User talk:81.111.172.198

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 81.111.172.198, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Zhatt 23:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 WP:3RR 2 Regrettably Inappropriate Action from "Cleared as filed" On 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 2.1 Civility 3 Facts to Explain a 4 Day Block Still Not Provided By User Nandesuka 4 4 day block 5 Outside view by Zhatt

[edit] WP:3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —Cleared as filed. 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This was an inappropriate use of the three revert rule.

Quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule[[1]]:

"The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars."

This was not a sterile edit war but abusive and inappropriate behaviour by another editor. Instead of imposing a block, that abusive and inappropriate behaviour by the other editor should have been dealt with. Merely because a new user does not know the appropriate mechanisms on Wikipedia for raising an issue is not an excuse for applying the Three-revert rule in a case it is not designed or intended to cover. The issue was raised and resolution requested.

Also quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule [[2]]:

"Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action."

In a case of this nature the Administrator should have engaged in dialogue to resolve the issue and take action against the perpetrator of the abusive behaviour. That did not happen. When an editor who is also an Administrator behaves inappropriately that should be dealt with by another Administrator instead of attacking the innocent party. This regrettably appears to be the application of double standards.

81.111.172.198 05:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regrettably Inappropriate Action from "Cleared as filed" On 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear "Cleared as filed",

ILLEGALITY BY A WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR

I suggest you go back and look at the context of this. A Wikipedia administrator who claims to be a medical doctor (Dr J F D Wolff) committed an act which appears to be contrary to UK and EU law by illegally posting information on Wikipedia.

My action was to correct that until a policy statement was issued by Wikipedia.

You appear not to have the patience to have left matters as they were and to wait until a policy statement has been issued.

The matter is very simple. Is Wikipedia going to abide by the laws of the countries in which it operates and ensure its "Administrators" do so also or is it going to behave like something from the Wild West. European states are "nations of laws not men" and it would assist if our US cousins would bear that in mind.

Additionally, there appears to be no record of any medical doctor on any statutory register held by the government authorities in Holland or the UK going by the name Dr J F D Wolff. "Dr" Wolff claims to be from Holland and claims to work in England.

I look forward to receiving notification of the policy statement indicating Wikipedia is an operation which abides by the law.

81.111.172.198 09:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous user. I am in no position to pass judgment on UK law, but I am in a position to enforce Wikipedia rules, and according to the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:81.111.172.198 and verified by myself, you were in violation of WP:3RR. It doesn't matter if you think you're right or that your edits are serving a higher purpose — almost everyone thinks that their edits are right or noble. Whatever your grievances, you have to settle them within the rules of Wikipedia. —Cleared as filed. 11:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. You do in fact make the point for me. There appears to be a contravention of law. You confirm you are "in no position to pass judgment". Accordingly, the issue is that when there is a seeming contravention of law, the matter should be passed to higher authority and matters left such that the seeming contravention of law is not exacerbated.

Your action as an administrator should have been then and it should be now to remove the seeming contravention of law until the matter had been clarified. You did not do that and what seems a contravention has been exacerbated by another Wikipedia administrator endorsing what seems to be an illegal action of another Wikipedia administrator.

I wait to hear with details of a Wikipedia policy statement dealing with this matter. Until that happens it seems Wikipedia has no conception of the existence of a rule of law outside its pages nor has anyone yet drawn my attention to any Wikipedia policy dealing with situations in which a contravention of law appears to have occurred. To date, two days later, there is nothing, nil, rien, nada.

Further, I see nothing in your response to deal with the matter either. Blindly following 'rules' like the '3RRs' is inappropriate in all the circumstances. I see no apology forthcoming either. Many thanks for responding. As you are unpaid in your work and clearly not being provided with adequate backup to deal with situations like this, if the remarks above seem too harsh, they are not intended as personal criticism of you as an individual.

81.111.172.198 12:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please also see further comment here [3]

81.111.172.198 14:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding your remarks on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman:

Please do not accuse other Wikipedia editors of violating the law or victimizing people. You've had your say. Be civil and refrain from remarks that could be construed as legal threats or personal attacks. If you don't have any further polite or constructive remarks to make, please refrain from further comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The above comments are incorrect and in part replied to as follows here:-

"This is a discussion page and [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] has clearly made very personal attacks on another Wikipedian and seems to be contravening the law in doing so. Those attacks appear in the nature of victimisation and the foregoing are commenting on that and asking [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] to answer. Additionally, I am not threatening any legal action against anyone. I am pointing out that there is a seeming breach of the law and it should be investigated and dealt with by Wikipedia."

