User talk:StopAbuseOfMothers

Attacks in the article "Richard Mangano"
Please do not make personal attacks&#32;as you did at "Richard Mangano". Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
You have been  blocked from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion  (talk)  20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no biased agenda. I am completely able to edit in a neutral fashion; it is just difficult when the person concerned does not act neutrally himself. The account is not shared; I simply have information from many people, just as a doctor may publish a medical article with information from his colleagues. I would prefer you to advise about what to do with the article rather than just block me for trying to present information in a neutral fashion.

I am unable to leave comments on your talk page as I am banned from editing it, which seems rather silly after this is what users are advised to do by you there.

If we cannot come to some form of agreement, I would like the matter to be handed to a senior administrator. Please try to remember that this was the very first article I have tried to write on Wikipedia. I have seen much, much worse, the content of which remains to this day.

With respect

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the article because it was an egregious violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. The sole point of the article was to attack an individual, giving phone numbers and workplace information. This is a wholly unacceptable use of Wikipedia, to the point that it was referred to an oversighter for removal of defamatory content from the database. You were blocked precisely because you were using Wikipedia for an agenda of defamation, and as evidenced by your comments above, you do not understand the purpose or principals of Wikipedia and have no intention of repsecting them.   Acroterion  (talk)  11:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

helpme

The negative aspects of what the person in question was doing were quickly removed by himself when people started complaining about what he was doing; he had posted details about this on various sites. I have no problem with the removal of the article as was done by the first of your staff, with a good reason, but for someone else to barge in and ban me indefinitely is rather heavy handed. When I deal with people, I say things such as, "We had to remove this article because it violated x, y and z; please refrain from violating these rules again". Acroterion is not suitable for the job he is doing in my opinion.

Jeff Mall firstly said, "Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Jeffrey Mall". I did not continue to create or repost the page, therefore according to his rules I should not be blocked. Why create one rule, then change the goalposts just because Acroterion is overly aggressive?

I realise that you have imagined the points you give above, which is fine, but it doesn't prove that I am not able to create more positive pages in the future. I also need a copy of the article back, please.

Thanks

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Acroterion's block is supported by our blocking policy. Accounts that appear to exist only for disruptive purposes may be blocked indefinitely without warning. Due to the nature of the article's contents, it has been oversighted, and you may not receive a copy of it. Regards,  (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to know what your blocking policies are. Why did Jeff Mall tell me that, "Users who CONTINUE to create or REPOST such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Jeffrey Mall". (sorry for caps; emphasis needed).

Was Jeff Mall wrong? Who was wrong and who was right? I'm sure that you can see the utter confusion that is being caused by certain people here. Is it not obvious that I have learned my lesson? Do you really think I would re-post the article after it was taken down 2 minutes after it was written? I am not stupid. If you are judging me by my username, then that is unfair. Usernames mean nothing. It was something I thought of off the top of my head. Nothing more. My next contribution may be about the solar system or particle accelerators, or the side-effects of long-term tricyclic antidepressant use.

Please don't judge someone by one article, which was a muddle because it was composed of information from many people. My next article would be my own, with no contributions. I have an honours degree and post-grad qualifications. You should encourage people such as myself, instead of just banning them straight away. You're giving out a very negative, almost dictator-like message to new users.

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Having read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_bite_the_newcomers, I cannot see why you have this page when I have been bitten so hard that my bones are showing.

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Regards

When the article was stopped, I read the reasons why made by Mr Mall, accepted them, and went back to studying Wikipedia writing and principles. Mr Mall explained that if I were to CONTINUE to edit in the same fashion, I would be blocked. So, of course I did not continue, and had no intention of. Then it was ME who was attacked by Acroterion; if I spoke to someone in that fashion in the 'real world' I would probably receive a black eye. I have not "attacked" any of your members. I would be willing for you to list the "attacks" I have allegedly made on your members, and I would like you to compare them to the comments made to me by Acroterion, who applied a different rule to that of Mr Mall.

