Jump to content

User talk:Cailil/Sneaky vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied from The Community Noticeboard

[edit]

Complex vandalism by User:Anacapa

[edit]

The archive is held here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

copied from WP:AN
User:Anacapa has disrupted feminism and gender studies related pages from November 2006 - Feb 2007. Signing-off with the moniker "(drop in editor)" using multiple IPs they have made spurious accusations of misconduct against "feminist" editors; pushed POV edits on gender studies pages that warp articles such as women's studies into critiques of women's studies; and multiposted an extract from a book by an antifeminist on at least 4 talk pages.

Anacapa/(drop in editor)'s complex vandalism persisted until February 2007 when they misrepresented sources and factual information on Feminism attempting to create two criticism sections in the one article. a similar tactic was used on women's studies where the criticism section was longer the rest of the article. A few days ago I identified the same editing style and pattern, as well as 2 shared IP addresses between (drop in editor) and User:Anacapa. Since February 2007 User:Anacapa/(drop in editor) has been dormant. I am requesting a community sanction against User:Anacapa for their long term disruptive behaviour.
See also: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles

After asking User:Durova for advice I reported the situation here.--Cailil 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we asking for a community ban or a community topic ban on an editor that hasn't edited in two months? There's no sign that there is anything ongoing from this editor, either from a registered account or an IP Address? I'm just afraid any topic/site ban from the community would be closing the barn doors after the horses have already left. SirFozzie 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my sentence above, if it was ongoing, I would wholeheartedly agree that this is a PoV pushing account that needs a topic ban.. I'm just not sure that with at least 4 weeks since the latest post by this account (or IP), I'm not sure that I can fully get behind it. SirFozzie 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon my experience fighting the Joan of Arc vandal and JB196, I believe it's necessary to be flexible about our time frame of response to a really long term sneaky vandal. This isn't drive-by vandalism that goes away through benign neglect. This sort of person will change tactics or sit out a while when they sense the heat is on, then return to cause more damage. So yes, this is a worthy exception to our usual standards about account activity. DurovaCharge! 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the length of time it took me to bring this here, but in all honesty I took me weeks just to complie diffs & to prove that Anacapa was the same user as (drop in editor). I also think it is more than possible that they will return. Anacapa has taken wikibreaks before, certainly between May 2006 and October 2006 there was no activity on their account, [1] but when they came back they were just as active as before. I expect Anacapa to resurface, it would be consistent with their behaviour & pattern of edits--Cailil 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing to apologize for, Cailil, this is well researched and Durova's post above that this is a special case (that community sanctions won't become a common bludgeon to be used against an editor who's since quit his activity through either inactivity or behavior modification), I support a ban. SirFozzie 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with (drop in editor) and I have to agree that this is one of the more disruptive editors within their sphere of interests. Far more interested in starting off-topic arguments and derailing discussion than in actually building an encyclopedia. Based on their previous tendency to sit and wait, I would also expect this one to return again to the same tactics, and so I support enacting this ban now. The smoking gun imho is 209.129.49.65 signing as Anacapa, but even if they couldn't be connected I would support a ban on (drop in editor). I would suggest not advertising the list of evidence from any pages this editor frequents; if possible it would be best for them not to know what their own telltale habits are (people often are unaware of their own quirks). When they come back, better to be prepared to begin reverting and blocking, than to have a ban discussion later in the midst of the damage. Good find, Cailil. — coelacan — 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • After quickly scanning (and if I have missed it, please throw egg on me :P) I do not see what is being asked. Topic ban, siteban, what type of sanction is being requested here? Navou banter 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a community ban is more appropriate than a topic ban for User:Anacapa. I can only show evidence of their disruption on the gender category pages but I've seen at least anecdotal evidence of issues with their behaviour in other topics.--Cailil 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't this user propose policing the use of "gender" and "sex" in all Wikipedia articles? If we attempt a topic ban it might have to stretch to the entire encyclopedia anyway. Natalie 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A full siteban is the only appropriate solution for a sneaky vandal who attempts to undermine the encyclopedia's integrity in via this many different complex strategies. DurovaCharge! 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

requested site ban for User:Anacapa

[edit]

The archive is held here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I detailed a report of long-term disruption by the then dormant user:Anacapa two weeks ago. They are the user who attacked project gender studies [2][3] manipulated criticism sections in women's studies[4] [5] and have bullied other editors on a rewrite of misandry[6][7]. Anacapa uses the alias "(drop in editor)" to sign-off while using anon IPs and has used this identity to Troll gender studies related articles.

