Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * Previous IPs used by same individual
 * (16 June 2010 - 8 August 2010, Glendale, CA)
 * (31 May 2010 - 4 June 2010, Los Angeles, CA)
 * (5 May 2010, Beverly Hills, CA)
 * (12 March 2010 - 18 April 2010, Los Angeles, CA)
 * (28 January 2010 - 2 February 2010, Beverly Hills, CA)
 * (26 January 2010 - 27 January 2010, Los Angeles, CA)
 * (20 January 2010 - 22 January 2010, North Hollywood, CA)
 * (20 September 2009 - 27 October 2009, North Hollywood, CA)
 * (16 July 2009 - 6 September 2009, Los Angeles, CA)
 * (29 April 2009 - 7 May 2009, Beverly Hills, CA)
 * (30 October 2008 - 3 December 2009, Beverly Hills, CA)
 * (19 April 2008 - 28 September 2009, Beverly Hills, CA)
 * (19 April 2008 - 28 September 2009, Beverly Hills, CA)


 * 1) Note: Jason Leopold lives or lived on Benedict Canyon Drive in Beverly Hills.
 * 2) Note: Leopold has a known history of Internet sockpuppetry.

''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

is the latest in a series of (primarily IP) users editing the Jason Leopold article while exhibiting a clear conflict of interest. All of the users have been single purpose accounts. Despite being advised by multiple editors to desist and/or restrict themselves to making suggestions on the talk page, the editor continues to edit war, use poor quality sources and promotional language, remove or alter well-cited negative information and otherwise edit tendentiously.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''


 * The editor will voluntarily limit his assistance at Jason Leopold to making suggestions on the talk page.
 * The editor will agree to provide high-quality sources whenever making suggestions for additions on the talk page of Jason Leopold.
 * The editor will agree to make an effort to comment on the content, not the contributor.

Description
''Since April 2008 or earlier, an IP editor with a clear POV has been edit warring over the Jason Leopold article. The editor has threatened, shouted, claimed to be Leopold's attorney, claimed not to be affiliated with Leopold, has been uncivil and uncooperative with other editors. Recently, the IP user has created an account, and continues to exhibit exactly the same behavior. The IPs all geolocate to the vicinity of Jason Leopold's residence and Leopold has a known history of Internet sockpuppetry. ''

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Examples from various of the IP editors to show long-standing nature of the problem:


 * 18 November 2009 - repeatedly blanked the Truthout page (4 times)
 * 23 Novemeber 2009 - claims not to be Leopold, but a "fan"; repeatedly inserts the sentence "The evidence is the fact that the book was published without Maviglio doing anything. Duh!" into the article, reverting other editor's reversions.
 * April/May 2009 - repeatedly removes the section titled "Karl Rove indictment" (5 times)
 * 16 July 2009 - removes sections titled "Karl Rove Indictment Controversy" and "Blocking by ISPs" from Truthout; adds vulgar language about Karl Rove to Jason Leopold.
 * 1 August 2009 - removes other editors' comments from talk page, presumably because they refer to it as being Leopold.
 * August/September 2009 - reverts Bonewah 17 times attempting to force a "Leopold was cited by somebody" addition to the article.
 * 20-26 September - continues to edit war to insert the same material as the previous IP, establishing continuity of identity.
 * 26 September 2009 - vandalizes the article Murray Waas, adding unsourced critical material violating WP:BLP.
 * 27 October 2009 - adds the fact that Leopold has returned to Truthout and aggrandizes his title at "The Public Record", demonstrating intimate knowledge of changes to the websites associated with Leopold.
 * 20 January 2010 - removes cited material from "Karl Rove indictment claim" section of Jason Leopold.
 * 21-22 January 2010 - edit wars to re-remove Karl Rove material and insert Google search referenced claims:, , ,.
 * 26-27 January 2010 - continues to edit war over the very same material as the previous IP, again establishing continuity of identity.
 * 28 January - 2 February 2010 - continues to edit war over the very same material as the previous IP, again establishing continuity of identity.
 * March/April 2010 - continues to edit war, reverting multiple editors to insert the phrase "nut with Internet access":, , , ,
 * 5 May 2010 - inserts "nut with Internet access", establishing continuity of identity with previous IP editor.
 * 5 May 2010 - claims on article talk page to be Leopold's lawyer.
 * 31 May 2010 - adds "who also happens to be a known liar" in reference to Karl Rove in the Truthout article.
 * 31 May 2010 - gets personal, calling another editor biased, at Articles_for_deletion/Truthout.
 * 31 May 2010 - again claims to be Leopold's lawyer.
 * 2 June 2010 - accuses another editor of "violating Wikipedia rules by being inherently biased" at Articles_for_deletion/Truthout, then accuses the same editor of being a "disgruntled former employee or someone who was affiliated with truthout".
 * seems to have acquired a static IP address, so is the longest running IP address. Over the course of this IP's career, it is blocked 3 times for disruptive editing and once for block evasion:
 * 4-10 June 2010 - continues the arguments started by the previous IP at Articles_for_deletion/Truthout, again establishing continuity of identity:, , , , , , ,
 * 10 June - 16 June: Continues to edit war despite multiple warnings (see User talk:76.246.156.86) until he is finally blocked by Nakon
 * 21 June 2010 - replaces cited material about Salon's retraction with the words "Libelous and defamatory", then blanks the page, blanks it again, and then inserts a claim to be Leopold's attorney into the article, and posts the same claim to BLPN, and guts the article with the same claim in the edit comment.
 * 29 July 2010 - After the article is protected, now claims to be unaffiliated with Leopold, despite having claimed to be his lawyer just over a month earlier. Occam's razor says both claims are lies. Immediately repeats the new claim.
 * 29 July - 30 July: continues to do pretty much nothing but edit war until he is blocked again by PhilKnight
 * 1 August - 8 August: after his block expires, continues to edit war until he is blocked again by Tariqabjotu.
 * 8 August: I engage the user in a discussion on their talk page about how to proceed. I recommend requesting an unblock by promising to stop edit warring, then create an account. The IP ignores the former advice and creates an account (User:Jimmy McDaniels) and starts editing while the IP is still blocked, resulting in Fences and windows extending the block for block evasion.
 * Shouting in edit comments:, , , , ,
 * Explicit refusal to discuss on talk page when asked to:
 * Continuity with previous IP: both editors remove the word "retraction" from heading: IP, Jimmy, saying "as I stated before".
 * Continues to revert multiple editors:, ,
 * Blocked by User:Fences and windows for block evasion.
 * Self-identifies with blocked IP, and falsely denies block evasion.
 * Adding unsourced material:, , . In the last two, material added before the citation is not sourced from that citation. Falsely claiming that it is included in the reference when it isn't. Repeating the false claim.
 * Repeated personal attacks, demeaning language, insults and accusations:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * This response to this comment constitutes both a direct admission of identification with the previous IP addresses, but also a tacit admission of claiming to be Leopold's lawyer.
 * Admits that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.
 * Shouting in edit comments:, , , , ,
 * Explicit refusal to discuss on talk page when asked to:
 * Continuity with previous IP: both editors remove the word "retraction" from heading: IP, Jimmy, saying "as I stated before".
 * Continues to revert multiple editors:, ,
 * Blocked by User:Fences and windows for block evasion.
 * Self-identifies with blocked IP, and falsely denies block evasion.
 * Adding unsourced material:, , . In the last two, material added before the citation is not sourced from that citation. Falsely claiming that it is included in the reference when it isn't. Repeating the false claim.
 * Repeated personal attacks, demeaning language, insults and accusations:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * This response to this comment constitutes both a direct admission of identification with the previous IP addresses, but also a tacit admission of claiming to be Leopold's lawyer.
 * Admits that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.
 * Admits that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Outing
McDaniels as an IP editor has repeatedly attempted to out other editors:, , , and the most recent was on 19 August 2010.

Forum shopping and other noticeboard activity
This user, besides making fatuous posts on BLPN and then not really discussing or properly following up on them, has engaged in activities which have wasted hours of discussion time on AN/I and other venues:

AN & AN/I

 * 22 April 2008
 * 1 July 2010

BLPN
The Jason Leopold article has been a topic on BLPN at least 4 times:
 * 21 October 2007
 * 19 April 2008
 * 13 August 2008
 * 21 June 2010

COI

 * 1 July 2010

3RR

 * 4 August 2009
 * 31 July 2010

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:AUTO
 * WP:BRD
 * WP:COI
 * WP:DISRUPT
 * WP:DUCK
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:EVADE
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
 * WP:LEGAL
 * WP:NOTHERE
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:OUTING
 * WP:SHOUT
 * WP:SOAP
 * WP:SPA
 * WP:TEDIOUS
 * WP:V

