Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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)

• Oppose topic ban and the suggested standard for tendentious editing on which it is based. An editor is not required to go out and find every source about a topic. An editor who has a reliable source in hand, and wants to add a description of its claims to the encyclopedia, should always be welcome to do so. If you believe that the source is wrong, or contradicted by others, then go out and find sources with the opposite opinion and put them in the article. Not merely is that faster than litigating cases at AN/I and ArbCom - it is better because your audiences are not coming in with virgin minds you must avoid polluting - they're coming in with preconceived notions based on the source with the "wrong" view that they've read decades ago. You need to state and refute fallacies, not hold Inquisitions into the heresy of Wikipedia editors. It's better to have an article that describes one point of view than one which describes none at all. Now I haven't understood every allegation above, and there are some things that you could show that would change my mind - for example, if AO had deliberately misrepresented sources, or deleted sourced, relevant material describing the opposite point of view. But I do not accept that a series of good edits can add up to a bad editor. Just because statistically an editor's positive contributions tend to favor one side over another over time means nothing. If we are to look at such things, we'd be better off going after the editors who repeatedly delete things and falsely allege violations of policy whenever an article describes views that contradict their own. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure: I wrote the section regarding correlation of liberalism with higher IQ, having very strong and repeated statements of opposition to any mention of this material on Wikipedia as "too contentious" regardless of its sourcing. This definitely tinges my opinion of this proceeding. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It is of course impossible to positively prove that misrepresentation is deliberate. What I can show and what has been shown previously is that misrepresentations are consistent and always in the same direction as his stated opinions on the matter - this is a pattern repeated over years of editing. You might be right that correcting his bias would be faster than litigating, but we are talking about years of having done just that, and being met with repetitive circular argumentation, making in effect any attempt at neutralizing Academica's writing as time consuming as litigation - he does not just write biased articles, he defends the bias with repetition ad nauseam, and refuses to acknowledge a responsibility for selecting and representing sources, and refuses to collaborate in writing neutrally always pushing the burden of removing bias unto the other editors. At least Noleander, acknowledged that he had a responsibility for making his articles less biased when he was faced with accusations of writing consistently non-neutrally. I also take exception to the idea that editors are not responsible for finding sources that are generally representative of the topic rather than presenting only one side - this is of course directly contrary to WP:NPOV.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true that I made these same points when commenting on the Noleander case, but in that case the deliberate misrepresentation of sources became an issue. Misrepresentation of sources by someone for POV reasons is fully sufficient reason for action, because there's no good way to correct the damage this does. But when I see two people adding sources to an article, one adding sources for one side and one adding sources for the other, what I see is a team, working together to improve Wikipedia. It's no more improper for editors to specialize in documenting certain points of view than to specialize in documenting certain types of sources or categories of information. The fact is, many many times an editor (myself included) simply sees a source, says, "hey, that's cool, let's mention it in the article so other people can read about it", and doesn't investigate any further. That's OK, even though it will reflect the editor's POV ("that's cool") every time. There is no duty for a single editor to produce a comprehensive article. That duty lies only on the editors collectively when they seek to promote the article to a higher rank of quality. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 7 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

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 [46][47] was repeatedly reverted [48][49][50] by SamBlob (talk · contribs), Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), he began a series of tendentious and pointy edits [51] 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."
• [52] 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.

• [53] "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".

• [54] 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.[55][56]. 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.

• [57] "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 [58] 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. [59]. 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. [60] He has even attempted to have the page reverted to it original state 6 months ago, erasing all my work. [61]

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 [62]
• The KR1 engine has its twin cylinders mounted side by side [63]

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 [64].

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)

"I see he's moved more articles"

Can you please point to the diff(s) for that. I'm having trouble finding it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown specifically referred, elsewhere, to these moves of the Toyota and Hyundai U engine pages: [65][66][67][68]. It's not in the history, but this a revert of this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 7 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 [69] : 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 [70] (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 [71] (January 2012) ;
• Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement : adding a section [72] 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 [73] (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)

Well Did you read what I wrote above? What is your response? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read much of the preceding, but at the very least the OP is the pot calling the kettle black; please tread carefully, this is a very old dispute. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

harrass on edit summary

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

---

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)

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

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

---

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)

 Done Blocked 1 week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Cracker92

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

---

free popcorn
Br'er

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[74] 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)

