*::::The two cases can not be compared. This one is ARPPIA and ARBBLP, 1RR vs 3RR, and I didn't make the block there, I declined an unblock because of CIR and related issues. The important thing to note is that virtually every admin endorses because they understand the circumstances and difficulty in enforcing 1RR. The burden is not on the admin, the burden is 100% on the person making the claim of exemption. Policy is brutal clear on this, and all the wiggling doesn't change it. If it isn't obvious and clear, they will be making the case while blocked, because if it isn't obvious and clear, it doesn't pass for exemption, period. Exemptions can't be vague or nuanced, they must be obvious or they aren't exempt and you must take to BLPN instead. It's ok if you feel different, but 99% of admin will agree with my assessment because it is impossible to enforce 1RR otherwise. We aren't going to read 2 hours of articles/sources, weighed against the prose, then insert our own editorial opinion on whether it is exempt or not. That would make us involved, for having an opinion on the content. You might as well get rid of 1RR. I know you can't walk a mile in my shoes, but your perspective would change if you could. We are not judges of content. We are problem solvers and janitors. Nothing in that edit was so urgent that it could not have waited a couple of hours at BLPN. There was no urgency what warranted edit warring. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 02:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
*::::The two cases can not be compared. This one is ARPPIA and ARBBLP, 1RR vs 3RR, and I didn't make the block there, I declined an unblock because of CIR and related issues. The important thing to note is that virtually every admin endorses because they understand the circumstances and difficulty in enforcing 1RR. The burden is not on the admin, the burden is 100% on the person making the claim of exemption. Policy is brutal clear on this, and all the wiggling doesn't change it. If it isn't obvious and clear, they will be making the case while blocked, because if it isn't obvious and clear, it doesn't pass for exemption, period. Exemptions can't be vague or nuanced, they must be obvious or they aren't exempt and you must take to BLPN instead. It's ok if you feel different, but 99% of admin will agree with my assessment because it is impossible to enforce 1RR otherwise. We aren't going to read 2 hours of articles/sources, weighed against the prose, then insert our own editorial opinion on whether it is exempt or not. That would make us involved, for having an opinion on the content. You might as well get rid of 1RR. I know you can't walk a mile in my shoes, but your perspective would change if you could. We are not judges of content. We are problem solvers and janitors. Nothing in that edit was so urgent that it could not have waited a couple of hours at BLPN. There was no urgency what warranted edit warring. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 02:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
*I think you are finding, from admin who actually do the enforcing, that "clear" IS implied, and admin will enforce it that way because it would render the policy unenforceable otherwise. Moreso on Arb restricted pages, where DS allows great latitude to prevent disruption and disallow wikilawyering, which most do some form of at AE. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
*I think you are finding, from admin who actually do the enforcing, that "clear" IS implied, and admin will enforce it that way because it would render the policy unenforceable otherwise. Moreso on Arb restricted pages, where DS allows great latitude to prevent disruption and disallow wikilawyering, which most do some form of at AE. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
:::<small>...and don't forget to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtWBlDC2-ss file your paperwork correctly], Levivowski. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 17:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)</small>
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Bible
Hello. As the GA reviewer for the article, I've been watching you add your concerns at Talk:Bible. I think the most significant objection—about the neutrality of the "Influence" section—has now been reasonably well addressed. Some of your other points, such as the lack of an explicit statement that the authorship of most of the text is anonymous, strike me as valid but not necessarily important enough that it wouldn't meet the GA criteria. I'm inclined to pass the article as a GA, which would still leave plenty of room for improvement based on your critiques. But with a topic this sprawling, I feel like maybe I should be running the GAN more like an admin closing an RfC, having to weigh the input of the involved editors, rather than as a solo reviewer. Do you still think there are strong grounds for denying it GA status? A. Parrot (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care what you do with the GA but no, I don't think it meets the source verification requirement (did you notice how many changes were just made to the article because of failed verification?) I've only checked the first two sections and found the problems I've found. Considering this is the nom's fourth or fifth FA/GA attempt that's had this problem, I'd think we'd want to be more careful, a bit more strict about not failing verification. I'm also really surprise about your read of NPOV. The heavy focus on the positive aspects of the Bible, the minimization of intentional, ideological changes... have you read what this article was like before the nom rewrite it? I was surprised it was put up for GA at all, when there were outstanding content disputes, without any heads up on the talk page or request for peer review first. Anyway this is Fourth of July weekend. I haven't even read the latest revisions. I think you should allow more than a couple days over a holiday