User talk:Sjrapert

October 2013

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jason Rapert seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sjrapert. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jason Rapert, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rapert

Assuming you are Jason Rapert, or at a minimum someone in his office, please don't attempt to whitewash the biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

username issue

Hi - there is an issue with your username. It could be that the editor using this account is Senator Rapert, or it could be members of his office are using it. If the actual person is the Senator, that is OK but you need to confirm that. If the account is being used by the Senator's office, this is a violation of our username policy, and the account name needs to be changed. Instructions on how to do that, are in the notice below.

Please be aware that WP:Wikipedia is in the real world (please read that) and please read this article from the Guardian about a British politician who did what you are doing and got banned from Wikipedia, and got headlines for it.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Sjrapert", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Trammel Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", and "WidgetFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a username change that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting Wikipedia Directly for Assistance

After several requests to have erroneous information removed from this site which pertains to me personally, I have contacted Wikipedia directly. For several months now, posts to this site have been allowed that are false and libelous, and they often have been the root of harassment and threats being made against me and my family. Most all of these posts cite blog posts from Max Brantley of the "Arkansas Times" which is a local blog organization, not a legitimate news organization, that is well known for attacking and disparaging Republican politicians and Christian advocates. If the posts do not cite him directly, they cite other posts that are based upon his posts. He is well known to attack me for my Christian beliefs and conservative policy positions. Whoever has self-appointed themselves as editor of this page has repeatedly removed edits that took down the erroneous information or information that contradicts these outrageous posts. It is quite apparent that many posts are politically motivated and are placed by someone with an agenda rather than posts that are simply biographical in nature. The legitimacy of this page is totally in question until proper oversight is given to ensure that posts are factual and legitimate and not simply political attacks. I personally object to the inclusion of posts that disparage my reputation and character. It is quite apparent that the self-appointed editors of this page allow posts that do not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines for living persons. As I mentioned, after no success in getting good edits approved on this page, I am appealing to Wikipedia governing authorities to assist. Respectfully, Sen. Jason Rapert Sjrapert (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you left a note on my page in this dif which I was going to copy/paste here, but I see you repeated it here. I wrote to you above, with regard to conflict of interest in Wikipedia. I will be happy to discuss your concerns with you, but would you first confirm that you are Jason Rapert and not a representative from his office? This may seem trivial to you, but this is a fundamental thing here in Wikipedia, and we need to be clear on it before we go forward. I also want to stay that if you are a staffer, that is fine, just be honest about it and we can fix it. Thanks. You can reply here, as I am watching this page. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be confused about who you're talking to. Not sure what you mean about "contacting Wikipedia directly". This is Wikipedia and we (the editors) are talking to you. Maybe you sent an email to the Wikimedia staff? They don't usually (actually, virtually never) edit articles. Usually the best way to make changes in articles is to discuss the proposed changes with the editors, which you can do here or on the article talkpage: Talk:Jason Rapert. — Brianhe (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog and Brianhe: The user is probably referring to OTRS. As far as the content that he has challenged, the issue I think hinges to a certain extent on the reliablity of the Arkansas Times. Is that considered a WP:RS? It seems to me that covering the Senator's Facebook page is not exactly high journalism, but still. Looks like local news with some amount of bias. Material sourced to Esquire and whatnot of course is not negotiable. But I am concerned about the weight being given to that one source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that FreeRangeFrog. I'm happy to look into these things too but am primarily interested in here, in understanding who we are talking with.... Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answering re reliable sources at Talk:Jason Rapert. — Brianhe (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I signed my message here personally. I have been communicating via e-mail with staff for Wikipedia and it is my understanding they are also looking into this matter. All of the outrageous material posted on this page referencing the Arkansas Times is not legitimate news - they are basically a political arm of the democrat party and have published material that would get them sued if I were not a public official. They are very good at pushing out ridiculous material that then gets picked up by other news sources and they attempt to gain legitimacy that way. -Sen. Jason Rapert.Sjrapert (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC) PLEASE NOTE: All the inferences regarding racism are based upon a personal attack that has been proven to be false by all concerned. Please see the following article written by Mr. Paul Greenberg who is also the editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock, Ar: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg032013.php3#.VZx1FpfbK70 In the article he points out the false attack, yet your editor on this page allows a post to be used which accuses me of racism which is blatantly false, is disparaging and warrants removal immediately. Here is another reference refuting the false charge of racism: http://thedailyhatch.org/tag/paul-greenberg/ Here is another reference disputing the false charge of racism: http://talkbusiness.net/2013/02/straight-talk-on-raperts-straight-talk/ Everyone in the local news media has verified that these personal attacks were orchestrated by the Arkansas Times and The Nation to try and disparage me for my success in getting the Arkansas Heartbeat Protection Act passed in Arkansas in 2013. Allowing these falsehoods to be posted have literally been the root of death threats against my family and I would ask that you remove them immediately and keep them off of these pages. Thank you, Sen. Jason Rapert Sjrapert (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that this account is being used by Jason Rapert. I'll start responding now. I assume you have emailed OTRS, which is great.

