User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12

3RR block for 48hours
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. LessHeard vanU 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your unblock request is declined without prejudice because it is much too long (4 unblock tags!). Please be much more succinct. Admins are volunteers and will not read a whole novel just to deal with a 3RR block. Incidentally, prima facie, the other person's edits to Joseph C. Wilson that you state are vandalism look much more like a normal content dispute to me. Sandstein 06:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [shortened it and retagged it, as above Sandstein's reply to earlier requests. Doing my best here though pressed for time too. My contributions to Wikipedia are also voluntary and dealing with problems like these does become very time-consuming.  Thanks for re-considering shorter version. [Updated.] --NYScholar 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Information re: my perceptions of Vandalism to Joseph C. Wilson
Note: User:Argyriou, who claimed that I had reverted 5 times, is not an administrator (has a user box stating that he has no wish to be one), does not recognize that I regarded the 3 reverts as reversions of clear vandalism (violations of WP:BLP and Neutral point of view, and that they are thus exempt from 3RR (explicitly stated in Vandalism and via WP:BLP). I myself have already discussed the matter in earlier versions of the Plame-related articles--see links below--and I have cited the very same Wash. Post article with its quotation of Wilson's own responses in his book (cited in Joseph C. Wilson) to false allegations that either he or his wife "lied"; with the passage itself quoted.

The very article that User:Tim Osman says that he is adding to this article has already been cited in it for a long time; I added it myself a long time ago; it is more correctly cited in its current notes (prior to his editing this article at all) and it includes a quotation from Wilson's book disputing mis-interpretations of the very "memo" that User:Tim Osman scanned [actually he did not scan the memo; he scanned an attachment to the memo; I have since added his image (which another editor provided a more proper license for) and substantiated the passages that I corrected with proper note citations in Joseph C. Wilson. --NYScholar 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)]. This quotation of Wilson from his book is in the current version of this article on Joseph C. Wilson in Wikipedia citing this WaPo article: (see the note citation in Joseph C. Wilson: .  The article is old and dates back to July 10, 2004 (not "2003"--that's a typographical error needing correction), and it contains Wilson's response, which User:Tim Osman omitted:  Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.  "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."  Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

See Joseph C. Wilson; that article that User:Tim Osman claims that I deleted is one that I had already properly cited earlier (with full citation--he did not document it correctly--it has already been cited in this article 5 times (a-e). --NYScholar 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole sub-section actually relates to that specific article! There is a typographical error in the introd. sentence date that needs correction: it is July 10, 2004 (not "2003"). Clearly, User:Tim Osman kept adding POV content to this article without reading these sections relating to the same sources (the Senate Report and Susan Schmidt's WaPo article, already significantly and pertinently and reliably- and verifiably- and correctly-cited in this article on Joseph C. Wilson); that is Vandalism. --NYScholar 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That section follows a full section Joseph C. Wilson. User:Tim Osman clearly did not read the full article and simply wily-nily added his insertions repeatedly into the article, vandalizing it by doing so: Vandalism. That vandalism is what I reported. --NYScholar 21:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In the section on Wilson's response to Schmidt's WaPo article on the Senate Committee report, the current (and earlier) versions of Joseph C. Wilson quote from Wilson's book, pointing out the misleading nature of Schmidt's article (which User:Tim Osman cites without recognizing this subsequent development already there:

Wilson's responses to this article, published in The Politics of Truth, point out significant errors of fact and interpretation in Susan Schmidt's account of the Committee's report: Her article was replete with factual errors that could have been avoided had she bothered to read the text of the report or even done some basic research, such as looking up the CIA statement made the previous year in the Newsday article about Valerie's lack of involvement in the trip. But she did not. Indeed, her reporting was so sloppy that from the lead sentence she conflated what the three Republican senators––and not even a majority of their own party's representation on the committee––asserted with what the actual report concluded. She even confused Iraq with Iran, a significant error of fact. She also quoted a phrase from this book that Valerie "had nothing to do with the matter" without the qualifying phrase in the beginning of the sentence: "other than serve as a conduit." Schmidt asserted that my report, rather than debunking intelligence about the purported uranium sales to Iraq, had bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. She went further, noting that "contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address." Both of these assertions were patently false, and even a cursory reading of the body of the report dedicated to the Niger case would have borne that out. (lix)