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * By Yworo
 * July 1 - no response
 * July 1 - no response
 * July 1 - no response
 * August 8 - no response
 * August 8 - no response
 * Long discussion with user on Aug 8 in which he responds and seems to start to get it, but ultimately returns with the same behavior.
 * Discussion of BRD on Aug 14 on user's talk page
 * Discussion of insertion of material not in source cited; Jimmy evades answering and goes admin shopping. The whole section makes an interesting read.
 * By Off2riorob, in this section of Jimmy's talk page
 * By Carl (CBM), who leaves detailed instructions of how to proceed after IP claims to be Leopold's lawyer. The IP responds by claiming to have no association with Leopold and implies they never claimed to be Leopold's lawyer, despite having the same IP and the same behavior.
 * By Gsp8181
 * Warned the user for making personal attacks against Yworo which appeared to have not been taken on board as he continues to make threats that could be construed as legal threats against Yworo
 * Warned the user for edit warring which was ignored completely
 * Attempted to have the page protected to stop the edit war, which resulted in the offending IP recieving a block]
 * Informed the editor of the block reason which appeared to not have been taken on board as he launched into a rant against Yworo

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * Self-identifies with blocked IP
 * Blocked by User:Fences and windows for block evasion.
 * Continues to revert multiple editors:, ,
 * Adding unsourced material:, , . In the last two, material added before the citation is not sourced from that citation.
 * This discussion on User:Fences and windows' talk page. An admin who has tried to help Jimmy understand Wikipedia process gives up and washes his hands of it.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Yworo (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gsp 8181  19:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I wanted to wash my hands of this whole dispute, but seeing how I've been extensively quoted, I'll chip in. Despite 'Jimmy' quoting me in his support, I have lost patience with him and I don't support his POV pushing. I did indeed think we weren't treating Leopold fairly; on further reading what sources I can find I now think that the article is kind to Leopold considering what people have said about him, and that it is difficult to find better independent sources than those we are using (most of the spats Leopold has been involved in played out on the blogosphere). I think I was duped by a "Leopold is being unfairly maligned" campaign. 'Jimmy' wants to cherry pick positive mentions of Leopold and to exclude reliable sources that criticise him. Considering that 'Jimmy' began his Wikipedia career as an IP by pretending(?) to be Leopold's attorney and talking about law suits, he should be more careful. He's been here on sufferance ever since, and I think he's now being disruptive. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Threaded replies moved to talk page, here, per instructions in heading. Yworo (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also fully endorse this report and User Yworo's and Fences and Windows summaries and strongly support the IP be restricted to contributions only to the talkpage of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Response
I can't speak to the allegations Yworo has raised with regard to the other editorial changes to this article only the ones I have been involved with but I will note that the neutrality of this article has been called into question several times and is currently tagged as such. Yworo has already convicted me of being Jason Leopold simply because my IP address happens to be in the same vicinity--Los Angeles--where Leopold apparently lives along with half a million other people.

I will also note it takes two to edit war and Yworo has prompted the most recent edit war by reverting appropriate additions I made to this article, which the tags suggested users do.

My edit history can easily be seen and if someone can comment as to how including material about citations by a member of Congress and prominent journalists describing the work of the subject at issue, which is what wikipedia asks for, is "poor quality" please tell me. Yworo has threatened, harassed and bullied me as can be seen by the comments he/she left on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimmy_McDaniels

Meanwhile, user Yworo also has his or her own serious conflict. That conflict consists of reverting material numerous times without cause, making threats and false accusations without providing a shred of evidence and insisting on loading this article up with negative content in order to serve what appears to be his or her agenda. That attitude going into the editing would in and of itself suggest a conflict. If someone's desire is to be negative and biased that underscores a conflict and that person should not be editing. I am happy to refrain or be restricted from editing this article if user Yworo is handed the same fate. I do not see how my edits over the past few days, which anyone can see, are "poor quality." The article asks for improvement. I started to build two sections to help do that. Yet Yworo is upset by it. I would ask those reviewing the article to also look at Yworo's own editing history and the content being included to understand that he or she has may have a conflict. Please also look at Yworo's own editing war behavior. This was apparent over the past 24 hours.