On April 30th Anacapa's user account was reactivated and they are now engaged in an edit war on Shunning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [8] [9].

The previous report on Anacapa did not receive enough support for a sanction. This may have been due to Anacapa's dormancy. I do apologize for having to make a second report but Anacapa has returned and is wasting editors' time and creating a poisonous atmosphere in the articles they are involved with.

The updated report page is here (perma link), detailing the connection between Anacapa's POVpushing and disruptive behaviour. I urge users to review the report (apologies for its length) to understand the depth and scope of Anacapa's disruption since September 2006.

I'm requesting a site ban for Anacapa and their IPs. They have bullied and disrupted across a number of articles for months, switching from their account to multiple IPs.--Cailil talk 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest oppose. Banning should not be used to resolve content disputes, except if the dispute has become more than a content dispute, generally after all else as failed. However, I do not see evidence of other dispute resolution methods having been attempted, or of incivility that would make this more than a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Content dispute. Edit war after account reactivation not enough documented with only two diffs. Switching from their account to multiple IPs not proved.--MariusM 12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point out this is not a content dispute. This is long term complex disruption. I do understand this page is not for content disputes, I have only provided 2 diffs for Shunning here because I have at least 6 on the report page. The evidence of account switching is there too. Some of this ground is covered in the previouis discussion. Pesonally I consider remarks like "What childish crap from both edgarde and poole." [10] to be extremely uncivil, more evidence of incivility is once again in the report. I would also just add for clarity I am not involved in the Shunning content dispute--Cailil talk 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No previous blocks for Anapaca and you want him banned? Take a rest. If he engage in edit-wars, try a 3RR report.--MariusM 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen worse. I recommend private mediation. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at the negative reaction this time around. The only reason Anacapa wasn't topic/site banned last time is due to lack of urgency due to the fact that the account had been dormant. Now that it's active again, needs to be shutdown quickly. I do support a community topic ban from related articles. SirFozzie 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting private mediation is a negative reaction? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yours was just the one right before I hit reply, sorry. The comment by Marius was primarily what I was responding to. SirFozzie 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm glad we cleared that up.  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the report here has not been laid out obviously if people are getting the impression that this is a content dispute. "Drop in editor" trolled WP:GS for months with off-topic badgering, and the project page had to be semi-protected to keep them from disrupting it. There are many diffs in the evidence page; I like this one for its condensed trollery: "totalitarian thought control", "man-hate", "fascist gender-feminists", "ugly totalitarian tactics". These are not the words of a person willing to work with others to build a collaborative encyclopedia. This is only incitement. I do not read WT:GS so I have not been an ongoing witness to this; my patience is exhausted by these diffs alone. ··coelacan 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really Armed Blowfish, what Coelacan is quoting is flamebaiting. Its also POVPUSH. I hope you don't mind if I ask, what part of the report/evidence page is deficient?--Cailil talk 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • The policy essay you link POVpush to encourages fair representation of all majority and significant minority viewpoints, and was written in order to help editors with opposing viewpoints reach a consensus. By asking for a block for "point of view pushing", you are asking us to block an editor over a content dispute. The quotes you refer to as "flamebaiting" look to me like they are opinions about article content, not personal attacks against individual editors. Certainly, you could call those opinions morally offensive, but it is still basically a content dispute. What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC), 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Armedblowfish I made an incorrect link - shouldhave been WP:POVPUSH (all caps). And I respectfully disagree, as I think do Coelacan and Sir Fozzie, and the others who supported the last report - that's flamebaiting. And no I'm asking for a ban because of complex disruption or complex vandalism - which ever wording you prefer. "What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute" This is about edits, over months, to a number of articles - some I am not involved with some I am involved with. Sources have been misrepresented as stated in the report. The WikiProject Gender Studies was vandalized. SecondSight's rewrite of misandry was stymied by Trolling. This is not a content dispute this is disruptive behaviour. If you disagree that's fine that opposition is recorded and noted. PS I didn't know you were an admin--Cailil talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that this reaches the level of an indefinite ban yet, I don't see any previous blocks. I would certainly caution Anacapa, though, that blocks and bans are not too far down the road he's walking along. I would much advise he slows down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer "complex disruption" over "complex vandalism". Vandalism is reserved for a conscious effort to hurt encyclopaedia articles, not just an incorrect idea of what helps encyclopaedia articles, e.g. a skewed idea of what neutrality is. Disruption can have the same effect without that kind of negative intent.
  • In case it makes the idea more palatable, private mediation would give the mediator a chance to rehash arguments to make them less offensive. (P.S. I didn't say I was an admin.)
  • Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with the view that this proposal is about a content dispute. Cailil contacted me several times during the preparatory phase and modeled it after my report on the Joan of Arc vandal. Sneaky vandals often attempt to dodge scrutiny by trying to mask a disruptive campain by trying to give it the superficial facade of an edit dispute. Although I did not recommend that Cailil begin a new ban thread at this time, I do think she has identified a genuine vandal and I support the siteban proposal. DurovaCharge! 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me dropping in unannounced, but I had to chuckle at the irony here... Durova, according to Cailil's user page, she's a he :-) --YFB ¿ 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Armed Blowfish is asking a good question what is 'minority opinion and what is vandalism?' The line was crossed in this case when sources were misrepresented and when policies (WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS at the time) were quoted ad nauseum to Anacapa were ignored or mocked by them (ie their characterization of consensus as 'bad group think'); when they disregarded WP:AGF by calling other editors fascists when they asked for sources. I'm concerned that Anacapa knows Wikipedia's rules and knows how to attack pages and avoid detection. They first had an edit war on Feminism in February 2006. At that time they were asked for sources. People are still asking them to source material 15 months later. Either this is a blatant disregard for policy or it is bad faith POVpush. The multipost, the repeated attacks on WT:GS & WP:GS (throwing NPOV templates on the project page for instance), all point towards breachs of WP:AGF rather than a newbie NPOV mistake.
There would not be a complex issue if Anacapa had used their own account to make all of their edits, but they used multiple IPs so that the edits (and any warnings associated with them) could not be attributed to one user - which would have resulted in obvious need for a block. The question has to be asked why didn't Anacapa create a legal second account or just use their own account for these edits? I believe they know exactly how disruptive their edits have been & made a calculated choice to use anon IPs because clearly they hadn't forgotten about ther account.
The reason I made this submission at this time was because I wanted Anacapa's input here, I felt it proper they answer this report if they can. I hope they do. I would also just like to apologise to Armedblowfish in case I was agressive in last nights posts, no matter how serious this case is its not worth falling out with a good editor. I would also take on board Seraphimblade's point if it is considered a topic ban is more appropriate I will alter my request to that. I would urge ediors that this is a serious and complex case, as Durova has pointed out. IMHO Anacapa has been careful to mask their behaviour - hence the length of my report. I would also like to mention SirFozzie's point, the previous report wasn't seen as urgent becuase Anacapa was dormant - they are active now and their behaviour is just as bad as ever. I'm sorry for the length of this post but my opening request may not have been as clear as it could be.--Cailil talk 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A further note. Taking on board Seraphimblade's points, an alternatively if we can agree that Anacapa is the user behind the IPs in the report and the edits by them, I would propose warning Anacapa (and making them aware that their IPs are included in that warning) about their behaviour (past & present) per WP:DE, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:POVPUSH & WP:TEND/WP:SOAP. If that could be agreed I will withdraw my site ban request--Cailil talk 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was any checkuser or other evidence linking Anacapa with the IPs? In my first comment I pointed that this was not proved. Anyhow, the idea of mediation, suggested by Armed Blowfish, seems reasonable. As a general rule, before a ban, other steps in dispute resolution should be tried, and also some blocks of limited period.--MariusM 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post MariusM. I do understand usual proceedure but this case is unusual. As regards Anacapa's link to (drop in editor), did you look at the report section detailing the 3 IPs used by Anacapa & drop in editor. If needs be I could list all the pages used by Anacapa and used identically by a number of the IPs. I have also shown in the report where Anacapa and (drop in editor) use the same phrases to describe feminism. Also as stated in the report no checkuser has been requested--Cailil talk 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support any/all remedies except banning (mediation, arbcom, topic ban, term block). I have observed Anacapa's ownership and POV issues on the incest article, and I think it's regrettable that matters weren't proceeded with during the time prior to his sabbatical from WP, because if he had been sanctioned or if sanctions had been agreed-upon, I would support a ban. As it is, because of the lack of mediation/escalation of intervention/sanctions (despite the evidence, which I feel is persuasive), I think a community ban is inappropriate at this time. Let this be an addition to the body of evidence that it pays to proceed with formal complaints etc even when a contentious editor seems to have left. Anchoress 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last night User:Jbolden1517 dicovered another IP Anacapa was using. 12.107.17.150 (talk · contribs) - this is the 14th IP that can be linked to Anacapa/(drop in editor). Jbolden1517 identified similarities in the content 12.107.17.150 was adding and that which Anacapa added. I've found some other diffs that show they are both focussed on "relational aggression" and that 12.107.17.150 editting style and use of mark-up (caps) is the same as Anacapa's the new report section is linked here.--Cailil talk 11:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They've also created [sub-talkpage] of Evolutionary psychology and have another go at feminism while arguing their POV on this article.--Cailil talk 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this report, at least temporarily due to the uncertainty about this board and its function and its future. Thanks for all comments and for taking the time to read the report.--Cailil talk 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anacapa

