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. 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)

Future timestamp. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:59, 30 July 2012 (UTCÖ

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)
      • Even if we were, would it ever convince you? I doubt it. Most bad behaviour from the user doesn't even get sent to ANI because users are resigned that AL will be defended by users who don't know the full circumstances and can't be bothered to find out—even though they can bother to comment here ad nauseum on a subject they have had little to do with directly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
        • It's nauseam, not nauseum. --JN466 00:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Thank you; in this case, nausea's the right word! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 5 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)

• I was going to block User:Penyulap for one second on account of his initial comment above so his sense of justice could be vindicated, only to find that he had already been blocked for another incident. Lol. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 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)
  • In this case, it's more like the offender has been caught not wearing a life jacket on a boat and he has a history of being stopped by police for reckless boat driving without a life jacket, and he has been given several stern warnings by police and told that any further infractions of the rules will result in penalties. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So, can you please show me that history, Good Olfactory? Alan Liefting has never been stopped earlier by the police for reckless boat driving .. the last time he was asked to stop, was because they though that he was driving a car without number plate, but that number plate was quite obviously there. Any better examples? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Take a look at the last few months of others' edits on his talk page and search the ANI archives; check his block log, and so forth. I haven't been involved in each issue, but I personally have been aware of at least six in the past month or two. You claim that the user "has never been stopped earlier by the police for reckless boat driving". Well, if reckless boat driving = disruption of WP, you are flatly wrong, because I have blocked him myself in the past for such behaviour. This stuff is not that hard to find, which makes me wonder how hard you have looked. (I'm not sure how specific you are trying to make the analogy, but what is clear is this is not a "first time" incident" for which AL has been blocked for, as some have suggested.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
        • A) no, I explicitly did not say that reckless boat driving = disruption of WP. I explicitly meant that there were different things that editors found disruptive on WP (if I translate your block, he was throwing a empty coke can onto the sidewalk while riding his bike, and showing his middle finger to a police officer). And actually, I still have to be convinced that the outright removal of categories from AfC articles is disruptive, or more disruptive than colon-isation or commenting-out. And for the image removal, what was found disruptive there was actually common practice, but just turned into disruptive because someone thought they had the right to stop Alan, and I think that those reasons were pretty much overruled. Actually, looking at it, in both cases (de-categorisation of AfC and the placeholder image removal) people did not convince him why he had to stop, and hence could not get the right answer out of him why he continued, and that is then deemed 'Alan does not communicate'. And I don't think either that I said that Alan did nothing wrong - but I just see that at least in these last two threads that what is made such a fuss about is .. minimal. But of course, Alan is pulled before AN/I twice, so he must be wrong, even if he is completely right. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Interesting read, though, those old AN/I discussions. Quantity != quality, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Your attempt to defend what I view as indefensible behaviour is noble, but I do think it's misguided and ill-informed. I guess you have misunderstood what he was doing that resulted in the block he received from me, because it was far more than "throwing a empty coke can onto the sidewalk while riding his bike, and showing his middle finger to a police officer". It was vandalistic disruption of a kind I have rarely seen on WP from a non-IP user. Were it not the first time he had been blocked, I have no doubt that it would have been indefinite. So yeah—more like attempted murder than anything if you want to draw analogies. If you fully investigate all the other instances over the past 6 weeks in context—several of which did not ever get moved to ANI for precisely the reason we see here that it's very difficult to convince users who like defending those who can't play nicely with others that a problem even exists—I think you would see there's far more here than you have suggested. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Misguided is a POV, and ill-informed shows that you may just be as ill-informed about in how far I am informed or not. And I think you hit the nail right on the head. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Of course it's a POV—it's my opinion and was stated as such ("I do think..."). I could be off on the ill-informed comment, but judging from all I have read here, I don't think so. If you do know all that has happened and yet you are defending AL, then I would be a little bit worried about your intentions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                • My intentions .. no, maybe I am just well-informed and misguided .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • Anything is possible, as this page repeatedly demonstrates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 5 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)

Nono, I can see that, but it is not a lack of response, or a lack of communication - it is suboptimal, I agree to that. And you are talking there about a discussion about 70 manual pagemoves, here it were 12 hotcat edits .. both of course could have been done by AWB (can you actually move pages with AWB), these cases would not have resulted in wide-scale disruption (and yes, next time it could be 7500 pages, and that could be disruptive, but that is pretty much a crystal ball for everyone with AWB rights) - I think there was not much against him having AWB rights, and the more reason to return it, after all, all he want(s/ed) to do was to improve Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so all I'm asking for (perhaps too much?) is that if Alan is questioned on what he's doing, in reasonable terms, that he respond (which he normally does) and if required by further request, to expand upon his rationale so it's not simply something like "see WP:N" (which he hasn't done, but is an example of an unhelpful response given the vast nuances of such a policy, or any similar guideline). To be part of this volunteer project must include collaboration, and that includes extended and open discussion. That means, if required, expanding on your reasoning rather than claiming a guideline and continuing to do the same thing unabated. If Alan can take a couple of minutes of his valuable time out from making so many edits and explain more precisely why he's doing it, it would save a lot of bother. This is, pretty much, all that a few editors have asked him directly to do, yet he remains unconvinced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rambling Man, I mostly agree with your original comment above, but I would change point #2 to read as follows: "If any single editor requests him to stop using AWB because there seems no clear reasoning for it, then he should stop immediately and discuss and probably expand upon his rationale. If an agreement cannot be found with the complaining editor(s), Alan should either start a wider discussion to find a consensus for his edits (i.e. a village pump thread or an RfC) or just abandon the task and revert the edits he's already made." One of the problems with Alan's behavior is that someone will disagree with what he is doing, he'll stop temporarily to discuss, and once he realizes he can't get the other person to agree with his side of things, he stops discussing and resumes making the automated edits. That's not how things work around here. As I said on Alan's talk page, you don't have an implicit right to make whatever automated edits you want; Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and automated edits have a much higher risk of damage to the project. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 17:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm .. well, in those threads you pointed to, in the end there is a "And I am yet to get strong arguments against my page moves." (same timestamp as in my earlier remark in this section) - which suggests that it is a two-way traffic problem there. Similarly, upon the removal of the categories (the 12 hotcat edits), Alan also asks 'why?' .. it may be that the questioners are not convinced by Alan - but Alan is standing there alone, waiting to be convinced by .. a number of others (and maybe they have not convinced him either - and if I look up, there are others also not convinced that what Alan was doing was the worst of the solutions to the problem). And then, when that two-way traffic does not come to a conclusion (maybe either way), he gets .. demands to stop, or even threats to be blocked if he does not do so, and later he runs into blocks and his AWB privileges are removed. Now, that is the way the community treats people ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Scottywong - remember that for the removal of the placeholder images, the wider consensus existed, it was done already for a long, long time (and was continued while people were discussing about Alan). Do you suggest that Alan should have stopped and .. go through another layer of bureaucracy because of one single demand to stop .. you lay the fault on Alan that he did not stop the image removal? Alan needs consensus to continue something for which there was already consensus, but one single editor can demand to stop an operation for which consensus can be shown? And here, we have in total 12 removals. And for that you want to start an RfC or a VP discussion - do note that that also means that any other forms of category removals (colon-isation or commenting out) then should also wait for that discussion to come to an end. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember, the original placeholder image discussion that Alan was basing his actions on was from 5 years ago, and never discussed the possibility of removing them entirely from Wikipedia via automated methods. The consensus was that the images were unsightly and something should be done about them, not that the images were unsightly and they should all be removed from Wikipedia by a bot. So yes, in that case, if a single editor questions what he is doing, he should stop and find a consensus for the automated removal of the images. Being cooperative in a collaborative environment can often be a pain in the ass, but it is absolutely required if you want to use automated tools to edit Wikipedia. It may have been 12 edits this time, but next time it could be 1200 before someone catches it. -Scottywong| confess _ 18:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• It was demonstrated in that thread that the consensus from 2008 was to remove the images, and that the images had already largely been removed (several tens of thousands of them). Alan's work in that area wasn't done by a bot, and it was a small fraction of the entire body of work. When he was queried about it, he responded promptly, in fact within minutes. "1200 before someone catches it" is just speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating, I'm sure, but let's deal with here and now. Please see my comment of 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC). I'm trying to conclude this debate with a positive outcome. Alan 100% must improve his way of dealing with people who ask why he's making the edits he's making. If he agrees to do that, in the manner described above, or a variant thereof, no issues. If he continues to use AWB or any other version of editing (including manual moves of 70-odd pages in a few hours because he re-interprets a guideline his way) then he should respect the community when (a) they ask him to stop and (b) ask him to be clearer in his explanation as to why he's doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The same requirements exist for all editors. This is nothing special. Further, I still haven't seen it demonstrated how Alan has failed this requirement in the past. And again, I'm not saying such evidence doesn't exist just that I haven't seen it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, in the talk archive I linked to, I would hope you (along with all the other editors who objected did) might see a reluctance in Alan to further explain his thinking. Instead, he would just offer a link to a guideline, despite being asked for clarification. It happened a few times. Maybe you think it's all fine, but a number of editors in that archive page demonstrate that the need for further explanation wasn't just a figment of any one person's imagination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, The Rambling Man, as I already said, maybe you think that you explained your actions fine, and you are right, there are others there who have the same concerns, I still think that you also did not manage to convince Alan. Maybe the need for further explanation wasn't just a figment of any one person's imagination, the fact that all those person's did not succeed in explaining to Alan why they were right is also not just a figment of any one person's imagination. In fact, you, Fram, ScottyWong, and others did not convince me yet why the outright removal of the categories (using Hotcat, which leave a very, very clear edit summary) is more bad than colon-isation or commenting out. At all. For me, all three methods are of similar quality.
• So someone tells Alan to stop, because that someone does not like his method, and whether or not Alan explains, editors have failed to convince Alan that their method is the one to follow either. The community goes as far as to block Alan over it, and to remove his AWB rights. And that goes just as well for that previous discussion about the page moves - the community may be right, but you failed to explain why. So tell me, what gives you (or ScottyWong, or Fram, or Sandstein) the right to tell someone to stop without being properly able to explain why (after all, that was his first question after he was asked to stop), and what gives you the right when the editor, where he is not convinced after the explanations (and I am not convinced either!), to enforce him to stop. Is it that because you (or ScottyWong, or Fram, or Sandstein) say that it is wrong, that it is therefore by definition wrong, and the editor has to stop, and it excuses those from properly explaining why? You see, I wonder still - there was community consensus to remove the placeholder images (yes, old discussion, but hey, I am not the one who tells all the time that Alan is here regularly on AN/I, so he needs to be stopped, it is used as part of the argument that he needed his AWB right removed), and he discussed that with others on his talkpage, but because someone told him to stop, he HAD to stop, so he was brought before AN/I with a threat that he would be blocked. And with these categories it is similar. And actually, with your pagemoves, The Rambling Man, as well (though it did not get that far). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll give up. I came back here to try to help progress the issue, to try to explain why a number of editors would have just liked Alan to explain his reasoning a little more clearly. That's all. I can see that I can't convince you of this so I'll leave it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, Alan has explained his reasoning on his talkpage. I have yet to see an explanation why colon-isation or commenting out is a better method than outright removal. I think it is .. telling that editors step out when we are trying to progress the discussion and get to the heart of it, why does Alan have to explain his actions better, but he does not deserve a better explanation of why his actions are bad enough to first receive threats over, and later blocks and removal of the AWB privilege. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't referring to the colon discussion, I was referring to the various requests for explanation in the archive link I provided. Seriously, I wanted to come back here to help progress things but you're really making it too difficult. You can redirect your comments to the people who did block him, who did take away his AWB rights, who did bring him to AN/I several times, who have blocked Alan in the past for vandalism of WP:AIV. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there it is, 'who brought him to AN/I several times' .. 3 serious times (including this) in this year (at least, the search comes up with 8 threads .. most of them not about Alan). And this thread is the one that took his AWB rights. And one previous block for vandalism .. so. That is what it adds up to. And I have gone through the several discussions in that thread, and in the end there still is a remark from Alan that he did not get a satisfactory explanation. And here, regarding this one thread (which took his AWB rights), also I am not convinced that the explanation given against his category removals is sufficient - just as insufficient as him communicating why he did the removals. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, perhaps you should directly address the people who brought up the threads at AN/I, those who blocked him, those who withdrew his AWB access, not me as I'm none of the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• They are free to respond. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked AL before. I would respond here with detailed information, but it's become clear to me that doing so would be futile. I doubt that anyone's mind is going to be changed at this point, regardless of what evidence is presented to the contrary. Incidentally, this is the precise reason that several editors have failed to bring issues regarding AL to this page in the past month: they are, quite frankly, afraid that the points they raise will face a wall of argument from users who will defend AL's behaviour regardless of how bad it has been and the evidence they present to back that up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is complete speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, but it's fairly solidly based on past experience with this page and with certain editors. You see things enough times and it becomes easier to "speculate" on what will probably happen in a given circumstance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, Hammersoft. Good Ol’factory should better provide diffs or it never happened. Alan was here since 2004(!) and his account only had 2 blocks (May & June 2012). I can easily find AWB users with more blocks and shorter editing history than Alan. Basically, I can sum up the entire drama in one sentence. The drama is started by people who aren't happy that things don't go their way, then they lost an argument, blow things out of portion, 2 trigger-happy admins (1 for the block, 1 for removing AWB), and results in the departure of an editor with over 118k edits. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not speculation, absolute fact. I would have brought his behaviour here as well in February, but he has his staunch defenders and it would have been pointless. That anyone editing Wikipedia should instantly know what "It is WP:ARTICLENAME of course, as previously stated" means when questioning why moving multiple pages without discussion is acceptable is beyond me. His reasoning "I see no need to explain an edit that is done for a blindingly apparent reason." It wasn't "blindingly obvious" to me (perhaps mea culpa) but I've been here since 2005 and my account has had no blocks, and I have over 80,000 edits (not that any of that is relevant). For editors who are "less experienced" than Alan or me, perhaps this "blindingly obvious[ness]" is even less .. obvious. Do note, he hasn't "depart[ed]", he's just having a break. He has "retired" before if I recall correctly, but that didn't last long either. Don't worry, he'll be back! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would have? Could have? Should have? How do I know if you're making things up to fit the story. Again, back your story with diff or nothing happened. Many editors have repeated asked for diffs yet you didn't hear it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well perhaps you haven't read this thread properly, I linked everyone to User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 14 where, instead of diffs (which you know can be taken entirely out of context), you can read the whole lot of threads. You can also check his block log" to see that he was blocked for vandalism (you don't need a "diff" for that, surely?). "back up your story with diff or nothing happened"? Weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• You might further wonder why we don't bother. It may not be for the reasons you think. Could it be that some of the user's edits were administratively deleted and are thus impossible for non-admins to see through diffs? Or could it be because we've seen this movie before and we know from past experience with this user and other users that certain users will always defend and minimise all sorts of outrageous behaviour? Or could it be a combination of both? Then again, maybe you are correct. Maybe nothing has happened at all and we're just making it up because we are crybabies. No doubt that also applies to the editors who have suspended their WP editing and have said they won't resume until the AL situation is "resolved". But on the third hand, I could be making that up too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion is just inflammatory Bad Faith assumptions on both sides. I'd suggest it end here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 05:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop it, but if someone suggests that I'm making stuff up, I will respond. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And how is that remark not exactly the inflammatory part that The Hand That Feeds You wants to be stopped, Good Olfactory. Drop it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy

