Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumbey

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC). This page was reverted by User:Mark, ~~without adequate explanation~~ upon request of User:Kc9cqj who was working on the RfC but requested reversion. I have now reverted it at: --SqueakBox 16:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC), and suggest the 48 hours start from now.

The RfC was properly certified but withdrawn by User:SqueakBox after a misunderstanding he and I had previous. Due to further issues surrounding the article, I have chosen to continue my investigation into the article on his behalf in hopes that this RfC will be resurrected. KC9CQJ 16:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Cumbey | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Constance Cumbey wrote a factual encyclopedia article on Javier Solana, most of which remains the basis of the existing article. The dispute arises due to the fact that Cumbey is an Internet (and published) author with an established interest in Javier Solana. A pseudonymous character named Squeakbox entered the fray with an established interest in promoting both Javier Solana and a former Ethiopian king as messiahs. He launched an internet attack on Cumbey and all others who did not share his belief that Haile Selassie was the Messiah.

Description

Cumbey is engaging in personal attacks on and off of the Wikipedia site, has been known to blank user and talk pages where discussion is taking place on fixing articles, within the Javier Solana article and related threads.

Several IP addresses are rumored to be attached to or involved in this dispute:

Special:contributions/68.31.252.69 - A single user which added content to Solana's Talk channel. Located in Reston, Virginia where Cumbey occasionally goes. She has signed from IP's located in this town.
Special:contributions/69.209.175.201 - Three edits on the Solana article, mostly background bio on mother. Is from Allen Park, Michigan, within the area where Cumbey lives and works.
Special:contributions/66.0.239.178 - Addition of some red text about '666' and biographical information on Solana's family. Comes from Alabama, and is not Cumbey. This IP address is being maintained for the benefit of outside administrators.
Special:contributions/68.31.251.196 - Cleaned up some punctuation in Cumbey's comments. Is from Reston, Virginia. Chances are, this is another editor.
Special:contributions/69.209.166.174 - Signed a comment as 'CEC'. Is from Allen Park, Michigan.
Special:contributions/68.61.150.80 - This IP address has prior been attributed to Cumbey. Is from nearby Rochester, Michigan.
Special:contributions/68.159.142.14 - Comment or talk comment signed as CEC. Is from Michigan state.
Special:contributions/65.148.140.210 - Single user comment, possibly Cumbey.Is from Victorville, California, and therefore is unlikely to be Cumbey.
Special:contributions/69.209.129.193 - Cumbey Statements to Solana Talk page. Is from Allen Park.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

[1]Shows Cumbey's off-site blog where SqueakBox and One Salient Oversight are named by username. Identical to her user page accusing SB and OSO of vandalism.
[2]Blanked this RfC entirely as shown as user 68.61.150.80.
[3]Deleted comment on Chris 73's userpage written by SqueakBox.
[4]Cumbey accuses SqueakBox and One Salient Oversight of vandalism .
[5]~~Cumbey~~ ~~An unknown user vandalizes SqueakBox's page to insult him by stating that Sqeakbox had "inpregnated" (sic) his dog.~~ This diff is being maintained for a separate action not involving Cumbey but related to the Solana article. KC9CQJ 12:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[6]Insertion of a link to SqueakBox's user page under a trivia heading .
[7]Blanking the Solana talk page .
[8] Blanks SqueakBox's comments off of her own talk page. The comment in question establishes Cumbey as anonymous IP user 68.61.150.80.
[9] Cumbey is warned of a 3rr violation by Chris 73.
[10] Cumbey inserts SqueakBox's real name into her talk page and SqueakBox removes it.
[11] - Cumbey copies and crossposts text between articles.
[12] - On April 12, 2005, Cumbey copies 'her' version of the Wikipedia article to her personal blog and fails to mention the GFDL or provide a link back to the current or working copy of the Solana article.
[13] Cumbey reverts a SqueakBox edit and states "Sorry! I got tired of reading SqueakBox's dumbed down version!"
[14] Reversion from One Salient Oversight's version back to her version.
[15] and [16] show Cumbey's move of the NPOV template 'in order to drive Google results higher' as stated in one of the comments.
[17] is evidence of removal of content without seeking to form consensus on the article's talk page.
Immediately below this section, makes a legal threat over a mistake in interpretation of diffs and disputed behavior and is banned for 24 hours.
[18] Comment to VfD space after the VfD had clearly been concluded and the article deleted.
[19] More defamation, trolling, and vandalism allegations against SqueakBox.
[20]Some "fabrications and lies" rhetoric common with the disputant.
[21] "Slanders and lies" rhetoric to this RfC.
[22] and [23] Continued editing of her own Wikipedia entry, what could be termed to be vanity and not permitted.
[24] Requests retractions and makes a statement about certified mail on Jimbo Wales' user page here.
[25] Cleared an addition speaking to her New Age research within the Constance Cumbey article.
[26]

