Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

Acadēmica_Orientālis has a history as an SPA pushing a pov that has it that certain races are biologically inferior than others regarding intelligence and propensity to commit crimes. Following an editing restriction he expanded his scope to articles generally related to question of biological influence on criminal behavior and intelligence. In the past month or so I have looked at his contributions to three different articles (two had him as main contributor) in which it has been painfully clear that he is not working neutrally but selectively choosing those sources that argue in favor of the the viewpoint that social behavior is determined by biology - completely ignoring opposing viewpoints (of which there are always many as the nature/nurture question is generally contentious, and particularly in the case of crime and psychopathology). The articles are Racism, Biology and political orientation, Biosocial criminology (also note the relative weightinh og "environmental" and biological/genetic in the other article he has recently worked on Psychopathy) (see also his past contributions to Race and crime, Correlates of crime, Imprinted brain theory and the related talkpages). I am not arguing that this bio-centric viewpoint should not be represented in wikipedia, because it obviously should. But I don't think it is in the interest of wikipedia to allow Academic Orientalis to repeatedly create lopsided biased content related to this topic. I would like to assume good faith, for example assuming that Academica Orientalis is not familiar with the fact that the literature he repeatedly inserts into articles is only one side of a large debate, but unfortunately at this point this would not make sense since he has been told multiple times, and even sanctioned for tendentious editing. I think the only sensible course of action is to restrict him from editing in nature/nurture related articles broadly construed (his other recent interest is science and technology in China - I haven't heard of problems with his editing there). In my mind the issue is comparable to the time when a user had the unfortunate habit of writing articles about antisemitic canards without being able to write those articles neutrally. He was stopped from doing that and he was encouraged to start editing in other areas and has since been a useful contributor. I have hope that the same could be the same for Acadēmica_Orientālis if he is restricted from writing about the particular topic regarding which he is clearly incapable of giving a balanced coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus's argument is rather unclear. But I have repeatedly stated that I will avoid race and intelligence articles except some occasional talk page comments and so I have for many months. Maunus's strangely takes up a few not objectionable talk page comments on the racism page a long time ago as evidence for something. What is unclear. The question of nature/nuture in various other articles I have contributed significantly to is a content dispute where Maunus has a strong personal POV. It is unfortunate that Maunus tries to "win" his content dispute with me this way. No evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been presented by Maunus. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to "win a content dispute" - I am trying to avoid having to follow you around balancing your articles in the future, in effect preempting future content disputes, except its not really a dispute since you usually don't try to resist your articles becoming neutral you just don't help doing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are describing are content disputes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

First, talk pages count. Second, what about this edit, which actually succeeded a tug of war with others about your previous edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. My talk page comments contained nothing objectionable. I have avoided editing R&I article contents for more than half a year now. Your diff is about a content dispute unrelated to R&I. The content dispute is currently discussed on the talk page and elsewhere. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problems were summarised fairly well a year ago by EdJohnston [1] and by Aprock here at WP:AE. Not much seems to have changed. The problems are not specifically with R&I. Mathsci (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

When accused of violating the ban, there appears to be a refrain (then and now) by AC that the material he is editing is not related to R&I. His response that Talk pages are irrelevant is similarly ban-evasive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not under any topic ban. As stated I do not want to participate anymore in the R&I dispute with Maunus, Mathsci, and other, and have voluntarily avoided these articles for more than half a year except some occasional talk page comments. Mathsci's links are almost a year old. I repeat that no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented. This is an attempt to use ANI to win a content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are currently under a ban is only relevant in terms of the sanctions that may be imposed on you through this discussion. Your arguments are evasive and sly and don't really address the issues. If I, without any previous knowledge of you, can see that, you can imagine what others more familiar with your history will think. If you want to help yourself, I suggest you try a different approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EdJohnston wrote, "Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Wikipedia is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing." Nothing to do with R&I, just WP:DE. Mathsci (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are linking to one person's view which is almost one year old. I have not wish to be further involved in the R&I dispute with you and Mathsci which is why I have voluntarily avoided the topic. I will do so also in the future. I have instead contributed to many other articles for which I have received praise. I repeat. No evidence of wrongdoing has been presented. This is a content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am not accusing Academica Orientalis of evading a ban, I don't think he is currently under one. I am accusing him of tendentious editing, which is very difficult to support with difs. But I have demonstrated on the talkpages of Racism, Biosocial criminology and Biology and political orientation that Academica Orientalis repeatedly selects only sources representeing a single viewpoint, frequently twists sources, and sometimes uses weasel phrasing to avoid describing critical views ("there has been criticism of this viewpoint" without describing the criticism or who made it). It really means that it is a huge job for other editors to supply the other half of the argument and rewrite articles to reflect all of the available scholarship. Civil tendentious editing is a huge time drain for other editors, especially when confronted with repetitive IDHT type arguments and total unwillngness to address the problems.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not shown that. I cite sources accurately and include opposing views when I find them including describing the criticisms. You on the other hand have admitted claiming there are problems by citing sources you have not even read! [2]. You have not produced any diff showing wrongdoing. Please do not use ANI for content disputes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs

• In this edit Academica Orientalis includes a statement that "Other see twin studies as reliable.". The context is that AO based the heritability section of the article on a single article by Alford, Funk and Hibbing that used twin studies to determine heritability of political orientation. He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used. There is in fact a large body of literature criticizing twin studies as a source of heritability estimates. I included several sources arguing specifically that Alford et al's conclusions were untenable because of methdological problems - two of them stating unequivocally that twin studies have been abandonded as a source of heritability estimates. When I looked in the article provided by AO in support of twin studies as a source of heritability estimates it said this: "Twin studies of heritability are suggestive of genetic factors in social and political attitudes, but they do not specify the biological or psychological mechanisms that could give rise to ideological differences. Recently, researchers have turned to molecular genetics approaches, which involve sampling subjects’ DNA from blood or saliva, and identifying individual differences, or polymorphisms, in a particular gene (Canli 2009)". Here the authors say the opposite of what AO make them say - they state that twin studies may be suggestive of genetic differences but that they are no longer used by serious researchers to provide heritability estimates. This shows two kinds of problematic behavior by AO 1. failure to attempt to provide a balanced view of the topic he writes about (he cannot claim that he didn't know of the problems with twin studies, or that he didn't know it had been criticized - he knows this very well from his time in R&I) (in essence cherry picking) 2. misrepresentation of sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A complicated content dispute. Regarding heritability and twin studies in general I linked to the heritability article which discusses the subject in great detail. To replicate all the arguments for and against in every article mentioning heritability is of course not possible. I added a secondary literature review to the section. I agreed on the talk page that some researchers argued twin studies are not accurate for exact numbers but they do have been important for showing that genetics play a role. My source started with "The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies." I therefore subsequently changed my text to reflect this which you do not mention.[3] See also this review article for a different view on the subject: Nature Reviews Genetics: [4]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is not the issue of content - the point is that: 1. you were aware that the study was controversial and did not state so untill someone made you. 2. you misrepresented the source you did present. If this was a single standing incident it would not be a problem, and i would assume that you would have learned that you ned to include also the opposing view in a major scholarly dispute like this, but unfortunately it isn't. It is a persistent pattern over several years. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated what I was aware of. Regarding the heritability source, see what I wrote previously. Your unsourced claim of persistent pattern is incorrect. I could just as well claim that you have a persistent pattern of being biased in your editing on these subjects. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to be more aware. Especially since people have been making you aware of literature that disagrees with the basic viewpoint expressed in the source for the past several years. I don't buy that excuse -but if I were to assume good faith it would still be an issue of basic WP:COMPETENCE. A wikipedia editor needs to be able to have the mind to realize when a viewpoint is controversial nad requires a balanced treatment. Especially one who has spent so much effort editing controversial topics as you have.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a link the Heritability article discussing the arguments for and against in great detail. To replicate this in every article mentioning heritability is not possible. Regarding competence, how about you actually reading the sources you claim contain important information supporting you. Which you have admitted not doing: [5]]. That would seem to be a minimum requirement. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop lying about those two sources. I have not claimed they support me. I have not cited them. I have suggested you read them since they might provide you with a more nuanced view of the fact, and might enable you to actually cite some of the criticism that your source mentions, but apparently doesn't cite.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You were listing sources that supposedly should provide information that was supposedly missing in my source without actually having read your own sources! Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was providing you a service since you apparently suffer from some kind of handicap when it comes to finding sources that contain information you may disagree with. And I would do it again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice tactic. So if you disagree with an article you will start filling the talk page with sources which you yourself have not read and demand that the other side must read them since there is a possibility that there may be something in the sources you have not read that will support your views? Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You refused to provide citations for the criticisms that your own article mentioned, I found articles that are clearly critical of biosocial criminology (indeed the title of one of them is "a critique of biosocial criminology"). But yes, if I happen to know that an article is leaving out significant viewpoints then I will at times provide sources that I believe express those missing viewpoints on the talkpage so that other editors may use them to improve the article, if I don't have time myself. That's not "a tactic" that is called writing a collaborative encyclopedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have certainly stated which review source I have used for my statements. You personally "think" that there are missing criticisms and you "think" that these missing criticisms may be in some sources you have actually not read. Since you do not have the "time" yourself to control your speculations, you demand that someone else should do the work for you. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The source you used apparently states there is criticisms, it is not just something I "think" - yet those criticisms are given no shrift at all in the article. That is the problem, and that is why I had to use google to findout what they might be after you refused to provide the sources that i am sure the review source cites. Very collaborative of you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• In this edit AO adds a mention of the fact that "has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences". This is of course correct and it would be very useful for the reader to know who made this criticism and where, and based on what arguments. Instead of giving this basic information AO writes: "Biosocial argues that this is incorrect but that on the other hand many sociologically influenced criminological approaches completely ignores the potential role of genetic which means that the results is likely confounded by genetic factors." That is the criticism is only mentioned so that it can be debunked, without giving the reader a chance to even know who is being debunked. When I placed a tag asking for who made the criticism AO said that it was already sourced (to the source debunking the criticism that is), and he did not offer to find it for me. When I googled crtitiques of Biosocial criminology I quickly found a few studies which I presented on the talkpage so that AO could use them to improve the article. Instead he argued that because I hadn't read them my assertation that the article lacked criticism was unfounded (in spite of the fact that he himself had mentioned the existence of criticism, and refused to provide the citation of the critique)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Another content dispute. I have on the talk page given the exact quote from which the statement was made.[6] The source does not give further information than what I stated in the article. Have you not read what I wrote on the talk page? Regarding the sources you gave and claim contain relevant critical information, you yourself have admitted that you have not read them! [7]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is not the specific content here that is the problem, but that fact that you knowlingly did not adequately represent opposing (mainstream) viewpoints. If you don't have access to mainstream sources about a topic don't edit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated what the source stated on the subject. I have not "knowingly" excluded anything. I have read sources unlike you who have admitted claiming there are arguments missing by citing sources you have not even read! Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So now you are verging into plain untruths. I admitted that I had not read two sources that I added on the talkpage - I have not cited those sources anywhere. Your own source mentioned there was criticisms - that didn't motivate you to look for it. That is at best a competence issue and at worst knowingly omitting the contrary view. You have not admitted to not reading the sources you cite, but if you read the review you introduced then you certainly read it very superficially.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The diff speaks for itself. You mentioned these sources you admit not having read as supporting for your views. I have read the Biosocial Crime source I cited carefully and not stated otherwise. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is similar to the above, in that he gratuitously mentions that there has "been various criticisms", but does not mention who made these critiques orexplain what they are, but instead sources[8] the entire paragraph to an article in which the original authors of the controversial study make a rebuttal of criticisms (The study has been shown to be based on flawed data and statistical methods by Buller, David (2005). "The Emperor is Still Under-dressed". Trends in Cognitive Science 11: 508–510.) - but Ao doesn't think this is relevant for this article.

Content dispute. I did not mention any of the specific arguments either for or against since there is a very long Wikipedia article (Cinderella effect) dedicated to the subject which was linked to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• This edit is just blatant POV peacockery.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. What the sources states. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here AO removes the only mention of the fact that the mainstream view in criminology still is that most of the causality behind crime is explained by environmental factors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. In fact, the article starts by stating "contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories". This with a source unlike the completely unsourced material I removed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• It seems odd that the claim that noone would have contradicted this claim "Traditional sociologically oriented theories explain relatively little of the variance" which basically states that all other criminologists have got it all wrong. Where is the "traditional" view (also known as mainstyream) represented? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is what the given source states. There was no "traditional" view there on this that I did not include. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Writing a neutral article requires looking at sources written by...gasp... the other point of view. Basing an article on a single biase source as you routinely have done producess... biased articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to write a POV article I would not have mentioned this criticism at all. Your are assuming that there are counter-arguments without proof. Just like you assume that sources you Google contain relevant information without reading them. If there are in fact opposing view, then state them so they can be included. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here we're back to race again (but not IQ). Apparently religious Black people tend to vote liberal. It's probably in their genes. (Ok, this isn't really misconduct since its on a talkpage and he's actually using a maisntream source (but cherry picking a factoid out of table))·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. Secondary source. No mention of IQ. No mention of genes. Talk page comment. No cherry picking.Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Look at this article edited by AO recently. Notice how anthropology and sociology account for a paragraph each, whereas - evolutionary explanations account for something closer to three screens. One would think that social sciences would have more to say about altruism (of course they do). Ok, AO is not interested in social science and probably shouldn't be forced to write extensively about stuff he's not interested in. But then again isn't every editor responsible at least for maintaining articles in some kind of reasonable weight between viewpoints according to prominence? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. I edited the area regarding which I have most knowledge. Your description is misleading, there is also a long section on social psychology in the article. If more social science is needed, then please add this. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I could find a lot of similar stuff if i go a few months further back. For example AO's article on Race and crime was stubbified a year ago after the consensus in an afd found the topic notable but the coverage completely lopsided. This apparently didn't deter Ao from writing a bunch of similar ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See no concrete arguments here. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question "He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used." This is more than a solid screenful of text at ANI suggesting we should ban all newbies who don't write at FA or above ? serious ? how do these arguments about an experienced editor not also apply to every new editor that walks through the door ? Penyulap ☏ 20:50, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Because AO has been told multiple times that wikipedia requires neutral article and that what he writes rarely is neutral?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• to ANI thread from july 2011, where AO (then Miradre) got a 3 month topic ban for tendentious editing and editwarring in violation of the R&I arbitration restricitons. (This is the reason an RfC seems unwarranted). For Those who have requested diffs of old school disruption there are quite a few in that thread. Now AO has not been editwarring lately, but I don't see the fundamental change that might have been hoped for in his editing behavior after coming back from the topic ban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I get the absolute maximum of 3 months for several reverts over a long time period while the person who reported me and who did more reverts during the same extended time period gets nothing at all. See the diffs given for that by me in the link if interested. It seem Maunus have found so little to object to in my current behavior, just the content disputes above, that he must bring up edits almost one year old in a topic I a long time ago stopped editing when he is asked for something more concrete. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The previous topic ban is brought up, not as evidence of current wrongdoing, but to show that this is something that you have been made aware of before, and that an RfCU seems unwarranted given that this is not the first time by far that your editing has attracted negative scrutiny. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have avoided editing this topic for a long time. No one here has accused me of edit warring. Yet you fail to see any fundamental change? Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you have avoided the topic of R&I (to some extent - except for example your recent tedious appearance at Talk:Racism, where, contrary to sources, you argued that racism should be narrowly defined only as racial discrimination based in a belief of racial superiority (so that the belief itself is not racist unless it motivates discriminatory practices)). But clearly your entire focus on theories that argue for biological determination of human behavior is closely related to R&I (although I do think its outside of the scope) - and your choice of literature is similarly onesided. Thats a quite close correspondence in behavior, although it does seem that you haven't edit warred. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are making false and defamatory statements. I have expressly stated that I am against racial superiority beliefs theoretical or practical. You are furthermore arguing that adding evolutionary psychology perspectives to, say, evolutionary approaches to depression, imprinted brain theory, evolutionary economics, sports psychology, or evolutionary aesthetics is closely related to R&I? Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not reading what I write, I made no characterization of your beliefs. You argued for a definition of the concept of racism that tied it only to racial superiority, in spite of the fact that most sources say that such a belief is not necessary for something to constitute racism. Your proposed definition would mean that for example white supremacy would not be classified as falling under the definition of racism, unless it actually argued for discrimination(which few white supremacists do today). This is obviously not evidence for you sharing any of those views , but it is evidence of you still being involved with the topic of race in a way that is closely tied with the problematics of the R&I arbcom case. I don't think adding material on evolutionary psychology to articles is necessarily related to R&I nor necessarily problematic - it depends entirely on whether the material added promotes the view that mental abilities and characteristics is determined by biology - which I think is clearly related to R&I even when not explicitly mentioning that debate. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never argued for any "definition of the concept of racism that tied it only to racial superiority". To clarify, believing that populations may differ in traits is not equal to beliefs in superiority or discrimination. One may believe that populations differ in alcohol tolerance or lactose tolerance without arguing for discrimination or superiority but rather simply argue that such knowledge will help the groups lacking the lactose or the alcohol tolerance. Regarding the content dispute at "Racism" you changed your own proposed definition numerous times in response to my criticisms demonstrating that it was very constructive. You are now actually arguing that all articles describing research on the genetics of mental traits should be under R&I? Thus also articles like Schizophrenia or Positive psychology should be under R&I even if they do not mention race at all? Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is what I am arguing. I am quite sure I am arguing that it depends on the kind of edit one does to that kind of articles - if the edit gives undue prominence to the hereditarian view then I think that does relate to the R&I dispute (I am not saying I am sure it falls under the sanctions, but the relation is clear). (your argument about lactose tolerance does not seem relevant to the issue at all since presumably no one is arguing that noticing genetic differences between populations is necessarily racist, I know I haven't.) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Support an indefinite topic ban of Acadēmica Orientālis from all nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed. There has been a relentless push by Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis to use Wikipedia to promote the idea that many differences between groups can be explained by the biology of certain races. The relentless WP:CPUSH based on a commitment to use sources from only one side of the debate means it is not possible to sum up the situation with a couple of diffs. One of the many examples can be seen at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#NPOV dispute: Some opposing views removed (and following) to coatrack some R&I views into an article about a book that is only peripherally connected with hereditary effects (search for my comment dated "10:45, 23 February 2012" on that talk page for a quick overview of the book). The above was started by Miradre in July 2011, but related attempts were made by Acadēmica Orientālis in February 2012, see Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#Criticism by Rushton removed. There are many other articles where the above is repeated. This editor is interested in only one side of a complex issue, and is damaging articles by introducing POV. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An infinite topic ban based on what? Some many months old talk page comments in one article? What exactly was objectionable except that I dared disagree with you in that discussion? Should not you also be banned since you were also involved in that talk page discussion if that is a crime? Yet another example of using ANI as a way of winning content disputes.Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I would have been biased regarding the Psychopathy article as stated by Maunus in the initial post is completely ridiculous and outright offensive. Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And no change in behavior since the criticism of your actions 23 months ago.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss that I have stated that I voluntarily avoid editing R%I articles and have not done so for many months except some talk page comments such as the above several months ago. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, based on Miradre/AO's fixed POV and attempt to foist this POV on the encyclopedia, per Johnuniq. We cannot allow such POV-pushers to warp our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wikipedia must be neutral, and those who continually seek to subvert that are not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support There don't seem to be any problems with his edits related to China. But his addition of content related to biological differences/evolutionary psychology in a vast range of articles (eg Honor killings) too often seems biased, unbalanced and undue. He argues interminably in circles on talk pages over these issues and that is a drain on volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost every comment in the thread[9] is an example. I explained that your single source relating to evolutionary psychology was written by somebody without academic qualifications in the subject (he is a lawyer outside academia). You responded that my statement was an ad hominem attack on the author. You exhaust editors with this kind of circular WP:IDHT argument. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting, selectively quoting, and ignoring the many different arguments I made in this talk page content dispute. Again, show the diffs showing the need for an indefinite ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are examples from threads on talk pages of multiple articles covered by or related to WP:ARBR&I (I have not picked out individual diffs):[10] [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have not showed any diff and explained what is supposed to be objectionable with it. You are simply linking to talk page content disputes most of which are very old without explaining what is supposed to violate any policy. Again, show the diff you think show objectionable behavior violating Wikipedia policies. You seem to be arguing for a purely political ban for disagreeing with your own POV.Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The pattern of repetitive WP:IDHT edits seems clear enough, as others have written. It cannot be described by individual diffs. In the example from Honor killings, one article by a non-expert in the subject was used to produce the content. AO did not concede that there might have been a problem with the source. He. continued arguing in circles, as seems to be happening here. Mathsci (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? Regarding the content dispute with you regarding Honor killings, see the Honor killings talk page discussion. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Academica Orientalis dismisses all criticism. Not so long ago—barely a month—Roger Davies already commented that Academica Orientalis had spent a considerable amount of time vociferously supporting a blatant sock troll (Alessandra Napolitano) of a banned user.[19] Their contributions here should be viewed in the light of that. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not supported anyone I knew was sock troll. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support I became aware of the topic Biology and political orientation based on a post by another editor to WP:FTN. The editor Acadēmica Orientālis appears determined to push biased content which violates core policies (such as the section discussed here Wikipedia:RSN#Biology_and_political_orientation which is clearly based on unreliable sources, but which has not been removed Talk:Biology_and_political_orientation#Unreliable_section because the editor Academica wants the content to stay and "point out that there is controversy and refer to the main article") and to frustrate other editors into submission. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No one has produced any diffs showing any objectionable things I have done in recent months but are making accusations without backing. Seems to be a purely political topical ban for my views on a topic I have not edited for many months. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I can transform the above links into diff form if that is preferable. Considering I have not edited in this topic area before now, I don't see how my support could be political (I'm not sure what you mean by that). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please show the diffs showing anything I have done in recent months showing the need for an indefinite ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can only respond with diffs corresponding to when I observed your interaction with me and another editor You have resisted the removal of a section based on a primary study of dubious quality (there is agreement in RSN that it's not reliable) based on some dubious arguments:

Bringing in arguments that were never made: "Do you have any evidence for scientific misconduct?" [20]

Arguing that a Journal of American Political Science should be assumed to reliably discuss Genetics [21].

Arguing that newspaper coverage shows notability (I assume you mean weight) for primary sources in biology rather than coverage in secondary sources. [22]

Denial that the topic is controversial [23]

Arguing that even though acknowledging heritability methods are strongly criticized [24] the section based on the primary study using that method should still be kept: [25][26]

Arguing to have specific criticisms of heritability methods excluded: [27][28]

Still want the section kept even though there is a "large and complex controversy" [29]

Arguing that it has not in fact been discredited: [30] but followed by acknowledgement of the non-quantifiable nature of twin studies: [31][32], despite exact figures been given in the section.

