User talk:Rrburke/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I have removed the warning you put on my page. I am not engaged in an edit war. The edits that were made contratdicted the source that was left on the article (eg. the quoted distance etc.) Others were unsourced allegagtions and claims for which the 3RR does not apply under WP:BLP.

I do not consider myself the gatekeeper of this article. I barely make any edits to it. Others are far more active in reverting edits.

I suggest that you have a vendetta against me because I reverted one of your edits. (Interesting that the current version of that section is my edit). I suggest you stop, or I will report you for harrassment. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will report you for harrassment. Do you not get that the 3RR does not apply under WP:BLP? Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The edits in question were not derogatory, not potentially libellous, not unsourced or poorly-sourced"? Excuse me? An edit that changes the article to say 200 metres when the source clearly says 120 metres. Definitely the 3RR rule does not apply.

You really are tiresome, and I will be reporting you for harrassment if you post in my talk page again. The editor was reverted once, second time still assuming good faith and then warned. The fourth revert was his/hers after warning. It is legitmate to revert after an editor has been warned for vandalism and doesn't heed it. Issues like the distance of the Tapas bar to the flat are crucial in WP:BLP, as you would know if you weren't a relative newcomer to the article. This has been throughly discussed. And given our recent debate, I am suprised that you would accept an edit that differs from the source.

AS I say, I am done with you. I am reporting you for harrassment and I will let the admins deal with it. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with all that. As good-faith notifications to inexperienced editors that their fundamentally-flawed understanding of Wikipedia policies are no basis for acting as article gatekeeper are never considered "harassment," and as equally good-faith notifications that editors have violated WP:3RR are never considered "harassment" either, I look forward to the opportunity to respond in order to put the entire record on the table. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just the 3RR warning (which given our discussions over the past few days few people would believe was made in good faith). It is your lie (I will use that word now and you can report me for it if you want) that I am acting as a gatekeeper for Disappearance of Madeleine McCann despite all evidence to the contrary. I have made relatively few edits to the article, even fewer reverts, and issued very, very few warnings to other editors. Others have been far more active in this regard as me. Why are you not accusing them of being gatekeepers? I went over two weeks (10-26 August) without making any edits to the article (even though I was active on other articles), and did not even contribute when the whole article was up for deletion. Pretty strange actions for a gatekeeper!

My revert to your edit was done in good faith based on my understanding of the consensus at the time. Wikipedia policies are not hard and fast rules. We discussed it, and further edits were made so that we now have a version that all (including you I assume) are happy with. That is how Wikipedia works. But if someone were to claim that Toronto is the capital of Canada, sourced to an otherwise reliable source, would you not expect that edit to be reverted immediately? And would the 3RR rule apply to an editor who removed the error several times if it was reinserted? Of course not! I was reverting an edit that was libelous (if you are going to use the term "Suspect Kate McCann" you had better also be referring to "Suspect Robert Murat") and contradicted by the quoted source (if you are going to say 200 metres, you had better be sure that your source says 200, not 120). Despite what you say, facts are important, and WP:BLP is an important consideration. You jumped the gun with your 3RR warning. I stand by everything I did in that case, including starting out gently with a new editor (including pointing out the 3RR rule) who refused to accept that his/her edits were unhelpful.

I am done discussing this with you directly. If you want to report me, go ahead. I will defend myself. If you really have the courage of your ludicrous accusations, then go ahead. I have made my points here and elsewhere and quite frankly you are not worth anymore of my time. Harry was a white dog with black spots 06:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point-by-point response:

"Wikipedia is for all editors, not just experienced ones."

Of course Wikipedia is for all editors, experienced and inexperienced alike. Wikipedia is for anybody. It is just not for inexperienced editors to invoke poorly-understood or plainly misconstrued policies as the basis for obstructing editing of the article.

Editors who have been told clearly that their understanding of the policy is mistaken have an obligation to: a) read the policy; b) understand their error; c) get out of the road. If it persists, continuing to obstruct once you've been informed of your error falls under WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which covers the "refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy." Persistent "refusal[s] to 'get the point'" are considered disruptive.