weekend, particularly for someone other than the nom to respond to my posts. You might also want to get an opinion from one of the GA coords. Like I said, it's your review, I really don't care if it's a GA or not. But if you want my opinion on it, every single source needs to be checked. You spot checked some and found problems. On Friday, I spent like half an hour checking a few parts and found 3 FVs and an SPS. Even if those are now fixed, I don't have any confidence in the text-source integrity of the rest. In my opinion, it's the nom who needs to go through and check every source and then state that they're confident that there are no SPSes or FVs, and then others should spot check (I'd be happy to do so). Obviously this will take forever; but it's what needs to be done. Whether that's done before or after it gets a green check mark doesn't matter at all to me (or the reader, or anyone else except the nom). Levivich[block] 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points. It's frustrating, because Jenhawk is very well-meaning and has a lot of familiarity with the sources, but her work always seems to have fatal flaws. Considering how long the review has already dragged on, it really doesn't make sense to wait for the citations to be re-checked; I'll have to close it now. A. Parrot (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: I share your frustration, and I'm sorry for putting you in this crappy position, which you've handled with remarkable poise. But at least it's only a matter of time until it's up for GA again, and next time should be a breeze given all the work that's being put. Thanks, Levivich[block] 03:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred formulation is
"An ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation"; somehow it flows better. I didn't originate it (I'm almost certain) but I don't know where I picked it up, and to my surprise it doesn't seem to exist anywhere at all in the wild. EEng 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, as your biographer, it is my solemn duty to misquote you. I think you may have actually coined the saying, because I hadn't heard it before and I know everything. Levivich[block] 03:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I undid this the first time. I kind of panicked because I started worrying that the copyright status might not be clear but the people at Commons seems to think that's it's probably fine? Anyways, if you want to see it (again?), click this link [1]. I'm still very curious about what exactly happened for banning model airplane flying to be a thing at a park. Did whoever was writing the by-law just really have something against model airplanes? Wanted to see what they could get away with? Or was there some infamous incident that led to the prohibition? Clovermoss(talk) 20:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded Paul K. Guillow, Inc. after my granddaughter and her friends were playing with model airplanes at a local park that did not have a sign like that. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised the sign prohibits "Model Airplane Flying". I mean, how many pilots are models, anyway? Sure, pilots look dashing in their pilot suits, but are there really so many models flying airplanes in that park that it needed to be curtailed? Or, maybe it's prohibited because the park is in restricted airspace, near an airport or something. Levivich[block] 21:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they mean model as in model citizen -- exemplary airplane flying? EEng 22:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can fly your model airplane, but no showing off!Levivich[block] 02:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the pilots have their planes under control and everyone in the park is paying attention to them, then the risk should be minimal, but in many general-use parks, I think those aren't necessarily safe assumptions. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And even if everyone is paying attention there are always risks having a flying gas tank surrounded by electricity with at least one spinning blade, built by and piloted an amateur, zipping around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My granddaughter's model planes were made out of balsa wood and powered by rubber bands. But Facebook keeps recommending videos to me showing radio controlled model fighter jets about five feet long. Less aggressive model planes with a wingspan of well over six feet are readily available online. I would not want one of those crash landing in the midst of my picnic. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we talk about the fine, too? $5000 as the maximum seems a bit much. Also... there's only a children's playground, running track, and small baseball field at this park. Who would even try golfing or practicing archery? But it's the model airplane flying that's the most bizzare prohibition, imo. Clovermoss(talk) 21:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know how I know it's Canada? Because "weapons or fighting" is below "golfing or archery". Levivich[block] 21:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a few blocks away from the U.S.–Canada border (specifically Niagara Falls). You have to let the American tourists know somewhere. Just kidding. Although I like to think I'm pretty nice and non-aggressive :) Clovermoss(talk) 22:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Canadians think American tourists are going to read that far down the sign, they're giving us way too much credit ;-) It's got to be at the top, in all-caps bold: AMERICANS: please leave your guns at home, eh?Levivich[block] 22:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A small park is all the more dangerous for some of these activities, and a full running track and baseball park sounds like ample space for people to try archery, golf, and flying devices. A large maximum fine value without a specified minimum is a good way to deter unsafe actions while allowing for leniency. Personally, I don't think a prohibition on model airplane flying is all that odd (though I appreciate it may be disappointing for hobbyists). Recall that all kinds of remotely piloted aircraft systems would be included, and they can be quite dangerous flying around with people not paying attention, particularly children. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the sign seems to be lowballing the maximum fine; according to the bylaw on the city's web site, the maximum fine is $10,000. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective. I was envisioning very flimsy model airplane flying, like kids. I didn't realize there were hobby enthiuasts for it, although that's probably something that exists for everything in some capacity. As for golfing and archery, it's hard to explain without seeing it in-person but there's fences dividing everything so that would be really impratical even if you wanted to. The baseball field is tiny by most standards, the cemetery across the street is several times larger and has a lot more open space. As for the fines, that sign's been there forever so my guess is that they haven't updated it with inflation. I distinctly remember that sign being there when I was 8, so it's been there since at least 2010/2011. Clovermoss(talk) 00:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're not talking about building a commercial practice space: the city just wants to stop people from bringing over their clubs/bow and arrows and setting up arbitrary targets to hit. Regarding flying devices, today, think drones. (Then think of equivalently sized and weighted planes, which can be even harder to control.) isaacl (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know the sign is old because it doesn't say "no drones". Levivich[block] 02:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You think that's overprescription? Try this...
(I actually just went to look, and "CFR 1910.42" does not, in fact, appear to exist; see [2]. I'm beginning to think this might be a Harvard Lampoon prank.) EEng 22:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be; aside from "42", the icons are the GHS "dead fish and tree", which indicates acute or chronic aquatic toxicity, and an NFPA 704 diamond indicating a moderately flammable, moderately toxic, moderately unstable substance. Levivich[block] 23:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They just got the number wrong. It's actually under CFR 1910.37: Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for exit routes. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No materials or equipment may be placed, either permanently or temporarily, within the exit route." [3]Levivich[block] 16:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Safeguards designed to protect employees during an emergency (e.g., sprinkler systems...) must be in proper working order at all times." It makes perfect sense. François Robere (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have expected it to come under Evacuation Procedures. EEng 02:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wow. How has no one blue linked that with @El C's usual lyric fun? Actually, even more fun to report you for a "violation" of a red link For this edit you're blocked for negative 43 seconds for getting that song in my head ;-) StarMississippi 16:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: One of the benefits of WP:IDHT tendencies is immunity to WP:EARWORM. Anyway, I guess I should make an unblock request... {{unblock |reason=Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong. While you see it your way, there's a chance the wiki might fall apart before too long.}}Levivich[block] 17:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked, with a promise that you absolutely will do it again StarMississippi 17:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1RR
Your recent editing history at Rania Khalek shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The page is subject to 1RR restriction. Which you should be well aware of since you just filed an AE report in that regard. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm claiming BLP exemption per WP:3RRNO. This is disputed, controversial content that states a BLP supports two dictators/war criminals (Assad and Putin), and is under active discussion on the talk page, where a supermajority of editors so far oppose inclusion. And you're the person I reported to AE, for trying to edit war this content in. Levivich[block] 18:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 24 hours
I've blocked you for edit warring on Rania Khalek. It's a 1RR page, I count 3 reverts in 24 hours. With 3 reverts, it doesn't even matter that it's a 1RR page, or WP:ARBPIA page, that is edit warring. I'm doing this as a standard admin action, not a AE action, to reduce my paperwork, and because you should know better, had the chance to revert yourself after the last revert and didn't. This is after you filed the AE report on another editor. In short, you aren't using good judgement here. Of course, you can read WP:GAB to figure out how to appeal this block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, they make it clear they were claiming the BLP exemption in their edit summary and in the above section. The material is contentious, and currently under discussion, which is a clear pass for WP:3RRNO. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that is is BLP exempt doesn't make it so. The material may be contentious but it was well sourced, so it doesn't seem in bad faith or an obvious BLP violation. You can't just say "I'm doing this under 3RRNO" and get a pass. They can always appeal the block and another admin can view it, and the reviewing admin is free to act without my permission. As it isn't an "obvious BLP violation" (which is what 3RRNO is about), I see it as warring. I could have issued and logged under WP:ARBPIA and extended it to a longer block, but I'm trying to use the least amount of sanction to get the job done. Again, any admin is free to review and act, assuming they appeal it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I am one of at least five editors who thought the material was poorly sourced and said so on the talk page. WP:3RRNO says libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced. This is poorly sourced (as well as potentially libelous). What's the point of 3RRNO if you can get blocked by any administrator who disagrees? Had you considered just telling me that you didn't think the exemption applied, before blocking? Disappointing that you blocked me for removing poorly-sourced contentious, disputed BLP content, but you're doing nothing about the editor who repeatedly reinstated the content. Levivich[block] 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not until tomorrow though 😂 Levivich[block] 23:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. The irony of the test case being you getting blocked gives me a chuckle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; the irony is too good to pass up. Plus, this'll give the community a chance to finally come to a compromise: restore inbound links to XRV, but leave Levivich blocked. Levivich[block] 23:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Additionally WP:BLPRESTORE, which is policy, says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. It seems that's pretty clear, must be obtained first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention at least two of the sources being used are more or less op-eds. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There we’re first 7 sources for the info there. Then 2 more were added. Then 3 more. Adding more sources is “significant changes” here, though frankly when you’re up to 12 sources and people are still trying to pretend it’s controversial or “unsourced” the situation has become pretty ridiculous and someone’s obviously trying to WP:GAME BLP at that point. Volunteer Marek 00:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the number of sources. I made the mistake of thinking that way years ago. It's about that when editors are working on figuring out how to include this controversial BLP content, the content stays out, and we only add it in once there's consensus about what exactly add in, what prose and what sources. You don't just repeatedly reinstate your preferred version over and over against the objections of multiple editors. This is Wikipedia 101. Levivich[block] 00:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You made a mistake years ago? How many years ago are we talking about here Levivich? When? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Unless I'm missing something, you're linking to Levivich's contributions from 2018, when they started editing? It's 2022. That's years ago. Clovermoss(talk) 03:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss3 years and 7 months. Unless I’m missing something this is not that long. Last year? Two years ago, or three years ago? When? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I'm assuming that they meant two or three years ago by that comment, since they claimed that this is "Wikipedia 101". I also started editing in 2018, sometimes I say years ago. 3+ years can be a long time, it depends on your perspective. Personally I think that comment's a bit dismissive of Volunteer Marek because they've been here even longer, but I think Levivich is frustrated and thinks that they were acting under policy. I don't understand the underlying situation much so I thought I'd bring this up, at least. I think you may be reading a bit too much into Levivich's comment here? Clovermoss(talk) 04:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss I understand. There are plenty of underlying past, not easy to comprehend at first glance. Okay, let three years be years ago. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The plural of year is years. Are you okay? Parabolist (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, two years. Prior to my making that comment, VM used the "thanks" function to "thank" me for an edit from 2020 in which I argued content was well sourced because it had a lot of citations. That sentence in my reply to VM was a reference to that. Levivich[block] 04:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's some misunderstanding at XRV. What I removed (Special:Diff/1098031293, Special:Diff/1098031293, and Special:Diff/1098168196) was this content: Her views have been described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin via her work for the RT television network and its subsidiaries. So the controversial content is pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin, not "left-wing" or "far left". The first time I removed the content, it had 10 sources; the second time, 12 sources. The 12 sources were:
A WaPo opinion piece, labeled "Perspective by Annia Ciezadlo", described as "a journalist who writes about food, politics and power in times of crisis." It calls her "far-left", not "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin". Ciezadlo, Annia (April 11, 2017). "Why would Assad use sarin in a war he's winning? To terrify Syrians". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 July 2022. 'We still don't know exactly what happened in Syria and who was responsible,' far-left writer and commentator Rania Khalek wrote on Twitter, 'but fact remains that Syrian govt gains nothing from a CW attack.'
Straight news from Jerusalem Post, but it doesn't say "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin", in its own voice, it says "controversial journalist and activist", and it quotes Andrea Chalupa "asserting that Khalek supports 'Kremlin propaganda'". Frantzman, Seth J. (January 26, 2019). "Rep. Omar Slammed for Supporting Venezuela's Brutal Regime". The Jerusalem Post. Author and journalist Andrea Chalupa accused Omar of "amplifying an RT contributor," asserting that Khalek supports 'Kremlin propaganda'.
