User talk:Haruspex101
|
Clarification needed
[edit]In this comment you made, does "invites legal action" mean that you are considering taking legal action about this article? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:NLT Please answer this question here before you edit any where else on wikipedia.--VS talk 03:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked until clarification in full is received
[edit]I am blocking your account until such time that clarification in terms of the question asked above is clarified. The reason for my action is detailed at the link I gave you which clearly details our policy that you should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, ... until such time as we know whether you intend to take or instigate legal action, and why you are suggesting that such legal action is likely. I will watch to see what you response is (you will be able to give a full response here on your talk page) and then either unblock your account or seek further input. I note that you have been informed that the content you refer to as problematic is not libellous as it is sourced appropriately [1].--VS talk 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
User:VirtualSteve is an associate of User:Mattinbgn and User:YellowMonkey. For instance see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattinbgn&diff=301071429&oldid=301060895
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VirtualSteve&diff=263768989&oldid=263768904
Have already requested that these users do not make reverts on each others' edits or Administrator interventions such as user blocking in relation to the Roland Perry page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=303245380&oldid=302770776
See also previous dialogue with VirtualSteve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VirtualSteve&diff=prev&oldid=301698720
VirtualSteve is not or does not appear to be an independent Administrator in relation to Roland Perry content and discussions.
In answer to rʨanaɢ question on legal actions or legal threats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=prev&oldid=303264553
- As previously declared, I am not Roland Perry:
- In any case it has no bearing on the Roland Perry content page as highlighted by Mattinbg
m[n] user and agreed by you [YellowMonkey]:
- And as you [YellowMonkey] have identified (presumably using CheckUser), I live in Melbourne -- the city where Roland Perry resides:
- I have made no legal action or legal threat. The nature of the material is, however, defamatory and should be deleted as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel
- Haruspex101 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
See also:
@Haruspex: Criticizing somebody's work is not libel. If a person publishes their work for the world to see, it's natural that there will be criticisms. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair comment is not libel. However, repeating an accusation (or misrepresenting an accusation, or even misunderstanding an accusation and stating it in a way) that an internationally published author plagiarizes their work is an act of defamation in common law countries (such as the residence of the YellowMonkey user) unless, and until such time as, the claim is proven to be true. My reading of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel is that where there is any doubt as to whether content is defamatory it should be immediately deleted. There are a number of defamatory statements made by the YellowMonkey user across Wikipedia. I am willing to assist YellowMonkey in identifying this material and deleting it. This information is for YellowMonkey's benefit as well as the reputation of living author subject Roland Perry.
Haruspex101 (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Haruspex101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please see comments on independence of VirtualSteve Administrator who placed the block: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haruspex101&diff=303275913&oldid=303268052
Decline reason:
Normally I would not respond to an unblock request where I had placed the block however on this occasion I intend to do so because as you are well aware I placed the block following your continued breaches of the No Legal Threats policy. I note for the record again that I provided you with a clear method to be unblocked. I also note for the record that Rjanag has reviewed my block and concurs with it. Haruspex I have informed you now on many occassions that I have never edited Roland Perry or any associated article. I have no Wikipedian interest in Cricket. I am no more an associate of Yellow Monkey or Mattinbgn in regards to this article than I am yours. You have been informed now by other editors on at least two occasions that the information being adjusted by Yellow Monkey is supported by references and it is not libel. As detailed you have also been asked to respond in relation to that part of the No Legal Threats policy which stipulates that continued use of the words libel and defammatory are breaches that can be assessed as legal threats. You continue beyond that advice to again provide edit summaries and commentary along those lines. I will not unblock you until such time as you indicate that you will refrain from breaches of this policy. I would ask that you provide that confirmation and then I will unblock you. If on the other hand you continue to breach the No Legal Threats policy I will block you indefinitely from Wikipedia. Please provide the assurances we ask for below - or alternatively leave all of this material on your page, do not return with further comments about libel, legal action, or defammatory and then make another unblock request below and I will leave it to another administrator to assess. --VS talk 05:14, 21 July 2009 (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.
Haruspex101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In the circumstances, it is highly inappropriate that VirtualSteve Administrator who placed the block then declined the request for that same block to be reviewed. Please see comments on independence of VirtualSteve Administrator who placed the block: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haruspex101&diff=303277565&oldid=303277022 Please also see interactions between User:VirtualSteve and User:YellowAssessmentMonkey of today as further evidence of association: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VirtualSteve&diff=prev&oldid=303268649 It is highly inappropropraite that User:VirtualSteve use Administrator interventions such as user blocking in relation to the Roland Perry page. Haruspex101 (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Decline reason:
You were blocked because of possible legal threats, and when I asked you for clarification you still have not stated that you will refrain from legal action. Per WP:No legal threats, anytime you are accusing editors of legal breaches (libel, etc.) you should not be editing Wikipedia; since you have not retracted your legal comments, you will remain blocked. Above, I gave you a very clear and simple question that only required a yes or no answer, and you have not provided that.