The Vandalism by User:Tim Osman is his attempt to repeat false claims that "Ms. Plame lied" and/or that Ambassador Wilson engages in "lies" by continually re-inserting this information without recognition that it is already fully discussed in Joseph C. Wilson. He did not bother to read the full article on Joseph C. Wilson (which already cites the Senate committee report, linking to the Wikipedia article on it) and was just inserting the false information in it in order to promote his own POV. That is Vandalism. --NYScholar 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the memo in repeated insertions elsewhere in inappropriate places in this article as if it were evidence that either Mrs. Wilson ("Ms. Plame") or former Ambassador Wilson had "lied" (as User:Tim Osman repeatedly tried to do)--which it is not-- is engaging in POV editing, and it is contrary to both WP:BLP and Neutral point of view. Given what I have already pointed out above, it is Vandalism. By repeatedly inserting false and potentially slanderous information stating "Ms. Wilson lied" etc., while neglecting the sections in which the matter has already been discussed, in which Wilson's response (quoted in the same WaPo article) is cited, the user was engaging in Vandalism and, according to WP:BLP, such potentially slanderous content must be deleted on sight. That is what I did; such deletions are not subject to 3RR.

Re: the two other so-called "5RR": My other changes involved corrections and updating of a section that I had already updated, which User:Tim Osman kept reverting to obsolete and incorrect content--re: the civil suit. I had worked hard on updating the article over the course of a day, and that user reverted all that content, losing many pertinent, reliable, and verifiable source citations in his repeated reversions. His reversions were all subject to 3RR. I was not engaging in vandalism--despite his knee-jerk claims on his talk page in response to the Vandalism notices--he was.

'''Please remove this block of my IP address and user ID and please remove all references to it from my block log. It was not a "fair" block. See requests above and supporting information from the article in question. Thank you.''' --NYScholar 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Typographical errors in Joseph C. Wilson
In addition to the typographical error in the date (2004 not 2003) mentioned above re: Schmidt's article introduction sentence, there is a typographical error in information that another editor added to Joseph C. Wilson and the source is not properly cited as a full citation; the user just tossed in an external link. There is no need to make reference to the Drudge Report (a self-published website which is not considered a reliable and verifiable source in Wikipedia for biographies of living persons--see Reliable sources as linked in WP:BLP). There is a bonafide press release posted in the official campaign website of 2008 presidential Democratic candidate hopeful Hillary Clinton entitled "Fmr. Ambassador Joseph Wilson Endorses Clinton" and dated July 16, 2007. Someone inserted the information into a paragraph in the lead (introd.) to the article, where it does not belong. The same information is already cited in an appropriate section of the main text of the article, and it is out of place in the introduction (lacks coherence there). A full citation needs to be substituted for the external link and added as a proper full citation note citation to document the main text statement.

People need to be more careful in constructing citations for this and other Wikipedia articles. Subsequent users are responsible for following the prevailing citation format and using proper full citations in this controversial article about a living person. See WP:CITE for help if needed. I will move these comments about this article to the article's talk page after the block is lifted or expires, whichever comes first. --NYScholar 22:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of Vandalism in Wikipedia
See Vandalism re: why I perceive as "persistent" "vandalism" what User:Tim Osman (cf. User talk:Tim Osman did repeatedly to Joseph C. Wilson by repeated inserting false claims that the former ambassador and his wife Valerie Plame "lied". Prior to posting the administration vandalism report of what I regarded and still regard as vandalism, I had posted vandalism templates warning that the insertions were being regarded as "vandalism" and that they were not "constructive" additions to the article.  The article already has a complete section and subsection discussing such criticism of the Wilsons and which cite the WaPo article [5 times]) referring to a "memo" and give the full contexts of those criticisms and Wilson's published responses to such criticisms: See Joseph C. Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson. (In those sections the sources are already either clearly linked via Wikipedia links or notes citations; I did not delete the sources from the article has User:Tim Osman claims; those sources are actually already cited because I had originally provided them with the proper links to them.) Yet User:Tim Osman persisted in multiple reverts and false claims in his editing summaries, losing important reliably- and verifiably-cited sources (violation of Wikipedia policies). The basis for considering what that user was doing is: NPOV violations The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned. (This comes from WP:Vandalism (Neutral point of view violations); bold print added to highlight the significant qualification that applies in this case.)

