User talk:RussHawk
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
RussHawk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello,
I am requesting that the block on my account is overturned as I have made what I believe are valid contributions to the biography of Andrew Laming, a relatively unknown Australian politician who was exposed as a racist via his own public Twitter comments.
I dispute the allegation that my account, "is only being used to contravene Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy." My intention in contributing to the Laming biography was to note that this politician feels that it is acceptable to publish deliberately racist comments, which I see as a sad reflection that racism seems to have become acceptable in Australia. I believe that racism is unacceptable, especially from an elected public figure who is charged with representing all members of the community. Through the 'History' page I became aware that references to Laming's racist Twitter comment were being deleted in what was possibly a deliberate campaign by Laming's supporters (see below). I believe that such editing is essentially censorship, and counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, and for that reason I restored some of the deleted content. The edits I made were motivated by an ethical position rather than political interest in Laming or his party. The content was factual, referenced and was made in the context of an issue that had occurred entirely in the public domain (via Twitter and the news media).
I do not believe that any of the edits that I made contravene the WP BLP policy. In fact 2 of the 3 edits were simply to reinstate seemingly uncontroversial content by other editors that had been deleted. Prior to reinstating any content, I checked the relevant editor's contributions to the article and found them to be fair and balanced (as an example one editor had added a reference to the racist Twitter comment and had also deleted a facetious comment that insulted Laming).
I believe that my contributions have been in accordance with the WP BLP policy which states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
Although I am not by any means a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, I have previously made contributions to pages where I have felt that I had first hand or in depth knowledge. I am aware that contentious and political issues generate some debate within Wikipedia about how an issue should be presented. I hope that Wikipedia is robust enough to continue to provide a voice for non-aligned contributors, and in particular contributors who have personal involvement or expertise in the subject. I hope that Wikipedia continues to welcome independent voices, voices that are not constrained to repeating a press release or a party manifesto, and to appreciate that a diversity of perspectives provides the truest picture.
If needed, I have described the Andrew Laming edits in detail:
I have made three contributions to the Wikipedia page on Australian MP Andrew Laming since 15 January. Mr Laming came into the public spotlight on that day due to racist remarks that he had made towards aboriginal people and Pacific Islanders. I was particularly interested in the issue because I have worked in Australian aboriginal communities and in the Pacific Islands, and I found Mr Laming's comments to be very far from my own experience. I think that racism is an enormous problem in Australia, I believe that racism is widespread and too often accepted. It is important that on 15 January this Australian public figure was being held to account for making racist and insensitive comments.
Like many Australians, I had never heard of Andrew Laming prior to the 15 January news reports, so I researched him via Wikipedia. I noticed that several editors had added information about the racist Twitter remarks. On 15 January one editor added this remark on the history page: "(Individual has hit national news in Australia, previously unknown MP now notable for racist remarks via twitter)"
Media reports of Mr Laming's racist remarks were clearly in the public interest, they revealed a disappointing aspect of a political figure who the public were expected to place their trust in. I think it is reasonable that reports of the racist comments were added to Mr Laming's Wikipedia biography. However I noticed that this information was quickly being removed from Wikipedia by other editors, whom I assume were supporters, employees or friends of Mr Laming. One editor described "a dedicated campaign by his office and supporters to edit online content, such as his Wikipedia page, removing this news item or references to it."[1]
Below is a detailed account of the edits that I was involved in:
15 January: I edited the Laming biography to add a quote from the organiser of an online petition calling on Mr Laming to apologise or resign. This post was tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism" and the later that day was removed by Nick-D on the basis that, "I doubt that the petition is notable". I did not contest the edit, the petition may indeed not be notable, however I do not agree that I had made any comment that contravened the BLP policy or that could have been construed as vandalism. I now understand that the vandalism tag may have been added by an automatic filter.
16 January: I noticed that reference to the racist Twitter comments had been deleted from the leader in the biography. (This was not my original content, but the comment of another editor.) The editor who deleted the content had made 12 changes to the biography over a 5 hour period. I restored the deleted content in the leader. Key elements of the restored leader remained intact until 4 February.
4 February: The reference to the racist Twitter comments was deleted from the leader, again by Nick-D.
10 February: I restored the now briefer reference to the racist Twitter comments. On the history page I added the remark: "Restored legitimate content - valid information is NOT vandalism." This was in reference to the 15 January tag suggesting that I had vandalised the biography, and to the fact that the content of the biography appeared to be subject to censorship from Laming supporters.