Another slander allegation within this RfC.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Repeated violation of the No personal attacks policy, specifically through accusing SqueakBox of "defamation", "slander", and "lies".
Repeated violation of the Neutral Point of View policy, specifically by moving the NPOV template lower to boost Google hits.
Possible copyright violations.
Defnite violation of the No legal threats policy - see below.
Attempted blanking of this RfC which is vandalism.
Violation of the GFDL on her own personal blog, using the disputed Solana content from Wikipedia.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

One Salient Oversight has attempted to resolve the dispute by a post to Cumbey's blog here. After his/her comment to Cumbey's original comment regarding Wikipedia, OSO and SqueakBox were both mentioned in Cumbey's next blog comment.
In addition, One Salient Oversight attempted to solve the dispute here by attempting to reason with Cumbey.
SqueakBox requests mediation, a request that Cumbey has not replied to as of yet. Instead, she has requested assistance to seek a permanent ban against SqueakBox, see diff above.
One Salient Oversight creates Javier Solana Antichrist allegations after discussing the issue with others at Talk:Javier Solana. This was done because he was convinced that an article about the issue was needed on Wikipedia. The fact that this article could result in a de-escalation of the edit war was incidental. This article was deleted by VfD at a later time.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

~~SqueakBox 17:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)~~
One Salient Oversight 11:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

KC9CQJ 09:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Guettarda 13:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alai 05:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

BY CONSTANCE CUMBEY - The real statement of facts

I am indeed an internet and published author. I admit an interest in Javier Solana. I have researched him since November 22, 1995, the night I inadvertently discovered him while checking my email and reading AOL log on headlines after an attack of insomnia making the balance of the night worthless for desired sleep. I have been strictly factual in my reporting on Solana. There were people who did jump to the article and interjected biblical quotes. If you will check the history, you will see that it was me who went in and tried to restore the article to mainstream credibility and encyclopedic use. SqueakBox's approach has been to delete facts that some might find as prophetic fulfillment -- e.g., the initial Reuters report I read on Javier Solana, the night of November 22, 1995 pointed out both as to the signing of a Treaty of Association with Israel and the forthcoming Barcelona Conference to be held in that Spanish city on November 27-28, 2005, that Solana held powers of attorney from THE EUROPEAN UNION and "THE TEN NATION WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION, A MILITARY FEDERATION". SqueakBox who through his Rastafarian filters believes this may be a "ten horn" tip off as contained in Daniel and Revelation prophecies in all the Jewish and Christian Bibles of the world (as to Daniel ones) and all the Christian Bibles as to Revelation/Apocalypse ones, chose to initially delete both the Barcelona Conference and the Western European Union references.

He then chose to attribute all his flak from many varied internet sources to me. Incredibly he posted a long list of IP addresses (I think I have a total of 3 only: My home, my office, and my Sprint wireless card), attributing to me criticism coming to him from such places as Allen Park, Michigan (I think I may have been to this remote Detroit suburb maybe three times since moving here many years ago); Toronto, Ontario; Reston, Virginia, and so on and so forth.

Even more outrageously, he made links to legitimate research as "trivia." He did not like it one little bit when I turned the tables on him, labelling the same about his openly professed belief on his own web page that Haile Selassie is God Almighty himself! That is far more incredible than any thesis that Javier Solana could be a potential educated guess for the anti-Christ.

SqueakBox is, like all cowards, hiding under a pseudonym. He has chosen to stalk me all over the internet, including my own blog site. He would like nothing better than to force me to give up all my billable time as a lawyer to fight in this Mad Hatter situation here on Wikipedia (and by the way, now I am wondering if indeed the astrological symbols on the puzzle symbol portend what some have suggested to me -- Wicca!?). That is the reference from an IP address I have never heard of -- certainly not one of mine a "66" something making a statement on SqueakBox's site that his proudest accomplishment was 'impregnating his dog.'" That is nothing I would ever write nor condone. I suspect that SqueakBox used one is his many sockpuppets to put it there for him. It was not BY me NOR KNOWN TO ME NOR AUTHORIZED BY ME IN ANY WAYand I DEMAND its IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND RETRACTION! Furthermore as regards deleted pages -- when the entire page contained defamatory and personal comments about or allegedly by me, it is my understanding of Wikipedia policy that one is allowed to delete such material. Virtually any time I have written in my self-defense, that was deleted, but SqueakBox's and his apostate New Zealand friend's were allowed to stand. I am thoroughly disgusted with this and moreover I retain every editorial right to comment on the Wikipedia process elsewhere on the internet. As a shaper of the news, it is certainly NOT immune as being treated as newsworthy! Last I checked neither SqueakBox (and for that matter Jimbo) were allowed to shape at least American First Amendment privileges. Maybe that might go in the EU but at least for now, not in the USA and certainly not off site of the Wikipedia website!