Because the user "persisted in" inserting POV material into the article even "after being warned" several times, his behavior (according to that section of Vandalism) is "vandalism". After the multiple reverts and the shouting on his talk page in response to complaints, his engaging in personal attacks violating both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, he was blocked; among the reaons given were "vandalism" and "uncivil" behavior.

In my own case, as the reporter of the vandalism, I should not have been blocked for my reverts deleting his persistent insertions of false claims that the Wilsons had "lied"; the evidence already discussed in the article pertaining to those false claims fully discusses them and (in my own perception) puts them to rest, and they should not be continually inserted elsewhere in the article violating Neutral point of view and WP:BLP, which links to Neutral point of view. My deletions of the material that was persistent vandalism (following section quoted above) followed 3RR: I properly was deleting material via "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Biographies of living persons)".

Such reverts (mine) are exempt from WP:3RR; they are not violations of WP:3RR. Moreover, there were only 3 reverts of that specific material. Two edits identified by a non-administrator as "reverts" involved other changes to my own material provided originally prior to the incursion by User:Tim Osman, who is not an established editor of Wikipedia and whose only edits involve those insertions and reverts of his insertions to Joseph C. Wilson. From his "contributions" record, it appears clear that he entered Wikipedia only to add his own POV charging that the Wilsons "lied" and, moreover, he claims that he will return to do the same damage to the article. He has no interest in following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and no interest particularly in Wikipedia's "core policy"--Neutral point of view. See User talk:Tim Osman for evidence of the user's intentions and attitude toward editing. (There is no user page and no other history for that user. On the talk page, I was not the first to draw shouting (all caps) from him in response to civil template notices.)   It violates the template notices re: Talk page guidelines, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BLP for that user to enage in that kind of behavior through persistent vandalism (inserting slander) in a biography of a living person. The claim that I deleted his sources is absurd, since the sources are already cited in the article (multiple times) in a thorough section and subsection of the article (to which I myself contributed a long time ago). His reverts deleted currently-updated information and sources (as stated above).

His insertions and reverts fall in the category of "persistent" "vandalism" (as the blocking administrator already stated); that administrator refers to "repeated abuse of editing privileges", linking directly to Vandalism. As the editor who reported that vandalism, I think that what I reported has been substantiated by that administrative block of that user.

See User talk:Tim Osman: User:ThuranX supports my perception that User:Tim Osman was engaging in vandalism to a biography of a living person by persistently making changes and reverts to his changes that violate Neutral point of view. User:ThuranX observes User:Tim Osman's uncivil replies (to bot fair use violation and my vandalism warning templates!) and states further: "... rearranging an article [the article on "Joseph C. Wilson"] into an entirely smear oriented piece, one which is clearly biased to make Plame look like a complaining criminal instead of a covert CIA operative, is going to anger and upset a lot of people here. Not because their politics don't match yours, but because there's enough citation and evidence that it led to congressional hearings and a major trial. Your edits, some of which is fairly obvious synthesis, are going to fail wikipolicy at that point."

Despite being warned further about his faulty "uploading" and offensive user "actions", User:Tim Osman goes on to commit further slander by stating that he intends "the truth to be told about Mr. Wilson and his blatant lies." Such a statement needs excision from Wikipedia on the basis of WP:BLP. What that user calls "the truth about Mr. Wilson's and his blatant lies" is his own bias (biased POV); it is not "the truth"; and even if it were, he does not present it properly (see WP:POV and WP:BLP). Instead, he inserts in a biased manner (and incoherently in parts of the article where it does not fit) partial claims quoting out of context criticism of the Wilsons that is already fully documented, discussed, and debunked through a complete section and subsection citing reliable and verifiable sources in the the article on Joseph C. Wilson. In doing so he repeatedly vandalized the article.