[edit]

Due to constant disruprion, and sockpuppet use to avoid blocks, Anacapa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby community banned from Wikipedia. SirFozzie 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have blocked this account indefinitely for this edit entitled "Libelous warning" after a lengthy investigation, conducted mostly by Cailil, that Anacapa is a long-term disruptive editor at feminism-related subjects and probable sockpuppeteer who violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, and generally responds aggressively to anyone who points out that this user's behavior exceeds the bounds of site standards.

Per the above link, this user accuses me of libel and of being a Maoist, so to avoid any appearance of impropriety I am submitting my decision to the community for review. DurovaCharge! 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the editor previously here at CSN where the view point of a majority of those discussing the case was that if they were an active editor (they had disappeared from Wiki for some time), sanctions would be needed. Since the editor has returned and has not improved in the slightest, that my view point is that it's a good, supportable block. SirFozzie 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For about a year User:Anacapa has been involved in povpushing and complex vandalism on wikipedia across a range of articles. Spanning From Menonite to Shunning and from Rape to Feminism. Anacapa uses their account and about 14 different IPs from the University of California Santa Barbara to make posts. The IPs in question and edits by them are detailed in my report (here is a wikilink to the list of Ips).
In May Anacapa's disruption spiked. Displaying signs of WP:OWN, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE on the Christina Hoff Sommers Shunning, Antifeminism and Sex differences articles (see report). Thy have also left long off-topic rants on the user pages of those user who warn or question their behaviour (for example on my talk page on Jehochman's talk page [11] and on Durova's talk page [12]).
As it stands Anacapa is involved in disputes with Durova (because she warned Anacapa for NPOV - this led Anacapa to make the legal threat), Jehochman (because he warned Anacapa for WP:NOR on Rape) with Sxeptomaniac and Jbolden1517 on Shunning (becasue Anacapa has attempted to turning the talkpage into a battleground) and with myself (because of Anacapa's repeated IP trolling of Project gender studies). I consider Anacapa's behaviour to be disruptive because it has wasted a lot of editors' time and has created a poisonous atmosphere on certain articles.--Cailil talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I am not engaged in any content dispute with Anacapa, nor do I edit at the same articles. The only sense in which Anacapa and I have a direct dispute is regarding the legitimacy of a block warning I had posted at Anacapa's user talk page. Throughout Cailil's investigation I have been reticent to take direct action because I do have a mild predisposition on matters that relate to feminism. I rarely actually edit that topic except for historical biographies of female soldiers and sailors, which is far removed from Anacapa's areas of interest. I acted here because a legal threat is straightforward reason for banning and few administrators have followed this complex investigation in detail. DurovaCharge! 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the lack of clarity in my use of the word "dispute". Durova is right to mention this - I was using the word in its wider meaning. The users I listed don't have a simple content dispute with Anacapa. Much of Anacapa's disruption is a matter of them turining pages into battlegrounds - spuriously claiming that people who question or disagree with them are totalitarians, maoists, stalinists etc - as well as povpushing. Durova herself has no content dispute with Anacapa. Sorry if my use of words led to any confusion--Cailil talk 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was alarmed by this editor's POV pushing on rape. You can see his agenda in this comment. Indeed, Anacapa has a tendency to put his own opinions and original research into articles, and then slap on a reference that sort of talks about the same topic. [13] [14] This is sneaky vandalism. I had to completely rewrite the section. [15] Anacapa has a pattern of intimidating any editor who resists his assault on neutral point of view. Anacapa makes hostile comments and accusations of slander. In the past I've argued to lift blocks of editors who were simply unskillful, selfish or clueless. Anacapa's attitude problem is much more serious. His philosophy is incompatible with WP:5P, so he should not be allowed to return. Jehochman Talk 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse community ban, per Calill's detailed report. It clearly shows that this one is not here to write an encyclopedia. It's not worth the hassle--nuke him. Blueboy96 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a crossposting to ANI, I don't think the full community is here. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user's ceaseless rants and Great and Most Vigilant Crusade for The Truth pretty much guarantee that no admin in their right mind will be overturning the block anyway. Whichever "style" of ban this is, I imagine it will be effectively binding. ··coelacan 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the issues of this case?
1. Legal threat? See [[16]] which says if Anacapa either clarifies that no legal threat was intended or the threat is withdrawn, then blocking should end. This policy may be a reason not to have a community ban of Anacapa.
2. Rape article? Very heated, I agree. Block - maybe, maybe not, I haven't studied the edits much. It is possible that Anacapa is out of line.
 :I am surprised that it says "Most cultures worldwide have not considered the possibility that women can commit rape against men" because the editor writing this obviously forgot about Debra LaFave [[17]] and Mary Kay Letourneau [[18]] or regards the U.S. as a minor thing.3. I am not at the University of California Santa Barbara. I am opposed to rape. I also invoke this policy due to the heated nature of the topic. [[19]]
 I am opposed to community ban for reason 1; I have made no conclusion for reason 2 but think that regular blocking of a period (1 week? 2 weeks?) may be better as a "cool down" tool particularly since Anacapa has never been blocked before; I fear wikistalking so I invoke reason 3.Hotpotatoes 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)checkuser results is "likely" so stricken as likely sock.

