Wikipedia:Abuse response/70.23.167.160

70.23.167.160
70.23.199.239 is a related case, see user talk:70.23.199.239


 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive227
 * Another AN/I report
 * And another
 * COI noticeboard

Article is 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal User continually attempts to insert (as first inline link) article to a disputed website (allegedly racist, definitely not NPOV). He was blocked at the other IP address for the same repeated editing on the same article (or the related Crystal Gail Mangum page). Had the gall to revert my deletion with the notation of "reverting vandalism". Horologium talk - contrib 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Horologium has utterly misrepresented the situation, in order to engage in politically-motivated stalking, harassment, intimidation and censorship. First of all, I was never blocked for any conduct pertaining to the Duke University Lacrosse Scandal or Crystal Gail Mangum entry. To state otherwise is to lie. I was blocked out of revenge for an edit war which I did not begin, but which I lustily joined, on the Nadine Gordimer entry. (Other editors have since supported my position, and those who had me blocked agreed with those editors to restore what I had previously restored. After waiting a decent interval, however, the editors who had agreed to the restoration, stealthily deleted it.)


 * User:Horologium has also misrepresented WP:NPOV. The rule does not even discuss or recognize the notion of a “POV site,” but clearly does not forbid an entry that may be POV from being used within a WP article, as long as the WP article itself is not POV. (The 10,500-word article in question is in fact the most comprehensive report yet written on the Duke Rape Hoax.) If every cite or link to a POV article or book were to deleted from every WP article, first WP:NPOV would have to be revised, then hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of links, cites and quotes would have to be deleted from WP articles, and as a result, thousands of articles would need to be deleted in toto.


 * User:Horologium has also misrepresented himself and me to other WP editors and engaged in abuse, by placing a “last warning” sign on my User Talk page, when I had not previously been warned, and to my knowledge, he is not an administrator.


 * User:Horologium is acting out of a deep political hostility towards the Web site VDARE.com, and anyone who cites or links to it, by race-baiting ("allegedly racist"), and seeking to have editors blocked for citing even the finest articles yet to appear there. Thus, it is he who is violating WP:NPOV, by imposing a political litmus test on all cites.
 * 70.23.167.160 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * User 70.23.167.160 is at the same time re-inserting controversial material into the Nadine Gordimer entry. This material has been the subject of extensive debate, now archived, and the majority of editors opposed inclusion of the material on the grounds it violated WP:BLP and WP:NOR. The editor is well aware that numerous editors view inclusion as a policy violation, but this editor continues to reintroduce the material without attempting to establish any consensus to do so. The editor in my opinion has a clear bias that ought to prevent them from editing these entries. FNMF 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Editor 70.23.167.70 has admitted to being blocked as a result of the exact same actions in which he is continuing to engage. This sounds like a sock-puppet issue to me since he is clearly acting in bad faith against the judgement of the administrators who blocked him in the first place. There is also a possible WP:COI issue here. The author of the piece lives in NYC and a IP check of this IP address shows that it is in the NYC region. Considering the WP:SPA nature of both accounts, and the grandiosity of the claims of the disputed article's noteworthiness, there seems to be a certain level of defensiveness when others tell the editor in question that it is not relevant. Unfortunately, since both editors are non-registered accounts, blocking them indefinitely will not solve the problem, and will prevent edits from legitimate editors. My suggestion would be to semi-protect three pages--2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, Crystal Gail Mangum, and Nadine Gordimer,which would prevent their entry by anonymous users. My blocking anonymous edits, it will become easier to track future sock-puppeteering from this individual, through blocking of registered accounts. Horologium talk - contrib 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"User 70.23.167.160 is at the same time re-inserting controversial material into the Nadine Gordimer entry. This material has been the subject of extensive debate, now archived, and the majority of editors opposed inclusion of the material on the grounds it violated WP:BLP and WP:NOR. The editor is well aware that numerous editors view inclusion as a policy violation, but this editor continues to reintroduce the material without attempting to establish any consensus to do so. The editor in my opinion has a clear bias that ought to prevent them from editing these entries. FNMF 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

User:FNMF has misrepresented WP rules, the notability of a traumatic incident, falsely claimed that I am inserting “controversial material,” and misrepresented the history of the Nadine Gordimer article. I did not violate WP:BLP or WP:NOR, and there was no consensus for User:FNMF’s deletion. In fact, there was a consensus for the paragraph which I restored, and which by the way, I hadn’t even written (User:Andyparkerson did!). User:FNMF is simply seeking to politically strongarm me and anyone else who would include vital information which he, based on his own race-political POV, wants suppressed. In the same spirit, he has invented a rule of his own, whereby only “well-established editors” – i.e., editors who share his race politics, may edit the article.

I had simply restored User:Andyparkerson’s compromise proposal, for which there was a modest consensus of 3-2 (pro: User:Andyparkerson, User:Yakuman, and me; contra: User:Doldrums and User:Lquilter) on April 8, 2007.

Compromise version, which I restored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadine_Gordimer&oldid=120968817|edit

April 8, 2007 discussion at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nadine_Gordimer/Archive_4

Note that although it was User:Andyparkerson who wrote and originally inserted the version that I sought to restore, it was also he who at the first opportunity, initially deleted it, as I had predicted he would. Why don’t you ask User:Andyparkerson why he would offer and insert a compromise that he had no intention of adhering to. (And which he just deleted yet again, minutes ago.) And I’d like to hear him explain how editors can assume the good faith of an editor who makes proposals he has no intention of respecting. 70.23.167.160 09:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is at it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal&curid=5064922&diff=132633112&oldid=132253236 For whatever reason, he/she refuses to abide by consensus that the article he wishes to link is inappropriate. Semi-protecting the pages in question would be helpful in discouraging this behavior. Unlearned hand 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

13 June 2007
[The same editor] is back, making more personal attacks and linking to his own writing, although he is restricting his activities to the Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case page now, rather than the mainspace. | diff 1 | diff 2 | diff 3

The incivility is pretty striking, and the WT link looks like a personal attack of the WP:BADSITES variety. Horologium t-c 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The text he wrote himself was a clear personal attack, not to mentionn the link. I've left a warning on his talk page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)