After the multiple reverts, the vandalism became "obvious" and thus it became "obvious vandalism". One needs to read the full article on Joseph C. Wilson and to examine his edits in the context of its already-existing sections pertaining to criticism of Wilson to understand how his inserts and reverts began as violations of Neutral point of view and how they became first "persistent" and then "obvious vandalism" (in my view). --NYScholar 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR states:
 * "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents);"
 * The edits you reverted may or may not have been vandalism. They were definitely not *obvious* vandalism. --Tango 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tango: I appreciate your looking at this situation. I do still think, however, if the edits that I reverted (even in your current viewpoint) "may or may not have been vandalism", nevertheless, I thought that they were based both on the WP:BLP "slander" policy (remove on sight--that I quoted above) and explicitly on (as already quoted above too):

"NPOV violations The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned. (This comes from WP:Vandalism#What vandalism is not (Neutral point of view violations); bold print added to highlight the significant qualification that applies in this case.)"


 * I still think that the bolded part and the fact that that user had obviously "persisted in [the violations of Neutral point of view explicitly] after being warned" (as I initially stated in my notice on the administrative alerts page concerning vandalism) should have exempted me from the 3RR (it was not an improper report), and, certainly, no one should have blocked my account without first warning me. (Scroll up to the block.)

I should not have been blocked (especially also since there were not more than three reverts of that user's insertions per se) without prior warning and discussion (just out of "tit for tat"). I do respect the fact that you may not see it this way, but I really do think that I did not deserve that automatic block under these circumstances.

I would really like you to reconsider (again), given what I have quoted from both Vandalism (which had been linked in that user's block notice [scroll up or go to User talk:Tim Osman to see it].

Just to block me too, citing being "fair" (tit for tat) was actually unfair. I did not do anything to deserve the block. I posted proper notices in talk pages of article and user prior to posting the administrative vandalism page notice, yet have been accused of posting an illegitimate notice on the administrative page.

If it were actually illegitimate, the user would not have been blocked with a reference linking to Vandalism (and others would not also have perceived what he was doing as vandalism, which they did).

Potentially-slanderous material (unsupported claims that a living person "has lied") is supposed to be deleted "on sight" from Wikipedia. The "memo" scan that user created (questioned by others due to fair use violations) does not support the statement that "Ms. Plame lied" or that her husband, former Ambassador Wilson lied. That is a POV interpretation of it by the user, citing an article already cited more fully in the section of the article on it. The user did not provide sources to document his statement. The sources provided do not document it. That he or others prefer to believe that a living person "has lied" does not document that as fact, especially when the discussion is already fully in the article with proper sources. Again, thanks for thinking about this matter; I think it is more complex than at first it appears due to the fact that there is a full section citing proper sources about the matter already in the article that was there before the user began inserting redundant and false material.

An editor is supposed to read a full article before inserting dubious POV (his own) in it. What he did was irresponsible and, in my view, vandalism ("obvious vandalism"). I think he knew and knows that as well. When one sees a first-time Wikipedia account creating such problems through multiple reverts of his own content, it looks like "obvious vandalism" to most Wikipedia editors who are familiar with the article in question. The vandalism templates exist to warn such people. I posted the proper vandalism templates User talk:Tim Osman before posting the notice in the administrative vandalism page, at WP:AIV (Scroll way up to unblock request for quotation of what I wrote) [That report was proper, not improper as the blocking administrator states in blocking me; the user had persisted in vandalism and stated his intentions to keep doing so; there were no editing summaries in any of his reverts; he was just repeately reverting mine, which had editing summaries and which were further explained on both the talk page of the article Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and his own talk page User talk:Tim Osman. The responses that I got to the templates were uncivil (shouting, personal attacks) and the user returned to the article to revert the changes back to his offensive material. Then he was blocked User talk:Tim Osman and his replies (after shouting in reply to others and me) indicate his intentions to persist in vandalizing and not to follow Neutral point of view. [Given those replies, I really think that this user's behavior needs to be further discouraged.]


