User talk:Tambourine60

Welcome!

Hello, Tambourine60! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! X1\ (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 15:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.[1] Thank you. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note I have redacted material you added to Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery that is not sourced that I could not easily confirm. Do not readd such material without a reliable source to back this up (unless it has already been provided in the article itself or the talk page prior). BLP still applies to the recently deceased. --Masem (t) 01:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop making claims unsupported by sources

I'm writing this here so there's a clearer record of it. You are of course free to remove this thread, as per WP:OWNTALK since the record is still in the edit history. As I have said on the talk page, please stop making claims unsupported by sources as you did when you claimed (emphasis added) "and it's hard to see how it's irrelevant that an ex-cop chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary, also knew the guy's priors and in fact had HELPED CONVICT HIM in the past." As I explained on the talk page, and you have now acknowledged, you have zero evidence that the "ex-cop" actually knew the guy's priors at the time he was "chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary" which is what your statement clearly implied. If you did not mean to implication such a thing, then please word your statements properly in the future making it clear that you are talking about 2 distinct events that occurred at different times, so you do not make such implications. If you did mean to make such an unfounded implication then please stop. I would note you also made the unfounded implication that I had a position about the inclusion of material when I had already said "I only joined this discussion to ask you stop making claims which are not supported by sources. Anything else you can discuss with other editors." As I have now made even clearer on the talk page, I have no expressed position on the inclusion of the material, and am unlikely to ever express one. My sole purpose in that discussion is to ask for you to stop making claims unsupported by sources. Feel free to discuss the inclusion of such material with other participants who are willing to discuss it with you, provided you stop making unfounded claims or implications. If you do continue to make claims or implications unsupported by sources, you should expect to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've already clarified my position. I have already defended myself from your accusation of "spreading bullshit", which apparently comes down to nothing but you falsely believing I was "implying that these were both something that occurred at the same time" when I clearly punctuated it to suggest the exact opposite. You can't seem to let it go, to the point where you're cautioning me like some pedantic ass to "word your statements properly in the future making it clear that you are talking about 2 distinct events that occurred at different times." Are you serious? Have you nothing better to do? Have I been, in your view, "spreading" more of what in your fevered mind, constitutes "bullshit" by "implying" that "something occurred at the same time"? Or are you just getting off on continuing with your pettiness and stalking me on my page while threatening me with being blocked? Tambourine60 (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And now you need to source or remove this claim [2] which would otherwise be an obvious BLP violation. Given the above response to Nil Einne, I would strongly suggest you do this. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial block

I have redacted your comment as it appears clear that it was indeed a BLP violation. As you had previously had material redacted by an admin and were given a final warning here, I have blocked you from editing this article. This does not affect your ability to edit the rest of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below this section on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite:I am extremely upset by being blocked. What's this "another false claim on the talkpage about Arbery's priors"? I'm unable to even see what you're talking about, since you've redacted it and the link doesn't work. This is outrageous. Tambourine60 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP and its importance have been explained to you often enough now. That it has been redacted is an indication of how wrong your edit was, so rather than complaining about the redaction, you should consider apologizing for having made it necessary for an administrator to perform that action. This is not a free-speech zone, this is not a social network: not everything goes here. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite:@Drmies:How can I possibly apologize if I don't know what it was that was redacted? I am a novice user and a bunch of self-righteous men are trying to bully me into silence. Not up for that, sorry. Tambourine60 (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You made the same (indeed, a worse) claim about Arbery's prior convictions than the one which admin Masem previously redacted. By the way, this is still being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery, which of course you can still edit, as you're only article-blocked. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Bully into silence" is bullshit. You already forgot what you posted a few hours ago? You don't need to be quiet, you simply need to follow the rules. If the BLP is too complicated for you, this probably isn't the website for you. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