I have already stated that I should not be judged by a username I thought off the top of my head. I had no idea you would consider this. You seem to imply that if I chose a username such "We LoveRichardMangano", the outcome would be different. That makes no sense to me, and certainly isn't part of the 5 basic rules of Wikipedia. I would bet my house that there are far more 'dodgy' usernames out there.

I did not join Wikipedia for the purpose you allege; in fact I joined because I am a teacher and my class raise money for good causes. Since Jimmy Wales announced that he desperately needed more funds, I though I would write an article, myself, from one account, though from sources I was given from other people. We were going to encourage the children to try to write articles and donate money based on the best few - a kind of sponsorship if you like. I thought that I would try to see how the proceedings of writing an article, which I have fully admitted breached the rules, work, but as a teacher I am not exactly unable to learn.

I have in fact asked numerous times to join in positive advice on writing articles, but have simply been repeatedly admonished and spoken to like a complete idiot. I have read, and would encourage you to read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_bite_the_newcomers, and basically explain the point of the page if it is not applicable.

Changing my username would be no problem. How can I convince you people that I have accepted my mistakes and learned from them? Would you like me to write a totally different article in a talk page?

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable."

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Here is a reply to a few things i have noticed.

"We were going to encourage the children to try to write articles and donate money based on the best few" You should understand that any editor can edit any unprotected page. An expert in a subject someone write about might give them an unfair advantage. You should not be using wikipedia to hold fundraisers or competitions.

Since Jimmy Wales announced that he desperately needed more funds, The way to donate is to send funds to the Wikimdia Foundation. As said before, Wikipedia should not be used to hold fundraising events, even for wikipedia.

I have in fact asked numerous times to join in positive advice on writing articles, but have simply been repeatedly admonished and spoken to like a complete idiot. I have read, and would encourage you to read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_bite_the_newcomers, and basically explain the point of the page if it is not applicable. Reading up the page, it says that you created what we call an attack page. That over-writes the dont bit the newcommers page.

Also, what is your question exactly.

S ophie ( Talk ) 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think her question is, "How can I get unblocked?" I had suggested that she demonstrate that she understands Wikipedia's basic rules, especially the requirement that information be verified by sources, but I can't tell, from this note, whether she has done so, or whether her next article would also be about a non-notable person.  The promise to bring lots of children to edit Wikipedia isn't much of an incentive, since very, very few children have the writing and research skills to write for an encyclopedia, and the threat of withholding money (which she's used before, in her second unblock request) is also more off-putting than persuasive- it isn't necessary to pay to use Wikipedia, nor do donations have anything to do with editing.  I wouldn't really have any problem with her trying again under a new username, but if she is going to keep writing about non-notable people, relying on unsourced information from schoolchildren, she'll just end up blocked again in a few days, and it'll all be something of a waste of time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At some risk of reiterating what I discussed higher up the page, this editor's first action was to create a calculated attack page that mentioned a variety of private personal details about the target of the attack, to the point that I referred it to an admin with Oversight permission so that the material could be deleted from the database, which she did. The article was so far beyond the pale of ordinary I-don't-understand-Wikipedia-I'm-a-newbie that I blocked the editor immediately, as the article pre-empted any reasonable assumption of good faith. So the catalog of issues for this account amounts to:
 * Creation of an attack page
 * Posting phone number, place of work and personal details, to the point that it had to be referred to an Oversighter
 * Creation of an unsourced biography, concerning a person who does not meet the notability standards
 * Apparent group account
 * Apparent role account created to denigrate a specific person
 * Having done all this, I see little evidence that this account is going to be able to contribute to the encyclopedia, as I see no evidence that the editor understands the seriousness of their breaches of Wikipedia terms and conditions. Their original request to be unblocked amounted to a request to be allowed to create a less defamatory version of the original attack. WP:BITE is not a license to use Wikipedia as a platform for defamation until we run out of patience. I normally give people a second chance before blocking, but this one was so far out-of-bounds that I blocked immediately.  Acroterion  (talk)  20:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to see the contents of the page in question, because you deleted it so very thoroughly, but I know you well enough to believe you when you say it was way beyond the sort of mistake most new editors would make. I'm a teacher myself, and as such, I'm not entirely convinced by her explanation, because the situation she describes isn't very much like my classroom, or any classroom in my school, or any classroom in any school I've ever been associated with. Most teachers are not spending a lot of classroom time on "fundraising," and most students and parents would object to having class assignments come with requests for money- and I can't quite picture how defaming a person could turn into a whole-class assignment without a teacher getting called in for a long, serious conversation with the principal about exposing the school to lawsuits.  I'm usually a big fan of the second chance, but this situation makes my spider-sense tingle. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't explained it well enough. I can tell from your writing style that you are not from the UK. I can assure you that events such I have described are becoming more and more common. Also, the idea was not to just let the pupils edit Wikipedia, but for them to type an article up on Word, for example, and see how we can work as a team - pupils, teacher and teachers who are better than I am currently at writing Wikipedia articles - before submitting it.

