User:Sitush/Carol Moore

User:Sitush/Carol Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As posted here the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought on Wikihounding of me the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8)[1][2], urged people to "do some research" on me[3], and even wrote: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her."[4]. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[5] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[6]. The user then posted non-RS material they found out from their opposition research with an insulting and misleading comment. The user suddenly alleged they actually were working on a bio of me, perhaps to avoid someone bringing a Wikihounding ANI vs them. I think this is just a thinly veiled WP:Attack page - and obvious harassment - and should be deleted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later note: I have asked at speedy deletion if it is too late to ask the page be deleted under the criteria: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" and "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGF, for God's sake. This is a genuine effort, as I've explained to you on my talk page, and I can't see a single attack in what is said thus far. At least one arbitrator is also aware. If you're notable then you're notable. The prior AfDs closed as (1) no consensus and (2) delete, but with many people pointing out that there were sources out there. I didn't see the old version but I'll be astonished if my version isn't better. If that sounds like arrogance then so be it but please give me a chance. WP is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this was sincere, you would be using refs from the old article which your Admin friends easily could give you and not just be relying on my primary source comments, non-Rs and two book reviews. For example, material from the Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press story, Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News Nightline and several other books. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. (The snarky "your Admin friends" is unhelpful, btw.) I've already explained to you that I am aware of thousands of mentions of your name in sources and that they need to be evaluated: most will be useless fringe stuff but some will be ok. This is not something that will happen overnight but I've also invited you to comment as it develops. Given that you are on record as regretting the previous deletion, I'm surprised that you are objecting now. Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally - indeed, you've called it "opposition research" in the thread on my talk page that you link above. I can be neutral etc and the research is as open as it can be, hence the vast numbers of sources to be evaluated. Carol, I detest what the Brits did to much of India's society but you'll never get that impression from my writings in Indic articles: I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you under the impression this will help you at WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard, someplace you threatened to take me a couple times before I told you to check what was there already? See the history of truly well known writer/activist User_talk:Cberlet. He wrote mostly negative stuff about living people he didn't like and got away with it for a long time even in days when allegedly Wikipedia was more civil. And there are certainly more like that editing now. So getting a COIN about someone trying to write mostly neutral info about issues is even more difficult. ("Trying" because the harassment from guys just does not stop.) The first two COIN's vs. me didn't stick and any new one won't either unless you can prove I'm getting paid to write for Wikipedia and I'm not. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Like I said, try to assume good faith. I know you find that a difficult thing to do but try, please. I'm constructing a BLP and have no interest in whether you are a woman, a man or even a Something From Outer Space. It is true that I think you have had conflicts of interest - in fact, that has been proven in the past - but it has no bearing on writing a BLP about someone who, while not famous, I do think has a reasonable notability. That notability was mentioned in the prior AfDs but not followed-through with additional sourcing etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are making false allegations here? Where has it been "proven" I have Conflicts of Interest? WP:ASPERSIONS is against casting aspersions without diffs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, again. Yet another waste of bluelinks. You've already provided the diffs - you edited your own BLP prior to it being deleted. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I didn't know better in 2006. The original written by some AnonIp said unsourced things like: Her followers prefer to focus on building a comprehensive "not quite a state " capacity for governance in smaller political units and Moore's work is most often compared to that of Jane Jacobs and Donella Meadows, who likewise applied systems theory to ecological and social problems. and I didn't see anyone fixing it up. And didn't know about AfDing. I mostly removed crap and later just put refs on the couple things that were accurate. That has no relation to conflict of interest on other Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, just in case this doesn't represent the whole community, we'll let it run its course. So I've put the bio at WP:BLPN also so they can decide if it's Wiki solid or just wanker.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does relate, although you may not have realised it at the time. You should have mentioned it on the article talk page or BLPN and let someone else sort it out. Carol, even today you often claim not to understand this or that policy. I find that surprising, given how long you have been here. But what p's me off is your continued yellings of wrong-doings where none exist. You've done that at least twice in the last 24 hours in my case. If you act more reasonably, you'll likely get a more reasonable response: I'm not some sort of beastly man. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Strike later since tit for tat is tacky. And what p's me off is your hostile superior attitude that you know everything and everyone is just an idiot and that people you've decided to "educate" better knuckle under, or else... you'll write their bio? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I forgot about the split. Well, now that it is clear someone does intend to f*ck with the article, which was my original concern, I might as well make sure that when it goes live I immediately put up all the good refs and what the good stuff they ref and other refs collected since. And, of course, I can have a WP:BLPN fit about all the primary and poorly sourced crap in the article until those parts are removed, just like Chip Berlet did a few months back. I assume that if it doesn't go live, and Sitush leaves it on his talk page, that will illustrate my point it's just WP:Battleground harassment editing. So I'll chill. THANKS! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, indeed. You forgot about the split? I mentioned it in a message above! When it goes live, you should not edit it at all - leave that for BLPN etc. However, I'd rather that you raise any concerns now rather than later: I've no desire to keep unacceptable material or refs in there. So, I'll hang of further development for a while and you can let me know which stuff that is in there fails WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:RS. Or are you just presuming that there will be something in the future? - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly can, e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (2nd nomination).--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative"hasspoken 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine when you're not writing a bio about another wikipedia editor. If I started DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com and Glenn Beck was User:Glenn Beck, I should be called on it.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about it, I am actually flattered that User:Sitush considers me the Carrie Moore Nation of the prohibition of incivility and harassment on Wikipedia and even wants to write an article about me to demonstrate the credibility of the cause. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because @Carolmooredc: has an account doens't mean that she's able to dictate if an article is created about her or not. The reference that you're referring to is obviously a BLP violation and wouldn't be allowed. To be clear, as far as I know, @Sitush: doesn't own www.carolmore.com or anything related to her. We have guidelines for this and we even have a category of Wikipedian's who have pages. I doubt any of them had influence on what went into their articles (and I doubt they were allowed to object to their articles creation). What gives Carol the right to? Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, guys, is that Sitush has admitted he hates Carol's guts; that's a fat 'ol COI and he shouldn't be writing this. He has said of Carol (just last week), "She does nothing but stir shit." (look here after Tarc calls out his bullshit). Sitush should simply say publicly "I hate Carol Moore"; now, instead he acts like a total pussy and creates this bio? Come on now, we're all better than that. Find me another case of an editor writing a bio in his userspace about another editor he hates? Eric, I know you despise Carol, but would you REALLY do that? If its gonna stay, it should go into mainspace now, so it can go to AFD, where a clusterfuck approaching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) (son writes article on dead father; enemies descend, never was notable, gets deleted after major drama) will no doubt ensue. A lot of "editors" like that drama though. I'm gonna step away from this debate now and let others weigh in however they wish.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't pretend to know stuff that you can't possibly know. Eric Corbett 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS I don't hate CM - I can't remember hearing of her before. Must have missed something somewhere along the line. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Every article includes information that is not already on Wikipedia. What would be the point otherwise? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the editors here decide that the there is enough notability that the article should be kept, it could be moved to Draft: space, a more neutral location, for revision since some editors are reluctant to make changes to another editor's userspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting proposal @Anne Delong: - perhaps @Sitush: and @Carolmooredc: would agree that moving it to Draft:Carol Moore would be amicable? Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult, even if desirable, to ensure that only editors with no negative interaction with Carolmooredc would edit the new article. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed. Eric Corbett 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above is apparently open to misinterpretation, so here is an expansion: It would be difficult, even if desirable, to ensure that only editors with no negative interaction with Carolmooredc would edit the new article because anyone who hasn't been specifically banned for a serious infraction of Wikipedia's policies is free to edit any article and most negative interactions are not serious enough to invoke such a ban. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I added the tag. I still think, however, it would be best to take it offline.--Nowa (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when it's put in article space, it's open to view. Here, we're just seeing it sooner. Are you saying it doesn't pass BLP or should be kept under cover until the launch? I see no objection to drafting in user space subject to the usual restrictions on copyvio, hoax, attack and spam. And I don't see any of those in this. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It’s more than just Wikipedia editors with specific knowledge that can see it. Anyone Googling Carol Moore will see it and see it as a Wikipedia page. Hence in my opinion it should be subject to the same standards as BLP, even though it is a “draft”. BLP is a lot more stringent than simply “no attack”, etc. Everything must be properly sourced and anyone can remove unsupported content without being subject to 3RR. That’s not going to help a user draft a BLP, however, since a user should generally have content control of said user’s space. So I see a large downside to having a draft BLP in a user space without any upside. Plus, given the reported animosity of the drafter towards the subject, removing the draft seems like what is best for the encyclopedia. And yes, I did read the draft. I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m saying it should either be out there as a BLP where we can all contribute to it, or drafted off line until it’s ready.--Nowa (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally: WP:BLPFIGHT violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Corbett: Your concern for this issue is touching. Yes, I have. Why do you ask? Frankly I'd nominate it for AfD as not notable if it went to the mainspace. That a user is creating an article about another user who is not particularly well known is stinks of hounding. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a stench of hypocrisy, dishonesty and double dealing here. Is that maybe what you can smell? Eric Corbett 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume we're not reading the actual article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You've read it! Can you please show me where it's showing bias, and where (had Carol not had a Wikipedia account) it would get pulled into MfD for violating policy? Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. In fact if one bears in mind the premise that, as some other editor here put it, Sitush "hates Carole Moore's guts", the article is a shining example of how to do a BLP that's scrupulously NPOV, totally policy-compliant, and exhibits not a shred of animus towards the subject. Hardly harassment. The page self-evidently does not conform to the delete criteria of "pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" as Ms. Moore claims. As far as I know there's no proscription on editors creating or contributing to articles about people they dislike or disagree with. On the other hand, if Ms. Moore's MfD were based on her non-notability, I'd probably vote delete—she doesn't appear to be notable as an activist or anything else. Writegeist (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no more notable than when it was deleted and Sitush was well aware of that AfD. So it's clear that his motivation was hostile. Superior distain might describe it better than hate. We must be more careful with our words. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. What is clear is that Sitush thinks you're sufficiently notable for a BLP (which is rather complimentary). Your MfD proposal alleges the draft BLP is an attack page that disparages, threatens, intimidates or harasses you. Show me a single element of the page's content that attacks, disparages, threatens, intimidates or harasses you. You can't. Did you claim non-notability as the reason to delete? You did not. Also, noting Sitush's observation that "you are on record as regretting the previous deletion [so] I'm surprised that you are objecting now", and agreeing with the second part if the first part is correct. Nevertheless you'll get what you want this time around—enough comments have sidestepped the merits of the draft BLP and fallen for the BS that frames it here. Writegeist (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it good enough to post?--Nowa (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is another question, I have amended my opinion that it should be moved to the neutral draftspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. What is a "neutral draftspace"?--Nowa (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than having it under userspace, draftspace invites more people to edit the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And per above, ((noindex)) can be added. I wouldn't oppose a draftspace with deletion from the user space.--Nowa (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutral draftspace" is the [[Draft:xxx]] space. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Nowa (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My mind's so boggled I couldn't find that today!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book isn't widely known? I've already given four reviews by notable people. I've already expressed that the thing might end up being more suitably an article about the book than the author. Only time will tell but at least one of the current reviews is an academic journal. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hard to concentrate on doing things right under stress :-( Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carolmooredc Do you not use Twinkle for this sort of thing? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another person basing their !vote on what might happen. Have faith in our systems, which include the right on anyone (except CMDC) to directly edit the article/fix any problem in it etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I can't see anyone here who has come up with a good faith policy-compliant reason to delete. All I am seeing are accusations of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims (especially those of CMDC herself, who says that even the extant, part-complete version has errors but seems unwilling to divulge what they are). - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[[User::Jim Carter - Public|Jim Carter - Public]] - While you seem to be following others votes and providing no policy backed reason, it is better if you learn to spell harass, while you are at it. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well just when I thought the comments by CMDC and some of the delete peeps had reached the outer limits of detachment from reality, along comes a delete vote that's based on nothing more than a base speculation, unsupported by so much as a single instance taken from Sitush's edit history, that Sitush might "add stuffs" that might "harrass" CMDC if the MfD result is keep; and which, further, smears Sitush as untrustworthy, again without a single diff as evidence. And all this directed at an experienced and accomplished BLP editor who by their own account has never, ever, been found to have violated NPOV. Writegeist (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More