Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cleo123

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC).

Cleo123 (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

User:Cleo123 is a disruptive, incivil editor who consistently (possibly intentionally) misinterprets WP:CIVIL, WP:LIBEL, WP:CHILD among other policies and use them as a weapon/sophistic reason to revert other's. When users contact him with these concerns, Cleo123 generally responds in an uncivil, condescending manner that amount to thinly-disguised personal attacks, all while showing little interest in building WP:CONSENSUS or mediation.

Desired outcome

I would like to see the user learn to converse/disagree with other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner.

I would like to see the user stop reverting other editor's legit changes using misinterpretations WP:BLP as a shield, (perhaps someone from the wiki biography project would be willing to adopt him/take him under their wings to better understand WP:BLP)?

I would like to see the user show more remorse for his behavior, and understand wikipedia is WP:NOT a battleground.

If his conduct does not improve, move on to community sanctions.

Description

The main thing I wonder about User:Cleo123 is: is this editor on wikipedia primarily to be on a power trip by going around reverting people edits and conversing with others in condescending, uncivil tones of voices--often laced with accusations that others are committing WP:LIBEL--while citing WP:BLP as sophistry? Or, in the spirit of WP:AGF, does Cleo123 just suffer from a misinterpretation of these policies and guidelines?

Cleo123's editing history is thin on content contributions but rife with conflict. He seldom makes additions to articles or performs copyedits, but rather seems to primarily focus on revert things he deems are "negative" and hence supposedly violates WP:BLP, no matter how notable or how well-sourced.

Administrators have explained his wrongful interpretations of WP:BLP to him, see e.g. here where Tyrenius stated plainly: "You have a basic misunderstanding if you think it is up to wiki editors to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of statements." Also see the current ANI board section titled "Abuse of BLP":. However, Cleo123 often reacts to all comments considering his mis-interpretations of WP:BLP with combative defensiveness, and goes on ad hominem personal attacks and lengthy diatribes accusing others of not understanding BLP. (see previous link as well as section "Steve Windom" from BLP Noticeboard here )

It appears once someone disagrees with Cleo123--no matter how civilly as User:Ottava Rima did here--Cleo123 seems to interpret it as an act of war. There's no seeking consensus with him (twice after the medcab had to step in in one content dispute, he tried to discredit and mock the mediators [1] [2] after the conclusions went against him) but one can only expect either a condescending response such as here, or vitriolic diatribes and personal attacks such as here against User:Netscott [3], and this one against User:John Carter (which he has reposted numerous times as if he thinks this is something to be proud of).

Cleo123 also often engages in false accusations/insinuations of sockpuppetry. Personally, I have suspicions he doesn't even believe those accusations himself, but perhaps just want to be 1) on the attack b/c to him wiki is a battleground and 2) thinks it'll make editors on the outside of the dispute think not as many people find his behavior objectionable? I want to refrain on conjecturing on the motives of others, but it's all too familiar with this editor:

Some examples:

implying john carter = User:Wikidas [4]

"Reminds me an awful lot of some very dirty business that went on during Bob Dylan/ Converts to Christianity dispute over a year ago. It's a pity for Mr. Carter that I have such a long and precise memory when it comes to clumsy and/or contrived dialogue."

That John Carter = User:Drumpler [5]

" Drumpler has not hesitated once to jump right into the frey. Indeed, his propensity for calls for sanctions and punishments against specific users is quite consistent with tactics previously employed by User:Warlordjohncarter. Do my eyes deceive me - or is the person who has repeatedly attempted to adjust my talk page comments in the last 24 hours (much in the same manner that User:Warlordjohncarter has in the past) called me a vandal? "

that me = User:Ottava Rima [6]

after she twice vandalized my talk page [7] and Ottava Rima's talk page [[8]]

"You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence!"

that me = User:Netscott [9]

"I find your fierce defense of Netscott and his record to be extremely curious. Apart from saving him from 3RR on the Richards' article and supporting some of his arguments, your contribution history doesn't indicate an extensive working relationship with the editor you are so vociferously defending. Your edit history does demonstrates an uncanny knowlege of Wikipedia from the very first edit. You are also apparently fond of the unusual phrase "alot of vitriol" which is also used by Netscott on the Michael Richards talk page."

Evidence of disputed behavior

In short, Cleo123

has an aggressive temper prone to incivility and escalation of conflicts (if he's not causing conflicts on purpose) an example,

another example that's also a good example of WP:BITE, another where the other party unfortunately became so infuriated to react with an infraction

likes to insult and incessantly accuse others of WP:HARASS, WP:LIBEL etc. Thus escalating conflicts by forcing others to respond to defend themselves [10], [11], [12]...all while portraying himself as a victim if someone responds in kind, and accuse others of incivility [13]

does not understand/has a tendency to misinterpret policies, esp WP:BLP but refuses to change in spite of numerous attempts by other editors and administrators to alert him of his misinterpretations, see [14], [15], [16], not infrequently responds with insults [17]

intentionally misrepresents facts and other's words, see one mediator's conclusion: [18]
"Everyone has been rude, but these two (Cleo123 and his tag-team editing tandem User:Bus_stop, since indef banned) have shirked all attempts at coming to a compromise, twisted other users' words in very obvious ways, and been outwardly rude to everyone else involved. It would be ridiculous to continue this any longer"
. Here's Cleo123's latest attempt trying to claim I wanted to edit into Michael Richards that Richards was a racist. [19] I invite everyone to peruse my editing history to find anything that even remotely resembles this false accusation.

makes little real contribution to articles--vast, vast majority all his edits seem to be engaging in fights and content disputes with other editors. The rest are random reverts due to supposed BLP infractions that contradicts policy, e.g. [20]