11 February: The restored comment is deleted by Nick-D, the administrator who had deleted my two previous posts/restorations.
11 February: My account is indefinitely suspended by Nick-D.
Decline reason:
Please study our guide to appealing blocks and request unblock again without an unreadable wall of text; none of our volunteers are likely to want to spend their time parsing this request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (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.
I apologise for the previous "wall of text" which is now remedied. I was unaware that I needed to add the markup code for paragraph breaks.RussHawk (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
RussHawk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Unblock request is now formatted correctly. Please advise if I need to repost the full text. Thank you. RussHawk (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
One unblock request at a time, please: see below. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2013 (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.
- As an aside, you should not be using HotCat for making unblock requests. HotCat is for adding categories, and an unblock request is not a category, so all that happens is your unblock request is placed inside a [[Category]] tag which doesn't make sense. You should just use the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and enter your unblock request (or any other comment) at the bottom of the page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip Boing! said Zebedee. I inadvertantly created a category and then attempted to remove it. I have read some WP guide pages but as I have no previous experience with HTML I am struggling with the terminology and markup protocols. The question that I was asking is this - Do I need to paste my request into a new unblock template in order to alert administrators so they can read it, or will administrators be aware of the previous unanswered request (that was rejected due to my text formatting problems but is now fixed)? I do not want to duplicate the unblock request and then find that I have breached a rule and get blocked from the talk page. I appreciate helpful comments.RussHawk (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- You may not ever amend an already declined unblock request - as the unblock was based on the contents of the request at the time. A new unblock request that meets the requirements under WP:GAB - keeping in mind WP:AAB is needed. Another wall of text in an unblock will not be acceptable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify that my first unblock request was declined because of my text formatting error that made the text unreadable to the administrator. I edited the request to make it readable, because I understood that the content had not been read and was therefore not the basis of the request being declined. I take the point that declined unblock requests should not be edited and I will initiate a new unblock request.RussHawk (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please make it markedly shorter. Any unblock request that cannot be expressed succinctly in five to ten lines of text - fifteen at maximum - is unlikely to be accepted. Write as you please, of course, but bear this advice in mind.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice Anthony Bradbury. I will summarise the main points and resubmit in a couple of minutes.RussHawk (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
RussHawk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting that my account be unblocked on the grounds that my contributions to the biography of Andrew Laming were valid. Andrew Laming is an Australian politician who recently came into the public spotlight due to racist Twitter comments that he made in relation to Australian aboriginals and Pacific Islanders. Because the Twitter incident has defined Laming's public profile, I believe it is appropriate that the reference to the incident appears in the leader of his Wikipedia biography.
I made a total of three edits to the Laming page. My first edit (15 Jan) was, I believe wrongly, tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism". ?UNIQ5f79e5744605223e-nowiki-00000033-QINU?2?UNIQ5f79e5744605223e-nowiki-00000034-QINU? One WP contributor described "a dedicated campaign by [Laming's] office and supporters to edit online content, such as his Wikipedia page, removing this news item or references to it."?UNIQ5f79e5744605223e-nowiki-00000036-QINU?3?UNIQ5f79e5744605223e-nowiki-00000037-QINU? I believe that such editing is essentially censorship and counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, so after carefully reading the history page I restored a small amount of content (on 16 Jan and 10 Feb). I avoided restoring deliberately provocative or insulting content. I note that several other editors had at various times restored the same content, without penalty, which I suggest supports my contention that the content did not contravene the BLP policy.
In response to the "vandalism" tag of 15 Jan, and the vigorous campaign of deleting the racism incident, I added a comment in the edit summary of 10 Feb that the restored content was legitimate and was not vandalism?UNIQ5f79e5744605223e-nowiki-00000039-QINU?4?UNIQ5f79e5744605223e-nowiki-0000003A-QINU?. I do not believe that any of the content I wrote or restored contravenes Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. The content that I restored was factual, referenced and recorded a defining incident in Mr Laming's career that occurred entirely in the public domain via Twitter and the news media.