First, you are clearly upset. You are also new to Wikipedia. So let me start by warning you of two things, since you are new here:
- First, as I wrote above, please read WP:Wikipedia is in the real world. You are editing here under your real name, and every word you write here is saved forever by the Wikipedia software, with very few exceptions (every page has a "history" tab, so even if you delete something you write, it can be found in the history). So think twice before you "save" a comment.
- Second, since you mentioned suing people above, be sure to read WP:No legal threats - if you make legal threats here in WP, you will be banned very quickly. That is a serious thing.
Now, some basic information for you about how this place works. Wikipedia is not a wild west. The community has built up a body of policies and guidelines over the years, that provide a foundation for discussing things rationally - there is a kind of "rule of law" here. The policies and guidelines cover content as well as editor behavior on Talk pages. There are also "boards" where the community can discuss issues when editors at a page get deadlocked.
The basics. You cannot just write whatever you want in Wikipedia. The basic content policies are:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there are many things it is not. This is discussed in WP:NOT. Importantly, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it is not a platform for advocacy of any kind. Instead, each article aims to express "accepted knowledge." That is the mission of Wikipedia.
- No "original research" is allowed - (articles describe "accepted knowledge") - this is described in WP:OR
- Instead of people just writing whatever they want, everything in Wikipedia must derived from "reliable sources" that express "accepted knowledge" - in other words, content must be "verifiable" with an inline citation to a "reliable source". This is described in WP:VERIFY (This is really important!)
- What is a "reliable source" here in Wikipedia? This is described in WP:RS. (In terms of how we think in Wikipedia, what you are saying above, is that the Arkansas Times is not a "reliable source" for the content derived from it. I am not sure that is true as I haven't looked into it, but I suggest you read WP:RS and see if you think it falls within what is described there, or not. If the Arkansas Times fits the criteria for a "reliable source", you cannot eliminate it within Wikipedia.) One of our "boards" is a place where questions are brought to the community about whether a given source is reliable to support a given piece of content. That board is here: WP:RSN. We may end up raising a discussing there about content supported by citations to the Arkansas Times. We'll see.
- Also, all content must be written with a "neutral point of view". This is described in WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean what most people think it means. It does not mean "fair and balanced" nor does it mean "whitewashed". It means that language needs to be neutral (no exaggerated praise or condemnation discussing any given thing). It also means that we give space (what we call "weight") to various topics within article, based on how much those topics are discussed in reliable sources. Giving tons of detail about some small thing (negative or positive or neutral) violates NPOV , because it throws off the "weight" of the article. (we call that "undue weight")
- Almost finally, there is our policy for articles about "Biographies of living people". This is described in WP:BLP. This is the key policy covering the article about you. I put this last, as you will not be able to make sense out of BLP if you don't have a grasp of the the other policies.
- And finally, we have guidelines about conflict of interest here. People are not supposed to edit articles about themselves, their employers, etc. Common sense. So please use the Talk page of the article about you, to discuss your concerns. Earlier you were editing the article directly, and that is generally not a good idea when you have a COI, and are upset, and don't know what you are doing. Editors get blocked for violating the policies above if they keep violating them, and eventually get banned. So be slow about that. (hard to do when you are upset, i know)

Please keep all that in mind, and please remain calm. Getting angry doesn't help you here, and remember when you write things, that Wikipedia is in the real world. Good luck. I will go have a look at the article about you soon - others who have chimed here, have already been working on it. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm Wiae. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Jason Rapert— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. /wiae /tlk 02:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old issue and the vandalism to the page about me personally continues with no one at Wikipedia taking responsibility. Why do you think YOU or anyone else has a right to post on the "Jason Rapert" page, but any comments correcting the errors or posting a disclaimer are not welcome? You are violating my right to have a disclaimer posted that warns readers that much of the information being posted is libelous and erroneous. I suggest you leave the disclaimers in place - not doing so shows that Wikipedia censors out the truth and prefers falsehoods.Sjrapert (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Jason Rapert. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This includes the posting of disclaimers created by you, which are inappropriate within articles. Please also review the policies at Conflict of interest. General Ization ^Talk 03:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why I posted a disclaimer - which is a last resort after multiple attempts to get editors to monitor the page and remove false, erroneous and libelous comments. I am quite tired of seeing false information left on the page ABOUT ME PERSONALLY which is meant to defame me while any information posted with truth to the contrary is removed. It is quite ludicrous. Sjrapert (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you contribute "information posted with truth to the contrary" that includes citations of reliable sources that verify the information you insert, it will not be removed. However, other editors have just as much right as you do to post information to the article that meets the same criteria, and/or to remove information that does not. Any unsourced information may be removed immediately, but since you are the subject of the article, you may not do the removal. Please request the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information by posting on the article's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 03:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - legal threats

