Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 11 March 2015

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Edit warring and reverting to fundamentally noncompliant material in Griffin

I have advised Callanecc of your reverts. Perhaps if you will undue your last edit, it may work in your best interests. Atsme☯ 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Signing

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to AE you are involved in

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Steeletrap Atsme☯ 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The case has been closed with no action taken. – S. Rich (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comeback

Quite a comeback! If I count correctly you've done 16 article edits, 7 talk page edits, and 14 drama page (SPI & AE) edits. Not that I think the drama page issues have merit, but do you get the feeling that some people don't like you? If you're on WP for the drama you must be as a clam at high tide. BTW, the Holocaust denial edit you "fixed" was not actually vandalism. The {{AS}} template is a redirect to the actual Anti-Semitism template. The day before (8 Feb) another editor had modified the AS template into the image you saw. The template has been fixed. (I could not figure out how the Ace had been in the lede for so long because the article edits are reviewed.) So, welcome back and please enjoy yourself. – S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Sad to say that uppity women such as Steeletrap have an extra row to hoe on WP but it gets better. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How the academic job market works

You have some strong, and in my experience, incorrect, views on how the academic job market works. It appears from what you write on the Elizabeth Warren talk page, that you think she committed fraud (listing herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory) in hopes of being recruited for a position. As someone who has been on both sides of a recruiting committee, let me explain why that is implausible.

• Firstly, search committees don't recruit for someone of her position (full tenured professor) by thumbing through the voluminous directories and writing to people listed there. Rather, you look at the academic literature and see who has published in fields that you are interested in recruiting in. Those directories are not used for recruitment.
• Second, schools get a lot more flak for not having enough women, rather than not having enough minorities. Warren, by being female, has already gotten that (minor) bump from schools wanting a more diverse faculty. Being a 'minority' woman would not make much of a difference.
• Third, the hiring process is long and comprehensive. It's inconceivable to think that a school that would want to hire a minority, would base that hiring only on a (self-reported) directory entry. There will be requests for documentation. Anyone who cares will take the trouble to find out whether she is a member of a tribe (no).

Reports from people who were involved in her hiring, and from other law school academics, are that her hereditary background played no role in her hiring. What likely happened is that she got a form to fill out when she joined a school. (Believe me, you get a lot of forms to fill out when you take a new job.) There was a question like, "What is your racial or ethnic heritage? Choose all that apply." Not thinking about it, and being too romantically inclined about her 'native heritage', she ticked the boxes next to White and Native American. LK (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, User:Lawrencekhoo. Of course being a racial minority is a positive if you're looking to be hired as a law professor. Affirmative action exists, and Native Americans are a group that receive it. If you're involved even tangentially in academia--as I am--I don't know why you need need me to tell you this. Charles Fried, who hired Warren, specifically said in the 1990s that HLS was looking for minority candidates, and practiced affirmative action in hiring.

Clearly, you have to be spectacularly smart to get hired to teach at HLS. Warren's publications show that she is quite intelligent. But being a racial minority is a bonus. (And an amply justified one, in my view, given ongoing discrimination and the benefits of diversity.)

It's possible that her alleged heritage--though I don't find the statements of Warren pal Charles fried convincing in this regard--made no difference. But that's not the point. Suppose candidate x falsely claims that he is Hispanic on his law school application, and is admitted to Harvard Law. Even if he would've been admitted in any case, the lie still amounts to fraud.

In any case, none of your (erroneous) speculations bear on whether we should add well-sourced material to the article. We should do so. Steeletrap (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your speculation as to Warren's motive for (erroneously) identifying herself as Native American is interesting. But your theory does not explain why she stopped checking the box to list herself as a minority professor after receiving tenure. Nor does it explain why she randomly started checking the box while seeking employment in legal academia, despite having checked (only) "white" when applying to law school and college. Steeletrap (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

She was tenured in 1987 1981, she became a full professor in 1983. She was listed as a minority in the directories for a decade after. You have rather strong unshakable views. I request that you restrict yourself to only editing according to reliable sources. LK (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

LK- Per the WAPO source, "Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School." Care to apologize for disparaging my motive based on a misunderstanding on your part?

