Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chip.berlet (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 4 July 2014 (in terms of tone). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Enter and sign in please....

The editor formerly known as "cberlet."

Biased Editing is Unbalancing My Entry with Criticism...Again

Meanwhile, cited material about my work in reputable publications is being deleted and being replaced with syntheses of critical comments from a handful of my critics.

See Chip Berlet

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Chip.berlet (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You've involved in an editorial dispute. Several editors have responded to you on the article talk page and you've already opened up an RFC to discuss your concerns. An administrator (an editor with additional technical tools) is not required here. Mkdw 17:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

An administrator in the past has steped in and helped reframe the discussion for fairness and accuracy because there have been repeated attempts over 5 years to attack my reputation through Misplaced Pages editing that is biased, incomplete, and often just factually false. Several editors have been permanently blocked because they turned out to be sock puppets for the LaRouchite organization. Other editors have been suspended. This is not the first time this has happened. I know the system here but I also know the history here. Please do not dismiss my concerns with such a glib response. Administrator attention and comments on the talk page has calmed the discussion down quickly in the past.Chip.berlet (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Chip, if I may, I would like to clarify for you what it is sysops do here on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps this will clarify why a sysop is not required to balance and resolve your content dispute, but rather any editor willing to volunteer their time and effort. Let's first look at your initial request, "Biased Editing is Unbalancing My Entry with Criticism...Again. Meanwhile, cited material about my work in reputable publications is being deleted and being replaced with syntheses of critical comments from a handful of my critics.". Now let's look at the tasks in which a sysop can perform. They are as follows as outlined at WP:ADMIN:

• to block user accounts and IP addresses from editing
• to apply page protection to restrict editing of a particular page
• to delete pages with 5,000 or fewer revisions
• to override the title blacklist
• to move a page to any desired title (this is in part a consequence of the last two)
• to edit fully protected pages
• to view and restore deleted pages
• to hide and delete page revisions
• to perform other special actions as listed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Tools

Based upon your initial request, which of these functions in particular will resolve your problem? The answer is they won't. What you need, as you stated, is someone to get the discussion back on track and to moderate the discussion. Fortunately for you, that task can be undertaken by any willing editor. An editor with the sysop tool is granted no more authority over moderating a content dispute as any other editor. We may benefit from having the tools to immediately block disruptive vandals or editors who are edit warring, but if you happen to see any of that activity, you can simply report it at WP:ANI and a sysop will investigate the violation. There are four steps, per the guidelines, in regards to content disputes where things like bias and use of unsuitable references are addressed. They are third opinion, dispute resolution, request for comment, or arbitration. All except for the last are generally moderated by editors. So please, do not mistake my assessment that a "sysop" was not needed here as being ill-informed, but rather substantive in that the help you are looking for can be offered by anyone. I closed the sysop help request since no specific technical use of the tools we possess was requested, and where only a sysop could provide assistance. Mkdw 08:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying this. Alas, another rime consuming interaction with the one thing Wilipedia can't seem to deal with: Wikistalking and Wikifanatics. Chip.berlet (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Right-wing politics and violence

Hi. A while back I created Right-wing politics and violence. Do you think you can help expand it? Or should it be merged somewhere else? Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it begs the question of why there is not a page on Left-wing politics and violence. But I poked around and see there are several articles on "XXXX and Violence" so I think keep it. I currently am on a deadline for a writing assignment, but I can add more material and more cites to other sources soon.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

But wait! An ideal NPOV solution would be to create a page on Political Violence with sections on Left Wing and Right Wing, and references to the existing pages on religious violence and also terrorism.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not overly attached to the stub. If you want to do something more drastic, have at it. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I will get to it in a week.Chip.berlet (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wilcox

I rather thought the Wilcox claims properly stated as opinion would be no problem. One editor,alas, feels that the material violates WP:BLP and that there was a specific consensus against inclusion -- although, as I read it, as a journalist you recognize that opinions cited as opinions are of value to readers. shows him apparently trying to make a cause celebre out of what is, to me, a farily routine edit. He also posted some strong language on my user talk page that there existed a specific consensus to remove any mention of Wilcox, he accused me of not discussing anything on the article talk page, and accuses me of violating WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and unnamed "other policies." I think a word from an actual journalist might make him understand that no journalist wishes to have a totally bowdlerized article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I rather think the issue is that it is a cheap shot from Wilcox who has gone out of his way to say nasty things about me. I do not think your edits overall have helped contribute to an NPOV article. Just my opinion. Probably that is what got a note on your page. It is not hard to find more credible criticisms of my work if you have access to a print library or online scholarly database. Some of the critics are friends or colleagues. I don't mind criticism, but much of the criticism on my entry was by right-wing ideologues with a bone to pick. Hardly NPOV. Thanks for askingChip.berlet (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, there appears to be no doubt that you are a candidate for journalistic sainthood <g>. The interesting bit is that your defenders seem to think the problem is with your criticism of Wilcox! That is what is sourced to the "Washington Times" AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your article

The activity is over all sped up. How do you feel it's going so far?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the entry is much improved, and I sincerely appreciate the efforts to make it better and more NPOV. I am awaiting interlibrary loan for some books with scholars with criticisms.Chip.berlet (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the comments on the Sandbox page. Sorry for being clueless, I will remember to check it for specifics.Chip.berlet (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be a waste to lose any viable material that was there before. I noticed you copied that over there. While you can't edit directly this is not directly. But as I said my ability to verify is limited to the internet. Also I think would be a good idea to take any proposed changes to the talk page.

Going Forward

It has been pointed out to me that ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions now apply to all biographies of living persons. I've templated the recent edit warriors. You can template any further edit warriors by putting {{subst:Ds/alert|blp}} on the talk page. If the introduction of bias resumes by notified editors, you can then go to arbitration enforcement and request sanctions, such as a topic ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that a person criticized a living person and citing that criticized person's response is not in any way a BLP violation, and your gratuitous templating is not only unwelcome, it is far afield from the ArbCom decisions about BLPs. I suggest you read WP:BLP and note that it is not a "contentious claim about a person" to note that a notable person criticized them. Also note that calling me an "edit warrior" is an abuse of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Further that your acts here are, IMHO, not indicative of collegial editing of an encyclopedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, perhaps you could compare your response posted here above in terms of tone to the comment posted above by Robert McClenon. These might provide some clarity. Chip.berlet (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)