"However, no answer has yet been provided by any Administrator to the question asked regarding Wikipedia complying with the laws of the nations in which Wikipedia operates nor to the question of any existing or proposed stated Wikipedia policy on the matter. 81.111.172.198 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)"

Further, your concern for [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] is interesting. She has shown no shyness in the past in attacking others personally. How about some evenhandedness on your part? Whilst my observations are comments and not attacks, I note not a single comment is passed by you on [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]'s behaviour. Why is that? And the answer cannot be that the behaviour is unnoteworthy. 81.111.172.198 22:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you read my statement on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman, I have already stated my view that a user conduct RfC probably wasn't necessary at this juncture, and that an article content RfC on the merits of whale.to as an external source would have been a more appropriate step.

My concern is not specifically for Jfdwolff, but rather for the lack of civility and respect for Wikipedia policy your interactions with him/her represent. You have accused that editor of lying about his/her qualifications and of violating the laws of his/her country.

That is not correct. See below where I note "I have not accused [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] of lying but I have pointed out the inconsistency between the claims made as to medical qualifications and the absence of a registration in the two States in which a registration should exist."

Further, not only have I not accused an editor of violating the law but draw attention to a seeming contravention, Wikipedia policy concerns making threats of legal action and I have made no such threats express or implied. See further below.

You also pass no comment on the abusive behaviour of [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] engaging in name calling, labelling and personal attacks.

81.111.172.198 03:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are concerned that the behaviour of myself or Jfdwolff violates the standards and policies of Wikipedia or the laws which apply to this encyclopedia, you may post a request for review of our actions on the incidents page of the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you have something constructive, productive, and substantive to add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman, you are welcome and encouraged to do so. Otherwise, I have nothing further to say to you beyond a request to please stop attacking Jfdwolff. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As noted above, it is not an attack to question with good justification claims made by JfdWolff. There is a discrepancy between the claims to medical qualifications openly made by JfdWolff on Wikipedia (cross-referenced to every edit made by JfdWolff on medical issues) with the absence of an entry on the medical registers for J F D Wolff.

81.111.172.198 03:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to review the history of the matter you will see throughout that I have repeatedly requested a response to the concerns that:-

• there may have been a breach of the law,
• that no one seems able to cite or produce

• a Wikipedia policy about situations in which there may have been a breach of the law
• Wikipedia's policy about it observing the law in the states in which it operates

In the circumstances I should be obliged if you would be so kind as to address these main issues instead of trying to turn this into a matter of attacks on an individual who has shown scant respect for others and who attacks them, as the abusive text indicates which was unnecessarily and gratuitously included indicates and which should be removed from Wikipedia and which seems to put personal data on Wikipedia in breach of UK and EU data protection laws. Apparently, I am a "Troll" according to [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]. Now is name-calling and abuse civil? I think not.

Are you going to remove the insulting and abusive and seemingly unlawful text added by [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]? Are you going to answer these important questions or are you going to try to make this into a personal issue instead of the policy issue which it is?

Further, I have not accused [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] of lying but I have pointed out the inconsistency between the claims made as to medical qualifications and the absence of a registration in the two States in which a registration should exist. Now if there were a valid explanation for the discrepancy, then [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] has shown she is more than able of answering for herself. It is the absence of an answer to date that is intriguing and not the fact that I have queried the absences of registrations nor discrepancies in the accuracy of postings made by [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] on medical issues. Further, it is a matter of relevance which goes to the credibility of Wikipedia if someone making such claims uses them to as an implied credential for editing Wikipedia on medical issues if those claims are not justified and the jury is out on whether they are. There is no reply.

Additionally, as I have already pointed out I raised the question of there being a seeming breach of the law. If you look at what I have written you will see throughout that I have not said there is a breach but a seeming breach. You are the one who keeps making these allegations which are without foundation, as I have pointed out here and elsewhere.

The matters I have raised are matters of valid concern and as yet there has been no answer to any of them. None of them are matters of incivility but justified areas of comment.

In the circumstances making a "civility" issue out of this neither addresses the issues nor is it appropriate with respect to someone whose lack of civility and behaviour lead to these policy questions, to which, there remains no answer from anyone on Wikipedia.

