User talk:PresidentistVB

Punch

(N.B. This is a copy of a conversation posted on a talk page elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is being reposted here for the sake of posterity and future reference.)PresidentistVB (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been bending over backwards to work with you on this article but you ignore everything to have your preferred view. Wikipedia is about collaboration to achieve a NPOV, not for expressing your personal views on a subject to the exclusion of everyone else's. As I said earlier, you can not delete the word "effectively" without supplying a source for the claim "most historians." Contrary to your claim that he didn't, in his book, Toppin does say "in effect" which supports use of the word and it does convey what historians believe. Toppin is clear on what he meant by "in effect" because he says that slavery was likely a custom but not legal. Wayne (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You have our roles reversed. I'm the one who's been accommodating you, but you're the one who's trying to pretend that Punch wasn't a slave despite the various sources I've listed that say he was. You've repeatedly tried to insert irrelevant information and framed it to try and support your assertion that Punch was never a slave but remained an indentured servant. You have provided NO SOURCE supporting this position and instead have been violating WP:OR and WP:POV to misrepresent sources and muddle the article. Here's some examples:

[1]

Let's start with "however, slavery was at that time not recognized under common law, indentured servitude was not slavery and laws protected rights that slaves did not have." This addition you made has ZERO relevance to Punch or the point the paragraph is trying to establish. The source you use doesn't even reference Punch. This article is about John Punch, not the difference between indentured servants and slaves. You clearly included this information to try and frame John Punch as an indentured servant and not a slave, which your source doesn't proclaim. It's irrelevant to the fact that John Punch is considered a slave among historians and is a clear violation of WP:POV to include it. You also started the sentence with "however" as if this was a contradiction or clarification to the statement historians made, and it's clearly not, it's not even relevant to whether Punch was considered a slave or not.

Also you added the word "claim" which is discouraged by WP:POV because it's a loaded word and you're trying to inject doubt in something that is presented as fact.

In this same edit you completely deleted a direct quote from Russell because it didn't suite your personal view. The quote didn't misrepresent anything, it was truncated for relevance but still reflected that Russell believes Punch was a limited time servant(indentured servant) that was sentenced to slavery.

Then you added "John Henderson Russell points out that if Punch was not an indentured servant, his punishment was less severe than that "inflicted on the white men." The severity of the punishment has no bearing or relevance to the point of the paragraph. If you wanted to create a separate paragraph to address the severity of the sentencing, then that's fine, but this doesn't belong in this paragraph or the dissenting paragraph because it has no relevance. I also want to add, Russell was saying that it was possible that Punch was already a life long slave before the court case and that's the reason why his punishment would be less harsh than his white counterparts, because it's possible he was already a slave since there was no mention of an indenture. He ultimately says that it's most reasonable that Punch was a limited time servant sentenced to slavery because it wouldn't make sense to sentence a person who's already a slave to life long slavery. In your obsession to instill confusion with irrelevant content, you obviously failed to realize that Russell's sentiment contradicts your opinion on both fronts.

[2]

Here you try and include the word "effectively" which is again, a violation of WP:OR and WP:POV. None of the sources or quotes say "effectively". First, "in effect" does not have the same connotation that "effectively" has. "in effect" has denotative meaning of "as a result of" not that he was almost a slave but not quite which is what "effectively" can infer. On top of that, most historians don't say he was "effectively" a slave. So for you to misrepresent something 1 historian said and pretend that most historians say that is also against WP:POV, despite it being WP:OR to begin with.

Your argument that "most historians agree" has to include "effectively" or else it requires a direct source, is wrong. First, "effectively" has no bearing whatsoever on the condition of the claim "most historians agree." It is simply an adverb for "ceased" and has nothing to do with "most historians agree." Even the most basic understanding of sentence structure would yield that comprehension. Secondly, per WP:OR it is our responsibility to include OR when representing majority and minority points of view. Look it up, under Neutral Point of View on the OR page. It says;

But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research.

So my inclusion of "most historians agree" is the result of my original research and is supported by listing sources as per WP:OR guidelines. Instead of just saying that historians say Punch was the first slave, I phrased to be all inclusive of the existence of minority points of view. It's also important to note that there is only 1 credible dissenting point of view and it's not over whether or not Punch was a slave, but over whether he was an indentured servant before becoming a slave. You've yet to cite any position opposing the view that he became a slave.