In summary it's clear you are intent on pushing the source on to the article despite it not being reliable for the claims given. But I think reading the full discussion on the article and RSN demonstrates the point better. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting my talk page arguments as anyone can see by reading the diffs and the whole talk page discussion. You are NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section. I have not denied that the subject is controversial but claims of a large literature of scientific opposing views needed to be backed up by sources which is what I asked for. Notable scientific controversies are not disallowed from being discussed by any policy as you seem to be arguing. Talk page disagreements on contents are not disallowed. Thanks for making it clear that you want to ban me indefinitely for disagreeing with your own POV on what is a talk page content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is also covered in the diffs that I have shown and the link to the article, the journal article itself also mentions why it's not suitable as well (as was already pointed out to you but you appear to have ignored WP:IDHT). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You have shown no such things. You seem to think that "original paper" = "primary source". That is of course not the case. The peer-reviewed secondary literature reviews I added to the section does no primary research but is reviewing the existing literature. Thanks for again demonstrating that this is about a content dispute and not about violating any Wikipedia policies. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The review article from nature defends the concept of heritability, not the method of twin studies. In fact it mostly argues that heritability estimates should be based on genetic data even though "classical twin studies" have been useful. It is quite clear that they consider twin studies to be a pre-genomic era kind of method. So why you would include that to support twin studies is odd, and why you seem to think that you deserve praise for having added one more source in defense of the same controversial viewpoint without adding any for the opposite view is even odder.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about a completely different review article: [33] Regarding the Nature article cannot see any criticisms of twin studies. Do you have a quote? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question where is the disruption ? certainly the editor has an opinion on the topic, this is perfectly ordinary, so they discuss and promote their opinion, this is also quite normal. Where is the edit warring, where is the disruption of process, in short, why is this even at ANI, is there a problem on wikipedia now that no editor may have an opinion ? Please be kind enough to diff some disruptive behavior, so we can all get to the point please. Penyulap ☏ 13:23, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming "disruption" I am claiming persistant failure to edit neutrally. Everyone is entitled to having an opinion, but when editing we are expected to edit neutrally and balancedly, not merely promote one view on a topic (even though perhaps it is a common occurrence - which doesn't legitimize it). Ani is not just for disruption, it ios also for making decisions about how best to direct community resources, in this case a lot of community resurces will be spent patrolling AO's pages for neutrality if he is allowed to continue editing in this field. Whereas if he is allowed to edit only on other topics community reseources (including AO's efforts) will be directed at something more productive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, promoting your own opinion is not what wikipedia is for. The disruption is evident in the links I have shown and has effected the articles in real terms, the heritability section has been kept in the article despite the study being completely unreliable and unsuitable. Also see Mathsci's link for example. The editors substantial edits, based on primary studies and newspaper coverage of the studies, pertaining to his POV [34] are clear evidence of actual damage to the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Having an opinion is to be human, being surrounded by people with the same opinion leads to a lack of awareness that you do, indeed, have an opinion. Tolerating other people's opinions when they are civil, articulate, and following the rules is what wiki is about. Penyulap ☏ 20:39, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

No, throwing your opinions out the window and deferring to reliable sources is what wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are still NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section and you are grossly distorting my talk comments. There is not policy against discussing notable scientific controversies. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You added a peer reviewed source supporting your original view after you had been shown that you had failed to include a large body of contradictory views. In short your adding the review article after the initial artciel had been challenged only continued the same biased direction that you had begun. At no point did you say "Oh, I guess its right I left out important criticism, let me correct that" what you said was "but I have a counter criticism to all those critical studies". The tendency is clear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not leave out any important criticisms of which I was aware. I linked to heritability article which discusses the concept in great detail including arguments for and against. Replicating this long article everytime heritability is mentioned is not possible. Since the source was challenged, I added a secondary review source I had used elsewhere in the article but not in this particular section. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban. Despite the queasiness I feel in supporting an editor whose views so strongly conflict with my own, I cannot see anything in the diffs so far provided which give grounds for a ban. Civilly arguing a point, however fringe or oddball, is only disruptive when it moves into repetitive, wall 'o' text trolling which this has not. I see no evidence of unjustified edits to articles, no incivility, no vandalism. This editor may be annoying and frustrating to the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, but that's not sufficient reason for a block, in my opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not his views but the fact that he persistently writes biased articles that do not take into account opposite viewpoints. This kind of persistent tendentious editing is very difficult to show in diffs, but I'll be posting a collection of interpreted diffs. Also no one is talking about a block, but about a topic ban so that the fact that he is unable to edit neutrally n this topic will not create problems for the encyclopedia's coverage of this sensitive issue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing. Arguing a point beyond what is reasonable, and onwards is disruptive and does effect article content (the section based on the unreliable source on heritability is still there, he reverted it back in twice without consensus, his POV push has retained it despite no editors agreeing with his edits). Only after another editor performed significant research did academica indicate there actually was a controversy with the section, his original edits mention none: [35]. All his edits to the page are of this type and will take a lot of work to try and fix, made the more difficult by the editor himself. Topics bans aren't given out just for incivility and vandalism. Civil POV pushers also face topic bans. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, as usual, lots of claims most of which are not supported by any diffs. Sweeping claims regarding all my editing based on a single edit. You are still trying to ignore the reliable secondary review source I added. Heritability is by no means dead today, see this review article in Nature Reviews Genetics: [36] Heritability is controversial, but so is also, say, other scientific debates or political views on various issues and there is no need and possibility to repeat the whole controversy every time the issue is mentioned since we have wikilinks to the main articles. Heritability, including both the general arguments for and against, are discussed in the Heritability article I linked to. Regarding claims that I would generally be biased I will repeat my earlier comments regarding the psychopathy article: Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. I urge those interested to examine the article before and after I edited it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Miradre/Academica Orientalis is sort of the canonical soup-spitter. That sort of behavior isn't obvious in a diff, or even in a single thread, so it's hardly ever deemed "disruptive" in an AN/I setting. I disagree with Kim: I think that if an editor is consistently annoying and frustrating the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, then s/he needs to stop editing those articles. This is a collaborative project, and we don't have unlimited reserves of constructive, cheerful editors to step in and replace those burnt out by dealing with this sort of behavior. I don't see a loss to Wikipedia if AO stops editing the topic in question, and I do see a benefit: namely, decreasing the burnout rate among the constructive editors dealing with him/her in that topic area. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? It seems like a purely politically motivated ban. I have added a very large amount of material, sourced to secondary academic sources, to numerous evolutionary psychology related articles these past months. Without any objections except on a small minority of them. I deeply resent the claim, given without any evidence, that my editing on the whole is not constructive.Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a indefinite ban and a topic ban. Also, it's entirely possible to be a disruptive influence without breaking a single policy, guideline, law, or anything. For instance: let's say that your neighbour buys a shotgun and then sits on his front porch every day holding it, right next to your house and yard where your dog and kids play every afternoon. He hasn't broken a single law, but he's clearly creating a rather uncomfortable environment... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not holding a shotgun. Another comparison would be a dictatorship where people with opposing views are punished without any evidence of wrongdoing. If you have any concrete evidence of misdoing, then please give the diffs. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is is a purely political ban without any supporting evidence for other wrongdoing, should not this be stated clearly in the policies? Like "genetical/neuroscience/evolutionary psychology views are not allowed regarding certain topics such as politics or crime"? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Shotgun ? could we please remain on planet Earth, this is civilized editing, not even socking or reverting, it appears more a case of someone who doesn't look like 'we' do, and, on a worldwide project, that is hardly in harmony with policy. Can anyone show me a disruptive diff, such as reverting or some such ? Penyulap ☏ 20:45, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a civil POV pusher with someone who engages in edit wars, see a description here of the characteristics: Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing. That's why he is constantly asking for diffs, because it's hard to impossible to show civil POV pushing in a diff, you need to look at the long term behaviour. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please look at my long term behavior regarding articles such as the Psychopathy article where I have as stated above greatly reduced the genetic arguments. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I take very seriously the careful arguments against my oppose above. I completely concede the point that this editor is tendentious and uncollaborative, but manages to stay well on this side of the line of civility, edit warring etc. A good example is the set of exchanges here wherein AO stonewalls all attempts at discussion. In all the talk pages I've viewed, I don't see AO acknowledging that s/he is doing anything wrong or could in any way improve their approach. The same is true of this discussion, wherein AO characterises the whole problem as an extended content dispute. So I fully accept the facts of what folks are complaining about here. I guess my problem is with the remedy. I've had occasional brushes with similar editors and have longed for them to become abusive or start to edit war, just so we can reasonably block them. Usually they do, but what if they don't? Others here are arguing that the disruption AO causes is sufficient to merit a topic ban. I'd take the view that AO's nuisance value is the price we pay for accepting a wide diversity of views here, but if the consensus is that the price is not worth paying I will quite understand. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a very well argued deliberation, and I find your oppose on those grounds to be entirely reasonable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like that I have added a great deal of evolutionary psychology material to many articles and there have been no opposition to this except in a small minority. The Biology and Political Orientation article seems to have caused an enormous controversy considering the AfD and this ban proposal. If it would help I promise to avoid this article and concentrate on other articles where I think I have added much valuable material without opposition. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you were to admit that you have failed to give a balanced coverage of topics related to nature/nurture, and that you will take steps to remedy that in the future. And no, I see the same problems with your EP edits - EP is a similar controversial field where a large body of critical literature exists, which I have never seen you take steps to include in your writings.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping generalizations without giving evidence. I could just as well argue that you biased in your edits regarding these topics. See the Psychopathy article which I thinks is much better after my edits and which, yes, includes evolutionary psychology criticisms added by me and from which I removed much incorrect pro-biology material. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All of the diffs above show content problems, but AO seems unable to stop adding questionable material supporting his POV, and deemphasizing material opposing his POV. or to understand what he's doing wrong. All his statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology and political orientation show this problem, although there, the entire article represents nothing that does not support his POV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you give a diff and explain what was unacceptable? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I couldn't find one that was acceptable, I see no need for additional diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you do not produce any diffs and explain what policy is violated, then how do we know there is a problem and how do I defend myself. An absurd situation. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed trolling by sockpuppet of banned user Echigo mole
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support topic ban on all topics remotely relevant to human biology. This user has consistently supported an extreme point of view which can be usefully described as pseudo-scientific racism -- attempting to import into numerous articles material which is favorable to the view that human races exist and that there is some scientific backing for a notion of racial superiority. This point of view cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. Ordinary editing mechanisms are not adequate to address this issue, and otherwise productive editors are exhausted by the prolific and incessant POV-pushing. One editor alone, User:Mathsci, has had to follow this user to Talk:Honor killing, Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel, Talk:Problem of evil, Talk:Causes of autism, Talk:Cognitive bias, Talk:Cultural anthropology, Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Talk:Democracy Now!, Talk:Groupthink, Talk:Social anthropology, Talk:NPR -- think of how much useful editing he could have done instead if he had not had to battle this racist claptrap. No, there is no viable alternative to a wide-ranging topic ban, if not a complete ban from Wikipedia altogether for people who peddle this line. Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I have not edited any race articles for over half a year except some occasional talk page comments most of which were several months ago. Honor killings, Problem of evil, Causes of autism, Cognitive bias, NPR, Groupthink, and so on are not about race. You seem to be arguing for a politically based ban for editing in an area I have avoided for many months. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) No, I'm arguing for a ban based on your continued and continuing pattern of edits, which are promoting a political point of view which is consistent with and a continuation of that older unacceptable behaviour. Of course it's politically based, in that sense, and the overwhelming consensus of opinion is that productive editors ought not to have to waste their time dealing with it. It's just that some editors are shy about admitting it. Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose screen after screen after screen of nonsense at ANI, this is why there are bright lines drawn, so this doesn't happen. The user is causing annoyance by discussing a long list of different new material and many editors are frustrated that this editor doesn't stop trying to add material to articles. It's called wikipedia, and this is what it is for, take up golf you lot, or write a book. Like many things I've seen Johnuniq come up with, this proposal is lacking in any solid foundation and is nothing beyond demagogy, I have come to expect no meat from John unique. Penyulap ☏ 21:14, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

This is not Johnuniq's proposal but mine. And the problem is not that he adds material, but that he only adds one kind of material and shows no interest in improving his editing to conform with Wp:NPOV. That is not how wikipedia is supposed to work no.

• Oppose: I do not see disruption and I for one am not going to lower the bar for a topic ban to the level of having an unpopular belief system--and the occasional expression of such on talk pages. It would send a chilling message if this becomes the standard threshold for a topic ban.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the reasoning here. Any and all kinds of beliefs or faiths are completely acceptable for editors to have and argue, but a basic requirement is that we at least demonstrate a willingness to work towards NPOV in collaboration with others. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• The topic ban was proposed not because of AO's beliefs, but because of the tactics s/he uses to promote those beliefs. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of my edits have not caused any objections. Much of the criticisms is about a single article and in particular a single section and source. Or regarding my prior editing many months ago in a topic I now avoids. That is hardly evidence for any general current pattern. Again, I urge those interested to look more broadly at other articles I have edited recently. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Maunus: saying that I am "misrepresenting" is tantamount to calling me a liar. As you can well imagine I take exception to that. Are you sure you want to go down that road at this venue? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I take exception to you attributing me an opinion that I have not expressed, that is what I would call misrepresenting my stated opinion, which is what you do in your comment above. That is incidentally mentioned in WP:CIVIL as an uncivil thing to do, if done on purpose. If you didn't do it on purpose then I would have expected you to change your comment so that it didn't misrepresent my views (and those of other "support"ers, none of whom have argued that AO should be banned because of his views). I think you speak English well enough to be able to understand the difference in meaning between "misrepresent" and "lie". So which road is it you want to walk down with me?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are sorely mistaken. I have not attributed anything to you, nor to any other supporter. I am entitled to my own analysis of the facts. And what if I told you that my opinion was not based on the specific points you've raised but from other information? That would be a huge mouthful of crow for you to eat, wouldn't it? And to help further your understanding of our policies, it is one thing to disagree with another editor, it is a violation of WP:AGF to accuse an editor of misrepresenting. Hope this helps, and don't swallow the feathers--they make your poop look weird. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In my idiolect the word "misrepresent" carries no assumption of intentionality and it is fully possible to misrepresent something unintentionally. I for one never attribute to malice what can be explained by flawed reasoning. So would you mind divulging what "other information" you base your assertion that topic banning AO would lower the bar to "the level of having an unpopular belief system--and the occasional expression of such on talk pages", given the evidence of persistent POv editing in article space?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support So this is an editor, who repeatedly breaks our behavioral guidelines as noted in diffs above, against one of our core policies, has been previously sanctioned in a closely related area with a topic ban, with no apparent effect? Why shouldn't a topic ban be put in place? There would still be well over 3 million other articles for the editor to contribute to; it's about time we nudge the editor to edit in an area where they do not disrupt the building of this encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Most the complaints are regarding a single source in one particular article. Aside from edits made months ago in a topic I now avoids. Would it help if promise to avoid this article in the future? No, my knowledge is regarding evolutionary psychology so I cannot contribute as well elsewhere. Most of my edits regarding this to numerous articles, adding substantial material, have received no complaints whatsoever. Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre arbitrary break

• Comment - I have trouble saying that I would oppose sanctions based on the actions of the editor involved, but I cannot actively make myself support one. Yes, the editor is apparently incapable of even the most basic reasoning. Yes, the editor politely engages in stonewalling. And certainly his mindless repetition of "I don't see any diffs" and other comments above are almost enough to make one want to strangle him, if that could be done over the web. But I would procedurally prefer it if an RfC on the editor's behavior, with a recommendation to cease editing all articles in the basic topic area, were filed before a topic ban is placed. Based at least on some of the comments here, it may well be possible that the editor has some sort of mental dysfunction or inability and it is impossible for him to view his own conduct rationally. That sort of thing appears a lot in race-related material. The problem seems to be that the editor has recently returned to editing material which is somewhat related recently. For all of his own vapid repetition above, I have seen no reason given by this editor why he has chosen to end his so-called self-imposed ban now. If he at least seemed to have acknowledged his own mistakes earlier, as his repetition of that comment seems to at least strongly imply, how has time made them other than mistakes in the past few months? However, having said all that, there is a precedent for "exhausting the patience of the community," and I do get the impression that AO's behavior has crossed that line. On that basis, I cannot force myself to actively oppose a topic ban either, unless a saw a clear and unambiguous statement that the editor would voluntarily remove himself from all involvement on related articles indefinitely. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I didn't start an rFc is the fact that he has participated in an arbcom case and has been under editing restrictions for similar behavior in the past. This did motivate him to edit i other areas rather than being an SPA, and I think that it would probably be to the benefit of wikipedia if he would concentrate his editing on topics such as China-Africa relations, China-South American relations and Chinese science and technology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not ever been a SPA but edited a broad range of articles. Most of my editing and adding extensive material to numerous articles has not caused any objections at all. I would welcome a RfC so we could get a more fair overview of my recent editing which I think have been generally constructive. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you quite clearly have, and you have also once stated that you had a previous account but rgistered "Miradre" exactly to be able to edit in "a controversial area" without it reflecting on your previous identity. I can find a dif to a previous ANI thread in which there was a general consensus that your account was an SPA dedicated to R&I. I estimate that less than 5% of the edits of Miradre (talk · contribs) have been outside the general R&I topic area. You clearly are doing good edits in other areas unrelated to biology and psychology, and I would encourage you to continue with that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please present evidence when you make claims and accusations. Many of my edits in biology and psychology have arguably been constructive such as regarding the Psychopathy article as explained earlier above.Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it is of course arguable - which is why we are arguing. The point is not so much that your edits are not constructive as it is about the quality of the construction and the amount of overseeing it requires of other editors to bring it in line with policy, and the fact that you appear to adamantly resist improving.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Most the complaints are regarding a single source in one article which cannot be taken as evidence for any general editing. Contrast that to the numerous additions that have received no complaints. Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided that this takes place on a large number of articles and their talk pages. AO was not a WP:CLEANSTART: the new account was created apparently because of a hard disk failure which also resulted in the user losing their password for the account Miradre. It certainly is relevant to look at AO's prior editing as Miradre, before the accident. The EP related edits and talk page discussions did not change much. Here for example are two threads on Talk:Incest taboo. [37][38] AO unduly changed the thrust of the article by prominently adding content from poor sources. Here are similar kinds of discussions on Talk:Suicide from November 2011,[39] on Talk:War in October 2011, [40], etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for diffs because many have made general accusations without presenting evidence. Note that at the beginning of the case there were for a time no diffs at all but people still wanted me to be banned. To then ask for evidence when I am being threatened with an indefinite ban seems justifiable. Otherwise it looks like a political ban due to my editing of a topic I now avoids. I have not ended avoiding this topic. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the diffs that have been added are about my editing many months ago in this topic. Or regarding a single article and in particular a single source and section in that article. I urge editors to look more broadly than just at my editing months ago in a topic I now avoids or regarding this single article and section/source. I have edited numerous articles and added material without any objections except in a small minority. If it helps I promise to avoid this particular article (Biology and political orientation) in the future. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I know that in the United states, where most people come from, there is no presentation of a case against the accused, for example, the president declares on TV that such and such somewhere in the world is a criminal, and that's the case closed, however, are we really so low as to deny obvious fundamental justice in this case by not providing a single recent diff or two, because I for one would like to see wikipedia hold itself just that little bit up out of the mud of mob stupidity, like a half arsed push-up by a fat slob just before he completely collapses back into the mud face down, so can somebody, for the love of god, provide a diff or two, hey, borrow something I did !!! there's an idea, call it puppetry for crying out loud, but lets see a little light shining in the basic ANI procedure department here ok ? This is not too much to ask. Penyulap ☏ 00:43, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U is an excellent suggestion, John. This issue is just not clear cut enough to decide in a thread at ANI by tally of !votes. We use the topic ban hammer far too often here. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Take this to an RFC/U. Topic ban could be a remedy sought if AO can't understand the problem then, but I'd like to see wider discussion first. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And you are taking into account that he got a 3 month topic ban for the same behavior a year ago?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A deeply unfair claim and comparison with editing almost one year ago. I have avoided that topic for a long time and I have not been accused by anyone here of edit warring. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the editing pattern you have displayed here at ANI as well is also troublesome. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I allowed to defend myself against a proposed indefinite ban? What are you objecting to concretely? Also, all of your criticisms have been regarding a single section in one article. Would it help if I promise to avoid this article in the future? Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support When editors continually edit a small group of articles to insert bias, and argue their position on talk pages, they are hindering the improvement of those articles and wasting the time of other editors who wish to improve them or eliminate bias. There are rules related to neutrality and editors must attempt to follow them. TFD (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited many pages without any controversy whatsoever. The above criticisms concern just a couple of pages. Most are regarding a single section in one article. Cannot be taken as evidence for any general pattern. This ban seems politically motivated for old editing in an area I now avoids. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of the tendentious behavior and disregard for community feedback displayed here. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a place for defending blatant POV pushing against community consensus. aprock (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course not unexpected that you also would appear. Just to note, I received the maximum possible topic ban of 3 months for several reverts during a time period. None of these violated 3RR but I admit I should not have made as many reverts. I do think the punishment was excessive. However, Aprock did more reverts during this time period but received nothing at all! (See my 15:45, 11 July 2011 comments here: [41]) This is the systematic bias one encounters in this area. So of course I have avoided this area. Obviously this will not help. I will most likely get an indefinite ban. Many have cited the edits I did many months or years ago, in the area I have since avoided, thus making it abundantly clear that they consider I should be punished for expressing an unpoplar opinion at all in this area. The other criticisms regarding my editing concern a few pages. Most regarding a single section in one article which I have offered to never edit again. This can be compared to the numerous articles I have edited with no complaints. My expertise is regarding evolutionary psychology so I will no be able to contribute anywhere as effectively to other areas. So I will most likely retire once I get the indefinite topic ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a narrow view of what is "the area" which you were to avoid. I'm not sure it should be all of "evolutionary psychology", but only those parts where you have a non-standard view and are not willing to go beyond it to report on the standard view. You would know what those parts are better than I. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I cannot edit any evolutionary psychology article, any article mentioning evolutionary psychology explanations, or any article mentioning the possible role of genetics under a ban against "nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed". Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect I may have been one of the more active users regarding adding substantial new article contents with 3,200 mainspace article edits since I returned in February. I feel it unfortunately increasingly clear why the Wikipeda Community is in decline and is reducing its active contributors by 7% each year.[42] New Wikipedia editors are according to research "entering an environment that is increasingly challenging, critical, and/or hostile to their work".[43] This does not explain exactly what these new editors are accused of doing. They are according to the link not of lower quality than earlier. One may instead suspect that the Wikipedia Community, as often is the case with groups, is becoming increasingly conformist and increasingly hostile and intolerant to views other than the "correct" Wikipedia view on the world. Editors with other views than the single "correct" Wikipedia view are being driven off the project. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. User gives no indication that there will be an improvement to the clearly demonstrated non-neutral editing. The proposed topic ban is necessary for protection of the wiki, but I fear it is only an intermediate step, that the user will have to be banned indefinitely. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See the comments above to Aprock. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like we both expect you to receive an indefinite topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on procedural grounds. There are specific fora in which editors who allegedly violate arbitration remedies have their edits examined by experienced users for recentness, relatedness, and egregiousness. ANI is no place to short-circuit this necessary dispute resolution, unless the editor in question is being outrageously or obviously disruptive. The charges against this user seem to of civil POV pushing, and such a charge is difficult for laypersons in the community to investigate - it seems that those arguing for AO's ban have been involved in editorial disputes with xem for a long time. Also, AO's claims that xe has avoided the topic area for months now seem to be, at first glance, credible. Shrigley (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor has not violated an arbcom remedy, a previous remedy was brought up to show a pattern of behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Many editors above ARE citing my earlier edits and having expressed the wrong view in the R&I dispute, a topic I have avoided, except some occasional talk page comments, for more than half a year as reason for topic banning me. Just look at Johnuniq who started the topic ban discussing. This was before anyone had given diffs regarding recent behavior they disagree with. The only links he gives are to R&I topics on which he himself have the opposite view and have argued with me. Or Mathsci, also before anyone had given diffs about recent behaviors, who is linking to R&I talk page content disputes most of which are very old without explaining what is supposed to violate any policy and in which he personally has often been involved. This seems to be arguing for a political ban for disagreeing with Mathsci's own POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing a point I didn't make. That's not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps while they are misrepresenting themselves in such a disingenuous way (describing discussions from February 2012 as "very old", etc), Academica Orientalis could explain what exactly they think my "point of view" is? Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At ANI, last month is old, and February is Jurassic, this belongs at IAV as much as it belongs here. Penyulap ☏ 11:43, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans are usually issued for long term problems with conduct. If you are suggesting otherwise, then your edits amount to disruptive trolling. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on, give it a rest. This topic is already long enough as it is. No need to engage in name-calling, particularly a redundant name (are there undisruptive trolls?).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I apologize for getting up your nose on this one, I don't mean to, but to have a pattern at ANI, you need a few recent diffs to compliment the old stuff that you find, there may well be some pattern, but without a few decent recent additions the dots join up into a drawing of a dead end, where the editor has abandoned the behavior and moved on. Otherwise it's the wrong venue.

