Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 4 November 2007

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Blocked and Banned

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages expects and requires. --AlisonW 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 credible enough to repeat in detail with no rebuttal from Thomas' side. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Arbitration committee

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)