|
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 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/?title=User_talk:Mattinbgn&diff=301071429&oldid=301060895
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=303245380&oldid=302770776
See also previous dialogue with VirtualSteve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=prev&oldid=303264553
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&diff=prev&oldid=303266171
@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/?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/?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/?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)
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.
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)
Hello rʨanaɢ, Thankyou for your additional question.
To answer, I refer you to this previous post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=303255980&oldid=303255469
rʨanaɢ, I also made this preliminary comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard:
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/?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/?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=303248300
Haruspex101 ( talk) 12:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Haruspex101 ( talk) 12:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
[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/?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)
VS, I said it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&oldid=300936541
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)
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)