[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

Wed Dec 13 07:25:23 UTC 2006

George Herbert wrote:

> As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page,
> removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus
> arguing with people there.
>
> As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
> ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of
> administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
>
> RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
> committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on
> several levels.  He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use
> inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info
> claiming it's unsourced.  There was a two-sided abusive edit war going
> on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been
> warned against that.
>
> It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
> to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and
> collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or
> appropriate.  If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page
> while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool
> down.
>
> Bad day.

All in all, I like that post. I don't think we'll all completely agree on
everything, but you're attempting to be fair and objective, and I like that.

Moving on to the checkuser results -- Essjay reports that it's "possible"
RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14 are the same person.

"Possible" means just that. It's objectively possible that it's the same
person, but also objectively possible that it's not -- meaning that there
are other people active in this IP range, most likely. We're probably not
going to get a solid result, through checkuser; that evidence seems
circumstantial.

George Herbert brings up an interesting point -- RunedChozo has a strong
tendency to edit at about 10:00-15:00 (my time), but 70.114.237.14 was
editing only between 20:00-23:00 (my time). I can only find two exceptions
to this, in RunedChozo's edit history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev&oldid=88763202
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev&oldid=88763010

Both were on 18 November, at about 22:40. This seems to hint away from
RunedChozo being 70.114.237.14, but given such a brief sampling, it's
difficult to be entirely certain. We know that he *can* stay up until
whatever time that is, locally, but also that he does so rarely.

70.114.237.14 has two main "periods" -- once, at 20:16-20:34 on 10 December
(about half a day before RunedChozo's block @ 11:45, 11 December), where the
primary activity was apparently trolling at Striver. It's possible this was
another user, or also possible it was a registered user logging out to
attempt to avoid responsibility for attacks. The IP's second block of edits
comes at 21:32-22:34, 11 December (about 10 hours after RunedChozo's block),
and the first edit again attacks Striver. The IP then proceeds to the AN/I
thread RunedChozo started, and makes some more attacks before being blocked,
at which point it continues at its talk page.

Given the IP started its second block by attacking Striver, I think we can
at least assume the 70.114.237.14 was the same user, both days.

So, I decided to check if RunedChozo has had any previous interaction with
Striver. He has. On 14 November, he made two edits to Striver's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=87786569
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=87795801

They appear to have been clashing over these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_shelling_of_Beit_Hanoun

This evidence doesn't seem to clearly pin RunedChozo as 70.114.237.14, but
it does establish that he had an antagonistic relationship with Striver, and
we do know that 70.114.237.14 attacked Striver's userpage.

I can see a few other similarities between RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14.
Both consider Striver to be an anti-Israeli POV-pusher and/or anti-semite.
Both consider the Muslim Guild to be a group of meatpuppets or some other
form of conspiracy.

They both refer to Future Perfect as a "tool"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=prev&oldid=93636099
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=prev&oldid=93633482
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=93753665

Both call Tariqabjotu and Itaqallah "liars" frequently
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev&oldid=93664423
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev&oldid=93688036
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=93760600
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=93628825
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=93761034

And as is no doubt obvious to any interested party by this point, they both
seem to have a high interest in the exact same AN/I thread and the same
article (Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident).

So, what do we think?

-Luna