User talk:NYScholar/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:NYScholar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Note

[Previous discussions re: my reporting another user's Wikipedia:Vandalism are archived. Contrary to the user's false claims on his talk page, I have never been blocked for Wikipedia:Vandalism. I was blocked for 48 hours three days ago for reverting (3 times, marked clearly as reverts) what I reported as his "persistent vandalism" (2 other edits of mine involved minor typographical changes to my own prevous contributions, which he had been persistently reverting). He was persistently inserting potentially-slanderous statements, with poor sources that did not document the statements, into the lead and elsewhere in a biography of a living person, which Wikipedia requires be removed "on sight", following WP:BLP; my 3 reverts of that material are supposed to be exempt from WP:3RR. His persistent vandalism resumed after his own 48-hour block for his own violations of 3RR and repeated uncivil behavior, relating to his reported vandalism, had expired. Subsequently, when he returned to make the same reverts to his previous offensive, inappropriate, and poorly-sourced insertions, I reported him again, and he was blocked for a week for violations of WP:3RR. For the pertinent Wikipedia policies that I have been citing, please see Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:3RR#Exceptions (already defined and linked in my talk page archive 12). Despite warnings in editing summaries of "persistent vandalism" and templates placed on his talk page, his subsequent persistent reverts to his own potentially-slanderous biased insertions again violated WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in a biography of a living person; they were and are, in my view, subject to WP:3RR#Exceptions. I reverted them, citing "persistent vandalism"; I also posted another alert in WP:ANI. I have and will continue to remove any and all personal attacks by him or others from my user talk space and from other space in Wikipedia. That is my policy, as stated above and in my userboxes. Please see Archive 12 for previous discussion. [Updated out of courtesy. --NYScholar 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)]

Further information: User talk:NYScholar § N.B., and WP:TPG
Skip to table of contents

Warning

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

As I reveiewd the block of Tim Osman, I have also reviewed your behavior in the matter, and you are not acting appropriately. First of all, while you do cite an applicable 3RR exception, I don't accept that as an excuse to continue reverting: the case you have is not so obvious that there is no need to discuss with the other party, as you seem to feel.

I received shouting abuse just for posting a template from that user. There is no way to "discuss" anything with him. He did not respond to the comments that I posted on the article's talk page before either one of us was blocked. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather, they have a point they are trying to add to the article that you feel is not sufficiently backed up. The right approach there is to discuss the edits, and follow applicable policies. The wrong approach is to characterize the other person's edits as vandalism and remove them without feeling the need to discuss. I would actually block you for 3RR violation now just to be fair, but since it's a borderline case and the block would be merely punitive now, I'm declining. Nonetheless, consider yourself warned.

I have spent two straight days discussing my changes; I have explained them. There is nothing further to say about them. It's all documented. This is not a "normal content dispute"; this is someone inserting undocumented statements as if they were facts: "Ms. Plame lied" "Wilson lied"--the so-called "memo scan" that he kept added does not document those statements. I have placed the scanned image (which originally was considered improper but a new license was supplied by a different user) in an appropriate section of the article. It does not belong in with external links (not full citations) in a lead to the article--that user has no knowledge of how to use templates in proper places. He does not read Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I am not required to point all this out to him. He is supposed to read the tagged template notices about WP:BLP himself. I do not use live links in my signature due to too much harassment by users like him. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you have also removed several of Osman's comments from the talk page of the article: that is also inappropriate.

I removed his attacks on me. It is not appropriate to engage in commenting on contributors personally in talk pages of articles. I stand by those edits, and I am not putting them back into the article. He is uncivil and will not engage in Wikipedia:Etiquette. I will not allow him to abuse me. My policy, as stated in my user boxes and talk page, is to remove personal attacks on me and other users. I do not want to restore his comments about me to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson; they are abusive. [I did so only under protest and with links to my talk page for contexts.] --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While some feel it is okay to remove personal attacks, I didn't see that those entire comments were personal attacks. You should restore those comments to the page, and not alter the comments other people leave.

That user removed my comments from his talk page; to see them you have to look at the editing history of his talk page. I restored his (in my view) offensive (and false) comments to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson#Repeated vandalism; given what you say below: note that I already (on July 20) clearly explained what the problems were "in plain English" with references to the proper Wikipedia policies and guidelines that relate. Before either one of us was blocked, he did not respond to that or post anything at all on the talk page of the article or make any explanations of what he was doing in editing summary statements. He has shown no interest in educating himself about or following Wikipedia policies WP:BLP (clearly tagged at top of the article's talk apge) or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked in the BLP notice. He ignores WP:CITE and the prevailing format of citations in the article, which new editors are responsible for following; "full citations" are required; he just tossed in external links and "See" this and that in brackets; the article has a format; he is responsible for conforming to it. His irresponsible editing is, in my view, vandalism: WP:Vandalism. The vandalism templates pertain to what he was initially doing and what he persisted in doing to the article, given WP:BLP. --NYScholar 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps you could, on the article talk page, explain in plain English (rather than through vandalism warnings) what exactly is wrong with Osman's version.

It's explained thoroughly in archive 12 of my talk page. I linked to that page directly in Talk:Joseph C. Wilson already. Anyone can consult it. I did not want to take up all that space in the current talk page of the article. I have no more time to deal with this. I've spent two days on it, and I do not want to spend any more of my time. The user is not reasonable and will not listen to reasonable explanations of how his changes to the article have violated its integrity and credibility as a biography of a living person. It violates the very points cited above on my current talk page: I've linked the policies; my userboxes link to the core policies too. I am not responsible for his behavior; he is. --NYScholar 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And since you felt the need to bring up WP:TALK, may I ask that you please link to your user page or user talk page in your signature? See WP:SIG for more on that.