CONSTANCE E. CUMBEY cumbey@gmail.com www.cumbey.blogspot.com

Cumbey's Response

Cumbey is a published author with an established interest in Javier Solana -- not in per se proving him to be the antichrist, but admittedly watching him as an underreported person of power. Nobody tried harder than Cumbey to stop vandalism to her encyclopedia contribution to the Javier Solana article. The article was repeatedly then chopped and vandalised by persons with an interest in advancing Javier Solana's domain. There were no bad Cumbey edits. The allegations against Cumbey have been unprovable and ridiculous, including imputation of a Reston, Virginia contribution to her. Constance Cumbey has so far never been to Reston, Virginia, and to the best of her knowledge knows nobody there. Constance Cumbey does not operate from Allen Park, Michigan, a suburb approximate 50 miles from her home and in a different Michigan county. The Detroit metropolitan area contains approximately 5 million living souls, so to ludicrity of imputing all Michigan contributions the Wikipedia crew does not like to her should be obvious! Cumbey has never signed from IP's located in Reston, Virginia. Another user pointed out that it was SqueakBox who started Cumbey's user page. Maybe it was SqueakBox who signed in from Reston, Virginia. It certainly was not user Cumbey. Cumbey 'apologizes' for her blogspot -- mea culpa -- but rejoices in the freedom of the internet to get out news not approved by would be Wikipedia censors. Wikipedia itself can be news and is fair game for reporting as such. Cumbey challenges the others to operate under their real names and identities as does she.

Constance Cumbey's statement was moved here from the top of this RfC to maintain readability. KC9CQJ 04:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC). Same with her second statement, unsigned but edited by Cumbey, SqueakBox 15:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Question

Constance, I have a question. I've just had a look under the HISTORY tab on your user page. Lo and behold, your user page appears to have been started by Squeakbox. That's mighty odd, to say the least. Squeakbox appears to have written your bio, which you have substantially kept. I consider unfounded accusations to be a form of personal attack, so I will not accuse you and Squeakbox of being sock puppets. But I do think a comment from you would be called for. Can you emphatically deny that you are his sockpuppet (or vice versa), and that the row between you isn't just a phoney edit war to attract attention? I don't want to believe it is, and I would like you to say in as many words that it isn't. Until you do, there are unanswered questions. David Cannon 15:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to confirm I am not User:Cumbey. She had put this statement on her talk page as 68.61.150.80. I moved it to her user page because I thought she had got her pages muddled up (which she had). Cumbey dislikes me because I removed her beast thesis from Javier Solana, so could not be in any circimstances be my sockpuppet. I am English, write in English and about England, write articles that prove my command of Spanish, have my photo on my User page, use a fixed Honduras IP address, etc. KC9CQJ has spoken to me, and will doubtless confirm I am English. Cumbey and I have an intense relationship, but as antagonists. --SqueakBox 15:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I think David's comments are the bizarrest yet to come out of this whole affair. If he would but have checked my Contribs he would see why. Can he please withdraw his comments, --SqueakBox 19:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

As I have a longer edit history than Cumbey, strictly it should be me who should be being accused of using Cumbey as a sockpuppet, an accusation I emphatically deny. --SqueakBox 19:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that, Squeakbox. It was 3.30am when I wrote that, and must have been half-asleep at the wheel. Your explanation makes sense to me, and without reservation I withdraw the allegation (although I meant it more as a question, not as an allegation). I should have checked your user contributions, but didn't think. I apologise. David Cannon 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted, --SqueakBox 22:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is more than bizarre. I am looking at user David Cannon who asked if I was a sock puppet for SqueakBox. I have not a doubt in the world that SqueakBox uses MANY sockpuppets, but I am not one nor would I be -- Squeakbox probably did start my user page -- I never started one - NOR DID I EVER AUTHORIZE HIM OR ANYBODY ELSE TO DO SO IN MY NAME! When I got to it, it was full of negative comments by SqueakBox. Although I am a seasoned writer and attorney, I do not specialize in Wikipedia law, nor do I intend to do so. Yes, I frustrated SqueakBox by starting my own blogspot and I'm well known enough in my own right that people have come there to read it. As noted on the Discarded Lies blogspot by what I suppose are English folks, SqueakBox has cost Wikipedia much in the way of credibility. He has slandered me all over the web in his quest to suppress any negative publicity for Javier Solana! CONSTANCE E. CUMBEY