Account created only today, at 12:56 pm Eastern. And only edit was to this page. I smell a sock ...Blueboy96 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No checkuser evidence = not proven. WooyiTalk to me? 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, Wooyi ... just put in a request.Blueboy96 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am defending a Wikipedia's policy, not Anacapa. This policy[[20]] does allow for unblocking if a legal threat is withdrawn. Community ban citing this reason is like giving the death penalty for writing a bad check or for possible running of a red light.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.90.90 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC). (Edit sounds like the above stricken sock but WHOIS says this user is Denver, CO so not a sock)[reply]

That's different. Unwithdrawn legal threats mandate a block. The community can consider the threats disruptive whether or not they were withdrawn, and still ban. -Amarkov moo! 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that Hotpotatoes is a sock of Anacapa. Checkuser will confirm either way. To reply to their concerns, Anacapa has been indef blocked for a legal threat and they have not withdrawn it. Durova's indef block is only for the legal threat, any community sanction here would look at this threat as the last or latest act of disruptive editting - not the only one. If you read the report you will see the long list of IPs Anacapa has used and the list of articles they have disrupted for nearly a year - the situation is not limitted to rape. Legal threats are not the equivalent of "running a red light" it is taken very seriously by the community. It's one of the worst forms of intimidation and disruption an editor can try to use to get their own way on WP. Lastly, Anacapa has been advised to look at WP:ADOPT, as entering mentorship could ameliorate their situation.--Cailil talk 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. I dunno about the rest of you, but there's really not a whole lot more to say. He hung himself.Blueboy96 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anacapa has now used multiple socks to pretend to not be Anacapa and present arguments against banning, as though there was disagreement, both in this thread and in the RFCU page. I don't think anyone would have any reason to oppose a ban, with that behavior. ··coelacan 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything but more sockpuppeting, more disruption, and more grief coming from allowing Anacapa to continue editing. I believe a ban's the only way this can end. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban, his behavior on rape is appalling, probably a year or so, because I heard Fred Bauder once said we don't ban over a year. WooyiTalk to me? 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on the ban. I am personally willing to tolerate more of his behavior than, I suspect, many others are; however, Anacapa is certainly tendentious and disruptive, so it was bound to be necessary to block him at some point based solely on those issues. Unfortunately, I suspect that his obsession with "balancing" certain subjects means he will reappear from time to time. Sxeptomaniac 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil has demonstrated remakable patience and scrupulousness in documenting this long-term problem. Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, I believe that - in addition to the specific legal threat - Anacapa's other behavior merits a siteban in its own right. I stated that opinion at the previous ban proposal, which if I recollect closed without action because not enough Wikipedians participated. Also, to clarify another point, I refrained from taking action on any content-related disruption (due to my own POV on the overall subject) and although I endorse a ban for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. I would also recuse myself from actually implementing an indefinite block on that basis (community bans can indeed be indefinite and many of them are). Legal threats are a different matter - I considered myself free to act. DurovaCharge! 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, good move, Durova. And he just did a good job of justifying that with attempt to astroturf. Good grief--do they have to be so obvious?Blueboy96 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refactor the end of that comment. Actually I'm glad when sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are obvious. That makes my volunteer work easier. I don't particularly like to educate disruptive editors about how to disrupt more effectively. Just handle the matter as routine and WP:DFTT. DurovaCharge! 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Durova, some others have dealt with Anacapa far more than I have, so my remark was poorly worded. Having finished reading Cailil's report, I can see that those working on gender and feminism related articles have had to deal with him particularly often in the past. I guess I just see that the block, to a large extent, stems from his consistent problem behavior as much as the one incident. My personal patience hadn't worn out on him yet, but the block seems reasonable in light of problems with him in other areas of Wikipedia. Sxeptomaniac 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone knows, he may have tried to return as Chergles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Talk about hanging yourself ...Blueboy96 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to close