My preference in Wikipedia is to have my signature this way. It is to avoid abuse. Anyone can go to "editing history" of an article and see my live links. It is one step. I aim to avoid knee-jerk abuse from anon. IP users and others like the user in question. That's why it's the way it is. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You may notice here I'm not saying who is right in the conflict. That's because you are both wrong, because of the approach that has been taken.

I have devoted many hours of my time to explaining the problems. I do not think that my removal of potentially-slanderous material from a biography of a living person is "wrong"; it is within policies stated in WP:BLP and WP:3RR#Exceptions; I referred clearly to "biographies of living persons" as the problem when I posted the first and second reports at WP:ANI. I have been "constructive"; the other user has not been. I have spent hours and hours providing "full citations" for that article. It requires full citations. He was tossing in external links and unaware that the same Washington Post article that he claims that I was deleting is one that I myself have already cited in the article five times. I know the article very well. I don't think that he has read it. There is no more that I can say.

Discuss your position in a constructive way, and seek and accept the input of others if you are still at an impasse afterwards. Mango juice^talk 04:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted the "input of others" regarding the article. The other user has not done so. See Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to archive 12. As I see you were already blocked for exactly the behavior I was trying to warn you about, and yet you continued it, after others have tried to explain to you why your reverts are not 3RR exemptions, I am blocking you for 48 hours. I accept fully that Tim Osman was being belligerent and abusive, but by responding in kind you made the situation worse, not better, and you need to take a different approach if it happens again. Mango juice^talk 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NYScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was following WP:3RR#Exceptions and WP:BLP and the owner of Wikipedia's instructions as quoted above on my own talk page w/ links (WP:AGF). While I believe and cited the other user in WP:ANI for (in your words) "being belligerent and abusive", I object most strenuously to your stating that I was "responding in kind". In no manner was I "being belligerent and abusive" anywhere in Wikipedia regarding this matter or any other matter. I have been entirely civil (following Wikipedia:Etiquette and posting Wikipedia's own template notices, which are civil ones).

I would like you to restate your comment to acknowledge clearly that I have never been either "belligerent" or "abusive"; I have followed Wikipedia policies to the letter: I posted warnings in the talk page of the article, the talk page of the user, and documented my concerns in WP:ANI (actions that Wikipedia guidelines suggest). As blocking administrators, you and others unfamiliar with the subject of Joseph C. Wilson (Joseph C. Wilson) or the content of the article about him (a biography of a living person and, as such, subject to WP:BLP) may not agree that what I perceived as Wikipedia:Vandalism to it (the insertion of biased potentially-slanderous undocumented statements that both of the Wilsons have "lied"--not a statement of fact and not supported by sources in the article that the user was giving links to--into the lead and elsewhere) was indeed vandalism (although I still do). Nevertheless, your different viewpoint on this matter is no reason to question my edits as anything but the "good faith" edits that they have been (WP:AGF). ... [further development below this request box; policies keyed to asterisks, which appear as bullets], as stated also in Wikipedia:Vandalism in its exceptions relating to WP:BLP (already quoted and linked in my archive 12 comments). Thank you. --NYScholar 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request, continued below, is (again) much too long and confused. I will therefore not read it in its entirety. In short, you appear to argue that with edits such as this one you were reverting vandalism. This is wrong. The edits revolve around whether or not some sourced text belongs in the article. This is, therefore, a garden-variety content dispute, and the block for violating WP:3RR is endorsed. Be warned that future blocks for similar behaviour may increase substantially in length. — Sandstein 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For shorter rationale for unblock, please see #Attention:Administrators, #Conclusions, and #Conclusions (2). Between the first two sections is previous material. Between the last two is further analysis. Any "confusions" are caused by the discrepancies between what that other user states and the sources that he misleadingly adds (pseudo-documentation, not documentation). His statement is not "sourced" since the sources do not actually support (document) his statement. The sources do not "state" that they "prove" that the Wilsons "lied". "Full citations" are required; he lists only external links. One source he links to is a partisan blog; it is a "poor source": it is not permissible as a reliable and verifiable source citation, according to WP:BLP: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When adding material to the biography of a living person. That admonition is my rationale (cited many times already) for removing what the user kept reverting. The policy is: "Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article." The report he links to does not "state" what he says it does. The blog is a "poor source" (esp. for a lead in a BLP); moreover, it does not "state" what he says. The sources at the links given do not document his statement. His biased POV insertions are not properly or well-"sourced" content. His insertions violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core policy in Wikipedia, and they violate just-quoted section of WP:BLP. Deleting it is in keeping with WP:3RR#Exceptions; namely: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)." --NYScholar 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attention: Administrators

To Mango and Sandstein: Please see also my comments in response to User talk:Stephen#Your block of User:Tim Osman.