Where, for example, is your answer? In all the many words you have written you have made no attempt to address them but you have no problem spending time avoiding the issue by attacking me on "civility". 81.111.172.198 02:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facts to Explain a 4 Day Block Still Not Provided By User Nandesuka

Why was a block [[4]] imposed? One edit on a discussion page is not the basis for a block with no warning, even if abusive which it was not. User Nandesuka was not operating within policy by imposing a 4 day block. And why 4 days when policy speaks of 24 hours?

User Nandesuka refers to a "your most recent spate of edits to Talk:Mumps." But I have not made a "recent spate of edits". Is this confusion with another user?

What specific comments are claimed to be the basis for User Nandesuka's actions?

Aside from one specific allegation which is fully answered below, other statements made by User Nandesuka lack and need substantiation. The allegations include serious ones, especially the bizarre one of "stalking" when that is particularly inapt and there is no basis for such a claim as also is noted below.

Accordingly, if serious allegations are made there should be serious justification for them. But User Nandesuka provides none.

The only specific allegation User Nandesuka has raised is:-

• "Your discussion of looking up Jfdwolff's medical credentials is absolutely beyond the pale, particularly because she or he did not appeal to the authority of those credentials in the context of this article."

However, JfdWolff cites her medical credentials everywhere she goes. She links directly to her user and talk pages where she says:-

"I am a Dutch doctor living and working in the United Kingdom." ..... "My main interest is medicine, and WikiProject "Clinical medicine" .... "I am also a participant of WikiProject "Drugs"" ... and of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology".

Further, there is good reason for questioning her claimed medical credentials. There are three specific contributions in particular by JfdWolff which do not appear to be ones a medically qualified person would have made.

JfdWolff put the issue of medical qualifications in issue and in the public domain on Wikipedia. When questions are raised JfdWolff has no answer. She also does not deny not being on the medical registers. Something that is facile to check on the internet and making such a check cannot be remotely considered "stalking" nor can any other behaviour of mine.

User Nandesuka's bizarre allegation of stalking is made without providing substantiation. There is no basis for such a claim which requires serious justification but none is provided.

Here are examples of some of the barrage of other claims made by User Nandesuka which are made without substantiation or warning and on the basis of a single edit which does not justify any of these comments:-

• "Your behavior approaches stalking."

• "your personal attacks and overall demeanor on Talk:Mumps are absolutely unacceptable"

• "you are clearly and repeatedly violating"

"the principles of civility"

"and assuming good faith"

"and being abusive while doing so."

• "you simply assert bad faith on the part of other editors"

• "You seem to be having some difficulty separating out the positions you believe your fellow editors have from the edits that they are actually making."

• "I see the revert warring over the POV tag".

• "I see you constantly replacing the tag without actually specifying what text in the article is at issue".

• "Repeatedly placing an NPOV tag on an article without specifying what the problem is or what a potential solution might be is misusing the tag, and is disruptive to the task of building an encyclopedia."

In all the circumstances, it would be appropriate for a scintilla of justification for these claims. Regrettably User Nandesuka provides none - but makes the claims nonetheless.

81.111.172.198 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4 day block

Hi. There has been a complaint of harassment against you on the Administrator's noticeboard. I have blocked you for 3 hours while I investigate the situation. If the complaint proves to be baseless, I will undo the block shortly. If you have anything to say in regards to this issue, feel free to reply on this talk page. Regards, Nandesuka 21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 4 days for your most recent spate of edits to Talk:Mumps.

One edit on a discussion page is not the basis for a block with no warning, even if abusive which it was not. It seems my comments must be being confused with those of someone else or there is something else going on here. I have asked for clarification [[5]] but it has not yet been provided.

81.111.172.198 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be having some difficulty separating out the positions you believe your fellow editors have from the edits that they are actually making. Reviewing the recent history of the Mumps page, I see the revert warring over the POV tag, and a number of editors trying to be responsive to the uncontested claim that mumps can be a mild illness. In response to this, I see you constantly replacing the tag without actually specifying what text in the article is at issue — rather, you simply assert bad faith on the part of other editors. Repeatedly placing an NPOV tag on an article without specifying what the problem is or what a potential solution might be is misusing the tag, and is disruptive to the task of building an encyclopedia.

Allow me to be perfectly clear: what I actually know about mumps would fit in a thimble. The issue at hand is not who is right and who is wrong about the substantive underlying subject. The issue is that you are clearly and repeatedly violating the principles of civility and assuming good faith, and being abusive while doing so. Your discussion of looking up Jfdwolff's medical credentials is absolutely beyond the pale, particularly because she or he did not appeal to the authority of those credentials in the context of this article. Your behavior approaches stalking. If an admin decides that it is stalking, you may be permanently banned from editing Wikipedia.