Incidentally I wish this sort of thing didn't get deleted, with a general like that in charge of the charge of the critics, nothing can possibly go wrong. (oh how I wish it were really about me) Penyulap ☏ 16:48, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That edit was removed after the user was checkuser blocked as a sock troll of Echigo mole, who has disrupted this thread at least three times. Are you also fighting for the rights of a community banned sock troll? Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Reviewing the history of the articles biology and political orientation and biosocial criminology, there doesn't seem to be behaviour which would warrant this extraordinary measure. This just seems to be routine difficulty with controversial topics and so ordinary dispute resolution should be used. My impression is that there has been inadequate recourse to standard processes such as RfC and third opinion and so these ought to be tried. Warden (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed trolling by CU blocked sock - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support topic ban, and indeed outright ban from the project. This user is energetically perusing an agenda that can only be described as racist across numerous articles, and multiple editors are spending much valuable time tracking and confronting his spurious contributions. No Platform for racists. (31261) 1998 EF8 (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — (31261) 1998 EF8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. |}

• Support topic ban, per discussion in this thread. I don't see many comments that AO's edits to these particular articles are not problematic. If the case is that AO really is staying away from the topic, and will continue to, then this topic ban doesn't hurt anyone, and simply formalizes AO's self-imposed restriction. Therefore, I don't find that rationale for opposing compelling. If the case is that AO edits well in other areas of the project, then a topic ban won't disrupt that activity. Therefore, I don't find that rationale for opposing compelling either. I do, however, find the pattern of disruption presented above compelling, and I see a topic ban as a good way to eliminate that disruption while allowing AO to contribute positively to the project in other areas. If AO adjusts to the project, and demonstrates a more collaborative attitude, and wants the topic ban lifted in the future, he has that option.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. I am voluntarily staying away from R&I topics. The proposed topic ban is against "nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed" which is a much, much broader topic. This topic ban will prevent any edits regarding evolutionary psychology which is the topic regarding which I have most knowledge. Most of my thousands of edits across numerous different articles regarding this has not met any opposition at all. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your knowledge in this area is not helpful to us if you cannot apply it to articles in a neutral and balanced manner -- that is the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban et al. Per the twisting sources to support a WP:POV being a bad thing. see Biosocial_criminology. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, not sure exactly what you are objecting to here? The version before your recent massive edits and deletions to the article described what the sourced chapter stated accurately. You have also inserted a quote not in the sourced chapter. Your edit summary here [44] seems to indicate that you do in fact know that the sourced chapter support what you deleted. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This set of articles has seen far too much disruption. Skinwalker (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about R&I I have avoided that topic for a long time. If you are talking about nature/nuture articles in general most of my thousands of edits have received no complaints at all. The couple of pages mentioned here is hardly evidence for any general pattern of "disruption".Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

DoD Acadēmica Orientālis on behaviour

The issue of a topic ban in this case is malformed for ANI, no bright lines have been crossed in the recent past, and the distant past is beyond the scope of this venue. There is little to no chance of any bright lines being crossed in the immediate future, and leaving the issue of a topic ban open in this case can only serve an ill purpose, that is, to topic ban Acadēmica Orientālis because of his obnoxious insatiable desire to answer every comment, which has nothing to do with the topic in question. (not an insult, I like the editor, I want to help the editor, it's just an observation which I can get away with because I'm on friendly terms with him, and it's what you're all thinking). The annoyance is not the issue of the topic ban, but it would assist Acadēmica Orientālis if he understood the minor issue of commenting a little better. He is too well educated and articulate to require mentoring, or, nobody can be bothered offering as it is not appropriate, and as this is not about misbehaviour no trouting could apply.

I would like to present the Donut of doom to Acadēmica Orientālis as something much less than a trout, to let him know that his commenting at ANI could use a little more restraint. I will present it as a complaint, because I think he talks too much at ANI, and I think there are other editors who feel he is somewhat verbose. Penyulap ☏ 21:51, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Your "analysis" of the factors behind the support !votes above is completely unprovable and amounts to a gigantic assumption of bad faith on your part. Since most of those editors have cited both specific and general behaviors on AO's part as the reasons behind their comments, WP:AGF requires you to accept what they say at face value, unless you have evidence to show otherwise. To make sweeping assumptions based on nothing isn't terribly helpful one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis of what most editors have cited as reasons. Despite Penyulap's admonition I do think I should make a comment here about good faith. Maunus is accusing me of acting in bad faith and deliberately being biased regarding favor of biology in social behavior. Now, I certainly admits that I have sometimes have made mistakes in my edits. I have made thousands of edits to numerous articles in a rather short term period and some of them are most likely mistakes. I know that discover mistakes such as spelling and poorly written sentences when I reread what I have written after a while. But this has not been out any malice and I have not deliberately been withholding any information I know of. I have been acting in good faith. Academica Orientalis (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite my objection to Penyulap's anaylsis of the reasoning behind those who have !voted against you, I do agree with one thinge he said: you'd be best advised to shut up, your replies are doing you no good, and merely dig the hole deeper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was getting at Beyond My Ken, that is the precise undercurrent that I would like to separate and address so that the primary concern may be addressed upon it's merit alone. You do have a fair point that my computation of motives and tally of said motives is 'unprovable' that is true, but doesn't your second statement illustrate my accurate analysis ?

On a side note, after the exchange on Acadēmica Orientālis talkpage, I find he is a good sport on my candour.

I think the Donut of Doom is a good, polite way to suggest someone talks too much and it 'dooms' them. Penyulap ☏ 11:32, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

but doesn't your second statement illustrate my accurate analysis? No, not at all. Editors have given good, solid reasons for their "support" !votes, and to assume that they are, instead, a result of annoyance at AO's behavior here is, as I said above, a massive bit of ABF. These are two entirely separate issues, and, while a donut may well be an appropriate response to AO's AN/I overzealousness, his general editing behavior deserves a much more serious sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've DoD'd him. Penyulap ☏ 12:57, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• We need closure here. I count 15 supporting a topic ban (including OP) and 5 opposing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The question is in the numbers, but in which numbers ? is there a consensus that he has done something wrong ? Penyulap ☏ 23:38, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Apparently three out of four people who bothered to comment think so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That he should be topic banned, yes, but that he has broken policy, well, those numbers are different. Penyulap ☏ 00:02, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That suggestion amounts to an accusation of bad faith from a plurality of editors here. Are you willing to back it up? Obviously those who argue he should be topic banned are convinced by the evidence that he has broken policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of those who have commented are citing very old edits and seem to be arguing for a political ban for having expressed an unpopular opinion in a topic I have long voluntarily avoided. Others seem to misunderstand basic issues such as the scope of the topic ban. I would like to again point out that I have made thousands of edits and contributed extensively to numerous articles with no complaints at all. This in contrast to the complaints here which, aside from very old edits, are about a couple of pages and in particular a single section in one article I have offered to never edit again. I would welcome a proper RfC in order to bring greater clarity. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is why we need an uninvolved administrator to close to weigh the arguments against eachother. Of course you would like an rfc - but there is no reason to think that it would be any different from what has transpired here - so starting one now would be a huge waste of the community's time. Even if this is closed with no sanction against you I think you would do wisely in considering the fact that 15 out of 20 editors commenting think you could do a much better job of editing neutrally. If in the future you actually start reading an integrating critical literature into your articles and at least try to give a balanced coverage then for me this thread will have served a purpose.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment about starting reading is somewhat strange from someone who has actually admitted not reading sources claimed to contain relevant information: [45]. But yes, I will certainly follow constructive criticisms and and make every effort to improve my editing. When one makes as many edits as I do some are bound to be mistakes of various kinds ranging from spelling errors to more serious. But this has not been done out of malice. I have acted in good faith. I would like welcome a RfC so my editing in general can examined which I think will show that I have many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

oh wait a second, hold on here, if it would fail at Rfc, which is what now ? the right place, then we just have to do it at ANI, otherwise we'll never shut him up, he'll just keep on talking on and on. No no, let's use ANI, yeah ! quick, get some puppets, no, wait, tried that, dammit, um, what else can we do ? Penyulap ☏ 00:38, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That is ridiculous I am saying the opposite 3 out of 4 editors at ANI thinks he is editing non neutrally 3 out of 4 is also likely to be the result at an rfc (which is not the rihght place for someone who has already been subject to Arbcom sanctions for non neutral editing). And who are you accusing of puppetry? Speak up instead of making cowardly veiled accusations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me make one thing perfectly clear and sincerely known, I am NOT accusing you, Maunus of puppetry, and I sincerely comprehensively apologize for accidentally implying that. Penyulap ☏ 00:53, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I have not "been subject to Arbcom sanctions for non neutral editing". I was topic banned for making several reverts over an extended time period for which I received the maximum possible penalty. I agree I should not have done so many reverts but the penalty seems excessive. The editor accusing me made more reverts but received nothing at all which arguably demonstrates the systematic bias regarding this topic. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any cure, I think most of us were hoping, just hoping this whole thing would archive by itself. I can't see Acadēmica Orientālis ever shooshing up, so I suppose the only other thing we can do is, and this is a radical idea, accept the possibility people are allowed to talk, especially when they are the subject, and welcome to comment, and that's wikipedia for ya. Radical, annoying, but what can we do ? I'm guessing if giving him a Donut didn't work, lets give him the last word instead ? it's an outrage to our delicate egos, it's a sacrifice to me, you have no idea, but we've tried everything else. What do you say ? shall we give it a go ? Penyulap ☏ 01:16, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

"most of us" meaning who exactly? Who is it that your are speaking for? the 15 editors who disagree with you?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

that'd be the people who haven't commented today, and please note that I qualified the statement with 'I think'.

The alternative is for someone to find a policy suitable for ANI, and close it that way, It's possible, anything can happen at ANI, but it's looking like the longshot to me. Penyulap ☏ 01:42, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Oh god no he's back with that NUCLEAR powered mouth of his, oh this is just what we need. Acadēmica shut up and get out of here, can someone confine him to his userpage PLEASE before this gets totally out of hand. ZOMG !! Penyulap ☏ 00:16, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

See the problem here is that mouth of his, it's unstoppable, a force of nature, oh yes, these 15 swordsmen all cluster to do battle with this windmill, but the wind never stops, it just goes on and on and on. It reminds me or that film, you know, the one with that tornado that comes and destroys some peoples house, and then they goto another house, and it comes and finds them, and then they get on a plane and fly across the country, and it comes and finds them and chases their car, yeah, I see the parallels here. How can we stop this guy chasing people around answering them again and again every time they make a comment or ask a question on the talkpage, it's got me stumped. (slow reply, phone call.) Penyulap ☏ 00:32, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your "mouth" is equally a problem. Shut up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Pen, you are really not helping his case here. You've mentioned you have this need to defend people's right to speak, but your repeated exaggerations are making things worse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

AO proposal

• Comment/proposal IF Academica were to actually acknowledge what is obvious to all - even several of those who have voted oppose - namely that his edits in nature-nurture related articles fall short of our standard of neutrality by not including all relevant viewpoints aand ignoring bodies of literature that contradict one view, AND if, instead of simply arguing ad nauseam that he is pure and without fault and is being silenced by nasty political correctness, he were to state a will to try to follow our core policy of NPOV by better representing also those notable viewpoints with which he might not agree - THEN I would be content to not impose sanctions. But as long as Academica denies that his biased and one sided writing of Nature nurture related topics is in anyway problematic then I see no other solution - for the sake of wikipedia's integrity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already stated several times that I have made mistakes which is arguably not unexpected when one makes as many edits to as many articles as I have done. But this has not been done with malice and I have acted in good faith. The couple of articles presented here regarding my recent editing is not evidence of any systematic wrongdoing even assuming every single accusation presented is true. I will certainly make every effort to avoid mistakes in the future. Again, I would like to point out that I have made numerous substantial edits to many nature/nuture articles with no complaints whatsoever. Again, as discussed above, have a look at the Psychopathy article where I substantially reduced the incorrect nature arguments and introduced nuture arguments which were entirely missing before my editing.Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, and surely there is room for that in wikipedia. But we are not talking about making mistakes but about consistently making a particular kind of mistake, and continuing to do so after having been made aware of it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Offers should come from Academica. There are 15 editors who have noticed this and taken the trouble to explain their support for an indefinite topic ban (Maunus, Johnuniq, Beyond My Ken, The Bushranger, Mathsci, IRWolfie, MastCell, Arthur Rubin, Yobol, TFD, aprock, Binksternet, Jess, ArtifexMayhem, Skinwalker), and 5 editors who have explained their oppose (Kim Dent-Brown, Penyulap, Lionel, Shrigley, Warden). The 15 supporters show there is a real problem, and if Academica has not recognized that problem after all this time and all the words (here and in many other places), a quick U-turn would not be convincing. The way to handle this kind of issue is simple: encourage the editor concerned to take a long break from the problem area and demonstrate by working on other topics that they understand why picking arguments from one side of a debate and relentlessly promoting those arguments in multiple articles is the opposite of what should be done. Such POV editing is containable in some areas like politics where advocates for one side are generally balanced by those from the other side, but standard editors do not have the emotional commitment to combat POV pushing in science articles. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me remaind you that you are one of the editors who voted to ban me before there were any diffs regarding recent editing and who argued that I should be banned by citing old R&I talk page comments. In articles in which you yourself had argued against me. Yes, I would call such reasons a political ban for daring to disagree with your own POV in the past in a topic I now avoids. Regarding my recent editing, see my reply to Maunus above. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I considered recent history before commenting: I do not need someone else to gather diffs because I have seen the edits and the talk pages. I mentioned the old Guns, Germs, and Steel case to illustrate that the problem has existed for a considerable time. In the 82 comments that you have posted here, have any addressed the substantive issues raised by the 15 editors who support a topic ban? Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Acadēmica Orientālis is making too many contradicatory statements. They talk about making many edits, but they have made just over 3,000 content edits with this account, which is not very many. They describe edits from February as being too old to be considered, but those edits are very recent. They stonewall on the talk pages of articles in a subject they claim they no longer edit, which is almost as obstructive as edit warring on the articles themselves. They have made claims during the recent arbcom review on WP:ARBR&I that wikipedia is WP:CENSORED in that subject. They have sought to separate themselves from their past editing history as Miradre while giving misleading descriptions of the multiple reports at WP:AE, contradicting statements by regular uninvolved administrators at AE. The problems with this editor seem similar to those with Abd in cold fusion: that editor found excuses to dismiss all those who criticized him and similarly chose to adopt a one-sided non-neutral approach to editing. Too much WP:IDHT: the responses to Maunus in this section are not encouraging. Mathsci (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting again

See User talk:Alan Liefting, specifically my commenbt here, his reply (to further comments by other editors) Take it to ANI, my final warning here and his further actions [46] [47] [48] [49] . I'm going to bed now, so if someone wants to unblock (or extend the block further), go ahead. Alan's edits are still likely to damage Wikipedia, by making more work for editors creating drafts in user-space or AfC before moving the articles to the live encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also the related discussion Wikipedia:Bot requests#User sandboxes in content categories - again. On the one hand, he considers it a trivial matter[50], but on the other hand it (or the principle) is important enough for him to get blocked over. No one doubted that the initial edits (and the bot request) were made in good faith and to improve Wikipedia: but his refusal to change his approach after being asked by different people to do so, and his immediate continuation of these edits after it was made clear that it would get him blocked are clear examples of disruptive editing. It's sad that a block is needed for something that could have been easily avoided. Fram (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the blocking admin "involved" so maybe somebodyelse should have blocked? And why block and then "going to bed now"? Couldn't you just wake up in the morning in do this? Just asking, not passing judgement on either party. --Mollskman (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)I have to go to work now so I won't respond right away :), I know, sort of ironic.--Mollskman (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can we just get it carved in stone somewhere that 1) user pages don't get categorized to mainspace categories (i.e. cats other than cats specifically for userspace) and 2) the fix for this, for any passing wikignomes, is to replace these links with the colon-added form and not to simply remove the cat. The arguments to WP:preserve the links to categories are good, as are the arguments against making userspace drafts appear prematurely in live mainspace categories. Wikignomes, including Alan, are encouraged to make this change (and affected users can be directed to an explanation of why it's a good change).

Removal of these cats from userspace should be regarded as any other edit in another user's userspace: potentially problematic and not encouraged. Removing obviously_(sic) incorrect categories would be regarded as any other such edit: assumed to be well intentioned, probably an improvement, but also possibly a provocation to other editors, if they aren't intending that userspace page to be a collaboration as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure that this was worth a block, but I see no evidence that Arthur Rubin has acted inappropriately here, just that this might have been handled better all round. On the content issue I'm inclined to agree that removing the cats was unhelpful. It's all a bit meh really. I certainly think Alan should be unblocked if he undertakes not to do any more of these, if that is the consensus. --John (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no prohibition from removing them, after all, they're still in the edit history, and can be easily restored should the draft be moved to article-space.

But in the face of such criticism, the diplomatic thing to do would have been to do one of the other common practice solutions: just comment the categories out or use the colon trick.

If I were to guess, I think that this may be more a case of identifying an pattern of disruptive editing (note the "again" in the header above) than just only focused on the category removals.

As such, endorse.

That said, as noted by User:John, above, "I certainly think Alan should be unblocked if he [agrees] not to do any more of these". - jc37 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Does anyone else think it's time to start discussing the removal of Alan's AWB privileges and/or a topic ban from automated editing? He doesn't seem to be cooperative enough to responsibly use such tools. -Scottywong| confess _ 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite yet. Perhaps we could discuss putting him on probation with automated editing though. My idea is that he's placed under a strict restriction: if anyone raises a concern about an automated edit set he's doing, he must stop until the concerns have been resolved (and it can't just be Alan's opinion that it's resolved - there has to be some kind of consensus). If he does not abide by that restriction, he's automatically topic banned from automated editing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd support that. -Scottywong| communicate _ 23:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Alan has escalated the situation since this discussion. I have decided to remove his AWB access for the time being. See the subsection below and Alan's talk page. -Scottywong| chat _ 02:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not in isolation. He's being soundly attacked as a bad editor in general, with vague references (no proof; just attacks) that his last 5000 edits are all bad, implications he was found guilty at WP:AN/I recently (provably false), and etc. Stop kicking the puppy. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• So Alan is or isn't the puppy? Or is the puppy now some metaphysical device you can use and modify depending on your perspective? Regarldess, Liefting has made his disruptive position clear. If you support his position, then presumably you advocate the disruption of Wikipedia too. Is that correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• He makes 12 edits using HotCat scattered over 2.5 days that are deemed problematic and you guys want to sanction his automated editing and removing removed his AWB privileges? Do you have any idea how absurd this looks?!?!? My prediction is coming true. 12 edits are being turned into a dispute of epic proportions. Drop the sticks and walk away. This is a non-problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not a "first-time offence". The user has been involved in several issues of a disruptive nature in the recent past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, the last 'offence' was dismissed by the community as good edits that should be performed, and which were performed on a massive scale before Alan did it, and have since been performed to completion. Note that the mere existence of a thread on a person is by no means proof that there is disruption by that person, you'd have to be more specific than that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Admitting to disruption to prove a point

Ok, so Alan has lodged an unblock appeal here where he says (paraphrased) that he deliberately disrupted Wikipedia to prove his point. It's not the first time he's seemingly lost the plot and disrupted the project (like this little outburst at WP:AIV), and been blocked for it. I think, at the very least, we should consider removing his access to the semi-automated tools he uses ad infinitum even when asked to desist, and perhaps consider topic blocks (such as recategorisation) until such a time we are confident that he is improving the project rather than causing work for others to undo/redo the edits he's making. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite the effective WP:SHOT he just fired. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• How many times has he been to ANI now over the years for his AWB and automated edits? I don't really want to dig up the old discussions, but I can if it's wanted. It's probably going to be pretty long. I think, at this point, enough is enough, especially when Alan was at ANI, what, twice in the past two weeks for automated edit issues? Silverseren^C 22:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Right, ok, this is getting ridiculous. He disrupted purposely, to make a point, and has now stated flat-out that he intends to continue that disruption when his block wears off. I know Alan is long-term constructive editor, in general, but I'm really struggling now to find a reason at this point why he shouldn't be indeffed until he's willing to stop disrupting in this manner. Bad: losing a long-term editor who's done a lot for Wikipedia. Worse: not giving an involuntary vacation to a long-term editor who's done a lot for Wikipedia but has now gone disruptively off the rails and is informing us that he has no intention of going back onto the rails any time soon. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• You know, what I'm seeing is a puppy who peed on the floor. In response, he was spanked. Then when the dog wasn't happy about being spanked and seems to intend on peeing again, you spank him again. When he seems to not like that, you decide the next best course of action to improve his behavior is kick him in the jaw, and throw him down the stairs. You don't make a situation better by adding fuel and flame to it. Drop it. If Alan returns to removing cats by way of removal instead of colons, then block for increasingly long periods of time. Easy. We don't need to make this a federal case. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Um, it was dropped, about 12 hours ago. Why pop up in each and every thread here Hammersoft? Move on. We all have. If Alan is intent on saying he'll deliberately disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, he deserves whatever he gets. The Rambling Man (talk)

• Um, not it wasn't dropped as the presence of this thread on WP:AN/I is testament of. Further, I don't require your permission to post here, do I? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I repeat, if Alan (as he has stated) will continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, then he deserves all the sanctions (including the sacred AWB withdrawal) he gets. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the ridiculous hyperbolic characterization of the consequences of Alan's own behavior, you do realize that you are, in effect, saying that Alan, an adult human being, has the same self-control as a puppy dog? Is that a characterization of an adult human being that you think is helpful? --Calton | Talk 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• The analogy isn't one I started, as I was previously referred to as a "faithful hound" by our esteemed bureaucrat and administrator Mr. Rambling Man. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The analogy of Alan being a petulant puppy is entirely of your own making, and while it characterises his behaviour, taking his AWB access away is hardly analogous to being kicked in the jaw and thrown down the stairs now is it? A little less hyperbole and and a little more thinking required. And it's The Rambling Man, not Mr. Rambling Man by the way! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I was referring to the community as being petulant, not Alan. The idea being of course kick the puppy until the puppy is happy about being kicked, and being astonishingly puzzled as to why the puppy isn't happy. As for hyperbole, you were the one claiming 12 edits over 2.5 days as "mass semi-automated edits". It's time people dropped the sticks and walked away from this. It's almost a day and a half now since the block has expired and nothing bad has happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder why nothing bad has happened..... Seriously, I didn't claim his 12 erroneous edits were "mass semi-automated edits", I claimed the many thousand of edits he made in 2.5 days were "mass semi-automated edits". Still, much like a bad politician, you're continually avoiding the point that Liefting has stated without a shadow of a doubt that he would continue to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Removal of AWB is lightweight compared to an indefinite block and site ban which would be the obvious staging posts for an editor who can't control his desire to disrupt Wikipedia. Now we can move along. Of course, as soon as Liefting returns to disrupt Wikipedia, no doubt we'll be back here again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• So now you're equating me with a bad politician? First I'm a faithful hound, now a bad politician? I wonder, do you feel WP:NPA applies to you? Comment on content, not the author. Sure, removal of AWB for doing something that had nothing to do with AWB is quite lightweight (cough) when compared to an even more incongruous and overboard suggestion he should be site banned. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, removal of tools for an editor who threatens to disrupt Wikipedia is perfectly reasonable, no matter if he was going to use those tools or not. We allow trusted editors to use the tools. People who disrupt Wikipedia get blocked, if their disruption continues they get indefinitely blocked, and if they disrupt further via sockpuppets/IP edits etc, they get site banned. Hardly incongruous, hardly overboard, just a clear and well trodden path down which Liefting is wandering. As for NPA, it was you who called Liefting a puppy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, it is a removal of tools for an editor who threatens to continue to improve Wikipedia which is, by some editors, found disruptive (and actually, the last AN/I thread was obviously not found disruptive, there was massive support for the performed actions). And no, it is not reasonable either if he was going to use the tools or not - it's like saying to a murderer who used a knife to kill someone that he is not allowed to use spoons anymore. If, and only if, Alan would indeed disrupt Wikipedia again, you stop him from disrupting Wikipedia, you don't take some of his tools so he can't use those to disrupt. "We'll put you in jail, and we take your belt. I hope it is clear that you should not hang yourself, so you can keep your shoelaces."
• Regarding the claim "I claimed the many thousand of edits he made in 2.5 days were "mass semi-automated edits" - yes, and those edits were, by the community, found to be OK (the mass removals of placeholder images), except that he was asked to next time go through another level of bureaucracy (which only applies to Alan, since all the 58000 images were removed without that bureaucracy - still it is hold against him - HIS mass semi-automated edits were deemed wrong - yet, other editors who perform mass edits, mass semi-automated edits, or mass automated edits are just ignored, but that is surely besides the point, because editors asked Alan to stop, and the editors who asked the other editors to stop and discuss (or show that they have consensus in favour of the scheme they are applying and wait to continue) can be ignored. But well, the community desysops and restricts editors for those things, so it must be what the community wants. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See above:

• I repeat, if Alan (as he has stated) will continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, then he deserves all the sanctions (including the sacred AWB withdrawal) he gets. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course that's not the situation; he's being forced to admit guilt for something not proven, else his AWB privs will not be restored. Maybe they were removed (illogically, I might add) for the stated plans, but they're being withheld until he agrees to terms that are supposedly a "compromise". See Scottywong's 13:59, 30 June 2012 comment on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Too little too late, the editor has left the building. And all this started because some silly people disagree with something and thinks Alan is going to blow up the project with HotCat. Meanwhile, we have some admins who got the power to delete pages, threaten and block people yet those people were left unchecked (and confused enough that they can't tell the difference between HotCat and AWB). All those who instigated this drama should be ashamed of yourself for the loss of yet another content contributor. It has become a common trend lately. I can name at least 4 to 5 names without any searching who left the project because of bad blocks or threats. Even when I worked my butt off to bring more educated people to start editing Wikipedia, I am no match against you guys if you bite newbies and chase existing, well-established editors away. Using marketing's lingo, the cost and effort to retain an existing customer is far cheaper and easier than recruit for a new one (and Wikipedia is no different). Now, I really wonder if my time and efforts are even worthwhile anymore because many admins are entrenched in a near-invincible position and carry a "my way or the highway" attitude. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• For Alan, this is nothing new, nor newsworthy. For reference, see this. - jc37 05:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I'm perfectly familiar with this essay. Nonetheless it's laughable that all it takes is 12 good-faith edits and some minority making a mountain out of a molehill to chase away an 118k-edit editor. For every editor that puts up the "goodbye" sign and returns later, there're dozens more who put up that sign and never come back. The attitude of the community has soured and is one of reason why editorship is on the decline for past few years. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB access removed

I've removed Alan's access to AWB, mostly per this comment (see bottom of the diff). Alan clearly states that he fully intends to continue making bad automated edits after his block expires. These are not the comments of someone who understands what he's done wrong and is striving to correct behavior that the community has clearly condemned. For those of you joining this thread, Alan has been at ANI several times in the last few weeks regarding his misuse of AWB and other automated editing tools to make large numbers of edits. I've left more extensive comments on Alan's talk page. -Scottywong| gab _ 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good call: I fully support removing a tool from an editor who says he intends to continue misusing it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Extremely poor call and Scotty you need to seriously consider whether you are appropriate to the administrator roll. Take away his AWB privs for using HotCat on 12 edits in a way you find objectionable? This is like painting your house a different color as a response to a solicitor showing up at your door. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reality check: he's not having privileges revoked for making a few bad edits, he's having them revoked insisting he will continue to make more bad edits -- bad edits because he can't be arsed to do a simple edit properly -- not mention a track record of making questionable edits. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• This particular call does not make sense to me. Take away AWB priviledges for misuse of AWB. Don't take it away for misuse of HotCat. Alan's actions here were wrong; they were not a misuse of AWB though. LadyofShalott 12:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's true, a revoking of all automated editing would make more sense, since it's such editing in general that he's threatening to continue with in a disruptive manner. Silverseren^C 19:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If he refuses to use a tool properly, why continue to let him use it? --Calton | Talk 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• In this case, he did not use the tool at all, properly or otherwise. Also, as has been pointed out, the last ANI case that was about his AWB had absolutely no consensus that he misused it. If anything, it was leaning the other way. LadyofShalott 14:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not about which tool he's using to make bad edits, it's about the fact that his behavior with regard to automated editing in general is unsatisfactory. Based on his recent actions and the statement in the above diff, he is far too high a risk to allow continued AWB access. I've left a further explanation at the growing thread on Alan's talk page. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mild Support: While I'm not nearly as inflexibly convinced as some people here that Alan is a force of evil whose edits must not only be reflexively opposed but routinely characterized as destructive, and that LadyofShalott is right that there is no consensus that any of this is true, there certainly is a broad faction holding that they are bad edits. As such, Alan should properly gain a fresh consensus for them, and hold off until he does, and so his language in the diff Scotty put up is disturbing. Announcing that you're going to bull ahead no matter what anyone says, short of being blocked, is poor form. Ravenswing 14:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - first, it is removed because he is basically saying that he is going to use the tool in the future, and when he does, it could be in a way that could be objected to by others. It is impossible to already conclude that the way he is going to use it will be inappropriate (a kind of WP:CRYSTAL problem). So this is 'preventing' something that may not happen, but which someone thinks is highly likely to happen. Anyways, anyone using AWB is capable of doing actions which may be objected in the future. Secondly, he was using hotcat in a way that some people find objectable, and we are here now with AWB. By the way, can someone show me where in this diff Alan is saying that he is going to use AWB to continue editing .. he was blocked for using HotCat, he says he will continue to do the edits he was blocked for, so we take AWB. Do we now need to find editors who find it bad that AfC articles have colon-ed categories at the bottom (I find it ugly - that is only used in discussion, then you get strange links at the bottom - I don't like it, newbies may not like it - just like they may not like the altogether removal of the categories). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support we tend to provide use of things like AWB to trusted editors who are happy to stop mass-automated edits and discuss what they do. We also consider that trusted editors will not state plainly and clearly that after their block period runs out, they will engage in behaviour that will once again disrupt Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. I don't care about the preceding 5,000 edits, nor really the twelve where Alan could have just commented out the categories rather than wholesale delete them (of course, things like HotCat don't allow that, so it slows Alan's edit count increase to do something other than just remove categories). What I do care about is the fact he would rather go ahead and repeat disruptive behaviour, be blocked again, rather than work collaboratively to find a solution to the various issues that have been brought up. It may be a coincidence, but Alan's been blocked for this kind of thing before, has been blocked for deliberate disruption at WP:AIV, has been brought up a number of times at AN/I and has now offered to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Do we really think editors who have this kind of track record should be afforded the privilege of the use of tools we tend to enable for users in good standing? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obvious action to take when a user is threatening to continue disruptive editing with automated programs even after being told to stop by multiple users. Silverseren^C 19:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; he said he was going to use AWB to do things which are inappropriate; as far as I can tell, he didn't actually use AWB for the specific actions I was complaining about. Of course, there may be other inappropriate things he was using AWB for, in which case, I'd have to Support. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite, he said "I have a dilemma. I want to fix Wikipedia but cannot do so if blocked. When, and if, I am unblocked I have every intention of doing the very things for which I was blocked in order to improve Wikipedia." which doesn't mean to say he was going to mis-use AWB. It meant to say that he was happy to tell us all he would be happy to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Ordinarily, this would result in an indefinite block; of course, while Alan's positive contributions are welcome, deliberately setting out to disrupt the project, and after his block for flipping his lid at WP:AIV, the privilege of having AWB is in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He has explicitly stated his direct intention to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point the instant his block expires. Indeed, this doesn't go far enough - all automated editing tool privilidges should be kerzapped until he retracts that declaration and agrees to abide by community standards in all respects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support The diff shows a clear intent to use automated tools in a WP:POINTY way once the ban expires, even whilst aware that this will lead to another ban. I think it is irrelevant whether he has misused the tools or not yet; it would not make a lot of sense to hang around and wait for the misuse which he has promised, first, before removing access. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment for the crystalballers You have no idea if he is going to cause disruption or not. What you DO know is he has engaged in discussion on the issue on his talk page, and his block expired more than a day ago. If he actually causes disruption, you can block then. What, are you just planning on banning him from the site entirely? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A declaration of intent to disrupt is treated the same as actual disruption, as blocks are meant to prevent disruption. As for the block having exprired, that's true, but this is about the AWB removal, not the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • AWB had nothing to do with the 12 edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • AWB is a privilege for trusted editors who don't threaten to disrupt Wikipedia with ongoing pointed edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Then I'm sure you can cite multiple other cases where editors with AWB privs have had such privs removed for doing something completely unrelated to AWB? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC
          • What part of "trusted editor" aren't you getting? Trusted editors don't threaten to disrupt Wikipedia to prove their point. Semi-automated tools like AWB are provided to "trusted editors". I'm sure you can fill in the gap. Now time to stop badgering just my comments, there are plenty of others here who support the removal of AWB access, go chase them. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
            • What part of "trusted editor" aren't you getting? Trusted editors will continue to improve Wikipedia, and that is what Alan was saying. And note that you were replying in this sub-thread to Hammersoft, so why do you think that WP:NPA is not applying to you (because you think that Hammersoft is badgering you - while you started to respond to Hammersoft). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Re that last bit - That may be carryover from the half of this discussion occuring at Alan's talk page, where Hammersoft was displaying behavior in defense of Alan that I, personally, would call "almost-but-not-quite badgering". - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                • If you want proof of badgering, you need only look as far as the people who are after Alan's hide. All of this massive, epic proportions debate...over 12 edits. If I were he, I'd be terrified of clicking "Save page" for fear of how someone would try to use it against me. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • No, it's the bit where Liefting says he'll continue to edit Wikipedia in the same way to prove a point and get blocked again. We don't trust editors like this. It's nothing to do with crystal balling, his threats to continue disruption are enough to warrant our trust in him being removed. Hence tools we allow trusted editors to use are removed. This obsession with what he did or didn't do with AWB or HotCat or whatever is beside the point. He has stated that when he gets back to editing, he'll do the same thing he was blocked for. It's really very simple, why is it so hard for you understand that someone who has said he will deliberately disrupt Wikipedia shouldn't have privileges above regular editors who want to make things work here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • • ^ What he said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • @The Rambling man; No, it's the bit where you get to hold his AWB privileges hostage for vague references to bad editing somewhere (no proof yet, still waiting) in his "mass semi-automated" editing. Meanwhile, 25% of your last 5000 mainspace edits have been done using a script. Yet, if I make vague references to poor editing within that, I'll wager there'd be accusations against me and demands of proof. It's really very simple. Holding his AWB privileges hostage unless he admits guilt for vague references to his editing is wrong on the face of it. If, when he returns to editing, he continues in the manner he threatened, then block him. Why is that so hard? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                      • Nah, final answer - editor with privileges threatens to disrupt Wikipedia despite block. Community take privileges away. Done deal. Nighty night. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                        • No, not 'community' takes privileges away, that was done by one editor without consensus to start with based on his interpretation of Alan's words. I think the words were that he threatened to improve Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User has explicitly stated that he would use tools to prove a point. A no brainer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So ? I vandalize wikipedia, I like it. I do it repeatedly, I've done it before and I'll do it again and I'm serious. Try to stop me. here is a diff, ban me. I even use sock puppets to vandalize and I'm getting bolder because nobody cares, I'm completely out of control. People could just be more polite to the guy if they want a reasonable conversation, or they could find bigger problems to devote so much time to.

Big talk. Rhetoric. So he says he's going to kill his best friend if his friend forgets his birthday, the policeman who arrests him is an idiot. If you can't tell if it's true or not find something better to do with your time. No doubt someone else will watch him closely, and no doubt all of wikipedia would collapse and come to an end if he was left unchecked. Penyulap ☏ 23:04, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, your pointy comment is not helpful to anyone. It seems to me you've done this kind of thing before, and I'd like to urge you to spend less time on the noticeboards, and more time improving articles. That's where the real work of Wikipedia is done, this stuff is quite frequently a sideshow. Please don't get sucked in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Penyulap did nothing pointy. If he wants to contribute to WP:AN/I, he is more than welcome to do so. If you don't want to read his comments, then don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, FFS, if you don't recognize this as pointy behavior, I have to question your comprehension skills. Pen is deliberately making these statements as a taunt. His flair for melodrama has done nothing but inflame ANI discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I have no comprehension skills. What I see in Penyulap's post isn't what you see. That doesn't mean you have excellent comprehension skills and I have none. From my chair, Penyulap raises a very valid point, that disruptions can and do happen and don't cause the project to collapse. Yet, no disruption has occurred since the block expired. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I must lack those comprehension skills as well - because for what I read is that Alan Liefting was threatening to .. low and behold .. improve Wikipedia, knowing that editors would block him for that. But as I said, I must have misunderstood - it apparently obviously says that he was going to use AWB to disrupt the project. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the record. 12 edits with HotCat and you take away AWB? It's like you are caught not wearing a life jacket on a boat and the police takes away your driving license for not wearing a seatbelt. Unbelievable. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for AWB restoration

All right, I've backed away from this and now I'm going to put in my revised opinion/proposal. If Alan Liefting agrees that he needs to communicate better when using automation, restore AWB to him. That's it. Not an admission of "guilt," an admission that this is an area in which he should improve. No requirement that he agree to restrictions, just an acknowledgement that there are people in the community who have shown concerns, and that their concerns should not be dismissed out of hand. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• From my view, this is a considerable improvement! Thank you! I'd still like to see evidence of where he has failed to effectively communicate when using automation. I'm not saying such evidence doesn't exist, just that I haven't personally seen it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The only logical explanation is that everyone except Hammersoft is batshit crazy. -Scottywong| talk _ 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is completely uncalled for. I am engaging in reasonable discussion. I even thanked Jorgath. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't have time to find it right now, Hammersoft, but I can point you in the right direction: in the previous AN/I discussion, I seem to remember at least one instance where Andy ignored a request to stop and talk about somethin. I'd also like to note that I'm not saying Andy doesn't communicate at all, just that it's something he should do better than he does. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean that thread that revolved around something that was discussed with Alan Liefting, he responded a couple of times, explained the actions, shown that there was consensus for it, and then someone comes along and demands him to stop because that editor does not like it, and when Alan then does not respond again but continues that is construed as 'he does not discuss' and gets blocked for not having consensus for what he was doing, while what he was doing was going on for years already, and has since been done anyways? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) You might be referring to Alan's lack of response to Fram's second inquiry. Alan had already responded to him. There were mixed thoughts on that one. Is there something else? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm all good with the initial proposal here. It's not a coincidence that Alan's been cited here at AN/I on several occasions, but I think the following:

• If Alan uses AWB to perform a large swath of edits, then he should also use AWB to be crystal clear as to the reasoning for it, e.g. in the edit summaries.
• If more than a couple of a editors request him to stop using AWB because there seems no clear reasoning for it then he should stop and discuss and probably expand upon his rationale.

I have been witness to Alan moving a reasonable number of pages (glossaries) without any prior discussion. This can be witnessed at User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 14, where he insisted that the reason for his numerous moves was simply "WP:ARTICLENAME". This reasoning (while possibly valid) was not expanded upon at all, and it was left to numerous editors to question his motives. It's clear he thought he was right, but he was also asked many times to expand his reasoning, which he really failed to do. While these were manual edits, many of which were undone, the thought of a similar approach to using AWB against so many questioning voices is troubling. But if Alan is prepared to be more communicative to the editors who ask questions as to why he's doing things, there should be no real disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but that was not a refusal to discuss, or a lack of communication - that is a disagreement, and/or a problem of getting a point across. As far as I see he answered most comments to him (which still may not have been satisfactory). So, how much more communicative do you want Alan to be? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to quote Alan: "And I am yet to get strong arguments against my page moves. In a few cases there is an argument to revet but not in all of the 70 odd pages I moved. And another thing, moving 70 pages out of 3,989,627 is hardly wiki-wide. Please keep things in perspective. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)" I can agree that there were things which could be handled better - but does that all get together to a level that this needs removal of AWB, accusations of not discussing, and even a block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like, when asked to expand a rationale, he doesn't just continually quote a guideline title. Perhaps say why he thinks a certain article title does meet the article title guideline. That's quite a reasonable question I think. We're not all as clever as you or Alan, clearly! And in answer to your second point, whatever, there were several editors who questioned his move rationale, without satisfactory response. As for whether "that all get together to a level that this needs removal of AWB", we're discussing giving it back, aren't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy

Requesting a temporary block of Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) for violations of WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. After a copy-paste move [51][52] was repeatedly reverted [53][54][55] by SamBlob (talk · contribs), Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), he began a series of tendentious and pointy edits [56] and attacks on other users.

Bridge Boy has absolutely refused to respect the requests of several other editors not to do copy-paste moves, or to refrain from pointy and POV-pushing edits until consensus is reached. Page protection was required to stop his edit warring. Again and again, any editor who disagrees with him is attacked for lack of subject knowledge. He does not respect the right of other editors to edit articles or even to participate in talk page discussions. Warnings to cease making personal attacks have been ignored, and he has not even acknowledged that such attacks ever occurred or that his personal attacks are unacceptable.

• "Oh fuck off you twat."
• [57] Ownership behavior in reply to a simple point about how to move articles and establish consensus.
• Refusal to ever use edit summaries. Supposedly because he's "new". Note this editor has created a couple dozen new articles and has close to 1,500 edits. Note that much of the conflict this editor draws on himself could be reduced if he would just use edit summaries to explain his intentions.
• "I realise I snubbed enough noses for people to just vote against whatever is being propose rather than depend on what the sources say"… "you are acting out of person prejudices rather than common sense or knowledge of the subject." Not assuming good faith.

• [58] "But I am looking forward to seeing how the other motorcyclists enthusiasts argue otherwise. It'll be good for a laugh." Only motorcycle enthusiasts are allowed to participate, and if they dare disagree with him, it's because of an imagined grudge against him. "a little gang of 2 or 3 people who think they own motorcycle related topics".

• [59] While attacking other editors for lack of subject knowledge and sources, he disingenuously twists the meaning of sources. Here is cites Japanese Grand Prix Racing Motorcycles by Mick Walker, Redline Books, 2002 for calling two-strokes "parallel twins", yet elsewhere has repeatedly said that the term "inline twin" is not used. In fact, Mick Walker uses "inline twin" again and again, in the cited book, and in others (Mick Walker's European Racing Motorcycles ). "Neither you, nor anyone else, are offering any alternative reliable sources at all. "
• No acknowledgment at all of the large number of sources that contradict his arguments.[60][61]. He bluffs by falsely calling the cited sources in books by recognized authorities, and mainstream newspapers and magazines, "merely blogs or PR releases (primary sources)". And forget about an apology for all the personal attacks against those who disagreed with him.

• [62] "I have had too much of time wasted by the stupidity and ignorance of having to question a choice as poor as "Straight-two engine", and all the bitch slapping and conniving that has ensued since. Something these people don't seem to realise detracts from the job at hand."… "I have no idea why Dennis has fixated on me and was working up such a case … Perhaps it is just an unconscious sibling rivalry? " Again, ownership and not assuming good faith. Any slight disagreement draws personal attacks. Note that I *support* an important part of Bridge Boy's argument, but I get attacked anyway.

• Another editor intervenes, and predictably, gets accused of being in on the grand conspiracy against him.

An temporary block is necessary in order to make clear that this behavior is unacceptable. There are bound to be future talk page discussions with this editor and it's getting tiresome to see the same off-topic, paranoid personal attacks every time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has tried to resist this editor's article ownership by reverting his tendentious changes and ultimately requesting its protection at WP:RPP, and who has subsequently had a short discussion with admin Elockid (who a couple of days ago, prior to sysop edit protecting the article was of a mind to block Bridge Boy), I support Dennis Bratland's assertion that this editor simply doesn't play well with others. He ignores the concept of no personal attacks. does not appear to understand consensus, is blatantly dismissive of other people's opinions and would benefit from a period of timeout to reflect on his unacceptable behaviour. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the position here (I've been involved in the talk:), but isn't this awfully close to the "cool-down block", and we know how well those work. Can someone with an (un-)involved mop please point out the copy-paste move problem, and that nothing is going to happen either way until the dust settles at talk:. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an "involved mop" is. [Sorry, typo - "uninvolved"] I've been showing him where the guideline is that points out the problem from the start and my effort has been ignored. Instead, he undid everything I did to try and correct the situation (which I now realize I wouldn't have been able to) and blames the whole situation on me.

I don't think he realizes what he's done wrong, which is frightening when one considers how many times he's been told: just about every page edit of this merged page history from this one to this one is either one of us putting the article back to how it was and showing him the link in the edit summary or him ignoring us and putting it back. An administrator put the article back to how it was before the cut-and-paste move, which is what he is supposed to do when there's a move discussion going on, and he questions the administrator's competence to discuss the matter, even though the administrator is *not* discussing the matter but enforcing Wikipedia policy. I try to explain the situation to him and his only response is to blame me for the consequences of his earlier refusal to listen, as mentioned before.

His entire attitude thus far has been combative, which I cannot see as working well in a collaborative effort.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No one here is going to issue Bridge Boy a "time out" or a "cool-down" block. That's outside the scope of the blocking policy; correct me if I'm wrong. Might I suggest that you try some of the steps listed at WP:Dispute resolution before posting here? This noticeboard is not intended to be used as the first place to go for dispute resolution. I am notifying Nuclear Warfare that his name has been mentioned in this thread. -- Dianna (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• But someone might block him for personal attacks and disruptive behavior if he doesn't work on his vocabulary and methods. If his behavior continues to disrupt the normal editing of other users, then a block to prevent further disruption is certainly an acceptable way to deal with the problem. His few edits since this ANI started [63] aren't inspiring me as well. I'm all for explaining to an editor what they are doing wrong, but they have to actually listen, and he doesn't seem to WP:HEAR too well. It would have been nice if he actually came here to explain his position. Dispute resolution isn't going to fix him telling others to "Oh fuck off you twat." either. WP:DRN only works when all parties are acting in good faith. After all, it isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

...And there is no dispute that needs to move to another forum to resolve. If Biker Biker and SamBlob and the others change their opinions, then the page Straight-two engine will be moved. If they continue disagree (which is a perfectly defensible and valid position given the inconsistency of the sources), then there is no consensus and the page won't be moved. No further dispute resolution is necessary on that score.

The problem is that every form of persuasion and pressure to improve Bridge Boy's behavior has failed. The only thing left is a block. If a temporary block is ineffective, make it a permanent, and let him request an unblock if he changes his tune. The Check's in the Mail Barnstar was witty and friendly, and beyond the call of duty given what a dick he was being to me and Brianhe (talk · contribs), but I wanted to try being nice to this guy. Didn't work. WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT says blocks should "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". It's worth showing that an uninvolved admin judges his behavior unacceptable; it isn't just a cabal of editors who harbor an imaginary grudge. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

He has been notified of this discussion, and the opinions are pretty clear. I'm not going to block him now, but if he continues his reckless disregard for process and civility and starts back, then I (or any other uninvolved admin) don't have a choice but to use a short term block to prevent the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone with authority please inform me whether I am really expected to invest time reading and responding in detail to this, and what the profit there might be for either the readers of the Wikipedia, or the quality and accuracy of the content? At present I have not actually read the above but I did predict earlier this was what Dennis had been building up to for some time, and can qualify why.

It has nothing to do with the aforementioned topic, and has its roots elsewhere in another subject area where I challenged what I considered to be his irrational and uninformed prejudice (although I did not put it in such terms). He has beens talking my edits ever since.

In this case, I took an article which had a notice saying that it "needs additional citations for verification" and added 44 good references, knowing the subject and having read through them all. Further more, I supported my position with 19 more top notch primary references on the talk page (manufacturers) as I know they are not acceptable on the actual topic page.

The complainant has conceded I was correct to attempt to re-title the page from Straight-two engine to Parallel-twin engine and so, as far as I am concerned, there is no argument left.

Personally, I'd rather invest what free time I have on developing a related topic like Straight engine which did not even have a "--References--" section until I added it or Inline-twin engine, for example, which does not yet exist. The work I am interested in are obscure but significant titles relating to motorcycling, e.g. [64]. I don't expect thanks but equally, as a volunteer worker, I don't expect such irrational obstructions from individuals who do not know the subject matter. Nor do I understand what is to be gained by the tactical creation of such conflicts and casting such accusations. Surely it is only bad for the morale and productivity of your voluntary workers?

One question, if one is confronted by other individuals who clearly do not know any given subject, how much of a responsibility does one have to educate them? It strikes me that a system based on the consensus of a few uninformed individuals would become an uninformed consensus. The danger in relying on contributors who are uninformed about a very specific topic is that when a conflict does arises they will be unable to perceive just how out of perspective their stance and opinions are.

In this case Dennis is telling us that "almost all" of the 63 references I added have "been harmful". I am lost for words and would like a second opinion on their acceptability. [65] He has even attempted to have the page reverted to it original state 6 months ago, erasing all my work. [66]

I checked in with the administrator involved and they confirmed that they did not feel "attacked" either. so what is this really all about? --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that Bridge Boy expects infinite patience in explaining and re-explaining Wikipedia's community standards, yet he is unwilling to spend his own precious time communicating with editors he judges to be less knowledgeable about article subjects.

But the key here is Failure or refusal to "get the point", WP:IDHT, "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted." No matter how many others tell him his behavior is unacceptable, Bridge Boy keeps returning to this delusion that it's one guy conspiring against him. Even after an admin has clearly warned him that he will be blocked if he don't stop. And then, Andy Dingley above stated that the dust has not settled in the move discussion, and I said so as well. Did he hear that? Nope, didn't hear. Went right ahead and declared the discussion over and requested a page move.