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

---

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)

OK, as you have doubts Dennis Brown let's look at the technical "right and wrong". This is about the ability to read and understand references and very simple abilities to recognise technical differences which even lay individuals can.

The engine designs are too significantly different, and there are two many references which clearly support separately valuable and informative pages.

Referring to "Japanese Production Racing Motorcycles by Mick Walker" on:

• Page 130, Walker describes the Kawasaki KR250/350 engine as "inline".
• Page 152, Walker describes the Kawasaki KR1-S 250 engine as a "parallel twin".

• The KR250 engine has its twin cylinders mounted fore and aft [67]
• The KR1 engine has its twin cylinders mounted side by side [68]

These are two considerable differences and deserve an equal status.

The proposer of the deletion, Dennis Bratland, has suggested that Walker is using the term "interchangeably". However, we can see that he is, in fact, describing two entirely different engine configurations.

We can confirm this by looking at Mick Walker's European Racing Motorcycles by Mick Walker, which Dennis Bratland uses, where he also described the Rotax 256 as an "inline twin", as it is by current manufacturers and authors in others fields as wide as karting and ultralights.

• The Rotax Type 256 engine has its twin cylinders mounted fore and aft. An image is here [69].

In the same book, he described all other twins as "parallel twins".

Therefore, there are clearly the references to support two separate articles at least.

• Comparison of two separate engine designs
• 
  Parallel twin - side by side
• 
  Inline twin - for and aft
• 
  Parallel twin - side by side
• 
  Inline twin - for and aft

(I am limited by the choice of available images on the Wikipedia)

Before we progress further, I need you to look at the images and read given reference, which Dennis Bratland has chosen, and tell me whether the author is using 'two different terms' to describing 'two different configurations' or 'interchangeably' to describe 'one'.

Dennis Bratland suggests, "It's strong evidence that there is no real distinction in the minds of the foremost experts today." I suggest it is that he himself that did not know the different, and the evidence is that Walker does, and is using the two terms for two different configurations consistently over a number of publications inline with all the major manufacturers and media outlets. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Before we progress any further" you have to remember that this noticeboard is NOT for content disputes - it's for behavioural issues, such as yours. Even directly above, your statement "This is about the ability to read and understand references and very simple abilities to recognise technical differences which even lay individuals can" is a pretty egregious personal attack. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute. It is behavioural and relates directly to this discussion.

I note that User:RHaworth states in the deletion log "deleted page Inline-twin engine (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Straight-two engine)", and the page never appeared for discussion on the correct page. Now it is plainly not true that the article duplicated an existing topic, it was not up for a speedy deletion and there were not ground for it to be speedily deleted. It was well referenced and constructed.

It was deleted in a matter of hours before any discussion.

Are people willing to admit, on the basis of all the evidence both written and visual, that these are two entirely different engine configurations? --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

Thank you for the first inkling of even handedness Jorgath, it goes a long way. I can "hear" and "read" what is being said. What I am saying is that if I am forced to take the accusations and respond to them, as it would be only fair to be allowed to do so, I would be forced to lower myself to the same level of dirty raking, and I am not willing to do that. I just do not think it would promote peace. You're not being told the whole truth, but I refuse to risk humiliating individuals further by digging it all up. The right thing to do is focus on the content and the readers point of view.

Both Dennis and Andy have conceded that the topic renaming was correct, if technically mishandled which I accept. It is supported by over 40 perfectly adequate references and links to universally supportive documentation from the world's 18 top leading manufacturers. I am perfectly happy to make any personal apology I have to, but there really is no argument to be had on a content level.

Please look at it for one moment from my perspective. I answered a call for more citations where no one else had been interested. I was defending something that was correct from individuals who had added no references to support the move it was and were unaware of the web of shortcuts they were breaking ... and now am being told all the references above are "no evidence at all" or even "harmful".

How out of perspective does that look? What better references could there be! It seems individuals are just digging their heels in now or out to prove a point.

--Bridge Boy (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Both Dennis and Andy have conceded that the topic renaming was correct,"

No. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Bridge Boy, so far Jorgath's solution seems the most reasonable. I'm quite close to implementing it (and someone else just may of their own accord). You seem to misunderstand a great deal here, including how to work in a corroborative environment. I am strongly suggesting you pull back, lick your wounds, realize that you are wrong here, and try to start over. I haven't looked at the new article, but guessing it would a CSD A10 candidate. Even if you were 100% right (and I doubt it) the way you are going about this is very disruptive. You've had several people here telling you that your methods are highly defective, and you are interfering with the regular process of editing via WP:DE. There is more than enough reason to block you, and was a dozen or so paragraphs back. I want to give you one last chance to simply step back, learn a little about how Wikipedia works, perhaps work on the talk page instead of the article space or moving anything for a while. If you aren't wise enough to do this and learn to get along, I only see a series of ever increasing blocks in your future. We want passionate people as editors, but you still have to get along and you still have to work within the structure here. I'm sincerely hoping you are wise enough to just take some friendly advice, as I would much rather give advice than block you, but I'm fully capable and willing to do either. I'm not likely to offer this again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• At 21:06 Bridge Boy posts here, at AIN, pleading to not be blocked: "I am perfectly happy to make any personal apology I have to". Less than one hour later, at 22:08, he says: "Dennis, I am going to make you a set of colors and instead of a skull and cross bones, its going to have an laserjet printer in the middle. WikipediaMC, Motto: 'We are the Wikipedia Larry Sanger warned you against'."

  Even after the Nth admin warned him. He doesn't get it. He will never get it. All he does is attack you if you dare disagree with him. Block him indefinitely. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, that was some friendly, gentle humour to try and break the ice. You posted technical details of office printer to support a case about motorcycle engines. It refers back to our discussions about outlaw motorcycle clubs.

Let's just be honest, you are trying in any way possible to drive me off the Wikipedia and perhaps you know how to press the buttons of some admins here but to suggest that was an "attack" is impossible.

Why not instead look at what else I wrote and respond to it? Is Walker describing two separate engine configurations or one? If he is describing two, as I suggest the references to the engines clearly prove, then please strike your comment. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What you both may need to do is take the disagreement to WP:DRN, which is actually the proper venue to discuss content related issues that you can't hash out on the talk page. Here at ANI, we focus on incidents only, such as behavior. Bridge Boy, I don't know you but I'm vaguely familiar enough with Dennis Bratland to know he is a passionate editor that has good intentions from my experience. And no, I've told Bratland when he is wrong as well, so it doesn't serve you to think that we admins are robots that can be activated with the push of a button. We are independent editors. No one is perfect here, which is why I've done everything I can to not issue a block, but you would do better to work with editors like Bratland, and if you can't agree, use the proper venue such as WP:DRN to settle disputes. You have to be able to disagree without being disagreeable here, it isn't optional. I would try less humor and more humility, personally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I would have little hope for WP:DRN. This is a highly technical issue, albeit hiding behind a behavioural one. As we've already seen from the instant deletion of an article for being a duplicate (it clearly wasn't) by a cab-rank admin, taking this to DRN would bring in a load of other editors who (not unreasonably) don't know a Sunbeam S7 from a KR250, but who might also not see this as a barrier to acting beyond their knowledge.

If this article finds any valuable additional editors, they're likely to come from the motorcycling or at least engineering wikiprojects. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The other problem with DRN: both Bridge Boy and I agree that moving Stright-two engine to Parallel-twin engine meets WP:COMMONNAME. End of disupte. What we disagree over is whether other editors deserve respect, whether or not you should try to kick them out of discussions for not sharing your opinions about motorcycles, and whether you should circumvent discussions that are unresolved. I think one of us doesn't even know what respect is. We disagree over whether mocking and insults towards someone who has complained about your incivility constitute "friendly, gentle humour". It's clear Bridge Boy doesn't respect the Wikipedia process of consensus.

When Bridge Boy began at Wikipedia, he was treated with kid gloves for some three months in the hopes that he could learn to edit in a reasonable way. He created questionable articles with a consistent POV slant, poorly written, and everyone let it go because at least he was contributing something. All we have to show for it is an editor who owns articles and attacks those who don't fall into line. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"The other problem with DRN: both Bridge Boy and I agree that moving Stright-two engine to Parallel-twin engine meets WP:COMMONNAME. End of disupte. "

I don't want to get into this here, it belongs on the article talk: page, but I would just refute this quickly before it's cited again as "Dennis and Andy have conceded that the topic renaming was correct"

I strongly oppose renaming to parallel twin.

• It's not a commonname outside motorcycling
• The term is "skunked" (your phrase, I believe) and is now simply too confused for re-use in any context. Even if it did once have a clear meaning, this is no longer clear or suitable for wiki article naming. If this forces us into another name such as "straight-" that is uncommon, ugly and disliked, then at least it's still clear and not confused by other implications, so we're stuck with it.