I have reviewed VirtualSteve's blocks and, as an outside administrator, I endorse it.
You also need to stop accusing editors of cabalism and ganging up on you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and many people here work on many different things at once, so it is only natural that many administrators have interacted with one another before; that doesn't mean they are inappropriately ganging up against you. Accusations like this only serve to distract from the actual issues and to heighten animosity between all the parties involved. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:47, 21 July 2009 (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.
Haruspex101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Administrator -- other than VirtualSteve (who is acting in a non-independent manner) -- please review the following posts which provide material sufficient to make out the unblock request: post1 post 2 post 3 post 4
Decline reason:
You were blocked for legal threats. Unless I have missed anything, you have not withdrawn your threats and per WP:NLT, you will remain blocked. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:22, 21 July 2009 (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.
Haruspex101 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Latest unblock request
[edit]Haruspex101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello User: Backslash Forwardslash. I was not blocked for legal threats. I was blocked pending clarification re: In this comment you made, does "invites legal action" mean that you are considering taking legal action about this article? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I have provided that clarification in post1 post 2 post 3 post 4 -- or specifically: The conduct described invites legal action. This means that it makes the person posting the material a target for legal action. I myself am not proposing or threatening legal action. Nor do I personally have any grounds for legal action as I am not the subject Roland Person[Perry]. I hope this satisfies your question.
Further, it is not the threat of legal action that is important -- it is whether content posted on Wikipedia of a living person could be deemed to be held to be defamatory. Where there is doubt that material should be deleted immediately.
Or as Wikipedia puts it:
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Haruspex101 (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Decline reason:
One of the key aspects of WP:NLT is that it enjoins editors from employing threats or warnings of involvement by the legal system to chill opinions or actions that they don't approve of. Whether or not you made a threat to do something yourself, you escalated the tensions by invoking legal authority to get your own way. Hence, the WP:NLT block, which you've done nothing to alleviate. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (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.
- I'm not going to act on this unblock request since I've already reviewed one. But to whichever admin does review this request: I suggest that if you decline to unblock, you also remove this user's talkpage privileges. This is his 5th unblock request and it's reaching a point where all he's doing is wasting one admin's time after another. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Please note: This comment is prejudicial. Haruspex101 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
The Question:
In this comment you made, does "invites legal action" mean that you are considering taking legal action about this article? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The Answer:
No
Haruspex101 (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
- Ok, here's another question: what do you intend to use your account for if unblocked? What edits will you make, etc?
- Keep in mind that you have already violated the rules on edit warring; you may wish to read Wikipedia:Edit warring and/or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before you answer this question.
- As for whether you are Roland Perry...personally I don't care to know, and obviously if you are Mr. Perry we are far past the point where you will tell anyone here. But if you are, instead of editing the article you should e-mail Wikipedia's OTRS team (following the instructions at Wikipedia:Libel#Subject guidelines or at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello rʨanaɢ, Thankyou for your additional question.
To answer, I refer you to this previous post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=303255980&oldid=303255469
- Hello YellowMonkey, thankyou for engaging on this Discussion page. I can address your few comments above but there are so many edits that you have made to the base Rd232 that we need to revert to that and then work through each editing proposal systematically. Ideally I ask that you make the reversion voluntarily to:
- Or alternatively an experienced independent editor can make this reversion before we move through a discussion of the substantive edits that you propose. There are also many edits that I would like to propose via this process such as the balance issue in the Review section. In this way we can reach a consensus on the content for the benefit of the Roland Perry article.
rʨanaɢ, I also made this preliminary comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard:
- Problems with the Roland Perry page have returned. The very experienced user YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted the content extensively, with these actions including: loading up the Cricket Book section in a very unbalanced way with purely negative criticism and removing positive reviews; cutting away all of the subject's career overview except to wrongly emphasise a related political article in Penthouse and leaving one para on a minor Guam project (rendering the career section bizarre)...
rʨanaɢ, I to not intend to remove any content which I consider defamatory. It is, however, appropriate to flag it for deletion as is good Wikipedia policy. I have also noted the information for Roland Perry to alert Wikipedia personally about content that he considers defamatory, and have passed that onto the author. I am not Roland Perry; but I note that Wikipedia does not preclude the subject of articles from contributing to the articles on themselves, just asks that they be very carefuly to ensure NPOV.
