Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:15, 15 July 2009

Revision as of 19:37, 2 December 2017

Line 263:

#::I think Verbal refers to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=prev&oldid=260192189 this]. Correct me if I'm wrong. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] ([[User talk:Jafeluv|talk]]) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

#::::Since that article names names, there would be meaningful BLP worries over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_(website)&curid=18994141&diff=260187472&oldid=260156662 this edit by Verbal], unless the org self-identifies with that label. This doesn't mean a quote from a reliable source, pinning that label on them, can't be used, so long as it isn't done with the article's narrative voice (as it happens, I see the article indeed carries an O'Reilly quote which does this), but the category is something else altogether. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 10:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

#:::::The supposedly 'slanderous' reference was in describing the Stormfront website as 'Neo Nazi'. Having [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?t=347702 checked out their website], it seems to me that it is. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

#:::::: I've been away, sorry. If he had said "BLP concerns" rather than slander that would have been fine, and we could have discussed it. However the Neo-Nazi tag on that article is clearly appropriate and no slander was made or could reasonably have misinterpreted. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

#:::::::Ciao, Verbal. I think perhaps unintentional semantic interpretations made the conversation a little more heated that it needed to be. I was objecting to the labelling of a group of people with a derogatory title when that label was not supported by the article at the time. There is a clear process for potentially controversial categorisation – find reliable sources to support a negative claim about the subject of the article, make sure there's consensus to include that claim in the article, and then add the appropriate categories. The way it had been done on this particular article – an editor adding a category "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&diff=prev&oldid=260129086 simply because]" they felt it applied was unfortunate. There were no legal or moral dimensions to my characterisation of your action as slanderous; it was an attempt to convey the seriousness of the issue. The subsequent situation would have been much less charged had I adopted a less confrontational manner. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"><font face="Goudy Old Style">&nbsp;Skomorokh&nbsp;</font></span>]] 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)