Article discussion is still ongoing. Who knows where that will end up, maybe even at parallel twin. However for the purposes of ANI, this is simply not an "End of dispute". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I object to the above close - while there's certainly a lot of content dispute going on, there is in fact a behavior problem that still hasn't been remedied; remedies were being discussed but had not been concluded. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now boldly modified the close to leave my proposed remedy open, as it hasn't fallen into the content-dispute side of things. I ask that further discussion of behavior and remedies take place here while leaving the content dispute to appropriate venues. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Bridge Boy, now I see you moving articles (one that is 8 years old) to new names, with no consensus or even discussion, to uncommon names that aren't even consistent. You are adding weight to the arguments regarding competency here, and I don't have time to follow your every edit. I've moved Hyundai U engine and Toyota U engine back to their common names. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• User blocked 48 hours - Looking at what he has been doing since the ANI started, I see he's moved more articles this poorly, completely ignoring the issues raised. IE: Presenting problem -> Chief complaint and then said "It is commonly used but, due to my lack of expertise in this area, I am happy to defer to others wisdom." No discussion, no consensus and isn't wise enough to create a redirect pointing to the existing article, and instead moves a long standing article without any regard to consensus. This is just more disruption and I'm hoping a little break will give us enough time to look through his contribs, fix his other mistakes, give him time to read up on policy here, and for at least 48 hours, prevent disruption and perhaps fix his WP:HEARing problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion of Inline-twin engine

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

---

That was really unhelpful. Please restore it.

• It's just going to inflame an already awkward situation.
• No-one was calling for it. There may well be two articles here - resolution through clear definition of scope and appropriate naming would be a better way forward.
• The timing was precipitous beyond all need. In particular, it allowed no time for discussion by the handful of editors already trying to resolve this.
• It was done by deletion, then recreation as a redirect - rather than simply changing to a redirect and thus preserving history. This is against WP:PRESERVE and it's also insulting to Bridge Boy, who I'd have to recognise had done useful writing work in creating it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. I appreciate your equal-handedness in all this.

What was most mysterious was how deeply it disappeared from every and everyone's record, including yours (although habit had me keep a copy of it).

Do you see, BWilkins? There is more going on here than meets the eye, and I am not "paranoid" as accused.

We have a responsibility to put aside any personal differences or interests and be accurate, inline with good references, for sake of the general public or readership. That will include some admitting the evidence of their eyes, e.g. these are two (actually three', to be technically accurate') different engine configurations. Why must it be so difficult? Why must so much energy be wasted here to state the obvious? --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, there is not "more... than meets the eye." In fact, it was clearly discussed above: the article appeared to be a content fork. And now, it has been undeleted and sent to AfD for consideration. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As to your question: it's not "obvious." That's the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this just a further example of the poor behaviour that Bridge Boy has exhibited throughout this sorry affair? At what point to admins consider that enough is enough w.r.t. his tendentious behaviour and block him? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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 [70] : 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 [71] (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 [72] (January 2012) ;
• Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement : adding a section [73] 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 [74] (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)

If it is not WP:DISRUPT, it is WP:POV... You choose! --Omar-Toons (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And now, Koavf refuses to discuss the NPOV and removes the POV template, claiming that Wikiprojects aren't subjected to the NPOV policy (he implicitly recognizes then that the project (and his edits) doesn't respect the NPOV. This is clearly a WP:OWN case. --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Right The template explicitly says that it's for articles. Note POV symbols on (e.g.) Wikipedia:WikiProject Abkhazia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism, etc. etc. WikiProjects are not obliged to display neutrality in all of the symbols represented on them. This is ridiculous badgering. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And it goes on... against the RfC! --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus So you're going to ignore this then and tacitly admit that I'm right? I frankly don't think that you understand the consensus process here: what exactly is "against the RFC"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was on what we say about the flag of western sahara, because the status is disputed. The result of the RfC required balanced treatment rather than plastering pages with the SADR flag (and no other) even though, in reality, a different flag actually flies over Western Sahara. Your edits have been incompatible with that RfC. I'm particularly disappointed by the notion that you're allowed to do that because "This namespace doesn't have to adhere to NPOV". bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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

---

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)

"Hang Kiefer high, it's about time too"? Really? Even if it's in jest, is that the most moderate way to express it? Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

One could get blocked for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's somewhat refreshing that the lynch mob attitude towards K-Wolf is being verbalized. There are those of us who see what it is, now it's being explicitly professed. NOW STOP IT!!! Carrite (talk) 21:54, 4 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 was 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)
  • I read that as a joke. "Numbering of the Beast"? Of course that's a joke, and unless David Levy is identified somewhere as a fundamentalist Christian, in a way that Kiefer could have known, I don't see the insult. Maybe Kiefer should put ";)" behind every comment, just to make sure, but the joke was clear to me. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not a Christian, and I didn't interpret anything in that message as a personal attack. (The name-calling occurred later.) I interpreted it as further nonsense from a user engaged in deliberate disruption of a community discussion. (And that was before I learned that he'd reinserted outdated versions of threads moved to a subpage, thereby causing another editor to respond to one without realizing that earlier replies were missing.) —David Levy 20:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless I missed it, the number of the best doesn't seem to have been involved anyway. Having said that, I'm not sure if humour was a good idea here. Beyond the possibility for misunderstanding, or causing offence even if properly understood, it seems considering the apparently strong feelings involved it's an area where jokes are probaby best avoided particularly if they're ones a substanialy number of people aren't likely to find funny. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 4 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.[75][76] 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.[77], 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)

No and no. As (I think) anyone can see, the box was not checked by me until later, when he persisted in abuse on his talk page after the block. That is exactly what it's for. Blocked users may edit their talk pages only to appeal a block, not to continue airing their grievances about any and all editors who may have pissed them off of late. I showed him how to appeal it and warned him to be civil. He chose to disregard that, instead citing a supposed conspiracy from JC37, telling Ryan to "ignore the clown car at ANI", and telling me that he had no intention of discussing the block with me "until you can fill out a block form without tripping over yourself". Consequences followed.

Cube (and Avanu, and Nikkimaria): Incivility is incivility. There was obviously nothing secretive about what I did and what he said to cause me to do it. The links are above, for all to see. Admins are not required to sit around waiting for admin after admin to come to rescue them. Some admins like to do that, but I don't. I'm not a crazy "hangin' judge" kind of admin—I haven't blocked anyone in over a year—but I know a good block when I see one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The block is debateable. With the second move, you were way to connected to make a detached evaluation. You may not think you're a hanging admin, but you don't know when it's time to back off and let a clear headed admin evaluate.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything is always debatable, sure, but that doesn't mean I couldn't make a reasonable evaluation on my own. That's what they pay me the big bucks for. And I don't have to "back off"; other admins are always free to evaluate everything I do. Do you think I thought I could block a user—or any other user—and nobody would notice? That doesn't mean I have to run and hide, it just means I have to be sure I'm right when I do it. When I got the bit, it was with the understanding that I am the kind of admin willing to make difficult blocks and take the time to go back-and-forth when necessary. Semantic and procedural arguments aside, I have yet to see a single admin say I was wrong in blocking this user. Because I wasn't. Anything else is just navel gazing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where your locking of the talk page was over-ruled and a second admin endorsed that move?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no... Did you miss the part where he's still blocked? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You have dificulty with reading comprehension. I said the original block was debateable. I didn't care for it, but others are ok with it. The issue I stated was truly problematic was your second move of silencing KW on his talk page after he disputed your block. By that time you were too emotionaly invested. Other admins, those able to make a detached evaluation, have looked at that move and reversed it.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, don't you start with the personal attacks. My reading comprehension is fine, as is my understanding of wheel wars. One admin overturning another does not mean that the second admin is right; it just means that the issue has to stop going back and forth pending further discussion. Which is ongoing. As for the talk page... I see not a single thing of value added there since it was unlocked, so I still feel fine about my original decision. I wasn't wrong, I was just first, and now we have to wait and see what he decides to do with the rope that's been given to him. Which is what I told Ryan waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when we were first talking about this on the user's talk page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Kafziel, just because he's still blocked doesn't mean you're right. Was a block appropriate? Potentially, if the situation could not be otherwise resolved. Was your block, with the time/settings/circumstances/commentary you initially included, appropriate? No. Was your removal of talk-page access appropriate? Hell no. Your reasoning for that change is incorrect by both policy and practice, and AFAICS everyone commenting on that issue has disagreed with your action. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion. I think I'll just wait and see how things go. Sure looks like lots of positive progress is being made on his talk page... Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this clearly illustrates the need for you to back off on this issue. You're clearly letting your emotions cloud your judgement.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Back off from what, exactly? I'm not doing anything. I haven't done anything for hours. I'm just sitting here talking to people like you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I used the wrong words, I should have switched back off with calm down.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 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)

The block is good - it is 2 weeks because KF continues behavior that got him blocked 4 times already in the past year, including a 1 week block 2 months ago for incivility.[78] TFD (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel, the most recent block you implemented on Kiefer has raised some questions for me. While you stated it was for "continued incivility", I don't see where you specified what that incivity was. I also do not see that mere incivility is cause for a block on the WP:BLOCK page. It uses the term "gross incivility", which seems to take a fairly high standard. What standard did you use that you feel is in line with the term "gross incivility"? I focus on the WP:Civility pillar mostly because that was the standard that you used in your block explanation. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I linked to it here. Why would I link to it on his user page? It's still there. See my reply above for more details. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so the diffs referenced in your comment above at 16:53 and 17:02, 3 July, are the examples of "gross incivility"? I have to say that my impression after reading those is that the comments are aimed directly at you. Per WP:INVOLVED, you should have asked for another administrator to decide whether this constitutes "gross incivility" or simply a vocal grievance. Also, even though you didn't state it, I would say WP:COOLDOWN might have been another reason that this block was added. For sake of form, please state that you rescind the block on policy grounds and permit another administrator to review such an action. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct - it doesn't have to be "gross incivility" to have talk page access revoked. If the user is already blocked, any continued abuse on the talk page is sufficient. He is permitted to use the talk page to request unblock or discuss it in a civil manner. If he doesn't want to do that, he doesn't need his talk page. I'm certainly not going to unblock him just because you think it would be nice. Adminship is about doing what's best for Wikipedia, not about saving face; Other administrators have reviewed it, and are reviewing it, and if another admin wants to undo my block, they are able to do so at any time. They can shorten the duration, they can unblock him entirely... none have done so yet, because they're (wisely) still seeing how it shakes out. I'd be happy for Kiefer to prove me wrong. But so far he hasn't. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to be "involved". From the policy:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

Warnings, blocks, etc. do not mean I have a conflict of interest; it just means I am following through with the matter at hand. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your rationale on the idea of acting only in an administrator capacity, but if the editor's incivility is primarily directed at you, and you take action on that basis, doesn't that mean that you acted partly in self-interest? I'm also curious where policy mentions a different standard for someone already under a block. I've looked at WP:BLOCK and don't see it there. I would assume that neutral evaluation of the editor would require the same standard whether a person is under a block or not. -- Avanu (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fourth on the list at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#setting block options. If the block is a done deal—and every admin thus far agrees that a block was justified, regardless of the details—then allowing talk page access is an administrative courtesy. If he abuses it, he can lose it. Posting on his talk page is not a user's last resort, because he is still free to send emails to request a review of the block. Besides which, there's no shortage of wikilawyers waiting to pounce on every block that comes across the logs.

