User talk:Amwestover

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then notify my talk page.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then notify your talk page.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Talk:Joe the Plumber

Actually, the removal of this content is supported by our talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). "

You may wish to remove or strike them yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what's happening on the article, I think it's a perfectly appropriate comment. Regardless, I prefer the method of asking others to delete or strike their comments rather than deleting it for them since talk comments aren't considered shared content like the article pages. Editors have the right to be defensive about removal or changes to their comments. --Amwestover (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's another RFC going on. Might as well get your POV since you've contributed before. Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encounter with Joe the Plumber

Thank you for rewording what I had improperly titled Tax Policies. Your version is significantly better. JenWSU (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, it was my pleasure. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 28 2008 to Barbara West (TV news anchor)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{tl:unblock}}1=I implore another administrator to please review this block and overturn it. I did revert a page more than three times, but it was to protect a biography of a living person from a contribution which was biased and poorly sourced (and also contained weasel words) which is specifically listed as an exception to the Three Revert Rule. I'm only trying to do the right thing. Please read the contribution I was reverting here. This contribution contains the conclusions of three unreliable/unverifiable sources: two blogs and a political commentator. This kinds of material is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. I did not just revert the edit out of the blue; I explained my reasoning briefly in the edit summary and I also posted a further explanation on the article's talk page immediately after my first revert explaining what I did and why. In that thread I also pointed one of the editor to the Wikipedia policy for sources, but he didn't appear to read it. Another editor who was re-adding the material I was reverting indicated that he was assuming bad faith by accusing me of sock puppetry amongst other things; and his reasoning for the sources being acceptable was because they weren't "informational" -- this isn't backed by any Wikipedia policy and is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Please overturn this block. I do not believe that I violated policy and I would like to get back to contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for reading my unblock request.

I will notify the blocking admin of your request. I believe you are correct here. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

A piece of friendly advice -- don't edit war by going over 3RR unless it is a clear cut BLP vio, particularly when there are several editors who disagree with your evaluation. I have cleaned up the section: there was a youtube link for the Olbermann commentary and I replaced it with the MSNBC link. Another link was to the Portfolio (magazine), a valid reliable source. I deleted the blog source. Bottom line: don't edit war. Instead, try to participate in the discussion on the talk page. You have other avenues for dispute resolution rather than edit warring -- see WP:DISPUTE. You were incorrect that policy doesn't allow for the inclusion of criticism from political commentators -- as long as they are clearly attributed as such. Even if you continue to believe that, use WP:DISPUTE vs. edit warring -- you rarely be backed using such behavior. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice and you taking the time to deliver it, but I do not agree that I was edit warring; I was trying to do the right thing and I believe that I was wrongly punished for it. I see the material that I reverted as a clear cut example of BLP violations that are an exception to the 3RR. Honestly, the policy could not be stated any more clearly:

Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.

Even if you believe that the contribution's wording was neutral, which I don't believe it was since it contained weasel words, the sources were very poor and the material was certainly controversial. I believe the exception is worded that way in order to support WP:Blp#Restoring_deleted_content:

In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.

If other editors won't abide to this policy, then what are you supposed to do? My revert wasn't a fly-by; I left reasons for my edit on the talk page immediately afterward. And this wasn't an article about an innocuous topic, it's a biography about a living person and we have a responsibility to make sure they are portrayed as fairly as possible.

As for the sources, all three were unreliable and unacceptable for Wikipedia. Blogs obviously are unacceptable because amongst other things they aren't peer reviewed. According to WP:SOURCES policy, which takes precedent over guidelines, political commentators often would not be appropriate sources because

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Olbermann, along with numerous other political commentators, do not state their views neutrally. Since neutrality is a central pillar of Wikipedia, our sources must be held to the same standard. Political commentators attack, it's in their nature. In addition, (also mentioned in the policy) sources must have a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, again, another qualification that most political commentators don't meet.

