This is an archived case at Abuse Response. | ||
![]() |
The page you are viewing is an archived case (or possibly other) page located at
Abuse Response. It is no longer used but is preserved for archival purposes. You may observe anomalies, inconsistencies, or other general weirdness, which is to be expected. No warranty of usefulness or satisfaction implied. |
![]() |
70.23.199.239 is a related case, see user talk:70.23.199.239
Article is 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal User continually attempts to insert (as first inline link) article to a disputed website (allegedly racist, definitely not NPOV). He was blocked at the other IP address for the same repeated editing on the same article (or the related Crystal Gail Mangum page). Had the gall to revert my deletion with the notation of "reverting vandalism". Horologium talk - contrib 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"User 70.23.167.160 is at the same time re-inserting controversial material into the Nadine Gordimer entry. This material has been the subject of extensive debate, now archived, and the majority of editors opposed inclusion of the material on the grounds it violated WP:BLP and WP:NOR. The editor is well aware that numerous editors view inclusion as a policy violation, but this editor continues to reintroduce the material without attempting to establish any consensus to do so. The editor in my opinion has a clear bias that ought to prevent them from editing these entries. FNMF 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"
User:FNMF has misrepresented WP rules, the notability of a traumatic incident, falsely claimed that I am inserting “controversial material,” and misrepresented the history of the Nadine Gordimer article. I did not violate WP:BLP or WP:NOR, and there was no consensus for User:FNMF’s deletion. In fact, there was a consensus for the paragraph which I restored, and which by the way, I hadn’t even written ( User:Andyparkerson did!). User:FNMF is simply seeking to politically strongarm me and anyone else who would include vital information which he, based on his own race-political POV, wants suppressed. In the same spirit, he has invented a rule of his own, whereby only “well-established editors” – i.e., editors who share his race politics, may edit the article.
I had simply restored User:Andyparkerson’s compromise proposal, for which there was a modest consensus of 3-2 (pro: User:Andyparkerson, User:Yakuman, and me; contra: User:Doldrums and User:Lquilter) on April 8, 2007.
Compromise version, which I restored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nadine_Gordimer&oldid=120968817%7Cedit
April 8, 2007 discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nadine_Gordimer/Archive_4
Note that although it was User:Andyparkerson who wrote and originally inserted the version that I sought to restore, it was also he who at the first opportunity, initially deleted it, as I had predicted he would. Why don’t you ask User:Andyparkerson why he would offer and insert a compromise that he had no intention of adhering to. (And which he just deleted yet again, minutes ago.) And I’d like to hear him explain how editors can assume the good faith of an editor who makes proposals he has no intention of respecting. 70.23.167.160 09:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This user is at it again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal&curid=5064922&diff=132633112&oldid=132253236
For whatever reason, he/she refuses to abide by consensus that the article he wishes to link is inappropriate. Semi-protecting the pages in question would be helpful in discouraging this behavior.
Unlearned hand 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[The same editor] is back, making more personal attacks and linking to his own writing, although he is restricting his activities to the Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case page now, rather than the mainspace. diff 1 diff 2 diff 3
The incivility is pretty striking, and the WT link looks like a personal attack of the WP:BADSITES variety. Horologium t- c 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an archived case at Abuse Response. | ||
![]() |
The page you are viewing is an archived case (or possibly other) page located at
Abuse Response. It is no longer used but is preserved for archival purposes. You may observe anomalies, inconsistencies, or other general weirdness, which is to be expected. No warranty of usefulness or satisfaction implied. |
![]() |
70.23.199.239 is a related case, see user talk:70.23.199.239
Article is 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal User continually attempts to insert (as first inline link) article to a disputed website (allegedly racist, definitely not NPOV). He was blocked at the other IP address for the same repeated editing on the same article (or the related Crystal Gail Mangum page). Had the gall to revert my deletion with the notation of "reverting vandalism". Horologium talk - contrib 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"User 70.23.167.160 is at the same time re-inserting controversial material into the Nadine Gordimer entry. This material has been the subject of extensive debate, now archived, and the majority of editors opposed inclusion of the material on the grounds it violated WP:BLP and WP:NOR. The editor is well aware that numerous editors view inclusion as a policy violation, but this editor continues to reintroduce the material without attempting to establish any consensus to do so. The editor in my opinion has a clear bias that ought to prevent them from editing these entries. FNMF 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"
User:FNMF has misrepresented WP rules, the notability of a traumatic incident, falsely claimed that I am inserting “controversial material,” and misrepresented the history of the Nadine Gordimer article. I did not violate WP:BLP or WP:NOR, and there was no consensus for User:FNMF’s deletion. In fact, there was a consensus for the paragraph which I restored, and which by the way, I hadn’t even written ( User:Andyparkerson did!). User:FNMF is simply seeking to politically strongarm me and anyone else who would include vital information which he, based on his own race-political POV, wants suppressed. In the same spirit, he has invented a rule of his own, whereby only “well-established editors” – i.e., editors who share his race politics, may edit the article.
I had simply restored User:Andyparkerson’s compromise proposal, for which there was a modest consensus of 3-2 (pro: User:Andyparkerson, User:Yakuman, and me; contra: User:Doldrums and User:Lquilter) on April 8, 2007.
Compromise version, which I restored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nadine_Gordimer&oldid=120968817%7Cedit
April 8, 2007 discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nadine_Gordimer/Archive_4
Note that although it was User:Andyparkerson who wrote and originally inserted the version that I sought to restore, it was also he who at the first opportunity, initially deleted it, as I had predicted he would. Why don’t you ask User:Andyparkerson why he would offer and insert a compromise that he had no intention of adhering to. (And which he just deleted yet again, minutes ago.) And I’d like to hear him explain how editors can assume the good faith of an editor who makes proposals he has no intention of respecting. 70.23.167.160 09:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This user is at it again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal&curid=5064922&diff=132633112&oldid=132253236
For whatever reason, he/she refuses to abide by consensus that the article he wishes to link is inappropriate. Semi-protecting the pages in question would be helpful in discouraging this behavior.
Unlearned hand 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[The same editor] is back, making more personal attacks and linking to his own writing, although he is restricting his activities to the Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case page now, rather than the mainspace. diff 1 diff 2 diff 3
The incivility is pretty striking, and the WT link looks like a personal attack of the WP:BADSITES variety. Horologium t- c 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)