Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona

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: 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



This user has been blocked indefinitely, and this request for comment is therefore closed.

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

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.''

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.''

We would like to see John acknowledge the importance of WP:BLP and realize that, while there is plenty of room for interpretation in the policy, there are some things that are just over the line.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

John celona is a borderline tendentious editor who skirts, and sometimes falls clearly over, the edges of WP:BLP. In addition, he repeatedly breaks WP:AGF by accusing other editors of "censorship" (to which he sometimes ascribes specific motivations for which he has no evidence). He also has some issues with WP:CIVIL.

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.)

BLP issues

 * Inserting porn stars' real names without consensus (and sometimes without sources), often where discussion on the subject is still ongoing on the talk page, then edit-wars over it:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Says that he will "disengage" from the issue, but continues his edit-warring:
 * Repeats accusations of murder made on sites that clearly aren't WP:RS: ,,,
 * Suggests that Wikipedia should include the names of child sex victims as well as explicit descriptions of the crimes against them: ,,
 * Inserts birth year by extrapolating from high school graduation year: ,
 * Speculates as to the identity of a murderer:
 * Inserts graphic and unsourced descriptions of pornographic actors' activities:
 * Alleges that an article subject worked as a gay porn actor and, when pressed on it, admits that he has no source:, but still re-inserts the material when it is deleted:
 * Initiates a long-term dispute at Peter Yarrow, which culminates in mediation, by changing the wording of Yarrow's crime from "taking improper liberties with" (the wording in the sources) to "molesting" (he marks the edit as minor):  Repeats the term, despite being asked not to:, ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , .  He later changes his preferred wording to "pedophiliac assault", and terms the fourteen year old victim "a little girl": .  Later, "pedophile" becomes intermingled with "molestor" in his descriptions of Yarrow: , , as does "rich and powerful creep":
 * Implies that the fact that many of a politician's "patronage appointments (including his $250,000 + scandal emroiled police chief Dean Esserman) are Jews." is evidence for that politician to be considered Jewish:
 * Claims that Peter Yarrow is notable primarily as a pedophile and only secondarily for his musical career:, ,
 * Lists articles in Category:American sex offenders on his talk page: . Later does the same with the contents of Category:American criminals:
 * While mediation is ongoing on the subject, inserts wording in the Yarrow article calling him "the only American in history to receive Executive Clemency for molesting a child":
 * Supports keeping an article about a living person so that he can expand the article and expose the subject to ridicule:
 * Tries to change the description what two children were the victims of from "abducting" and "rape" to "kidnapping and sodomy" and "forcible sodomy":, , (Diffs are admin only)

Failure to AGF

 * Refers to good faith edits as "vandalism": ,
 * Suggests that Newyorkbrad's speedy deletion of an article on BLP grounds constitutes "censorship":
 * Calls the removal of porn actors' real names on BLP grounds "censorship":
 * Characterizes the removal of a category on BLP grounds as "vandalism": ,
 * Characterizes a legitimate content dispute on Peter Yarrow as being about censorship:
 * Accuses, without citing evidence, editors removing contentious material from the Peter Yarrow article of doing so for political reasons:,  Later suggests that some of them may be affiliated with Yarrow:   Makes further accusations of censorship on this issue: , , , , , , , .  Later suggests of the editors opposing him on the article that "they want to censor the well verified and sourced fact that one of their heroes is an admiited child molestor": .  Characterizes an editor's opposition to inclusion of material as a "jihad to unilaterally delete this well sourced information (which has been continiously on the article for over 3 years) because Yarrow's family doesn't like it": .  Repeats the phrase later:  Later calls his opponents Yarrow "groupies":
 * Accuses opponents in an unrelated content dispute of censorship:  Amends this statement immediately to include reference to "the pedophilia cover-up on the Peter Yarrow article", despite there being no relationship between the articles:.
 * Refuses to assume sufficient good faith to enter into mediation on a long-running content dispute, despite earlier assertions that it was a content dispute that should be resolved through the dispute resolution process:
 * Accuses another editor of fabricating a source:, ,
 * Accuses an editor of nominating Category:Sex offenders for deletion of doing so as "a fan of the convicted child molester and one-hit wonder pop singer Peter Yarrow. As a pointy and sneaky way to solve a dipute about whether his hero should be kept in this category, this user is attemtpting to nuke the issue by deleting the category altogether!": . Extends this alleged motivation to another editor shortly thereafter: .  Later makes a similar accusation about one of these editors regarding a different category:
 * Attributes the removal of Category:American criminals from a large number of articles to censorship and vandalism: ,
 * Accuses administrator User:Scarian of being a communist and participating in a conspiracy to keep Category:American criminals off of pages of left-wing politicians:
 * Repeated accusations of sockpuppetry against two editors:, , , , , . Despite requests that he do so, John never filed a suspected sockpuppet report or a request for checkuser.