It has nothing to do with self-interest. My email address is available to him right on my user page. He can send me all the hate mail he wants. Obviously a great deal of the attacks will always be directed at the blocking administrator - that's a given. But that admin is absolutely not required at that point to run away crying and waste someone else's time with it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I see Nikkimaria has restored Kiefer's talk page access--thank you, you beat me to it. Now, to the matter at hand. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support seriously shortening Kiefer's block. I have no problem with "no" as a response on David Levy's part, but I sense too much of a piling up here (along the lines of what Andy Dingley signaled). Drmies (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block and would support shortening it to no less than one week. KW is the type of editor that needs an occasional reminder to be civil. The longer it's been since his last block, the more "courageous" he gets with his insults. -Scottywong| express _ 18:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment At minimum the length needs to be adjusted. I'm not a fan of the original block, but I may be in the minority. However the length is inappropriate.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• No comment with respect to block, restore talk page access immediately review Kafziel's adminstrator status with respect to his massive personalization of issues, his violation of WP:BLOCK with respect to the talk page access and grudge-holding, both in the short and long term. He no longer is aware of the standards for adminship. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What grudge? You're mad because I remembered you were a sockpuppeteer? Please. It wasn't hard - you were one of the most disruptive editors I've ever dealt with in my 7+ years at Wikipedia. There's a difference between holding a grudge and having a good memory for names. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In the threads I've seen about Kiefer, his comments seem to get treated as more uncivil than they really are. Cardamon (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The original block seems good, if a bit long, but I also tend to think along the lines of Cardamon above. I am concerned, though, about the follow-up actions (talk page block, etc.). Doesn't seem appropriate to me. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block but it seems a bit long; I've seen worse. I'd say somewhere between 1-2 weeks might be more appropriate. --Rschen7754 19:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen administrators behave far worse with scarcely an eyebrow raised, and for Kafziel to compound his felony by removing KF's talk page access simply proves his unfitness to be an administrator. Why not block Kafziel for 1-2 weeks to prevent him cocking up like this again? Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the correct answer to that question is "because we have common sense". Arcandam (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I on the other hand think the correct answer to that question is "because we don't have common sense". Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would blocking Kafziel for 1-2 weeks prevent him making mistakes in the future? If that would've been true I would've made a request to be blocked for 1-2 weeks a long time ago. Arcandam (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  It would prevent him from fucking up again for 1-2 weeks, and if he continues to fuck up with his blocking then it could be increased to 2-4 weeks next time. Isn't that how it works? Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• We don't block admins, Malleus. You know that. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• If he, I quote, "continues to fuck up with his blocking" it is better to desysop. If not we don't need to block him, just explain stuff (assuming that he has made a bad block, I am too lazy to check if that is true ATM). Proposing a block doesn't make sense. Arcandam (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  On the contrary, opposing a block doesn't make sense. You need to start thinking outside the box. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Malleus, trust me, if there is one person on this whole 'pedia who thinks outside the box it is me. Back when I was in school I got in a lot of trouble for that. Arcandam (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I don't feel comfortable commenting on the appropriateness of the block (because it stemmed from a comment directed at me). I'll state, however, that I regard Kiefer's deliberate and persistent disruption of a community discussion (one in which he and I both opposed the proposal, incidentally) as stronger grounds. —David Levy 20:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, fellas, this has been a blast, but I have better things to do. Can't sit around all night checking ANI. I've spent a few hours on this, and I see a whole lot of talk on here, but nobody is showing me any policies. Just opinions. Opinions about block duration. Opinions about talk page protection. Opinions about whether the attacks were egregious enough. But you know what opinions are like, and everybody has one. I'm satisfied that I did my job correctly in blocking him, and continued to do my job correctly in locking his talk page. After four hours of listening to Wikilawyers rage about it to no end, I think we're all done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask which specific editors you are referring to when you say "Wikilawyers"? Because I read in policy somewhere that to call another editor that name, is a violation of WP:CIVIL. (Do you disagree?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that your statement on block duration was just as much of an opinion as anybody else's. There is no prescribed rule for block duration because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ryan, that's right - it's my opinion. And as the blocking administrator, that's the opinion I went with. I didn't use your opinion, because you were not the blocking administrator. In fact, I had never even seen or heard of you before, so using your opinion would have been difficult. I would hope that, if you ever become an administrator, you use your opinions. I would hope that you form your opinions carefully, as I have, so that you can safely disregard the baselessly puling masses, as I have. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"puling masses"? That's close to blockable right there, Kafziel. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not close to blockable, it's well over the line. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More opinions. Certainly not founded in any policy, as it's obviously not a personal attack against anyone in particular. Pretty sure criticism of Wikipedia process isn't in itself a blockable offense. If you choose to self-identify as part of the puling masses, that's none of my business. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is based on my own block log, which includes one block for the general comment "sycophantic admin wannabes". Or another for the general comment that some administrators are "fucking cunts". But of course I'm not a member of your priesthood, so the same rules don't apply to you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel, I just want to follow and understand your logic here... Are you saying, because it was "not a personal attack against anyone in particular", that a personal attack against a group of editors, not one editor in particular, is okay then? (And if so, does it matter how profane the attack is?: If a profane personal attack is directed against a group of editors and no one editor in particular, do you feel you can be *as profane* as you want to be, without repercussion?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it was your opinion. You should set a block length based on what your opinion says is correct. I am of the opinion that the block length was excessive, and I feel that a number of others here are too. I just don't find it fair for you to discount arguments because because is a whole lot of talk and just opinions when the block length was opinion in the first place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two important distinctions between my opinion and everyone else's: 1) My opinion about the duration of the block is based on long-standing, widespread practice, and 2) I am the one who actually did the blocking. If the buck stops with me, then my opinion is the only one that should matter to me. If I were actually wrong, that would be different, and I wouldn't have a problem admitting it. I've unblocked users before. But if we're just talking opinions, then I don't care. People don't make us admins because we can parrot policy; they make us admins because they trust our judgment in applying those policies. I trust myself to do that, and I did so here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The buck doesn't stop with you, Kafziel--you're not "Wikipedia". My opinion (that the block is too long, and that the talk page block was silly), I like to think, is also based on long-standing, widespread practice, and additionally on common sense. Now, maybe you want to take a bit of advice: stop digging. Your "puling masses" (I'm sure I'm not a part of that--am I?) is bad enough; if I were you, I'd go clean the pool or cook dinner instead of responding here and raising the temperature. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the original block, but it sure as hell would be nice if you, as an admin, would start caring about other people's opinions. That's kind of the entire damn point of collaborative editing, you know? You're only one admin out of thousands, and not the only sheriff in town. --Conti|✉ 22:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm not the only admin, and others are welcome to their opinions, but at the end of the day my decisions are my own. If someone thought it should be shorter, they should have done it. If someone thought someone should have talked to him a little longer, they should have done that. I'm not going to take a poll every time I need to block someone (which, as I mentioned, is once in the last year). If I make a mistake, someone can change it, because there are lots of us. But blocking has nothing to do with collaborative editing, and I'm not required to discuss it in committee. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Kafziel, I think you've been very patient and willing to discuss the block and I thank you for that. You're right that your decision is your own, and I think you've explained yourself fully at this point. Of course the community can weigh in and change things, but you've shown that you believe in doing what your conscience says and standing by that. You also sound like you're wielding the mop handle very lightly, so in a way I feel bad that you've gotten so much debate on your block considering how infrequently you use that option. Thanks for being willing to talk and I wish you the best. -- Avanu (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I just now noticed this, and glad to see someone else has already restored talk page access. To be clear, when a user is blocked, they are NOT restricted to only using their talk page for requesting unblocks. This is flatly mistaken and is completely unsupported by policy. See the talk page at WP:BLOCK where this very fact is being discussed. As for the block, I don't see how 2 weeks is required in this situation. We can discuss prior instances and all, but at the end of the day, a block is supposed to be long enough to prevent disruption. It would be my opinion that 2 weeks is unnecessary. I'm not convinced I would have blocked to begin with, but if he is going to be blocked, the time should be limited to what is necessary, and we should take care to insure it isn't punitive, so that we are just as neutral and fair as we are asking him to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Show me where it says blocked users may use their talk pages however they please. Maybe it's being discussed somewhere on the WP:BLOCK talk page, but not by me. If something changes, change the policy and let me know. Otherwise, your opinion is your own, and you are welcome to it. In my opinion, what he posted there (and continues to post there) is abuse, and a page lock was justified. I've seen nothing but opinions to indicate otherwise. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK itself says that an editor blocked can edit nothing but their own talk page, as long as there is not ABUSE. It puts no restrictions on nonabusive usage in any way shape or form. There is no authority in policy for limiting the use of the talk page in this way. We don't need policy to give a user a right, but if you are going to take away an editor's rights, you need it to be policy based, and saying it can only be used for requesting unblocks isn't supported in any way whatsoever. Many people think that this is correct, but they are mistaken. If you want to strip more rights than the current policy does, you need to change the policy. I pointed you to the talk page of the policy as it is being dissected there in greater detail than would be appropriate here. We do not take away rights from editors unless their is a clear policy basis. Blocked users are still part of the community. The burden is on you to show where it says that they can only use it to request unblocks, as you are the one saying you can take this right away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You put the emphasis on it yourself - what he posted was ABUSE. He was blocked, he posted abuse, and I locked his talk page. Not because he posted something unrelated to the block, or because he ignored it, or anything like that. He posted abuse so I locked his page. End of story, as far as I'm concerned. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that you and I have different ideas regarding what constitutes "abuse". Had someone said this to me, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Since the talk page block was reversed, I can only assume that I am not alone in this. Admins really need to be a bit more tolerant of this minor venting on talk pages, particularly when it is directed at them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that remotely rises to the level of "abuse". Removal of talk page access should be very rare, and only used in extreme situations.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Block seems too long. This seems excessive and somewhat inappropriate. --John (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I can't judge the appropriateness of the block - I don't have enough background to KW's previous blocks - but you, Kafziel, need to heed your peers regarding the appropriateness of revoking talk page access in this case. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you apologised to Ryan for your thoughtless slur above? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a general comment...usertalk pages should allow extremely great latitudes for verbosity and other excesses.--MONGO 01:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that due to totality of circumstances, block be reduced to "time served"

Struck as not supported by the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Chedzilla (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, as no reason was given and user has expressed no intention to act differently. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "totality of circumstances" is that KW has made himself a long-term problem and he is a multiple-times repeat offender. There is nothing inappropriate about the action that was taken. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Kafziel, who originally should have been censured for an unnecessary block should now be desysoped for punative withdrawal of talk page access. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think desysopping is necessary. If we desysopped an administrator every time they made an action that wasn't fully supported we'd have none left. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your second point. I didn't suggest desysoping for the block with which I disagreed. I suggested it for his vindictive withdrawal of talk page access, which everyone who has commented agreed was inappropriate. That Kafziel chose to dig in his heels and insist he was right shows me he is unfit to hold an admin bit. Also note that when I said "desysop him", I was speaking rhetorically, because as we all know, that will never ever happen no matter what he does. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not the user's first block for incivility. If this was, maybe, but this is a repeated offense. --Rschen7754 23:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know whether a two-week block is appropriate, but I see no justification for unblocking now. Thus far, most of Kiefer's messages have comprised further personal attacks and denials that he behaved disruptively.
  I do, however, support an immediate unblock when Kiefer provides a credible indication that his problematic conduct has ceased. —David Levy 23:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  I would have no problem doing that. Would have from the start. He just never asked. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mild oppose Sorry Kiefer. His actions were uncivil and this isn't his his first offense. As I said, a two week block in this instance does no more good than a two day block; however, I'm not sure that unblocking now would do good either. Kiefer was also a bit hard on the blocking administrator, even after I asked him to stop. I'd support reducing the block to no longer than 48 hours from the time of the block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  You can always propose something else. It is obvious this isn't a consensus view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hat these threads and get back to editing articles? (I was working on SMS Brandenburg when this drama was spotted.) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  The blocking administrator already has consented to lifting the block as soon as Kiefer provides a credible indication that his problematic behavior has ceased. Isn't that ideal? Blocks are supposed to be preventative (not punitive), right? —David Levy 00:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  I would have to agree with you David. What got me worried was the talk page access blocking, which I think the threshold is too low on. I don't begrudge the original block, even if it is a bit long, and I don't question Kafziel's faith, I just don't like to see talk page access stripped so easily. I'm involved in a couple of projects that are trying to address this exact issue. But yes, that does seem reasonable. Ironically, I was involved in Kiefer's last block and his last talk page unblock, but not in ways you would likely guess. I've struck the proposal as obviously it will not have a consensus, and now that Kafziel has stated a willingness to consider a short block based on the merits, that is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, this was overdue. Who is this 'Kafziel'? I think Jack likes him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  You're obviously not aware of the "contempt with which he is held in the community". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  That moar o' teh "puling masses"? "Teh Community" is toxic, haven't you heard? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Kafziel. SÆdon^talk 23:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: this part of the so-called community was sleeping, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that the block length be reduced to 1 week