At some point: WP:CIR. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I found what was redacted while you were Biting the Newcomer. I was accused of having "no source" on the Administrator Messageboard; in my defense, I posted simply the source and a direct quote from it to show what I'd written was sourced... and it was redacted. That's outrageous. And you're not acting in good faith here. I'm genuinely trying to understand the Policies and Guidelines (or as you call them, "rules"), and why I was blocked. I asked for help. I'm not "incompetent"—just new to editing. And your response is to tell me this "isn't the website for me" and suggest I lack "competence"? Lovely. Tambourine60 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tambourine60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock immediately per below; I believe I have been deliberately blocked to prevent me from participating in the Priors RfC on the Talk page. I have also requested an explanation twice on the Administrator Messageboard from the user who blocked me—I thought I was entitled to a specific answer. See expanded explanation below. Thank you! Tambourine60 (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are still permitted to edit the administrator's noticeboard, so you are welcome to participate there. You will need to demonstrate a better understanding of WP:BLP than I see here to have the partial block removed. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2020 (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 am a novice editor who has been WP:HOUNDED for editing the Talk page with my views on what should be included in the article, which are apparently offensive to some. My sole interest is that the article reflect the factual truth and I have been scrupulously honest and acted only in good faith. I have researched and cited sources for everything single factual statement I've made.

Note that I am not being blocked for saying anything demonstratively untrue or which has been contradicted by ANY source. No one has cited any source contradicting what I've written. The claims are solely that I have "made up" information.

Masem wrote in response to a complaint about me: "The earlier probation about the gun, yes, but the stealing from Walmart I can't find anything about. Will deal with that." Masem then gave me a "final warning". When I provided citation, literally nothing but a quote from and link to a Daily Beast article which reported the theft from Walmart, the quote was deleted from the Administrators Messageboard with a note from Drmies: "I want you to not post that kind of material anywhere on Wikipedia, OK? Doesn't matter whether it's verified or not--there is no good reason to post that here or anywhere. The material is not relevant to ANYTHING we're doing here, and it's certainly not relevant to the shooting." So I made a factual statement, was challenged that it's false (even though I'd already cited the source), and when I re-cited the source, I was blocked?

Now I've been blocked, apparently because I stated that Arbery had been convicted of felonies, something which, as far as I've seen, no cited source has disputed. Certainly none of my tormentors has cited anything that contradicts it. I stated it because a source I had cited several times previously stated that the DA, in a widely-reported letter to the State AG, wrote of an ADA (who was also his son): "...he had handled a previous felony probation revocation and pleading Ahmaud Arbery to a felony in her Glynn County Office." For those who can't count, that's two (2) felonies. The DA further noted that: Arbery "had a juvenile and adult felony record."

I have no idea why I've been harassed like this. Again, I'm new to this and don't understand much of it, but scrolling down a little I see a long passage about "User:Drmies abusing administrative privileges", which somehow doesn't surprise me. Please unblock me, as I have done nothing but cited widely-reported facts from mainstream sources, and with only the goal of revealing the truth. Tambourine60 (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't create another account to evade your block, and don't edit the page while logged out. starship.paint (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You accused a person of committing multiple felonies. There is no evidence that the person has been convicted of any felonies. Your only source appears to be a letter written by the shooter's mother, which is a ridiculous source. You did this after given a previous final warning for doing this earlier. Now, you've just done it again. O3000 (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: - Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill wrote: "Ahmaud, the deceased, had a juvenile and adult felony record." - it's in the source above. starship.paint (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Precisely. This same letter (which I've cited numerous times), forms the basis for reportage in the NYT, the AJC, and any number of other mainstream sources, some of which are already in the Article. I've been continuously told that I wrote "false" information, despite zero evidence of that and my repeated citation of the above? I quote from a mainstream source in my defense on the Administrator Messageboard, and it's redacted—nothing I've written, just a quote from he Daily Beast. This comes down to people not liking the facts, and essentially claiming, with zero evidence, that the DA lied about simple matters of record in a widely published letter to the Georgia Attorney General. Now do you see why I take issue with being blocked? I cannot find one single fair-minded person to actually look at the facts here, which speak to censorship. Tambourine60 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find one single fair-minded person to actually look at the facts here, which speak to censorship. - remind me why I checked the link for you? starship.paint (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnhill has a connection to one of those arrested for the shooting and has been reported as a part of a mishandling of the case. Barnhill also claimed Arbery attacked Travis McMichael, which is disputed. Even if used as a source, it would have to be attributed as opposed to taken as "fact". O3000 (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: The man is a DA (and likely no one's "mother"). He was making factual statements to the State AG about McMichael's help in prosecuting Arbery earlier – something that, based solely on this exact same source, has been widely reported in many, many mainstream publications which apparently didn't share your personal opinion that Barnhill is a "ridiculous source" when it comes to people's criminal histories. So now, after insisting for days that what I wrote was "false", and falsely claiming that it comes from someone's "mother", you're retracting that bit of defamation and claiming only that I should have "attributed" it to the DA? Look back over what I wrote; on at least a half-dozen occasions, I have written that this information came from this exact same letter from the DA to the State AG. Surely we don't have to "attribute" every single piece of information every single time we state it in a long-running discussion? For example, I see no citation for your above claims of "connection" or "mishandling" or "dispute". Tambourine60 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your post was so outrageous it had to be revision deleted and made after you had received a final warning to not post this again. Seriously, if you want to return to this subject, reread WP:BLP and take it seriously. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Apology for not properly citing/sourcing information per BLP