An opinion piece, labeled opinion, by Malak Chabkoun, described as "an independent Middle East researcher and writer based in the US", in Al Jazeera. It says Khalek is a "pro-Palestinian 'activist'" (with scare quotes) and that she has "joined in on the whitewashing" and "repeat[s] the [Assad] regime’s propaganda almost verbatim, claiming that what’s happening in Syria is a war against terrorists". That's not the same thing as "pro-Assad". Chabkoun, Malak (December 24, 2016). "Whitewashing Assad and his allies must be challenged". al jazeera. The regime and its allies' crimes in Syria have been whitewashed in several ways by journalists and academics alike. Bartlett, Beeley, Fisk and Khalek, for example, repeat the regime's propaganda almost verbatim, claiming that what's happening in Syria is a war against terrorists
An opinion piece, labeled opinion, by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, described as "Lecturer in Digital Journalism at the University of Stirling" and "a contributing editor at the Los Angeles Review of Books.", in Al Jazeera. He complains that Khalek visited Syria: "The modern form of disaster tourist is a pure mercenary, bereft of conviction, indifferent to suffering, driven purely by avarice. They are acutely aware of the regimes’ repressive character and the odiousness of their role. Both Blumenthal and Khalek have in the past acknowledged the Assad regime’s criminality and, in the case of Blumenthal, denounced those who serve as its apologists. Their embrace of the same role shows self-aware intention. Their flimsy attempts at justifying the visit are telling." He says Khalek was joined on the trip by "pro-regime Syrian Solidarity Movement" and "Ajamu Baraka, Jill Stein’s running mate, and various other pro-Assad conspiracy theorists". Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees (September 15, 2018). "Junket journalism in the shadow of genocide". al Jazeera. Retrieved July 5, 2022. Rania Khalek, a Twitter personality who produces viral videos for the Russia Today subsidiary "In the Now".
HuffPo piece by a HuffPo reporter, but it doesn't say Khalek is pro-Assad or pro-Kremlin, it says Khalek joined Tulsi Gabbard in making the case that armed opposition to Assad is dominated by extremists. And to quote WP:RSP, where HuffPo is yellow for politics, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics." Ahmed, Akbar Shahid (April 10, 2017). "Here's Who Still Supports Bashar Assad". HuffPost. Gabbard for years has argued that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by extremists. While U.S. and regime policies have arguably made the extremists more powerful, this has never been fully true, according to experts. A coterie of left-wing writers and activists, notably journalist Rania Khalek, have joined Gabbard in making this case.
I mean, OK, it's labelled "News", but it's so obviously an op-ed by Lee Smith (journalist) in Tablet (magazine), who writes: "That even Khalek, a political activist and openly pro-Assad apologist, had some sense that this looks really, really bad does not reflect well on mainstream media organizations like The Washington Post, NPR, and The New Yorker." Tell me that's not op-ed. The opening is "Bashar al-Assad’s regime has pulled off a grotesque PR coup by corralling a number of prominent American journalists from outlets like The New York Times, National Public Radio, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker to participate in a conference designed to legitimize the rule of Syria’s genocidal head of state." He's calling a lot of people pro-Assad. Smith, Lee (October 31, 2016). "Assad Regime's Grotesque PR Conference in Damascus Uses 'New York Times,' 'Washington Post,' NPR, and 'New Yorker' Reporters to Whitewash War Crimes". Tablet. Retrieved July 5, 2022. Khalek...[an] openly pro-Assad apologist ... Khalek wrote against sanctions in an article for the Intercept, which was recycled by the Syrian press agency, SANA.
From Commentary (magazine), which is an opinion blog; it's by Jonathan Marks. He says Khalek thinks the media is tilted against Assad; that's not really pro-Assad, it's anti-media. Marks, Jonathan (November 1, 2016). "An Anti-Israel Activist in Syria". Commentary. Retrieved October 2, 2019. [Khalek] is in Syria to attend a conference in Damascus on 'The Ramifications of War in Syria.' It's no mystery why the organizers of the conference invited Khalek–who thinks the 'Western media narrative' is tilted against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad–to speak on the effects of sanctions on Syria.