What is the point of allowing this to go on? It's like talking to a brick wall and his behavior will not change. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think something that is still worrying Bridge Boy here is the timescale for making these changes. The wiki way is pretty thorough and usually quite good on accuracy, but it's certainly not quick! Consensus based editing moves at the speed of the slower editors, not the quickest. Any attempt to speed this up by a quicker editor (which usually means having more time to spend, not themselves being faster) finds itself being strongly resisted by the other editors. This isn't because they're against the change, it's because they're against being bypassed. Obviously this isn't ideal, but it probably is optimal - we have to respect the slow speed that many editors are restricted to by their available time, and we should never rush to "fix" articles with a cry of "too slow" at others. Particularly so for this very, very minor issue - it's not wrong to call a parallel-twin engine an inline-twin or a straight-two, even if it does turn out to be better some other way. Wikiquality in some intermediate state with ongoing discussion isn't suffering, as it might with a libelous BLP issue.

I'd also ask Bridge Boy to WP:AGF a bit more about other editors. Insulting them isn't an effective way to motivate them or to win them over to your case! Speaking personally I don't much care, but having started out strongly against the move I now find myself with no firm grounds against it - not because of an ear-bashing from Bridge Boy, but because I finally found time to take the reference books down off the shelf and discovered (to my surprise) that they supported his view. I now need to change my own viewpoint as a result, and many, many editors are much less likely to do that after initially feeling insulted by another editor.

I am concerned too about inline-twin engine. While that is my favoured name for this article, there's a risk of that being a content fork (they're bad) if it's created from scratch or by copying. We quite possibly want to end up with two articles, one specific to motorbikes and transverse twin engines (interesting and popular) with another one (slightly tedious but worthy) filling in the obvious set of possible ways to lay out an engine at the broadest scope. I'm not certain that creating them in this sequence would be best though - this too needs some careful discussion, and doing it beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per this last edit, I'd now support a block. I'm tired of this. I'm tired of this rude, argumentative jackass in particular. Editors shouldn't have to be treated like this. No-one else is going after him. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"I finally found time to take the reference books down off the shelf and discovered (to my surprise) that they supported his view".

Thank you Andy ... but please don't allow the question of this one topic's title to distract from the actual roots of Dennis's attempted character assassination. The roots of this go back longer and have been simmering for some time.

I, personally, consider it a futile waste of time and energy to go back, unpick it all, and provide one sided "evidence", and am still waiting for someone with authority to inform me whether I really have to go through it all.

As with the topic title, even if I was proven right again, I cannot see how it would benefit the readers and content of this website.

As for the use of the move tag, there is no reason to keep removing, and it is only a provocation to do so. The tag is being used within policy and its purpose is to involve other editors in the discussion. Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To which your reply was, "you have not heard of it raises questions of credibility in your knowledge or judgement. "

Sorry, but right or wrong I just don't want to see you editing on WP. There's enough drama already and too many editors interested in shouting their own opinion rather than working with others. "Futile waste of time and energy" - fine. So stop doing it. I'm sure the community will cope without you. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy is being restrained stating "I'm tired of this. I'm tired of this rude, argumentative jackass in particular." BB's poor behaviour shows no sign of abating. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, let's be clear and misconstrue things Andy.

a) You made the surprised statement of agreement here.

b) You made the second statement on the topic page.

I have not read your statement of agreement (here) before I responded to your other comment (on the talk page) based on purely personal preferences rather than the given references. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

As a proposed resolution to this difference of opinions, could I ask that Dennis Bratland is required to stay away from topics I am editing and talk page for a "cool downing" period as any such interactions, under the current situation, would risk appearing deliberately provocative?

It has been clear to me that he has been following me around for sometime and, from elsewhere, has had other such conflicts with other editors. I'd like to give the time and space to interact with other editors in a non-provacative manner and learn.

I am capable of picking apart his attack if I have to defend myself, but have no wish to carry any dispute on.

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's denial or incompetence that causes Bridge Boy to keep making this same error. Per, Wikipedia:Competence is required, it makes no difference. If you can't grasp basic reality, you can't edit Wikipedia. To recap: the disupte over the copy-paste move of Straight-two engine began with Bridge Boy's sloppy move, and SamBlob objected, on June 16. I didn't get involved until June 27. After the discussion began, multiple editors objected to any further action without consensus, not just me. Biker Biker attempted to have Bridge Boy blocked for vandalism at AIV before I took this here to ANI. Uninvolved admin Elockid said he was close to blocking Bridge Boy, rather than protecting Straight-two engine. Admin Dennis Brown, who had no grudge against anybody, agreed that Bridge Boy's behavior was uncivil and was ready to block him if he didn't stop. Andy Dingley voiced no support for blocking Bridge Boy until after Bridge Boy dug himself deeper.

The idea that this is all because I, Dennis Bratland, have a personal problem with Bridge Boy is disproved by the record everywhere you turn. Bridge Boy has antagonized even his allies. He has won support from nobody, all due to his combative behavior and disingenuous twisting of facts. Besides all the f-bombs and ownership of articles, editors who persistently get basic facts wrong (either from malice or stupidity) in a way that disparages other editors (meaning me) should be permanently blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an interaction ban happening and would strongly oppose one. Bridge Boy, you just need to learn to get along with others. You don't have to like anyone, you don't have to agree with anyone, but in a collegiate environment, it is required that you work with everyone and act with a modest amount of civility. This means a little self-restraint. Surely you have enough self-control to not inject your personal opinion of others into your discussions and summaries, or understand that you will be blocked if you don't. Everyone needs to dial back the drama and incivility, for that matter, but Bridge Boy, it starts with you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown,

As yet I have chosen not to respond to allegation nor to spend the time and effort explaining the history for this accusation as I do not see it would be beneficial.

Consequently, I am a bit concerned by the one sided nature of your reprimand. Dennis Bratland's attack on my character and the deliberate flagging up, has been simmering for some time ever since I questioned some of his more rash and prejudicial comments, or knowledge, of other areas.

I have no wish to humiliate him in public, and likely provoke him further by doing, but I would like him to be kept away from me for a while. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Title: Bridge Boy and Dennis Bratland

I am sorry but I have to be quite firm about this.

I am requesting that the title of section is reverted to "Bridge Boy and Dennis Bratland" as the current situation also reflects on Dennis Bratland's prior conduct towards me.

There is no smoke without fire.

Dennis has been building up to this for some time now, with false warnings, false summaries, reversion and minor provocations etc. It is really quite clear if you look. I am sorry but it neither be fair nor correct to look at this one-sidedly.

If I was to take the time I could easily show how I attempted to engage him in discuss first but was ignored, and so on. I do not think it is fair that he, as the accuser, should have the right to exclude himself and his own conduct from this equation. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And I am going to be firmer: no. You are the one violating WP:NPA. You are the one screwing up with copy/paste moves. You are the one breaking so many Wikipedia policies/rules that you have forced another editor to become the very vocal person in order to try and both GUIDE you, and to fix the problems you create. YOUR behaviour and actions are the genesis of this, and if it had not been Dennis, it would have had to be someone else making the same loud statements. I think you should "take the time" to show this project why you should remain, and how you're going to change: right now I see the distant future is a block. You have time to prevent it by looking at YOUR behaviours now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Move or moves, Bwilkins?

It was 'move', and the first time I had come across the problem of how to move a page to one that was already occupied. All that needed to be done was the history moved from Straight-two engine to Parallel-twin engine. The matter could have been resolved without it being turned into a great drama.

The reversion caused all sorts of problems with a load of shortcuts that the reverter had not released.

All of the 43 or so references I added to the topic are passable or perfect. Despite a tag requesting it be done, no one else had added any January. There was no support for the previous title. In addition, I provided links which prove that 18 or so major, internationally manufacturers in the fields of motorcycles, snowmobiles and atvs all used the corrected topic title in their product material on the talk page.

My concern lies most with the accuracy of the content, good referencing and how they match policy. Why would 60 or more references not be good enough? --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please also note the what is very difficult not to see as another churlish provocative move by one of these individuals, Biker Biker moving Inline-triple engine back to Straight-three engine.

Again, references will show that inline-triple engine is the more commonly used and recognisable title for this engine configuration, and meets Wikipedia policy better. We really need to decide such matters on the references and not be so personal about them. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you'd been busy at Straight-three engine too 8-(

Biker Biker's reversion of your undiscussed move of this page was far from "another churlish provocative move", it was quite correct within WP:BRD. I consider it, again, disruptive of you to mis-represent it as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"references will show that inline-triple engine is the more commonly used and recognisable title for this engine configuration, "

It is most unlikely that references will show this. References will easily show that "inline triple" is used in some cases, other references will show that "straight three" is used too. Unless some WP:RS has performed an extremely unlikely survey of which is most common, then neither reference shows that either one is "most common". This is why such naming matters are such a common problem for a cross-environment project like WP, and why your dogmatic assertions are far from helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Inline-twin engine

We're still at an impasse with Straight-two engine, but now Bridge Boy has now created Inline-twin engine as a content fork as well. 8-(

There's no consensus for this. It was raised yesterday as a likely, and problematic, creation. We now have two articles with unclear scope, rather than just one. In particular, inline-twin contains two blocks of content: motorcycles (where the inline layout is highly obscure, so this is a very specific scope) and non-motorcycles, where it's just the common way most two cylinder engines are arranged. This only makes sense if both straight-two engine is seen as a fait accompli for a rename to parallel-twin engine and if parallel-twin is also interpreted as a synonym for transverse-twin (and excludes other engines, contrary to its current scope). Once again, Bridge Boy is ignoring all other editors and using pre-emption as a way to push a single POV onto articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a content fork Andy. They are clearly two very different engine configurations, even to the eye of a lay engineer. The Wikipedia has no policy against "obscurity", as long as it is referenced as this one is. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Transverse and longitudinal are "clearly two very different engine configurations", but that's not what you've created here.

There's also the issue that you're doing everything you possibly can to work against other editors, down to if you don't get your way with one article, creating another overlapping article to try and force everyone's hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal from uninvolved Jorgath

I propose that Bridge Boy is blocked for 48 hours, escalating for reoccurence for WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF violations; this user is failing to WP:HEAR anything related to these issues and is likely to continue their problematic behavior. I also strongly encourage Bridge Boy to seek and accept mentorship to overcome WP:COMPETENCE issues. Finally, I propose that certain editors, while quite obviously provoked, may have gotten a little too heated. So I offer both sympathy and a trout to User:Dennis Bratland, and sympathy and minnows to User:Biker Biker and User:Andy Dingley. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cannot clean irrelevant citations

Hi,

I face an issue with a new contributor on article Apprendre2.0. While trying to clean irrelevant citations that are not about the sentences they are added to, I’m systematically reverted and attacked (see my comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apprendre2.0).

Can you please explain to this user the basics of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research ?

Thanks.

Schlum (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I might add that the same user has engaged in personal attacks on the above user and myself at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apprendre2.0. User also self-applied an edit protection template to the article in question. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is about Sbody.swhere00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Why can't one of you two "explain to this user the basics of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research"? You don't need to be an admin to do that. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I see in the top of this page "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.". We have here a user who don’t want to understand the mere principles of WP, and don’t want to discuss, he only reverts and insults others, so I guessed I needed some help here. Unless you think it’s not bothering to have a sentence about something created in 2007, sourced with a citation dating 1995. Schlum (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

The reality of the facts is readable here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apprendre2.0#Apprendre2.0--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes please do read that. Maybe you will understand what Schlum is trying to say. Others have explained ad nauseum to him WP:V and WP:OR. I have explained ownership and civility to him. He responds to every discussion as if it were a personal attack. There is plenty of consensus now at the AfD page to close the discussion with a delete. I am guessing that will resolve the problem. Thank you for anything you can do to help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD closed with a delete, problem solved, I think. It seemed apparent that a large part of the problem referenced here stemmed from language difficulty on the part of User:Sbody.swhere00. Is there a specific place to go when I encounter such language based problems in the future? If the dude would have had a translator to help him understand the problems, this would not have escalated into a name calling event, IMHO. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there's a list of editors who translate X language somewhere...ah, here it is. You can try to find a relevant language person who's active. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not really a language issue… We have exactly the same issues with him in fr Wiki. Schlum (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• For starters, User:Sbody.swhere00 should read WP:BLUDGEON. His behavior is exactly the reason the essay exists, and it might help him understand a few things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

user:Koavf : POV edits on Western Sahara related articles

Hello,

I would like to report a series of POV edits by Koavf on Western Sahara related articles. For reminder, this user was previously blocked 20+ times for the same behavior.

The facts:

• WikiProject Western Sahara [67] : persisting (+ edit warring) on adding SADR's flag (example) despite the fact that this issue was previously discussed on Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote and that the decision was to avoid putting any flag to keep the page neutral (June 2012) ;
• Western Sahara conflict : persisting on adding a POV/Propaganda/non-sourced photo montage to the article : File:Moroccan police brutality with Sahrawis.jpg (June 2012) ;
• Western Sahara : persisting on adding a photo of the "Army museum of the SADR" as related to the culture of the territory [68] (as POV as adding a photo of the Army museum of Morocco) (June 2012) ;
• Sahrawi refugee camps : removal of -not in favor of Polisario's claims- sourced content [69] (January 2012) ;
• Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement : adding a section [70] despite the fact that there is a clear controverse upon these facts and that he got no consensus through discussion (January 2012) ;

This behavior is clearly nonconstructive and this user doesn't seem to be able to contribute neutrally. I ask admins to take a measure (1RR or topic ban on Western Sahara related articles) for Koavf ; this seems to be the only solution, unfortunately.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents These allegations are petty and ANI is not really the appropriate venue for them, since Omar-Toons refuses to post to talk pages for some reason.

He is under the impression that Wikipedia:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote is somehow germane to WikiProject:Western Sahara's page. I have no idea why.

Why he would want to remove photographic evidence of human rights violations (File:Moroccan police brutality with Sahrawis.jpg) from Western Sahara conflict is beyond me, but his allegation that it's "POV/Propaganda/non-sourced" is easily solved with FFD. If he thinks it should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If it shouldn't be deleted, then it's obviously appropriate. Removing it from the article is POV.

The claim that "persisting on adding a photo of the 'Army museum of the SADR' as related to the culture of the territory [71] (as POV as adding a photo of the Army museum of Morocco)" is obviously untrue as the museum is a cultural center of a part of Sahrawi culture and the Polisario Front are the legitimate representatives of the Sahrawi people according to the UN. He refuses to use the talk page to discuss this and in reality, he is edit-warring against Dzlinker, Sean.hoyland, and myself who have all restored the picture (note that he may be 197.247.3.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but I don't know.) Several users keep on reinserting this and he refuses to address their concerns.

As I pointed out in my edit summary to Sahrawi refugee camps (which Omar-Toons didn't link), this figure was simply mentioned by one person at one meeting 15 years ago. I don't see why this is supposed to be accurate polling data for today. Again, he refuses to use talk.

I didn't add a section to Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement, I simply restored deleted content (which is--funnily enough--exactly what he accused me of doing in the above accusation.) If there is controversy, then please add to that perspective: that's kind of the whole point behind NPOV.

I don't know what he's hoping to accomplish here, but he's never posted to talk about any of these issues nor written me directly in spite of the fact that the top of the page says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The fact that this is all he can come up with over six months' time is paltry and ridiculous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I was about to comment that while there was consensus to remove the flag from your project page's infobox, it appears that its mixed with various uses of it around the project, including your userbox Template:User WikiProject Western Sahara. I checked the history and it was Koavf who added the image saying to editors that you can use a different userbox if you disagree. That was dated back into 2011, so there appears to be an issue if there is repeated content restored in one particular favor. — Moe ε 08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true This page has nothing to do with the WikiProject. It was about Western Sahara's infobox. You are mistaken. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Userboxes don't have to be NPOV... I don't understand your point. Have you seen WP:UBX and all of the stumping that userboxes do? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason this had to do with the project at all, was because the first link Omar-Toons posted was a WikiProject page you changed. I was commenting that not every page on the project exactly conformed to flag over map or vice versa but that was before I noticed you were changing several of the maps in exchange for the flag, including things like the userbox. Of course not all userboxes are uncontroversial, but a project userbox is about as benign as one could get. Obviously there was a discussion and/or consensus prior to you making changes like using the flag, as apparent by several editors reverting you. You were reverted before on the same page by a different editor a year ago because it wasn't neutral. Why not discuss this change like this rather than forcibly edit it in, or take another vote if the other one is stale? — Moe ε 08:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Userbox Because {{WSWP-Member2}}, {{WSWP-Member3}}, and {{User WikiProject Western Sahara 2}} exist. Anyone can create a userbox—if you don't like the one I made, make one you like. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is more of a talk page issue, I suggest taking it to Koavf's talk page. ⇒TAP 09:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the whole basis of my comment seems to have been missed that this is a content dispute which isn't being discussed but rather revert warred. — Moe ε 09:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

These are content disputes that need to be resolved through discussion. I have some of the Western Sahara articles watchlisted so I see the usual nationalist back and forth slow burn edit warring and drive by IP POV pushing that goes on. The topic area seems somewhat similar to the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area (although with a lot less stupidity, bigotry and dishonesty via sockpuppetry). The 1RR restrictions that have been placed on all articles in the I-P conflict topic area have helped to reduce edit warring somewhat (see Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement). Perhaps they would help here. Maybe discretionary sanctions are required to deal with nationalist editors who have difficulty following policy too. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but : These are content dispute I agree, but the fact is that Koavf is well known for being a POV-pusher on these articles and that he refuses to pursue what was previously agreed on, thus it becomes WP:DISRUPT. --Omar-Toons (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The outcome was that Western Sahara article infobox shouldn't have flags. Has Koavf complied with that outcome, yes or no ? If not please provide evidence of the disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

wait, should I understand that edit-warring and refusing a consensual decision that was taken for the "article X territory" doesn't count for the "portal X territory"? Should I understand that the NPOV should be discussed for each article?

Otherwise: should I consider that, since the NPOV decision wasn't made for each Palestine/Israel article, I am free to add any POV content for articles that weren't explicitly discussed?

Sorry, but the only fact is that Koavf refuses any decision and pushes his POV as long as article's content doesn't match his own opinion. Letting him doing so is absolutely not a decision that will keep WP as neutral as it has to be.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You should learn how to use talk pages help here: Help:Using talk pages— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzlinker (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Omar, I'm easily distracted. You said "refuses to pursue what was previously agreed on" but didn't provide evidence that supports the statement. Given the scope of the agreement and looking at the article history I think that statement is inaccurate although I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Those kind of statements undermine your case even if you have a valid point (e.g. messing with flags anywhere causes problems). Yes, I think a consensual decision that was taken for the "article X territory" doesn't count for the "portal X territory". If you think the scope of the decision should be changed wouldn't it be better to work to get it changed through the normal process rather than trying to impose your interpretation ? Regarding edit warring, obviously an editor can't edit war on their own and none of these issues are going to be resolved through edit warring no matter which side of the 3RR bright line the rate of reverting places it. All of these edits may look highly problematic to you but they don't to me. They look more like the normal back and forth that goes on when articles deal with controversial topics and people don't use the talk pages or dispute resolution. If you want the edit warring to stop, why not stop reverting, open discussions and try to get consensus as the WP:CONSENSUS policy says ? If editors ignore the talk page and/or continue to make edits without having made genuine policy based arguments that contributed towards an actual consensus (i.e. they don't follow the policy) or they are making unambiguously disruptive policy violations, your complaints will have far more weight and you can take it to the edit warring noticeboard. I probably sound unsympathetic but despite Western Sahara having one of the largest minefields in the world, which will be a lot of fun when the Vibroseis trucks finally get to those areas any decade now, the topic area here isn't really a mine field at least for me, compared to the I-P conflict topic area. It's not too bad, there isn't that much edit warring or POV pushing. There's probably policy based common ground but no one will know until the talking starts. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Are you telling me that a discussion about neutrality is only related to a single article? Then, for each article related to Western Sahara we will repeat X times the same discussion : is adding the flag of one side of the conflict but not the other "neutral"? Or should we first look to previous discussions on which the consensus is that it is not neutral?

In fact, here, Koavf deliberately makes POV edits, since he participated to the previous discussions and then is aware about the fact that adding such flag is POV. I would assume good faith if it was an editor who isn't well known for making POV edits on WS related articles since 7 years, but it is not the case.

n.b. the diffs are given on main request msg.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you made a statement that is verifiably inconsistent with the facts. How you deal with that is up to you but the outcome of the discussion doesn't support your interpretation in my view.

• Scope = "This is a poll that would decide whether the infobox in the Western Sahara article should include the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), or Morocco's flag, or none of them. The survey is being carried out under Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines."
• Wikipedia_talk:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote#Results - "I think it is clear Option 3 is the least controversial one, so should be retained."
• Option 3 = Option include no flags. "This option would include in the infobox information about the territory without information about the concerned parties of the conflict (Morocco and SADR). Benefit will be no false information will be provided according to all readers, drawback will be that all involved parties may consider information is missing."

There have been similiar discussions in the I-P conflict topic area that generated important guidelines for things that had been argued and edited warred over repeatedly for years and years e.g. WP:WESTBANK & WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. The scope is clear and they apply to hundreds of articles. The guidelines are implemented to the letter with no wiggle-room and compliance is monitored (by me for example). Editors who don't comply can and have been sanctioned but only on the basis of what the guidelines actual say. Perhaps you should initiate similar discussions so that the outcomes can be implemented right across the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation from editor

Resolved

 – Without further information provided, there's nothing else to do. We need to know which articles are involved if we are to take any action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish to register a complaint against ksanthosh89. He copies writings from others websites into your website without permission. Your editors removed writings from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellanahalli copied from my website. All his other articles are copyright violation. I dont have much time to list copied writings in all article pages. Please remove all copyright violation. Thanks. 223.236.142.51 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Cross reference IP's concerns at the help desk. You need to help us identify the copyvios.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ksanthosh89 (talk · contribs) notified. Agathoclea (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have time. There are to much websites and I read in the links you posted in his page that you take seriously copyright violation. That's why I am informing here. thanks.223.190.164.196 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you don't have time to bother assisting us to investigate your complaint, why do you figure others do? Ravenswing 15:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The IP appears to be be more helpful at the Help Desk and is identifying the user and at least one of the articles. Based on the identity of the copying user, User:Athleek123 has been able to fix other WP articles. I'm not sure that it's helpful to have this topic going on in two different forums other than the fact that copyright violations are, of course, a matter of serious concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not regular here to spend much time to get all the website he copied. I am thinking to help you find copyright violation because you are editors here. I checked his copying once and I don't note down all the copied writings. I don't have time now to check all the websites now again. I saw many copyright violation in his articles. As u take copyright violation seriously, I am telling you.110.225.152.152 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC) And editors in help desk don't take seriously copyright violation. So I am informing here. Please take action. Thanks.110.225.152.152 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction 110.225.152.152: Two editors at the Help desk took copyright seriously and made significant changes. This a volunteer and collaborative project. No one here is a paid editor, and if you would help us out by identifying specific articles to which you refer, we could fix these problems more quickly and efficiently. Cresix (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for talking about help desk editors. The editors there deleted 3 copyright articles. But there are other articles with copyright also. So I came here. Is this not the right place to ask? Which is the right place to ask?110.225.152.152 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Either there or here, but not both; please don't forum shop. But it would go much more smoothly if you would help. We're not mind readers. Cresix (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And you editors only told me that you take copyright violations seriously. I am telling you again and again I don't have time to check again all the websites. I already checked once when I had the time but don't note down the copied writings. But I don't have time now. I saw copyright violation in all his articles. Telling you here takes only 1minute. But checking all that again and noting down the websites will take much time. I understand you are not paid editors. But you are regular here and I am new. So I am asking you. I will have checked if I had time.110.225.152.152 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) OK. I will not contact help desk for this hereafter.110.225.152.152 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who removed several instances of copyvio, as seen on his talk page. I used this to find out what pages Ksanthosh89 created. Regarding the claim by the IP that it would take too much time to list which articles have copyvio in them, I can only help but notice that Ksanthosh89 created less than 25 articles (excluding redirects). Just take 5 minutes to give us a list of articles and then we will do the hard work. It's a pretty sweet deal for you. Athleek123 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this an issue more appropriate for WP:CCI? --202.28.181.200 (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be, but if anon 110.225.152.152 is unable or unwilling to spend about five minutes to provide names of articles and the copyrighted sources, there may be no further action. Cresix (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Simulation12 socks to block

Simulation12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to edit Boomerang (TV channel) and related articles in violation of his community ban. Please block his most recent obvious socks:

• Boomerang222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.217.47.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These accounts share the same editing pattern, have (in the first case) almost the same username as previous socks, and have posted the exact same information as the previous socks. (For further details see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Boomerang2 (returning sock of BoomerangWiki) and User talk:MuZemike#Boomerang225.) I've requested semi-protection for the article as the majority of edits to it in the past few months have been from socks, or are reversions of sock edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tiptoety already nailed the Boomerang222 account, which I had actually been watching, so it looks like a lot of eyes were on him. The IP is a cell phone, so has likely already changed long a go, so no need to block. In the future, you need to file this at WP:SPI rather than here, so we can log it with the other socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • MuZemike, who had previously been dealing with this problem, said SPI wasn't necessary since the socks were obvious. So who is right? The editor is likely to continue creating socks (usually quite obviously—most of the names match the pattern Boomerang[0-9]+ and simply repost the same text as the previously blocked ones) so I'd like to know where to report them in the future. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike is speaking of this particular instance of socking as being obvious and since it is already here for admin review there is no need for an SPI this time. He chose not to block because he is giving the tools a temporary rest. Generally speaking, you should file future cases at SPI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards: it's not the case that MuZemike said SPI wasn't necessary since it's already posted here; rather, I posted it here because (and after) MuZemike said SPI wasn't necessary (and also because, as you pointed out, he's not currently issuing blocks himself). I can post further reports to WP:SPI if that's more convenient for everyone. In my experience, however, obvious LTA accounts (which is probably what these qualify as) are usually blocked without a formal SPI investigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal threat by IP editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see here — IP editor "fixing" correct spelling in multiple articles, in ignorance or violation of WP:ENGVAR, evidently does not like this error being pointed out to him or her; reacts by issuing threats of physical violence in article text. 16:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheinwerfermann (talk • contribs)

It has been revdelled, the IP is blocked, unfortunately the IP is dynamic. Arcandam (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Threats of physical violence? It's only an IPv4 /17. If it happens again, I suggest blocking the entire 98.240.0.0/17 NASHVILLE-26 range, giving clear reasons for the block, and let Comcast's other Nashville customers complain to Comcast customer service, who can then consider whether they want to enforce their AUP. -- The Anome (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On review: examination of Special:Contributions/98.240.72.57 suggests that they are either staggeringly prolific, or their IP address is perhaps not as dynamic as it might be. -- The Anome (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I support indef. Arcandam (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely from one of Comcast's dynamic address pools: see [72] for the full list. Whois gives the /17 block above. I've upped the block of the specific IP to 7 days, to match Comcast's DHCP lease time. If more of the same comes from the same IP after the block expires, I agree, we should block it for an extended period -- say 2 years.