I have already retracted my allegation that you might have been a sockpuppet of Squeakbox's. I regret raising that question, and I apologize to you as I did to him. David Cannon 20:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used a sockpuppet. I have to say while User:Davidcannon apologised for his behaviour, that his unfounded and unreasonable aggression towards me is one of the reasons I have backed off from the Rfc. An admin who misuses his power in that way is frightening. I have asked him to apologise to Cumbey as well, --SqueakBox 16:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Response to Cumbey's latest edit. If she signed in every time she edited there would be no issue with strange IP's. I sign in every time I edit, so nobody can impute strange IP anon's to me. Also I live in honduras, so the idea that I edit from Reston, where somone was editing from before I involved myself in the article, is badly thought out and illogical. Getting people to use their real names would be a policy issue. Cumbey has never once signed her name ~~~~, thoughy she has been here more than a year now. The idea that somehow others are editing anonymoiusly and hersself openly is contradicted by the facts, SqueakBox 15:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Request

Cumbey, I hope you accept Maisie's explanation here that I did not hack in to Wiki Global Elite, nor did anyone else. Can you please retract your statements to the effect that I did (eg at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Cumbey reply to 'SqueakBox' Allegations and anywhere else, --SqueakBox 03:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Request to close Rfc

User:Kc9cqj has asked both Cumbey and I, SqueakBox, to stop editing Javier Solana. Cumbey has not edited it for days. SqueakBox is doing many additional edits daily. There is no edit war occurring. Parmaestro is helping me out a bit, and that is all. That User:Kc9cqj asks me, and in practice me alone, to stop editing is not acceptable, and is, in my opinion, picking on me, and choosing to make an example of me over what has been happening with User:Cumbey. This is an Rfc for User:Cumbey not for User:SqueakBox. I have no interest in seeing this Rfc pursued and have crossed it out at Rfc. People are coming in and feeding on the process of Solana, with no interest in the content, and they are making things worse. I started this Rfc. right now I do not support it. The only place i am willing to negotiate with Cumbey, if she so wants, is Talk:Javier Solana or our respective talk pages. --SqueakBox 20:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Given the fact that my associate wishes to discontinue this RfC, I must also concur. However, I request that it remain in the record for future reference should it become necessary. As an aside, I apologize to SqueakBox for any misunderstandings or anger that I may have caused him through my request, which was designed only to give him some breathing room and with no malice intended. KC9CQJ 02:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my support of SqueakBox's request to close this RfC in light of new evidence of disputed behavior on part of the disputant. It is obvious to me that the only way that this article will meet proper criteria would be to continue this RfC. KC9CQJ 17:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy with SqueakBox discontinuing this RFC. I would rather the issue be dealt with properly and according to Wikipedia procedures. If this RFC fails to go the distance then it is a sign that Wikipedia is unable to self-regulate properly and therefore no longer a trustworthy source of information. I am not saying this in order to persecute Cumbey or be vengeful, but because I wish the matter to be dealt with objectively and transparently and without any bias. I wish that neutral investigators could examine all the evidence in detail and respond. That is all I want. I was hoping that SqueakBox would be able to follow this through. --One Salient Oversight 12:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above comment was cross-copied from the working copy page on my user talk space. KC9CQJ 16:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This seems to be overly antisocial behavior that is pretty bad. Though I agree that this kind of incivility must be frustrating, I would encourage everyone to stay a bit more calm about disputes like these. If methods and behavior are so obviously non-sensical, try to go easy on the editing, also try to be as civil as possible.

The alleged sock puppets seem to be agreeing with another quite well, though I don't have enough experience to know how solid the evidence is expected to be. Edits like this one certainly don't favor Constance's view of the matter. I Googled for other things written by her and found this at Antichrist watch. The mentioning of "ASSEMBLY RECOMMENDATION 666" followed by bible quotation in an article on Solana is especially interesting.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Peter Isotalo 22:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
— Rickyrab | Talk 06:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.