Please note also that Mango blocked me prior my seeing or having an opportunity to respond to Mango's saying that he was going to block my account [at the very end of Mango's "warning" section]; I did not see that part until after he blocked my account. I really do think, given the history of my "good faith" attempts to make that article conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP, including WP:BLP#Well known persons and WP:POV, that administrators should unblock my account and IP address. [There are some important typographical corrections that I would like to make to Joseph C. Wilson and perhaps some other articles (they are non-controversial): see "sandbox" sections below]. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see (if you need short version) my #Conclusions and #Conclusions (2) at end of this page. Your statement that the other user's statement is "sourced text" is wrong. The links to sources do not document his statement that those sources "prove" that the Wilsons "lied". The sources given do not support that statement. [According to tagged notice re: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, any citations in this article must be "full citations" so that one could see what they actually are. If one looks at the links, one can see that one is a blog post; the other--the Senate report--does not support his statement either. The Senate Committee Intelligence Reports (neither 2004 nor 2007) do not "prove" that either of the Wilsons "lied" as that user states in the lead. His statement and those improperly-cited sources needed to be removed on sight (given WP:BLP). I removed them, citing biographies of living persons and persistent vandalism relating to WP:3RR#Exceptions and WP:Vandalism (the section giving the exception to "what vandalism is not"). My reverts of that material were and are justified, and I should not have been blocked for making them. That is still my viewpoint on this matter. (I gave the user the benefit of the doubt before I examined sources that he gave on the first occasion and realized that he was simply reverting to the same false statement on the second occasion of his multiple reverts to that statement (and his other equally-non-neutral material); the sources do not support his statement in the lead or elsewhere about this matter concerning the Wilsons.) The user needs to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:BLP, WP:BLP#Well known public figures, and WP:Attribution, and to use "full citations" (WP:CITE)--the prevailing format of this article's citations--just as any other editor needs to do in this article. [Further updated due to revision of box (moved material in it below and moved up this item, with additional explanation). --NYScholar 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)] [updated due to archiving. --NYScholar 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)]

[... moved my "sandbox" material to my own word-processing files after updated sources in the Joseph C. Wilson.]

Conclusions

There are many, many blogs that discuss this matter, but such blogs (including the one that the other user inserted in the lead to the article on Wilson) cannot be used in such a statement as the one that user added, stating as if it were a fact that a living person "lied", in the lead of an article on the person; to insert that kind of source in the lead violates both WP:BLP (links given there to WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (also linked there): the links to such policies are all accessible via the tagged notice at the top of Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. The sources that the other user linked to do not support his statement of "proof" that the Wilsons "lied". He did not document the statement that he wrote: the sources that he provides (one a blog, which cannot be cited; the other a government report) do not support his statement that the Government committee report "... stated 1) that Plame and Wilson lied when they said that Plame was not the source of getting her husband sent to Niger, and 2) that a memo from the CIA proves Plame lied under oath before the US House Committee hearing on the alleged leak of her name" (Edit 146504814; Diffs). The statement is not documented by the sources that he lists after making it. (See #Attention: Administrators above.)

The other user misrepresented that material in the way he presented it in the lead. The government report that he gives links to has not "stated" what he lists as "1)" and "2)"; it is not true that it "stated ... that Plame and Wilson lied ..." and it is not true that it "stated .... that a memo from the CIA proves Plame lied under oath"; the Report states neither "1" nor "2". It does not state that it "proves" that Mrs. Wilson ("Ms. Plame") (or that her husband former Ambassador Wilson) "lied". To insert that kind of obviously-biased improperly documented statement (see NPOV violation) into the lead of an article on a living person (and elsewhere in it) amounts to potential slander (see Wikipedia:libel; Slander and libel) and such insertions should be removed "immediately" (cf. Jimmy Wales, as cited above in refs. listed in my talk page). It violates Wikipedia's core policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Removing such "poorly-sourced" "contentious" material from biographies of living persons is an exception to 3RR policy: WP:3RR#Exceptions.

[... moved my other sandbox material to my own word-processing files after updating sources in Joseph C. Wilson.]

Conclusions (2)

On the basis of this rationale in explicit Wikipedia policies, the block of me and subsequent threats to block me for even longer periods of time are not justified. My reasons for deleting the potentially-libelous and poorly-sourced material as violations of NPOV and improperly and poorly sourced were warranted and, in my view, anyone's removal of them "immediately" would be warranted again if they are inserted again as the same content in the same manner in the same parts of the biography. [It troubles me greatly that the administrators who have blocked me do not perceive the problems in the material that I have pointed out. They have to look at the sources to understand the problems. I think that anyone who actually reads the sources can see that the edits that I removed are not "valid and well-sourced edits" as that user has claimed. Moreover, they have no place in the lead section of a BLP.]

Attention

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Personal attack removed)

You have clearly not familiarized yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines despite previous warnings from administrators: User talk:Tim Osman#48 hour block and User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked.

Please consult WP:3RR; you will be blocked if you continue to vandalize my user talk page. See my policy re: this talk page and my removal of such personal attacks from it. Your removal of my comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you revert my talk page and my comments on the talk page of the article on Wilson, I will report you for violations of WP:3RR and you may be blocked again, perhaps indefinitely, from editing Wikipedia. As I am aware of these policies and guidelines, I refer you to them. Before posting anything further on this page, I suggest strongly that you read them and the other policies linked in User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked. [Updated.] --NYScholar 11:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After the user persisted in reverting my own talk page and in removing my content-related comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, I posted a notice in the WP:3RR noticeboard[1]; it follows a notice that I posted in WP:BLP/N: Item 70: Joseph C. Wilson. [added link. --NYScholar 18:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

The user's so-called "warnings" were not accurate; I never have "vandalized" anyone's work, talk pages, or any article in Wikipedia, and I did not revert any of his changes on July 31. I restored my own content-related comments which he had deleted to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. Please consult the editing histories of the pages in question to confirm the chronology and order of these events. Thank you. [Updated.] --NYScholar 11:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated again. --NYScholar 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

As far his claiming that I have engaged in "personal attacks" against him; that is untrue. I have not done so. His edits created problems in the article, which I point out. Those are not "personal attacks"; they are content-related comments. As he is the user who created them, I referred to him as the user who created them. Doing so is not a "personal attack" and describing the content-related problems is neither "uncivil" nor a "personal attack." I do not see myself as engaged in an "edit war" with that user. I see myself as someone who had been editing the article for an extended of time before he came along whose edits were deleted by the user and whose edits were restored later by an administrator. I did not "edit war" with the user on July 31. I simply commented on the problems that the user's changes to content had introduced in the article to alert others to those problems and the need to look at them. That is responsible editing, in my view.