Then if that fails, it's rangeblock time.

I've also warned the IP that they may not be as anonymous as they think -- ISPs store address assignment data for a long time nowadays. -- The Anome (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I should've been more precise: I support an indef block for the person behind the IP. Arcandam (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely -- no question about that, a community ban is appropriate here. Scheinwerfermann does not currently appear to have any personally identifying information here, but any future credible threats of violence should be reported to law enforcement. -- The Anome (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for the quick action on this. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term disruptive editing by User:Rkononenko

User:Rkononenko has engaged in a long-term habit of removing alternate Russian-language names for Ukrainian cities, despite a clear consensus among editors in that area to leave them intact. He/she is not a consistent editor, but whenever he/she shows up the first order of business is to always remove the Russian alternate name for Kharkiv. Is there anything that can be done to "disrupt" this disruption? Here are links showing what this user has done since March: [73] [74] [75] [76] User has had warning templates placed on his/her Talk page on several occasions which are ignored. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would like to propose either a 1RR restriction on all related articles that the account has removed the name, or a topic ban on these articles. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban on editing articles related to Ukraine would be best.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The previous ANI topic relater to this user was sent to archive without any consequences, and it would be good if this time some decision were made.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Rkononenko has again performed his/her special vandalism today. --Taivo (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams article is being attacked again by user fasttimes68

He is also removing her name off of pages that mention it and are relevant facts. 98.14.172.174 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I should note that one of the edits in question includes the edit summary "revert blocked sock". I've not dug any further, but on the surface, fasttimes68 (talk · contribs) may be editing in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Stephanie Adams article, IP appears to be the one at fault. Athleek123 22:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no justification for adding Adams to the July 24 births, although it seems to be true. As an alumni of Fairleigh Dickinson University she is being added unreferenced. The reversion of a sourced sentence in her article, when the source is already present/left upon reversion as a reference seems...unnecessary. YMMV. Dru of Id (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There is quite significant history here; fasttimes68 really shouldn't be touching the article [due to a COI, and previous behaviour], as I warned him in detail before, as it only causes the matter to erupt again. I came close to blocking him this time to drive the point home; but it is a little while since it all happened so will leave it. No comment on the July 24 edit, I don't know how those articles work, but the info being removed from the article should stay, and is one facet of the ages-old dispute. It just shouldn't be him keeping it in. The IP is probably a sock or meat puppet based on behaviour and knowledge of the dispute. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

if someone other than the socks wants to restore the edits, feel free too. Ive not a problem with the edits per se, but rather this consistent sock editing. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I removed her from the university page and removed the claim from her bio. True or not, it's not verified in a reliable source in her article that I could see. But that's beside the point of this thread, I guess. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban User:fasttimes68 from Stephanie Adams

• Support - Topic ban User:fasttimes68 from any edit in regards to this living subject - He is a clear conflicted contributor in regards to Stephanie Adams - we should have done this last time. Notified the user - diff Youreallycan 22:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I categorically deny any COI with the subject. Never met her, plan too, care too. AFAIK I've never met or communicated anyone associated with her (outside of the article space). Please provide evidence of any COI you think that may exist. Additionally, I'm having some connectivity issues so please allow me up to 24 hours to respond to further posts. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a squirm if ever I saw one. Your COI certainly doesn't stem from knowing her; it stems from the off-site attack pages you wrote about her. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What attack site? Storing URLs from third party sites hardly constitutes an attack site. That entire "site" was a one page blog which was a cut and paste of URLs some of which weren't considered RS of which I wanted to save for later to see if an RS would collaborate. This "attack site" bullshit has beend bandied about before. Produce some evidence or kindly desist with this particular accusation. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote a blog post impugning her (the title of which was discussed here). So quit with the nonsense. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That entire blog was cut and paste from several third party sites. Not one word was mine. Even the god dammed title was from another site. The whole puprose was to save some informatioso for later. So what contributions of mine HERE do you have issue with, and of which you have threatened to block me? Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're "saving it for later," you have a hard drive. By publishing them, you've staked a claim in the debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I don't see enough diffs or evidence to support the topic ban, and I'm also wondering whether there's an indefinite block that also needs to be opposed on the other side of the coin. If this were a meeting under Robert's Rules of Order, I'd rather see the motion tabled (but not tabled indefinitely). —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/An-Apple-A-NY-Day Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That page was created--and almost solely edited--by User:Fasttimes68 in April. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support; although likely I will block him anyway if his fascination with the article does not abate. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, because I see no sound reason for a ban. But he needs to show he's aware that merely suspecting that an IP or username is a sock is not the same as having clear evidence that the IP or username is a sock. Until this evidence is presented and acknowledged, you cannot revert changes on grounds of socking. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - User denies COI. We need more evidence of a real COI and further evidence that the user is whitewashing or astroturfing before we topic ban. Reverting edits of a suspected abusive sock is certainly not bannable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  As ErrantX noted above, the user wrote at least one off site attack article about the subject of the article - Youreallycan 17:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence? Yeah, right.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on. Your blog entry attacking Stephanie Adams was already discussed here. I'm the one who found it. AniMate 21:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, topic ban as an alternative to indefinite block. You don't need evidence for COI, just look at his contributions related to Stephanie Adams (article, talk page, related noticeboard discussions).--В и к и T 20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So show us the diffs in question which supports your position. You are the one who brought up contributions. Find some that are worthy of banning. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, oh Heavens no. If everyone will slow down here and look at the history of this article, it looks like FT68 is one of only a few editors who is actively trying to uphold policy on this page and keep a slew of blocked editors and IPs (who may very well be the same person) from turning it into a promotional fluff piece. This entire section was started by what appears to be an IP of the returning troublemaker, so to reward him by removing the only editor who cares enough about the article to keep his promotional efforts away would be ridiculous. If you want to make this situation better, then watchlist the page yourself and assist in keeping the page up to policy. FT68 appars to have a pretty clean block log (1 block in 2009, nothing recent) and allegations of his COI need to be shown and proven with diffs of bad edits. Saying he hates the subject because of something he's allegedly written offline isn't sufficient without evidence it's carrying over to Wikipedia. So far, I don't see any links to those. FT68 could use some help with his editing at times, sure, but blocking him because no one else shows up to protect a BLP page is very short-sighted. NobleDarkling (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • New editor, first edit here, second edit above. Now, I'm all for WP:AGF, but really, is this the same editor as FT68 etc etc? Not suggesting a check user should be run but then again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

While you're busy running that checkuser, why don't you also discuss what I said and actually look into this matter? Or better yet, while you're on your way to file, drop by the Adams page and watchlist it, and give a BLP some help? Then you can return with you regularly scheduled shooting of the messenger. Or if you don't want to hear it from me, read Ravenswing below. NobleDarkling (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure we will continue on the discussion, with or without your input or regardless of your status. --MuZemike 21:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Let me get this straight ... this must be a COI because, among other specious grounds, the editor has a "fascination" with the article? For Chrissake, I have over 300 edits in on the Boston Bruins article ... do I have a "fascination" with that, and ought I be barred from editing the article in consequence? Why, I too have created articles, and in some cases have the overwhelming share of edits on those articles ... should I be barred from touching those again? Truth be told, I don't give a goddamn whether FT68 wrote an attack page or not - although like others, I await some proof that he actually did so - as long as his edits on Wikipedia are neutral and pass policy muster. (I can think of articles I edited where I didn't care for the subject, come to that.) This is not only nonsense, I would seriously question any block or other action ErrantX might unilaterally take against FT68 in the future. Ravenswing 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is around 6 years of history here. Fasttimes68 has some ridiculous fascination with the article, and the subject (or at least someone representing her) has been clashing with him for some time. As an example of the sort of attitude he has; he wrote a blog post attacking Adams, which was then deleted when last discussed to try and avoid scrutiny of his position. There was vague agreement he should stay away from the article last time (see link above). A couple of us have been dealing with this "nonsense" for some time now. To be clear; his actions on that article almost always, even if they are within the bounds of policy, create hours of administrative work behind the scenes. Polite requests to let others deal with the matter are met with inexplicable obstinance. I understand the holier-than-thou attiude, but get involved and it will wear you down also. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support Fasttimes68 has been fixated on Stephanie Adams for years. He's made a point to link to off-site blogs attacking her, and went so far as to write one himself. When someone has had such a strong, negative opinion about someone, it seems like common sense to remove them from the article. AniMate 21:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Partly based on FT's history and partly based on his attitude here, which is pugnacious and disingenuous. Frankly, why should he care so much about being prevented from editing one article? The supreme injustice of it all? Surely, he can find something else to do here that would be more constructive and hopefully cause fewer (none?) administrative headaches.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this article in your watchlist? Add it and promise me you will keep it clean of the bullshit fluff Adams keeps adding and ill be more than happy to leave this article alone. Though others have assured me that "we've got this" and failed to back up their words with action.Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, your comment strengthens my support for a topic ban. Why do so many editors shoot themselves in the foot like this at ANI? Is it part of the instructions at the top of the page and I missed it ("Thou shalt self-destruct")?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Admins, please remember that WP:BLPBAN exists for a reason. JN466 01:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Insufficient evidence that it is needed at this time - FT68's behavior on this article is mildly troubling, but I don't think it rises to the level of needing a topic ban. Yet. I think a warning is sufficient for now; if this behavior continues with no signs of improvement, then the topic ban may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Fasttimes68 has actually made particular disruptive edits, those should be identified and appropriate sanctions discussed. What shows up here, however, is a familiar pattern of resistance to routine BLP enforcement, harassment/haranguing of the editor involved by fans of a subject (sometimes even by or on behalf of the subject) until the frustrated target of such abuses loses their temper and makes intemperate comments (or worse), followed by suggestions of COI. Fasttimes68 may well have made inappropriate and nasty comments about the subject offsite, but unless they're trying to add such material or remove legitimate relevant sourced material, their opinion of the subject isn't really relevant. It's entirely consistent with Wikipedia principles, for example, to believe someone is an unimportant self-promoting charlatan and to edit their article to keep it in compliance with BLP.
  

Most of the content involved in the current editing disputes fails BLP requirements. Too many sel-published sources, press releases, and plain misrepresentations of reliable sources. It was a bad idea to restore this deleted article without a DRV. The AFD issues weren't satisfactorily addressed, despite good faith efforts; the conflicts that disrupted the prior version have been renewed, and the fundamental problems remain. This is a BLP of a marginally notable person which has repeatedly become an BLP-noncompliant battlefield. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Birth date and alumni

A primary source works for both of these basic sorts of information and such a source with both is here. Silverseren^C 02:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For various reasons, secondary sources [especially ones not based on the self-written biography] for this detail would be preferable. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For alumni, I suppose I can understand, but birth date? We often use primary sources for birth date. Unless she's one of those people that's fabricating her birth date to seem younger. Is she? Silverseren^C 22:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a primary source. That's a self-published source. A birth certificate would be a primary source for the birthdate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd assume that the person in question would always be a primary source for their own birthday. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is anyone else seeing what I see here? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's the word "anus" floating at the top of the page, it's on the Entertainment reference desk too... --Canley (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been fixed now. Back to work. :-) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still seeing this on the Misc ref desk. I don't see it on the Entertainment desk. RudolfRed (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Was that meant as a reply to the suggestion on the talk page to have a Ref Desk policy on jokes? :) . 01:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Resolved

Can someone take a look at the page history here? I'm on my way out, but it looks a bit odd. I've notified the one editor I'm concerned about, SCWA Ladies Champion (talk · contribs), who I can't tell if they are struggling or what. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Block pattern and rationales made by User:Toddst1

Further information: [[:../Edit warring#User:Sethjohnson95 reported by User:Till I Go Home (Result: no vio)|../Edit warring § User:Sethjohnson95 reported by User:Till I Go Home (Result: no vio)]], § Admin action regarding violation of three-revert-rule, User talk:Status § Yet more edit warring?, and User talk:Status § Ain't it funny...

Users involved: Toddst1 (talk · contribs), Status (talk · contribs), Calvin999 (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs), Till I Go Home (talk · contribs) and myself, Hahc21 (talk · contribs).

Blocks

Well, how do I explain this. First: All this 1 July 2012, Toddst1 (talk · contribs) and Status (talk · contribs) have been involved in a harsh situation. The latter has never been blocked as of that day, when the former applied a block on his account, which was later removed by Kww (talk · contribs) with the following restriction: "I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time." on Status.[77] What happened?, Status started working on If You Had My Love and reverted some unsourced content that was against WP:BLP and was considered under WP:EW and an exception of edit warring.

After watching this, Toddst1 suddently blocked Status without warning and with the following rationale: "Edit warring: Continuing EW on If You Had My Love immediately after release of block for similar reversions," [78] which directly violates the previus unblocking rationale by Kww and Status. Toddst1 provided these diffs: [79] [80] as examples of the edit warring. Finally, after a discussion arose on Status' talk page, Toddst1 finally commented that:

"You and Status were both baffled when Calvin999 got blocked for edit warring, you were baffled when you got warned about participating in a 2-on-one edit war on Heidi Montag, you were baffled when your report on WP:ANEW got shut down and you were baffled when your complaint on ANI not only got shut down, but mocked by the closing administrator. What's baffling is that after all this disruption, you (and apparently both Hahc21 and Status) haven't bothered to figure out what an edit war is."

Which i personally believe as to be a personal attack to Status, Calvin999, Till I Go Home and (perhaps myself) under "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views."

Also, this same day, I mistakenly edited from my IP, without noticing i was offline, on this MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo. My IP was immediately blocked by Toddst1 with the following rationale: "either a sock, block evasion or both" [81], thus rendering impossible for me to edit on Wikipedia. I excused myself for the misunderstanding and got unbloked (IP-unblocked) some 3 hours later, by Toddst1 himself. When watching my unblock request (without unblocking me), he commented "When I blocked this IP, I deliberately specified "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address." I figured it would catch somebody, but was not expecting it to be you." [82]. Status replied his comment and then, Toddst1 replied with this: You really don't get it do you?.

So, reaching a conclusion, as many users had stated and I believe per policy, Status' second block is unsupportable based on guidelines and perhaps made in both bad faith and as a punishment instead of a prevent measure. Toddst1 has shown an intense stalking sign over both Calvin999, Status and recently myself, leading to some questionable actions, which finally led to the creation of this report. As of this date, Status remains blocked pero his actions at If You Had My Love, with no signs of future unblocking. Also, the main goals is not the unblocking of the user but to find a solution of the dispute between such users and write a warning for Toddst1 actions, whom I consider an good editor aside from this tricky situation. Regards. —Hahc21 06:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted not to dignify this with a response, but I'm going to state that there is a group of users enumerated above (excepting KWW) that tend to edit the same articles, usually in alignment with each-other and apparently do not understand what edit warring is. Two of them have been blocked for edit warring in the past few days with their buddies indignantly taking up for each other (without understanding the relevant policies) when one has been blocked or warned.

There is a related closed discussion above Wikipedia:Ani#Admin_action_regarding_violation_of_three-revert-rule related to this cabal. Toddst1 (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that user was edit warring in which you took no action, but Status did not edit war at all on If You Had My Love yet you blocked him. Strange, right? Till I Go Home ^talk 06:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a common problem on pop music articles, where a small camp of editors takes control of a group of articles. I'm generally supportive of what Toddst1 is trying to do. I'm not quite as supportive of the last block, but it's not something I'm just going to walk in and undo either.

To the editors that are involved here: you are all aware of me, and I think we generally all get along. Many of the blocks that Toddst1 is issuing are blocks that I probably should have. I've kind of given up on trying to deal with the entrenched camp around Rihanna, or the entrenched camp around Lady Gaga, or Beyonce, and I shouldn't have done that. I'll keep an eye on the situation to make sure that it doesn't get out of hand, but so far, it hasn't.—Kww(talk) 11:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A few of the comments made by Hahc puzzle me. First, if I understand properly, the reverts made by Status were related to a music genre ([83] and [84]). How is that possibly exempt as a "BLP" violation (I don't see any BLP exemption claim in the edit summaries, either)? Second, Hahc says that he didn't realize he was editing without being logged in. When one edits as an IP, there is a warning about it. Even if he forgot to log in, how could he not have seen the warning? As for the Todd's actions, I don't see anything clearly wrong with them. Status was blocked for edit-warring. He came back and immediately did a revert in another article that was not clearly within his voluntary editing restriction. I dunno, I think I would have been just a little quieter than Status after this kind of history. Even if one believes that Todd's block wasn't perfect (see Kww's comment), that doesn't make it wrong. Some blocks are clearly right, some are clearly wrong, and some are in between. Even assuming this one is in the gray area, I wouldn't challenge it, and I wouldn't expect Todd to unblock (it's only a 24-hour block) at this point. Status can always appeal to an uninvolved admin if he wishes to. To ascribe retaliatory motives to Todd for the block doesn't appear justifiable. I also don't see any personal attack by Todd, only forceful statements. I think you all ought to chill.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the chill comment. I think there are times when the nuances of edit-warring are not obvious to editors, especially when they first bump into the 3RR rule, because "my edits are RIGHT!" Its hard to sit back and see the 'wrong version' stay in an article and be forced to take the slow road and wait for admin intervention. But that is how Wikipedia works. @Hahc21, I think your intentions are admirable, but honestly, it may be better to just let the 24-hour block expire. One possibility that both of you might consider is trying to keep your record clean for a bit and have Toddst1 come back periodically and see how you're doing and maybe get a review of your actions. This might help in future if you end up making an inadvertent mistake, because it will demonstrate a willingness on your parts to play by the rules even if you bump into them by accident. Really that's the whole goal here. There isn't a lot of nuance to the whole block system, you're either blocked or you're not. It might feel very personal, and in a way it is, but I think Toddst1 is just doing what he feels is right and I think if you keep trying to do your best, you guys can work this out in the long run. Best of luck. -- Avanu (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problem of inconsistent standards and punishment. Not everyone agrees there was even edit warring. In practice, unsourced content routinely gets removed, and editors are not usually blocked for it. To rephrase bbb23: Even if one believes that Status's action wasn't perfect... that doesn't make it wrong. User:Toddst1 apparently has a particular view of edit warring. Now, people are welcome to have a range of views, but Toddst1 administrated those views by blocks and removal of user rights. I wonder, how would Toddst1 react to someone blocking him over a difference of view of appropriate administration? An admin needs to look at the overall situation, including the likely effect on the editors involved, before using tools. So Status is considering leaving - is that really a good outcome? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a better example of commenting on ANI without understanding the context.

Of course discretion is applied and application is inconsistent. Had you read my "Note to reviewing admin(s)", you would see where that was explained. When someone is blocked for violations of WP:NPA and their behavior immediately upon release of block includes borderline public attacks, there's a great chance they'll be re-blocked. Similarly, if an editor (as in this case) is released from an edit-war block, continues repeated reversions, there's a good chance they'll be re-blocked. Administrative action requires discretion and understanding of the context. In this case, the context included an editor fresh off an early release of an edit-warring block (with voluntary restrictions), working with a cadre of collaborative editors with ownership and edit-warring patterns.

If you really wonder how I would feel if someone were to block me over a difference of view of appropriate administration, please do it and you'll find out. However if those are just inflammatory remarks and you haven't invested yourself in understanding the context and the details as it appears, please move on. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So you defend yourself with "discretion"? So, do you have any objection to an admin using administrative discretion to block or ban you until you demonstrate sufficient understanding of admin policy. Do you understand the problem now? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm not defending myself at all. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Only to reply Bbb23, my intentions are not to get Status unblocked. I acutally see that Toddst1 block is within policy. That's not the issue. Maybe i see things from a deeper perspective (wich I explained on my talk page), but the issue relies on three things. One of them os the first unblock rationale, which was extremely poor and thus led Status very vulnerable to being blocked. The second and third things I'm not ready to write them here, since i'm exploring the correct policies to back them up. I (in most casesm without some exceptions) do not write anything without some serious policies behind them. Also, Toddst1, why do you removed rollback rights from Status by yourself instead of asking another uninvolved admin to do so? Do you understand that such actions can be considered as to have some sort of COI? —Hahc21 01:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no COI - I did the blocks which were the rationale for the removal. I would have done it at the time I made the blocks (especially the second one) if had I realized he was a rollbacker at the time. WP:INVOLVED would imply that I was edit warring with Status. Just because I blocked him doesn't mean I can't take further action. Toddst1 (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

About "uninvolved", i have to disagree. What i meant is that, since you've been actively involved on this discussion (you performed the blocks, you've been actively speaking with us, and you ar considered as involved by this report), I just thought i would have been better to ask another admin to do so. Why? Well, to keep peace on the wiki, since i'm aware a pile of users will point that as bad faith. I'm not saying it's bad faith nor it's COI. I just said it "could be considered" as COI. Anyway, thanks for the answer. Cheers! —Hahc21 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1 is not WP:INVOLVED; involved is when editor mixes the editing and admin functions. Repeated application of admin tools in regards to a single case or individual is fairly common. Nobody Ent 09:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate block. Removing unsourced information is policy. Both removals including edit summaries which clearly explained the reason for the removal, thereby satisfying the terms of Kww unblock condition; reversions were of different editors, so it's a stretch to cite EW as a reason for the block. Nobody Ent 02:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide me with a link to the policy that says it's ok to edit war over removing un-sourced non-BLP content? No prose, just a link. Toddst1 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, so much ink spilled over whether Jennifer Lopez' If You Had My Love is R&B or not. Seriously, this whole debate is plain ridiculous and only Wikipedia could give it these kind of legs. Look Todd, right or wrong, you made a call. Stand by your call and let it be, but make absolutely sure that every time you pick up the tools, you *know* that is the only option. Everyone else, what exactly will make you happy at this point? Let's hear a solid proposal so we can move to a consensus rather than a forensic analysis of this mess. Sound ok? -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispute resolution is best served when editors in general and admins in specific speak in direct plain language. Asking for a link that does not exist is not helpful. You have a responsibility to to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed; comments like "You really don't get it, do you" fail the standard (I don't know why the IP Hahc used is still blocked). The applicable link is prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. If you felt Status's actions constituted edit warring a talk page would have been preferred; as previously noted, I don't see the edits as edit warring. Some editors are given addition technical tools to allow editors to continue to edit with a minimum of disruption; prudence dictates they be executed in a manner that itself minimizes disruption. Gray area blocks coupled with overly aggressive language do not do this. Nobody Ent 09:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that during Todd's request for adminship, when asked "When would a block be appropriate? When would it not?" he replied: "A block is appropriate to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia or people or things outside of Wikipedia through Wikipedia edits. It is not appropriate as punishment or in a simple content dispute." Is an addition of a genre (unsourced) not a "simple content dispute"?