Care to read her CV and admit you are wrong? LK (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, your bias is so strong that you have actually convinced yourself that you are in the right, when all the facts are against you. The C.V. says she became a tenured prof at Harvard in 1995. The WaPO link reflects this. Her tenured appointment at Harvard also coincided with her decision to stop identifying as Native American. You can draw your own conclusion from this; I've drawn mine. But we shouldn't hide the timing of her "self-identification"--i.e. when she started and stopped identifying as Native American on AALS documents--from our readers.

The irony is that I am a progressive and a proponent of affirmative action. I think what Warren did was disgraceful because I am a supporter of affirmative action. I can understand someone who doesn't take AA seriously glibly dismissing Warren's preposterous claim to be a racial minority. But I won't. Nor will Hillary, if Warren runs for POTUS. Steeletrap (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You do know that when one becomes an associate professor, one receives 'tenure' right? LK (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Warren's CV: "Harvard Law School. 1995-present: Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law; 2001-02, Radcliffe Fellow; 1992-93: Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law." She was not an associate professor at Harvard before 1995. She was a visiting professor.

Quit it with the condescension. You are out of your league here. Worse, you keep making factual errors. Steeletrap (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You're making it personal. Please stop the insults per WP:POLITE LK (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

FACTS:

• She received tenure in 1981
• She was full professor in 1983
• She was given a named-chair professorship in a top law school (Pensylvannia) in 1990
• She visited Harvard in a named-chair position in 1992.

For the interested, link to her CV. LK (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You have reading comprehension issues. I was talking about tenure at Harvard. That's what the WaPo excerpt I auoted specifically referred to. Many professors wouldn't be satisfied teaching at a second tier school; or even at a 'lower ivy' like Penn. Warren wasn't. She stopped checking the box immediately after she reached the top--a tenured position at Harvard. Those are the facts. Steeletrap (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your words: "your theory does not explain why she stopped checking the box to list herself as a minority professor after receiving tenure." She received tenure in 1981. She received a named chair in 1990. She visited Harvard as a named-chair (far higher position than tenured) in 1992. She was recruited into a named chair position in 1995. She was given another stack of forms to fill, and didn't check the box next to Native American that time around. LK (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Read in context, the quoted excerpt clearly refers to 'tenure at Harvard.' Part of reading comprehension is understanding the significance of context. Work on it. Steeletrap (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, does this level of cognitive dissonance hurt? I guess it must, hence the personal insults. Please stop. LK (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Racism" in lead on Sam Harris article

Hi Steeltrap, I appreciate the constructive edits you've made on the article, but I don't think the "racism" characterization, even attributed, has enough support in the sources. I've started a discussion on the Talk page here. Please add any sources and thoughts you have on the issue there.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I disagree. I understand it's a loaded charge. But it's been made against Harris by a host of commentators. I do agree that the "racism" addition need sfurther discussion and a strong consensus before it is re-added to the article. Steeletrap (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a problem. I'd like to see more sources and statements for evaluation. Talk page consensus is rarely up to the standard of WP:CONSENSUS.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 22:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin edits

You've got to back and revert the various edits made just now on Griffin! The article is under a 1RR per week restriction. I did 2 edits in 6 days and my carelessness got me a 50 minute block. Please act now. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Srich. I don't believe I've done two reversions within 24 hours. If you can clarify, I'll be happy to revert. Steeletrap (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your first edit was the revert of Lawrencekhoo, the second was addition of the Zionist stuff. In the discussion there is the statement by Guy that he'd seen the material before. Because these are two different revisions, they do not constitute a "consecutive edit". Be on safe side and revert. – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, this a one revert per week restriction, not 24 hours. – S. Rich (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You might post a {{edit protected}} request on the talk page and get consensus to add the material. But since Guy has changed his mind about using it, I don't think you will get support. – S. Rich (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Guy changed his mind about using it. Steeletrap (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:African American

That was quite a hostile reaction you received regarding photo selection. It can be a sensitive area to discuss but I'd be interested in seeing what other editors have to say. Your request seemed reasonable to me. Liz 20:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Racial pages are always polarizing. I try to add my insights as a sociologist, while being cognizant of my limitations as a white (Ashkenazi Jewish) woman. Steeletrap (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments about others

