User talk:Vladskivel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

September 2017[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Commission on Human Rights (Philippines). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Psiĥedelisto, thanks for welcoming me to wiki.

How can you accused me of not acting in good faith when I edited the article on CHR? As far as I know, I was fair and truthful in everything that I have contributed in that article and that I have no intention of disrespecting anyone. If there was someone who was not acting in good faith, I guess that editor who tries to discredit the section "Legal questions" by defending furiously the current CHR as a "Constitutional Commission" body created under the 1987 Constitution when in fact it was not. There was no law enacted by Congress for the creation of the current Commission on Human Rights. The current CHR was created by virtue of a E.O. issued by then, President Corazon Aquino. Legally speaking, the current CHR is not a Constitutional Commission. Any sitting president of the Republic of the Philippines can abolish it through issuance of another E.O. abolishing the existing CHR. --Vladskivel (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vladskivel: The reason I accused you of not acting in good faith is because in this diff you accused another editor of vandalizing the article, which they did not do. "Vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and accusing another editor of it is a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE (even though you are a new editor yourself), and can be seen by the other editor as a personal attack. Civility is key on Wikipedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Psiĥedelisto. I do not agree that there was no vandalism committed when that particular editor hijacked the section 'Legal questions'. Sorry, you may want to revisit the meaning of vandalism in wiki to understand my point. You keep on talking about my violation when you cannot even cite one good evidence that I committed one. Just because I removed something that is written there that I thought does not belong in that section I am guilty of committing a crime already. If we want to be civil then you shouldn't have called me out as the one who did not act in good faith.--Vladskivel (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vladskivel, Here are some issues regarding the contents of the "Legal Questions" section in the CHR page. First, the way it was written is like it's leading people to believe on a specific stance instead of raising "legal questions". Titles such as "CHR engaged in self-deception" are certainly not neutral if you take a look at it. Overall, I suggest constructing the contents of the the said topic in a more neutral manner if you wish to include it.

Furthermore, it seems like the contents of "Legal Questions" mainly relies on the perspective of Yen Makabenta; referencing his article on The Manila Times a number of times. This fact alone is already sufficient to question its neutrality; mainly relying on a single article that is classified as 'Opinion' by The Manila Times. --sixfourone (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)