Administrator Mango's block of my account [and his claims pertaining to July 31 that I had engaged in violating WP:3RR "a lot" [I did not do so at all] and his later claims that my actions are "childish" or "puerile" are totally unwarranted. I was and am attempting to protect the article on Joseph C. Wilson from damage and hence responsibly alerting other administrators to the potential damage to Wikipedia and to its credibility by the false and biased material being inserted in one of its controversial articles on a living person. Again, I and many others would view what I am doing as responsible editing. (I have no interest in focusing on the contributor instead of the content of the article. The other user's irresponsible editing is, however, causing problems in the articles that he changes and in the images that he uploads to Wikipedia; for evidence, see his talk page: User talk:Tim Osman. --NYScholar 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've blocked you for 48 hours for 3RR and removing the comments of others on this user talk page. I advise you to not remove any further remarks at all that you "regard as personal attacks" because, in fact, your judgement on what constitutes a personal attack is poor, and besides that, WP:RPA, which is not fully accepted, does not suggest that you remove entire comments, but only portions that are themselves personal attacks. By repeatedly removing comments you have escalated the situation. Furthermore, I cannot in good judgement block Tim Osman (which I have) for your repeated complaints of violating the Talk page guidelines without blocking you when you have engaged in exactly the same behavior, especially in light of your hypocritical remarks about him signing comments, considering that you are purposely violating WP:SIG by not including a link to your user or user talk pages. Let me quote from WP:SIG: "At least one of [your user page or user talk page] must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talkpage and contributions log." If you want to unobtrusively be different, that's one thing, but to complain about others not properly using talk pages while specifically making it difficult to find you from your own contributions is incivil. Mango juice^talk 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am requesting assistance from non-involved administrators. Reasons are in the box and discussion is below it. Thank you. --NYScholar 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgent attention please: This is an unwarranted and unfair block; it is not consistent with Wikipedia policies re: removal of unwanted comments from one's own talk page, and I would like the block reversed. Thank you. The other user was blocked for a week and returned from the block to engage in the same behavior in which he was engaged before. See the block history. Two previous blocks of my account were also in my view (and that of some others) not warranted.

The administrators blocking me are violating WP:AGF in doing so. I was editing in good faith and I have been reporting clear violations of WP:BLP and recurrent violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Vandalism has qualifications in explaining what is "not" vandalism; among them is the continuing biased editing by a user who was previously warned of lack of neutrality in his editing. The user in question has persisted in re-inserting the same biased content in the article on Joseph C. Wilson as he was inserting before (since reverted by several other editors), despite both warnings and a week-long block. Reverting his insertions (which I have not done in any case; I removed only his offensive posts from my own talk page and restored my own content-related comments that he deleted to the article's talk page) is no longer subject to WP:3RR because his persistent attempts to insert them violate WP:BLP and WP:3RR#Exceptions; any neutral observer can see that they are an attempt to "smear" the subject of the article (Joseph C. Wilson)--to claim that he is a "liar"--which is not substantiated by reliable and verifiable sources--and, hence, is vandalism. It is obvious biased editing.

As I have already warned, the insertions are leading to potential libel in a biography of a living person by another user: they are poorly-sourced, not accurately sourced. The user even invented a false and misleadingly biased caption for an illustration that is not accurate at all. He refuses even to recognize that the source of the illustration is different from what he claims it is (it is from a State Dept. memo, not a CIA memo, and it is the point of view of the State Dept. personnel, not CIA personnel); it is not the point of view of the Senate Committee Report; it is one of their sources of information, which they put in a larger context, which the user has deleted. The user also deleted many reliable and verifiable sources from citations notes in his edits and ruined the citation formatting so that the notes would not post correctly, leaving that mess in the article and then reverting to that messed-up version after an adminstrator undid his changes to the article. That behavior is not responsible Wikipedia editing and administrators are wrong to encourage any of it. Yet the administrator who block me has equated my serious and sincere good-faith [[WP:BLP/N] notice with his biased editing about which I was warning and claims (wrongly) that I am in some way like him and "puerile"; that is an absurd charge.

My reports are not being investigated adequately by administrators. Administrators need to examine much more closely the edits about which I and now at least two others (an administrator and another user) are objecting to.

I did not deserve any block at all, but to block me for 48 hours and to block the other user (who had just returned from a week-long block) for the same 48 hours is not commensurate with his offenses. He had an option not to put the same erroneous material in the article Joseph C. Wilson as he had inserted in it before his week-long block, and yet he returned to uncivil behavior, blanking previous content and replacing it with his own erroneous and biased account of a living person, deleting all of the person's awards, deleting all of the external links (which are proper in an article of a living person), and falsely attributing statements to erroneously-described sources, and deleting reliable and verifiable sources previously cited in notes. When an editor sincerely points to such problems in a biography of a living person, as I have done, that editor should not be blocked for removing offensive material from his or her talk page, as I have been blocked. Also, one administrator has referred to my having a "long block history" in an attempt to justify his/her unfair block; some of those blocks are reversals (reversed after WP:ANI and by an administrator who realized his own mistake after a few minutes; they are all not blocks that stayed). Three are recent blocks that I have protested as unfair blocks, that were not reversed. Given the persistent attempt of the other user to insert biased and inaccurately-described and/or unreliable and unverifiable sources into a biography of a living person, my warnings to administrators about that article are justified. I have not got the time to continue watching the article Joseph C. Wilson, but administrators need to do so. This is an article tagged as a controversial article. Substantive changes to it require prior discussion on the talk page. If the other user were editing in good faith, he would be trying to follow WP:BLP and especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:Attribution. He has not done that. I have pointed these problems out. The tagged notices at the top of Talk:Joseph C. Wilson instruct editors to be vigilant and to report such problems on WP:BLP/N. That is what I have done. Doing so is not "uncivil"; doing so is responsible editing.