This is a personal attack, I strongly recommend removing it. If you continue, you will be blocked for violating WP:NPA. Dreadstar ☥ 23:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. Dreadstar ☥ 23:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I just made the change in response to your crazy threat. The original comment was not a personal attack. Saying someone is ignorant on a specific issue is not the same as saying they're an ignorant person generally. Steeletrap (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but believe me, it's a personal attack. Call my comment crazy, but believe me, the comment I linked to above is a personal attack. Be more cautious in the future. Dreadstar ☥ 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you have a series of edits that comment on other editors. Please read the policy Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, specifically where it says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". If you persist in violating this policy, you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 23:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Mister Dread. Without getting into the specifics of my comments, I agree that some of them were at least uncivil. It is high time for me to take a break from the Warren page. And I will do so. Steeletrap (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good idea; I know from personal experience how frustrating some elements of Misplaced Pages can be. Feel free to vent to me anytime, just not on the article talk pages.... Dreadstar ☥ 23:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You both may be reasonable most of the time, but with due respect Dreadstar, he did not call you crazy. He said that the threat was crazy, presumably for the same reason that (second-order) saying he called you crazy is crazy. When changing one or two words to clarify the reference eliminates the alleged personal attack, it is (for better or worse) pretty low on the scale of incivility and hostile interaction on Misplaced Pages these days. Steeletrap knows that I find her sometimes too excitable, but she's working on article content all the time and I've never seen her hold a grudge or lose focus on the issues as she sees them. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

While I understand your intrusion in this issue, the series of comments by User:Steeletrap on the Talk:Elizabeth Warren page are indeed violations of WP:NPA. I'm not suggesting any action for the comment calling my action 'crazy', and if you view it as such then WP:AN/I is where you should take it. Dreadstar ☥ 23:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I just happen to have this page on my watch list and I followed your link in the intital post. I have no other interest in any of the Elizabeth Warren issues and I have not read any of the talk page except for your post. The edit you linked was not a personal attack, per my comment above here. If you reread my comment here I think you will see that you misunderstood me. Steeletrap said that your threat was crazy, not that you were crazy. There's a big difference. You mistook one for the other just as you mistook the apparent intention of Steeletrap, in her initial remark, to denigrate the other editor's statement (the way it sounded,) not his consciousness or intellect in general. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the confusion may be, I've changed my comment above for clarity. I didn't mean that calling my action crazy was a personal attack, but instead the comment I linked to originally. And yes, the comment I linked to is indeed a personal attack. Dreadstar ☥ 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good for you, now please revert your comment from my talk page. I'm all in favor of Admins who care about civility and personal attacks. I just think that, in this case, you were barking up the wrong bush. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

this edit] violates talk page protocols by changing wording which has in the meantime been discussed by other editors in the thread. It would be impossible for a reader to make sense of the discussion based on the revised wording. This wording needs to be restored and the correction noted in a way that does not obscure the original and the motivation for the ensuing discussion. Either Dreadstar or Steeletrap should correct what I presume was an error. SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but fine. Dreadstar ☥ 00:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In what respect do you disagree, Dreadstar? You are more experienced than I and passed muster as an Admin, so your response will be instructive. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I believe my comment about the change made the change itself clear; second, I don't believe the original comment I made indicated that this user called me crazy; and third, I believe your assertion that "The edit you linked was not a personal attack" to be incorrect. Additionally, I find your tone with me troublesome and I will not be responding to your further comments here. As I indicated above, ANI is thataway if you desire more schooling. Dreadstar ☥ 01:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And my apologies to you, Steeletrap, for this extended discussion here; I believe you and I came to an agreeable conclusion. Dreadstar ☥ 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar, when you refactored your words, you did not strike through the original in order to preserve continuity of meaning for readers of this page. That would have been understandable and consistent with WP practice. I would have been interested to hear your response to the question I asked above, to wit, an explanation as to why your action hiding the cause of the subsequent discussion was consistent with WP talk page practice. Since you chose not to respond and chose to acknowledge my concern by restoring and striking your words per accepted WP practice, I think the matter has been resolved. I don't think you intended to create a problem. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary reminder

