User talk:92.31.138.0

September 2022
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. —Kusma (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I have read this policy in its entirety, and the sentence which stands out is

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant and well documented, it belongs in the article - even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

In the case of one article, the allegation is that the head of the press standards organisation stopped an investigation of a journalist who published scurrilous allegations against a member of the royal family. Multiple sources have been provided to confirm the truth of both allegations. In the case of the other article, a court decided that the most senior Archdeacon in the Church embezzled charitable funds. The decision has been cited. It is difficult to see what source can be more reliable than a decision of a Lord Justice of Appeal. Do you agree on that? (Okra is a very tasty dish much appreciated by my west African colleagues). 92.31.138.0 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I was informed this morning that Kusma had issued an "only warning" to the prior editor of the two articles. My block and the semi-protection were both out of process because at least one warning should have been given to me. Kusma's log shows that he created this user talk page only after he had blocked me. Having blocked me he became WP:INVOLVED and should not have protected. He was promoted 17 years ago with 86 support votes and answered two questions. Had the correct procedure been followed the matter could have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. Now nobody can edit them, which contravenes the five pillars. Another reason for removing the protection is that I explained above why my edits did not breach WP:BLP and my argument has been accepted. Pinging Kusma in case he is unaware of the discussion. If there is no unprotection or comment here I will take the matter to your talk page tomorrow so that other editors can weigh in.

The matter has become somewhat pressing as there have been significant developments in the past few hours. Dr Adam has now been entered on the website as Archdeacon of Canterbury. This is only a cosmetic change - although the other two Archdeacons are pictured there is no picture of him. More importantly, the Archdeacon must be registered as Trustee of the Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance because he is ex officio Trustee by virtue of his office. The authorities have no intention of registering him because he's not Archdeacon. They also have no intention of appointing him a Director (along with the other Archdeacons) because they do not consider him to be a fit and proper person to hold a company directorship. to alert him to this discussion. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You (at both this and a different IP address, I see no reason to accept your claim that two different people would make these near identical edits) have not presented any published reliable sources for any of your allegations. You have also not explained why your edits did not breach WP:BLP, and @Deepfriedokra has not accepted your argument. I don't either. I am not WP:INVOLVED in this dispute, having no interest in the articles whatsoever; both the block and the protection are routine admin actions to prevent further violations of the BLP policy, which forbids unsourced or poorly sourced negative claims about living people in the encyclopaedia. Contrary to what you have said above, the talk pages of the articles in question can still be edited to discuss the matter; you will be free to present your reliable sources (if you have any) there once your block has expired. —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Look at WP:PUBLISHED: "Any source which was made available to the public in some form."  Court judgments are available to the public and the President of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (a Lady Justice of Appeal and one of the most senior Judges in that Court) has ruled that Dr Adam embezzled charitable funds.   Again, Decisions of the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards are public documents.   Given that, there was no violation of WP:BLP.   If you want to continue to argue otherwise, you are free to do so, otherwise the protections should be rescinded.  92.31.138.0 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The decision in question (if it exists) has not been published yet: only goes until July 2022. As you wish to include the information, it is your job to show the sources, and they have to conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Kusma (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of where secondary sources were not good enough Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 1.  You are twisting the words of WP:BLPPRIMARY.   Policy makes it crystal clear that if, for example, documents are retained in a library (as judgments of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and House of Lords Commissioners are) that satisfies the "Publication" criterion.   Anyone can go to the Enugu branch of the Nigerian National Archives and inspect the documents, for example.   Again, your link refers to assertions, not facts.   Obviously, if Amber Heard says in evidence that Johnny Depp bashed her and he says she bashed him that's a "he said, she said" situation.   Once the Judge writes a judgment (e.g. finding that Depp bashed Amber, for example), that's the best source for the actual facts there is, and that judgment goes into the Library of the High Court. . 92.31.138.0 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)