Many schools in the UK are what as known as 'Academies', and are privately funded. I have to admit, I did not know that Wikipedia should not be used as part of an academic competition. I would have thought that Wikipedia would welcome such an event. I would not expect my lower-ability classes to be able to write a totally new article, but more compose edits of an existing one that would be examined by the WikiTeachers (those who contribute to Wikipedia better than I currently can) before being submitted. I can assure you, however, that my high-ability GCSE and A-Level pupils would be very much up to the task.

Defaming a person would not, obviously, be the task of the pupils, and was not the intention I had, despite the accusations, though I can see how it must have looked. I can also assure you that more and more courses are being introduced into the UK National Curriculum that do not require any examination whatsoever. All work, in some courses, is coursework, and as such, headteachers, parents and other teachers (it was, in fact, a pool of ideas coming from Senior Management that suggested that pupils could contribute to Wikipedia as it is one of the few sites that isn't blocked by the LEA) would be delighted to see their pupil's, son's or daughter's, or form member's article appear on Wikipedia.

I can't exactly say that I am a fan of pupils walking away from school with better qualifications that I obtained by doing coursework that was 'assisted', to varying degrees, by the teacher, whereas I had to do these strange things called 'revision' and 'work' when I was at school, but that is the result of the publishing of league tables and the pressure on schools to improve year-on-year. If you were to see what goes on in most UK schools these days, you would be pretty shocked. The school will buy the easiest board so that they can obtain artificially high marks. I've even seen heads of department blatantly cheat because of that pressure.

There was no 'threat' on my part. I am simply trying to help. I feel that Acroterion telling me that I will "never be able to understand Wikipedia's principles", or whatever s/he said - I cannot see the quote - is out of order. How does that person know what I will ever or never be able to do? That was not a personal attack, but nobody can predict the future of one's learning like that. As a teacher, I wish I could.

I have had experiences where people from the USA don't understand people from the UK, as language is spoken in a totally different way. My friend is currently lecturing in the USA and he keeps telling me how he seems to offend people quite by accident, even though he's been there a number of years. There is certainly a misunderstanding of some sort here though, or more likely a series of them.

It's up to you now since I'm getting pretty exhausted. It would be a shame, but I'll have to just let my husband do his little bits on Wikipedia (he has a medical job). He hasn't the time to coach me, and nobody else seems to want to let me learn, even the hard way. If I'm banned for life, so be it. I honestly don't know what the school will do, since it is half-term. If you want me to tell the head-teacher that it is against Wikipedia rules to have a competition built into the pupils' coursework as an added incentive, let me know and I'll pass the information on next week.

Let's be honest, though, if I was that much intent on defaming the person the original article was about, I'd have gone from computer to computer to computer, creating new accounts or whatever one does to do this sort of thing, in order to keep defaming this person. I'm sure you can tell that I have not done so, and to my knowledge, nobody else has. The irony is that he publicly apologised two days ago, we are now friends, and there should be no reason for anyone to bring his name up on Wikipedia again. If your spider-senses still tingle, you can also check if I have made any contributions to Wikipedia before; surely if I was the sort of person who would do it again, at my age, I would have done it before countless times.