Bellingcat, which is green at RSP, but has the notation "There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution." The piece is labeled news, and identifies Khalek as "a Russian state media personality who in 2018 was found to be surreptitiously on the Kremlin payroll" and mentions the trip to Syria sponsored by the Assad regime. Doesn't say pro-Kremlin (taking a payment is not being pro- the person bribing you) or pro-Assad (visiting a person is not being pro- that person). [5]
Foreign Policy opinion, labeled "Argument: An expert's point of view on a current event." By Jasmin Mujanović, "a political scientist specializing in the politics of southeastern Europe." It says "Most recently, so-called independent journalists such as Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek—both of whom have received funds from Assad regime lobby groups—have even toured government-controlled regions of Syria to whitewash the scale of the atrocities." That's not pro-Assad. [6]
From The Daily Beast, which is yellow at WP:RSP, and it doesn't say she is pro-Assad or pro-Kremlin, just that she worked at Sputnik and RT: [7]
What's most surprising about this is the number of editors (and administrators) describing this as "well sourced". Levivich[block] 05:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "pro-Assadist" and "pro-Kremlin", in your words, too broad to be considered a BLP violation? Where is the basis in WP:BLP or anywhere else for the notion that a statement is capable of being "too broad" to be a BLPvio, and even if it's there, why are these statements "too broad" as opposed to, you know, specific?
Regarding your statement, emphasis in the original, If the reverted content is not a clear BLP violation, then it is edit warring ... The exemption is only for clear violations ... Where is "clear" in WP:BLP, WP:3RRNO, or anywhere else? WP:BLPRESTORE says "good faith", for example. WP:3RRNO#7 doesn't have the word "clear" in it. Where are you getting "clear" from?
Regarding debating the quality of sources that are generally considered reliable, some of these sources are yellow at RSP, so not generally considered reliable. Others are blogs, not generally considered reliable. Others are op-eds, same. In fact, this leads me to my next question:
You blocked me on the grounds that this is well-sourced. I'm going to WP:AGF that before you blocked me for this, you looked at the diffs, and clicked through to all 12 sources. So, which of these sources supports the statement Her views have been described ... pro-Kremlin ...? Which source describes her views as pro-Kremlin? I see zero. Same question for pro-Assad: #1 and #7 say "pro-Assad", none of the others do. These two sources are op-eds from biased (pro-Israeli, anti-Assad) sources. Do you contend that, based on two op-eds from biased authors, it's BLP-compliant to state "Her views have been described as pro-Assadist"?
If someone has a good-faith BLP objection, is that not enough to claim 3RRNO #7? Do you content that my objection was not in good faith?
Thanks in advance for your responses, Levivich (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the block is being reviewed, I'm limiting my response to that one venue, as to not spread it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it in one venue, I'll thank you for copying my question to XRV and answering there. I can't ask a question there because you blocked me (fully, not a partial block). Levivich (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copying it, and for your honesty in answering my questions. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The block wasn't personal, I've never had a negative thing to say or even a negative impression of you. I didn't want to block, but felt it was necessary to stop the edit warring. And of course, it is fine to disagree and ask for review (although you weren't the one to ask). I think it all boils down to what is and isn't exempt, and the bar is pretty high to be exempt. It has to be, particularly in Arb restricted areas, or admin would be wading through claims all day long. To me (and I believe the vast majority of admin), for a BLP exemption to exist, it has to be very obvious. ie: claiming someone gender identity, sexual preference, crimes, political position on controversial things, without WP:RS. Those are just the most obvious, not the only ones. It's kind of like something that is "obscenity", I may not know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. Being "contentious" isn't enough. Any edit is "contentious" when two or more people are arguing over it. "Contentious" just means "likely to cause an argument". Anyway, I really didn't like blocking but felt I had to, which is why I used the least sanction I could, avoiding lumping it as aa ARBPIA sanction, which could come back to haunt you. I even debated just doing a 3 hour block, but that might come across as a dick move to some, and the goal was just to get you to stop and provide an incentive to not do it again. Had you just said "Ok, I understand that it really doesn't cross the threshold of BLP violation, even if I thought it did at the time" I would have instantly unblocked you. It isn't about punishment, it's about stopping the edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was personal, or that you had any reason for it to be personal. I do think you are misunderstanding global consensus, though. The bar is not high for excluding disputed, controversial, biased, poorly sourced, libelous, etc., BLP content. It's low. "Obvious" is a term used by WP:3RRNO to describe vandalism; "clear" is a term used to describe copyright vio and other illegal content. Neither "obvious" nor "clear" is used in 3RRNO #7, and it is not implied, it's specifically excluded.
