Talk:Pete Stauber

Coronavirus and failure to comply with public health guidance
Ironrange22 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)@KidAd, four times more Americans have died from the Covid-19 pandemic in six months than in the Vietnam War in over twenty years. American society has been fundamentally disrupted by the virus. The section and text reflect the weight and significance of an elected public official's actions in the context of a major American historical event. The facts depicted in this new section have been confirmed by multiple, reputable sources.
 * Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. They means the content stays out of the article until you gain consensus for it. The material violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CSECTION. KidAd   talk  04:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the material violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CSECTION. One gains consensus by editing and through Talk. I challenge the claims of WP:UNDUE and WP:CSECTION. As stated above, Covid-19 and the contraction of the virus by the President of the United States during a global pandemic is a major historical event. The corollary actions of an elected official related to clear and established public health guidelines by the state and federal government, as well as to clear guidelines from a global airline, are notable and significant. This section is neither undue nor does it violate the neutral point of view. The language in this section has deliberately been written for balanced and impartial language WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. Ironrange22 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you stop edit-warring your preferred material into the article (and accusing me of vandalism). As I said in my above comment, it is your responsibility to gain consensus for disputed content per WP:ONUS. I will ping and  for their input, as they recently edited the page. I am not opposed to the material being mentioned, but it must be written neutral tone.  KidAd   talk  17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ironrange22 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)You are free to submit your suggestions/edits for discussion, but you are not entitled to simply obstruct and delete. The guidelines for consensus do not mean any single individual can simply delete things with which one does not agree. That is vandalism. You have made no attempt to offer or submit alternative language. Moreover, you have provided no evidence that this language is not neutral. For example, the language here makes no judgment on Stauber's intent. It does not say Stauber "disregarded" public health guidance, a statement that implies motive. It says he "failed to comply with" public health guidelines which is a neutral statement as to the facts. The fact is that an elected official acted counter to established state and national public health guidelines during a significant historical moment.
 * If you make another revert, you will have violated WP:3RR, which can result in a block. Please work to gain consensus. KidAd   talk  17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ironrange22 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)You already have violated WP:3RR with your reverts. You cite need for consensus, but you have violated the basic norm which is through edit and discussion -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. Rather, you have simply deleted content and provided no substantive response or engagement. I see this is a common MO for you as you have engaged in this practice elsewhere. This is vandalism.
 * Incorrect. I have made a single revert within the past 24 hours. You fail to understand that it is your responsibility to gain consensus for the material, not mine. I am happy to participate in consensus-building if you stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and start assuming good faith. Per WP:VAN, Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. That sounds a lot like your behavior, but I will not allege that you are committing vandalism. KidAd   talk  17:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ironrange22 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)I'd appreciate some good faith here. Your initial response was to revert and reference to various shortcuts with no substantive discussion. My initial revert was entirely appropriate given the absence of any meaningful, substantive engagement from you and justified in my comments in the thread above. You subsequently reverted the update on three additional instances and in each, you asserted the need for consensus without any substantive discussion. Read what consensus means on the Wikipedia definition page: It does not mean unanimity. The process is done through 1) editing; 2) discussion. You fail to understand that you can't claim that there is an onus on others to gain consensus if you refuse to engage in a substantive discussion. It is your responsibility to engage and provide more than dismissive shortcut references before you delete the effort of others. Your failure to engage has been suggestive of no intent to find common ground, but I'd be happy hear otherwise.

"Indigenous Peoples' rights" section
I've changed the name of this section to "Indigenous issues," as none of what was mentioned had any direct relation to the actual rights of Indigenous Peoples. Some members of a tribe were simply unhappy that he'd expressed opposition to the nomination of a candidate who happened to be of indigenous descent - probably opposition based ideological disagreements rather than ethnicity....It's actually debatable whether or not this section even merits inclusion, as it's merely one instance of some people complaining that he was opposed to a nomination that he's not even gonna be voting on, but for now simply retitling. -2003:CA:872B:674B:1DE9:F60E:2ED0:9012 (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)