[3]

Your next edit to the article was an atrocity for 2 reasons. The first being this inclusion "notes that while it was a "customary practice" by the 1630s for some negroes to have lifetime indentures," Again, this information has no relevance to the paragraph or to John Punch. This is not an article about the history of indentured servants and your adding this only muddles the paragraph and makes it incoherent. This is another attempt to try and imply that Punch was a lifetime indentured servant, though the source doesn't say that in any way shape or form.

The other problem with your edit was again, incoherence, irrelevance, and misinterpreted information. "While John Henderson Russell points out that if Punch was not an indentured servant, his punishment was less severe than that "inflicted on the white men," supporting that it was most likely that Punch was an indentured servant sentenced to slavery," The first problem with your addition is that you now have 2 back to back sentences that start with "While" which makes no sense. "While" is generally used to contradict a previous sentence or statement and it makes no sense to have two sentences both starting with "while". The next problem is relevance, which I already explained. The third problem is that "his punishment was less severe than that 'inflicted on the white men,'" does not support his belief that it was most likely that Punch was a lifetime indentured servant. It is the opposite possibility that he was a limited term servant whose punishment was MORE severe that supports his belief that Punch was an indentured servant sentenced to slavery. What you wrote was a jumbled mess that completely misrepresented what Russell wrote, which is why I paraphrased the entire section for you in the following edit. Russell wasn't refuting anything or "countering" anything. He was just expressing that it was possible Punch might not have been an indentured servant but a life long slave before the court case, but digresses and explains that it's most reasonable that he was an indentured servant that was sentenced to slavery. Regardless of your misunderstanding of what Russell was saying about the court case not distinguishing an indentured contract for Punch, he confirms that Punch was sentenced to slavery in 1640. His book does not contest that Punch was sentenced to slavery.

[4]

I already explained how Russell didn't have a dissenting opinion. Recognizing something as a possibility, doesn't mean you're endorsing it, and he actually verifies that he doesn't endorse that possibility and that his views fall more in line with other historians that punch was a limited time servant(indentured) sentenced to slavery. Your edit is a joke because you noted that your correction was to reduce repetition, but in actuality you copy and pasted the last 3-4 lines of the previous paragraph into the following paragraph, thus adding more repetition. Now, maybe you just forgot to delete the information you copied, but it still shows a disregard for maintaining the integrity of the article and shows a willing haste-fullness to just edit the article to suit your narrative.

[5]

Nope, even in your most recent change you intentionally violated WP:POV by wrongfully paraphrasing what Russell said to fit your own narrative. I directly quoted Russell, and Russell said "slavery for life." You intentionally changed this to "servitude for life," which goes beyond WP:POV and becomes vandalism. It's not a good faith effort when you take an actual quote then change the wording to fit your narrative. Previously you were intentionally deleting this quote, and now you sought to change what Russell said. The purpose of this paragraph is to describe how historians consider John Punch a slave. Russell directly says that Punch was sentenced to "slavery for life" which is why it's included in this paragraph. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not collaborating and being intent on expressing my point of view when you're the one who intentionally changes and misrepresents sources to try and validate yours. I'm not presenting my point of view, I'm presenting facts as directly verified by sources. Something you have not yet been able to do for your claim, going on 3 weeks now.