Oddly, the system let me post a duplicate of this notice; I've removed it and just posted a reminder. I've notified the other active editors on Elizabeth Warren, and this is merely a notice not implying wrongdoing on your part. Dreadstar ☥ 02:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Two questions for User:Mike V

In pronouncing my guilty of socking, Mike V made no specific argument. His two weeks of (alleged) "deliberation" produced only a two sentence conclusory statement, saying I'm guilty because 'the evidence' is sufficient to prove me guilty, while never specifying how the evidence (and what evidence) is sufficient to prove me guilty. This laughably fallacious, circular logic is not satisfactory grounds for a block. I deserve a better reason than that for being convicted of socking, particularly given that Mike failed to address this case for weeks.

To shed light onto Mike's reasoning and to determine whether he was employing actual standards in assessing my guilt, rather than going off of intuition and gut instincts, I pose to him the following two questions:

1) What burden of proof do you use to assess allegations of socking? (Note: In all legal systems, burdens of proof is defined quantitatively, so a specific percentage would help 2) Why do you think the evidence satisfied this burden of proof? Please be specific (and preferably, statistical) in your answer. Steeletrap (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mike's response

For an SPI case, the burden of proof is met when there is a reasonable likelihood of one being a sock. (I believe that you may be mistaken in regards to legal systems using a quantitative system. Some jurisdictions use a qualitative form of measurement.)

I performed a search on Misplaced Pages for the term "binkie" and there are very few instances in which it is used to refer to Binksternet. It appears that you alone are responsible for at least half of them. 1, 2, 3, 4 You are also the only user who continues to use it after being asked to stop using it. The behavioral connection of the IPs had been established here. While the IP you've mentioned may have originated from Norway, that does not mean whoever uses it is from Norway. IPs can be spoofed and the editing times are not consistent with someone who lives there.

Through both the account (as shown above and here: 1, 2, 3 ) and through the IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) you've demonstrated a consistent behavior of belittling other contributors. In addition, there are instances where your account (1) and the IP (1) make the same point about IPs being treated disrespectfully.

This case was discussed over the course of a week with two other members of the SPI team and they concurred that the evidence was actionable. Thus, it is unfair to say that this case was closed in a haste fashion and without any support for a block. The evidence I have provided above, coupled with the that presented at the SPI leads me to believe that the block is fully justified.

Finally, please do not send me emails that are threatening and insulting. It's unbecoming as a contributor and you are expected to maintain a proper level of behavior. Mike V • Talk 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Threatening? Now you are lying. I never threatened you. I criticized your decision, work ethic, and admin capacities. Wiki policy doesn't extend to Non-Wiki emails

Regarding your point about Binkie, it just further illustrates your incompetence to deal with SPIs (the subject of my email). The relevant statistical question is not how often I have used Binkie; it is how many other users have used it. As I showed on the SPI at least 10 have. Regrettably, I don't have time to teach you stats, but you'll just have to take my word for this.

Finally, I am skeptical of how competent your search of wikipedia is. Do you know how to perform thorough searches of wikipedia? How did you conduct your search.

I pointed to ten other users who have used "binkie" on the page. You have tendentiously ignored that. Nor have you pushed for SPI proceedings against them, which you would have done if you were going off of the evidence.

Incidentally: even if you believe these IPs harassed Binksternet, harassing Bink was not their aim. The "harassment" was the product of a content dispute on articles in which I have no interest and have never edited. They did not seek Bink out on his talk page.

Regarding your (belated) standard of proof? Where does this (laughably low) reasonable suspicion standard come from? Please provide a source indicating that it is used to convict people as sockpuppets on WP. I don't see it on WP, and think you and the "team" made it up. Moreover, I don't think you know what that term means, and think you are lying when you said you explicitly had that standard in mind when you convicted me. If you consistently applied RS to SPIs, you would support banning all the other users who have used "Binkie" in the past from WP ("reasonability" is an extremely low threshold; one can "reasonably" believe a host of things that are probably false). Finally, note that qualitative--as opposed to objective, percentage-based standards like preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt--standards are for searches and investigation, not conviction, in all western legal systems.

