Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Gabor Lukacs. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Wikipedia
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP warning
Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Regulatory capture, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am unable to reach you through your talk page -- since I have not been a member for at least 4 days, I am unable to make any changes to the talk page. Am I doing something wrong? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, in my edit note, I wrote this, "Deleting this. First, no source was provided calling this regulatory capture; you need a source that says that, or else this is WP:OR. Secondly, naming this living person as an example of capture is a WP:BLP violation." Please click on those two links and read what is there so you understand what I am talking about. Then look at what I wrote again, and then look at your edit, and you will see what i mean. Please do that, and then write back and let me know if you understand or not. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I read WP:OR, and I am puzzled, because I provided links to back up the previous positions and lobbying registrations of Mr. Barone, as well as the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal criticizing his decision, and the order granting leave to appeal. Did these links get lost somehow in the editting? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:BLP? Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I read WP:BLP. I believe I was quoting the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling (paragraph 40) quite adequately. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK we can put all this together now. None of the sources you provided actually calls this "regulatory capture". You are the one making that claim and that is WP:OR. The BLP violation is making an unsourced claim about a living person. Do you see now? Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no point discussing this in two places at once. Let's just continue this at the article Talk page; I won't respond here further. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK we can put all this together now. None of the sources you provided actually calls this "regulatory capture". You are the one making that claim and that is WP:OR. The BLP violation is making an unsourced claim about a living person. Do you see now? Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Help with talking to Jytdog
I am trying to reach User:Jytdog, but I am unable to write on his talk page, likely because I have not been yet "autoconfirmed" and the page is semi-protected.
Is there another way to communicate with him? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I replied above. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You are editing here under your real name. I read this. WP:BLPCOI applies here. It is OK for you to suggest content on the article Talk page but you must be extremely careful. We indefinitely block people who pursue real world conflicts in Wikipedia. Do you understand? Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course that I am editing under my real name. Doing otherwise would be dishonest, in my respectful view, and might create the appearance of attempting to air a conflict under a false name. Are you suggesting that I would have been "wiser" to assume a false identity...?
- As for the article itself, it might be more helpful if you read what the Federal Court of Appeal had to say in the conduct of the CTA in its judgment. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- What I want to make sure you are aware of here, is WP:BLPCOI. Have you read that? Please acknowledge. Once you do, I will make you aware of one more thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I have read it. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, great. So before I provide you the next notice, let me make you aware of some things.
- First. Everything in Wikipedia works by consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS if you want to know what that means here). This includes decisions reached by consensus in the past; those consensus-driven decisions are the foundation on which current discussions occur. Some very important discussions about basic things happened a long time ago, and have gained widespread and enduring consensus - we call them "policies". There are also "guidelines" that explain bits of policy, or are proto-policy. All editors are obligated to learn the policies and guidelines and to follow them. Everybody here understands that it takes time to learn but one of the hardest things for new editors to understand is that these policies and guidelines exist at all, and then what they say, and then how we deploy them. It takes time. Please know that. There are policies/guidelines about content, and separate ones governing editor behavior. I can give you a brief overview of these if you like - let me know.
- Second. The community has also built up lots of mechanisms to resolve disputes and reach consensus. They are described in WP:DR. These range from simple discussions to various forms of mediation all the way to our "supreme court" which is called Arbcom. Arbcom is used only for gnarly disputes that normal dispute resolution cannot resolve.
- Third As you can imagine, there are long-running, difficult disputes in Wikipedia over issues in the real world where there are long-running, difficult disputes. For example, our articles on abortion, Northern Ireland, isreal/palestine, etc, are hotly contested. What happens very often is that content disputes lead people to get emotional and start violating behavioral policies, and the issues with content get mixed up with issues over editors' behavior and the issues get too complicated for the community to resolve. These are the kinds of disputes that end up being brought to Arbcom. When Arbcom takes on a specific case involving specific disputes and among specific editors and resolves it, Arbcom leaves enduring restrictions on editing in place, that can be used to efficently tamp down problems before they explode again. These enduring restrictions are called "discretionary sanctions" (DS). The list of topics with DS is here. You will see that biographies of living people is included in that list. So any content about a living person anywhere in Wikipedia is subject to DS. Below, I am going to provide you formal notice of this. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, great. So before I provide you the next notice, let me make you aware of some things.
- Yes, I have read it. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- What I want to make sure you are aware of here, is WP:BLPCOI. Have you read that? Please acknowledge. Once you do, I will make you aware of one more thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
More vanilla COI issues
Separately from the BLPCOI issues, please be aware that in the view of the community, being involved in litigation and then coming to Wikipedia to write about that litigation puts the editor who does that in a conflict of interest. This is described in the WP:COI guideline at WP:COILEGAL. What we ask editors who are in a COI situation to do, is to declare that and to not edit directly, but rather propose content on the relevant Talk page for other editors to review for neutrality, and if you want to create an article, that you do that through the articles for creation process which provides peer review before the article publishes. Declaration and peer review are the fundamentals of COI management in Wikipedia.
Would you please add a disclosure to your userpage User:Gabor Lukacs, along the lines of: "I am involved in litigation against the Canadian Transportation Agency and Canadian airlines. I have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia with regard to those topics". (sorry if that is not entirely accurate - I am just trying to give you an example of an appropriate disclosure)
Also, would you please agree to follow the peer review process going forward, where your COI is active? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that you are misquoting the WP:COILEGAL. It refers to conflicts with an individual, not with an organization, and especially not with the Government of Canada (of which the CTA is an arm of). Furthermore, speaks about "you are involved in a court case" in present tense, which indicates that once the court proceeding has been resolved, there is no longer COI.