In fact, my edits have made plenty of accommodations for information you insist on being included, even though it's not relevant to Punch or to the point of the paragraph you tried to include it in. I didn't ignore anything you've tried to include, I directly explained every revision I made, thus recognizing your edits and explaining how they were wrong or unjustified. For you to claim that I'm ignoring everything is fallacious and is a downright lie. You haven't submitted anything...ANYTHING that actually contradicts the information I've included in the article. The only dissenting opinion is Dr. Jeffery and I'm the one that added that information. Still, even he doesn't share your sentiment that Punch wasn't a slave, he just doesn't believe that Punch was an indentured servant before becoming a slave, which again, contradicts your position. Also, your interpretation of what Toppin's "in effect" means is wrong. He does believe that slavery was a custom but then also acknowledges that it was legally sanctioned when Punch was sentenced to slavery. That's the point of his mentioning the case, that as a result of this ruling Punch became a slave. The fact that a court made the determination, means that it was legal and as far as court documents show, this is the first case legally recognizing slavery.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to go back to school. They both have almost the same meaning and the word actually adds support to much of your text.
"In Effect" ▸adverb: in actuality or reality or fact.
"Effectively" ▸adverb: in actuality or reality or fact. Used for saying what the situation really is, although its appearance or official description might be different.
"So my inclusion of "most historians agree" is the result of my original research." The WP policy is talking about the OR of the academic source, not your own OR.
"I directly quoted Russell, and Russell said "slavery for life." You intentionally changed this to "servitude for life," which goes beyond WP:POV and becomes vandalism. It's not a good faith effort when you take an actual quote then change the wording to fit your narrative." We have no idea what Russell meant by "slavery for life" so context is required. He was quoting the court case which actually said "serve for life" so the paraphrased sentence is more NPOV by leaving it to the reader to interpret.
"That's the point of his mentioning the case, that as a result of this ruling Punch became a slave. The fact that a court made the determination, means that it was legal and as far as court documents show, this is the first case legally recognizing slavery." The courts determination was legal but it NEVER mentioned slavery so without context it's dishonest to claim that the court determined Punch was a slave or that it recognized slavery. The most you can say is that the court recognized "servitude for life". Wayne (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Effectively still has a connotation associated with it and the opinions of the multiple historians DO NOT reflect that connotation. To pretend that most historians say "effectively" is against WP:POV. On top of that, "effect" "in effect" and "effectively" all have multiple meanings which is why I did additional research to discover what Toppin actually feels. As I've already proved, he says the Punch was sentenced to slavery and that this is the first case we know of including slavery in Virginia. It's also clear you need to work on your reading comprehension.

WP:OR says "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." This is saying that EDITORS EDITORS EDITORS are the ones who provide context for the "point of view" of the authors they cite. Editors establish this context by identifying and describing how prevalent the position is and whether it's held by the majority or the minority. It is specifically saying that editors get to include OR when describing opinions as a majority view which is what "most historians agree" is, it's providing context for how prevalent the belief is that Punch was sentenced to slavery.

We know exactly what Russell meant and I included the context in the article. I already explained that Russell was describing how John Punch most reasonably was reduced from his limited time servitude to slavery for life. He uses the word "slavery" and defining what "slave" means is not relevant to the article about John Punch. He wasn't quoting the court case because he did that in a previous sentence. This sentence was his opinion on what the court case meant, and he believes it meant that Punch was sentenced to slavery for life. You just admitted to changing or misrepresenting what a historian/source said because you think their opinion is biased. That's you inflicting your own point of view and OR into the article, instead of letting the sources and quotes speak for themselves. That is a violation of WP:POV and WP:OR and now that you've admitted to intentionally doing it, continued behavior would violate wikipedia's policies against vandalism. The reader can interpret the court case however they want but this doesn't explain the importance of the case or the context of the case. That's why we include material from reliable sources to give this context and explain the importance. You are intentionally trying to undermine what historians say because it conflicts with your personal point of view. My entire last post gave specific examples of you doing this.

It would be dishonest if I was interpreting the court decision myself as "slavery" and tried to write the article based on my interpretation. That would be considered a violation of WP:OR. However, I'm not interpreting the decision, historians are the ones who have interpreted the decision and their books on the subject are what give the case context. So you essentially just called all of the authors and historians "dishonest" and your actions have clearly demonstrated a disregard for what reliable sources have said in favor of your own opinion which is a violation of WP:POV. I also want to point out your hypocrisy. Your more than willing to call Casor a slave though his court case doesn't say ANYTHING about slavery. It said "I have thee negro for his life" or something to that effect. So this argument of yours is intellectually dishonest and inherently contradicts your assertion that Casor was a slave. Ultimately, I can say "slave" and "slavery for life" because that's exactly what the sources say. For you to disregard what sources say so you can keep your own narrative is in violation of WP:POV.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of you are behaving professionally. Neither of you are objective. That said, I am choosing sides. I always fight, right or wrong, for the underdog. Fortunately, though he's unable even to scratch the surface of the skull encasing a single-minded brain, he is more correct in his assessments, and he is not a hypocrite, like his opponent. (I can cite where I have already proved it to be true elsewhere on this talk page.) PresidentistVB (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Scoobydunk (talk) I would have had no idea what you were talking about, had you not acted so paranoiacally defensive. I undid your edit in the history, so I wouldn't have to see that "reason." It's undeserved. I thought the person who commented sounded like you... I cannot be accused of outing someone on a page which isn't WP. I was trying to assist you with possible other sources... the guy, I thought, should be on your team (as I said). Feel free to replace the delete but without all the drama as a reason. I've done nothing wrong. And how savvy can you possibly think I am with this technostuff? Who ARE you? And why are you so paranoid? I've been nothing but honest with you. Sheesh, PresidentistVB (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'll undo my own undo, if I can. If you can... find a way to delete that comment. PresidentistVB (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• To Wayne (talk) and Neil P. Quinn (talk) with cc to Huon (talk): Will one of you please talk some calming sense into Scoobydunk. His online personality is disconcerting, and I don't want it to become worrisome. Thank you. PresidentistVB (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

