User talk:108.6.182.89

The material that lead to the block. I have tidied it here so you can more easily follow the current discussion. IRWolfie- (talk)

May 2013 Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Susan J. Elliott. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC) {{unblock|reason, I did not write this article!!!! I simply supplemented it recently with some up to date reference!!!! I did NOT create an autobiography!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.182.89 (talk • contribs) — 108.6.182.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Please do not write or add to an article about yourself --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, 108.6.182.89. 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 Soundview, Bronx, 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC) For the last time, I did not create this page and I did not threaten you with legal action. Your accusation of me creating a an autobiography and filling it with "fluff" is damaging to my reputation and meets the legal definition of libel. I noticed that you wrote on the ADMIN page that "oooh I'm so scared." I did not ask you to be scared. I asked that you remove this accusation of autobiography which is damaging to my reputation. Anyone who knows me knows that if anything is NOT me it is selfpromotion. And one of the admins thinks that you blocking me for legal threats that I did not make is extreme is CORRECT. I am a living person and these accusations of autobiography are wrong and damage my reputation. Hence, I consider them libelous. Wikipedia explicitly states you cannot libel a living person which you are doing. How are you not subject to their rules? What you are doing to my page, which is short and contain so little about me is absurd. Completely absurd. I did not threaten legal action but Wikipedia expressly prohibits libel and the statements you have made about me are libelous. There is nothing here that is more than any other author has on their page. Why have you chosen to target me? I DID NOT CREATE THIS PAGE. I am simply trying to tell you that Wikipedia expressly prohibits libel and the statements about me are damaging to my reputation and therefore, libelous. I am asking that you follow your own rules. I am not threatening legal action. 108.6.182.89 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)}}, Once again, I did not add material about myself from two different IP sources. AGAIN, this is false information. I don't know what the original writer meant about after my second husband's death. Again, I DID NOT WRITE THAT. I did not fluff up the story and merely added corrections where things were wrong. My entire point about LIBEL was Wikipedia's policy on it. Telling me I wrote this or that I added from two separate IP addresses (which I did not, I only edited it recently and have lived here for 2 years and that is where this IP address is) is still damaging to my reputation. I also do not think my work with domestic violence victims and the media work that I do on behalf of Cancer Organizations (specifically the National Brain Tumor Society) is "fluff." I want people to know I donate books to women who are inn abusive relationships and want to get out and I donate to DV shelters. Your interpretation of my page was completely ridiculous. I did not write it and was unclear on how to "add" the citations as I was asked to do by my publicist. I was clear on the guidelines to NOT write your own page but I am also clear on not libeling Living Persons in Wikipedia and I believe that is what your editors appear allowed to do. by continuing to repeat yourself and not actually answer the questions asked by Anthony Bradbury at the bottom of the page, you will not achieve very much other than having your ability to edit this page at all be cut off. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC) THIS IS NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY I am the subject and did not create this page. I recently added new citations to support material in the article. THIS IS NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY and I consider your accusations that it is to be libel and causing damage to my reputation. MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS WHICH YOU DID, which will damage my reputation, which it will IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF LIBEL. I HAVE NOT THREATENED TO SUE YOU. I HAVE ASKED THAT THESE LIBELOUS ACCUSATIONS BE TAKEN DOWN WHICH, ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA, IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IF YOU FEEL LIBELED. PLEASE REMOVE ALL REFERENCES THAT I CREATED THIS PAGE BECAUSE I DID NOT. I recently added some FOOTNOTES and changed the date of the new book release as asked to do so by my publisher. Editor Orange Mike; YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. Most of this article is about my work, both charitable and how to help people. I do good, honest, helpful work to help people move on from grief. I work with animal rescue organizations, domestic violence shelters and have started two charitable programs. What you are accusing me of here is WRONG. Simply WRONG. I DID NOT CREATE THIS PAGE. I merely cited some of the references which is what people are ASKED TO DO TO HELP THE VERACITY OF WHAT IS ON HERE. What you are doing to me is wrong and not okay. THIS IS NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL PAGE AND I DID NOT CREATE IT. I have edited erroneous information now and again. When my 4th grandchild was born I edited "4" instead of 3. IT IS ALL FACTUAL AND TRUE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO MY PAGE IS WRONG AND LIBELOUS. I DID NOT CREATE AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I DID NOT MAKE LEGAL THREATS. I DID NOT THREATEN TO SUE YOU. I SAID I CONSIDER THIS LIBELOUS THAT YOU ARE SAYING I CREATED AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. THAT IS NOT A LEGAL THREAT. THAT IS MY OPINION. YOU ARE DAMAGING MY REPUTATION AND THAT IS NOT OKAY. I SAID YOU WERE WRONG. I SAID I CONSIDER IT LIBEL. I HAVE ASKED YOU TO REMOVE THE ACCUSATION. I DID NOT THREATEN YOU WITH LEGAL ACTION. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THIS AND I AM TELLING YOU THAT TO ACCUSE ME OF DOING SOMETHING I DID NOT DO WHICH CASTS ME IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT AND DOES DAMAGE TO MY REPUTATION IS LIBELOUS. I AM SORRY IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT I CONSIDER THAT. I DID NOT THREATEN LEGAL ACTION. I WANT MY PAGE TAKEN DOWN AS YOU ARE COMPLETELY OFF BASE ABOUT ACCUSING ME OF CREATING IT. IT IS A FALSEHOOD, A LIE AND IT IS IN PRINT. AND THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF LIBEL. I ADDED CITATIONS. I DID NOT WRITE THE ORIGINAL CONTENT OF THIS. I DID NOT WRITE MOST OF WHAT IS HERE. AND YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT I DID. I WILL GIVE YOU THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO DID. ACCUSING ME OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY IS FALSE AND DAMAGING.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

--Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[Special:Contributions/108.6.182.89|108.6.182.89]] ([[User talk:108.6.182.89#top|talk]]) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)}},

I consider it appalling that I am not able to contribute to that discussion. For the umpteenth time I did not make a legal threat against you. "I am going to sue you for libel" is a legal threat. THAT is a legal threat. I said what you are doing to me rises to the level of libel which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia against living persons. I assume the editors are held to the same standard, but you took it (wrongly) as a legal threat. THERE WAS NO LEGAL THREAT.

Again, a legal threat must consist of "I am going to take legal action against you" which I did not say and did not do. What I said what that you accusing me of creating an autobiographical page which I, in fact, did not, is damaging to my reputation. A false statement that is damaging to someone's reputation in print equals LIBEL and Wikipedia expressly forbids it but why is it okay for an editor to accuse me of it and then block me and ban me for making legal threats which I did not do???? Neither is true.

I believe that I should be able to contribute to the admin discussion and that the admins should review both my entry and all of what I have said. I have said that the false statements you made about me are damaging to my reputation and is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia. You have, in effect, broken your own rules.

Then you ban me for legal threats which I did not make. Again, I am an attorney. As an attorney I can tell you that a legal threat says, "I am going to sue you." I did not say that. I said I would take action in meaning I want the libelous material off my page via Wikipedia. I did not threaten to take you to court.

This entire thing is RIDICULOUS. If I did not cite correctly or should have put more inline citations, excuse me, I don't think that should have resulted in all of this. <no wiki>{unblock|reason=I did not make legal threats— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.182.89 (talk • contribs) }</no wiki>

Please see chilling effect. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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).

108.6.182.89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am trying to resolve this and you are adding more fuel to the fire. I did not write an autobiographical piece, I did not make legal threats, I simply asked you to not libel me per Wikipedia guidelines. I don't know why you seem to have it out for me. I've done nothing to you and am wondering why you are escalating this like this. I am trying to resolve it. I have said over and over I did not create this page and I did not make legal threats. All actions against me are wrong. I am trying to resolve it and showing me "chilling effect" is showing me a definition that is not being used in any context. You have accused me of doing something wrong which I did not do then you accused me of threatening something I did not threaten and you are pointing me to legal terms like "chilling effect" which do not apply to what is going on here. I apologize if you think I did something to you or threatened you but I did not, but the plain truth is that you are wrong about what you are saying about me here. 108.6.182.89 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are conflating two different issues. The content of the article on you is one issue, your behavior is another. The content of the article is not relevant to the discussion of your block. The block is for making legal threats, which you unambiguously did do, as quoted below. If you're a lawyer I should think you would understand the concept of a bright-line rule, and you most certainly did cross that line. What we do in the case of legal threats is very rigid, we block the person who made them until such time as the retract their threat. Period. Denying you said it in the first place is a waste of your time since everything anyone says here is permanently recorded and easily accessible by viewing diffs like this one that shows you making a legal threat. You are not leaving us any option but to deny your request as you refuse to admit to the threat even though it is plain for anyone to see. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2013 (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.