As I wrote on the Administrator Messageboard, after Black Kite's explanation (You said that Arbery had been convicted (and that is the important word) of two felonies. You provided no source for this. Since then, on your talk page you mentioned Barnhill's comments - neither of those used the word "convicted" and they were Barnhill's words anyway and so should have been attributed at the very least. Even if Barnhill's claim that they "had a felony record" is true, that is not "two convictions" - it may be, it may not be. Do you understand the problem now?):

Black Kite I really appreciate your explanation and now finally understand that I was blocked specifically for failing to cite or source information I presented as factual. Is the "BLP violation" that I disseminated "contentious material about a living person that… is unsourced or poorly sourced"? If so, the BLP element now makes sense to me. I thought I had been blocked for writing something WP:UNDUE, which made zero sense to me as it was in the context of a Talk page solicitation about what was/wasn't WP:DUE. I'm glad to have that clarified. As you point out, certainly no one has provided any source which contradicts in any way what I wrote, so it's not that I posted demonstratively "false" information, as many have claimed, but as you say, that "it may be, it may not be" true. I completely understand that in your view I erred by assuming that my having cited/sourced the information in the same context on the same Talk page more than once before, I didn't need to re-attribute and re-cite the source. I can certainly see now how, had I provided the attribution/source along with that statement, it would have been clearer why I had presented the information. Not doing so was entirely my error and I will do my utmost to always cite and attribute each piece of information – I can clearly see how that will help avoid future conflict — and I wholeheartedly apologize for not doing so in the instant example. Very truly, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You accused a man with "multiple felonies" without any reliable source anywhere. You did this after you were given a final warning. I still have seen no reliable source for multiple felonies. O3000 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 You are replying to my sincere apology for not (re)citing sources when I wrote that Arbery had been convicted of multiple felonies. I have also resolved to cite sources for any potentially contentious material per BLP in the future. I'm not sure what more I can do than acknowledge my mistake and agree to not make the same one in the future. Can you please explain your motivation for writing the above in response to my apology? It certainly seems like WP:HOUNDING to me. Tambourine60 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Tambourine60 Okay so there's actually a reason that BLP has different rules than other things. If someone posts false information about someone - Wikipedia can potentially be sued for Libel or Defamation. Even if they're not sued it can be a serious controversy. So the BLP rules are there to ensure that people are treated fairly and they're not posting potentially harmful rumors. That being said - I largely agree with you since there are many reliable sources regarding the convictions. But here's what's happening: Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!". From the article: While the biographies of living persons policy includes a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute. They're essentially Crying "BLP!" for the simple fact that they don't like the information. They don't want Arbery painted in a bad light so they're pulling out the BLP trump card. The actual rule regarding BLP and priors rule states: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." But what you see is selective banning, selective deletion, and editors/administrators selectively using the rules in order to get their way. It's like the Bill Clinton impeachment. Nobody really gave a shit if he got a blowjob in the oval office - Republicans just wanted to get him out of office. So when it came time for impeachment almost 100% of Republicans found him guilty and almost 100% of Democrats found him innocent. In other words they selectively focused on unrelated rules to try to get the opposing party out of office. But the truth is if a Rebublican president had relations with Monica Lewinski, you would have seen an opposite vote - Democrats voting that he's guilty, Republicans voting that he's innocent. The intention isnt that they actually care if he's guilty - they just want their party in office. It's just how humans operate. We think we're logical and objective but the reality is we're very tribal. If you state the conviction (a few) editors cry "BLP! You cant claim that without a reliable source." When you post a reliable source it's "You cant even post that link here! it's a violation of BLP!" and a bunch of other fancy footwork in order to help their case. A bunch of links to reliable sources were deleted due to "BLP" even though they didn't actually violate the rules. - Chrisvacc (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am trying to clarify so you do not run into the same problem again. Your apology said your error was that you did not "re-attribute and re-cite the source". Fact is, you never gave a reliable source for multiple felonies. And Chrisvacc is leading you down a bad path. O3000 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 I stand corrected; I genuinely believed I had cited the source in prior discussion on the Talk page but am unable to find it now and have struck that from my acknowledgement/apology. Tambourine60 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

