User talk:Marksteiner
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Marksteiner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is from Günter Marksteiner, FCC licensee, Chief engineer and owner of the full service television station WHDT-TV (DMA: WPB)
Dear Sir:
I am the original author of the article "WHDT", which is a complete and accurate technical and historical account of the first digital television station licensed by the FCC. I opened the initial account to author this article under user "WHDT". This username made it clear that the information was originating from the most authoritative source. At all times, I also included my full name and position in discussions and in responses to various edits and additions. For years there was never any problem with the username "WHDT".
When I was informed at login that the username "WHDT" was now unacceptable (for some reason claiming a connection with the entity), I opened an account under my last name "Marksteiner". I continued to identify myself using my full name, took credit for previous edits under username "WHDT" and provided an email address and a phone number for anyone interested. Your characterization of me as some sort of "sock" is patently absurd. If it were not for the Wikipedia-generated block to "WHDT", editing of the article would have continued under the original username. I understand a "sock" to be a form of disguise used to hide the identity of an editor. This did not occur in this instance and your "sock" characterization is false.
I have recently figured out how to access various Talk pages. User "Smartse" was instrumental in keeping my continued interest in the Wikipedia project. Although I have not received any contact from anyone other than seeing that your email is offered, I am willing to attempt to make another effort to clarify my actions wherein I repeatedly removed unsubstantiated and disparaging information from the WHDT article.
I read a series of communications between user "Smartse" and yourself wherein you justify your action to block the television station's owner and FCC licensee from maintaining the station's description in Wikipedia. Your justifications make some reference to user "WHDT" being blocked for reasons other than those presented by Wikipedia. I saw no other reason presented to me at the time of login other than that the username did not meet Wikipedia's standards for an editor. The only message at login was that the user should select another username. Although I thought it ridiculous, I nevertheless complied and opened an account under my last name. I then proceeded to edit the article as I did using the original username. To now claim that this warrants some disciplinary action goes to the heart of the matter - which is anything but irrelevant as you posit.
The WHDT article is one of the most thoroughly detailed, accurate and well-formatted articles on television stations. It contains a wealth of useful information for viewers. It is remarkably free of "commercial" content and provides information which is readily verifiable, albeit not always from the "Internet-based" sources which many of your editors limit their research to.
You claim that some sort of "warring" was taking place with respect to information in the WHDT article. I take exception to that. What was repeatedly removed was the remark that WHDT was an inactive station. By inactive, the legal status of the station using FCC parlance would be that the station is "dark" (not broadcasting). No evidence was offered to support the claim that WHDT was an inactive station other than the editor's personal opinion. I attempted to communicate with the editor who asserted the claim to assure him that WHDT was operating in full accord with its FCC license, that it was on-the-air 24/7 and fully available to viewers. The only response was to find the WHDT article again stating that WHDT was inactive. An inactive licensed TV station is a contradiction in terms. The FCC does not license stations which do not broadcast. When a station is off-air for more that 240 hours for maintenance or any other reason, it must obtain a Special Temporary Authority (STA) to remain so and still hold its license. Anyone who is familiar with broadcasting is also aware of the FCC rules. The claim that WHDT is "inactive" is equivalent to claiming that the station is operating at a variance to its licensed parameters and would subject the station to forfeiture of its license.
Under U.S. law, such an unsubstantiated public statement comprises a disparagement and subjects the author of such a claim to legal action in the courts. Within the Wikipedia system, there is no equivalent means to prevent the promulgation of false claims about a business or legal entity other than to exercise one's right to correct the article. This is what I did, and my actions were entirely correct and justified. It is impossible to "prove" that something is so by citing some Internet-based reference. The best source is a statement from the television station itself, its Chief Engineer, and/or its FCC license holder. In this instance I clearly identified myself as such and furthermore used unmistakable language in my edit description by identifying it: "REMOVED VANDALISM BY LICENSEE".
The above case is not typical of edit "warring" about some matter of "opinion". There is no such thing as an "inactive" TV station. Failure to broadcast is a per se FCC violation which subjects the licensee to loss of license. Aside for the patent absurdity of the claim on its face, any public research would show that literally millions of people in South Florida can and do receive the station 24/7. WHDT is listed in every local newspaper, carried on every cable system and by satellite (except DISH NETWORK, which is under a court order to add the station to its lineup) in the West Palm Beach market. I know of no other TV station listed in Wikipedia who has to "prove" that it is broadcasting. Finally, the false claim was made by an editor with obviously no knowledge of the subject of U.S. television operations.
