User talk:Mindbunny

Badge of Honor: Blocked for calling Robert Mugabe degenerate and corrupt [1]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making deliberately disruptive edits in violation of WP:POINT.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• "This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold". --Robert Mugabe
• As the New Your Times reports, Mugabe's top lieutenants started "trying to force the political opposition into granting them amnesty for their past crimes by abducting, detaining and torturing opposition officials and activists." Dozens of members of the opposition and human rights activists have been abducted and tortured....
• Many opposition leaders mysteriously died during this time (Including one who allegedly died in a car crash, although the car was rumoured to have been riddled with bullet holes at the scene of the accident).[12] Additionally, an opposing newspaper's printing press was bombed and its journalists tortured.[12]
• In 2005, Mugabe ordered a raid conducted on what the government termed "illegal shelters" in Harare, resulting in 10,000 urban poor being left homeless from "Operation Murambatsvina (English: Operation Drive Out the Rubbish)."
• "[Homosexuality] degrades human dignity. It's unnatural, and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings. … What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behavior and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as Lesbians and Gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!" --Robert Mugabe [2] [3] Mindbunny (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Yes, full support for the 72 hour block.... to some people Mugabe is a hero, to others something else but we do not opine those opinions we hold about them on talkpages....Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)" [4]

Comments

• To claim that you were blocked "for calling Robert Mugabe degenerate and corrupt" is a distortion. you were blocked for repeatedly making disruptive edits with the clear intention of being provocative and disruptive. The fact that the way you did so by repeatedly posting remarks about Robert Mugabe is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Then statements of the form "[named living person] is degenerate and corrupt" must not be a BLP violation, since I repeatedly made such a statement and wasn't blocked for it. Therefore, the original concern about admin abuse stands.
• There is nothing particularly disruptive about the sentence "Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt." You have provided no evidence of a productive discussion being disrupted by it. It was made in the context of discussion about such statements. That thread, started by someone complaining about me, was widely considered "pointier" than what it complained about. It was a thread widely viewed as unimportant. You were looking for excuses to block an editor who criticized your judgement. Mindbunny (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Were you trying to delete my comments? If so, I'll leave you alone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Fisher Queen deleted a swath of comments and other material, and then refused to restore it. The easiest way to undo her vandalism was a revert. Your comment basically amounted to "calm down" (which, by the way, usually aggravates people further), and didn't seem essential. Feel free to restore if you wish. Mindbunny (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the slightly modified version of what I said. Mindbunny, please calm down; I know I've made comments to the effect above already, and there are plenty of citations to prove that specific comment, but you're missing the forest for the trees. It's part of a pattern of late; this was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't think anyone is *denying* what you've said about Mugabe, but it's just one in a whole series of comments that straddle the line. I've already said at ANI that I won't make any more comments of that nature, despite what I said earlier, and I'd advise you to do the same. In the event that you really want to vent about Mugabe, you can e-mail me, but keep it off-wiki; I don't want to see you dig yourself into a deeper hole. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My real concern is admin abuse, which has taken multiple forms in this issue. Sandstein blocked The Artist by way of promoting a POV and/or supporting another admin (SlimVirgin). Other admins supported the action with absurd and distorted arguments. Lately, the most common distortion has been of what The Artist actually said. It has now become an accepted truth that he called Lara Logan degenerate and corrupt. What he actually said is that she has degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards. It matters, because this is a discussion of nuance. People are comparing "ugly" and "pompous jerk" and "corrupt", and drawing distinctions between them. JamesBWatson has asserted that "jerk" is clearly more acceptable than "corrupt," and the distinction is sharp enough to base blocks on. Whatever. In such a context, we have to distinguish between commenting on someone's personhood and on their journalistic standards. Another absurdity is the argument that our personal opinions about living persons, expressed in Talk, must be sourced. Apparently, I was supposed to write "According to myself [1], Robert Mugabe is a pig." Another distortion is that That Artist's comment on Logan was unrelated to any effort to improve the article. In fact, the comment was based on that of a notable author, published in a reliable source (Rolling Stone), regarding an issue that was covered in the article. Sandstein knew all this. He knew the source, he knew the context, he knew it was an opinion, and he blocked anyway--18 minutes after giving a warning. The rush of admins to support him, all producing arguments like those given above (and some other silly ones, such as that any negative opinion is defamation), indicates a systemic lack admin accountability.