I do appreciate your advice, and I'm aware that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, but I truly feel that this block is unjust. There are plenty of contributions that are in the gray area, and I am aware of the avenues of dispute resolution, but frankly, this material was in the black. There are too many things wrong with it to be appropriate for Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to understand, and I think this counts as additional advice, is that edit warring in "the gray area" is the best way to get blocked swiftly. A good rule of thumb is that if your reversion is being disputed then it no longer is an obvious case that 3RR excludes. Go get help if you feel it is warranted; but continuing the reversion is edit warring. If the reverted material was so evidently wrong (and I make no assessment on that point) then getting someone to help on a noticeboard or on the talk page article itself would have been trivial and you needed not go over 3RR. — Coren ^(talk) 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Coren's advice, which is all I'm trying to say. Don't edit war. Read up on WP:DISPUTE for a detailed explanation for the avenues open to you. Also, please read up on WP:NPOV which allows for the use of Olbermann's lack of neutrality as long as it is properly attributed to him. But I'm not here to debate the validity of your argument but to provide counsel against edit warring. This is the second time you have been blocked -- you clearly have the capacity to be an excellent contributor and editor but if you don't avoid edit warring (it would have not caused great harm to leave the text as is while you attempted alternative resolutions) then you will find this collaborative environment challenging. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 14:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript, the use of "some commentators say" is not necessarily an example of "weasel words". If you read at WP:WEASEL:

Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. [emphasis added]

In the case of the disputed text, the opinions were properly attributed to their sources: Olbermann and a columnist for Portfolio magazine. The use of the term "some" is perfectly valid as long as it is backed up with attributions. I fixed the text so that the attributions were explicit to alleviate your concerns. And that is what would have been achieved if you had continued to participate in the page discussion without constantly reverting. Collaborate, discuss, reach consensus, compromise, expect to be frustrated. Use dispute resolutions when necessary. Never edit war. I presume you know that you weren't the only one who was blocked -- CFIF was blocked also. Stop at the third revert. It's pretty simple and can be quite a rewarding experience. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain Campaign article

You revert immediately after the article has come off a series of protection for edit warring? Not cool. I'm reverting you, as nothing as been agreed upon since the page lock in the first place. The protection was intended to stop exactly what you just did. There is a healthy conversation developing on the articles talk page. You are more than welcome to contribute there. Thank you. Digital^Ninja 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, nothing has been agreed upon, thus there is no consensus. The protection was indiscriminately applied as most admin tool actions are on Wikipedia, and protection of a page is not an endorsement of the protected version. So I reflected that there is still no consensus by removing the content. If there were sincere intentions from all editors in this issue, then everyone would recognize that there is a lack of consensus and remove the content until an agreeable version of the material arises. But as is blatantly obvious from the talk page, several editors are hardly editing in the spirit of Wikipedia and continue to add the contentious material simply because they think it's right regardless of the opinion of others. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are gravely mistaken how consensus works. You don't need consensus to add sourced information into an article. You need consensus to remove material from an article WP:CONSENSUS. Now, I'm not going to revert anymore lest someone runs off to ANI me. Just an FYI. Digital^Ninja 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing anywhere in WP:CONSENSUS which states that consensus is needed to remove content. However, I do think it'd be useful for some editors involved in this to closely read that policy since it explicitly states that strength and quality of arguments is to be considered, not quantity, and that polls are not the end of a discussion. For the most part, the most recent page protection results in !vote counting and repeated insistence for these editors to familiarize themselves with policy and guidelines, which they clearly didn't.

I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with consensus in regards to biographies of living persons, which this article falls under. Policy specifically says that consensus is required before restoring material that hasn't been significantly changed; and since people are simply reverting the deletion of contentious material, there is no significant change. Therefore, consensus is required before adding it again. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking consensus because I was thinking about this: Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Revert, which clearly states:

Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately, BUT:

Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept, "It's policy, live with it." On the other hand, you should completely understand the implications when someone explains to you, "The flurbeling you suggest caused very bad barbelism, that's why we decided to always floop before we fleep instead."
Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.

I did post the wrong link the first time, sorry. In any case, you clearly violated this guideline since you "reverted as per no consensus". Be bold trumps revert, and what did you do? You reverted as soon as the article's protection was lifted. That is not good faith. I think you need to quit asking people to "familiarize themselves with policy" and do so yourself. Digital^Ninja 21:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't go wikilawyering and saying "OMG that's not the policy!!!!111!!". It doesn't matter what "policy" is. The above is an excellent guideline to building true compromise which is what consensus is all about, plus it's complimentary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD. Digital^Ninja 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely an advocate of being bold, but there is a reason why there's a distinction between policy, guideline, and essay: because, well, there's a lotta bureaucracy when it comes to Wikipedia rules and this helps solve at least some conflicts and incongruities by setting precedent between them all. That is why I believe (but I'm not necessarily certain) that when it comes to biographies of living persons, what would probably be considered guideline on other topics is actually policy and contains some strong exceptions. Biographies aren't just any other article on Wikipedia. We're not squabbling over unified field theory, that wouldn't be hurting anyone; we're talking about events in someone's life and their reputation which can potentially be damaging. That's why I believe that policy dictates higher scrutiny for BLPs and therefore puts the burden of proof on people who wish to retain deleted content rather than the other way around. So that's why I think the regular consensus policy doesn't explicitly state what should be done with material under debate (basically suggesting procedure but leaving it up to the involved editors), but the BLP consensus policy explicitly does state that material should remain removed until consensus is reached. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You have established a scholarly reputation among Wikipedians.Valois bourbon (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on User talk:DigitalNinja