Please reverse this block and remove it (and the other unwarranted blocks) from my block history so that later administrators do not (like Mango et al.) use them as reasons for continuing to block me. [WP:AGF]]. --NYScholar --NYScholar 01:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NYScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my own user talk page. I did not violate WP:3RR. It is entirely clear that removal of material from one's own talk page is not subject to WP:3RR:

"reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere. ..."

"On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment." (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)

"Removal of warnings: Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." (Wikipedia:User page--as linked in WP:3RR; italics & bold added)

"Discussion page vandalism: Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." (Wikipedia:Vandalism)

On July 31, 2007, User:Tim Osman blanked my posts in Talk:Joseph C. Wilson several times, repeatedly posted and re-posting in my talk page pseudo-warnings claiming that I had vandalized his content to Joseph C. Wilson (which I had not done) and claiming that I had personally attacked him (which I had not done), and also blanked my own comments from my own talk page, reverting my own comments on my own talk page several times. I reported him for violations of WP:3RR for that behavior. My removing his comments from my own talk page subsequently was and is in keeping with the above Wikipedia policies.

By now, other administrators have stated that I was not violating any Wikipedia policies or guidelines in removing what I regard as his offensive, false, and misleading bold-print comments from my own talk page. (I find them offensive, false, and misleading, and I don't want them on my talk page.) His uncivil behavior is the subject of the WP:3RR notice that I filed (with requested documentation); there he posted another inappropriate comment attacking me, as he subsequently did in Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. (See also my notice in WP:BLP/N re: the problems that he caused to that article in his edits of July 31, 2007.) His edits to that article violate WP:AGF, as he blanked all previous edits prior to July 31, 2007 in repeatedly substituting his own version of the article for the earlier version, destroying the entire citation formatting of the article, leaving it that way, and then, after being reverted by an administrator, reverting back to it.

The link to another's editing summary pointing out that my removal of his comments from my own talk page are not "vandalism" and are justified is below this box. Such deletions from one's own user space are not subject to WP:3RR.

There is no requirement even to archive one's own talk pages; yet I do so. I retain the prerogative to remove posts that I consider offensive from my talk page. I did not "remove the comments of others"; I removed the comments of one user: User:Tim Osman from my talk page. I considered User:Tim Osman's posts offensive, and I removed them, as many, many other Wikipedians would have done. According to Talk page guidelines, I can delete anything that I want to from my own talk page, following the quoted policy above.

... [shortened]

[Addition: Please note also that although User:Tim Osman claims (re: Joseph C. Wilson) that I had at some point been "yanking my [his] entire revision out and replacing it with his [my] own", I did not edit his content at all. An administrator (User:FCYTravis) undid his content first and reverted to my earlier version prior to his biased edited version. (After User:Tim Osman reverted that administrator's edit, another user reverted User:Tim Osman's revert later.) I did not make any changes to the content of the article until after the administrator had reverted his version to the earlier version. Please see the editing history. User:Tim Osman is apparently not able to read the editing history correctly to see who did what to the article. He also does not use editing summaries and does not discuss massive editing changes to controversial articles such as Joseph C. Wilson prior to making them. See other users' comments on his edits in their editing history summaries. The only changes I made were to templates, not article content. After he messed up all the citations formatting, I posted a "missing citations" template and after he inserted biased content, I posted a "neutrality" template. Both were deleted when the administrator undid his content version to my earlier version; that was not my edit. I did not revert his content inserted in that article after he inserted it on July 31.]

My preferences enable me to select not to have a linked page. There is a big difference between not using four tildes and having a raw signature (an option in preferences) with the box checked. [I have never understood the sentence that follows the checked box: "If checked, the contents should be source code, including all links. ..." ["Preferences"].) There is no reason to link to my own signature in this talk page, for example (we are on it). Moreover, WP:SIG is a guideline not a policy. According to that page, there is leaway in Wikipedia in how one wishes one's signature to show up. [See: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: I find that the linked signature is a deterrent to my working in Wikipedia; the abuse from others is time-consuming enough without having a live link to sig. I cannot work comfortably in Wikipedia w/ the signature linked. Dealing with IP user and other user abuse in talk pages is too time-consuming, as one can see given this situation.] In all history pages my user name has a live link; it is one step to find it. I discourage knee-jerk posting of comments on my talk page.

Re: my deletion of what I consider personal attacks on me: see "N.B." above, which is clearly stated. There is no doubt in my mind that User:Tim Osman was attacking me personally in both tone and substance in his bold printed messages with false statements in them hammered on my talk page after I made content-related comments in Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, which he kept deleting from that talk page. When I first started editing in Wikipedia, I discovered how much abuse there is when one has a live link to one's signature. I have no time to deal on my talk page with users like the one in question, or anonymous IP users who also abuse talk pages. At the top of my user and talk page I link to userboxes, contributions, barnstars and so on. It is not hard to find my pages. I have linked to the talk page itself in recent comments for people's convenience. But I do not routinely want to have a live link in my signature; it is a preference and self-protection, not to "be different". I have violated no Wikipedia policies and do not deserve to be blocked at all. --NYScholar 14:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. Re: sig. update, see below as well. --NYScholar 08:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block expired. - auburnpilot talk 06:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Discussion of unblock request