He's actually right here. Listening to me will lead you down a path of not getting editing privileges back. I've actually made a conscious decision that standing up for the truth is more important than the outcome of this specific article. So don't follow me unless you want to be a martyr. But you can see here that even when people properly cite things they're deleted by admins: example and the Edit summary was "(BLP, please see note I'm about to add)" and thre are several examples in the revisions: here - Chrisvacc (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done I have unblocked you. Please be careful on that Talk Page. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:npa

---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Steve Quinn:! I certainly don't want to be blocked! A question for you: how would I go about addressing the fact that User:Objective3000 has been given RS for information on the Talk page multiple times, deletes it, then claims he sees no RS for that information and warns people of BLP violations for not sourcing it? He/she got me warned for a BLP violation for not sourcing information on the Talk Page that I had previously sourced in the Article itself. I posted the RS on the Administrator's Messageboard. Then someone else posted the same RS for the same info on the Talk Page, which O3000 deleted (and then warned them). Then 03000 claimed on the Talk Page that he's never seen any source for that info and accused numerous other people of BLP violations for not having sources for the same info (which, of course, they did). See here:

• I originally posted the source of the info here
• User:Objective3000 accused me on the Administrator Messageboard of not having sourced it on the Talk Page (after someone had deleted the source from the Article), I was "final warned" (my first warning) and responded by posting another source for the info (for the second time) here
• @Dream Focus: posted the same info and identical source a few days later, and User:Objective3000 again claimed "BLP violations" and deleted it here and then went on their page to "warn" them here
• A couple days later, User:Objective3000 kicked off a long argument (@WWGB:@Isaidnoway:) accusing even MORE users of BLP violations after claiming he/she "can't find any indication" of a source for the SAME info here

Is that "productive editing"? If not, how would you characterize it? Because the above explains my frustration with User:Objective3000's again accusing me, in this case by obviously misrepresenting what I wrote and trying to get me blocked again. And I absolutely want to be a productive editor and not get dragged down by this stuff! Thanks again! Tambourine60 (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't recall interaction problems with Objective 3000 in the past - at least that I can remember. So, I shall endeavor to look at your diffs and your arguments and see if I can help you out. Does this sound OK? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• At first run through of your comments here, I think there is some misunderstanding on your part. I'll have to come back to that.