The abuse itself is not a surprise. Power leads to power trips. The problem is that Wikipedia, systemically, doesn't care. It has principles to protect against popularity contests and admin abuse, but the principles are enforced by.... popularity contests and admins. That interests me, and I don't intend to stop calling attention to it.

Thanks for your effort to turn things in a constructive direction. I'm pleased that there seems to be support for my view in the ANI thread. However, I'm not optimistic. Admins can block me, and you don't get admins on your side by pointing out their egotistical faults (however glaring they may be). Mindbunny (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I disagree with you on any of it (I don't know enough about Logan to form any real opinion, honestly); I'm in no way convinced that what I said is a BLP violation either, although given that Mugabe is in his 80s it shouldn't be an issue for too much longer. You don't have to agree with policy, but until you get it changed and/or clarified you should try to stay within it. As an NPPer (although I've considerably slowed down there for a while) I'm less than thrilled with CSD policy, but I make an active effort to follow it. Or to use a real-life example for me; I'm essentially incapable of feeling/showing empathy, but I at least pretend when I'm at a wake or funeral. You may not really like the way BLP policy is enforced, but it's in your interest to stay within it. I'm more than willing to refrain from making comments like I did about Mugabe; Mugabe did what he did to his reputation many years ago, and I have no problem calling a spade a spade, but if other editors tell me that it's interfering with collaboration then I'll stop. All you have to do is convince an admin that you won't make comments like that again, and then follow through with it. If you're worried about power trips, don't shout admin abuse; even if I assume you're correct, by your logic that'll only give them more ammunition against you. My advice, should you want it, would be to calmly say that even if you don't agree with the way admins have enforced BLP policy that you'll try your best to go with it. I wasn't blocked, but I've already said as much at ANI, and it's worked for me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about changing policy, but don't agree that it applies here. WP:BLP doesn't prohibit critical opinions of living people. That would just be censorship. The parts of WP:BLP being cited to justify these blocks don't apply. Negatives opinions are not libel. An opinion given by an editor is obviously very clearly sourced--to the editor. WP:BLP was applied wrongly in order to rationalize punitive blocking. Mindbunny (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• - WP:BLPTALK is quite clear - your opinions about living people should be kept to yourself. end of. get a blog to voice your opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeating that assertion doesn't it make true or interesting. The ANI discussion makes one thing clear: there is no agreement. The policy you cited doesn't amount to "keep your opinions about living people to yourself." It is primarily concerned with clear sourcing, and the source of an editor's opinion is very clear. There is also no custom of blocking on the principle "keep your opinions about living people to yourself." If the policy exists, it is virtually never enforced, and its arbitrary enforcement looks prejudiced. The real topic here is admin abuse. This comment, by an admin, is harsher, yet the admin remains unblocked: "<redacted> --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)" Mindbunny (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On your userpage when blocked you are allowed a bit of leeway - see here User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#your_personal_opinions for the discussion with S Schulz - and I have struck all his attacking opinions and warned him as well. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is primarily concerned with clear sourcing, and the source of an editor's opinion is very clear.; this is just Wikilawyering to avoid the intent of the policy. As it is you are wrong, the BLP policy mentions that comments not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. QED on that, really. Also, as I understand it you have been blocked not for expressing these opinions, but for continually expressing them to make a point. Which is different. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)m