Incivility and personal attacks
There are many examples of incivility and personal attacks in the above sections. Here are some that don't fit under any of those headings:
 * Calls other editors "liars", and "paid lackeys and fiction writers"
 * Calls User:Newyorkbrad "some moron" for deleting an article on BLP grounds:
 * Snidely suggests that users Jkp and David in DC are imposing standards from "Jkp-pedia" and "Davidpedia":, , , ,
 * Accuses other editors of an "infantile, self-righteous censorship":
 * Calls editors who oppose him on the porn star name issue "dimwits", and goes on to sarcastically call one of them a "bright bulb":
 * Refers to a long time content-dispute opponent of his as a "troll":,
 * Repeatedly quotes a warning given to one of his opponents months ago, despite there being no apparent applicability of the warning in the current context: ,

Violations of WP:POINT

 * Upon being advised that a source he was using to accuse an article subject of murder isn't reliable, he makes a WP:POINTy edit to remove much of the article's other content: ,
 * In response to Newyorkbrad's speedy deletion of an article about a crime victim on BLP grounds, John deletes all of the external links from one article and nominates another for deletion: ,

General offensiveness

 * Suggests that no Jews were killed in occupied France during the Holocaust: ,,. He later sources this assertion to his grandmother, and deletes another editor's request for sources from his talk page: .  Responds to a subsequent warning by telling an editor to "go to hell" and asserts that "The final solution is a hoax"..  Later he characterizes the teaching of Holocaust history as "mythology": , and continues to deny that the Holocaust took place in France:
 * Complains about murders "by blacks and Hispanics":

Other

 * Removes others' comments from talk pages without explanation:
 * Engages in AFD canvassing: . LAter engages in RFC canvassing:, , , ,
 * Restores comments a user removed from his own talk page:
 * Edit-warred over the inclusion of Category:American criminals in a number of articles (example:, , )
 * Removes part of another user's comment on a talk page:

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:CANVASS

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Among others, here is Sarcasticidealist's most recent attempt to change John's behaviour:
 * Among others, here are David in DC's most recent attempts to change John's behaviour: ,
 * Attempts to change behavior in regards to WP:BLP here and other attempts on now deleted talk pages of child victims of sex crimes by AniMate

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


 * I agree that the behaviour of some of Johns' opponents has been sub-optimal, and indeed that it's sometimes been worse than his. However, I'd urge John to recognize that this misbehaviour on the part of other editors does not excuse or justify the above-documented behaviour on his part. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been interacting with John celona on and off for over a year now. The behavior is consistent and needs to be acknowledged. A  ni  Mate  00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been interacting with John celona for quite some time. His edit summaries are constently belligerent, his edits are quite frequently confrontational and they show a peculiar concentration on salacious facts about sex crimes, crimes against children, porn stars' birth names, and on labelling people Americans Criminals. He is quick to accuse and impossible to persuade.  Those who disagree are trolls, Marxists, censors and myriad other manner and form of persecutors.  And, over a long period of time, despite many editors' efforts, he appears to be incorrigible. I hope that appearance does not reflect reality.  If it does; if John celona cannot acknowledge some basic errors and, more importantly, modify his behavior, his place in the community of WP editors should be at risk. David in DC (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a legitimate basis for this Rfc and I agree with Sarc that the behavior of Johns opponents has sometimes been worse than Johns.But with that said the evidence against John is compelling enough to warrant this Rfc. I do not want to see John get blocked from editing wikipedia but I think he needs to realize that if editors like Sarcastic are losing patience with him it is a compelling sign that he needs to learn how to interact with others with a lot more civility and he needs to do this right away. He handled himself very well during the mediation of the Peter Yarrow dispute. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Endorse this summary. John celona has a history that displays a pattern of disruptive edits. When he edit-warred across many different articles to keep them in Category: American criminals, I had to report him for blatant edit warring. When the admin failed to realize the pattern and history, John took this as vindication and resorted to personally attacking me. This behavior has gone on far too long.  Enigma  message 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.