 * At this stage (close to the end of the block), what I am asking is for a review of this matter so that, if, as I am saying, there are exceptions in WP:Vandalism and WP:3RR that dovetail, one can see that the block of my account (after what were really 3 reverts and not 5 of that user's content), without prior warning, were really not fair, and that the block should be deleted from my block log. There is enough agreement about what that user was doing for reasonable people to see that I was acting in good faith (not "edit warring" as some have claimed).  That was no "normal content dispute."   The content about the controversy concerning Wilson is already fully developed in the article.  The user was simply inserting incorrect material wily-nily as he wished to push his own POV on it.  Who knows if he even knew that the material was already properly cited.  But he should have (if he had read the article).  --NYScholar 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[I posted a vandalism 3 template on a user's talk page twice; he deleted it twice and moved it here, engaging in obvious harassment as well as personal attacks. I have reported the user for persistent vandalism to the article in question, as per Wikipedia policy. (Updated.) My policy is to remove harassment and personal attacks from my user space. See "N.B." above and archive page 12 for history of recurrent problems with that user. [The user is misrepresenting what happened; I was npt blocked for vandalism to the article; he was blocked for both vandalism and incivility. I was blocked for reporting his vandalism, I think unfairly. He is clearly engaging in vandalism to the article as per WP:BLP and Neutral point of view. [Updated out of courtesy. --NYScholar 11:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)]

[Note: I posted a vandalism 3 template on a user's talk page twice; he deleted it twice and moved it here, engaging in obvious harassment as well as personal attacks. I have reported the user for persistent vandalism to the article in question, as per Wikipedia policy. (Updated.) My policy is to remove harassment and personal attacks from my user space. See "N.B." above and archive page 12 for history of recurrent problems with that user.

To make matters even worse, that user is misrepresenting what happened on his talk page after deleting my vandalism warning templates from it, copying them, and placing them here.

I was not blocked for vandalism to the article (as he now misleadingly claims on his talk page, even claiming that I am "lying"!). The same administration who blocked him blocked me for WP:3RR because I reverted his (what I regarded as and still do regard as) persistent vandalism to a biography of a living person and filed an alert about it at WP:ANI (which I still think was justified). He was blocked for both vandalism and incivility as well as violations of WP:3RR: See User talk:Tim Osman and my archive page 12; he has now been blocked again, this time for 7 days due to the recurrence of the same problem. After he was first blocked, the same administrator who blocked him for vandalism and 3RR violations blocked me ("to be fair" he said but I still think unfairly) for my reverts of what I regarded as that user's vandalism and for reporting his vandalism involving slanderous remarks about a living person in a biography of a living person. In my ongoing view of the matter, that user has clearly been engaging in persistent vandalism to the article violating Vandalism, WP:BLP, and Neutral point of view. I think that those persistent violations of Wikipedia's core policies should now be both clear and "obvious" to any reasonable experienced Wikipedia editor (which he is not). [restored since ran into editing conflict when tried to archive it.] [Previously posted by NYScholar approx. 07:07, July 23, 2007 (UTC)]