The point about sourcing is hardly "wikilawyering" when it was the basis for Sandstein's block, as Sandstein himself said [5]. Many others chimed along. Errant has mis-cited (and thus misunderstood) WP:BLP, which is about contentious material, not comments. The intent is to prevent defamation and other kinds of harm, not to prohibit criticism. Prohibiting editors from criticizing a living person would be oppressive. I see the discussion with Stephan Schulz is also making these points. P.S. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Mindbunny (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the intent is to stop people expressing their own views on living people in a highly visible forum. Saying someone is the most human being in the world should be equally discouraged per NOTFORUM, but where the view is negative or contentious it comes under BLP policy. Totally agreed about the Mel Gibson DUI. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. <redacted>Mindbunny (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I must say, I am appalled to discover that there is an entire article devoted to the Mel Gibson DUI incident. That seems like a horrendous BLP-violating POV-fork. <redacted>, but that doesn't mean he should be attacked to the extent of having an entire encyclopedia article about a single incident. Where's the entire article on the Academy Award he won for Braveheart? A POV-fork like that is a much more blatant insult to a living person than some editor dude on a Talk page calling him a jerk. Mindbunny (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your statements about living people on this talk page

Hello. As you are aware by now, Wikipedia is not a forum for you to voice your views about living persons, WP:BLP does apply to talk pages, and you may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. For these reasons, please remove the defamatory statements you made about living persons (Mugabe, Cheney, Gibson) on this talk page as soon as possible, or your block may be extended and you may be prevented from editing this talk page. Regards,  Sandstein  06:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. There was no consensus in the recent discussion [6]. WP:BLP applies to Talk pages, but it doesn't prohibit negative opinions. Negative opinions are not defamatory ("a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual") [7]. Even the blocking admin said he didn't block violations of WP:BLP. You've provided no evidence that such comments are disruptive. Nor have you trheatened any of the other editors who made the same comments, and have continued to defend them [8].

You are not impartial. I've repeatedly criticized you for biased blocking, and recently attempted an RFC/U for you. Good form would be to take this to ANI, not block someone yourself who has called for you to be blocked. Mindbunny (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. WP:BLP does not only prohibit statements that are legally defamatory, but, beyond that, dictates at WP:BLPTALK: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." This includes your personal opinion about whether a particular living person is a criminal or morally deficient (especially if, as here, it is unrelated to improving an article). In addition, per WP:FORUM, Wikipedia (including its talk pages) is not a forum in which you may voice your own opinions about living persons. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to discuss the merits of living people. Finally, per WP:POINT, if you disagree with a rule (such as the ones I and others have explained to you), you may attempt to have it changed, but it is disruptive to protest against it by breaking it.

You are also mistaken about my involvement with respect to you. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." My interactions with you so far have all been in an administrative capacity. An editor cannot unilaterally prevent an administrator from doing their job simply by expressing disagreement with the administrative actions of that administrator, whether in the form of a RFC or otherwise.

Finally, the possibly questionable conduct of other users, and whether it has been sanctioned or not, is not a reason not to enforce our policy about biographies of living persons with respect to you. If you believe the edits of others warrant enforcement as well, you may request such enforcement on the appropriate noticeboard as soon as you are again able to. In this case, I choose not to undertake such enforcement myself because of my possible prior involvement with some of the editors concerned, and so as not to complicate matters more.

Consequently, because you have not removed the WP:BLP violations above, I am doing so and I am also lengthening your block to last one week. Should you reintroduce the problematic material, you may be prevented from editing this talk page and/or your block may be extended further, including to an indefinite duration. Any administrator may unblock you if you convince us that you understand what you did wrong and credibly promise no longer to violate the policy about biographies of living persons, misuse Wikipedia as a forum to voice your opinions about living people, and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  Sandstein  19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no conensus for this interpretation of WP:BLP in the recent discussion. The editors skeptical of the interpretation and/or block of me included..... GinsengBomb, Blade of Northern Lights, NickCT, Kansan, and Stephan Schulz [9]. It would also be appropriate for you to explain what, exactly, is being disrupted by my Talk page. There have been no concrete examples of disruption.

You've also misunderstood the content you just redacted. Of the 2k you deleted as my BLP violations, 1.9k was quoted directly from Wikipedia. [10] How I can commit a BLP violation by quoting Wikipedia?