And, recalling Objective 3000's last comment on talk (Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery page), I noticed that at worse, they may have misspoken. But when your cited reference on the talk page says "Insider", Objective 3000 cannot be thought of as a mind reader and know that AJC content is being carried by "Insider". I think that was made clear after you responded to them, so their was no way for them to know that. Also, they misunderstood your redaction of the neighbor's name as being an anonymous source. That was a simple misunderstanding.

So, none of this is a reason to engage in personal attacks. And, I guarantee that editing this article, two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, it's best not to take matters into your own hands and attack another editor. That will get you blocked. Also, If you think you are being personally attacked then post it on Black Kite's talk page and they can help you out. But, it probably won't be more than explaining a misunderstanding, which is what I am doing now.

One of things I noticed Objective 3000 doing was posting templates on other's talk pages about this page being under discretionary sanctions [4], [5]. This is normal procedure and appropriate in that it helps editors to be aware that sanctions are in place. This helps to remind people that consistent disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and probably will result in a short term block or a topic ban. That is all it is.

Also, not every piece of information about Ahmaud Arbery is relevant to this topic. I don't know if you can see that. I have to re-read what you wrote here and go through the diffs again. I'll get back to you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I'm beginning to see the big picture here. I didn't realize there was an ANI going on about this. Essentially, I think you need to chill and stop trying to insert content that violates BLP, whether or not it has a source. Two mistakes you made were providing two inaccurate summaries on the article talk page that did not have the support of RS [6], [7]. In contrast, you're summations were accurate on the article page and finally at ANI. However, as has been expressed - these are still BLP violations, as they have been deemed not relevant to the topic, and therefore are character smears. I have to agree. Continually arguing these issues will eventually get you blocked. Also, setting up false equivalences about what is in the Background sections is equal to BLP violations is not going to work. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Steve Quinn. I fully understand what I did before—I failed to properly cite RS. But I didn't receive any other formal warning or block. Nor has the material you take issue with been "deemed not relevant to the topic" as you claim; there's an open Rfc on the Talk Page requesting comments on the relevance of that material, and I very clearly referred to nothing in this instance that hadn't already been covered in that Rfc. I've read Wikipedia material regarding BLP guidelines, which includes:

"If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject… It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter, even if you've recently edited that same article. It's not OK to block someone for citing The Washington Post in a matter with which you disagree."

On the Talk Page you went on about how The Atlanta Journal Constitution is a poor source, before finally reversing yourself—and nowhere did I require anyone to be a "mind reader and know that AJC content is being carried by Insider", since, as you must be aware, I included the AJC citation SIMULTANEOUSLY with the Insider footnote. Tambourine60 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tambourine60: I didn't reverse my position on AJC as a source. I think it is a poor source, and I think there are better sources. And I didn't block you. I think you need to take up that issue with the Admin that blocked you to start with.

Yes, the material has been deemed not relevant by a consensus of editors actively engaged on the talk page and editing the page, and by a WP:AN discussion, where more consensus emerged. There is no connection between Arbery's past behaviors and the circumstances that led up to his death. Past behaviors are distinct from the vigilantism and the cornering of Arbery that took place which led to his death. I suppose it is like the old saying, "apples and oranges". I'm sorry you are unable to see the distinctions here.

Also, the topic is "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery", so information that pertains to that event is what is relevant. There was a short period of time on one particular day where and when this event occurred. Then the function of BLP is to protect Wikipedia from engaging in posting irrelevant facts for the sake of casting a living person, or recently deceased person, in bad light. In the second sentence, BLP rightly opens with, "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" - one of which is NPOV. Hence, sources can recount an event but might violate NPOV as UNDUE. Your original talk page summations probably violated NOR.

Also, the WMF can potentially be sued for posting inappropriate material in an article. BLP covers talk pages as well. So this policy also functions to protect the WMF and Wikipedia.

The policy page goes on to say:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

So I reiterate Wikipedia is not in the business of being sensationalist, spreading titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm must be taken into consideration (for example harm to family and community). The articles must be conservatively written with the subject's privacy uppermost in our minds. Just be clear this includes recently deceased. Enough tragedy, trauma, and harm has already taken place with a twenty something's death who was very much an innocent citizen. Bringing in minor past run-ins with the law, especially as a teenager, is blowing events out of proportion and UNDUE.