[edit]

No one has objected to the proposed ban, except for Anacapa's sockpuppets. This thread was linked from ANI when one of those puppets started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#Checkuser extremely flawed, so Eagle101's suggestion of linking from ANI for wide input has been taken. Users who have had no interactions with Anacapa have looked at the evidence and said that a ban looks necessary. I don't think there's anything left to say here, but I don't want the thread to be archived ambiguously. Can an uninvolved admin now wrap this up and stick a bow on it, please? ··coelacan 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. This ballgame pretty much ended with that Checkuser request.Blueboy96 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I will add Ancapa to the Ban list when I have a moment. SirFozzie 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence regarding 12.107.17.150

[edit]

Note this point made as 12.107.17.150 and then 2 days later as Anacapa notice Children's needs for respect from and respect to their shunned parent(s) are rarely considered rights at all in comparision to the rights of the adults in shunning group(s) so children are often the unseen and innocent survivors of adult-adult shunning. Also the focus on "rights" (without a clear cut legal basis) is unusual for the people interested in this topic (culturally unusual). jbolden1517Talk 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shunning

[edit]

Your evidence page is already pretty long. But Talk:shunning now provides an interesting example. Anacapa was engaged did have a chance to discuss and appears not have done so in good faith. I'd be ready to testify in an arbcom case if you want to go for a ban on feminism or sociology related topics. You've already established the evidence on this page. Let me know if you would like to discuss. jbolden1517Talk 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why 71.127.24.125?

[edit]

What was your reason behind adding this IP? The only anacapa connection I saw was shunning and their points were different.... jbolden1517Talk 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Jbolden1517. I didn't check that one thoroghly enough. If you spot anything else that's wrong like that n the report good ahead and delete it. Thanks for the note.--Cailil talk 13:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo court or genuine jurisprudence?

[edit]

To imagine that editors attached to loaded articles like gender, shunning, rape or many of the other controversial articles, I edited are assuming "good faith" when they slander me here is to assume we are all niave children. Thanks you to all those editors who still care about some semblance of free speech online. To all the others may I refer you to the film "Indoctrination U", the recent book "Unprotected" and a whole host of books and articles easily available online that show how gender-ginning feminists and other totalitarians practice thought-control today. The feminist page is also an ugly example the results. Anacapa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.181.137 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the above IP address for a while. - Jehochman Talk 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Person may be a troll trying to pretend that he/she is Anacapa. Radical feminists do exists but the Anacapa copy cat gives no evidence that wikipedia articles are slanted to the radical views. I am been accused of being Anacapa. A look at my recent edits prove that I am now a useful and positive contributor to wikipedia. Chergles 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do here is revert, block, ignore. Whether this is the banned user or a copy-cat denying further recognition is the best attitude. I'm very sorry that you got caught up in this Chergles and I'm glad to see you've been cleared of any sock-puppetry and are making great contributions to the encyclopedia--Cailil talk 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cailil/Sneaky_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles&oldid=1147967263"