Please don't move goalposts. I defended myself against the claim that I was defaming people, because you accused me of defamation above.

As a matter of grammar, the "and" in "unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices" means that both conditions must be met. An editor's opinion is clearly sourced to the editor. Your interpretation requires wording such as "poorly sourced OR not related to content choices."

As for the policy on being uninvoled, the examples of acceptable involvement are "warnings, advice, and suggestions." Our past conflict goes beyond that. You blocked me, I accused you of bias in favor of a POV on an article, I requested an RFC/U on you, we disagree on the meaning of the policy, etc. That's conflict. Mindbunny (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Sandstein's actions here. Mindbunny, no matter how angry you are at Sandstein or any other editor here, no matter how in the wrong you think everyone else's interpretation of our BLP policy is, the simple fact is you are in the wrong. If after the block expires you persist in acting in the ways you have that resulted in your being blocked, I would support an indefinite block. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "everyone else's interpretation"? From that brief ANI thread, off the top of my head, those who disagree with this interpretation of "our" BLP policy include NorthernLights, GinsengBomb, Stephan Schulz, and Kansan (and myself). The wording of the policy is unclear, and these blocks are arbitrary. The fair response to ambiguous policy is not to block first; it is to listen and clarify via community input. The blocks are powertrips by people with power. One of the most predictable patterns in social history. Mindbunny (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have an opinion regarding the BLP/user talk issue; you have an opinion regarding the issue. Those opinions aside, you are treating the issue as a battleground and are using your user talk to further a point. I will not block you for this practice but you will certainly be blocked for disruption if you do not self-revert. If you have concerns regarding the interpretation of the BLP policy, take it up at the proper venue. I have previously left you a message that was ignored with prejudice; I hope this message does not suffer the same fate. Tiderolls 20:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il is not a nice guy. Mindbunny (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

According to myself [11], he's a tyrant. Mindbunny (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourced! Mindbunny (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And I have a source that the Pope is Catholic. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Since you did not seem to learn from your prior blocks, and you have again engaged in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as evidenced here, and refused to drop the matter after several polite requests from other editors, I have now blocked your account indefinitely. Upon reading what happened here I had considered blocking your account indefinitely, but decided to wait.

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, but it just doesn't seem to be working out. The efforts the community has to make to deal with your editing outweighs the benefits thereof. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• See especially User:John Vandenberg's comment here. Do not unblock this user without my agreement, or a robust community discussion and consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You should learn how to make decisions that are respected by people who disagree with them.

It isn't disruptive to give reasons for a concern. It is irrational to dismiss the concern as mine alone when it was expressed by others. You're an admin abusing power, a systemic problem here. Mindbunny (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, as a point of honesty and accuracy, I should note that User:Noloop is my acknowledged alternate account, and you should probably block it too. I scrambled the password, so it is inaccessible to me, but it's so important to be official, you know.

It would have been nice to have admins address my reasons for believing what I believe, instead of just declaring me disruptive for believing it. What you don't seem to realize is that I am not persistent because of "POINT" or "BATTLE". I'm persistent when I am merely dismissed, when I believe I'm not being listened to. Everybody should be persistent in that way. Mindbunny (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure whether there is any point in saying this, because you have a substantial history of failing to hear what people say on this issue, but I have not seen anyone "declaring you disruptive" for believing particular things, nor even for stating what you believe. What has been characterised as disruptive is the way you behave when you find people disagree with what you believe. "The efforts the community has to make to deal with your editing outweighs the benefits thereof" is a pretty good summary. You have done some good work, and if you had been able to accept that in a collaborative project we all often have to accept things going ways we think are wrong then you could have gone on doing much more good work. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I behave when people disagee with me is to explain why I believe what I do. Then, my act of explaining is declared disruptive. That's all that is given in Jehochman's comment "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as evidenced here, and refused to drop the matter after several polite requests from other editors". And, the representations are not accurate. I replied to those editors who directed comments at me. Nor is it accurate to suggest the concern is mine alone. The last comment in that thread is "May I complain about the article starting from scratch and have it be treated as a legitimate BLP complaint? Those excerpts show far more than is necessary for documenting abuse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)" Several others have shared my concern. The main admin warning me, Scot Mac, also called me "idiotic", so of course I ignored his warnings. Likewise, my proposal at the Village Pump has been supported by a majority [12]. Yet it is characterized as my disruption and a case of failing to hear what people say. So when admins repeatedly say nobody is pursuing these concerns but me, and the facts are that many others are expressing the same concerns, I think admins are dishonest.