To recap: your personal attacks and overall demeanor on Talk:Mumps are absolutely unacceptable. You will stop such behavior immediately, or you are likely to be banned for longer and longer periods for each violation. Nandesuka 21:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The following is the text placed on your User Talk page

Totally Inappropriate 4 Day Block

Your actions in imposing a 4 day block is inappropriate for a number of reasons. Firstly you make a number of allegations which are simply not borne out by the facts. Secondly, you made absolutely no effort whatsoever to investigate the matter either properly or at all. And thirdly, you did not seek my comments at any point. You acted unilaterally and make allegations that no one has ever made and which are simply fallacious.

The main reason you give for imposing a 4 day block is wholly wrong. You claim I do not identify what it is that is POV. However, I have identified that material and made strenuous polite and civil efforts to make sure it is crystal clear.

You in fact admit you know absolutely nothing about the topic concerned so you are in no position to judge.

Further, in relation to the allegations you make, you provide no evidence whatsoever nor any examples.

I therefore ask you, as an administrator which is the appropriate mechanism for taking this matter to a resolution.

Further, as you impose a 4 day block that allows me no opportunity to make any representations as all effort at editing will be blocked.

81.111.172.198 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not need to know anything about the topic "mumps" in order to judge when you are being uncivil, making personal attacks, and engaging in behavior that approaches stalking. As I indicated in my earlier comments, that is why are you being blocked. Not because of your belief on mumps, vaccinations, or any other number of things that, frankly, I have absolutely no interest in. As a disinterested party I am, in fact, in a perfect position to judge your behavior.

I have posted a notice of my block on the Administrator's Noticeboard, so various admins may be coming by your talk page to read what you have to say. It would certainly be appropriate for you to post a note here explaining why you think you should be unblocked. If you had a registered username, you would be able to send email to an administrator directly to ask to be unblocked. Beyond that, I politely suggest that rather than focusing on how you have been wronged, you use this break as an opportunity to evaluate your actions. You can't really control what others think of you, but you can control your own statements and actions. I suggest to you that your behavior in this case looks poor, and that time spent thinking about ways to improve your ability to reach consensus would be time well spent. Thousands of people are engaged in strong debate here on Wikipedia every day. Many of those debates are resolved without a breakdown in civility.

If I were to make one concrete suggestion to you, it would be this: read every edit you make to a talk page before you hit Submit. If you are discussing other editors rather than arguments (whether such discussion is in the form of "Nandesuka thinks that..." or "vaccinators think that...", then there is a nonzero chance that your arguments are addressed to the man rather than to the topic. If you keep your edits strictly on the topic, and argue based on verifiability and scholarly sources, rather than on what terrible people the other editors are, not only will you avoid blocks like this in the future, but your arguments are likely to be more persuasive as well. Good luck, Nandesuka 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The following is a note placed on User:Nandesuka's talk page. I look forward to a response:-

"I see you have put a long note on my User Talk page. However, still not a shred of fact is presented to support the allegations being made. That is because there is none. If there were any you could have provided them by now. You should have provided them before taking any action. So let's see the specifics."

81.111.172.198 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Zhatt

As I was the one to first welcome him, user 81.111.172.198 has sent me an email requesting an outside view on the dispute. In this email he claims he is "normally very polite and civil" and that other users have used "their knowledge of the system to ambush new users and to engage in unpleasantness and other objectionable behaviour."

I have reviewed many of the posts and edits by user 81.111.172.198 and other involved users, and have come to the conclusion that the 4 day ban is appropriate. Most of his edits seem to have to deal disease and vaccine and seems to push a certain anti-vaccine point of view. Many (if not all) of his edits are soured, but are often out of date and place out of context. When he is confronted about said edits, he becomes defensive and claims other editors to be POV pushing and being uncivil. He also seems to disrupt unrelated RFCs. In the email he claims that users have been giving Ombudsman trouble, but I fail to see what that has to do with his behavior.

User 81.111.172.198 seems to have disregarded the following policies: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Edit war.

Note that this is my personal view on the matter based on the resources I was given. I admit there may be some discrepancies and errors in the above statement as this is not a matter related to me and have not invested much time into it. Thank you, Zhatt 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]