I replied to a question you asked on my talk page. I'll have more time this afternoon to explore the issue a little deeper. Regards, Digital^NinjaWTF 19:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing politics possible AN/I case

I've had a chance to analyze all the involved contributors, and right now I recommend to hold off for a little bit. I'll explain why later on because it's a fairly lengthy explanation! However, good work keeping a cool head over things :) Digital^NinjaWTF 14:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Amwestover, I gave CS a slack and hope you can somehow work something out with him because I'm pretty much gone as the Holyday approaches. I know I made a pretty bold move but please let it stick at least for a while. Maybe something good comes out of it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV flag on 2004 election controversies

You placed the POV flag on 2004 United States election voting controversies a while back and I was wondering if you would come by and see if the changes ive made satisfy your POV problems with the article. If not, would you please spell out what you still have issue with on the discuss page or move the POV flag to the section where it is still needed. Thanks in advance Bonewah (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words on my user page, please take as much time as you need. In the interim, ill focus on the sections of that article that I feel are POV problems myself. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ANI draft

Generally looks good. The list detailing particular things that have happened (Second incident) would need to be sourced with an appropriate diff(s); people tend to ignore unsourced claims. If you don't have a diff for them, for whatever reason, then remove it. It wouldn't be fair to anyone not familiar with the situation. But the first incident paragraph looks great and is well backed up. Good job. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, for ANI, remember to keep it short ;-) If you were considering Draft One at some point; very few people would actually be bothered to read that. Not to knock it down, of course. Just sayin' :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD

;) — neuro^(talk) 16:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

I responded (late) on my talk here: [2]--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Amwestover. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:ANI#Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

It's about you. Best, Sandstein 20:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions

Per this ANI discussion, You are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:

any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
The talk page of Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Where applicable, you are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
You may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, that you and Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it state in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that administrators have the authority to impose topic bans. Topic bans are a remedy imposable by the Arbitration Committee. I'm sure if they reviewed this case they'd see that this course of action is extremely premature, and that there's no evidence that a measure of this degree is warranted. In addition, this issue hasn't even been marked as resolved on the ANI board. In my opinion, this ban was proposed by some admins who may have forgotten that being an admin is no big deal. You hold the keys to the tools, and you don't have to meet any requirements to be granted access -- which is probably why the first section in WP:ADMIN is NBD. Your authority is executive; you enforce sanctions, you don't impose them.
So now that that's outta the way, if you have any suggestions on how to further pursue a resolution, or wish to offer a third opinion, then I encourage you to do so. Even though I think this ANI has gotten way outta hand, it has resulted in some fresh third-party opinions which have been needed for a while now. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the community can, with consensus to do so, impose sanctions, up to and including community-imposed bans. You can appeal to ArbCom if you'd like to appeal the restrictions. You'll notice that I did not support or oppose specifically, merely made a suggestion to change the wording (which would prevent you from placing RFC/mediation notices = bad). That being said, I personally think the area ban is too big-- like, for example, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are all off-limits to you at this point. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out specially where in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that it states that a community consensus can impose a topic ban. A topic ban is an editing restriction, not a sanction. Community consensus can impose sanctions such as an article probation, for example the probation on articles related to Barack Obama, but there's nothing anywhere stating that the community can impose editing restriction. The reason for this is probably because these are punishments rather than actions to protect Wikipedia, so they're not enforcements they're judgments. The method that this alleged topic ban was conducted allowed for any uninvolved joe-shmoe to voice an opinion with no accountability or proof of rationale for their decision. This is not the case with the Arbitration Committee since they're elected to the position and voice an opinion after all involved parties have voiced an opinion if they choose.
Don't worry, I didn't mean to come off like this was your doing. But you were the one who chose to convey the message so it may have seemed like my statements were specifically aimed at you. It's pretty obvious from the ANI thread that roux and SirFozzie are the ones who came up with the idea of a topic ban and the terms. I am still yet to see where they, or the uninvolved community, have the authority to do this and intend to point this out in the ANI. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see any reason why this is official at this point. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]