PresidentistVB, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi PresidentistVB! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

John Punch &c.

PresidentistVB, let me jot down a few thoughts here. If you want to reply, you can just do it here—typing [[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] like you've been doing works perfectly to get my attention.

• Scoobydunk, it's deeply unfair to imply Presidentist vandalized anything. A vandal trashes Wikipedia for the sheer pleasure of it; Presidentist genuinely want to fix what he sees as inaccuracies. He may be mistaken, but he's certainly not a vandal.
• Presidentist, I notice you've been referring to policy pages by typing, for example, {{WP:DNIV}}. The curly braces mean it actually copies over the entire policy page; it doesn't do any harm but it's a bit confusing to read so it's better just to link by using brackets: [[WP:DNIV]]. That produces: WP:DNIV.
• I also saw that you found the idea that Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth deeply disturbing. I can totally understand why it sounds so crazy, but there's a very good reason for it. Imagine that I edit Punch's article to say that he was branded with a hot iron after his sentencing, and that I know this because I personally discovered a 17th century document saying so. You don't believe me. Am I lying about having such a document? If there really is a document, is it fake? If it's real, am I interpreting it correctly? I reassure you that it's real and says what I think it says, but why would you believe me? I'm just some random guy on Wikipedia. I say I'm a history professor, but how do you know I'm telling the truth about that? You don't trust me, and you don't know how you would when you've never even met me. But the reliable sources policy means you can ask me to produce references to published history books and papers, so you don't have to trust me or my interpretations of 17th century documents I may or may not have the training to understand. That's the only reason people trust Wikipedia—because they feel confident they're getting the interpretations of Tom Costa and John Donoghue, not Neil P. Quinn, Scoobydunk, or Presidentist.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To Neil P. Quinn with cc to Wayne: Are you referring to the same John Donoghue who wrote Fire Under the Ashes and the following?

Although race always defined the line between temporary and lifelong bondage in the colonial period, race did not always define the line between slavery and freedom. In fact, up until the mid-seventeenth century in the Caribbean and for the better part of the seventeenth century in the Chesapeake, most people reduced to chattel servitude entered the condition due to their sheer vulnerability to enslavement, not by virtue of their race, which in the modern meaning of the term did not yet exist. The vulnerability of these people to “indentured servitude,” or “bond slavery” as contemporaries also called the condition, existed as a function of their impoverishment.

PresidentistVB (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source

Just to repeat what I said on IRC: Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. The reason is that Wikipedia is user-submitted content without any meaningful editorial oversight. Believing something contentious merely because it's on Wikipedia is not a good idea. Rather, Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources - if some statement is doubtful, you should check the sources and try to verify the statement in that way. Huon (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon (talk). I sent the link you provided in the chat, WP:WINARS, to our Genealogist General, noting "when I'm wrong..." Best regards, PresidentistVB (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by owner:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment has been successfully removed by page owner:Dr. Matt (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What to do...

@Electric Wombat: , @HelenOnline:,hilite @Bgwhite:, below  @Donner60: to, @Seraphimblade:,see @LFaraone:, content @Irongargoyle: 

am looking for an admin who is able to look over article-related issues re. historical figures and events...

having NPOV issues, edit warring, etc. problems with a strong-arming editor i fondly refer to as the pit bull... ha!....

anyone know anyone who can peek in and then surreptitiously advise me on what to do?

