wrong? [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow#top|talk]]) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for being honest about your motivations. I'm afraid I agree with [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]], [[User:MaxSem|Max Semenik]] and [[User:Byteflush]]. Unless or until you figure out how we work here, and specifically what you have been doing wrong, we will have to continue to manage without your help. You are not the first or last editor to come here to [[WP:POVFIGHTER|sort out our POV for us]]. You'll find that although it looks like a freewheeling, even anarchic, society, there are certain group values like [[WP:CON|consensus]] that you will not be permitted to flout. Indefinite does not have to mean forever, and if at any time in the future you want to post a proper unblock, you are very welcome to do so. One thing to think about is Max Semenik's suggestion of a topic ban from anything related to US politics. If you want help with that, just let me know. Until then, --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
:::::[[User:John|John]], thanks for your recent edits to your remarks clarifying your position. My edits to [[Enhanced interrogation]] did not challenge the consensus forming at [[Talk:Waterboarding]]. It covered a related topic. Not the same topic. I did not, repeat, DID NOT edit the mainspace at [[Waterboarding]] after the RFC started.
:::::Your recommendation regarding a voluntary topic ban for any and all articles related to US politics is noted. My work at [[Al Franken]] is eminently defensible as events proved that I was correct. He was a senator so [{WP:WELLKNOWN]] provided an exception to the usual strictures of [[WP:BLP]]. At first, efforts were made by certain editors to downplay the allegations because they were only made by one woman ([[Leeann Tweeden]]), she's a conservative, and she works for [[Fox Sports]], which is owned by the same corporation as [[Fox News]]. Only when four more accusers came forward who were ordinary Democratic Party voters (who had nothing to do with Fox News) were certain editors, as well as Democratic Party leaders such as [[Kirstin Gillibrand]], willing to do what the facts had already demanded. Gillibrand demanded and received Franken's resignation from the Senate.
:::::I respectfully suggest a thorough reading of [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:BOLD]]. For my part, I have thoroughly read every word of [[WP:CON]]. I recognize (of course) the strong desire for consensus. But I also recognize that we live in an extremely litigious society. "[I]n many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. .... For relatively unknown people [such as CIA personnel], editors must seriously consider not including material—<b><FONT COLOR=RED>in any article</b></FONT>—that <b><FONT COLOR=RED>suggests</b></FONT> the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow#top|talk]]) 17:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
| |||