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

... [shortened] [For link to edit by administrator reverting User:Tim Osman's version of Joseph C. Wilson, see Diffs. Another reversion of his version of the article occurred on July 31 by another user. I made no reverts to the content that he added on July 31. The administrator undid it. (Updated.) --NYScholar 04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

... [shortened and moved up from earlier comments] For link to edit [and editing summary] by User:ElKevbo, who reverted User:Tim Osman's [repeated] pseudo- and false "warnings" from my talk page, see Diffs. The user Tim Osman kept re-adding that false material claiming that I had attacked him personally (which I had not done) and that I had "vandalized" his content changes to Joseph C. Wilson (which I had not done); those so-called "warnings" were not accurate and they were harassments of me in my view; I removed them from my talk page, which is not a violation of WP:3RR. [Updated. --NYScholar 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

My policy (clearly stated for a very long time) is to remove personal attacks; according to Wikipedia policy personal attacks are not tolerated, and one is allowed to delete them from one's own talk pages. I regard that user as posting false statements (such as stating that I have "vandalized" Joseph C. Wilson, which I most certainly have not done). He has little to no knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies and just tosses these words around. I spent hours reading the guidelines and policies and cited them. You [Mango] may not have agreed with my interpretations of them [although some other Wikipedia users did and do], but I did read them and cite them in a responsible and sensible way. Anyone like that user who refuses to read what Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is and what WP:BLP is and then inserts clearly-biased material in articles on living persons and deletes neutral material and proper sources from such articles really has no business being tolerated in Wikipedia.

You [Mango] said that you would block that user indefinitely and perhaps permanently if he continued to violate Wikipedia policies, especially WP:3RR and the others that you listed. He has done so in spades. Yet you have not followed through. [I don't see how you are an "outside party" anymore. (Update.) --NYScholar 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)]

I am not happy at all with your decision. It is not reasonable. Your decision to block me when I deleted only his offensive comments from my talk page (which I am allowed to do) is not within Wikipedia policies or guidelines. --NYScholar 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After I wrote the above, I discovered that you did block that user for 48 hours. But the commensurate block of me for 48 hours [for making deletions of clearly-unwanted comments on my own talk page] is not justified. I violated no Wikipedia policies. [Your back-pedalling later in response to the WP:ANI to claim some other basis, which was not your reason given in the block, is inappropriate. I did not violate WP:3RR, as your block message in the box above and in your summary of the block state.] I engaged in no reverts that are not allowable in WP:3RR. Deletions to one's own talk page are not subject to WP:3RR. See User:ElKevbo's editing summary in the editing history of this talk page.Diffs. --NYScholar 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to anything you said about Tim Osman, his behavior is not why you were blocked, and I will deal with his misbehavior separately. You were blocked because you inflamed the dispute by removing his comments repeatedly from this page. I know, it's your user talk page and you deserve some latitude but, frankly, you've gone well over the line, especially considering that you were warned before on the same issue. There is nothing at all in this edit [2] that is a personal attack. He may characterize one of your edits as vandalism, which is a violation of WP:AGF but it is still a discussion of your edits, not a direct comment on you. Let me give you an example of how to do this. Suppose you got a comment from someone that said:

Your edits are very poor, and you should read up on Wikipedia policies WP:X WP:Y and WP:Z, you stupid idiot. - User:Example

Then it would be appropriate to remove the personal attack in that comment, by changing it to:

Your edits are very poor, and you should read up on Wikipedia policies WP:X WP:Y and WP:Z, (Personal attack removed). - User:Example

In fact, (1) WP:RPA does not have community consensus (it says so right there) and should be interpreted strictly and used sparingly, according to an Arbcom ruling, and (2) the page specifically warns against removing accusations that you are breaking the rules: those are not personal attacks. What's more, your continued removal of non-attacks, describing them as attacks, is exactly the kind of behavior you are complaining about Tim Osman engaging in. But the real point here is that you seem to be trying to win a battle against Tim Osman, you seem to be more interested in getting him blocked and commenting on every point of bad behavior you can dig up than in resolving the conflict, and you are making it effectively impossible for anyone else to edit the article or the article's talk page in the meantime. Mango juice^talk 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[In my view, Mango's statement--"But the real point here is that you seem to be trying to win a battle against Tim Osman, you seem to be more interested in getting him blocked and commenting on every point of bad behavior you can dig up than in resolving the conflict, and you are making it effectively impossible for anyone else to edit the article or the article's talk page in the meantime."--is an absurd and totally-unfounded statement. I have no such interest. I am concerned about the article and editing in good faith. The statement violates WP:AGF. I made no changes to the article on Wilson until after an administrator undid the other user's content (for good cause); the user in question then reverted the admnistrator's action, and another user undid that revert, again for reasons that are obvious to any experienced Wikipedia editor who understands WP:BLP. I reported User:Tim Osman for violations of WP:3RR after he repeatedly removed my content-related comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and from my own talk page (see editing history). My interest is in maintaining the integrity of my own reputation as an editor of Wikipedia as well as in maintaining the integrity of articles to which I contribute in Wikipedia. I edit only in good faith and to claim otherwise is to violate WP:AGF. But when other editors refuse to familiarize themselves with the editing policies and guidelines in Wikipedia (by actually reading them), they are not editing in good faith. I see no comparison in stating that. Good faith editors familiarize themselves with the editing policies and guidelines in Wikipedia and attempt to follow them. I do not see that other user as having done that in the edits that he made to Joseph C. Wilson, since undone by other Wikipedians, including another administrator. --NYScholar 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