Look at the inherent bias of each and every person who has edited this article over the past several years. Look at the comments these editors have made regarding their work on this article via the talk page, etc. The comments show in almost every single case that they are adamant about making it negative and biased, despite numerous pleas to the powers that be that this issue be addressed. This has been ongoing for years. Any attempt to improve this article by a wide range of people and the edit history will show that others have tried to do so has been met with reverts, threats and more bias being thrown in.

For example from the talk page and complaint pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jason_Leopold

"This article needs to be improved. Please stop focussing on the Salon article, and work to find more sources about Leopold's life and work. Editors seem to be trying to make this as negative as possible, and continually edit warring with that IP editor is getting tedious. They can't edit war all by themselves, can they? Can someone approve my tagging of the article (I hate pending changes). Fences&Windows 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"

"I think we're in danger of a knee-jerk reaction against the IP editor. Yes, they're being disruptive, but this biography is far from perfect. We need to include much more about Leopold's life and career, based on good secondary sources, and not succumb to the temptation to only include the more sensational details that we come across. Yes, he's been heavily criticised, but he also has supporters, and we're not giving a full picture of Leopold and his reception at the moment. Fences&Windows 12:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jason_Leopold

"I finally read through this, and the section was indeed biased in my view. Using the word 'plagiarism' is too strong for this case, especially in the section title. I don't see why editors have been so insistent on writing this to slant it against Leopold, it's like people want it to be a hit piece. I've edited the section to make it more neutral (and to copyedit it, which it badly needed). Fences&Windows 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)"

Additionally, Fences&Windows also accused Yworo of edit warring and threatened to block him/her for reverting changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fences_and_windows#More_issues_with_Jason_Leopold

"Yes, I think pending changes sucks too, but you were edit warring. If the change doesn't fall into the scope of reviewing, which is to keep out vandalism, BLP violations, and other obviously inappropriate content, then you are making a content decision when undoing an edit. That this was the case is clear in your edit summaries. Fences&Windows 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"

And then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fences_and_windows#More_issues_with_Jason_Leopold

"You just blocked an IP editor for edit warring at Jason Leopold. It takes two to edit war, so are you also going to block User:Yworo? I cannot as I've recently edited the article, but if I were uninvolved I would block them. Fences&Windows 22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"

"I don't think so. Yes, if I were just talking about this edit war, then I would have blocked Yworo for edit-warring. However, it was really the IP's history, combined with his recent actions, that has been a problem. Notice the block was primarily for disruptive editing, not edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"

"I can see the distinction. I just don't think it's only the IP who is in the wrong here. Editors on that article seem to think they have carte blanche to write negatively about Leopold, and aren't making any effort to seek neutrality. Fences&Windows 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"

For four years, the editors here have refused to do anything that would help improve this article and anyone who attempts to do so is accused of being Leopold and has accusations hurled that the changes amount to resume padding. For example, when I added material to the career section that said Leopold also worked at two other newspapers, Yworo then went in and added material saying Leopold was "fired from the Los Angeles Times for threatening to rip a reporter's head off" and "quit Dow Jones" over a dispute about inaccuracies in a story. My point is that this is very much a tit for tat situation where any material that is added to try to balance the article is met with more negativity. There is not even an attempt on the part of the editors to do real research to clean it up. I spent a couple of hours on Google and found plenty of material to provide that balance and as I added it I was threatened by Yworo as can be seen by the comments left on my talk page.

Yworo emotional involvement with me and the fact that he/she has accused me of being Leopold suggests that he/she cannot continue to edit this article in a neutral fashion. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, in terms of evading a block, I did not realize I did anything wrong. Here is the exchange from my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimmy_McDaniels

The block was lifted after I had registered for an account as requested. There wasn't any block evasion on my part at all. Look into it and you will see.

"I have not evaded anything and not sure why I am being blocked. I signed up for an account as asked and started editing without doing anything nefarious.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)"

Um, I said that you should request unblocking of your IP before creating an account. You didn't do that. As long as your IP is still blocked, you as an individual are not allowed to edit, even if you were somehow able to create an account. That's called block evasion and lengthens your block. Yworo (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC) "I can see the misunderstanding. If you are blocked on any IP address and account, you need to either sit out the block or appeal it successfully before you edit again. I will unblock this account tomorrow, when the original block on your IP address would have expired. Fences&Windows 23:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)"

"Unblocked. You are free to edit, but please don't resume any edit warring. Fences&Windows 22:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)"Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Threats and personal attacks by User: Yworo from my talk page

