User talk:WPUCU1

Administrator approval

Below is the conversation located on the Sante Kimes article discussion page instructing me to edit out the content I have asked about BEFORE doing so:

BLPs should not have trivia sectionsAccording to Wikipedia: "ToneBLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections."

The Sante Kimes Wikipedia article HAS a "trivia section". Sktruth (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Dear administrator, I hope I am following a proper procedure to contact an administrator about this issue. If this is not please 'don't bite a newbie' - which I am. The Sante Kimes article has a "Trivia Section". According to the guidelines for BLP, "BLPs should not have trivia sections". I would like to nominate this section to be removed from the Sante Kimes article since it does not belong on the BLP according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks. Sktruth (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• No need for an admin. Click 'edit' and remove it yourself; say why in the edit summary. If others object, you can discuss it here. Admins don't get involved in content problems, really. See WP:BOLD WP:DISCUSS Chzz ► 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Headline Tab

Is it possible to change "Criminal career" to "Life"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sktruth (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Chzz ► 16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Chzz, this user is being understandably cautious because s/he came in guns blazing deleting all over the place, got blocked, and was only unblocked on promises of good behaviour. But Sktruth, you are being over-cautious now: admins have no special authority on content and are not here to make your edits for you. Propose them on the talk page, wait a couple of days for comments (there's no hurry), then if there are no objections make them. I have posted at WP:BLP/N about this page, which will probably bring some more eyes on it. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JohnCD for your help. Yes, I may be a little too cautious after what happened, but please understand, I am just wanting to make certain I am obeying the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to not be so cautious and contain myself from contacting an administrator over content. I will continue to leave detailed notes for any change I may make - which I am now making sure I do.

Problems I am having with Sante Kimes article and changes

I am wanting to document issues I am having with edits on Sante Kimes article. All content herein refer to said article.

Moments ago I edited the "lead" content for the article. My reason for doing this is because the "lead" was repetitious. As I wrote in the editing note, which state: "Repetitious lead -Lead info is covered in the article in same order. Previous lead was not "whitewashed" - Kimes is best known for 2 murders and the locations - This correction is neutral and factual"

I believe the change I made was of a neutral point of view and was supported by referenced links within said article.

The change I made had previously been posted by an administrator that I am apparently having trouble with. I had hoped to work with the administrator in a constructive effort to improve the said article. However, it appears that said administrator is making changes to said article out of spite or personal feelings against me or the article's subject. I had mentioned to the administrator in said article's discussion page that is they had a problem with the articles subject, then maybe another administrator could assist me in creating a neutral point of view for the article.

On the said article's discussion page, there have been several biased statements by said administrator about the article's subject. And, I feel, about me simply because I would like the said article to be 'balanced' and neutral.

I am wanting to document any issue here as so that if there is a problem later, it has been documented on my talk page. NOTE: I am not naming the administrator as a favor even though I doubt the attempted favor will be appreciated. Furthermore, if there is a problem later, I do have it. I'm sure the said administrator will read this and take offense, however, this is being done to protect myself in any potential future problem. --Sktruth (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just fine. I don't care if everyone knows you are talking about me as I have done nothing wrong. And the sudden appearance of a lawyer requesting deletion of the article confirms my suspicion that you are closely related to this case and have an inherent conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. You changed "con artist and murderer" to "woman" in the lead. She is not notable for being a woman. She is notable for her crimes. Therefore I changed it to read "felon who has been convicted of two murders, along with robbery, burglary, conspiracy, grand larceny, illegal weapons possession, violation of anti-slavery laws, forgery and eavesdropping." All verified facts, not my opinion. The purpose of the lead section of the article is to explain why a person is notable and provide a brief preview of the article. We don't start the article on Barak Obama with "Barak Obama is an American man" because there is nothing notable about that, he's notable for being President. Now that it is exceedingly obvious that you have some sort of personal involvement in the article I must ask that you not edit it any further as it you who is trying to introduce bias to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would simply like to point out the aggressive tone in your reply to this message I posted on my own talk page. It shows that you are stalking me on this website being as it on my own talk page - My intent was to document this problem - I didn't even post it on an open discussion page out of courtesy. The mere tone of your reply displays that you have a personal problem with me.
Apparently, you think I have some connection to Sante Kimes. I have repeatedly denied this unproved accusation. I am only a researcher of many well-known court cases and my only concern was the tone and POV displayed on the Sante Kimes article. I haven't even had much of a chance to read over the other articles listed on Wikipedia that I have researched, because of the issues with this Sante Kimes page. The article began going in a neutral point of view, then you began to change the tone of the article. I don't understand it, other than you have a biased opinion. I posted discussions on the discussions page regarding changes that I thought were needed. You could have simply changed the article to say "Sante Kimes is a convicted murder" if the small change I made was that horrible to you. I think the change to the lead you made is just out of spite because I said "being a con artist is not a crime". I actually meant it in a joking way, not to criticize you, but you apparently took it as an attack because of what you listed in the edit note in your reply and at around the same time you changed the lead info.
Had you posted on the discussion page about his first, I would have talked with you about it. The change I made to the lead was from a neutral POV. I don't know how it was not. As for saying "American woman" that is listed for several female criminals in their lead information on Wikipedia. An example is Susan Smith, one I happened to notice before changing the lead on the Sante Kimes article to "American woman". There you have it - where I got "American woman" from. I just don't understand where this hostility is coming from.--Sktruth (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

discussion at WP:ANI

I don't expect you to voluntarily agree to stay away from this article given that editing it is apparently your only purpose here and now the lawyer has been called in to try and remove it entirely, so I have initiated a formal request to topic ban you from editing this article any further at the incident noticeboard. This is now in the hands of the broader community and not just between the two of us. You may view and comment in the discussion by clicking here. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Myself and the Sante Kimes Wikipedia article

I would like to set some things straight about myself and the Sante Kimes article.