"3RR does not apply under WP:BLP."

Wrong. There is no blanket suspension of 3RR under WP:BLP: 3RR does apply not under WP:BLP only when "the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced" [italics mine] The material you reverted was not "derogatory", and it was not "unsourced or poorly sourced." It was just unhelpful and tendentious and some of it probably erroneous, but that is not "derogatory". It is removable -- up to three times.

You removed the application of the epithet "suspect" to Kate and Gerry McCann, for example. That they are suspects is a claim well-sourced and cited in the article, and is therefore not derogatory and cannot be considered "vandalism."

You removed the phrase "which has never been verified" as applied to the McCanns' account of Madeleine's disappearance. That their account has never been verified is true but unremarkable: it does not belong in the article, but it is not "derogatory" and so does not justify suspending WP:3RR.

I would have removed this material too, but:

I would have removed it, only up to three times, as tendentious, unhelpful, misguided and ill-considered, but as it is not "derogatory" it is not covered by a suspension of WP:3RR under WP:BLP which covers only "derogatory" material.
Also, I would not have removed this material five times, because that would have violated WP:3RR.

You also removed this:

"Many observers have commented on her strange behaviour" etc.

This is potentially derogatory, but it can be sourced right here and elsewhere. I do not believe it belongs in the article and would have removed it, but as it is potentially derogatory but also easily sourcable (the suspension of WP:3RR under WP:BLP requires that it be both "derogatory" and "unsourced or poorly-sourced"), the correct response would have been to remove the material as misguided and unsourced. But if the editor then restored it with a citation like the one above, you could only remove it up to two more times under WP:3RR, because the suspension of 3RR under WP:BLP no longer applies.

You also removed this:

"In actual fact the distance between the Tapas restaurant and the McCann's apartment is a round trip of over 200 metres."

This is uncited original research and would justify suspending WP:3RR per WP:BLP. That can be removed as many times as necessary.

The problem is, you didn't sort through the particulars of these edits to decide which material is actually covered under the policies you erroneously cited as the basis for removing all of it. Instead, you indulged in knee-jerk, wholesale reverts of material only parts of which are actually covered under the policy you cited to justify removing all of it!

"It is legitmate to revert after an editor has been warned for vandalism and doesn't heed it."

That would only be the case if the edits were actually vandalism, but they categorically were not. Your placing of wholly inaccurate vandalism warnings on the editor's talk page doesn't magically convert the editor's contributions into vandalism. They weren't vandalism, they were misguided or ill-considered edits, but these are not vandalism, so you had no business reverting them past a third time. On the fourth and fifth edits you were violating WP:3RR. This is another occasion where you really need to actually go and look at the policy. It is very clear:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated."

The edits in question were either "good-faith" but "misguided or ill-considered" (my view) or else "apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit" -- but either way, neither is considered vandalism, and there is no basis for removing such material more than three times unless it is.

"If you want to report me, go ahead."

At present, what would I report you for? WP:3RR is mean to be preventative, not punitive. The article is protected, so there's nothing to prevent.

--Rrburke^(talk) 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't deal with your baseless gatekeeper accusation. It's a bit rich of you to accuse me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Why do you not accuse others who have made far more edits, far more reverts and issued far more warnings (in similar circumstances to this one) of being gatekeepers?

In an instance where an editor suspects a WP:BLP violation, there is a need to act quickly. It is set out in the policy. I dealt with what were unhelful edits in an appropriate way. Some were WP:BLP violations, some were simply unhelpful, but in the circumstances, it is right to inform the editor that his/her edits are unhelpful, as I did, and to subsequently warn them that they could be considered to be in bad faith if they are repeated. I removed all the edits under the need to act immediately in light of WP:BLP. I gave the editor an opportunity to explain why the edits were not in bad faith. If the editor had gone to the talk page as advised, it could have been discussed. But he/she didn't and chose instead to make unhelpful edits after being warned. An edit that contradicts the quoted source is by definition poorly sourced and when WP:BLP is involved, action is appropriate. My actions were entirely appropriate. Yours were not. Stop trying to be Wikipedia police and get back to doing some useful editing.

