User talk:Captain Occam: Difference between revisions

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for repeated edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

.

{{unblock|I have literally no idea what recent actions from me this block is based on. I would like to address the block reason, but no specific examples of problematic behavior from me have been provided. I did not receive any warning about being reported for any of the behaviors that are listed as block reasons, as far as I know I haven't engaged in any behavior that warrants a block for the past several months, and I don't intend to do so in the future. I'm also listed as an involved party in the Race and intelligence arbitration case, and have been asked to submit my evidence there sometime within the next few days; being blocked for two weeks would prevent me from doing so. Could an administrator please review whether or not this block is necessary, as well as whether as an involved party in the arbitration case I should be prevented from participating in it?}}

I hope this was not the result of someone lobbying as I rather thought that with the article fully protected the past couple of days some progress was being sorted through at Race and intelligence. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that block was about, either; perhaps it's for some deleted comments? In any case; if you want to provide evidence in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, create a section on your talk page and someone will copy it over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• The following two comments were moved from my talkpage. Please continue discussion here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to clarify your unblock comment. Are you saying that I have permission to contribute to the Arbitration case, but not to edit any other pages?

I’m still not aware of having done anything recently to warrant this block, and no specific examples of problematic behavior from me have been provided. So while I appreciate your allowing me to participate in the Arbitration case, I still object to being disallowed from editing any other pages, if that’s indeed the decision you’re making. There’s been no community discussion about any problems with my recent behavior, or any recent reports about this at any of the administrators’ noticeboards. Can a single admin make a decision to ban a user from all but a small group of pages without any community discussion, and without any warning for the user affected about what behavior from him is a problem? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly right - I have lifted that block for the sole and express purpose of easing your participation at the arbitration pages. You are free to appeal this block through the normal channels, but please in the meantime restrict your edits to your own userspace and the case pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the "normal channels" at this stage? Since I'm no longer officially listed as blocked, I can't make use of the standard template to ask that my block be reviewed. I don’t know how one goes about appealing an unofficial block like the one you’re currently placing on me. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing unofficial about a conditional unblock; it would be unfair to you not to allow your participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, and unduly convoluted to do it by proxy. Hence, your account is unblocked for only those pages. Do you really not see how your participation over the last few days at Race and intelligence and its associated talkpage and FAQ has included edit warring and otherwise not being nice to and respectful of your fellow volunteer editors? In any case, I believe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the best venue at this stage if you wish to appeal. Obviously, the unblock conditions are relaxed to include your participation at that page or other appropriate venue of your choosing in a thread discussing whether you should be unconditionally unblocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really don’t. I’ve only reverted both the article and its FAQ twice during the past week, so I obviously haven’t violated 3RR on either of them, and other editors have reverted the article far more frequently during that time than I have. Whether you consider my behavior a problem or not, it’s definitely not worse than that of a lot of other editors who have recently been involved in the article, so I don’t understand your decision to single me out in particular. I also wasn’t aware that it’s normal to spontaneously block an editor without any warning or discussion about it.

What I mean when I say that this block is “unofficial” is that there aren’t any actual restrictions placed on my account; when I comment somewhere that you don’t want me to, you have to revert it manually. I’ll bring this up at AN/I if the feedback I get on Jimbo Wales’ talk page is that this is what I should do, but because of the way AN/I threads that have anything to do with these articles tend to degenerate into pissing contests, I think I’m unlikely to receive any useful response regardless of whether my block was justified or not. That’s why I decided it would be best to ask about this on Mr. Wales’ talk page first. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no software restrictions on your account; this is very different from there being no restrictions on your account. I agree with you that Appeals to Jimbo rarely work, but you are free to make your case there