1. I am NOT Sante Kimes.

2. I am NOT a relative of Sante Kimes.
3. I DO NOT HAVE or EVER HAD an attorney contacting Wikipedia. This is on outrageous claim.

I AM a researcher of well-known court cases, and have researched the Sante Kimes case in the past.

SUBJECT BAN

• 1. Since an administrator asked me to voluntarily not edit anything on the Sante Kimes article, I have complied.
  

• 2. If those interesting in my edits to the Sante Kimes article, please just see the article's edit history.
  

Since making editing mistakes on my FIRST-EVER edits on Wikipedia, I have complied with the appropriate editing guidelines.
Namely,

• Posting in the discussion page of the article about ANY large edits I felt appropriate for the article.
  
• Placing details and reason for the edit in editing tags.
  

Please see the article's editing history to see that the only edits I have made were to correct dates, spelling mistakes, adding verifying tags, and making small corrections to the article that were needed. Furthermore I gave full details for the changes I made in the editing notes Please see the article's editing history to confirm this.

• 3. The only edit that I made that was in debate was the article's 'lead' info.
  

I do contend that the current 'lead' starting with "American felon" was placed there as an action of spite by that editor.

The 'lead' I placed WAS of a neutral POV, factual WITH EXACT dates for the named convictions and was supported by references.
The current 'lead' does not state the dates for when these conviction took place.
Furthermore, I had placed "American woman" in the 'lead', which IS in the 'lead' of various other female criminal's articles who (arguable) allegedly committed WORSE crimes than Sante Kimes is accused of committing.
If it's appropriate for those articles, why is it not appropriate for this article?

In closing, I DID follow editing guidelines for the Sante Kimes article after I learned what was acceptable editing.

Furthermore, I discussed - at length - in the article's discussion page about changes that I felt WERE needed. Yet I NEVER took it upon myself to edit those issues until an agreement could be reached.

• I would like to point out that those changes have yet been agreed upon and I HAVE NOT made any edit in regard to those issues. Therefore, that demonstrates that I am following the editing guidelines.
  

Because of an apparent personal problem an administrator has with me. - Which is the same editor I was in dispute with on this article's discussion page They have asked me to voluntarily not edit the article - or, most outrageously, not EVEN post on the article's discussion page to discuss the issues with this article.(How is this not considered conflict of interest??)
I have complied with that request, even though I have not yet read or been advised as to what guideline I was in violation of in regard to the Sante Kimes article or it's discussion page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WPUCU1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 February 2011

You might want to participate in the ANI thread. Do you have any theories about why Kimes's lawyers contacted Wikipedia at just about the same time you started editing? You wrote "I DO NOT HAVE or EVER HAD an attorney contacting Wikipedia." but that (read legalistically) only says the attorneys are not your attorneys. I am asking whether you have been in any type of communication with them or know anything about them. Off-wiki coordination of editing (especially undisclosed) is considered a big no-no on Wikipedia. If you have some connection or contact with the subject that you don't want to disclose publicly, you can contact arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org by email and privately let them know what's going on. They can then advise the rest of us what to do without releasing details. Arbcom-l is the mailing list for Wikipedia's arbitration committee (wp:arbcom), which is allowed to handle confidential info. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I never had attorneys contact Wikipedia, I honestly do not even know what this is about. I keep reading that attorneys contacted Wikipedia and I contacted attorneys. What is this about? --Sktruth (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a "personal" problem with you. We've never met. What I do have a problem with is that you have a clear conflict of interest and you went so far as to call in a lawyer to try and get this article removed. It's obvious you had something to do with that, and if we could actually prove it you would probably just be blocked per our policy on legal threats and actions. As you can see from the discussion at ANI, I am far from the only one who sees your actions as an extreme violation of our various policies. It appears to me we have developed a consensus that you are indefinitely topic banned from any and all pages related to Sante Kimes. You are free to edit any other pages you wish. Despite our conflict here it is my hope that this has been a learning experience for you and you can work within the bounds of our content and legal action policies. I think if you step back and look carefully at my edits to Kimes' page you can see that I actually did quite a bit of research and honestly endeavored to insure that statements in the article were accurate and attributed to proper sources. You drew attention to this matter, but your preferred solution was rejected, and instead the article was improved to the state it is in now, which is undeniably better than it was a few days ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WPUCU1 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What?! This is blatant bias by administrator Beeblebrox.--Sktruth (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, if it was bias by me I would have just blocked you myself. Once again, I have initiated a discussion which you are free to participate in and which will lead to others making the final decision. By the way, you are logged in under your old username still, as can be seen from your signature and the page's edit history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is precisely correct - at every step along the way, realizing they were "involved" with you, they have left it to others to perform whatever admin functions have been necessary. All they have done is present evidence and file reports in appropriate venues. And for my money, you've gotten off easily so far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block

When I unblocked you three days ago, I told you to take things gently and to understand that you could not expect to have everything your own way. The article was indeed unsatisfactory and has been much improved as a result of your intervention, but your evident conflict of interest and emotional involvement has again led you into quite unacceptable conduct such as sockpuppetry and personal attacks. Your latest, checkuser-confirmed, sockpuppet is the last straw, and I have extended your block to indefinite. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)