The article isn't protected. Get your facts straight.

You can report me for calling you a liar. That is a violation of WP:CIVIL. My position is clear, and this is all I will say on this matter. You can ramble on all you want, but my actions were legitimate and good faith, and yours were not. Unless an admin rules differently, that remains my position no matter what else you may say. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't deal with your baseless gatekeeper accusation."

Your proprietary attitude toward the article is more than amply demonstrated by the 3RR violation, coupled with the obstinate insistence on sticking to misinterpretations of policy as the basis for continuing to obstruct legitimate additions even when the precise nature of your misinterpretations has been made clear and illustrated with verbatim quotations from the relevant policies. These things speak for themselves.

"In an instance where an editor suspects a WP:BLP violation, there is a need to act quickly."

Surely not so quickly that you don't bother to distinguish actual violations from mere ill-advised additions? There is a need to act quickly to remove the material that might actually violate WP:BLP, not just to remove any old material you like with knee-jerk reversions. There is no need to act quickly to remove material that doesn't violate WP:BLP. The majority of the material User:Dinkydexy added could not plausibly be construed as violating WP:BLP, and you removed it all. If the matter is so urgent that you haven't got time to distinguish BLP violations from plain old clumsy and ill-considered additions, why not blank the entire article just to be safe? Nobody does that, because removing material for violating BLP requires you actually can assert that all the material you're removing actually violates the policy.

"The article isn't protected. Get your facts straight."

Thank you for the update. The last time I had checked, the article was protected. I apologize for not camping outside the article gates 24/7 and checking my watchlist every 30 seconds for updates in case I might suddenly be needed to swoop in and revert a naughty edit on wholly mistaken grounds.

"I dealt with what were unhelful edits in an appropriate way."

No, you didn't. You called them vandalism when they weren't, and placed an erroneous level-3 vandalism notice on an editor's talk page. They weren't vandalism: they were ill-advised but good-faith edits.

"my actions were legitimate and good faith"

Your actions no doubt were undertaken in good faith but they were not legitimate: they were mistakes based on misunderstandings of the policies involved. I've explained these clearly: the only justifications for suspending 3RR are reverting simple vandalism and removing "derogatory and unsourced or poorly-sourced" material (note the "and") per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. The edits were not simple vandalism: they were good-faith bad edits, which are never vandalism. If you doubt that they were good-faith, see here and here. Vandals don't do that. Neither was the material both "derogatory and unsourced or poorly-sourced." And even if some of it was, a conscientious editor needs to actually expend the effort to sort out the parts that were from the parts that weren't, otherwise you're just using the policy as a false pretext for removing material the policy doesn't cover. There was just no basis for a fourth and fifth wholesale revert.

"...yours were not."

I'd be curious to hear the precise evidence of that. When I said that I placed a 3RR notice notice on your talk page in good faith, if that's what you're referring to, I meant only that I did it in the good-faith belief that you had actually violated 3RR, not that I planned to invite you for Sunday dinner. There is nothing in the record of my correspondence with you that reflects bad faith: all of the policy and guideline issues I've raised with you have been offered in perfect good faith and amply supported with precise selections from the relevant documents. Acting in good faith does not mean you want to be somebody's buddy.

You'll also note that I placed a similar 3RR caution on the other editor's talk page, so not only have I acted in good faith, I've been even-handed as well.

You can report me for calling you a liar. That is a violation of WP:CIVIL.

That would be a frivolous, precious and thin-skinnned complaint about a mere technical violation that no admin would take seriously. And anyway, as it's wholly erroneous, rooted in the same kinds of confusions that have plagued your other contributions to this exchange, and doesn't offend or concern me, why would I bother?

--Rrburke^(talk) 03:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also note that this is not the first time an editor has explained to you that you don't have a good grasp of what constitutes vandalism. If you can't distinguish good-faith bad edits (or even apparent bad-faith edits where the bad faith is not explicit) from vandalism, you have no business putting vandalism notices on any user's talk page. Now that you've been explicitly shown the difference, there can be no excuse for a repetition of the error. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]