Additionally, I'm surprised his reason for blocking was not brought up here either. he stated that: "Edit warring: Continuing EW on If You Had My Love immediately after release of block for similar reversions", which implies that I was previously edit warring on "If You Had My Love" and immediately after my block, I did the same thing I was blocked for in the first place. Kww mentioned on my talk that my edit restriction that got me unblocked was the reason the block is justified, which Todd did not make mention of at all. Kww was actually the user who suggested what to do for the restriction, in which I trusted that it sounded good and would not cause any more issues. As Hahc21 explained on his talk page, in response to Todd: "The rationale provided by Kww when unblocking Status is the third valid ground to block Status. Why? Such unblock rationale was extremely poor and provided you and Kww with an open game to block Status at the first revert he made, even if it was against vandalism (just to expand on the scope). Taking "I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time." was a double-edged sword that finally cut Status himself, and then led you to block him."

He also removed my rollback rights, which he is allowed to do (but isn't a requirement, if I was indeed edit warring, which is being disputed here). Don't you think that if he really believed that my rights should be removed, he should ask an uninvolved admin to do so? He didn't even remove them as soon as I was blocked, it was several hours later. That sounds like a personal vendetta to me.

Statυs (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Earlier today, my rollback rights got removed by User:Toddst1. According to him, "my repeated statements have made it clear that I doesn't understand what an EW is and isn't", while on my talk page, he said "Rollback requires a thorough understanding of WP:EW, WP:3RR and to some extent WP:BLP all of which you are clearly having problems with". These are not sound reasons to remove someone's rollback rights. I have thoroughly read through WP:Rollback multiple times, and nowhere did I see these that these reaons to remove rollback rights. The only reasons the guideline states are:

• "A persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used", and
• "Editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war".

Never have I used rollback aside from reverting blatant vandalism, otherwise I just use the WP:Twinkle version and explain my reverts, and Todd even acknowledged that I "have not directly engaged in protracted edit wars". There was thus no reason to remove my rights for it. I spoke with him about this matter on his talk page with no response. Can I just say, I've been on Wikipedia for over 3 years, all my edits are good-faith and constructive, I have full understanding of what is and isn't vandalism. There was no reason for Toddst to remove my rollback rights for this. Till I Go Home ^talk 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please see this for additional information. Best, Statυs (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am distinctly reminded of past ANI discussions regarding Toddst, as this isn't the first time he's done something like this. I think at this point we should seriously considering starting some sort of recall process. Toddst has clearly shown in this and in past actions that he is unfit to wield the mop. Silverseren^C 10:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Desysop would be excessive and remove an active admin from the already too thin ranks. Nobody Ent 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you please further explain what you mean by this? Statυs (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a shortage of active admins. While I may disagree with Toddst1's action he's perfection is not required Nobody Ent 11:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is actually these sorts of actions by admins that makes users not want to become them. Though I suppose it is a good example of how admins are harbored against the disruptive things they do until they do something egregious enough to actually lose the bit (usually involving Arbcom and an actual block). Silverseren^C 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, what makes users not want to become admins is what you have to go through to become one, and to be one. First you have to win a popularity contest against future indef'd users, and then you have to put up with all manner of vile complaints when you try to do this strictly unpaid, voluntary job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Precisely - the only time I've ever lost my cool on Wikipedia was during my RFA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Silverseren's comment makes no sense. Why would bad actions by admins make a user not want to become an admin? If anything, it would increase any motivation because the user would want to do a "better" job once promoted. Baseball has it exactly right, and Bushranger's comment confirms the first of Baseball's points from the perspective of someone who's been there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That would seem premature as it's not very convincing that anything majorly wrong or inappropriate has been done. Also, the only obvious thing I see from the link above is several personal attacks against Toddst1 which the editors appear to have chosen not to strike out. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing obvious personal attacks. Nobody Ent 10:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks like one: "Unfortunately a disgrace like Toddst1 is far more concerned with his ego than actually doing anything helpful here". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst is currently in hot water for his recent administrative actions such as (perceived) poor blocks, and unncessarily removing my rollback rights just crossed the line. Till I Go Home ^talk 10:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed that one -- any others? Nobody Ent 10:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, removing rollback rights from a user without no valid reason to do is not alarming to you? Statυs (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not alarming to me. Rollback is not required to edit Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's required or not. The point is that he removed the rights from me without sound reason. Nobody should be allowed to go around and strip someone of their rights if they haven't broken the rules as stated on the respective guideline. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is a user right. He removed the user right (which is a tool admins have to use) without any reason to. His claims that an editor must be familiar with WP:EW and the like are not supported my WP:ROLLBACK. That is a misuse of an admin tool. Statυs (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is NOT a "user right", it is a user privilege which can be revoked at any time. If you misuse rollback, you lose it. And you can still use the "undo", which can be only one extra keystroke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

THAT'S the point though. I didn't misuse it at all. It was removed without sound reason. Till I Go Home ^talk 13:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you should ask for it to be restored. But first you should change your every comment from "right" to "privilege", because it ain't a "right" - which you should know already if you've read the rules several times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You wear your ignorant prejudices like a badge of honour. Have you ever read WP:ROLLBACK? I quote: "There are currently 1,471 administrators and 4,579 other users (6,050 total) who have rollback rights." Doesn't seem to say "rollback privileges" to me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it, which is why I've managed to retain the privilege. I very seldom have to use it, and I don't remember the last time I got into an edit war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of ignorant prejudice, maybe you missed the statement, "editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is rollbacker not a user right? No one is saying people have a right to be a rollbacker. Statυs (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that I am trying to be nitpicking here, Baseball Bugs - but the 'privilege' as you call it is shown in Special:UserGroupRights and is granted and revoked using Special:UserRights - so your request that they should change every comment from "right" to "privilege", because it ain't a "right" is just utterly bureaucratic and besides the point. The question is, whether Toddst1 was doing a right thing, not whether it is right or privilege. And Till I Go Home should not need to ask it back if it was taken wrongly, it should be handed back without question. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Then go for it. Hand it back without question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's premature to open an ANI mere hours after posting a notice on Toddst1's talk page. Nobody Ent 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's all under one thread anyway. And I agree with the user above who suggested a recall process for the admin. His actions are alarming and many other users have noted this. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone please address this issue of Toddst1 unnecessarily and unfairly removing my rollback rights. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Did Toddst1 give you any warning that he would remove your rollback? If you never used rollback to edit war and your usage of the tool has been perfect, then I think revoking the tool (especially without warning) is excessive. In fact, it's because of my concerns about removing rollback from people without any warning that I added "[...can lead to it being removed from your account]...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse." to the note I leave on user's talk page after I've granted them rollback. Acalamari 11:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

He claimed that: "Rollback requires a thorough understanding of WP:EW, WP:3RR and to some extent WP:BLP all of which you are clearly having problems with." (which is not a requirement, as shown on the rollback page). He concluded that: "It should also be noted that you in no way abused the rollback privilege." Statυs (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

He didn't warn me once. It really was out-of-the-blue. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It should also be noted that you in no way abused the rollback privilegeNobody Ent 11:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you really wished to have access, the logical and easy approach would have been to request access to it, whilst demonstrating that you do understand the relevant policy. Exactly as Toddst1 stated [85]: "It should also be noted that you in no way abused the rollback privilege. Because of that, I noted in your user rights log that rollback may be restored later if you demonstrate a full understanding of the relevant policies." IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• As a comment from someone completely uninvolved in any of these issues with Toddst1, I can't see grounds for removing rollback when someone hasn't actually misused rollback. Rollback is for vandalism, the user was using it for vandalism, and as they seem to understand that it shouldn't be used for edit warring, what's the problem? OohBunnies! (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly, thank you! You could go through my entire 6,700+ contributions and find that the tool was not misused once. The problem? Toddst1's administrative behaviour. He unnecessarily removed my rights just like he unnecessarily blocked other users. This is not new. Take a look at this previous thread about his poor conduct. [86] Till I Go Home ^talk 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If the editor has demonstrated an inability to recognize edit warring. Pre-emptive removing of the access sounds like good judgement to prevent future misuse until such a time as the editor in question demonstrates an ability to recognize edit warring [87]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that if I have never ever misused rollback for the entire six months I had it, I would not misuse it in the future. You learn more things as time goes by, not less. Putting this aside, it isn't even a valid reason to remove the right. It's just something that he made up to get his way. Till I Go Home ^talk 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1 explicitly said there had been no misuse so further misuse is a non-sequitur. Nobody Ent 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I said future misuse not further misuse. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you did. In any event we don't preemptively assume bad faith. Nobody Ent 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest it might be in bad faith. If someone doesn't understand the relevant policies and guidelines then you can very easily, whilst acting in good faith and trying to do your best, make some mistakes. For that reason I can understand why it would be removed. I think it should also have been pretty straight forward to get the access back as well without resorting it to adding it to this ANI, by requesting it again with a small comment demonstrating understanding of relevant policies etc or even mentioning why he thinks the reasoning was flawed, and thus averting unnecessary further drama here. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I did, I don't think I should have had to re-request it at permissions. Todd should have reverted the move himself to understand why he was wrong in the first place. Hopefully something like this doesn't happen next time. Till I Go Home ^talk 16:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

But meanwhile keep in mind, to hope is bullshit: "Because I do not hope to turn again; Because I do not hope" (T. S. Eliot, "Ash Wednesday"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored rollbacker rights. I'm going to assume this was a good faith mistake by Todd and just move on. Todd himself admitted that no abuse had taken place, so there is a flaw in the logic of removing it. Todd had previously said he was taking a bit of a break in an email, so I'm assuming he won't be around to reply. I'm the type of admin that gives permission to any other admin to correct my errors, on my user page, and I will just assume that Todd is as well. Since I am assuming the best of faith, and that Todd made a simple mistake, it should seem obvious that this isn't wheel warring or a comment on Todd's faith, only a correction in the name of fairness. If there is a concern with my actions, I welcome further discussion on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous activity by admin

• Toddst1 removed my WP Email privilege while I was blocked, which was an extreme measure to take by any admin on WP as far as I understand it. And there was no justification whatever for the removal. There was no abuse of Email, to any degree, at any time. There's a big gulf between being "not perfect", and being abusive with the mop. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at your block log there is an extreme abuse of admin powers there. I'm curious to know why you were blocked for two weeks for something, which was changed to indef with no other developments. In the same minute even. Statυs (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed that too. One can only wonder. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The block log doesn't show anything. I fail to see why you would declare it as abuse when it seems you haven't looked at the reasonings behind them. The reasoning seems clear here: [88]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here (which is also stated in the above section) is Todd's rationales for blocking. His change of heart from 2 weeks to indef was not explained on the block log, which is generally what normal users who are looking would see (such as myself). Something like: "Actually, looking at it, this block should be indef; see reasons on talk page" would be reasonable. Then, a user would know the situation without having to do all the work themselves. A user would not also look at this and see it as unexplained and potentially abusive, which I clearly did here. Statυs (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

He provides a rationale in the section "Indefinitely blocked". Whether you agree or not is a different matter, but the rationale is there. I think focusing on that it was a 2 week block then instantly changed to indef is pointless, it may have been a simple mistype the first time which was then rectified, not worth thinking about, let alone demanding an explanation and arguing about. Nothing like abuse is shown there, note that it was also a different administrator that declined the subsequent unblock request. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't seen to understand what I stated above. For a user who just looked at the block log without checking previous diffs of the page, it simply shows the 2 weeks being changed to indef, without a reason. I'll quote myself: Something like: "Actually, looking at it, this block should be indef; see reasons on talk page" would be reasonable. Statυs (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It may have been handy, but it's not necessary, I think everyone would check the talk page like I did. Under no interpretation does that rise to the level of the "extreme abuse" you stated above. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing at AfD by an established user

I recently nominated Idol Gives Back for deletion and User:Aspects notified me about informing established editors about the nomination([89]). I didn't feel this was necessary as the article was extremely inactive; it had been edited just 12 times in the preceding year, sometimes by bots, with no editor making more than two edits([90]). However, I thought that this was a fairly reasonable request. Instead of waiting for me to return online, Aspects posted generic AfD invitations to the walls of previous contributors himself. Again, I assumed good faith and though it was kind of him to do the job for me. Aspects then voted to keep the AfD([91]) - still fairly run-of-the-mill. However, on closer inspection I noted that of the four editors he notified about the discussion, User:Therealdavo2 last edited the page over two years ago ([92]), User:Mcoop06 more than five years ago ([93]), User:MissMJ over four years ago ([94]) and User:Woohookitty one year ago([95]). I note that the latter two users are members of WP:IDOL who claim to have a particular interest in editing American Idol articles and both voted "keep" at the previous AfD. Why weren't editors with existing concerns about the notability of the article notified? To me, this seems a case of a user gathering people who he thinks will agree with him rather than informing relevant editors to the discussion. Alongside Aspect's expression of interest in American Idol on his user page, I suspect WP:ILIKEIT is being applied to selectively WP:CANVASS editors. SplashScreen (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Scoop started the article; just as well Aspects informed him; SplashScreen, as the nominator, was supposed to, but did not. Aspects contacted a rabid opponent of the article; MissJ put a PROD tag on it back in the day, and edit warred [96] [97] [98] to Redirect it without open discussion. Aspects also chose two people who were, if anything, bad to contact because their edits did not reflect the substantial content of the page; they had little more interest in the AfD than random Wikipedians. Why bother contacting them? Therealdavo2 makes minor edits to the page [99] [100]. Woohookitty is, other than the AfD vote, an utterly neutral choice, with afaic be bothered to look back, exclusively link repair edits to it. Only one of the 13 people contributing to the first AfD voted Delete, so contacting two Keep voters is in this case indistinguishable from contacting voters at random. Anarchangel (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The real question is "why contact anyone at all?" I rarely find that it is anything but an effort to canvass: an AFD should be able to operate without requiring any specific people.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:AFD, a nominator - or anyone else - may notify "informed editors" of the AfD as long as they comply with WP:CANVASSING. It is not required to notify the article creator, but "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." I don't know what the usual practice is, so I only speak for myself. Generally, when I nominate an article for deletion, I contact only the creator (and I always do that). There are some limited exceptions I can think of where I contact others. For example, at WP:BLPN, it is fairly standard that when an article comes to the noticeboard and is then nominated for deletion, a template is put in the thread notifying anyone interested of the AfD. As for the AfD that generated this topic, I'm not going to look at all of the history to see who contacted whom and whether it constituted canvassing. It strikes me that in an AfD that is arguably this contentious, the better practice would be to contact no one except perhaps the creator.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to try (I sometimes forget, and facepalm) to contact the creator and anyone who has done extensive editing to the article. If there have been previous AfD/PROD nominations, I try to contact more people on all sides, but always include the previous nominator(s). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me - I may consider doing more next time I nominate an article. On the other hand, usually extensive editors, previous nominators, etc., have the page on their watchlists, so contact is largely unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I voted Strong Keep, I found the nomination silly and think it's extremely unlikely to be deleted, but with that said I do consider this type of canvassing to be inappropriate. We could debate for ages about who should be contacted, how many should be contacted, language to use and not use, etc... but it seems nearly impossible to canvas without giving the impression of illicitly trying to sway the vote in your preferred direction. Can't we just let people vote if they care to and not try to massage the vote either way? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't this process be automated? A bot could inform the article creator, search the edit history and contact either the top say 4 or 5 editors (by number of edits) and/or all editors with more than say 3 edits. (For an AFD to be successful there are unlikely to be vast numbers of editors). Automating the process would have 3 advantages:-

1. The notifications would definately be made
2. The notifications would be neutral in tone
3. The notified editors could not be "cherry picked" by the nominee

Just an idea, but I'm sure there will be "a problem for every solution" - Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

When articles are nominated for deltion using Twinkle, the article creator is automatically notified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is all completely unnecessary. There are often over 100 AfD's per day. If we're notifying the top 5 editors of each AfD, that will be loads of notifications per day. Besides, nothing is broken, the process works just fine the way it is. If you are the creator of an article or a major contributor to it, then it should be on your watchlist so you can see things like this without having to be notified. If it's not on your watchlist, then you're out of luck. Simple as that. I do support notifying the creator of the article in every case, but anything beyond that is unnecessary and almost always constitutes canvassing on some level. -Scottywong| speak _ 18:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The outstanding problem with inviting creators or frequent contributors to an AfD debate is that it'd invariably lead to non-notable articles being kept. Yes, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, but the people who have created and spent hours editing these articles are hardly going to concede defeat and suggest that the articles be deleted. It could skew consensus and fill Wikipedia with even more unnecessary fluff. SplashScreen (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fall into the "all or nothing" within a reasonable time table. You should notify the creator, then if you choose notify ALL editors in the last $x months, then it is acceptable. Often times, that puts eyes on it who could actually save the article, after all. To me, canvassing would be cherry picking the list, or notifying people who have never been part of the article or a project around that article. The other day, I was notified of an article I hadn't edited since 2007 (and no much of anyone else had, either), in a neutral way, and I considered it a courtesy. I didn't take a stand on it and just made an comment. [101] So we shouldn't assume that that a notification always results in a keep vote. As long as it is neutral in tone, and isn't cherry picking, it is fine in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

we could do something like this, but we'd have to discuss the conditions: I suppose , first, that "all" means minor all non-minor and non-bot edits. Second, it depends really on the intensity of article editing: for neglected articles one would want to go back much further than 6 months--for ones very frequently editing, 6 months might be too many. I support going go by counts of characters added or remove, but sometimes the key editors are the ones who change a few articles. Human judgment or a very good algorithm seems needed to do it right: it requires avoiding wikignomes doing copyediting, but including whoever are responsible primarily for the content , plus experienced editors who have done substantial work. In the past, some who are mainly interested in deleting articles have opposed notifying on the basis that anyone who would have worked on the article is a supporter. From my own experience that isn't true--I have worked on many an article that I David rather we didn't have, on the basis that if we on have it it ought to at least be better. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think something went haywire with your last sentence. I'm with Scotty on this one, but that's just because I prefer simplicity. If a nominator chooses to notify someone other than the creator, then he'd better be able to justify what his criteria were for doing so, and that would, as it has here, open up a can of worms.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You say you are with Scotty, but you just stated a system that is consistent with both DGG and I, that whoever is notifying should be using a simple and fair criteria. He is saying that notifying anyone other than the creator is de facto a form of canvassing, a viewpoint I strongly disagree with. After all, AFD isn't solely to delete articles, that is only the worst case outcome. 1/3 of the articles that go to AFD get kept, so if you fairly pick all the editors in the last 3 or 6 months, and they can fix it, then you have done a better service than if you let it get deleted. Anyone can delete an article, but the idea of AFD is to put more eyes on it, but to do it fairly. Canvassing isn't just a function of WHO you notify, it is HOW you notify. I would happily defend anyone who was accused of canvassing when they notified using a neutral and objective criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My last comment because I agree with TFD that this extended discussion doesn't belong here. I think my description is closer to Scotty's than your interpretation of Scotty's comments. He didn't say notifying other editors was canvassing, he said it was "almost always" canvassing. I understand the who and the how, which makes it even more complicated to notify other editors because to avoid the canvassing label, you have to justify your selection criteria and your manner of notification, and the problem in doing that is there will often be post-notice disagreements about it. As I've said on many topics and in many contexts, simple is better unless there's a compelling justification for complexity. Wikipedia leans heavily toward the complex.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since AfD allows notification of editors of the article, there is no reason to bring this matter to ANI and I suggest it be closed. Whether or not it should be allowed or be made mandatory is something to discuss elsewhere. TFD (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)I apologize for my tardiness but I noticed this thread this morning when there was severe server lag and I could not get to it until after work. Background: Yesterday User:SplashScreen created seven AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idol Gives Back (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennifer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feelin' So Good (video), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lopez: Let's Get Loud, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy of the Born This Way Ball, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight (DJ) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue, and one MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo, without leaving a single talk page notification for any article creators or significant contributors. I then left a message, [102], on their talk page explaining that it is good practice to notify other users about the AfD pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: notifying interested projects and editors. Since I had time I went through and notified the creator in six of the articles and notified a secondary significant editor in five of the articles. These were relatively new articles with few edits. I avoided adding my opinion as to whether the articles should be kept to avoid looking like I had some sort of vendetta against SplashScreen if I had happened to think that some of the articles should be kept.

For this ANI section, in the Idol Gives Back, I had to search through a five plus year history. I notified the creator, User:Mcoop06, even though I just noticed they user requested that their page be deleted, so I doubt we will here from them. I then looked through the history for editors who contributed more than five edits across a period of time. User:MissMJ suggested a merger and then later merged the article in April 2007, edited later in May 2007, July 2007 and April 2008. User:Woohookitty un-merged the article in May 2007 and edited later in April 2008. User:Therealdavo2 added substantial information in December 2009, February 2010, April 2010 and June 2010. I felt these were the main contributors of the article that AfD says it is "courteous" to notify. I do not think that just because someone has not contributed to the article recently that they should not be notified of the AfD if they have significantly contributed to the article, it just means they are less likely to be editing in general and might not join the discussion. I also realized last night while laying in bed that I should have notified the participants of the previous AfD and I had planned to this morning. If anyone agrees with me, then they should notify the editors because at this point I am not going to notify them as it could be seen by some as further canvassing.

Three random points, if SplashScreen felt there were editors with "existing concerns about the notability of the article" that I failed to notify, why did they not notify anyone else about the AfD? The "Not a Vote" template is not needed because none of the four editors I notified have joined the discussion. This ANI section was not needed because the AfD was not and still has not been affected by my notifications and did not need to be dealt with is such a swiftly manner that I should have been able to justify my edits prior to the section being made.