And just as a technical point, the "User space" wording in the 3RR bit you point to refers to the User: namespace, that is, pages like User:NYScholar, not the User talk namespace, where this page is located. The difference is that, generally, no one should be editing your user page but you, but talk pages like this one are for anyone to edit. Mango juice^talk 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[See #Note well directly below. Mango is entirely mistaken. --NYScholar 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

Note Well

"Your user space is the collection of all the above." (Wikipedia:User page), "all of the above" includes User talk page: see the list in beg. of Wikipedia:User page, which includes: "Your user page"; "Your user talk page"; and "Your user subpages". [Added later. --NYScholar 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explicitly exempt a user's own talk page from WP:3RR as does WP:3RR. --NYScholar 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment." (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)

"Removal of warnings: Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." (Wikipedia:User page--as linked in WP:3RR; italics & bold added) This is the policy that I refer to in my reasons for removing this unwarranted block in the box above.

That user should not have continued to post his offensive and false "warnings" on my talk page after I removed it the first time. My report of his violations of WP:3RR are entirely warranted.

[Updated. --NYScholar 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

You know, call it what you want, but it's quite clear to this outsider that you were purposefully engaged in a peurile battle with this other user. You were calling his comments personal attacks when they were not, and he was calling your comments personal attacks when they were not. You were removing his comments as if they were personal attacks and he was removing your comments as if they were personal attacks. You were restoring your own comments saying that comments shouldn't be removed and he was restoring comments saying that comments shouldn't be removed. You were accusing him of vandalism (again) when he was not vandalizing, and he was likewise accusing you of vandalism when you were not vandalizing. You were crying for him to be blocked and he was crying for you to be blocked. You were complaining about his Wiki etiquette while your own is badly lacking. This kind of behavior is incivil, childish and disruptive and it needs to stop, and you are just as much to blame for the situation as he is. Mango juice^talk 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just recently had a discussion where another admin sounded like they would disagree User_talk:ElinorD#Talk_page_bans. They stated "Users are permitted to remove unwanted messages from their talk pages, and it's very poor form to edit war to restore them. It's also poor form to continue to post on someone's page if that person has made it clear they don't want your posts. In extreme cases, I wouldn't rule out blocking someone for harassment who continued to do so, though I don't think I ever have done that (I've seen it done, though). Sorry I can't be of more help." So there seems to be a misunderstanding on how admins should approach this issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Although there are other troublesome aspects to NYScholar's editing, I am concerned by the idea of a block based primarily upon a user's removing comments from his or her own talkpage. I have requested that the blocking admin provide further input on the grounds for this block. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad. Removing unwanted comments from one's own talk page is discouraged, but not forbidden. ElinorD (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment on your (ElinorD's) talk page and moved this piece (which got too long) here later: (For the history re: the earlier 48-hour block, please also see User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12 and User talk:Tim Osman#48-hour block and User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked (two secs. there), as well as User talk:Mangojuice.) I feel that the blocks against my account that occurred first on July 20, 2007, after my posting what I believed and still believe were warranted warnings about violations of WP:BLP, which an administrator called a "false" report, were not appropriate as they violated WP:AGF; I filed what I believed at the time was a report against WP:Vandalism, after posting an appropriate template on talk page of the user, who was a new user to Wikipedia. On July 31, 2007, I removed what I regarded and still regard as pseudo and false "warnings" posted by that user on my own talk page (after he removed my content-related comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson; Mango blocked me only for removing User:Tim Osman's so-called "warnings" (reverted several times by him) from my own talk page, even though WP:3RR does not apply to removing such comments from one's own talk page (e.g, WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: e.g., "Blanking"; "Discussion page vandalism"; and under "What is not vandalism":"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." User:Tim Osman was warned about his biased edits to Joseph C. Wilson and yet he blanked the page and substituted his own biased version twice even after his week-long block. [He even reverted administrator User:FCYTravis's undoing of his edit prior to his second post-week-long 48-hour block.]

I was reporting these problems in good faith; Mango has violated WP:AGF in blocking me first claiming WP:3RR (inappropriately) and then claiming that I had violated WP:AGF, which is not the case. I was editing and do edit in good faith.

[Please note, as I state in my now-archived comments (page 13), though it is not my own preference, I have removed the check next to "raw signature" box in my preferences. I will add it back if there is further abuse of my user space. Thank you.] [Updated archive. --NYScholar 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)]

To administrators

For the record:

I suggest that one consult the editing history of Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and the editing history of that article Joseph C. Wilson. I say that the user has been vandalizing my talk page by repeatedly and falsely claiming that I was engaging in "vandalism" of the content changes that he had made to Joseph C. Wilson on this talk page (see its editing history) after I removed that pseudo-"warning": his so-called "warning" is not an accurate warning, as I was not engaged in either vandalism or in personal attacks against that user: for history: see User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked and my archive pages 12 and 13.

[Since posting above and below, I have checked WP:NPA (again!), and I do not think that my expressions of concerns can be construed by neutral observers as "personal attacks"; they are legitimate expressions of concern about changes that the other user made to the article. My initial ref. was not to him by user name. Only after he began deleting my content-related comments from the talk page of the article did I complain that he was doing that. It is not feasible for me to post on his talk page anymore, so I did not do so. I was attempting not to engage directly with him as doing so has proved counter-productive.]