I found Talk:Race and intelligence as part of an unrelated investigation of potential sock puppetry. I am not convinced that anything should be done in that case, but I saw that the page seemed to be clogged with disputes that were at best incidental to improving the article. You stood out as a primary locus for these disputes, and appear to have been amply warned. I assume that this has some bearing on the current ArbCom case, but will abstain from comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit is not covered by your conditional unblock. Please do not make any edits except to the abovementioned ArbCom case, your userspace, or an appeal to AN/I. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You’ve told me that I could appeal my block, and I know asking about it there is another way this can be done. I don’t think you’re following administrative norms here, and I need someone else’s opinion about this. If Mr. Wales agrees that my comment there isn’t acceptable, then he can remove it himself. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You wish to exercise your right of appeal on that page? Okay, I will put it back. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My history with Occam is only per my recent involvement at Race and intelligence, however, I have to say this is the first block I've seen that provides no diffs supporting the itemizing of disruptive actions. I assume actions at this article are the source of the block (unclear), and I have not seen disruptive behavior on the part of Occam. I don't see what purpose the block has; additionally, editors are attempting to get back to the article and away from the mediation angst, and discussing the mediation/consensus on article talk, so unblocking only for arbitration/meditation is not particularly useful. What have I missed? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As 2over0 has pointed out, I’ve appealed this block by bringing it up on Jimbo Wales’ talk page. It would be useful if editors who are disputing the validity of this block could offer their opinions about it there. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since 2/0 didn't consider it necessary to provide diffs, I have provided a couple at Jimbo's page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See my response there. You’ve demonstrated that I reverted a page twice in one day, and two other editors also did this around the same time. (Neither of whom has been blocked for it.) Two reverts per day is what I generally limit myself to. If this is what you think my block is based on, can you explain how two reverts in a day is grounds for a block? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert twice, and my edit was supported by consensus. You were also warned and your problematic behaviour pointed out several times by different editors. Verbal chat 22:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your two reverts are here and here. Also, unlike me, you refused to discuss your reverts on the talk page even when I was asking you to. It doesn’t matter whether you thought you were supported by consensus or not: when I was trying to get you to discuss your edits, you shouldn’t have just kept reverting while ignoring another editor’s attempt at discussion.

Really, I’m not particularly interested in trying to get you to understand this. Every time we’ve had a content dispute, regardless of what it’s been over or whether your behavior has been worse than mine, you’ve always “warned” me about it. If that’s what this block was over, it’s interesting and a little disappointing to see that an administrator would decide to take sides in this manner, and feel no need to justify their behavior to anyone else when they’re challenged about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The first of those two diffs is an edit, not a revert. These was a long discussion on the article talk page in which you were involved (mostly as WP:IDHT). My edit was backed by the consensus against the consensus you claimed, but that you showed yourself didn't exist. Every time we've had a dispute and you've followed through like this you've ended up blocked, and no one has complained about me. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion that you’re claiming proved that this consensus “didn’t exist” was between me and Arthur Rubin, who ended up agreeing with me about including this part of the FAQ in modified form, and who reverted Aprock’s edit the first time Aprock tried to remove it. For you to state that something agreed on by the only two users who were discussing it was “opposed by consensus” is a pretty absurd distortion of reality. You didn’t start participating in this discussion at all until after you’d already removed the content twice, and I pointed out that your reverting the article while refusing to discuss your edits was unreasonable. And even then, your responses made no attempt to address the policy-based points I was making, as I pointed out in my replies to you.

Please stop commenting here. What you’re doing is basically just gloating over the fact that I’ve been blocked, and implying that this proves you were right and I was wrong, even though almost every user who’s brought up 2over0’s block on his talk page has agreed that it wasn’t appropriate, and the blocking admin is either unwilling or unable to justify it there. The only thing that these comments from you prove is that you approve of sysops using their powers in a manner that they seemingly aren’t able to justify, if by doing so they support your side in a content dispute. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was correcting a mistake in what you wrote about me (2 reverts, which isn't true). I'm not here to gloat and that wasn't my intention, apologies if it appeared that way. I shan't comment here again unless you comment about me or to prevent disruption. Best, Verbal chat 09:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I said I didn't see anything recently that deserved a block. I didn't say that your actions in January–May didn't deserve a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was already blocked for a week in January for violating 3RR. I think I’ve learned my lesson about that; ever since then I’ve generally limited myself to two reverts per day.

Can you provide any diffs of specific edits I’ve made between then and May that you think deserved a ban? As David.Kane said in 2over0’s user talk, it isn’t helpful to simply state that you think my behavior on a particular article deserved a ban, or to make similarly non-specific accusations of “POV-pushing” or “disruptive editing”, because this doesn’t tell me anything about what specific things I ought to be doing differently. But requests for specific examples of problematic behavior from me invariably go unanswered, even when several users were requesting this from the admin who blocked me. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Captain Occam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Although there aren’t currently any software restrictions on my account, I’m still considered blocked and am disallowed from editing any pages that aren’t directly related to my block or to the Race and intelligence arbitration case, so an admin has suggested that I use the unblock template to appeal these sanctions. Prior to this block I was not warned that any of my recent behavior was problematic, and there was no report or community discussion about it. The blocking admin also has not provided any specific examples or diffs of the behavior that he listed as the block reason. Several other users have asked him in his user talk to explain the justification for this block (the thread is at [1]), but he’s failed to respond to any of them. ImperfectlyInformed’s comment there is particularly pertinent as an explanation of what’s wrong with this block, and I also concur with the comments there from David.Kane, WavePart, and Xxanthippe. Could an uninvolved admin to please review the discussion about my block in 2over0’s user talk, and evaluate whether this block is truly justified and necessary, as well as whether the proper process was followed for implementing it?