As a mostly uninvolved editor, I propose that the block length be reduced to one week (expiry date July 10). I agree with the OP that two weeks is excessive for the offense at hand, but also agree that at least a full week is necessary for KW to get the message. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• How about reducing or lifting it should he actually get the message and pledge to be civil? Blocks are about avoiding trouble, not about proportionality to the harm done. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose However, I would thank you profusely for exhibiting the EXACT reasons why third parties should never be requesting unblock. Indeed, there's nothing GAB-compliant about this request. The user's block was based on the escalation process already set in place, and has stood accordingly. Reduction should only be based on the editor themself submitting a GAB-compliant request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yes! He must prostrate himself before the blocking admin and beg. Thank you, BWilkins for a dose of sanity! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose had it been an individual incident from an otherwise perfect editor, it might be called excessive, but as part of an ongoing pattern of disruption, if anything it's lenient. While we're at it, after the previous unblock request was trounced so soundly, it seems questionable to try again with a different length. Looking forward to voting again tomorrow when someone inevitably suggests reducing it to 1.5 weeks or 9 days or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support No necessity to deprive the project of a quality accademic contributor for the extra week. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as before, and above (Andrew). This new sub-thread is a wp:Run to Mommy and the whole mess needs a hat. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, and that you disagree with me, I do not feel that that was an appropriate comment. In a best-faith reading, it implies that I am being canvassed. I understand that it's not exactly a personal attack, so I won't ask you to strike it, but I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith about my motives in suggesting this. Specifically, I suggested this as a compromise position, since being able to compromise is necessary to a collegial environment. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not see where you're getting canvassing out of that (and I'm not asking). This amounts to another try at the dead-thread, above; regardless of your motives. KW isn't going to "get the message" in two weeks, either (or two years). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially considering continuing incivility after block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, entirely agree with Wikidemon above. So far this entire episode seems to have been rather counter-productive. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Haggling over the duration (with terminology along the lines of "time served" and "excessive for the offense at hand") sends the message that this is about punishing Kiefer for past deeds, thereby discouraging him from addressing the community's ongoing concerns.
  The blocking administrator has consented to lifting the block as soon as Kiefer provides a credible indication that his problematic behavior has ceased (potentially sooner than proposed above). Otherwise, what's the justification for unblocking? —David Levy 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Um let me see...oh yeah-he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  There doesn't appear to be consensus for such a view. If there were, that would justify an immediate unblock, not an abbreviated duration. —David Levy 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Shouldn't any the decision to unblock now by made a wholly uninvolved third party admin? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Kafziel hasn't stipulated (not that he'd be entitled to) that he must make the determination. —David Levy 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  I must have misinterpreted his comment on KW's Talk Page: "So, for now, I feel the block has to continue." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  As explained earlier in the message that you've quoted, Kafziel believes that the block should continue because Kiefer hasn't properly addressed the community's concerns. I've expressed the same opinion, as have others above. Kafziel hasn't asserted that he possesses special authority to dictate what occurs (and he would be incorrect to do so).
  Kiefer has expressed willingness to redact the "asshole" remark, so I consider that matter resolved. But as I noted above, I believe that the main problem is his deliberate and persistent disruption, which he continues to defend, denying that he did anything disruptive (apart from the redacted insult) and attacking others for suggesting otherwise. —David Levy 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  To an outsider, the original "disruption" at the start of this sequence of events, seems to have been about the numbering of comments. Is it possible to cause disruption that is less trivial than this? How many editors were actually inconvenienced or "disrupted" by these actions? How many complained? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  That isn't the full extent of the disruption. Kiefer also interfered with the normal proposal process by repeatedly inserting (thereby reverting multiple users) an "amendment" on which to vote (which he claimed would automatically take effect if it received majority support, thereby applying retroactively to support/opposition that the proposal already had received). This section was relocated to the talk page, where Kiefer left it (increasing the confusion) when continually re-adding it to the proposal page.
  And when he saw that some threads (one of which was initiated by him) were moved from the poll page to the discussion subpage, he restored the pre-move versions (without any of the subsequent replies) and left both sets in place, leading another editor to unknowingly participate in a conversation with messages missing.
  In several instances, Kiefer responded to others' actions (performed in good faith, Kiefer's disagreement notwithstanding) by threatening to have them blocked.
  As noted above, I opposed the proposal even more strongly than Kiefer did, but that doesn't justify disruption. —David Levy 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Shutting down talk by the blocking administrator is a rogue action, as far as I'm concerned — it's a textbook example of one taking administrative action to advance a controversial position from a state of engagement. If this is not regarded as involved action under the standing rules, it certainly should be. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the innocent prisoner's dilemma that is being discussed elsewhere. As David noted, Kiefer has admitted poor judgement for the "asshole" remark, and is willing to redact it. Apart from that, he has chosen-as would most self-respecting people- to remain blocked rather than admit to disruption he genuinely feels he did not cause. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

...while personally attacking those who disagree.

And I'd be interested in reading his explanation of how restoring outdated versions of discussions moved to a different page (leading another editor to unknowingly participate in one with messages missing) wasn't disruptive. —David Levy 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Unblock with a zero tolerance ruling for new problems

I think it is better to look at what Kiefer did wrong now and in the past before being blocked and before things escalated a lot. A consensus can more easily be formed about that. One can unblock him with the understanding that he doesn't repeat that behavior. If he does, then it must lead to an indefinite block. Because then it is certainly more than reasonable that he admits being wrong. This is more difficult now, because things did escalate and he can reasonably claim that he isn't repsonsible for all of the brouhaha.

A zero tolerance ruling can be can be written in the unblock comments with a link to this section, making that visible to any new Admin who has to deal with him. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. While Kiefer has exhibited poor behavior, I don't believe that "zero tolerance" is warranted. He needs to simply accept responsibility for his actions and do his best to avoid repeating them (with any slip-ups resulting in warnings, not instant blocks).
  At this juncture, there's no reason to believe that Kiefer wouldn't deny being disruptive next time too, putting us right back in the current situation (except with an indefinite block instead of a two-week one). —David Levy 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle zero-tolerance is almost never a good idea on anything. Looking Kiefer's contributions, the guy seems to have a lot to offer, but wow he's a jerk and a half. Thinking about this reminds me of some of my professors in college. We're not very tolerant here in Wikipedia of that kind of personality. I.E. Someone who is beneficial, but doesn't follow all the rules quite closely. So what to do? I don't have a good answer except for keep a rolled-up newspaper ready. Every person is different and a one-size fits all approach simply doesn't work. -- Avanu (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Favor unblock, oppose "zero tolerance" - End the dramahz. Carrite (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• oh hell no - in fact, I just removed talk page access again for his latest insults. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Chances of the second part actually being put into place... slim. --Rschen7754 02:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see a need for special treatment. Zero tolerance is a messy can of worms. Can you imagine the traffic if an admin actually acted on it? Meters (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Evlekis

Edit warring and blind reverting on Republic of Kosovo, infringement [79], [80] of the 1RR rule [81] on Kosovo (of which I'm a little bit guilty too, I have to confess). Majuru (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is highly tendentious and the user Evlekis has broken the revert rule three times. He has been asked to revert him self here Ottomanist (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, uninvolved admins. Per ARBMAC, User Majuru is the first and only one to be blocked, as he tried to POV push highly controversial data, without ANY talk page agreement, and then reverted his pov back in the same day, what is strictly forbidden in 1RR per week restriction. So, i think that WP:BOOMERANG should apply here, as he was also invited to revert him self, what he didn't do.... Thats it from me. --WhiteWriter^speaks 01:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish to start by explaining that I was initially unaware of the 1RR policy on Republic of Kosovo and I'd like to explain why. I have the page on my watchlist and I was aware that it is protected because when you click the "edit" section, the pink background message explains the status. I contend that it is not mentioned within the pink box but nevertheless, it has now been brought to my attention and I am aware of the procedure. Obviously content dispute is one thing but when an editor produces a highly radical comment that debases everything the entire article stands for and everything good-faith editors strive to avoid then I felt justified in removing the remark. For someone to claim "Abkhazia is fully sovereign" is no different to an opponent writing "Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia". Reality: two mindsets, two radically opposed perceptions. Our job as editors? To reflect these very sources of conflict and to find ways of presenting material in a neutral manner. I did not replace the "Kosovo is fully sovereign" with "Kosovo is legally a Serbian province", if I did this, Majuru/Ottomanist would have a fair reason to accuse me of a content-based edit war. The sources used by Majuru/Ottomanist simply did not substantiate the claim made in his main space contribution. Be that as it may, I part-reverted myself by restoring Majuru/Ottomanist's sources and editing the section so now it is not a case of me reverting but rather me making a change to an edit which is not the same thing. See here[82]. Meanwhile, Majuru/Ottomanist requests that I revert myself and this is something I am prepared to do. Reverting myself will once more remove the two edits and return the page to a point before the source of this conflict was introduced. If this is the user's wish, I am happy to do that, but as I said, my last edit was evidently in good faith as it acknowledged Majuru/Ottomanist's edit. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please revert your edit since you are now aware of the rule and make sure you're more careful in the future in such a prickly article - Ottomanist (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well on this occasion. I've done it[83]. Let that be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're an old user and it will depend whether the admins buy your line about not knowing the revert rule in place. I personally think you should be blocked because it is very obvious that the revert rule is in place in such a tendentious article - Ottomanist (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is just my settings I do not know - when I click "edit" I usually read the pink information boxes and the pronominal article does indeed state that it is protected. If I am to be blocked it will be for so long - probably not indefinitely - but what will have been achieved? I could not see the 1RR policy, nothing jumped out and you have already admitted you violated it yourself when you began this post. Now this way or that way, I have already reverted myself and I really believe that the edit I reverted was something in good faith as it acknowledged your two sources - I did it to keep peace and demonstrate that I do observe rules as well as reasonable requests from other users involved in the disputes. If there is something more you want, please say. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Elvekis, you are 100% aware that all Kosovo-related articles are under 1RR restriction. To claim otherwise is a load of malarky (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim otherwise. I maintain that I was unaware and I have produced irrefutable evidence to support this - that being that no message of 1RR appears when you click "edit", only a message that the page is protected. I edit on a wide range of topics and do not follow religiously the activities surrounding the subjects which you know me to edit. I edit some music related subjects and for all I know they too may be 1RR but unless somehow it comes to my attention, I cannot be expected to know. Put simply, I cannot be everywhere all at once. Now that I have been involved in this incident, you have proof that I know should 1RR be violated in future on Kosovo topics. But before passing judgment, just take into account that Ottomanist-Majuru admitted breaching the policy with his opening statement. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Question to Bwilkins: Why are you so certain that Evlekis is not being truthful? I'm trying to figure out how to ask that neutrally - I don't doubt you have a reason to be certain, but having not seen it, I can't endorse it. Has Evlekis received a talk page message or somesuch about it in the past? Were they part of a discussion/decision that instituted the 1RR in the first place? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jorgath. Can I make one suggestion, that we focus on the future and not the past. If I am to be blocked for any period, you have already seen the nature of the comments for which I would appeal the block so there is no need to repeat them. I believe nothing will be achieved if my editing ability is restricted for a set time but I assure you, Bwilkins and all other editors involved that I am now wholly aware of the 1RR policy which applies to all Kosovo topics and subsequently I shall observe this. I hope this is deemed fair. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the article has been on a 1RR since 1 August 2009 (UTC), and if one checks the History section of the article it clearly shows that the said user has been heavily involved in this article since after that date. This is a flagrant violation of the rule, which is very banal to be honest and shouldn't have happened from an experienced user on such a tendentious article. Just my two-cents - Ottomanist (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is one point I wanted to make in connection to Ottomanist's statement above this one. The 1RR was indeed introduced on 01/08/2009 which frankly is...a very long time ago. Naturally this has not changed but any review of the activities on the article and you will soon establish that I haven't been involved with revert violations nor have I had a great deal of conflict there. So with one pronouncement on a talk page now buried in archives, there is little to inform any user of this status and to be honest, I don't even recall this striking a cord back then. What I can say however is that the judgement was made on Kosovo and this particular page, Republic of Kosovo had already been created at that point by demand from some and all because this article had so much else to say from the plain Kosovo page. The ruling said "Kosovo" only, nobody went out of their way to decree "all Kosovo-related subjects have 1RR" and if that is the case then I still haven't encountered where this was implemented. I wish to point out however that there are several Kosovo-related pages and most would have conflicts come and go without any admin activity required. But note that there are hundreds if not thousands of pages which allude to Kosovo and each one can be a source of "Kosovo-related 1RR", particularly if the minor section referring to Kosovo is the subject of dispute. Think, people's birthplace, locations notable individuals have visited or worked, the references to the place and its settlements and subjects are endless. So where does this 1RR begin and where does it end? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't violate the rules then and did so now, to me at least, shows that you were aware of the rule. You're an old user on tendentious articles. Anyhow, it's up to the admins to decide. - Ottomanist (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't violate the rules then and did so now, to me at least, shows that you were aware of the rule. You better explain yourself - produce a link where I have been found to be discussing the 1RR at some stage between 1 August 2009 and 4 July 2012. Unless you can find this, you know nothing of whether I was aware of the rule. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis clearly broke the 1RR rule at Republic of Kosovo. People tend to expect that admins will enforce the 1RR rules in the Balkans. I suggest that he be blocked 24 hours. If he will agree to abstain from Kosovo-related editing for the remainder of July, this report could be closed with just a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston, please read this entire thread and particularly my defence. You are playing right into the hands of the tendentious editors, moreover those who are striving to push POV thus keeping such articles "sensitive". One examination of my edits on and off Kosovo and you will see that they are all constructive and nobody can accuse me of POV-pushing. Whilst me having been unaware of the 1RR system is unequivocal, I have demonstrated good faith firstly by cancelling my final contribution per request of Ottomanist and by having since edited on the article without edit-warring or fundementally altering the mass removal of sourced content by Ottomanist (I made a copy-edit only). No harm has been done here, but be aware that the user who opened this file has admitted breaching the 1RR himself (see top of post). To that end, there is nothing to be achieved and no good will be done by either blocking me for X-amount of time nor by ordering me to keep away from the Kosovo page. I'll remind you that this is Republic of Kosovo - a separate article, my previous post already outlined the ambiguity of not clarifying which articles are 1RR and which are not when so many allude to Kosovo or are directly on the region. The pronouncement of 1RR seems only to stand on Kosovo per se. At the moment that page is quiet, each article has its own activities and so far nobody has shown Republic of to be on a 1RR policy. Unless I am mistaken, it seems editors have created an arbitrary and unsanctioned code of conduct to continue a trait from one article to the next. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has a large banner on the talk page saying that it's under Arbcom probation, and all editors are limited to *one revert per week*. You broke the 1RR per week by reverting three times in a week. Majuru made just one content addition and then restored it after it was reverted. That counts as only a single revert. Are you saying we can't enforce prominently-placed notices because it is unfair to assume that people read them? EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