While Cleo123 seems to have a tendency to accuse people of jumping into articles to pick a fight with him (everyone else is saying, "him;" although I had presumed otherwise from the name, I will follow convention), he cannot claim that I had any interaction with him, before his involvement in the Steve Windom article. Admin Luna Santin had posed a question here that raised a question about whether certain incidents in the subject's life were sufficiently important to include in the article. To answer that inquiry, I did a quick archive search of the three principal newspapers in the subject's home state, and related the article count here and here. In his comment to this, here and elsewhere, he has repeatedly referred to this as my "cyberstalking" of the subject of the article. This is actually a common tool taught to college freshmen to survey the level of interest in a topic. Leaving aside, the WP:CIVIL aspect of the comment, on reflection, he has accused me, albeit without basis, of conduct that might be considered criminal in some jurisdictions. To what extent this is a WP:NLT issue, I will let others decide, but note that Cleo123 did say, here, "I doubt that you will be allowed to laugh in the shadows of cyberspace for very long. In the cold hard light of day, how might your professional reputation be affected by your conduct here? Now there is something worth spending a weekend ruminating upon.... "
I also note that, in this article, much of the edit dispute has been about a legal case in which A was criminally charged for instigating defamatory statements about the article's subject. Short version, A was tried and convicted (facts I had written in), but the conviction was reversed on appeal, and his jury forewoman made a public statement disparaging her own guilty verdict (which I had also written in, citing the largest daily newspaper in the state). The full version of my last edit is here. Cleo123, citing WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, edited out the appeal and the juror statement. He did so, inserting as the paragraph's source a brief note of the conviction from The New York Times, and a private website of a political group supportive of the article's subject - which predate the later developments, which he leaves completely out of the article. It's hard to begin counting the Wikipedia policies Cleo123 violates here. WP:SOURCES, WP:BLP, and WP:QS (the latter as to the partisan website). More importantly, although Cleo123 has, on more occasions that I care to link, referred to my edits as "defamtory" without offering an explanation of how or why, he has created a version that is arguably defamatory of A. A is referred to in the present text as "convicted," without the article giving him the benefit of whatever exoneration his successful appeal offers. If the disputed history of the article has a real WP:LIBEL concern, it is Cleo123 who created it. Audemus Defendere (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:CHILD

WP:RS and WP:V

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

By User:Audemus Defendere, met with insult: [21]

By User:Ottava Rima, met with condescension: [22]

By User:John Carter, met with taunts (he purposefully tried to mimic John Carter's style of writing from Carter's talk page) [23]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

[24]

[25]

[26]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Tendancer (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC) - Most recent single instance of content causing discussion is the Steve Windom article, which can be seen on the article's talk page, as well as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cleo123 and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Cleo123.[reply]
Audemus Defendere (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Comment I think the personal attacks, lack of good faith and incivility are quite clear from diffs above and beyond those. --neon white talk 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--neon white talk 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Cleo123 focus on other matters than BLPs

1) Cleo123's problematic behavior seems to primarily involve articles which that editor does not develop, but rather articles which that editor comes to for BLP concerns. As has been stated, Cleo123's grasp of BLP policy, as well as some others, seems at best dubious. Suggest editor refrain from directly engaging in matters related to BLP policy, and instead place notification of any such concerns that editor might have on the BLP Noticeboard. The editor's time might be better spent in creating and or expanding other articles, rather than seeking to address policy concerns.

Comment by parties:

Proposed. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Seems a good idea but what about the civility and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and the lack of respect for dispute resolution and mediation?

Have same concern as User:Neon_white above. Judging from his edit history it almost appears Cleo123 is on Wikipedia more for conflicts than for the editing, and the few edits are generally to provoke a response so he can respond incivilly. Disruption on talk pages is still disruption. This user has also been prone to WP:GAME'ing the system. Right now for instance this is AFAIK at least the 3rd time he laid low once someone informed him action (AN or RFC) would be brought against him for his conduct, rest assured he'll come back again crying victim, and claiming he was victimized and took a wiki break to avoid harassment and conflict etc as he did twice before. If we ask him to focus on the BLP noticeboard, I think what'll happen is he'll venture there, accuse other editors of "WP:LIBEL"! as usual, and once challenged cry harassment again, and now stating folks form the RFC badgered him into placing notifications on the BLP noticeboard so what's the problem.

In short, I think the chief issue with User:Cleo123 is (intentional) incivility. Definitely for him to learn about WP:BLP properly would be a good start...but I can't help but suspect Cleo123 will find another made-up interpretation of another policy to harass other editors with--as he already did with WP:CHILD [27]--lest the civility problem is addressed first. Tendancer (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i like to assume good faith, from what i have read i cannot believe that this is simply a misunderstanding of policy but intentional misuse and misinterpreation of policy. --neon white talk 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo123 is encouraged to seek a mentor

2) Several individuals have indicated, here and elsewhere, that Cleo123's grasp of policies and guidelines could stand significant improvement. Cleo123 is encouraged to enroll in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User program, which would allow Cleo123 the opportunity to seek more direct input in matters relating to policies, and guidelines.

Comment by parties:

Proposed. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Cleo123 will seek to improve his/her conduct

3) Cleo123 has more than once been advised that the conduct Cleo123 has displayed may be both direct violation of policy and guidelines and counterproductive. To date, however, the behavior has seemed to continue. Cleo123 is advised that the patience of the community is not infinite, and that continuing to engage in such conduct in the future may very well lead to some form of disciplinary sanctions.

Comment by parties:

John Carter (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Conclusion

User:Cleo123 has not edited since this RfC was filed July 10. Should this user come back, he will be encouraged to edit in a more civil manner, and is asked to refrain from editing BLPs due to BLP concerns. Rather, I ask Cleo use WP:BLP/N. Wizardman 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]