About the last sentence of your "disclaimer" here, please read: WP:THREAT. What you wrote is right on the border of violating that policy. Rather than bringing this to the administrators to ask that your account be blocked, I am providing you with this warning. Please steer clear of language about libel going forward. There are ways to work things out here but you need to speak in a civil manner with other editors here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have already raised this issue again with the living persons noticeboard. Those of you who leave defamatory information posted about living persons are uncivil. You should be completely ashamed. I have had real threats towards me and my family as a result of foolishness posted on sites just like Wikipedia - you are responsible for your actions here. I am not interested in your responses any further because you do not understand the full implications of the issues and I very much want to speak with administrators. Have a good evening and quit vandalizing the "Jason Rapert" page by removing truthful information. {{Adminhelp}}Sjrapert (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sjrapert–you may not realize that since the early days of Wikipedia, administrator status is just a "bit" here that enables certain actions like blocking other editors, but confers no moral weight or decision-making power (see WP:NOBIGDEAL). Community decisions are arrived at via consensus among all editors. Second, your note above for an admin is likely to be closed with no action because you haven't asked a specific question nor asked for specific action. Third, you have again invoked legal language with the term "defamatory". – Brianhe (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Sjrapert (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

brianhe - thanks for clarification. Are you saying no one is in charge of verifying whether or not information on a page is accurate or truthful? Are you also saying that when Wikipedia administrators are informed multiple times that someone is posting defamation on a page about a living person that this issue raises no "red flags" and no action is taken to correct the problem? It is public record that my family did indeed received death threats and even one of your posts on the Wikipedia page quotes a BLOGGER who disputes that. The same blogger has been the root cause of multiple falsehoods that have been written specifically to injure my reputation personally and have caused threats to me and my family. Do you not have anyone at Wikipedia responsible for assisting people with situations that are of a serious nature? I am very surprised at all of you - you leave erroneous information on Wikipedia but DISALLOW some of your editors keep removing TRUTHFUL information. I represent 83,000 citizens in my state and if one of my constituents came to me with a story relating how horribly they had been treated in a situation like this, I would do all I could to help them. This is ridiculous. Sjrapert (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is hard to help people who shout and make grand statements instead of dealing simply with the problem. The simple way to deal with the problem is to go the article Talk page, describe the content that you object to, and ask if it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and listen to the answer, and discuss it. Imagine a constituent storming into your office and demanding that you stop abortion in the US RIGHT NOW and just yells about it, and keeps yelling, and won't even give you a chance to explain how the system works to change the law. Do you see how you are behaving the same way? If you want results, Just talk and ask about specific things, simply. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sjrapert: Yes and no, the best thing is for you to read WP:NOTTRUTH. It says there is no "true" version that could be judged, even if there were judges to do so – which there aren't, there's just this community of editors. If you find information that is unsourced, it can simply be removed. If you don't agree with the source or an interpretation of the source, you should discuss that on the talk page. If you want to add additional, properly sourced information, that is also an option. Then others have the same avenues open to them. It is an unending back-and-forth with no perfect, ultimate article revision in mind. – Brianhe (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just came back to add that biographies of living people (BLPs) do have some specific remedies for information that is factually in error or raises privacy concerns for ordinary citizens. You probably should peruse Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects (especially items #1, #5 and #14) rather than taking my advice on this. Also I don't see where you claimed there is a factual error, and you are definitely a public figure, so I'm not sure any of this applies. – Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brianhe is correct, admins are not here to review pages. their opinion is the same as other editors. You are better working with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to resolve the issues. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged libel

If there is libellous content in any Wikipedia page, then we need to take it very seriously, and make sure that it is removed. However, I have read a number of your edits, and checked a number of edits to the article you object to, and it is not clear to me what you are saying is libellous, or what about it you regard as libellous. You need to be specific, explaining exactly what is libel and why, and you need to make it clear to us that by "libel" you don't just mean content about you which you don't like, as that comes nowhere near to satisfying the legal definition of libel. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson: Thank you for understanding libel is VERY serious. There have been multiple posts on the page about me that are untrue and published misrepresentations with the specific intent to try and damage my reputation. Some of the most egregious violations have tried to claim that I am a racist - which has been totally rejected by third party writers who knew that was a false charge. This specific libelous accusation has caused death threats against my family - and even then the "source" you know is responsible tried to write that those threats were false even when the State Police confirmed credible threats when their officers responded by posting 24 hour watches to protect my family and encouraged them to leave the state for a period of time. The Arkansas Times is NOT merely a news organization by any standard. They are well known as an activist organization that publishes sensationalized content typically demeaning to conservative Christians who hold elected office in Arkansas as Republicans. Very rarely do they ever attack Democrat elected offiicials. This is a fact.

I am quite shocked that Wikipedia editors can be fooled so easily into accepting sources that are blatantly trying to hurt people. I would have expected better.

As to the legal definition of libel, perhaps a review of the full impact of the concept is warranted here:

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

Two things. First, I am pretty uncomfortable with this conversation with regard to WP:THREAT. My strong preference would be that on Wikipedia, sjrapert stop using this legal language and just talk simply about what content he wants changed in the article and why, and if he continues to use this kind of language that he be blocked. Secondly, I just checked the article's history and the word "racist" has never appeared in the article. See here. Sjrapert is still not talking about our actual WP article. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"racism" also not found, by the way. —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]