I have also contacted an independent experienced editor Rd232 who synthesised the Roland Perry base content (picked up the task from the BLP Noticeboard) to alert this editor about the ongoing problems on the Roland Perry page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rd232&diff=prev&oldid=303247487
Hopefully Rd232 and other experienced editors will take an active role in the development of the Roland Perry page.
rʨanaɢ, I also agree with your comment "Can we get both sides to agree to refrain from editing the article directly?":
That would be my preferred way forward, given there was a good base on which to build consensus through discussion. I believe that the following revert is the appropriate base level to progress from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=303248300
Haruspex101 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
- Your answer above does not address the questions asked - what do you intend to use your account for if unblocked? What edits will you make, etc?. Do you have answer for those questions without adding volumes of cut and paste material from a variety of other posts? If not then quite frankly at this time it appears that your talk page (as suggested above) should also be locked down because you simply do not appear to have any interest in answering the simple questions that you have been asked nor in following the policies of this project; nor in acting collaboratively with some others; and finally you do not appear to wish to edit anything other than Roland Perry articles. Further it seems by your words above where you state that I am not Roland Perry; but I note that Wikipedia does not preclude the subject of articles from contributing to the articles on themselves, just asks that they be very carefuly to ensure NPOV in fact that you might be Roland Perry - and if so then please just inform us. As you say quite rightly there is nothing wrong with the subject of an article editing that page but only as long as that subject follows policy carefully. It would be helpful if you are Roland Perry to be told that you were so that those of us who are watching can at least know properly how to examine your edits and support them or discuss them with you. If not that is fine but then do you have other areas you can edit on wikipedia? Just to reiterate, like Rjanag I also have no personal interest if you are Roland Perry or not but I am concerned that at this stage you seem to have an inordinate interest in this article, and that you are prepared to suggest legal action, as well as continually indicate that you feel edits are libellous and defamatory. --VS talk 12:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Answer
- I am not Roland Perry.
- Use of Account?
- SPA Roland Perry in accord with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account
- Edits
- Ideally Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=303248300
- then edit Roland Perry in discussion and consensus with other users based on principles of verifiability, reliability, NPOV etc -- ideally at paragraph level via the Talk age
Haruspex101 (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
- Reverting to the diff you provide above is inappropriate because it would ask the community to interpret your last edit as the correct one. Further you have not paid attention to the fact that other editors have detailed that the edits post your suggested diff are covered by verifiable sources and that criticism is not libel. That said a further question - especially given that you have been reminded below that you have had previous warnings regarding threats of legal action ... will you refrain from making any further edits that suggests libel, defamation, etc? If yes say so - else if you are unable to abide by this request say so!--VS talk 13:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I warned you 2 weeks ago
[edit][2] –Moondyne 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Moondyne, Here is the context and response to that warning of 8 July:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=prev&oldid=300942492
I also note re: Wikipedia Policy for biographies of living persons: Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Haruspex101 (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
- Exactly how can you say that some material has been cleared by Roland Perry and is not contested by him?--VS talk 12:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
VS, I said it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&oldid=300936541
- Collated factual sourced material on Roland Perry and posted this on Wikipedia in July 2009 using journalistic style to bridge the sourced material and some opinion. This material has been cleared by Roland Perry from any potential defamation claims against Roland Perry, even though it includes a good deal of sourced criticism of Roland Perry’s along with the overwhelming positive reviews of Roland Perry’s broad writing career which includes journalism and books on US politics, British espionage and history (WW1), along with a variety of biography, fiction as well as cricket history.
I checked with the author Roland Perry with any substantive edits I have made (or tried to make) and Roland Perry has not objected to that content.
Perhaps it is all a matter that can be referred to the COI Noticeboard, if you have concerns. My only concern is that you, VS, not be involved in interventions in my user rights, as I believe that you are not or do not appear to be independent in relation to Roland Perry content disputes. This is not a view I have of rʨanaɢ, User: Backslash Forwardslash, Moondyne or most others. When in doubt best to withdraw from Administrator inteventions, but your input on the development of the Roland Perry content itself is always welcome.
Haruspex101 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
- My point is that you read and promptly acted on my warning, indicating that you clearly understood the ramifications of making legal threats. You then apparently had a brain snap. –Moondyne 12:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Page locked down
[edit]Haruspex - I can see that you will not accept good faith in relation to the concerns expressed by myself and others in relation to your being a single purpose account that wishes to use threats of legal action etc against other users. You are now being totally disruptive with your edits - despite being placed in a position where a simple answer to myself or Rjanag etc would have seen your account being unblocked. You leave me and I think the other administrators who have reviewed your block with no alternative but to assume that you will continue to disrupt wikipedia and that you do not understand the importance of our No Legal Threats policy. I am not prepared to allow your continued soap-boxing at this page and so will protect your page from further posts by you. I note that Rjanag has asked other administrators that come here to do likewise. Should your account be unblocked the unblocking administrator will be able to allow you to edit your page again but for now I am going to insist that you await a further review - or alternatively if you wish you may email me for assistance.--VS talk 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- (follow-up) Haruspex, you are not going to be unblocked. Part of the reason you were blocked was for edit warring, and this comment of yours makes it clear that you intend to continue edit warring if you are unblocked. Furthermore, regardless of whether you are Roland Perry, you said here that you intend to contact Mr. Perry and encourage him to argue with Wikipedia ("I have also noted the information for Roland Perry to alert Wikipedia personally about content that he considers defamatory, and have passed that onto the author."), which is still against our no legal threats policy. Therefore, you will not be unblocked and you have lost the privilege of posting at this talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)