Above, I've given my reasons for believing what I believe. Typically, that is taken as further proof of "disruption" and failing to hear what people say. I see myeself conducting myself properly: explaining my rationales, responding to criticism. That is how an open-minded discussion works. So, when I see myself being threatened/punished for it, I see admin abuse. I would like to be unblocked, but I am not going to appeal. Appeals seem to require subordination to the admin comunity: I admit I was wrong, the admins were right, and I will never do it again. In this case, that would be dishonest. I see myself engaging in reasoned discussion with an expectation of fairness. Mindbunny (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, I dislike authority too. The problem here is that you have had repeated problems and don't seem to get it that certain topics are danger zones to be avoided. Right and wrong are subjective. But commotion is easily identified. As a general rule, don't cause a lot of commotions on Wikipedia unless you have substantial upport from other editors that your points are worth making. You don't need to apologize, bow, nor scrape. Just demonstrate that you undertand how things work. Jehochman ^Talk 06:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman has it right, and I know from personal experience. What I've learned over time is that even when I'm absolutely certain that I'm right, I don't always get my way. I have been known to argue for something for a lengthy stretch of time, without convincing anyone, or very few; and at some point, someone with that voice of authority says, "That's enough." Then I ask myself, which is preferable: To be right, and indef'd? Or to leave it for another day (or never), and continue to edit? How badly do I want to edit? That's the question every editor has to ask himself when he seems to hit a stone wall. My answer, so far, has been that I would rather edit than "win", if it comes to that choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No intellectual community can enforce this: "certain topics are danger zones to be avoided." As a side note, I don't see how it applies here. My proposal at the Village Pump was supported by a majority. Other editors expressed concern about SlimVirgin's page; in the discussion, I just responded to comments directed at me. Mindbunny (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One of your danger zones is BLP. You should not be starting any conversations about this topic. ArbCom nearly topic banned you from all BLP issues, but decided to leave it to the community. At the moment, I am enforcing the community's wish, which is that they want a break from your endless or pointless debates. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. My BLP policy proposal is supported by a majority. I've edited one BLP article in my life, and never made a BLP-violating edit to it. Banning people to end debate is oppressive and pointless: I wasn't debating myself.

You need to learn to make decisions that are respected even by people who disagree with them. Mindbunny (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We should pause this conversation for a while. Please think over my advice, and maybe contact a few other Wikipedians and see what they think. Feel free to lodge an appeal with the unblock list or ArbCom. Kind regards, Jehochman ^Talk 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I've spent the last month criticizing admins. Appealing isn't an option. I'm done here. Mindbunny (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a conundrum. I noticed vandalism [13]. If I fix it, I have 1) unambiguously improved Wikipedia, and 2) unambiguously sock-puppeted. It seems like a clear case of IAR, since 99% of the community will agree it's an improvement. But should I risk the randomness of a later admin judgement? It is impossible to know in advance how an admin would interpret such an action. particularly an admin with a prior history with me. I risk damage to any future interest in being unblocked if I invoke IAR. The vandalism has existed undetected for a week. Like the Car Talk guys say, it's a puzzler. Mindbunny (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Since no one noticed it but you, maybe no one but you is watching the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be protected to prevent anon IP editing. Almost all the blanking of the last few months has been from anon IPs, and there has been a steady trickle of it. Thanks for fixing it, but that doesn't address the interesting question of how a banned editor should handle such things in general. Mindbunny (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)