I may be making some headway, but it's only because I am having to fight fire with fire... and I don't like it

Thanks in advance!

Matt.Dr. Matt (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

This edit is entirely inappropriate and only serves to perpetuate a battlefield mentality. That kind of negatively charged comment only makes the problem worse. Please don't repeat that behavior. I've read some of your comments and I know you're fully capable of editing in a collaborative manner. Ishdarian 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did not come to WP expecting to find a battlefield. It exists. I appreciate the fact that you realize it. Your use of the word "perpetuate" is correct in the sense that it implies a previous existence; incorrect in the sense that it is my desire to promote or, even, countenance it. I sought advice and counsel. Instead, I was reprimanded like a teacher to a third-grade child. Your comment, to that extent, is not helpful to my situation. Thank you, nonetheless. Dr. Matt (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your missive should have been directed to Scoobydunk, with whom one cannot "collaborate." Dr. Matt (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for calling others "owls","birds of prey" (which violate WP:NPA), plus ownership and battleground behaviour and legal threats thrown into the mix - although I believe this should be indefinite, perhaps you'll take the opportunity to read the policies you agreed to when you signed up for this private website. Start at WP:5P and click every link. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   the panda ₯’ 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda:

Courtesy message to those whom I wish to acknowledge as model Admins; some good (TenofAllTrades); some not (Panda)... yet, and speak with for the report... I guess that will be in 60 hours or so... I wish someone like @TenOfAllTrades: would take the time to do their due diligence and see what it is I am doing for WMF... I am not wound up. I am 2 hours late on my report to corporate OUR CORPORATE! Read below, please and research if you mut. I restored the block because he added depth to the report, but that didn't help this situation one bit. - Thanks. Dr.

---

Original Message --------

Subject: Am working on a project for Sue Gardner/Stewards and Advisory Board Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:14:21 -0400 From: Matt <hogident@cox.net> To: wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org CC: Matt H <hogident@cox.net>

I've been in communication with them all and was completing an email to Jimmy Wales re the report (it is about, ironically Admin abuse of power, the culture within, and the source of the attrition issues facing WMF for the past 3 years). In short THEY (formerly YOU) set an example of bullying behavior. That's not important. . Part of the research process requires me to invoke the best and worst behavior in order to have data for the study. DangerousPanda just blocked me for 60 hours and I have been keeping Sue, Jimmy, the Stewards and Oversight up to date... I had a report due into them over 90 mins ago. What am I going to do now? HELP! Thanks Dr. Matt Hogendobler Dr. Matt (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC) User:PresidentistVB

P. S. He's bragging about it in the Admin noticeboards group. Fortunately for him, there's another admin with some sense to share with him. This is perfect data! But I am still in jail and I don't dare call Sue on a Sunday.

• He cannot; he's been blocked (by me) for a whole whackload of reasons that are painfully obvious to all the panda ₯’ 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

...and he's removed his block notice. I'll let someone else take care of that the panda ₯’ 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Er, lest there be any confusion or misunderstanding, blocked users are free to remove block notices from their own talk pages. There is no requirement that they wear a scarlet letter for the duration of their block, so for the moment there is nothing to "take care of". Encouraging someone else to go to his talk page and replace the block notice is just poking the bear. (And it's pretty obvious that this particular editor is already more than sufficiently wound up....)

A problem only arises if a blocked editor removes notices related to his or her block and then requests unblocking—the concern in such a situation is that an editor may be attempting to conceal or mislead regarding the reasons for their block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

---

To be clear, PresidentistVB, I do not endorse or approve of the way you have behaved. Nor do I disagree with the block placed by DangerousPanda. My sole quibble with DangerousPanda was over what amounts to a bureaucratic question.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but the way that you're going about it isn't in any way helpful. Conducting (or claiming to be conducting) unsanctioned, deliberately-provocative breaching experiments – "Part of the research process requires me to invoke the best and worst behavior in order to have data for the study" – is entirely unwelcome, utterly inappropriate, and likely to get you blocked indefinitely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --_nonsense ferret 09:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Tread carefully and be certain you read the references correctly. It's a long history crammed into a month. (Also read the exchanges between the user and WLRoss who has already complained about personal attacks.) I don't usu run to mommy, even if she is on my side (or, as the case may be, in my pocket). Monkey Two (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

