User talk:Professor Peter van Nostrand

August 2022[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing one article Sanna Marin because you have violated WP:BLP policy by adding gossip there after being made aware of the policy. You also gamed the system by making a rapid series of trivial edits to your user page to gain autoconfirmed status. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No gossip was added. I added current news, as provided by the sources I included in the edit. It is a false accusation. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Your editing is being discussed at the Administrator's noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Professor Peter van Nostrand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will go point by point for the appeal:

I edited the article of Sanna Marin and I was blocked for violating the WP:BLP policy, which is false.
I consider it to be completely wrong and based on a false accusation, besides I'm not here to disrupt the accuracy of any content.
I consider the block was unnecessary because it was assumed wrongdoing, instead of the intention of adding information that I considered necessary. It was not the first edit from my behalf, but the first with relevant content, and the first in an article partially blocked.
On the talk page of the article Sanna Marin different users complain that Wikipedia refuses to include information about the private party videos and accusation of drug use by Marin. I considered important to contribute with the information, instead of endless discussions.
I did not violate the WkBLP because my edit was a recount of information available to the public describing what happened, the reason of the controversy, and the origin of an accusation.
I kept a neutral point of view (NPOV) as no personal judgment was made and I'm not responsible for the content of others or the general balance of the whole article. I limited myself at adding the missing information mentioning what was said by the political opposition and what was published under a common category: "Controversies".
I complied with verifiability as I provided the original sources mentioning the points described in my edit, and I did original research, by checking the external sources (important newspapers from 3 different countries).
It is my first "important" edit, and I decided to get started with this article. Cullen328 assumes that:

- I posted gossip, and violated the privacy of an individual. False: I shared news openly discussed around the world. I did not shared anything private of any sort as could be seen in the history page of that article. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to consider that the content you added to the biography goes against the culture of this encyclopedia as we do not publish all content which is in the press where it is considered unencyclopedic. As you still seem to want to publish this content the partial block should remain. PhilKnight (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Just a quick comment here. A lot of people, when they start editing Wikipedia, don't really understand what kind of content is appropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and part of what that means is that it is selective in what is included. It's for educational material that is likely to stand the test of time, not for passing gossip and tittle-tattle. Just because something is in the news does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Should something come from these accusations, like legal issues or some change to Sanna Marin's political career, then I'm sure that would be encyclopedic. The justification for including content in Wikipedia is not solely that it is supported by sources. It needs to be sourced *and* of lasting encyclopedic value. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"it is selective in what is included." It is what it's known at the time of posting it. I'd really like to see if there are so many requirement to post information on other politicians' biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the point. It's not known. There are allegations based on what somebody else in the room may or may not have said. We do not know to a verifiable standard, based on reliable, independent sources that the allegations are true. Cabayi (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]