While my motivation to edit the page was to highlight the inappropriateness of a politician promoting racism, it concerns me to learn that a WP administrator seems to have the power to support politically allied contributors and to unilaterally silence dissenting voices, an obvious conflict of interest in a forum that aspires to be neutral.RussHawk (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for violating Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and you deny that you have done so. I will give just one example of your edits that violated that policy, and I will mention just a couple of way that it does so. Please note that this is by no means a complete account: it is simply enough to show that you did indeed violate that policy. This edit made assertions which were completely unsupported by the source cited. Nowhere in the source, for example, can I see the statement that Laming was "revealed as a racist": that is your interpretaion of the situation. Nowhere in the cited source is there any mention of Wikipedia, let alone an assertion that Laming's "office and supporters" edited the Wikipedia article. You were thus making accusations, which if unture might weell be libellous, against living persons, without providing any source to support your accusations, or indeed any evidence at all. That certainly infringes Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and indeed it may well infringe the law. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2013 (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.
- In declining your latest unblock request, I restricted myself to showing that you claim not to ahve infringed the biogrpahies of living persons policy, since that is the reason for the block. However, it may help you if you are aware of some other problems with your editing, so I will spend a little of my time pointing them out. I hope this will be helpful to you. Even if you had cited valid sources, it would not have been acceptable to have stated opinions as though they were facts. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and stating opinions is not acceptable, no matter how justified yu think those opinions are. You may like to look at the article Adolf Hitler, and see how it does not express opinions, such as "Hitler was an evil racist beast". This is not because the article has been hijacked by Nazi supporters: it is because numerous Wikipedia editors have taken pains to ensure that it is written from a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view does not mean the point of view that you, or I, or anyone else, personally believes is "right". By your own assertions on this talk page, your purpose in editing is to promote a point of view: "... my motivation to edit the page was to highlight the inappropriateness of a politician promoting racism", "My intention in contributing to the Laming biography was to note that this politician feels that it is acceptable to publish deliberately racist comments, which I see as a sad reflection that racism seems to have become acceptable in Australia", etc. It is unacceptable to edit in order to promote a point of view, no matter how strongly you believe that point of view to be a good one. It is very common for people who come to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting a political point of view, as you have done, to assume that anyone who opposes what they do is motivated by a desire to promote a contrary point of view. However, that is not always the case. Have you carefully studied the editing history of Nick-D, and found him to consistently support a particualr political point of view? If not, then what makes you think that his blocking you was done in order "to support politically allied contributors and to unilaterally silence dissenting voices"? What evidence is there that he was not acting because he sincerely was trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy, and believed that you were infringing it? It does not increase, and may often decrease, the likelihood of an unblock request's succeeding by making unsubstantiated accusations against other Wikipedia editors. Doing so may be seen as evidence of a battleground approach to fellow editors, rather than a willingness to edit collaboratively, and to accept that other editors may be acting in good faith, even when you disagree with them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello JamesBWatson, I appreciate that you have taken the time to actually cite some of the concerns with the Laming page. I hope that you do not mind hearing out my perspective on the context behind my apparent wrongdoing. My intention is not to dispute your judgement that the content is inappropriate, but to illustrate that for a relative newcomer like myself the history of this page presents conflicting and confusing examples about what is acceptable on Wikipedia.
It puzzles me that although my original comment [2] seemed to me to comply with BLP policy, was properly referenced and was not my own opinion, it was tagged as vandalism. This was a large part of the reason that I later chose to restore content from other editors (that I perhaps wrongly assumed to be acceptable because it was not tagged as vandalism) rather that risking contributing original content that somehow broke WP rules.
With regard to the example that you cited, I agree with you that I should have been more vigilant when I restored this edit that was written by another editor. It seems that the reference belongs only to the first sentence, and that the second sentence is indeed unfounded personal opinion. I agree that the accusation of racism is not specifically made in the source, but I think it is certainly implicit in the referenced news article, for example, "MP's tweet on racial tensions 'disgraceful and callous'" and "Federal Opposition Indigenous health spokesman Andrew Laming has been accused of posting inflammatory remarks on social media about racial tensions south of Brisbane." Whether the actual Twitter comment in question is racist is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. In the only original content that I contributed I quoted an online petition started by an Aboriginal woman who had found the Twitter comment racist, yet this content was tagged as vandalism for reasons that are still not clear to me.[3]
As to claims that Laming's supporters or staff were behind a campaign to remove references to the Twitter incident, I admit that I took that comment more or less at face value. I had personally observed that apparently legitimate content about the Twitter incident was being removed or heavily edited and it did seem plausible that the Wikipedia page was being cleansed by Laming's supporters, although I do agree that with no solid evidence publishing that allegation is inappropriate. I note that this part of the content that I restored was deleted 13 minutes later, and I made no further attempts to restore it. So, without excusing my wrongdoing, due WP process prevailed. I acknowledge that by reinstating this content I should take resposibility for that action, but this comment was logically not the reason that I was blocked, the original creator of this content was not blocked and I was not blocked until after I had reinstated other (in my opinion) much less contentious content more than two weeks later.