"You've been a disruptive pest for years, both in print and on Wikipedia. Your Wikipedia career is at an end, just like your journalism career. Yworo (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)"

From the discussion page of Fences&Windows

And a warning to you to never accuse me of being Jason Leopold again unless you have documentary evidence to back up your claims. I am sick of being accused of being the person whose article I am actually trying to improve as if there are no people on the planet who would want to do so. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quack, Quack, Quack. Yworo (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, your behavior, and how immature it is, only underscores your bias and is evidence of why you should not be allowed to edit. How dare you make an accusation against me of being Jason Leopold without offering a shred of proof. Who the hell do you think you are?Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

An established and trusted editor, see my user page. Who do you think you are? You know what the funny thing about pretending to be somebody else is? You can never tell whether you've gotten it right. Ha ha ha! Yworo (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Convicting me of being Jason Leopold simply because I live in Los Angeles, as do 8 million other people.

Great, thanks. I don't expect to get this done today, as I have other business to attend to shortly. However, I've documented all the IP addresses and they all geolocate primarily to LA and Beverly Hills. Surprise, surprise. Yworo (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuously refusing to consider my edits/additions by, again, making the false claim that the sources I provide are not trusted reliable sources. Once again, I must point out to Yworo that they are. This latest episode is an example of how little research Yworo conducts. That he would be so quick to dismiss these sources I provided and not even conduct a wikipedia search shows that he is unwilling or uninterested in doing the work to improve this article

I'm sworn off editing this article, but there's a book review of News Junkie by Sam Smith of the Progressive Review that should be made use of:[8]. And here's another couple of reviews:[9][10]. This YouTube video would probably also make a good EL, it's a clip of Leopold reading an excerpt of his book (no copyright issues, it's on an official channel of Fora TV):[11]. And another, a Google talk:[12] Fences&Windows 10:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, two Billboard articles that note his role at Milan Entertainment in 1995.[13][14] He was director of national radio promotion in June 1995, then was promoted to be director of media relations in December 1995. Fences&Windows 11:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Consider this review of News Junkie too: [15] Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is another review: [16] Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither one of these links "Jimmy" recommends appear to be high-quality reliable sources. I say leave them out. Yworo (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to the edit request below? Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but shouldn't we rather link to the full program, here? Yworo (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Boulder Daily Camera, a newspaper in Boulder Colorado, is not a "reliable" source but the Progressive Review, a blog is? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion "Yworo."Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Midwest Book Review is most certainly a "high-quality reliable source" judging from its own entry [17] on Wikipedia "Yworo."Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A simple search of Wikipedia shows that The Boulder Daily Camera is indeed a "reliable source" and it too has its own entry [18]. It is formerly a Knight-Ridder newspaper. So I have established that both publications are reliable. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Midwest Book Review "review" that you pointed to is not an in-depth review, it's a blurb. It adds nothing to the article. Book reviews should be, well, reviews. They should have both length and depth. Not sure why you're going on about the Progressive Review. While the review was written by Sam Smith of the Progressive Review, is published by Scoop, a third party. The only reason blogs are excluded is because they are self-published and typically not peer-reviewed. Since this review is not self-published, it doesn't fall under the blog restrictions.

You also ignore your own argument, since the Progressive Review has a Wikipedia article. But you know that argument is bunk: just because the person, newspaper or magazine is notable enough for Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make everything the person writes or everything published in that particular media notable. Notability is not inherited. This applies in the Midwest Book Review case. MBR is notable, none of the "reviews" on that page are. Yworo (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

View by minimally involved Active Banana
In general, I am a strong promotor of strict application of WP:BLP.

I have not thoroughly checked User:Yworo's extensive evidence compiled above. However, I was briefly following this matter a few weeks ago and became concerned when within a very short period of time an IP address claimed to be Leopold's attorney and made threatening legal statements, and then turned around and claimed to have no relation at all to Leopold AND to never have made claims that s/he was Leopold's attorney, even when presented with the DIFF evidence to the contrary.

WP:AGF can only go so far when the evidence is right there in your face showing you that you cannot assume good faith on part of the contributor.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) ~  Active   Banana   (  bananaphone  22:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) PhilKnight (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Ebyabe (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary
Matter was taken to ANI when Jimmy McDaniels did not agree to stop editing the article; the Community topic-banned him. This resolves the matter because the desired outcome (that led to the RfC/U being filed) is accomplished as a result of the restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)