• Comment – I've been following Steeletrap for some time, and will come out of my Wikibreak to briefly defend her in this circumstance. I do not believe she has used IPs for editing. Moreover, there is the requirement that editors not use IPs "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." Do the diffs show that she's engaged in such behavior? – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry policy prohibits the use of multiple undisclosed accounts/IPs to be used on the project space. Using IPs to harass Binksternet by calling him a name that he has already expressed a desire not to be used is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Mike V • Talk 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Since MIke V was clearly too lazy to read my past exchanges with Binksternet--and is lying when he implies that he spent serious time on the case--I wonder if User:Binksternet could weigh in. While he has a powerful disincentive to attack me--we don't like each other and have had strong content disagreements--I think that he will be honest enough to admit that he doesn't think I am the IPs. At the very least, I believe Bink will recognize that there is enough doubt on this issue to oppose a ban. My manner of posting is highly distinct. And even if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the Norwegians were pretending to lack English fluency, the IPs don't post like I do. Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw the sockpuppet case against you filed by Mr.X and I was curious to see how it ended. I did not initially think the Norwegian IPs were you but I could not disprove it either, and there was some interesting evidence brought forward that I was unable to counter. I tried to prove/disprove the case to myself by comparing your registered edits to the IPs using this intertwined contribution tool, but I did not see the rapidly alternating result which would have instantly exonerated you, so I did not weigh in at the SPI page. The tool showed a few hours in between the IP edits and your registered edits—plenty of time to log out on one machine and open an anonymous edit window on another, if you were physically in the state of Akershus, Norway, a possibility which could not be ignored without checkuser refutation. Your defense should have been based on confirming your actual physical location as being somewhere other than Akershus. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well there you have it. Even someone who hates me and believes I have harassed him--and the alleged victim of the IPs--admits that the case is far from proven.

I am happy to, and can easily, prove that I have never visited Norway. Is there anyone I can talk to (i.e. via phone) to do this? I volunteered for an IP check--thereby waiving privacy rights to exonerate myself-- but the lazy admin ignored my request.

By the way, Bink: Not being able to disprove an allegation is not grounds for convicting someone of that allegation. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As a libertarian you will appreciate that Misplaced Pages is not required to follow established legal procedure for its own internal affairs. SPI cases are very often concluded on behavioral and circumstantial evidence which would be thrown out of your familiar court of law. At SPI you are assumed guilty until proven innocent! The best SPI defense is an active one which you did not take. Instead you were cagey in your responses and generally defiant of the proceedings. This attitude did not help one bit. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a citation indicating that the WP SPI policy is guilty until proven innocent? It seems like people here--especially the highly respected 'veteran' users--just make up policy as they go. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Did I say I was relating Misplaced Pages policy to you? I did not. Instead, I was relaying Misplaced Pages practice to you. The way that it is rather than the way that it should be. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bink, that just proves my point. WP "practice" is arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by policy. My block is a seminal example of this. Steeletrap (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way: I know I'm violating WP:NPA. But Mike is attacking the basic integrity of the community by arbitrarily condemning/banning me as a sock and lying about the fact that he did so on a whim, without serious research. I defend my personal attacks by appealing to WP:IAR; in this context, of attacking the dangerous culture of unaccountable and incompetent admin behavior, ad hominem arguments are necessary and justified. Steeletrap (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

IAR does not apply to the civility policy. If you continue with this behavior your block will be extended and your talk page access will be revoked for the duration of the block. Mike V • Talk 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mike V, surely you would want to unblock me if you knew you were mistaken? I can prove you were mistaken, in conjunction with Bink's evidence. Bink's evidence indicates that there is no way I could have edited via the sock unless I was also in Norway, since I made edits within a few hours of the socks. Can we do the IP test now, please, so I can prove I was never in Norway when I was making the edits? Surely you would be open to additional evidence, and the IP test would provide overwhelming evidene. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec)

• Comment Like Srich, I have followed Steeletrap's activities on WP since her arrival in early 2013. She made plenty of mistakes as a new editor, and was instantly set upon with an extended period of harassment and unfounded aspersions. Frankly, I find her excitable and I think she comes off particularly poorly when she feels attacked or treated unfairly. In the context of recent WP discussions of civility and a wide range of gender-related behaviors and attitudes, it would be particularly unfortunate if any of us -- but especially Admins at SPI -- could not focus on the core issue and look beyond personality and behavior under stress.