There are several people who use this computer, so if you ban me indefinitely, please don't ban everyone else in the house. As well as my husband, my family are more than capable of doing better than me. If I'm a lost cause (which I don't believe I am but I'm not the one who makes the decisions) then so be it.

"That over-writes the dont bit the newcommers page." Of course I believe you, but it's not clear, and at the time I did not know I had written an "attack page".

No attacks, threats or nonsense were made in the above, and I would be most happy to change my username. It was a stupid one, I know.

I'm sorry but Sophie, there was no threat of withholding money in my second communication. Saying that there is no wonder funds are short if newcomers get treated like this is not a threat in any way, shape or form. Sophie has completely misread this, and I can assure Sophie that coursework in the UK DEMANDS that research is used and cited. We're talking 16-18 year-olds here, not primary school.

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:SUP? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please summarize what you need help on in a short paragraph? The helpme message is for requesting help using Wikipedia...  — fetch ·  comms   20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't read it, but thank you for drawing it to my attention; it is very well-suited to what we were considering doing at the school.

In one short paragraph, I created an article which was in violation of Wikipedia's principles, so it was removed. I accepted this, having read more into Wikipedia (it was my first attempt) and accepted the comment made by Mr Mall, who said that if I were to continue to do this sort of thing, I would be banned, which is fair enough. I had learned my lesson, and would not do it again. The article was a muddle of information I had been given by other people; it was not a shared account. Then Acroterion came along, gave me the mother of all 'personal attacks' - "...you do not understand the purpose or principals of Wikipedia and have no intention of repsecting them." He immediately banned me for life. I cannot see how this person can predict my intentions because of one article that was unsuitable. If we judged people on an indefinite basis based on one action then we would be sentencing to death kids who steal one lollipop from a shop the first time ever. One conflicts with the other, and also conflicts with the "Don't bite the newbies" page. Please ask if you have any questions, and show me where I should write if I shouldn't be using the "help me" tool. I am very much a newbie, it is difficult to know how to navigate such a huge site, and I'm sorry for what happened.

At the risk of one more sentence, if I had the intention of continuing to publish unsuitable material, I would have done so from different computers and under different user names; I am sure you have the means to detect and verify that I have not done so, and have no intention of doing so.

--StopAbuseOfMothers (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa there, hold the horses a little bit please. You are not "banned for life"; you are indefinitely blocked.  This is a gigantic difference.  WP:BAN means "don't come back", whereas an indefinite WP:BLOCK merely means one that has no predetermined end: it will come to an end when the community is satisfied that it no longer needs to protect the Wikipedia project any further.  Indef blocks are extremely common (dozens per day), and is in no way an "attack".  Because of the article that was created, the block was vital to prevent possible lawsuits against Wikipedia - next thing you know, it sounded like you were using a role account ... more and more layers of reasons to keep an indef block.  If yuo've read WP:GAB, you'll have a better idea of how to remove it!  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Section break
For the third time, I will make this clear. You were blocked immediately and indefinitely because you created a pure attack page full of personal information that had to be removed from the database, of a nature that required an immediate block to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia, regardless of the message Mr. Mall placed, which was a standard template used for more normal sorts of attacks, like "Billy is a poophead." You have given no indication that you understand how completely unacceptable such behavior is on Wikipedia. All of the above is an attempt to obfuscate that fundamental problem. You are not being abused, you grossly violated Wikipedia's terms of use, and we have a duty to remove editing privileges from those who would use WIkipedia to defame people. As BWilkins observes, the way to deal with being blocked is to constructively address what you did to get blocked.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And, again, any unblock request must constructively address these issues:
 * Creation of an attack page
 * Posting phone number, place of work and personal details, to the point that it had to be referred to an Oversighter
 * Creation of an unsourced biography, concerning a person who does not meet the notability standards
 * Apparent group account
 * Apparent role account created to denigrate a specific person
 *  Acroterion  (talk)  21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)