Decline reason:

As you're technically not blocked, this is the wrong way to go about this. You are under an editing restriction - and you were told from the start that WP:ANI was the correct place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry my advice didn't work, CO; I still don't understand this "you didn't file form 53G-X/5 in triplicate" approach, but at this point I guess ANI is the next step, whether you like that page or not. There are other ways to appeal a block (to ArbCom, to the unblock mailing list), but those work so slowly they only make sense for near-indefinite blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

An unblock request is ONLY for blocks - CO is not blocked, they have an editing restriction, and the process is clearly defined and different. Typically this would follow WP:RESTRICT: "the community may also impose a number of different editing restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior, usually at an administrator's noticeboard. Such restrictions may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary" - which means one would either ask for the restriction to be lifted DIRECTLY with the admin who placed it, or for best results at ANI. This is not a "no, you filled out the wrong form", it's a "you're not blocked!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a topic ban. If you think it is a topic ban, you don't seem, to me, to understand the situation. This is a block, which has been undone only so the user can participate in an ArbCom case. He is "topic banned" from every single page on Wikipedia, except ArbCom case pages, theoretically including ANI and Jimbo's talk page. I won't argue further, as it will serve no point, but this does appear to me to be needlessly bureaucratic. At this point I can see the writing on the wall as well as anyone else, and I'd say ANI is the only practical solution. There's a decent chance that the antimatter version of Bwilkins will reblock you for posting to ANI in violation of your unblock; if that happens, I will likely give up on this ridiculous place in frsutration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm sorry you aren't geting straight answers from anyone. Unilateral topic ban without consensus is something I've been lobbying against for a while, ironically this netted me a arb com decree that I couldn't advocate for a specific editor. Please take care to make su4re all of your edits are above reproach because I think that the same thing will end up happening to you. I'm not encouraging that action, in fact I think that as long as you maintain excellant editing style this will espose the crap for what it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...and for the record, I philosophically agree with both of you, and there's no way in hell I would re-block for asking for a change to what is effectively a topic ban. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tired of pussyfooting around / passive-aggressiveness

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional restrictions on Captain Occam vacated

Review and decision

This is an unusual situation - we rarely impose the type of edit restriction that limits someone to Arbcom case responses only, though it's been done a number of time. The admin who imposed it also has become idle for 5 days. Community "votes" also aren't exactly a standard way of resolving issues with blocks.

Logically - the edit restrictions were a modification to the original block. The place to start in determining what to do going forwards is reviewing the specifics of the original block.

In the days leading up to the block, Captain Occam focused editing on the Arbcom case and on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article. Having reviewed all the threads there, in the days leading up to the block, Occam edited in a manner which was somewhat milder than the prior months, was discussing largely in good faith, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary for the situation currently under arbitration. There were extensive fruitful multiparty discussions going on on the talk page.

The underlying content and behavioral issues at play in the Arbcom case can be seen in the ongoing activity, and perhaps it would be best for all parties if we simply lock the article from editing for the remainder of the case, but the editing slowed down significantly over the last few days (since I full-protected for 1 day on June 8th). It was certainly not worse than prior times.

I believe that the block was done in good faith. However, I believe that in retrospect, nothing was going on at the time of the block that was out of the ordinary or beyond that already subject to normal Arbcom review and needing admin intervention. Admins should not be afraid to enforce policy normally against Arbcom case participants, but we also shouldn't focus overly critically on them. Arbcom will make any out-of-the-ordinary decisions required.

Had there still been an active block I'd overturn it at this point. Given the edit restriction was a replacement for that, I believe that it should just be vacated at this time.

This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors. However, reasonable normal behavior with due respect for the Arbcom case underway is not a problem for the encyclopedia or community.

As an uninvolved admin, having reviewed, I am doing so. The additional restrictions in place on Captain Occam are vacated. I am going to copy this section to WP:ANI, the Arbcom case workshop, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:2over0.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)