All of these problems could have been avoided if SplashScreen would have simply communicated with other editors. If they had done the bare minimum of what everyone is saying in this thread and notified the article creator, I would have discussed the Idol Gives Back AfD and added the delsort. If SplashScreen would have communicated with me, either in response to the talk page message I left them or if they had left me a message on my talk page to respond to, I could have explained why I contacted certain editors and it would have avoided this entire ANI section. It seems to me that my simple request for them to communicate is falling on deaf ears beacuse they started another AfD today, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Tour (Rihanna), without notifying the creator. Sorry for the length of my response, Aspects (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not the bare minimum of what everyone is saying. I never notify the article creator, and don't believe anyone should. I think notification of any kind goes against the concept of attracting a random cross-section of editors to gain an objective consensus about an article.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yet another view, and, honestly, one I'd never thought of (partly because Twinkle makes notification the default); yet now that I think about it quite defensible.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If AFD was a vote, then I would agree, but since it isn't I always tell the creator, who might can fix the issue since he might know the topic better than I do. I always notify the creator as a courtesy, but it isn't required, only encouraged. The only time I notify others is when I think it is a borderline case that can't stand as it is, I can't fix it, but it might could get fixed at AFD by people who know the subject matter. To me, the best outcome of an AFD is when the article gets fixed and kept. My experience has been that people who have edited the article a few times tend to be as objective as someone who never has. I guess it depends on the type of article. I probably would be less inclined to invite a host of previous editors on a Rihanna related article, or other articles that attract more fans than editors, but I don't usually work in pop culture areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right, Dennis, you like more artful, underground music--but thanks for letting me borrow your Whitney Houston CDs. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Whitney rocks!!!1 Don't be dissing good music. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Attacks by other editors on me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report two editors who have taken to attack me for my spelling and grammar, even though my user page clearly states i am dyslexic, and that spell checkers are not any use to me since i can not spell the word in the first place so the spellchecker can not correct what it does not understand

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_not it is in the section

Try to get consensus one way or another user leaky cauldron

""Cones us", "serpentine"....? What are you talking about? Have you not heard of Show preview so that you can proof read your content. This is verging on semi-literate,WP:Patent nonsense Word salad. Leaky Caldron 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)" user hilo48 "Rubbish. Dyslexia IS a literacy problem. LC is correct. Rather than just explaining bad spelling, we should correct it to make it legible to the rest of the world, which is what I have now done. This doesn't have to be seen as criticism of Andrewcrawford, just assistance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)"

leaky cauldron is like a lot of people who think English is so important

hilo48 has no conceptive of dyslexic he acknowledged it is literary problem but literacy is not just reading it is writing as well

i am not sure what to do with this because it is not as sort a personal attack as such but they are attacking me for having a disability which i do not think is right please point me in the right direction, and i did spell check both post before the spell checker they where a lot worseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that this is something for ANI--at the most, it's for Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree i dnt think it is appiorate for here but i aint sure whe eit is, but the place you said is for being uncivil leaky cauldron is being discrimation and lesser extent so is hilo48 because they think dyslexic is something else although i say it more they dnt know anything about the subject and see it as how american do dsylexica is reading problems but in the uk it is defined as reading and writing problems i have been official diagnosed with it and told it affect my ability to write as wellAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I know this may be controversial, but I don't see how whether you're dyslexic or not has any impact on this dispute. Either your contributions are good or they're bad, it doesn't matter what the reason behind it is. It isn't everyone else's job to try and decipher what it is you're trying to say. You may have trouble articulating yourself properly in writing, and I do feel sorry for you in that, but you can't just accuse everyone else of "discrimination" just because they can't understand what you're saying. We don't allow people with anger management issues to make personal attacks on the grounds that not doing so would be discrimination. It's the same principle here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur completely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, competence is required. It's irrelevant what the source of the incompetence is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a conversation I've had with Andrew as well, and something with which I have extensive professional experience. While I'm strongly supportive of his participation here regardless of his disability, dyslexia/dysgraphic presents some significant challenges in this context. Moreover, a disability is not a free pass, and Andrew does have a responsibility to make sure he is communicating effectively with the community. I've suggested he pre-write his edits and talk page posts in a word processor, then use the spell checker (which I do not agree that don't work, if you learn to use them properly) in the past, which he's unwilling to do. It's not the responsibility of the community to clean up what Andrew writes, but at the same time, he is due the same civility as any other member of the community, no matter how frustrated individual editors may be. I think HiLo48 was genuinely trying to be helpful, but Leaky Cauldron might have chosen his words better. --Drmargi (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: Leaky Cauldron = JarlaxleArtemis. I think Drmargi means Leaky caldron. Arcandam (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

thank you drmargi that is what i am saying i am only looking for civility and not be to be attacked for my spelling i do try i admit sometime i do not but i do nto force anyone to read my posts, but what i annoys me more is that post i spell cheeked and the two words getting criticise is what the spell checker putAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

i should have said i am not looking for a free pass just to be treated the same as someone who doesnt have my problemsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, especially on an encyclopedia entirely and completely dependent on written communication, it is not remotely a personal attack for someone to say "I have no idea what you've just written and it makes no sense to me." There are certainly kinder words extant to put across Leaky Cauldron's sentiment, but when all is said and done, we ALL think that English is important, and anyone who doesn't think that a good command of the English language is a necessary prerequisite for editing and improving Wikipedia is a liability who doesn't belong here. Indeed, Andrew, you were treated exactly as someone might who does not have your problems; as someone expected, as we all are, to write in lucid, clear English. Ravenswing 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)if that was the case then why do people go and fix other people errors, i have no problem with people fixing my errors i never have because i know what i write is beyond poor but my what i write should be no less valid than what someone else writes yeah it might be harder to read but turn it the other way i can not really read full stop well understand things i can read now just dnt get context Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I know it's tough, Andrew. If we're honest, Wikipedia's policies and practices do little to accommodate disabilities, yet Wikipedia is based in San Francisco, where both California and federal law require reasonable accommodations be made. Perhaps one strategy would be to find a "buddy" editor who can copy-edit for you. It wouldn't necessarily help with talk page posts unless they have standing permission to edit what you write (I could clean up your posts here a good bit with ease, for example), but might help in some contexts.

(edit conflict)certainly would help in a lot of cases although it would be testing over time to see if you understood what i meant at times as i seriously mean the spell checker has no clue neither does my wife until i speak the word, but not sure how i would make talk page editing legalAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I don't agree that this is a simple competence issue; it's far more complex than that. Arcandam, I meant Leaky Cauldron because it says Leaky Cauldron above, but refer to whichever editor is involved with Andrew. Rather than presuming to tell others what I mean, why not ask me? --Drmargi (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is pretty obvious you were not referring to JarlaxleArtemis. Arcandam (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

But do try to recognize that other editors may not know that the difference exists (I didn't) and particularly in this context, may not notice so small a spelling difference and/or assume such a difference is an error. Moreover, I find it offensive to have someone speak for me. --Drmargi (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The spelling difference is very hard to notice, that why I tried to be helpful by pointing it out. The difference between these two editors is like night and day. Please reread my comment: I did not speak for you, I spoke for myself. But this is not very important and kinda weird considering the fact that spelling is the topic of this section. Arcandam (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just come across this. The complainant did not notify me on my talk page. I have edited the Dispute Resolution section only 4 times, the last being the occasion where the comments complained about were left. It is on my watch list, but I monitor changes through history diffs and, to be blunt, seeing only Andrew and Superbouy participating I have not bothered to read all the subsequent updates. Andrew complains about my remarks and accuses me of discrimination presumably on the basis that I was aware of his disability and therefore targeted the remarks in an attempt to embarrass, humiliate, provoke or otherwise upset him. If I had checked out his User Page and then posted he would have a case. In fact, before that post I simply checked out WP:PN and considered that, while apparently intended to mean something, it was so confused that no reasonable person could be expected to make any sense of it, hence the reference to word salad.I hope Andrew can appreciate that bringing issues to ANI without warning and making intemperate accusations is, in itself, not acing in a good faith manner. We can all learn something and maybe next time I see patent nonsense I’ll check the User Page first to see if they have self-identified a communication problem.

@ Arcandam. Please check out your facts and make your apology as public as your accusation . Leaky Caldron 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you think I made a typo? I did not. You are Leaky caldron. Leaky Cauldron = JarlaxleArtemis (emphasis mine). JarlaxleArtemis is well known for trolling and trying to impersonate other users. Arcandam (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I apologise, I thought you were implying that I was a former blocked editor and I apologise openly and unreservedly to you. Leaky Caldron 19:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize mate, you know I love you. Arcandam (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Guys, please do not fall out with each other because Andy spelt my name incorrectly. That would be too ironic. Leaky Caldron 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry about that i didnt mean to get people confused with another user just shows how crap i am because it doesn't even show up as a error with cauldron which shows how bad my ability to read are never mind writeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) i apologise leaky cauldron i should have one that so i have broken the rules now :(, the only reason i brought it here was because another user told you to strike it out and that was few days ago and since you hadn't i am taking it as attack onAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see it, buried in too many diffs. I would have come to your talk page. Leaky Caldron 19:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

i apologise for making a wrong assumption i am happy to make this resolved closedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aparrently a new user who does not understand what Wikipedia is for, but as this contains a legal threat I'm reporting it here: [103]. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• note : Page has been deleted since under A3 and G3. Can you post the details on here (if appropriate!). Mdann52 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Indef blocked via WP:DOLT. Good find. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Batman the dark knight rises my theory`s

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Something odd is going on here. Aparrently new User:Mjn1997 created Batman the dark knight rises new therorys (which contained a legal threat) which I nominated for deletion, and then Batman the dark knight rises my theory`s, which User:NPrice nominated for deletion.

Batman the dark knight rises my theory`s is now an article about the previous article and its deletion, which incorrectly states that User:NPrice created it. This new article was created by User:Bart simpson rules, who was aparrently previously nothing to do with this, but has a copy of the deleted text. Is there cause to suspect a connection between User:Mjn1997 and User:Bart simpson rules? RichardOSmith (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Both blocked - Bart simpson rules had a prior L4 warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Easy enough :) yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move request at Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)

Could an admin or experienced editor take a look at this and do whatever they feel is appropriate. I have a few concerns but am involved, as I closed the last move request, so won't list what they are so as not to bias anyone else. Obviously happy to accept whatever action someone feels is appropriate (including nothing). Dpmuk (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• To me that is a tough one. I get the feeling it will end up being called a civil war here eventually and not that far in the future, so we are just stuck between names. It is rather quick, but there are no hard and fast rules on time between discussions. 30 days would have been nice, 8 or 9 is a bit fast. I can't think of any words that will change the minds of those that want to reopen the issue to a vote or I would use them, and the discussion is heated but on topic. I tend to say wait a bit and see what happens only because there is no other alternative that I can think of that would be less disruptive than what they are going to do anyway. It is a bit of a no-win scenario, and hopefully people won't get need to get blocked along the way. If anyone else has a better idea than "nothing", I would love to hear it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also think that a renaming might be warranted soon, but I've move-protected (following a request at RFPP) until there is a clear consensus after a clear discussion (honestly, the latest wall of request wasn't all that clear or concise). Drmies (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, the previous requested move was closed around a week ago. -- Luke (Talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

When I first saw another move request I thought I'd be posting that I didn't object to another move request as, in my opinion, the situation has changed enough since the last request that a new request could be warranted. It is the request itself rather than it being another request that I have concerns about. I don't think it's useful to have comments about the "biased" close of the previous request in the new request. This isn't because of the attack on me (although I feel it does fall under WP:NPA I think admins have to accept they're get a certain amount of this) but rather that it isn't helpful to the new request. Likewise again comparing the situation to some definition of civil war is unhelpful as this should never influence a move discussion as it is original research (a view I think was supported by the review of my close here). Finally I think that this request concentrates too much on the same reasons as the last one. While, as I say above, a new request that considers the new material may be worthwhile I don't think this request is likely to help that happen and is instead likely to lead to the same arguments as before. In short while I would support a new, well-argued request this is so far from that that I think it is disruptive. However if people here think it's best to let it run it's course then that's also fine. Dpmuk (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a personal message on his talk page. His comments were uncalled for and I've asked him to strike them. We will see if he does the right thing or not. I guess I've grown used to people attacking the actions of admins, sadly, and in this case it is easy to see that you acted in good faith in closing and it was completely out of line. As I told him, I agree with his position about the name, but I also agree with your close as well. This isn't about one or two opinions, it is about consensus, or lack thereof. As for the discussion, I still think we have to let them continue only because shutting down will cause a firestorm and more disruption, or someone could restart the discussion on a more neutral note and hat the old one. Unsurprisingly, these types of articles bring out the worst in people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Reporting threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

70.232.160.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made threats [104] and [105]. IP is currently blocked for 31 hours, reporting here per Wikipedia:Threats of violence. I did NOT take these as serious concerns and did NOT report via email. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I would agree. I did revdel them, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I saw that. I figured asking for revdel here would only have 200 ppl quickly go look. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin Vandalism of My User Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admin Arthur Rubin has recently vandalized my User page, in violation of WP:NOBAN. Diffs at [106] Changed "This user is a physicist" to "This user is not a physicist". SimpsonDG (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin should have respected your decision to call yourself a physicist in the context of you userpage, but it doesn't really look like it rises to the level of vandalism to me. I notice you opened this AN/I discussion less then an hour after posting to Arthur's talk page, have you considered trying to resolve the issue with him first? Monty₈₄₅ 04:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been a pattern of behavior with him, and he's already been blocked multiple times, as his talk page shows. If this were a casual user I might have let this pass, but I expect better behavior from an Admin. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I beg to differ; it is behavior that would draw at the least a stiff warning - if not a block - to an anon IP. Such petty vandalism is quite intolerable in someone trusted to be a Wikipedia admin, and I am eager to both hear Arthur's explanation for his behavior and his groveling apology for it. Ravenswing 04:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly not draw an anon IP a block unless there was a connection to sock puppetry. It would probably generate a level 1 warning, maybe a level 2. Its just a fact of life that we are willing to assume more good faith with an editor who has a track record of productive editing than we are with an IP whose first edit is suspicious. I'm not willing to assume bad faith from that one edit, which is a condition of the edit truly being vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree completely if this were a casual editor, but Wikipedia admins should be held to a higher standard. Petty vandalism of User pages by admins is a type of bullying, and should not be tolerated. And this isn't exactly his first infraction -- his record shows many instances of this kind of unprofessional behavior. It reflects poorly on the whole Wikimedia Foundation. SimpsonDG (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I was surprised to see the edit. Arthur Rubin has been prodigious in his contributions, but that particular edit has no justification. In response I hope he will apologize, and then all concerned can and should let this matter rest.--S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@SimpsonDG: You posted your complaint on Arthur Rubin's talk page at 23:35, but he last edited at 21:06, several hours before. Instead of waiting for him to return to editing and discuss the situation with him, you came here with your complaint - that doesn't speak well for you.

BTW, are you a physicist? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well he did say "This has been a pattern of behavior with him". So it doesn't seem unreasonable to come here. I'm sure we'll all see the explanation soon. Do we care if he is a physicist? -- Avanu (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course we do. We always care if someone is holding themselves out as being an expert untruthfully. And whether it's a "pattern of editing" or not, AN/I requires direct discussion with the editor in question before coming here\, and you can't have a discussion with someone who is not online. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a particular process for verifying claims of expertise? And, no, AN/I doesn't require direct discussion, it is a preference. Nothing is set in stone at Wikipedia, for sake of process alone, we shouldn't avoid a request. I do agree that direct discussion is best, but as the editor said "this has been a pattern", so rather than a recrimination at this time, save it for the end -- if it still matters. -- Avanu (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It was wrong and childish for me to edit his user page, or to assert that he's not a physicist. His claim to be an expert mathematician to the extent that his personal web page should be considered a WP:RS disturbed me, though. (Technically, it's not he-as-editor, but he-as-web-page author, whose expertise is questioned.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The loci of this dispute are this series of edits and this series of edits. See also this edit, this edit, and this edit for more background. Uncle G (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. Yes, I am a physicist. I have a Ph.D. in applied physics from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, I work as a research physicist at NASA, and I teach physics as an adjunct professor at a local college. I also have a master's degree in applied physics, a master's degree in applied mathematics, and a bachelor's degree in physics. But Arthur Rubin is not being truthful when he states that I claimed to be an "expert mathematician". I made no such claim, as the above edits from Uncle G prove. Of course I'm not an "expert mathematician". I only claimed that my background gives me sufficient expertise to write a simple article on trigonometry. I'm not sure what to make of this "apology" immediately followed by a lie, but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia to see this sort of behavior from an admin. I guess this admission of misbehavior is about the best we can expect from Arthur Rubin, though. I don't need an apology, and I doubt an official warning would do much good anyway. Let's just close this discussion and end the matter here. SimpsonDG (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:Hamish Ross is attacking wikipedia and noones here to block them! 2.124.45.50 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That user was blocked long ago and the block is still in effect. I see no problem here. DMacks (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the IP is in a range that has previously been rangeblocked to prevent said user socking, I suspect the obvious. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anna Frodesiak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since speaking with a Wiki helper in IRC, Anna Frodesiak she appears to have made it her ambition to devote her time to pick holes and attack this article and the other article I have tried writting Cheongye Kwan. I blocked her from following me on IRC, so her only methods now seem to be adding tags and comments for conflicts that do not exist or have been previously removed such as the COI above which was removed by mareklug. No article writer should have to deal with people such as this, and so I request both of my articles be removed and deleted, as they are far more respected than they are being given credit for here.Hjc2012 (talk)hjc2012 07:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised she put an AfD tag on it. It went through AfD last year and was about to be deleted when the author userfied it, so the AfD was halted. That's unfortunate, because if the AfD had completed this new version could simply be speedy deleted through WP:CSD#G4, because it's effectively the same article with a few extra references; which are blogs, self-published or primary sources. This is just an end-run around a previous deletion process. As for the other article, personally I think it just about achieves notability, and if that's the case it won't be deleted - since there are a number of contributors to it, WP:CSD#G7 doesn't apply. Black Kite (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Response from Anna Frodesiak

I encountered Hjc2012 only twice at IRC. At #wikipedia-en-help she asked me to look at Cheongye Kwan. I checked the refs and said it likely didn't pass GNG. Yesterday she PMed me. I always ask to move PM discussions to #wikipedia-en-help, but after I clicked the link to Barry Cook, I thought it must be the same editor. I asked. She said no. I told her it was quite a coincidence. I said that I think it's probably you. She said never mind. She left. Those two discussions were it. I never tried to contact her.

That second discussion I preferred private because it was immediately apparent that it was her, and to ask to move it to #wikipedia-en-help would have seemed like I wanted to embarrass her by saying so publicly.

As for the articles, I still think they are promotional and have very weak references. My actions were as follows:

• I responded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan (3rd nomination) to the suggestion that Cheongye Kwan be redirected to Barry Cook by saying that I'm considering AfDing Barry Cook, and why.
• I posted at Talk:Barry Cook saying that references are badly needed.
• I tagged Barry Cook with a the same COI template that exists at Cheongye Kwan.

I think my conduct was appropriate. The defense rests. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Psst! Black Kite! Anna Frodesiak was not the nominator in any of the three times that Cheongye Kwan has been nominated at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoops! I saw her comment on Barry Cook and along with the OP talking about Anna and tags, I did a 2+2=5. Still, I won't tell anyone if you don't, eh? Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP (probable sock) at Race (classification of humans) graduating to legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Matter is handled. Drmies (talk)

• [108]. Could we have the Ip blocked and the page protected perchance?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Palimpsest: blocked by Black Kite. Drmies (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It was Mikemikev again. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit wars

Hello, there is a person that opens alot of users to vanadlize wikipedia. This person started to do this in last August. His first user called Karparthos and it blocked in September or October 2011. From his first blocking, he started to open alot of users (i think he have 15-25 users unitll now) and he's writing wrong information. For example, He decided that Qantas Airways will operate flights between Istanbul snd Sydney. This information was wrong and his proof was flight safety page and it's not related to his claim and "our" fight. His users were blocked for a week or month but that's it. He continues to vandalize pages in Wikipedia. He's from Turkey. I'm trying to talk with him but he does not return me an answer. Know he's vandalize the article of Ankara Airport, Rome-Fiumicino Airport, Milan Malpensa Airport and more. I know for sure that he is the same person and I'm not the only one that thinks that. His users: 88.247.101.165
46.196.46.3
178.240.95.21
178.240.11.236
31.142.170.156
178.240.119.214
172.218.89.36
46.116.176.233
88.244.151.102
46.196.144.66
88.250.125.163The message "vandalize" was from me i forgot to log in...
88.247.100.162
46.196.147.187
88.247.101.165
Karparthos
--Friends147 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd group of new users

Lately, there's been a plagiarism scandal affecting a number of Romanian politicians. I noticed that all of a sudden, four accounts have appeared, making edits that deal with the topic, and that also happen to put out relatively decent new articles on the first try. The four are Sciencecopy, PlagiarismUS, Caragiale2012 and HildegardPuwak. The last is particularly noteworthy, since Hildegard Puwak is an actual politician. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In future, please notify the users with {{subst:ANInotice}}. I have done this for you. Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Hildegard Puwak, usernames of people who share a name with someone famous or claim to be that person "may be blocked as a precaution, until proof of identity is provided" per WP:REALNAME. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is best that user specifically is reported at WP:UAA.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Kiefer.Wolfowitz was recently blocked for two weeks by Kafziel for personal attacks/harassment at User talk:David Levy. While I agree with the block rationale, I feel that it is an excessive block for two edits made by Kiefer. The incident started with some refactoring of Kiefer's comments at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37. A section was moved to Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/Discussion (which now exists as a redirect to the proposal talk page. Kiefer undid the removal of information, and it appears that he did not understand that it was moved to another page. No attempt was made to contact Kiefer about that issue. In addition, Kiefer had an insistance on numbering his remark with a hash sign rather than an asterisk, which may have been mildly disruptive; however, disputing the issue was a battle that shouldn't have been fought by other editors. In the end, the existence of the numbered comment made no difference. Kiefer made a remark on refactoring to David Levy here which contained an inappropriate remark about fundamentalist Christians. David Levy did not diffuse the situation and instead deleted the section with a response no. Kiefer responded with a relatively mild personal attack (compared to what is normally seen around here). I am disputing the block length of two weeks, because of the relatively mild nature of the attacks and because I don't believe a block length of 2 weeks will prevent further disruption in a better manner than a shorter block would. I'll be notifying David Levy, Kafziel, and Kiefer shortly. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't David Levy's second negative response to KW seen as a clear violation of WP:TPO "If you have their permission." Refactoring comments is recognised to be a problem - if an editor complains about it being done to their comments, then the person refactoring them ought to stop forthwith. Yet it's KW who has been blocked here?

(I came here to join the chorus of "Hang Kiefer high, it's about time too" - yet from these edits, much as I might want to, I can see no reason for any block at all) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you're aware of the sequence of events.

To begin with, I didn't even single out Kiefer's comment; I manually restored the discussion's original formatting after someone added numbering to all of the "support" and "oppose" messages (which had been discussed without leading to consensus, though I assume that the editor was unaware of that).

For this, I received a complaint about "editing others' comments" and "fundamentalist Christians being scared of being numbered by The Beast".

Kiefer then renumbered his comment a minute later (long before I even saw his message). I never undid this edit. (MSGJ did, and Kiefer reverted back.)

Also note that while editors are given significant latitude regarding their messages' content, they aren't entitled to break a discussion's formatting (thereby creating accessibility issues, particularly for users of screen readers). Kiefer insisted upon having his comment numbered, apparently because he accidentally formatted it that way when posting it and objects to any and all third-party refactoring of his messages. This is disruptive. —David Levy 17:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the first comment (re "fundamentalist Christians) is utterly unacceptable; can't comment on the remainder of the case or validity of the block as I haven't had my coffee yet. I will say though that if the block is a good block, the timing is not excessive given previous similar blocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TPO is a guideline. David Levy may or may not have violated it. WP:CIVIL is a policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz absolutely violated it. For the Nth time. Following blocks for disruption of 24 hours, 24 hours, 1 week, and one month (later shortened to two weeks), a two week block for continued incivility is plenty generous, regardless of the circumstances. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Long block of KW for accumulated incivility over a long period. I'm happy with that. Yet I believe such things aren't policy (we require a conviction for a specific event) and I don't see such an event here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The blocking policy clearly states that a block should be based on the severity of the behavior and previous incidents of the behavior. I think it is important to take the severity into account. It also states that successive blocks for disruption are typically longer than the 24 hours first block, but there is nothing to say that they must be, or that the number of blocks should be considered over the cause of the block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We've covered all this on the user's talk page, Ryan. I'm not going to have the same conversation over and over again. It's nice that you're running for administrator, but I'm not, and this isn't a soapbox for campaign speeches. I'm quite aware of what the policy is, and what to consider, etc, etc. I did so. This isn't my first time around. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I take offense to the fact that you believe I only did this because I am running for administrator. In fact, I assumed it would hurt my chances more than help. I felt the block length was excessive and I didn't feel that you adequately addressed it at Kiefer's talk page so I brought it here for review. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Vastly premature. If you want to be an admin, you need to be able to discuss things without running to ANI every time. I'd say this would hurt your chances, now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not run to ANI every time, in fact, I rarely take an issue to ANI. In this case, you were taking a hard line approach and I felt community comments would be appropriate. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I would prefer to be denied the bit than to sit on my haunches in order to obtain it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• We are now able to see what Kiefer.Wolfowitz has to say for himself.[109][110] Charming stuff, to be sure. I stand by the block 100%. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Still going.[111], and that's all I need to see. Revoking talk privileges. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please see "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including requesting unblock. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." I don't see continued abuse of the talk page. Kiefer expressed disapproval, which can be expected. In addition, I don't believe you are in an appropriate position to make that decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) Being that he's disputing your block, isn't it very inappropriate for you to make the call to silence him.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Given the content of the message, in which I was accused of "editing others' comments" and asked to restore broken formatting on the basis that Kiefer is "tired of the fundamentalist Christians being scared of being numbered by The Beast", I'd say that "No." was a rather restrained and civil response.
  Also note that Kiefer didn't mention the threads' relocation, so I was unaware that this was even an issue. And he clearly knew that I didn't simply remove them; I explicitly stated that I moved them to the subpage (and provided a link) in my edit summary, which he must have seen to know that I was responsible. When inexplicably restoring the threads without the messages posted on the subpage (which I learned later), Kiefer even mentioned the fact that I "moved" them. (Note that the history is weird because the two pages have been merged.) —David Levy 17:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)