EJ: aren't edit-warring blocks preventative rather than punitive? Is it different for 1RR (I genuinely don't know)? The block you suggest appears punitive. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

THREE times??? Are you sure? Perhaps you should recount. It was twice unless of course you are counting this. If you are, please read the summary - not only was it a self-revert which is not a case of edit-warring but it was only carried out to placate one of my detractors[84]. If my move was wrongful then you have to agree that I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Furthermore, the 1RR is displayed on Talk:Republic of Kosovo and not Republic of Kosovo which is where I made the edits. So the answer to your question is no, a user should not be pardoned if he fails to read an order; but as admins, the responsibility of erecting your signage clearly and prominently lies with you and subsequently, that notice needs to be in the Republic of Kosovo pink information box. Perhaps if it were, I may not have made this mistake. Can I suggest that we start behaving like adults and close this discussion, it has been sat for two days with newer cases opened and closed, this is dragging on needlessly. No action needs to be taken, NO damage has been done, the violation of 1RR or 3RR is NOT an automatic self-destruct activation and admins do not have to block a user just because he did it. I have explained how and why it was not immediately clear to me, I have pledged to observe restrictions as such in future (even if it means click "edit" on the talk page to read notes without any desire to make a contribution there), I have already demonstrated this by not interfering with this[85] egregious removal of sourced information, and I declare from now that if I violate a revert ruling again that I should indeed be blocked. Can I ask that this vow be taken as a sign of good faith and the matter be closed thereof with no editing restrictions and no demand to stay away from any particular page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Following on from De Causa's remark which was placed on top of the above paragraph. EJ is an admin and has the power to block. Now whether this be punitive or bureaucratic, it is his decision. I guess I cannot appeal a block because all the grounds on which I would have appealed are stated here in this section. The time it is taking the heavy mob to get around this one has enabled me to enter my plea and present my defence before any measure was taken! :) I must say it is nicer like this than when you're actually blocked because atleast you can move around more freely and help your own case by editing in the desirable way needed. But I assume that the block would not be indefinite and therefore it may not be too harmful. Temporary blocks as opposed to indefinite blocks (ie. outright bans) are made precisely to allow the editor time to think about his actions, so that when the block is lifted he may return to make positive contributions. Atleast that is what the templates say. I've already done the thinking, no longer defend my violation of the ruling so there is nothing to reflect whilst I'm placed on gardening leave!! So whatever decision is taken, I will have to go along with it. But just to reflect on something else, do you know I cannot help but think I was the guinea pig here, led into a trap. Majuru - an account I do not believe to be genuine owing to its long absence periods and familiar editing patterns with other banned users down the years - inserted something he knew to be both disruptive, controversial and moreover, incorrect. Some users such as WhiteWriter are very much aware of the 1RR so do not even make an initial edit. Along come I and remove the piece. Majuru cleverly restores it knowing that this is his first revert and then the fool takes it out a second time and lands himself right here. The person in control of the so-called "Majuru" account is now turning cartwheels and I cannot blame him. Then a related account which may or may not be the same author but not a new person anyhow, called Ottomanist, joins this campaign on the side of the plaintiff but not before he has encouraged me to revert myself - and like a lamb to the slughter, I did it thinking it was the cordial decision. It is very interesting however that Majuru still has not make any real effort to obtain a consensus to have his edits restored, those which are the source of this discussion. And Ottomanist, a user who I may add is the subject of this case, has only taken over "Majuru"'s talk space to argue non-encyclopaedic matter, nothing that would encourage any editor to support Majuru's proposed revision. Perhaps this is all because Majuru never really wanted the edit he proposed to stand, he just wanted to watch some idiot fall! Well, that idiot is I. I am glad of one thing, I now know exactly how to handle dumb edits such as Majuru's in future without violating 1RR and without deploying a separate account. If it's strict rules the admins want, it's strict rules that will be obeyed! I've learn my lesson, so EJ - or BWilkins - however you gentlement wish to handle this slip-up by me, I accept it, over to you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You violated 1RR on Kosovo several times and instead of promising to not engage in such a manner in such disputes or even accept that you caused some disruption too and mishandled the situation, you go on to claim that Majuru and his dumb edits led you to that position (how can someone make you violate such simple restrictions repeatedly?) and even going as far as claiming that there's some sort of plan by Ottomanist and others against you. I've defended you in past reports, but given the way you treat your own participation measures should be taken. It's especially troublesome that yesterday when I reported your 5 reverts/less than 24 hours you treated the situation in the same manner and even after the admin gave you a final warning you still went on and on about the correctness of your edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left the matter in the hands of the admins. I accept you are bitter because you did not achieve the result you sought in your attempt to have me blocked but that is largely down to the fact that I made only two reverts, the other three were certified cases of vandal-fighting. Be that as it may, we are not here to discuss that. You have joined a discussion that predates your failed purge. Had you read my above statement carefully rather than selecting bits and pieces of it, you'll have seen that I was merely reflecting on what took place after my advanced acceptance of any decision made by admins. The edit by Majuru which I twice reverted was clearly an attempt at humour, not the source itself but the accompanying remark. Of course, if you believe the edit to be constructive there is nothing stopping you restoring the piece. As for being led, I don't blame Majuru for this, I congratulate him on being clever; he got what he wanted because a rival editor (me) has slipped up. Meanwhile, if an editor believes his edits to be correct then that is that. I have the right to my opinion and you do yours. You need to realise that I am not being questioned for my edits themselves, it is for the overall action which has been reverting when I should not have. And as I said, I accept the decision of the admins so this really should be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• All right, here's my proposed solution. Evlekis, you're let off with a warning...this time. We'll all assume good faith and accept your claim that you were somehow unaware of the 1RR restriction, although that claim calls your WP:COMPETENCE into question. I also propose we agree that your self-revert, since it was demanded by local consensus, does not count as its own violation per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. However, if you violate the 1RR in this area again, your blocks will begin with durations escalating as if you had been blocked for this incident. Fair? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 10:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair! And thank you! Concerning competence, I am the first to admit that I can be somewhat "incompetent" but that's nothing that cannot be worked on. Before reverting a user, I'll check the talk page and whatever else to see what the status of the article is. But at this point, even I favour a ban on myself should I violate any revert ruling. I can only hope your proposal shall be influential with the admins concerned. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical revisionism; needs to be stopped by an uninvolved admin

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

---

74.104.54.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding unsourced questionable material to Taxation in the United States and Excise tax in the United States. As I reverted the changes, I cannot be the one to block; there is no BLP violation. I warned him for NPOV, but other warnings may also be appropriate before a block. At the moment, all but the first 2 edits from that IP are of that category; the first two edits were unnecessary and reverted for other reasons. I can't say he is a vandal if he believes what he's saying.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. For the moment.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

harrass on edit summary

check revision history of Mercy (Kanye West song). Jawadreventon (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

it was User talk:2pac Is Alive. he wrote "fuck you". Jawadreventon (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It sure is uncivil, but it doesn't meet WP:HARASS, doesn't meet WP:NPA. Did you discuss it with the user before bringing it here? Did you take to to WP:WQA? Did you even notify them that you raised it here, as required? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there's been a misunderstanding that has no relation on the subject. As you see, I fixed the vandalism in the article. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang on... the edit was on June 30, and it's only a problem now?

That said, 2pac Is Alive, you should not be responding to edits with edit summaries like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 05:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

i dont take this offensive. i reported this because i didnt want this to happen again and possibly offend someone else. Jawadreventon (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you called it harassment above.

In terms of "offending someone else" ... it's Wikipedia, people often swear. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Suspected sockpuppet of Kinu

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

---

Obvious troll account. Please block... -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

IP Vandal - account used solely to revert my edits

2.29.138.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely related to 2.29.125.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please simply look at user contribs, particularly the former - every single edit is reverting my contribs without explanation. I've reverted each of them but it's frustrating to take up time doing that instead of contributing to Wikipedia. Could someone please help? --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This user, who was banned for a week for doing the same thing, may be related as well - an IP Trace indicates all three are in the London area. 2.25.69.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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: [86] [87] [88] [89] 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)

Any reaction from administrators?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This was archived without even a comment from an administrator. I have copied it here from the archive. The simple courtesy of an acknowledgement and some response would be appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is something that can be done to prevent further disruption from this long-term disruptor, who seems to have only one interest, and I just did it. They seem to return with some periodicity to Kharkiv and I've blocked for three months. I am open to other admins' input on the length of this block, but that this long-term disruption needs to be stopped is obvious. It seems clear to me also that if the editor returns to the same behavior (and note there's been IPs making the same edits) the block should be extended to indefinite. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:GrapeOrange

Please take a look at this user page: [[90]]. User also appears to be a vandalism SPA. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked; Orangemike (talk · contribs) zapped the userpage. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerned about Madmans stone (talk · contribs)

Madmans stone (talk · contribs)

Newer user began making confusing edits [91] [92] as well as using abbreviations such as "rv" in edit summaries [93] [94] [95].

Usually I would ignore this, but I also noticed some concerning (trollish?) edits [96] [97].

User notified.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• The other edits aren't much better. Reverting edits calling them vandalism when they aren't, and other unusual talk page issues. This edit [98] shows some editor thinks he's a banned user, although I don't know which banned user he could be, that edits in Moldavian topics. Most of the edits are bordering on troll behavior however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we can be confident that it's an old hand who... has previously had some run-ins with User:Dahn. For instance, [99], [100]. I have no idea who that might be, though. All suggestions welcome... bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a legal threat. While I doubt the editor is serious, he is a COI editor on the article in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• This would almost be funny if it wasn't ridiculous. For those who haven't been following, the issue is that the only free image of the subject we have shows him with very long hair, but now it's a lot shorter. It's not a BLP issue in a million years. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

While it is not likely to be a harmful image, the BLP policy is clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

On Talk, the editor made a claim that the image violated some portion of WP:BLP and summarily removed it. Other editors reverted the image. This seemed to turn into an edit war over the inclusion of the image. Seems like this was poorly handled and not quite in line with how the BLP policy says to handle it. We may not always immediately see what another editor sees and a couple of the other editors in their edit summaries said "Reverted good faith edits by Canoe1967" (although this appears to be part of a templated response by Twinkle). Point being if they are willing to claim the edits were in good faith, why were they going against BLP guidelines and reverting without a consensus having been established? -- Avanu (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There were two editors with COIs. Every established editor on BLPN, the editor's talk page, and the article's talk page soundly rejected there was a BLP issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't a legal threat. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of folks are under the delusion that we are MySpace, and that bands and musicians too lazy to set up MySpace or Facebook pages should be able to control their images as presented in Wikipedia, since we are allegedly their only source of publicity and information about their recording history. Canoe1967 says this is mean and thoughtless and they should sue us, and that he/she would help. I have to concur with Rjd0060: this is borderline, but falls on the non-actionable (if slightly pathetic) side of the NLT policy.--Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have placed a note on the talk page of the article instructing the subject or his record label on how to resolve this issue. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fairlyoddparents1234 vs User:DreamMcQueen