60 Hours a Slave (and Counting)

Email to DangerousPanda (Incls. Answer to Nonsenseferret's Question)

According to https://tools.wmflabs.org/amdb/ your last action occurred about 1.8 hours ago. Pursuant to WP's guidance for admins, I wish to state that in no uncertain terms should you or anyone else have defaulted to a perception that I am harassing any user, nor, for that matter have any of my actions, except as required according to WP:IAR, to protect my civil/constitutional rights in a section (which is not in any way an enitre "article" subject to the definition of WP:OWN), which was created using my own User identification and according to WP policy, as the title on an article page, which specifically states may not include content of potential cases of defamation or libel, but which, by inferred existence (and as manifested thereon), begs and forgives defamatory and libelous information, been personal attacks. Yes, I assumed control of the section which was created without reason other than to say I was guilty of personal attacks for calling other users "monkeys,' and administrators "birds of prey." According to WP:WIAPA (What is considered to be a personal attack?) , “There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:” In response to the specific allegations, "monkey" and "birds of prey" merely identify characteristics of behavior; all of which are documented as evidence in the related revision histories and, in both cases when references were initially made, at the time of the initial reference. They are not even listed in the indicators/examples of personal attacks, which, as certain as you seemed to be, makes the omission of their identification as examples, almost unbelievable! Re. harassment and your having cited legal threats: WP:NPLT “Handling: users should seek to clarify the user's intention (if unclear), explain this policy, and ask if they are willing to withdraw the threat. This helps to ensure that a mere misunderstanding or ignorance of our policies is not involved. Even if comments may not be per se legal threats, they may still fall under the scope of other policies related to disruption or incivility.”... It is important for me to note that Nonsenseferret followed protocol and asked me to clarify the intention of the statement. Unfortunately, before I was able to respond with an answer, you, DangerousPanda, blocked me, leading other users, like JzG, who also failed to research the documented historical content which clearly revealed all content to be research for a report being prepared to address Wikimedia Foundation’s recurring concerns of attrition and stagnant new user matriculations, to perceive, as if a consensus may be forming, that I am threatening legal action. “Evidence” as used in the queried section and queried by Nonsenseferret refers specifically to any data which I collected up to that point, and which could have been or may be used in that report. While you may have listed yourself as an admin willing to block in a difficult block user case, you were not, as an admin, harassed, and neither were any others. In my mind, considering the content of your email, you fully qualify as a "difficult block" admin, but I am not clear how, in my case, I qualified to be blocked. Beginning with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harrassment#Dealing_with_harassment and to the end of the article, it seems I am being compared to someone who actually threatened legal action, violence or outing. (Thanks for that.) [One could consider that defamatory, in and of itself.] Needless to say, considering the circumstances resulting in the creation of a section entitled PresidentistVB, which encourages disparaging remarks about me and my behavior, supported by the actions of WP admins, it is important to note that, although my efforts were to protect WMF and other users from becoming a party to the possible violations of federal criminal and/or civil laws; as advised: http://medianqes.onlineview.it/i.ashx?mid=89899276&mt=Photo (from Wikipedia's Terms of Use policy), considering an advisory warning which more aptly applies, like http://medianqes.onlineview.it/i.ashx?mid=89922340&mt=Photo, your "difficult" decision to block me effectively deprived me of my civil rights to control (or, yes, "own" the control of) content appearing in a section of an article specifically inviting critical and disparaging commentary from other users (which I perceive as an invitation by a Wikipedia administrator to appear in a section of an article endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation and post comments about the topic without defaming or libeling another user). The section itself appears to break WMF policies, even though it was created in compliance with WP policy. But there's no requirement that other users incriminate themselves, even if WMF does. So, to quote from a recent email, which I should also state I appreciated, "So, rethink you assumptions and rethink your ‎statements, then rethink your actions." -- This email was modified for publication as sent by user "PresidentistVB" on the English Wikipedia to user "DangerousPanda". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

Additional Users Summonsed: Sue_Gardner, Jimbo_Wales, TenOfAllTrades, Scoobydunk PresidentistVB (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)PresidentistVB (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)PresidentistVB (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)PresidentistVB (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)