A strikingly broad range of editors dismissed MrX's evidence at SPI. This included editors who at times have spoken critically of Steeletrap's ideology, her edits, and her behavior. It's distressing to see Mike V again raise the straw man issue of the rude diminutive after it was clear from the SPI discussion that, in the absence of other compelling evidence, editors did not consider this dispositive. In light of the overwhelming consensus against MrX' allegation at SPI and particularly in light of Steeletrap's consent to a checkuser there, I'm surprised that Mike V at the least would not state his view to solicit reaction from the assembled editors before summarily blocking Steeletrap. Why should editors participate in these threads if the Admin will close contrary to consensus? Mike V., I urge you to reverse your action. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

btw I just had another look at MrX's "evidence" and I see that the diffs he cites fail to verify his assertion that Steeletrap ever, let alone "often" mixes "single and double quotes" or even that she ever erroneously uses a "single" where a "double" is correct usage. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Back again from my Wikibreak to followup on this block. As IP spoofing is a possibility and as other evidence from Mike supports the SPI, and in consideration of the comments and advice from Binkster, I'll offer my meager 2¢ and support the block. Also, I'll advise Steeletrap to completely avoid the PA. E.g., "...clearly too lazy to read ...--and is lying" etc. just does not win friends and influence people. Denial of talk page access may have, hopefully, helped to focus Steeletraps' mind. Steeletrap has ignored the important part of IAR – we may IAR in order to "improve or maintain" Misplaced Pages. By her very own admission she uses a fallacious (ad hominem) argument. How did her PA improve or maintain WP? I hope she has taken time during her non-voluntary break to reflect upon this. – S. Rich (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Srich, how is it "evidence" in this case to assert that IP spoofing is possible? What evidence of Mike's do you believe supports the SPI? Why do you suppose that numerous and diverse editors and SPI Admin rejected the socking evidence presented on the case. What evidence do you find proves socking? Which block are you supporting? It's not clear from your statement. Three of us here, you me and Binksternet, have seen a lot of Steeletrap's editing and behavioral traits over the past couple of years. Do you really think that, of all of Steeletrap's pet issues and concerns she would waste her spoofed Norwegian sockpuppetry adventure on Binksternet? Far more probable that any editor would use an IP to evade a topic ban, to stack the deck in a contentious talk page discussion or other ways we see over and over on SPI. Doesn't that sort of data fall within your definition of "evidence?" SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the "Revenge of the C-Students" dynamic I've discussed before, a big problem with WP is that administrators deliberate in secret, so the reasoning behind an admin decision cannot be assessed. My block involved one admin bungle after another. The biggest bungle was the total absence of compelling evidence for the block. Others included the invocation of inconsistent standards of evidence. First the SPI was closed because (the admin said) I was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt; later I was blocked, even though no additional evidence was introduced, based on a lower standard of "reasonable suspicion." Clearly, the admin didn't read the procedures for SPIs before rendering judgment.

Also, User:Srich32977, you've inadvertently lent support to my narrative on WP. You switched your 'vote' on whether I am a sock solely based on the opinions of others, or on a fallacious appeal to authority. By WP standard, you'd make a great admin. Steeletrap (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap, for your own protection I advise you to restrain your ardently felt but impetuous instincts here. While many established editors can be uncivil or even post personal attacks and accusations under the protection of various WP alliances and social connections, you have no such history or support here. Your experience should have taught you to moderate your indignation if you wish to survive. Now that you've felt your vulnerability -- that you believe you can be threatened or blocked for any reason or no reason with little hope of orderly adjudication -- I suggest you adjust your expectation and concentrate on editing.

Srich will shortly be going through the RfA process, and if you participate there please ensure that your views are expressed in a dispassionate and articulate manner. Any other way will only bring you more aggravation. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't need 'wiki-friends.' What a pathetic concept that is. I'm here to stir things up and effect change. The people who blocked me on false charges are soon going to wish they had imposed a long-term block. I plan on releasing a number of essays over the next few weeks describing problems in admin conduct. Stay tuned. Steeletrap (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access

I've revoked your access to this page because of your repeated personal attacks. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)