These two have been edit warring and communicating with each other in uncivil ways:

User:Fairlyoddparents1234

1. Uses all caps frequently
2. Is aggressive and demanding of other users
3. Makes personal attacks against DreamMcQueen
4. Participates in an edit war, suggests consensus, then continues edit warring
5. Threatens to report DreamMcQueen to an admin, but never does

User:DreamMcQueen

1. Constantly reverts Fairlyoddparents1234's edits without an edit summary or explanation on the user's talk page
2. Edit wars instead of seeking consensus
3. Makes personal attacks against Fairlyoddparents1234
4. Threatens to report Fairlyoddparents1234 to an admin, but never does

You can find this dispute at these pages:

• User talk:Fairlyoddparents1234
• User talk:DreamMcQueen

Thanks,

Gold Standard 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have decided not to participate in any editing of articles that User:DreamMcQueen unless necessary and I am considering a one-month editing abstinence. I do acknowledge I have conducted such uncivil offences above, however, it was his rather unusual edits that have caused me to get to this stage. Also note that I have been waiting for a serious conflict, since my WP:DRN post was closed due to inactivity (see this post. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is already solved. An admin already left a message on User:DreamMcQueen regarding this issue between these two usershere. Fairly OddParents Freak has also decided to retire from being involved with anymore articles with DreamMcQueen. I think cooling down after this heated discussion is the best thing to do so that both users can move on.119.224.27.62 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to do my best to avoid him. However, I think we need to get User:Rotorcowboy into this discussion and see if User:DreamMcQueen may need to be looked over. I also think that we need a representative from the television station WikiProject to consider whether or not the reorganization and DMA stripping from List of CBS television affiliates (table) is welcome. His behaviour has made me very suspicious. And I doubt he would EVER get into this conversation... Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave Days YouTube entertainer article

The startpoint, for me, was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Days

I have been working as a new reviewer for a little while now. After working to get some substantiation for this article, and more NPOV language, I was prepared to accept it and create the page, with appropriate warnings and inducements. However, I got an error saying that the destination page name had been blocked from creation. Looking back through other reviewer comments, I saw that one had mentioned that the article appeared to be in violation of CSD:G4, which indicated that the same topic had previously been found worthy of deletion. (I only found this out when I looked up what that meant.)

Looking at the AfD history - which, again, I've just discovered exists :-) - there was a nomination AfD in 2008 and again in 2009, of which the latter was clearly successful. From what I can make out, Days seems definitely now to be more notable than he was then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David FLXD (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The contributor, who may or may not have been responsible previously, had found some good sources to substantiate reliably, notably and verifiably, in Forbes magazine. On the basis that we could regard YouTube statistics (not viewer-submitted material) as an indicator of notability, I felt that this was an adequate basis for accepting the article, at leeast as a starting point. I don't personally have any taste for YouTube entertainers, or YouTube itself, but then Wikipedia is not about my personal preferences, is it?

However, I have no personal stake in this, nor do I have the experience to know what I might have run into! I am quite open to comment, guidance, and even criticism and correction!

Could someone please look into this, and advise me how to handle this sort of situation in general in future, and what I can tell the contributor in this particular case? David_FLXD (Talk) 19:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For the future, you can first try to talk to one or more of the involved admins from the past. The one who closed the AFD itself, the one who processed the G4, the one who locked down the page name, etc. Ask one or more of them to review the new page and see if they still think that it is a G4 violation. If you get no response, or are declined but still disagree, then you can take it to Deletion Review for a wider review of the salting. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I an the reviewer who made the G4 piont. The article has constantly been deleted, so the page is protected. I may do an unprotection request sometime... Mdann52 (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mdann52 - if you hadn't left that comment on the AfC page I wouldn't have had a clue where to go! I have contacted admins Nancy and MBisanz re this, as they appeared to have closed out on the article in 2009 and 2008 respectively. I will go by their guidance when they come back to me, so I think we can leave this one here. Thanks also to TexasAndroid, for future guidance, I will know what to do first next time! David_FLXD (Talk) 11:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Fyunck(click)

Here we go again; another editor who insists on re-adding a diacriticless "alternative" spelling time after time. One would have thought that he would have learned from GoodDay's example. Like GoodDay, he plays the "censorship" card.

• user: Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• article: Sophie Lefèvre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A warning from this body is motivated. And maybe another editor could remove Fyunck's latest re-addition? I'm already on 3RR (although what I've reverted has not been identical from time to time.)

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang on - the tennis player in question IS also known by the accentless form of her name, as can be very quickly seen by following the WTA and ITF external links (and the French language link from the French Open). It seems sensible to at least mention this spelling of her name so that readers will know that they have come to the correct article (and not to an article about someone with a similar name). Such edits should not be automatically reverted, with admin action being sought to enforce one side of a conflict but discussed rationally. Both of you should stop the edit-warring.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If my removals of Fyunck's various additions are considered edit warring, then I have indeed already stopped – as I indicated above. Over time, at least three other editors have removed his additions, so there is apparently a consensus against including it. To keep re-adding against consensus is disruptive.

These sources you mention, do they actually state that she is "known as Sophie Lefevre", i.e. in addition to being known as Sophie Lefèvre, the correct spelling of her name? Or are you just referring to common misspellings and/or deliberate omissions of diacritics?

I think most people, or even all, who look for "Sophie Lefevre" here and find "Sophie Lefèvre" will realize that it's the same person. The chance of there being another French female tennis player of similar age and merits – and virtually the same name – would defy any probablity. Don't you agree?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But no source states the exact words "known as Sophie Lefèvre" either, yet that's where her article now sits. The fact is that the UK, US, AU and Canadian press heavily use "Sophie Lefevre" as do most Tennis organizations and tournaments. Why would we even want to consider giving our readers less info on these common alternate spellings when for 90% of them "Sophie Lefevre" is the only version they will ever have officially seen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• As I explained on my talk page. Did I !vote to keep her name at Sophie Lefevre? Sure I did as I felt it was easily the most common English source amongst the press, the Women's Tennis Association, the International Tennis Association, Tennis Channel, the French Open's own French language page, etc...

• There were three very recent rfm's in which request one said to keep at Sophie Lefevre, request two was kept at Sophie Lefevre and request three (which was buried in a mass move) said to move to Sophie Lefèvre. So it's not like we have no one agreeing it should be at Sophie Lefevre to begin with. But hey, it lost the last round and that's cool. But I had made sure originally that the French spelling was listed as I felt it was a service to our readers to know another major language's spelling of her name. I've often done this. But If it so happens that a tennis page gets moved to the foreign spelling, then I also make sure that the extremely common English spelling is not censored out completely. Some players like Novak Djokovic are done the other way around and when they register with the ITF or Davis Cup they change a few letters to accommodate the English language. Most of our readers don't know a diacritic from a hole in the wall and the only spelling they will ever see by official tennis representatives will be the common anglicized version. What, are we to close our eyes and pretend that English versions don't exist at all? That would be a disservice to our readers.

• Also, as others have pointed out to me in the past, wikipedia Policy states: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings.... There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text..." This was why I started making sure that the foreign spelling was also present in the lead when I created new player articles.

• Maybe tennis is a lot different than a musician or a painter in that it has all its major governing bodies using the English version of a player's name, but that's not my fault. I'm only trying to give the facts and HandsomeFella and a couple others are trying to deny that. It's one thing to prefer diacritics in a title but to remove an officially recognized English spelling which the individual players register with, and which is by far more common, is simply wrong. I have tried (English: Jane Doe), known professionally as Jane Doe, also known as Jane Doe, alternate spelling Jane Doe. I have asked advice from administrators and other long tome editors and I have tried to work around the exact wording so as to accommodate the most editors. But a handful seem bent on total removal of any compromise. It's not like I haven't tried. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• The question at hand is that several editors have reverted you, which is why you can't claim that there is a consensus for including the phrase. If you think you can find another consensus, take it to the talk page, don't just keep re-adding the stuff. That's disruptive. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are editors who have put it back on pages also, and it's not just one page. The editors who want it removed want all English names removed from all foreign tennis articles... it's not a simple content dispute. If more editors than not wanted to remove "the sun is a star" from an article on the sun it would still be censoring vital content and wrong. This was there for over two months before YOU reverted it. By the summary I assumed you simply removed the "dubious" tag as others have done to tennis articles, but on closer inspection you removed everything. So I put it back. By wiki Policy it's pretty much required to be there but I'm willing to work on the exact wording. I'm not willing to censor it out as if it doesn't exist. That's not what wiki stands for. Heck even the big guys add alternate spellings: Nastase at Encyclopedia Britannica, so this is not out in left field. We can use the entry in Britannica as our standard too and say "also spelled Sophie Lefevre... as I said I'm pretty flexible on wording. But complete removal, no. It's only disruptive because of your multiple reverts and warning me of ani. I feel I'm on pretty solid ground and that you are being unreasonable in your analysis of how tennis names are applied in the English speaking world. And your "here we go again" and "censorship card" to start this ani shows much more of an attack style from you than it does from me. Sophie Lefevre is the registered name she plays under and the name the ITF and WTA recognize. Call it a pseudonym if you wish. It need not be the first name in the lead sentence, that's up to consensus, but per wiki it needs to be in that lead sentence or near to that lead sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• And now I see that someone else has changed it back to my wording and yet again you do another revert. And you are asking that I'm the one that should be warned? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This really needs some sort of RFC to allow an equitable solution to be discussed and agreed, rather than adherents on both side of the argument fighting it out and leaving ANI or ARBCOM to clear up the mess, which may have unfortunate effects for all. ANI is not really the venue for sorting out content disputes.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat? and some serious way beyond 3RR edit warring

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

---

Would this "cease and desist" [101] be considered a legal threat? The IP in question 24.99.68.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is engaged in an edit war far exceeding 3RR just today as well as a slowmo edit war over the last several days against multiple editors at the Melungeon article. The matter has been taken to WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using non-peered reviewed sources for genetics), where their sources have been decided to be unreliable, they have some serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems, several editors have asking them to stop referring to everyone elses edits as vandalism, and they have so far not discussed at the articles talkpage. And now accusations of racism and a possible legal threat. Would an uninvolved admin look into this please? Heiro 20:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this [102], they seem to be making the same legal threat to multiple editors, all who oppose their version of the article mentioned above. Heiro 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Another editor, an admin though involved at the article, has taken them to 3rr board here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:24.99.68.123 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ) but as yet no action has been taken and they have racked up several reverts since then. Heiro 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, my mind throught about an editor who was saying 'racism' a lot recently. Editor: Leaf Green Warrior.

I'm not saying its the same person, but the attitude seems similar. -- Avanu (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think they are connected. Heiro 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't block for too long as it's likely dynamic, but a brief respite for combination of 3RR and NLT has been provided. Plus, semi'd the page in case they come back in another skin (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think its is pretty questionable under NLT, but clearly a good block for the 3rr/edit warring. Monty₈₄₅ 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe they will take the time to read up on some of the policies that have been pointed out to them over the last few days. Incurable optimist, I know :-p Heiro 20:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Cracker92