Obvious vandalism
You've archived your own reply before I had a chance to respond, so I'll just give a brief explanation of why the edits you reverted were not obvious vandalism. In order to be obvious you have to be able to tell it is vandalism by just looking at that single edit (that's what WP:3RR says), so warnings and persistence are irrelevant. Your claim that your reverts were made according to BLP seems to be a new one. If you are enforcing BLP it is best to make that clear in the edit summary. I haven't taken another look at the edits in question in order to determine if they violated BLP, but the fact that it seems you have only just come up with that excuse makes me reluctant to take it into account.
 * It is not so that my ref. to BLP is "new": it was what I mentioned from the beginning; see my quotation of my original alert about his vandalism as now archived in my original request to revmove the block in my archive page 12. It's clear enough. I really object to the insinuations that I did not believe what I was stating; I believed it then, and I believe it now.  That user is a persistent troublemaker.  See the material that he has deleted from the article which had taken both I and another user hours to contribute.  --NYScholar 13:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote in my original report at WP:ANI about that user: "persistent vandalism to Joseph C. Wilson; lack of any prior discussion of controversial edits to biography of a living person; lack of awareness of WP:CIVIL and Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:CITE and Neutral point of view. Constant "shouting" (use of all capital letters) in own talk page in response to other Wikipedia editors' complaints. Lack of signing with four tildes throughout. As a result of such persistent vandalism and persistent lack of attention to the talk page notices warning against such vandalism to biographies of living persons, Joseph C. Wilson needs protection from vandalism. (Italics and bold print added.)" --NYScholar 13:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My more recent alert in WP:ANI states: "* persistent vandalism of Joseph C. Wilson and persistent violations of WP:NPA despite recent 48-hour block; persistent personal attacks; deletion of vandalism 3 level template from talk page. No awareness or interest in Wikipedia's core editing policies and guidelines. Refuses to sign comments with four tildes and to maintain civility on talkpages. Persistent violations of Neutral point of view despite repeated warnings. Continual breaches of Etiquette and WP:CITE. This is not a "normal content dispute"; this is that user's attempt to smear the subject of a biography of a living person in the lead section of the article, reverting proper content in course of doing so. Continual use of improper citation formatting contrary to prevailing notes citations format of article. --NYScholar 10:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)" [quoted. --NYScholar 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * My original template message re: vandalism on that user's talk page (prior to the [first] ANI) cited WP:BLP as well. See User talk:Tim Osman.
 * My concerns have all along been the potentially slanderous material that that user is adding to the article (in the lead section no less) and throughout the article; I am sorry that explaining the problems take so much time (but it has been my time that I've taken); people need to read the explanations and not jump to false conclusions. I was concise from the start, but I was blocked unfairly (I still believe) and I was explaining why the unblock was unfair. I don't think the administrator who blocked me read the article on Wilson and could perceive what that user was doing and persisted in trying to do after his block expired.  The user is very rude to boot and just for that degree of rudeness, I think he should be banned from Wikipedia entirely.  He has contributed nothing useful to it and simply made trouble.  If he comes back in 7 days, if his block is not lifted before that, he will simply engage in the same behavior.  He has no interest in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will make no effort to educate himself about them.  His objective thus far (other than one other contested copyright-violating image) is simply to malign the Wilsons.
 * [The sources that he adds do not support his statements about their engaging in "lies." His additions (square bracketed "see" refs. in the lead and elsewhere) are not correct Wikipedia formatting.] in That is his own biased point of view resulting in potentially slanderous statements that he keeps adding to the article in his reverting of other users' properly-developed and properly- and verifiably-sourced content. The memo image is not useful; it's virtually illegible, and the article already cites the primary source of it and a secondary source discussing it.  It does not prove what he states.] --NYScholar 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, in future, please try to be more concise in your arguments. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and lengthy arguments are rarely helpful. If you can't explain why what you did was acceptable in a couple of paragraphs, then it probably wasn't acceptable.
 * I expained it briefly at first, and administrators ignored what I wrote. I had to keep explaining it, and they still do not even refer to the section of Wikipedia's own policies in WP:3RR that apply to this situation: persistent vandalism via slanderous statements concerning a living person in a biography of a living person (see archive page 12 for links and quotations). If administrators don't read the article in quesiton, there is a lack of knowledge that impedes their decisions about it. --NYScholar 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If a matter is complicated enough to require such lengthy arguments, it should probably be taken to ArbCom. --Tango 12:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran into an editing conflict in trying to archive before I saw any reply from you Tango. There is no "excuse" in what I have posted earlier. It is a rational explanation of what has been happening ever since that user's block expired and he carried out his intentions to restore the material already considered by more than one user (not just I) as intentional smearing of the subject (a living person). I have cited all the relevant policies in my archived page 12, to which I don't think you responded earlier when it was in my current user talk page. I see that user as someone who has entered Wikipedia initially and persistently to make trouble in the article on Joseph