On various occasions I directed this editor to authoritative sources where he could obtain legal and technical information about WHDT. I offered to obtain TV reception assistance at his location, I provided him with the station phone nr, and the address of the station's Public File. The latter is a mirror of the Commission's master file in Washington D.C. and must be current at all times. A Public File is maintained by every TV station. It appeared to me that the editor was someone intent upon attacking the TV station and would continue to use the Wikipedia resource to do so. While I am not an experienced "Wiukipedian" (the WHDT article is my only contribution to date), I am an experienced broadcaster with 20 years experience, a professional engineer, and an expert on the subject of WHDT-TV. It does not take an expert, however, to spot what is patent nonsense.
Finally, I want to point out that it is a principal responsibility of anyone who holds a television or radio license to proactively and timely take all steps to insure that information which reaches the public about a TV station is accurate. The public communications business is not a game. Licensees have a legal and primary obligation to inform the public during national and local emergencies. Television stations are the backbone of the national Emergency Alert System (EAS) and as such are required to insure that viewers know how to tune to a station and know which stations serve their area. Anyone interfering with the proper dissemination of information to the public is committing a federal offense punishable by imprisonment.
I am not at all amused by the casual manner in which Wikipedia editors assert their oversight authority when dealing with descriptions of government-licensed entities. While Wiki articles may be protected by a right to free speech, it is still not permitted to remove or install fake EXIT signs in a theater because someone wants "proof" that there is really a door there.
If Wikipedia wishes to become a trusted resource, it must elevate the minimum credentials of those able to effect major technical alterations to the main articles about federally-licensed facilities such as nuclear power plants, airports, medical facilities, and radio and television stations.
Günter Marksteiner, Dipl. Ing.-Dr.
Chief Engineer & licensee, WHDT-TV
<phone redacted>
p.s. here is a link to a recent newspaper story which you may be interested in: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/wellington-s-polo-season-begins-sunday-in-bounce-155694.html?sort=desc#commentsList if you would like to watch WHDT, try this link: http://www.equushd.com/games.html
Marksteiner (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Actually, editing under multiple names is the least of the problems with this account. You state that it is "impossible" to verify anything with web-based resources, yet there are millions of Wikipedia articles that are verified in this fashion. Also, all Wikipedians must agree not to edit subjects where they have an inherent conflict of interest. If there are factual errors in the article related to your station, you should provide a source indicating the error and request the change on the articles talk page. The following policy pages may help you understand the nature of this problem:
- reliable sources
- verifiability
- conflicts of interest
- legal threats, which you seem to be making in your request for unblock.
Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2010 (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 have read each of the policy pages listed above.
1. You are in error about Wikipedia policy concerning editing by persons who have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia policy clearly states that editors with a conflict of interest may edit articles provided that such persons identify themselves in a way that makes their position and thus their conflict clear to others. I complied fully with this requirement by identifying myself as owner and licensee of the station at all times. You will find no one who claims that they did not know the source of any edit which I made to the WHDT article.
2. I just provided a source (a web-based one, at that) which demonstrates that WHDT is in fact broadcasting to the public. This is one of many available sources of information which demonstrate that the WHDT article contained a factual error. It does not matter if "millions" of Wikipedia articles are verified by on-line sources. Such sources do not meet any known legal standard for verification are are thus by definition "low quality" sources. My statement about the need to test an (outrageous) asserted claim against legally attributable sources is a valid one. That fact that I rely on legal and binding source documents from government agencies is neither a reason for continuing to block user WHDT, nor is it even relevant to include here as a proffered comment.
3. When there are factual errors in a Wikipedia article which adversely affect a "living person", it is Wiki policy to raise the standard of proof needed. As both the licensee and engineer of the station, I personally must certify in every FCC filing for WHDT, under penalty of perjury, that the station is operating in accordance with its license. The false claims which were inserted into the WHDT article are a blatant attack on my personal as well as professional integrity. As a "living person" Wikipedia policy appears to support my right to remove this material. This right is clearly called out in Wikipedia's policy on "living persons". In such instances it is not a Wikipedia requirement that I first make a "request" on the Talk page. WHDT is one of the few remaining television stations which are owned and operated by an "individual person", as opposed to a corporation. There is thus no way to separate an attack on the station from its alter ego, owner and operator, a "living person".
