Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 24 August 2017

Home   Talk   Workspace   Subpages   Archives   Logs

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Current time: 03:53, 2 January 2025 JST

Tony Fabella

I genuinely don't understand what happened to the Tony Fabella article. I started cleaning it up and thought I got rid of most of the promotional tone, and I thought it had pretty much the standard biographical content by the time I last edited. And the notability seemed proven by the media and academic text coverage. What gives? - Alternativity (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alternativity: On a second look, I have restored the page to Draft:Tony Fabella. This will need a third opinion. Regards, Alex Shih 08:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your block of User:Hillbillyholiday

Hi Alex Shih. I have some concerns about this block and I thought I would ask you in the first instance to justify it here. What was the block for? --John (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@John: Hello John, the block is a reflection of this comment, which was made three days ago in response to another edit warring report regarding the same editor. The reverts this time were also made in a similar manner, unprotected by BLP exemption, and the subsequent refusal to discuss in the article talk page about the revert despite of concerns raised by several editors in AN3. Alex Shih 15:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that the edits were unprotected by BLP. I request that you reexamine the edits and come back to this. John (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@John: I am always more than willing to be corrected, John. While I re-examine the edits, would you mind addressing the current discussion in AN/I? Regards, Alex Shih 16:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@John: Strictly speaking, I count three reverts, which does not technically violate 3RR. But as you can see in the ongoing AN/I discussion for the past five days, the block in my opinion is justified by all three criteria of WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. I have re-examine the edits and provided my explanation below. If you still believe the block was unjustified, please go ahead and lift the block, as I won't be opposing. Regards, Alex Shih 16:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Revert 1: This is indeed contentious on two parts: the description of the subject is arguably not written in WP:NPOV, and the Daily Mail is not appropriate as a source here despite of the RfC states that it may be reliable for some subjects. The problem is that, in my opinion, this should be discussed in the article talk page after two reverts instead of five, particularly when the removal has been challenged by another established editor. More importantly, this editing behaviour during an ongoing discussion about the behaviour of this editor in question is very concerning.
• Revert 2: The other editor made a compromise with this edit, and the entire remaining section was again instantly removed. This particular removed content does not seem to be justified by libelous nor poorly sourced contentious material of the exemption.
• Revert 3: Same as the previous revert. The edit summary appears to be suggesting a reference of MOS:HEADINGS (?)

• Thanks for the response. I will need an hour or two to respond. I have commented at AN/I per your request. Actually I don't need an hour. Your reverts 2 and 3 remove contentious (though arguably well-sourced) material that do not relate to the subject of the article. Do you see the problem? --John (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@John: Thank you. I can certainly see the problem, and I guess my point is that the manner of removal itself was also contentious, as the exemption was not explained well. Martinevans123 has graciously explained to me the potential BLP implications in those content, in which I do not disagree. Alex Shih 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a problem, we all make mistakes. I meant to comment at the AN3 discussion but real life got in the way. If I had had time I'm sure this wouldn't have happened. I feel bad now. Never mind. I think you should consider unblocking HBH if he wants it, and I think you should consider speaking up for him at AN/I. He is not perfect but most of what he does (this for example) is good and valuable work and I think the more clueful people who say that the better. Finally, I agree with GoldenRing that this comedy has been tolerated long enough and we need to hand out sanctions to those who knowingly revert BLP-busting material and make tendentious reports at noticeboards. I believe there is a relevant Arbcom judgement, am I right? Drmies will likely know. --John (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here, I've found it: WP:ARBBLP, Principles 1 and 2. Alex Shih, GoldenRing, Drmies, do you agree sanctions are in order here? --John (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

John, Principle 2 is just the usual general stuff. I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for--yes, discretionary sanctions apply, but it starts with an alert/notification; the process is found in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I have not looked closely enough at the history (indeed, the entire history of the conflict) so I am not going to say that editor X or editor Y are deserving of sanctions yes or no. Personally I would be more interested in the community being more clear about what to do about the plethora of factoids in celebrity articles, but it is entirely possible that one or more editors have not handled themselves appropriately in that one article, maybe in others. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Alex--after seeing your note above, of 19:10, I expected to find Hillbillyholiday unblocked. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)