And to clear up any confusion about whether or not the standard is "clearly a BLPvio" or "clearly not a BLPvio", a section of WP:BLP, WP:BLPRESTORE, says (emphasis mine):
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The policy says that as long as objections are "good faith", "consensus must be obtained first" before "disputed material" can be "restored without significant change".
The bottom line is that our policies, taken together, err on the side of exclusion when it comes to BLP vio. The bar is not high for claiming a 3RRNO #7 exemption by design, because we err on the side of exclusion. It would make no sense if our policies said that disputed BLP material should stay in while we discuss whether or not it's a BLP vio. It's obviously much safer to exclude the material, unless and until there is consensus to include it. This is what's best for the reader, for the BLP subject, for the encyclopedia, and it's global consensus, documented in policies like WP:ONUS, WP:BLPRESTORE, and WP:3RRNO#7. What you see as "implied" is not there at all; it's the opposite.
If you wanted to stop edit warring, you could have blocked the editor who restored the content 6 times, instead of me for removing the content 3 times. You could have partially rather than fully blocked me. You could have come to my talk page and said, "Levivich, I do not believe the 3RRNO #7 exemption applies, you need to self revert or I'll block you."
The important thing is this non-neutral, non-factually-accurate content, which, despite appearing to be well-sourced was actually poorly-sourced, is not in the article, especially not in the lead of the article where it will be propagated to Google searches (which is why it was repeatedly reinstated to the lead, of course). The important thing when it comes to BLPs is do not harm; that's even more important than do not edit war. That's what 3RRNO #7 is all about.
The answer is: disputed BLP content stays out until there is consensus that it is clearly not a BLP vio. Not that it stays in unless it clearly is a BLP vio. That's my view of it, anyway. WP:XRV was designed to settle these kinds of disputes, so I'm glad it's being put to the test. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, RE: ...it will be propagated to Google searches (which is why it was repeatedly reinstated to the lead, of course) Are you alleging a bad faith motivarion by the editors who added and reinstated the disputed text -- that they were acting to manipulate google results and not to improve the article? SPECIFICOtalk 17:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You used political position on controversial things as an example for the 3RRNO exemption. Being pro-Assad or pro-Kremlin is exactly a political position on something controversial. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just want to clarify I have no ill will towards you, this is just a disagreement on how to read the policy. Here's a time dealing with 3RRNO when our views were aligned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two cases can not be compared. This one is ARPPIA and ARBBLP, 1RR vs 3RR, and I didn't make the block there, I declined an unblock because of CIR and related issues. The important thing to note is that virtually every admin endorses because they understand the circumstances and difficulty in enforcing 1RR. The burden is not on the admin, the burden is 100% on the person making the claim of exemption. Policy is brutal clear on this, and all the wiggling doesn't change it. If it isn't obvious and clear, they will be making the case while blocked, because if it isn't obvious and clear, it doesn't pass for exemption, period. Exemptions can't be vague or nuanced, they must be obvious or they aren't exempt and you must take to BLPN instead. It's ok if you feel different, but 99% of admin will agree with my assessment because it is impossible to enforce 1RR otherwise. We aren't going to read 2 hours of articles/sources, weighed against the prose, then insert our own editorial opinion on whether it is exempt or not. That would make us involved, for having an opinion on the content. You might as well get rid of 1RR. I know you can't walk a mile in my shoes, but your perspective would change if you could. We are not judges of content. We are problem solvers and janitors. Nothing in that edit was so urgent that it could not have waited a couple of hours at BLPN. There was no urgency what warranted edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are finding, from admin who actually do the enforcing, that "clear" IS implied, and admin will enforce it that way because it would render the policy unenforceable otherwise. Moreso on Arb restricted pages, where DS allows great latitude to prevent disruption and disallow wikilawyering, which most do some form of at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I guess I should make an unblock request... 