User talk:Addy12

Chat away

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Addy12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:INTEGRITY for a brief discussion of why it's important that the text in the article and the citation used match up properly. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at James Dobson. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator may unblock you once you've indicated that you understand our biographies of living persons policy, and why the two edits you made (changing the wording to be at odds with the supporting citation, removing a citation to change the wording to a preferred version) are at odds with it. Biographies of living persons are not subject to the back-and-forth in the article that would normally be allowed without being considered "edit warring". Making edits that reduce the correctness of such an article, even in the interest of seeking optimal language, are simply not allowed. Once you've read and understood the appropriate policies, please use {{unblock}} and convince another administrator that you do, at which point you are welcome to rejoin the discussion, and hopefully help find additional and/or better citations to improve the coverage of Dobson or other Wikipedia topics. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Addy12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not sure it's canon "policy," but I am petitioning because I do not think that I was given the assumption of good faith, or extended "don't bite the newbs" leniency that is encouraged. I understand that this might be a function of trolls flocking to such sites and wreaking havoc, and I have already been accused of sock puppetry (without warrant, and I would encourage any admin to do whichever tests are at their disposal to cast doubt on this assertion), but of the two mistakes that I acknowledge I made (listed above), I explained and admitted the mistake behind the first (even after I was accused of being dishonest by the admin who blocked me) and was blocked indefinitely after the second. This seems particularly draconian and discouraging. Ultimately I'm not sure how much standing the above gives me, so I will focus on apologizing and remonstrating for these mistakes. As I said in the talk page, the first mistake (leaving a citation at the end of a statement that has been changed) was an honest oversight and not meant to use a source illicitly. To wit, had I even thought about it I probably would have left the citation unchanged because as I explained I truly thought that it supported the statement, even with the recently changed verbiage. I hope I will never do this again, and will make a conscious effort to prevent such mistakes from reoccurring. As for the second infraction, I apologize for violating protocol. I should have read about wikipedia protocol (but it is a bit lengthy and arcane, and I am new), but I did not and thought that my action was responding to the admin's first complaint (however flippantly). I did not realize that corrections of previous violations of policy were subject to entirely other conventions and rules, of which my ignorance is no protection if I insist upon acting brashly. Basically I admit that I violated rules and am eligible for banning, but disagree with the admin's actions, and I bristle at the accusations of dishonesty and the brusque treatment. I understand that everyone has to play by the rules and I will strive vigilantly to do so to the extent that my newcomer's ignorance doesn't preclude me. I have no interest in causing chaos or disrupting long-established conventions. I do not mean to be disrespectful or disingenuous, and if given back my privilege, I would go to pains to hash out such things on the talk pages first before taking brash action before taking any further action, whose legitimacy and conventionality I would research beforehand. Addy12 04:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on discussion with editor below. Good luck, and be careful! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for this unblock. What the hell? The user has made a total of two mainspace edits, neither of which came anywhere near violating BLP. NPOV specifically states that we use neutral language to describe non-neutral views, so Addy12 was absolutely correct to point out that the current language was inappropriate (the other alternative would be to use a disclaimer "which he defines as" or similar, as is now present). BLP does not exist as a runaround to NPOV; a biography isn't a little reality-free bubble where Wikipedia has to use the subject's preferred terminology in its own prose! Unless there's some other issue, such as socking - in which case, that should be disclosed and stated as a full or partial reason for the block - there is no conceivable reason for this user to be blocked, still less indefinitely blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addy12, I am leaning towards an unblock at this point. I do want to bring your attention to something in your unblock request: you are indefinitely blocked and not banned. An indef block lasts until the community is convinced that the behaviours will not recur (see the guide to appealing blocks). This is a huge difference, and as you're new, I understand the difference may not be apparent. What I see is that your belief is that "traditional" and "heterosexual" are the same - this however is not substantiated by the reference - we must rely on the verifiability of the statement in the printed referenced. What I think needs to be seen is that a) you won't remove references, b) you won't change wording that is correctly attributed, and c) you understand how important WP:BLP regulations are. This to me would satisfy the "convincing" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Bwilkins. I will have to ask that we postpone any unblocking until I understand these distinctions better. Let me try to explain. First, let me say that I fully understand that I know why my actions were improper. I have sought to explain them, and I still adamantly maintain that they were not done insidiously. For the record, it was absolutely never my intention to misattribute a source or make it say something that it did not actually say. I changed the wording and completely overlooked the citation. My second action (deleting the citation) was an attempt to reconcile that mistake. This all stemmed from a legitimate gripe that I had with the original wording, a gripe I took to be legitimate based on the BLP that you mentioned. If nothing else, this whole episode shows that "traditional marriage" is a confusing term that people interpret differently. This may be verifiable based on the source, but I think it violates NPOV (for many of the well-articulated points listed above by Roscelese). Specifically "naming" where neutral terms are stated as preferred, with the exception being for the purposes of clarity. As stated above, clarity is not improved but impaired by using vague and ill-defined terms. What if his organization had released an article mentioning several times that Dobson believed in the "one true, legitimate God." Would it be desirable to have that as a factoid without any explanation? As the sentence currently reads (something along the lines of "Dobson is a strong supporter of traditional marriage, which he defines as '....' "), I am very content (though I think it would be helpful to assert the subjectivity of his term by inserting "so-called" or "what he calls" in front of "traditional marriage"), but beforehand it was both vague and fell far short of neutral.

In a hypothetical future situation of identical merit, I cannot say that I would let the statement stand. I would obviously strive to abide by the conventions of which I am now aware, and I would try to discuss the issue and my POV in discussion before acting upon it, but at the end of the day, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines I think the sentence needs correction. In short, I am totally fine with a), but my interpretation of c) precludes me from committing unequivocally to b). This is not meant to be obstinate, I just would like some explanation for how to reconcile the two tenets when they conflict without incurring punishment. Addy12 21:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? I would like to have this conversation to understand how to handle future situations that may be similar and then move on. Addy12 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

First, we don't do "punishment" - blocks are preventative, not punitive. We also go very importantly by WP:CONSENSUS. For example, the bold, revert, discuss cycle is very important for so many reasons. Reality is that an encyclopedia cannot include POV ... it's 100% WP:NPOV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again, Bwilkins. I have read the WP:CONSENSUS and have found it very helpful for the quandary outlined above. At this point I feel ready to navigate these issues, so if you are still in agreement I would pledge to observe the rules forthwith and request an unblock. Thanks! Addy12 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)