The sentence refering to "racist Twitter comments" remained in the article for more than two weeks without being deleted or attracting any criticism from administrators. When the content was deleted, an editor restored it citing "reinstate referenced text" and apparently was not penalised. After that same content was deleted a second time, I restored it and was blocked.
It confuses me that throughout the history of this page there are deliberate examples of vandalism and defamatory statements that did not attract any penalties. (I know that this is the case because some of these editors do not have a 'Talk' page, so cannot have been blocked.)
When I observed that there was a process of sanitising the content of the Laming article I felt that it was important that the article preserved mention of his "racist" ("inflammatory", "disgraceful and callous") Twitter comments. If my intent is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then surely the intent of the editors who persistently deleted referenced factual content without discussion or explanation must also be inappropriate? [4][5]
My comment that "it concerns me to learn that a WP administrator seems to have the power to support politically allied contributors and to unilaterally silence dissenting voices" was not intended as a particular attack on Nick-D, but as an observation that the system of policing editors could vey easily be abused. For example, no warnings need to be given before blocking, no specific reasons need to given at the time a block is imposed, there appears to little consistency in whether penalties are imposed, content can be tagged as vandalism without seeking an explanation from the editor (for example my original content [6], I am still not sure who applied that tag or why). Since writing my initial unblock request I have very carefully studied the history of the article and I note that Nick-D has made edits in a balanced manner. I apologise for any implication that Nick-D had taken a biased or partisan approach.
As I stated, my initial motivation to read the Laming article was because I do not believe that our society should tolerate racist politicians. I explained my motivation to make it very clear that I came to the article with an ethical perspective rather than a party political agenda. I do not believe that having an opinion about racism or any other issue should disqualify me from contributing. Respectfully, I do not agree that my "purpose in editing is to promote a point of view" but in the context of the apparent campaign to remove a noteworthy incident from the article my intent was to bring it back towards balance. Had I and other editors contributing similar content not acted, and all reference to the alleged racism was deleted, would the article be more neutral or would it read a like a biography from Laming's electoral website?
The objective of neutrality in an article clearly benefits from contributions from many points of view. I sincerely doubt that there are any editors, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, who can honestly claim that their contributions and choice of subjects are not motivated by some ideology or belief. By stating my ethical position I was simply being honest but that only seems to have dug this hole deeper. Let's not pretend that Wikipedia is written by robots, or people who aspire to be robots.
I seem to have been cast as the worst villain of the Laming article when other editors reinstated exactly the same content that led to the block, some editors were almost certainly involved in censoring or sanitising the article, and a few editors contributed nothing more than defamation and insults. Essentially, I have been blocked for reinstating one sentence that had already been part of the article for more than two weeks without attracting any comment.
I have certainly learned a lot about the Wikipedia process, rules and objectives, which is clearly a positive. I do now understand why one of the three contributions that I made was inappropriate. I still believe in the principle that led me to contribute to this article, that an elected figure should serve all of the community to the best of their ability - meaning that I believe that substantial evidence of racism or other bias is noteworthy. However I now understand that although it may be appropriate to refer to specific comment or incident, if properly referenced, it is inappropriate to make allegations or attempt to draw conclusions myself. In other words, not to present "opinions as though they were facts."
In the WP manuals there is talk about encouraging inexperienced editors, and explaining breaches rather than blocking as a first option. It suprises me that there it is not Wikipedia protocol to first address and hopefully resolve issues via the Talk page. What is the next step in the Wikipedia unblock process for someone who acknowledges that they have made errors and can learn from them? I have now seen that some unblock requests are little more than lying and begging, does that usually help?
I apologise for the length of this response. RussHawk (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Laming&oldid=533188079
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Laming&diff=prev&oldid=533150957
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Laming&diff=prev&oldid=533150957
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Laming&diff=prev&oldid=533150156
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Laming&diff=prev&oldid=533150520
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Laming&diff=prev&oldid=533150957