from the peanut gallery: "is to be libel and causing damage to my reputation." is a legal threat. If you strike the comments and state that you have no intention to take legal action, then we have no cause to believe that you have made a legal threat that requires your IP from being blocked from editing. (if that is the sole reason for the block, I have not looked extensively at the history) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we be clear here, because Wikipedia policy is rigid on legal threats. Are you prepared to state, here, that your edits were not meant to imply any threatened or potential legal action, and that you have no intention of instituting any legal action against Wikipedia and/or any of its editors, and that you withdraw unreservedly any clear or implied threat of instituting legal action against Wikipedia or any of its editors in respect of edits made on the pages relating to yourself?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, in (this edit), in the last paragraph before your signature, you stated: "PLEASE REMOVE THE PAGE OR ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT IT IS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL OR I WILL TAKE LEGAL ACTION." That is a pretty unambiguous legal threat. If you now wish to retract that threat, please state so clearly in your unblock request.

You are, of course, free to pursue whatever actions you see fit outside of this site. It is the on-site threat that is the issue here, and which is the reason for the block. Our policy on legal threats at WP:NLT is very strict on this, for the very good reasons spelled out in that policy. You must make clear in your unblock request that you fully withdraw the threat, and will make no further explicit or implied threats.

My initial glance over the situation (granted, I haven't looked at the article itself, just this talk page and the help desk posting) suggest that you are acting in good faith, but getting tripped up by some of our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has a large number of policies on guidelines related to verifiability, and our biographies of living persons policy is one of the most strict on requiring reliable sources to support verifiability of content. The fact that a particular article may have existed for years without receiving appropriate cleanup to meet these policies and guidelines does not prevent those policies and guidelines from being applied now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I was accused by The Red Pen of Doom of not answering Anthony Bradbury whose post I just saw. First of all, you have left a lot of thing on the page that are now incorrect and I said I either wanted you to not accuse me of an autobiographical page which this is not or take my page down per WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES not mine. If you accuse me of a falsehood that is libel and is expressly against WIKIPEDIA rules. Second, I am not a former attorney. I am an attorney and third, I donate books, time, energy and help to domestic violence victims and that was completely taken out. I do that as charitable work, not for glory or anything else but if a DV victim wanted help, they could find me. I would prefer this page taken down as I believe it is unfair to me and somewhat still libelous considering the things said about me and I will contact the originator of the page and ask that she rewrite it to avoid "fluff" and to follow guidelines. How I was singled out for this craziness is beyond me.

Hi, I've left you a comment below about how we can move forward, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I want my page taken down as I believe it is unfair to me and has taken all the good I have done (work with cancer organizations, work with dv victims) and turned it into a sham. Also I am NOT a former attorney. I am licensed in the state of New York to practice law and I am a current attorney so whoever wrote "former" is also writing FALSE information about me. I have an active license in good standing and this is FALSE information. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines as to writing FALSE information about living persons [[Special:Contributions/108.6.182.89|108.6.182.89]] ([[User talk:108.6.182.89#top|talk]]) 21:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)}}

• Hi, I think the issue is that you are using words like libel and libellous, and that makes editors worried. If you simply promise to use words without legal connotations then the issue is resolved and we can discuss the inaccuracies and content you want to discuss adding. Bear in mind that it's generally encouraged that people don't edit their article directly but contribute to the talk pages. The talk page for your article is here: your article talk page.

No one wants wrong information in your biography, and if you point out issues I'm sure editors will be interested in helping you out. Just a small note that we don't generally accept material that doesn't have a reliable source though. You can read about reliable sources here: reliable sources guide. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, I am the person who added the description "former" to "attorney" based on the claim in the article in the article at the time: "She has left the practice of law to work full-time as a breakup counselor and media commentator ". A person who is no longer doing X is a "former X" in my book.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing word. I think the word "not" is missing above: "Bear in mind that it's generally encouraged that people not edit their article directly but contribute to the talk pages", per WP:COI. Note to the subject of the article. To have the block removed Wikipedia takes a broadish interpretation of what could be construed as a "legal threat", not a narrow interpretation, and I would suggest reviewing 1) everything on this talk page that suggests in any remote manner something of that sort and marking it off with <s>strike out</s> (or <strike>), and also reviewing all other places such text might appear and make a request, such as on this page please strike the words <whatever, or WHATEVER> or please strike and add, or something of that sort. You do have edit access here, and anyone seeing the request can perform it for you. Doing that will help. Often lawyers necessarily take a narrow interpretation of the meaning of specific words, so I can appreciate the confusion. We are, though, all here to help! Another point to bear in mind is that as an encyclopedia we do not have any deadline, and while it is nice to get things fixed as soon as practical, the more important issue is to eventually get things right. Apteva (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, just a note for future use if you are having problems with the accuracy of an article written about you, you should follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to follow up here in the hope of resolving this situation, here are a few key points:

• As is clearly demonstrated above, you did in fact make a clear legal threat
• That threat is the only reason you are blocked
• The reason we are so adamant about such things is that legal threats are seen as weapons used to push other users into doing things your way. It is difficult to collaborate in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. That is what was meant by mentioning a "chilling effect" and frankly was pretty clearly the intent of the offending post.
• So, all you have to do to get unblocked is to post an unblock request where you clearly state that you have not and do not intend to take legal action against Wikipedia or its contributors.
• I realize this is not obvious to everyone, but on Wikipedia (and many others corners of the internet) TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT AND/OR SHOW THAT YOU ARE ANGRY is considered equivalent to yelling at someone. Nobody likes to be yelled at, like legal threats it creates an unpleasant atmosphere that makes collaboration difficult, so if you could lay off doing that I think it would be very helpful in moving this along and getting you unblocked.
• I note, assuming you are both who you say you are and therefore the same person, that you acted completely differently in the comments section here, where people were not just suggesting you may have written your own article but were attacking you and your profession quite directly. Your replies there do not include yelling and threatening people, maybe we could get the same over here?
• There are a limited number of times an appeal will be replied to before your talk page access is revoked as well. If you don't want to see that happen you should make sure your next unblock request only addresses the actual reason for your block, the legal threat you made. We prefer to do things out in the open in a tranparent manner, but repeatedly posting invalid unblock requests will eventually lead to you being restricted in this manner. (You would still be able to appeal using the WP:UTRS system or by emailing WP:BASC directly if this were to happen though)

• I hope this helps you see that it is really a simple matter for you to be unblocked and return to discussing the content issues that are so upsetting to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I am happy to agree, as it obvious from the edit history, that you did not create the article which concerns you, though you have edited within it. All you have to do to be unblocked is to give a clear and unambiguous answer to my question above, which I know you have seen because you commented about it; without answering it.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not an edit

The resulting article, due to an on-going conflict between Wikipedia "editors" (term = used loosely) and subject, is poorly edited (again, reason for using the word "loosely"), contains misinformation (she does not have 6 children, she has 4), misspellings of her name (2 t's) and omits important information (licensed to practice law in Texas in 2003 but is currently inactive as she no longer lives there). The omission of first being licensed in the same year she graduated law school is important because if a person graduates law school in 2003 and is not admitted to a bar until 2005, it is assumed that person failed the bar at least once. In the legal world, that has extremely negative connotations. Here, this person was admitted to the Texas bar in 2003, the same year of her graduation, and has become "inactive" in that state due to the fact she neither lives nor practices in Texas. An "inactive" attorney can return to practice in that state if or when necessary. The "inactive" status results in lesser bar dues and relieves the person of required "Continued Legal Education [CLE]" credits. This person was also admitted in the District of Columbia in 2004 and is also inactive there. The result of that is that she may re-activate so long as she is in good standing with at least one other bar and repeats the mandatory 8 hour CLE for re-activation.

Further, the sentence regarding the Michael A. DiCarlo Brain Tumor Foundation incorrectly identifies it as the Michael A. DiCarlo memorial with the National Brain Tumor Society. Again, this is an error. The Michael A. DiCarlo Brain Tumor Foundation is a stand-alone charitable foundation. The Foundation develops a team each year for the National Brain Tumor Society fundraiser in New York City or Washington, D.C. The Foundation is not part of the NBTS, but participates in its fundraisers every year to help the cause.

The article also removed all references to the GPYP Domestic Violence Program in which the author matches book donations to domestic violence shelters as she was, herself, once a victim of domestic violence. Although the Program has donated hundreds of books to shelters in the U.S. and abroad, apparently the Wikipedia "editors" found this to be worth of omission as well.

There are several other errors and omissions which appear to be intentional. The intensity with which Wikipedia "editors" have attacked this subject should also be reflected in their desire to "get it right" as they cling, precariously, to the idea of not libeling or defaming a living person. However, their edits and omissions can result in negative assumptions toward the subject, so it is not well hidden.

---