4. You suggest that some threat of legal action against Wikipedia has been made. Where is that statement? I stated that it is the legal obligation of all TV licensees to insure that publicly-disseminated information about their station is correct. I further stated that it is a crime for anyone to engage in activities which directly or indirectly interferes with the public's ability to receive emergency information from a broadcaster (e.g. via deliberate misinformation). For this reason and (3) above, Wikipedia policy must provide for timely corrections of misinformation without penalizing either the station licensee or the "living person".
In your denial for reinstatement of this user, you have not specified any reason for the denial other than to state "editing under multiple names is the least of the problems with this account.". Exactly two user names were used. The original name "WHDT" and my name "Marksteiner".
While reading through the policy documents above, I learned about the 3R rule for the first time. It is unclear to me if it applies when a false statement which is averse to the character of a "living person" is being removed by that person. Some clearer direction on this matter is requested.
I again request that you reconsider the "indefinite" suspension of user WHDT and/or user Marksteiner. 68.209.110.241 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi[edit]
In case you haven't seen it, I've commented at Talk:WHDT#Sources_suggesting_it_is_online. I've also asked the administrator who blocked you to reconsider as I'm not certain that you should have been blocked. I'm in the UK, so have no way of (directly) telling whether the channel is online or not, are you aware of any online sources that you could draw my attention to, that demonstrate WHDT is currently broadcasting? Smartse (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello[edit]
I appreciate your concern that a television station (as well as its FCC licensee and owner) has been blocked from editing its own description. I had to scratch my head a bit to figure out how one goes about proving something by citing an internet reference. Since I am not a "Wikipedian" by any measure (the WHDT page is the only one that I have authored), I'm not even certain if I am responding to your question in the correct place.
A call from a viewer today gave me an idea. He requested the start time for a sports event that WHDT broadcasts. He read about the game in The Palm Beach Post, a newspaper with an online presence. Here is the link: <http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/wellington-s-polo-season-begins-sunday-in-bounce-155694.html?sort=desc#commentsList>
I didn't bother to appeal the decision to block users "WHDT" and "Marksteiner", because the process looks tedious and will require a lot of time which I don't have to devote to this.
In case you are interested in seeing some of what WHDT produces, here is a special link used by our promotional department. It's interesting only because it offers a near-HD experience over the internet: <http://www.equushd.com/games.html>
Feel free to contact me at my email address: "marksteiner@WHDT.net" If you provide me with a list of what you would like "verified" in the WHDT article, I will try to assemble a set of good reference document titles. Not everything from the FCC files is available online. The official system still relies on "physical" documents which are stored in two places. The first is maintained by the Commission in Washington D.C., and the second (a mirror copy) is kept in each TV station's Public File. The Public File for each station is maintained in such a way that it is readily available for public inspection at any time by anyone visiting the station. FCC officials randomly inspect the condition of these files and administer hefty fines for any discrepancy.
I read your homepage, but find that I cannot agree that the principals of certain entities should not edit their own articles, but instead should rely on others to do this. This is especially the case with technical facilities such as nuclear stations, medical and scientific institutions, government-licensed entities such as radio and television stations. These facilities are so complex that only a limited number of professionals are qualified to do this, and have the final work be reliable. Outsiders who merely check their references "on the internet" can only get in over their head and create perhaps well-meaning, but nevertheless terribly inaccurate edits.
Of course I am highly prejudiced on this subject. But still it should be clear that the public relies on what they read in Wikipedia. In the case of full service television stations (such as WHDT), it is these stations which provide critical information during emergencies. They rebroadcast the local and national Emergency Alert System (EAS) alert tones and aural-visual evacuation messages originating from the government. It is critical for the system to work that viewers understand which stations serve their area and how to tune to these stations.
It is up to the station licensee to take all needed steps to educate and to serve the public. This is a critical responsibility that the licensee cannot delegate. Stations are subject to fines and to license forfeiture if they fail to meet certain standards, or if they fail to take corrective steps to correct misinformation. Although the public sees just the entertainment side of TV, this is a serious business. Stations in the U.S. are under constant FCC scrutiny for what the public might see as only the most minor of infractions. Having been a television broadcaster for more than 20 years, I do not want to make this comment any longer than necessary.
Kind regards.Marksteiner (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)