Lastly, I don't understand why you have mentioned the above a few times:

"If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject… It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter, even if you've recently edited that same article. It's not OK to block someone for citing The Washington Post in a matter with which you disagree.

I don't understand what is your point here and I don't see where your quotation came from. Maybe you can clear that up. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The other thing is, this seems to be an attempt to imply Aubery is connected to these behaviors and I think you might want to consider removing this from the talk page. I know I am considering it. It seems like you are trying to be provocative. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Steve Quinn:! I feel bad taking up your time. I absolutely (as I think is obvious) learned my lesson about always sourcing any claims properly (I posted three sources originally, not just Insider, and have added two more). I get your point about Objective3000; I will endeavor not to take things personally. Also, my intent is in no way to smear anyone, living or dead, but to help with an encyclopedia! I got involved with this article because I happened upon it and was surprised by some obvious factual errors. I'm really, really trying to understand this idea of a BLP issue vis-a-vis "smears" or have some have said "blaming the victim". I now see why listing someone's criminal past may be an issue of relevance in some articles, but don't really see how it's a "BLP violation", which would seem to me to allow properly sourced material even if contentious or if "most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject". And I see that, when it comes to BLP: "It's not OK to block someone for citing The Washington Post in a matter with which you disagree." In this case, I believe that Arbery's convictions are relevant because they appear to form the basis for a prior relationship with a man accused of murdering him (and not mentioning that would be a major error). Is articulating that on the Talk Page a BLP violation—and if so, why? As to the section you got involved with, the Article already referenced "a black man" seen on security videos — is it really a BLP violation to point out on the Talk page that RS state his own family has said it's him? If so, why? Again, sorry to take up your valuable time but I so appreciate your help! Tambourine60 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My take is a bit different. When one or two low-experience editors oppose this many editors with years of experience – including admins, who probably wouldn't be admins if they didn't have good understandings of Wikipedia policies and how they are commonly applied – the former should have the sense to defer whether they understand or not. Policies and common application are not as clear and simple as they might appear. It would be nice if written policies could put all editors on an equal standing regardless of experience level, but that's not the case and never will be. Get a few years of heavy editing experience under your belt and then take aggressive stances like this if you still feel the same way. Even then, you'll rightly lose if you're outnumbered by other established and knowledgeable editors. That's the political reality; as for the content issues here, I have no opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for taking the time to comment. Respectfully, I find your argumentum ad verecundiam unpersuasive; my understanding of Wikipedia is that there are no firm rules and that all users are encouraged to "be bold" in editing. Your admonishment to "defer" whether I "understand or not" does not sit well with me and seems contrary to the very spirit of this project. I've read with interest the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, and understand why people from [Aaron Swartz] to scholars at MIT have voiced concern over Wikipedia's "bourgeoisie" and how their credentialism and hostility to new and/or infrequent users has significant costs to the project. I have experienced it: smugness, superiority, and a shocking number of experienced editors telling me, as a new (or "low-experience) editor, that "this isn't the place for you". I have made mistakes, then learned from and corrected them – but only by being persistent was I even able to even get an explanation of what my mistakes were; the process was very clearly a punitive, rather than an educational and inclusive one. Few have actually engaged me in an intellectually honest debate on the merits of content – instead they've preferred to throw around WP:XYZ in the service of censoring facts they find unpleasant. But ultimately, we see this enterprise differently. Unlike you, I don't see my volunteering and offering contributions as an issue of "losing" or "winning". As you've made clear, your interest lies in "political reality" – where "wikilawyers" certainly are more informed than I – whereas I am apolitical and focused on content, since to me that forms the basis of an encyclopedia. Tambourine60 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me know

Could you do me a favor and let me know (send a smoke signal, or fire a flare maybe) if this guy ever makes up his mind? - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to report that the time machine actually works -- we have hurtled back to 1984, by my reckoning. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)