[For another user's perspective on my editing of Joseph C. Wilson, please scroll up to #Thanks for the Barton Gellman article update, which mentions the Wilson article editing as well. Thanks. (Updated.) --NYScholar 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

An administrator User:FCYTravis and another user User:Apparent public relationship are the ones who independently undid the changes to Joseph C. Wilson by User:Tim Osman, not I. [--NYScholar 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

Moreover, to suggest that I should be blocked from editing that article due to the problems created by User:Tim Osman, which others have undone, is entirely contrary to Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL and wholly disregards all the hard work that I have done for that article and for Wikipedia both prior to and after newcomer User:Tim Osman entered the article. Again, see #Thanks for the Barton Gellman article update, which puts this matter in perspective. --NYScholar 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

For more information about my editing contributions in Wikipedia, one can scroll on my "user page", my "user boxes" link, and my earlier explanations of what I was attempting to do in my archive pages 12 and 13 (see the archive box in table of contents above). These are all easily accessible from the top of this page. (Updated.) [--NYScholar 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

User:Tim Osman removed my content-related and entirely pertinent comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson repeatedly, engaging in violating WP:3RR and he was inserting slanderous poorly-sourced material in Joseph C. Wilson while removing reliably- and verifiably-sourced content from it in massive deletions of content provided by me and other editors in the interim of the week that he was blocked. Despite warnings by administrators (more than one), he returned after his block to engage in precisely the same kind of uncivil behavior for which he had previously been blocked. He has wasted my time and the time of others, while complaining that I am "driving" him to an "early grave."

[Contrary to Mango's unwarranted assumptions, which accept what that user claims as fact, which it is not] I have no predetermined animus against the user; but he is causing vast problems when he makes changes to a controversial article on a living person, not following the policies and guidelines in the notices tagged via templates at the top of the talk page of the article or prior warnings that he learn what these are prior to editing Wikipedia. He is damaging the article and [as a consequence] Wikipedia and, in the definition of "vandalism", whether or not he intends to be doing so, the result had been and is vandalism to Wikipedia (in my view). The repeated posting of pseudo- and false "warnings" on my talk page is also, in my view, vandalism of my talk page. [See WP:Vandalism, particularly regarding WP:BLP. Even administrators refer to "vandalism" of their talk pages as justifiable reasons for deleting other users' comments from them. Removing unpleasant and harassing comments made by other users from one's talk page is routine in Wikipedia, and administrators themselves warn that they routinely remove comments from their talk pages (not archiving those comments).]

User:Tim Osman is also attempting to do damage to my reputation as an editor in Wikipedia by calling upon others to "ban" me (an experienced Wikipedia editor) from Wikipedia on Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. He has no basis for doing so. [His claims that he does have a basis are false claims.] Doing so violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette and his comments of that nature are, in my view, personal attacks on another contributor (me) and they need to be removed from the talk page of the article and from other talk pages where he has been posting them. My responses to his behavior directed against me are not "puerile"; they are reasonable. --NYScholar 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Mango's block should be removed from my block history as it will be used by Mango and others as evidence that I was recently blocked for WP:3RR violations which I did not make. The removal of that other user's repeated pseudo- and false "warnings" from my talk page were warranted and my removing them did not violate WP:3RR, contrary to what Mango states in the block summary ("(WP:AGF, removing comments, 3RR on User talk:NYScholar)". [In my view, a user who refuses to read and to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:BLP, and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles (all linked in tagged notices on Talk:Joseph C. Wilson is not editing in good faith. (Updated. --NYScholar 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

In my view, the earlier 48-hour blocks of my account were also not warranted, and the administrators who blocked me (including Mango) then use the earlier blocks to justify further blocks that are also unwarranted. To block a user because the user has legitimate concerns about violations to WP:BLP is not warranted. That is the way I was blocked before. The time before I had not (in my view) violated WP:3RR [see my archived box pages 12 and 13 for my explanations there re: WP:3RR#Exceptions and WP:BLP; the situation was complicated by the erroneous citations that the other user (User:Tim Osman) gave, which did not in fact support the statements that he was adding to Joseph C. Wilson.]; I had cited the basis for the changes to the article on Joseph C. Wilson that I had made; later, User:Tim Osman's repeated insertions of clearly-biased material in the article only demonstrate that my original concerns were indeed warranted. (The other user's understanding of what is allowable in a "biography of a living person" article is in Wikipedia is extremely weak, due to his failure to read and/or to follow Wikipedia's clearly-linked editing policies and guidelines.)

It is very clear that that user (User:Tim Osman) falsely states that I reverted his content on July 31 when I did not do so. It was an administrator who undid his changes to the article, Joseph C. Wilson, perhaps after seeing the notice that I had posted in WP:BLP/N (which I had posted following the instructions in tagged template notices in Talk:Joseph C. Wilson--and link to WP:BLP/N at the top of Talk:Joseph C. Wilson: Item 70: Joseph C. Wilson; my notice is an accurate notice.) [Note what User:Tim Osman posted in bold print after my notice, which should not be there and which is false. The notice is not a "personal attack" on the user. It is a statement of fact.]

This article Joseph C. Wilson requires watching from administrators due to the types of violations of WP:BLP in which that user is engaged when he edits it. [After an administrator (User:FCYTravis) undid his changes, User:Tim Osman reverted them (again), and another user (User:Apparent public relationship) also undid TO's revert, with an editing summary explaining why.]

User:Tim Osman's "warnings" that he posted on my talk page are false and not warranted and I was correct to remove them after I read them. --NYScholar 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [I relogged on to make typographical corrections; there may be others that I still need to correct, but I have to log off Wikipedia to do other things. Although I haven't wanted to do so--it is not my "preference", at least temporarily, I have unchecked the raw signature box in Wikipedia. If others continue to harass me and to abuse my talk page, I will check it [the raw signature box] again. I do not have the time to deal with harassment by anon. IP users and other Wikipedia users who often abuse other users' talk pages. --NYScholar 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

[Updated out of courtesy. --NYScholar 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)]