User:THF/Ikip

I have several complaints about the uncivil behavior of Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), largely over his conduct on the talk page of Business Plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a civility dispute, though Ikip, in his statement, is trying to characterize it as just a content dispute. Ikip has already been blocked once over this behavior, and warned multiple times, but has continued it.

Ikip:

• Update, 2 March: makes threat against me on my talk page,[1] gets warning from Cool Hand Luke.[2]
• Update, 2 March: makes bad-faith accusation of COI at WT:COI -- see resolution at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FDave_Johnson_.28blogger.29.
• Update, 2 March: continues to abuse WP:TALK by using article talk-page to make personal attack irrelevant to article (NB that Ikip was blocked for precisely the complaint he complains I made)
• Repeatedly falsely characterizes a series of good-faith edits unique to me that I've made only once as "edit-warring."[3][4][5][6] (and many many more times) even though I haven't even violated 1RR.
• Asks me the exact same question nine times on Talk:Business Plot and a number of other times on my talk page and elsewhere. I answered it the first time, two other editors agreed with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy about the inclusion of lists of miscellaneous trivia,[7] and he never acknowledged the answer or the other editors, and has continued to demand an answer from me and falsely (and ironically) claims I am violating WP:TEDIOUS because I haven't answered him.
• Repeats the same argument word-for-word in a subsection in response to every single editor that disagrees with him, but never acknowledges the responses to that argument. (e.g., here, where he posted the same misleading quote from a congressional subcommittee four separate times in under 24 hours; or, here,[8][9] where he repeated word-for-word the same comment twice in half an hour, both times ignoring the substantive argument being made.
• Creates ginormous charts on talk pages that falsely claim to represent my position in issues,[10][11] that clutter up the talk page and are impossible to respond to in a manner that a third person can read, and then objects and reverts me when I try to edit the column that misleadingly says "THF response" to respond to his questions.
• And then leaves a second copy of the ginormous chart on my talk page in violation of WP:MULTI, though he knows darn well I've seen it on the article talk page.[12]
• Creates an RFC for the article that is actually a personal attack in violation of WP:RFC.
• Moves my user-talk page comments to an article-talk-page with my signature, making it falsely seem like I have violated WP:TALK by using an article talk page to leave a personal comment.[13]
• Deleting my comments with fake edit summaries falsely calling them personal attacks.
• In violation of WP:REDACT, modifies his talk-page comments after other editors have responded to them (without strikethroughs or any other indication of modification), making those other editors look like they're spouting non sequiturs. See, e.g., these 19 consecutive edits to the talk page.
• Copies and pastes existing talk-page discussions so that they are taking place in two different parts of the talk page.[14]
• Falsely accuses me of "tag-teaming" with User:Collect against him,[15] when, in fact, the first time I ran into Ikip, he and Collect were together arguing against me on cluster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination).
• Perversely mentors a new editor to edit-war against me and ignore a 3RR warning and the NOR rules on an unrelated page, Skull & Bones,[16] where three separate editors agreed (and the newbie essentially admitted on the talk page) that the newbie's insertions and reversions violated WP:OR.
• Follows me to pages he has not previously edited on to badger me about Business Plot and my supposed conspiracy with Collect.[17]
• (Pre-block) Brought a retaliatory bad-faith MfD on an essay I wrote, again falsely characterizing it as a personal attack.

All of this makes the Talk:Business Plot page impossible to read by existing editors, not to mention impossible to get outside editors to wade in and help resolve content disputes. (Update 15:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC) -- NB that after this WQA was opened, Ikip started redacting the talk page.)

Apologies that diffs are difficult to find: as you can see from Talk:Business Plot, Ikip has made well over 100 edits to that talk page in the last 48 hours. A couple of times, I made the mistake of trying to consolidate duplicated (as in copied-and-pasted) conversations in a single section, or to {{collapse}} overlengthy sections and he'd just revert me, making the history even more confusing. It isn't even enough to let him have the WP:LASTWORD, because he'll keep badgering and badgering and treat a failure to respond between, say, 5 and 10 in the morning Eastern Time as a reason to accuse an editor of bad faith.[18]

This seems to be an attempt to overwhelm and badger away other editors and ensure ownership of a page that is seriously out of compliance with Wikipedia policy (for example, giving higher priority to an amateur conspiracy theorist over Arthur Schlesinger): it's impossible for any new editor to the page to figure out what the content dispute is. At best, it's someone who doesn't begin to understand Wikipedia rules or WP:NOT#BATTLE or WP:STICK, except he is an experienced editor who should really know better.

He's already been blocked once for hounding me, so I'm at my wit's end. Is he allowed to chase me away from an article by bad behavior? (I can't even disengage, because he's followed me to other pages to complain about my edits on Business Plot.) Does Wikipedia endorse the heckler's veto?

I predict that Ikip is going to respond with a lot of allegations about the content dispute; this isn't about the content dispute, it's about his method of conducting the content dispute. For example, I changed the name of the article to Business Plot conspiracy theory to conform the article title to other similar conspiracy theory articles; Ikip immediately reverted me, and I immediately took the issue to the talk page. All of this is perfectly reasonable within the be-bold/revert/discuss cycle, but Ikip is still complaining that I made the page move and making false accusations about it as "edit-warring," and will complain about it again below. THF (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC), updated 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Update, 2 March: Ikip deletes my talk-page comment again, and threatens to harass me on my talk page. THF (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • 9 March: fakes a quote to falsely accuse me of wrongdoing. THF (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)