Cracker92 (talk · contribs) A "brand-new" editor immediately goes to arbcom page to attack another user? Obvious sock. Please send them to the Phantom Zone ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor admits to using multiple accounts with this odd explanation: "Not I'm not new, I just edit in burts. I try to avoid using the same account inbetween as it's the only way to avoid wiki-addiction in my experience."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose an indef. block and a checkuser to look into this. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd that an account with less than 40 edits would claim to have "many thousands of edits behind me". The account is overall a constructive account and is not obviously being used as a sockpuppet (in the sense of having multiple accounts to cause disruption on multiple fronts); rather, this might be a case of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not clear what the editor is doing on any other accounts. I think the editor has to comply with WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, which I've asked them to do on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:SOCK#LEGIT allow for acting on grudges from previous accounts? That would kinda make it hard to hold a user accountable. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why I think they have to disclose the other accounts, indeed cross-link them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone. If someone wants to block me for saying this as an "attack", then you'll simply be confirming what I said about the double-standard. I'm not a "brand-new" anything, I never said I was. I'm a wikiholic, and the best way I've found to deal with that is edit in burts and then dump the account so I don't have a watchlist to obsess over. I only ever use one account, and if I do come back, it's to work on something else. They're not alternate accounts, and it's not being done to evade anyone or anything. Casting a critical eye over the Malleus situation without being a certified King Tutnum is not a crime....yet...so get back under your bridge, Bugs. Cracker92 (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your last sentence puts your first sentence to the lie. Be that as it may, I'm still trying to figure out what "edit in burts" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bursts? Spurts? Whatever - if an apparently-new account turns up making comments about 'double standards', it seems reasonable to ask why - and if you've been editing under another name, why not tell us who? Or failing that, accept that we attach little credibility to unverifiable claims of being a long-time contributor. You can't have it both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if he was editing from a rented room at Burt Reynolds' place. Regardless, the editor could demonstrate some good faith by telling his audience one or more of his previous user ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, don't rush to Arbcom in your very first edits, without saying who you are, to advocate for sanctions against an editor[103] who some consider the victim of grudges and vendettas. That opinion is going to be discounted, and does nobody any good. I think it fits the definition of a good hand / bad hand account. The bad hand account doesn't necessarily have to be doing anything wrong, just contentious / to avoid scrutiny. If you have any basis for your opinion of Malleus you really ought to disclose that. If your only reason for account hopping is to avoid wiki-addiction, that would be no imposition on you (and further, there are probably some more straightforward ways to limit your time onsite). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's discounted then it's discounted, I don't much care. The basis is obviously my general experience with Wikipedia as an on/off editor. I will not abide by this false notion that phony inquisitions must be satisfied before anyone can comment on Malleus. All Bugs is doing here is fishing, or FUDing, take your pick, as a way to shut me up simply because I've said it how I see it. I've never seen somoene so desperate to have a post removed or an editor blocked, and yet not be able to provide a single policy based reason for doing so. If anyone's operating a good hand account here, it's the one Bugs started prior to 2007, on which he presumably does all his content work on, insulated from the reputation he gets from pulling this sort of stunt. Cracker92 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My previous account ID is visible, if you bother looking for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I spent 5 minutes trying to do just that, including looking under 'Biography' and other presumably relevant sections. I wasn't about to waste any more time looking for it than that I'm afraid. If it is there, you clearly don't want it to be known without some effort. Cracker92 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Took me less than a minute, with no admin tools. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is it then? Cracker92 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, Sherlock :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Purely by editing here, Cracker92 has twice violated WP:ILLEGIT: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry." Nyttend (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is none of the above. I think you meant "by editing at Arbcom." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Me having undisclosed retired accounts <> operating concurrent undisclosed alternates. Ergo WP:ILLEGIT does not apply. If people want to silence me, they'll have to find anothe reason, not understanding the WP:SOCK policy is not good enough. Cracker92 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you could put this to rest by emailing an Arb to disclose your previous account privately per WP:FRESHSTART, and ask them to weigh in here afterwards. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:23, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could, although I repeat, this is not a fresh start' in the sense of me escaping any past conflict or other issues. I will consider it if an actual arbitrator requests me to. Cracker92 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone needs to close the sock drawer here, as the person editing via this account intends to keep disrupting the Malleus Arb request. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone needs to educate you on the WP:SOCK policy, which you clearly don't understand, but seem to want to enforce as if you do. To use the rather odd terminology you applied while trying to erase my comments, this account is my *real* account. It is the only account I am using currently, ergo to use another account, I would infact have to break the WP:SOCK policy and re-activate a retired account, while this one was still active, to meet your bizarre criteria. And bixarre they are, because there is no policy that supports your rather confused statement that "Post with your real account or not at all. Arbcom-related pages are for real accounts, not socks and trolls". Assuming your objection is sock-puppetry, and the trolling comment was intended as, well, trollery, then please familiarise yourself with the difference between active alternate accounts (which are barred from talk pages) and retired previous accounts. This is the latter, not the former. There is no policy that requires me to accede to anyone's request to know what my retired accounts are, before I can comment on something like an Arbitratoin clarification. Cracker92 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am quite familiar with any and all terms used, sport, have no worries there. The problem we have here is that your actions have the look and smell of bad faith by being evasive about your past accounts. Blocked or banned in the past, perhaps? Pulled a Fae-ish "retired under a cloud" move? Had a beef with Malleus that would make posting via your real account be dismissed out of hand? There's simply something not right here, and your contributions to the Arb discussion as they stand now, by a red-linked "new" user who has edited under other name,s is a net negative to the proceedings. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well if you ever get to be an admin, then you'll get to censor other people on mere hunches, because you'll be accountable for such actions. Until then, you'll just have to slum it with the rest of us and try to make sure that if you want to remove someone els'es comments, that it's actually justifiable in policy. Got that, 'sport'? Cracker92 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's a very simplistic strawman there. I have no desire to become an admin, though at times I find the thought of allowing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tarc to run for a bit just to let everyone get in their two-minute hate to be intriguing. Yes, it was technically not allowed for me to remove your disruption; unfortunate, but it just means that someone else will have to deal with it. We're still left with the problem of your hiding of an old and at this point almost-certain problematic past user account. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a problem for the people who operate by policy, not hunches. You'd probably request it's deletion within an hour if that red link ever turned blue, it'd be one almighty epic fail. Trolls don't make good admins. Cracker92 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The excuse given amounts to "I was too lazy to edit my watchlist". LeadSongDog come howl! 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Cracker92 account is neither a sock -- no evidence of deception nor an alternate account eligible to edit an ArbCom proceeding. At this point all that is required is for another editor to remove the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Cracker92; Cracker92 is 2r and I've just left the 3rr warning. Nobody Ent 14:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your 'eligble' statement is false. This is not an alternate account, therefore WP:ILLEGIT does not apply. Pending you actually laying a specific charge, such as being a returning banned user, or resuming a grduge, then it's a basic fact that I am not required to disclose anything before commenting at that page. As such, anyone who follows your request should first familiarise themselves with the policy, otherwise I will consider their actions and yours to be a joint enterprise, and hold you equally accountable. Cracker92 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but on the top of the page it says: "Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are one. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section." - and just for information, where is said that a new account can not add a statement to that page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My attempted revert was mistaken then, didn't see that msg til now. I still think a clerk should take initiative and lop this person out of the discussion though, and in answer to your last question, IMO it is a bad idea when the editor in question is plainly an old user under a new name. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand properly, Cracker92's main defense is that his different accounts are not "alternative accounts" and, therefore, he is not subject to any of the mandates of the policy. His reasoning is that he doesn't use the different accounts at the same time. I don't see that as an exemption to the policy. I don't see any defense for his actions. Now, it may be that he is not using the accounts in illegitimate ways. However, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have to disclose what the accounts are so that may be evaluated. I don't know if there's a practical, technical way, with just the Cracker92 account, to investigate the other accounts. If there is, it should be done. If not, his account should be indefinitely blocked unless he agrees to comply with policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Usually this sort of issue attracts the attention of a checkuser who wanders by and looks at his historic account/s and if they are violating anything blocks them - so no action in such cases is a sign that there is no violation - although as we have seen interpretations of clean start and sock legit are open to differing interpretations - Youreallycan 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And so is the 3RR warning then. If it is an editor who is banned, sure - but unless someone can prove something like that, I think WP:AGF is the way to go, and assume that this is just an older editor who is using a new account. Again my question, are new accounts disallowed to make a statement there? Or IPs?

(after ec): WP:CLEANSTART: "A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start fresh with a new account. The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment. The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start," will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." - any reason to think that the editor is editing in the same area, and is not avoiding an old dispute - of course, he will be very familiar with old situations, but I don't think we have a proof that this editor was banned before, or in dispute with MF .. mere suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRESHSTART allows an editor to create a new account and abandon the old, with no disclosure requirement or prohibition from commenting at arbitration proceedings. So there's no reason to prevent him from participating. New accounts that are claimed fresh starts aren't restricted for that reason alone, nor is there any policy-based reason to require disclosure. Even in the event that they have been involved in conflicts related to those they comment on now, that's no reason they can't do so. They're just cautioned that it could lead to others making a connection and then they'd be subject to a review of the totality of their behavior across all accounts. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:57, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I have hatted off the discussion at the arbitration clarification as an unnecessary distraction. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion thread that followed his statement was indeed a needless distraction, but is there a reason initial statement needed to be included in the collapse? Equazcion ^(talk) 15:05, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That is, you hatted off the whole thread by this user - any reason why his initial statement is not valid in this, or was it at the request of the Arbitrators? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The hatting of the users comment imo indicates there is a problem/previous history with the Cracker accounts previous editing in relation to the report at arbitration. Youreallycan 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor decision. If, in your judgement as an ArbCom clerk, you consider the statement to be appropriate, an affirmative statement on the talk page would settle the discussion. On the other hand, if it is inappropriate, you should simply remove it. Hats are simply pointers to drama. And they break the TOC. Nobody Ent 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The clerk must explain his decision. There are a great many "unnecessary distractions" over there, they cannot be hatted for no good reason. There is nothing in this discussion yet to justify it. Leaky Caldron 15:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Hm, either there is a violation or the user Cracker has a wiki right to have his comment replaced and only the discussion of it should be collapsed - Youreallycan 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

On this, we are in agreement. I'd appreciate it if the limbo that this hatting creates is clarified. Cracker92 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Message left on Alex's talk page. Leaky Caldron 15:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alex has moved the hat to only include the thread that came after the initial statement. Thanks Alex! Equazcion ^(talk) 15:27, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, as all this sock's comment amount to is "Malleus sucks, his enablers suck, and everyone is quitting because of the suckiness. Arb pages shouldn't be a platform for QQ from past, non-identifiable users. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(After many edit conflicts). Whilst it was my initial opinion that the statement provoked an unnecessary distraction and that the entirety should be collapsed, I have changed the hatting to allow the statement to stand, and to close off the distraction that ensued. That said, if there is further distruption at the clarification, I will take appropriate action as a clerk. I will try and monitor the outcome of this discussion, but I'd appreciate it if someone could let me know if there are any developments. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This thread is clearly going to go nowhere now that the idea has bedded in that you can't just do what you want to other editors based on a hunch and a misunderstanding of policy. As for Tarc's continued moaning, all I can say is that this ANI thread only adds to the weight of my statement. I would dearly love the freedom to be able to respond to him and Bugs in the way Malleus no doubt would have were he to have been in my place, and to greet the misguided edit warring and policy statements as he would undoubtedly have, rather than the way WP:CIV demands. If Wikipedia stays like this, then yes, all the people smarter than me will continue to leave, in their droves. It's a horrid place to be, even when you've done nothing wrong, as this thread shows. Cracker92 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be wrong to remove Cracker's comment on the suspicion that he's a sock. BTW, so many "rules" are being broken at Arbcom. Theaded discussions are not allowed. Statements by non-parties of more than 500 words are not allowed without advance permission (did Volunteer Marek obtain permission for that incredibly long albeit entertaining piece?).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that 500-word rule. I'm not sure if my statement exceeds it, but if someone an arb or clerk asks me to, I'll cut it down. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:48, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was for evidence, if the case was accepted, not statements. It says it must be 500 words on evidence pages, but nowhere on the page for statements. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought evidence included the statements. Is that my mistake (ignorance)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought statements were where you shared your ultimately wise opinion and urged the Arbs to listen to you and only you, and evidence is where you share your ultimately wise opinion and urge the Arbs to listen to you and only you, only you're meant to back up evidence with diffs and, unlike statements, you're not meant to go off on a rambling diatribe about Everything That's Wrong With Wikipedia. Or something. You know what? Fuck knows. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated article creation?

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

---

I came to present a problem that worries me every so often that I encounter it. A few times before, I have witnessed ANI discussions pertaining to articles being mass created, with some users using templates to create articles. Users have been banned on such charges, so the concept is not taken lightly, especially with trolls potentially using these templates. Recently I have seen that a similar issue has arisen. I am a member of WikiProject Arizona, and I noticed that EmausBot was mass-linking articles from the Croatian Wikipedia. Upon further review, I saw that a bot was "importing" these articles to the Croatian Wikipedia, proof of which is here, here and here. The reason I am making this thread is simply to bring to light a troubling and frustrating issue, which causes much turbulence here on Wikipedia, perhaps to add a clause to the policies against article mass-creation. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm closing this right now, with the suggestion that you first have a conversation at User talk:Emaus. It's not directly an ANI matter (on the English wiki) in the first place, but really, don't bring anything to light until discussion has taken place elsewhere. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

OTRS Question

I have an OTRS question, but it seems that none of the OTRS members have edited in awhile, where do I go for help? Unrelated to the OTRS question, the ANI page is INSANELY slow when one is typing. Might be time to archive somethings. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You might ask your question at WP:OTRS/N. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

none of the OTRS members have edited in awhile; we edit all the time :) what's the issue? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)