C. Wilson; he refuses to read about or care about the core policies in Wikipedia and is violating them without any concern. He won't even sign his posts properly; clearly he won't read the tagged template notices at the top of article talk pages or this talk page. I have been editing articles in Wikipedia for over three years. I read the guidelines and policies and try to abide by them. The arbitration that took three months vindicated my position about reliable and verifiable sources for WP:BLP. If what that user has been trying to do were legitimate edits, I would recognize them as such. They are not legitimate edits and they are not mere "normal content disputes"; they are signs of someone who has no interest in following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As I said before, administrators need to discourage such behavior. There is no reason to encourage or even to tolerate it. The situation is complex and required explaining; I spent hours explaining it, but I was simply blocked as a knee-jerk reaction to the other user's block. I would appreciate your following the links documenting my explanation. Can't help it if it's complicated; the other user made it so by knowing nothing about Wikipedia and refusing even to read the full article that he has violated. --NYScholar 13:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your 3RR violation is not at all complicated. You violated the rule and got blocked, that's all there is to it. If you have a problem with the actions of another user there are plenty of procedures in place to make your complaints and get them seen too - unblock requests are not one of them. To overly simplify the situation: your unblock request boils down to "He started it.", which is never going to work. It doesn't matter what terrible things the user you reverted was doing, it is your actions we are discussing, and your actions were in violation of the 3RR. --Tango 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted that user's changes 3 times; that is not more than 3 times. The other two edits were not reverts of that user's material; they were corrections to my own earlier contributions that he had reverted.  The user who claimed 5 reverts was not an administrator and he did not list the diffs. via links.  I did not intentionally revert that user's changes more than 3 times; in my view--again--I was reverting slanderous claims in a biography of a living person.  That's what I meant when I referred to vandalism in a biography of a living person: removing undocumented statements that are potential slander in a biography of a living person is listed among WP:3RR.  That is what I was following in my refs. to vandalism throughout this entire matter.  You seem to be missing this point continually.  --NYScholar 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I archived the previous discussion (prior to the removal of my block) because it was clear that the block would expire before anyone would be doing anything to reverse it (the discussion was over), and the matter became moot. I still think the original block of me for 48 hours was unfair, as I have already stated (many times) that I was following WP:3RR when I reverted that user's additions (which had reverted all my previous and correct work that had taken many hours before he entered the article)--he kept reverting to his own older versions of a (then) current event, which was one of my clues that he was vandalizing the article and not following Neutral point of view.
 * According to WP:3RR and Vandalism, which dovetail in regard to WP:BLP, what he was doing was engaging in "persistent" "vandalism" of the article; instead of improving it, he was making it worse. He was changing once-accurate headings to inaccurate POV headings continually, over and over again, as part of his reverts.  One needs to examine his initial editing to see what he was doing and reverting back to later.  Each one stated that the Wilsons "lied" without reliable and verifiable sources to document that allegation.  At this stage of knowledge about the subject(s), it is not reasonable to leave statements in the article making such slanderous claims unchallenged; yet that is what he kept adding to the lead and elsewhere.  I still do not agree with your repeated claims that I engaged in violating WP:3RR as I filed multiple reports sincerely perceiving vandalism of that article (as others have done subsequently, seeing a "smear" tactic in that user's additions and reverts of his own additons without any concern for all the other content that he was losing.  --NYScholar 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy that I was following in WP:3RR refers to "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)"' my 3 reverts marked as such were indeed what I have said: exactly that. The others involved corrections and restoration of already-updated material that he had deleted in his reverts of my own earlier contributions prior to his entering the article at all: all those sources that I had provided had been properly- and reliably- and verifiably-sourced; he wily-nily deleted all the notes citations along with everything else--that is also vandalism to the article.  One is not supposed to delete such reliably and verifiably-sourced material that truly does support statements in an article in keeping with Neutral point of view and replace it with biased POV of one's own.  His material, in contrast, was poorly sourced.  (He did not even recognize that I had already provided 5 notes to the source that he falsely claimed that I was deleting: a Wash. Post article (still there!).  (I was the one who originally had provided those five citations! And I had also spent many, many hours properly formatting the notes citations in its prevailing format, which he was deleting and not following.  He has no knowledge of the formats and has no interest in them.  His deletions amounted to vandalism on many fronts.)  --NYScholar 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm logging off Wikipedia. No more time for this at all. Please consult archive page 12 for what I already stated. [With respect to my alert in WP:ANI, I placed clear notices on the talk page of the article and the user's talk page, using proper templates re: Vandalism. The vandalism involved slander of a living person in a biography of a living person and deletions of proper sources added by me and other editors earlier.] I have not got time to devote any more time to this matter. (I will archive this entire discussion the next time I come to Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [Archive updated. --NYScholar 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)]