OK, so I searched his user page for "Wahkeenah", and found nothing. I uncollapsed the 20 or so boxes and repeated, and it appears in two barnstars awarded to that name. I checked the source code and it appears just two more times, in two diff links to that account's block log. With a good wikilawyer he might be able to get away with saying "My previous account ID is visible" based on the barnstars, and said lawyer might also be able to argue the block log links represent a link to a previous account. But full and open disclosure? Deducable within a minute? No way. He's game playing. Cracker92 (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the ficus tree black, sheesh! 2007 just called and wants its drama-fest back. Meanwhile, we're well into 2012, and everybody knows who Baseball Bugs is and where he's coming from, Wikipedia-wise. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't get away with that I'm afraid. I don't give a shit who Bugs used to be, but I do give a shit about him giving me grief for not disclosing past accounts, when it appears his own past is not as disclosed as he claims it is. The fact that the actual reason why he dumped that past account might be all 2007 budge nudge wink wink is neither here nor there, albeit a very ironic point to make in this context. Cracker92 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your account looks dubious, and conducting opposition research on someone who points that out doesn't help your case. If you didn't have anything to hide it would have been better just to answer the question. Anyway, if you do intend to stick around a while, why not develop some history of productive editing and collaborative work on your new account so we'll at least have some feel for who we're dealing with, not a voice out of the dark calling for another editor to be separated from the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Opposition research is necessary in this toxic environment. If I didn't do any research, I might have made the mistake of assuming you made this comment having already improved several articles today, or had various helpful and collaborative interactions with others, instead of realising that the first thing you decided to do today was jump in here and make the same bogus observations and suggestions that others already had, but that clearly nobody in any position of authority is interested in acting on, if my status as an unblocked and unmoderated editor is anything to go by (it seems there's fat chance of anyone actually putting a stop to this witch hunt in an active manner though, sadly). If I stick around, it will be inspite of having to deal with things like this, and I've already wasted a whole day in this thread that I had originally intended to spend on an article. If it wasn't already obvious, if you want to know who you're dealing with, its an experienced editor who would like the freedom Malleus has to reply to posts like this of yours in the way they would want to, rather than the way they are hidebound to by WP:CIV. Cracker92 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So now you're inventing talking points to attack me? Gimme a break. You're basically writing an essay here on how to be tendentious. If you want to be helpful instead of just prickly, the articles are that-a-way - Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User contributions, earliest, makes it pretty clear. In any event, if you don't like playing games with Baseball Bugs, step out of the batter's box. Nobody Ent 17:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Game? He's seeking to have me blocked and you call that playing a game? Better yet, one that I should either like playing or leave? <insert the gratuitous insult you think Malleus would greet this comment with here> Cracker92 (talk) 18:05, 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)

LOL. I've asked a clerk for clarification. I reread the guide and although I'm leaning toward your interpretation, it's still a bit unclear to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, does it? The opinions advanced by Cracker92 (Malleus blames others for his actions, he gets special treatment, he drives experienced editors away, please do something about this) are widespread, and the arbs will presumably give them whatever weight they will, whether or not Cracker is allowed to say them. Cracker's saying them doesn't really add any weight. Anyone who wants to take a look at the collapsed discussion (an arb reviewing the matter will probably at least scan it) can note that the account is new and suspicious. So there's really nothing to be gained by fussing over this right now. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• @Cracker92, pursuant to your comment above about your inability to respond as you believe Malleus has the freedom to, I invite you to my talk page where you may leave whatever comment you like, and I grant complete freedom from WP:CIV while there...provided you do so with your previous account. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  Get over it already Tarc, I'm not obliged to tell you my past account/s, you completely misread the policy in that regard and will just have to take your medicine accordingly (as it's not like anyone here is really that bothered about you running around trollishly reverting people without cause). Asking me again is pointless, it's only wasting time you've presumably allocated to doing this same thing to someone/somewhere else, making Wikipedia suck for more people than just me today. I did have a chuckle at the idea that you have the power to suspend WP:CIV on your talk page though, but then I realised that you probably were actually being serious. As depressing as that is, it would at least explain how you can confuse folowing your own hunches/opinions as if they were policy, with the actual policies that everyone must follow. Cracker92 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If WP:Cleanstart is the standard here, Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics says "It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account" and "You may be viewed as evading scrutiny, which carries a risk of long-term blocks and bans." I can only believe that entering an arbitration discussion to criticize another editor falls under this, especially when your current account has no reason to go into it. Acting openly on your previous account(s) also blurs the line between your current account being a clean start account or an alternate account. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Or to be short, you can't take the "clean" out of "clean start" - Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your belief is wrong then, as I haven't resumed anything with that post. Cracker92 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no "power" involved, I think it would be a simple matter to say "this person can say whatever he likes to me on my talk page", and admins would honor that. The rest of your rant about hunches and whatnot is pretty much nonsensical. The matter here is clear; you edited an Arb page in bad faith, the bad faith being hiding your previous identity to avoid detection. We see it here all the time. If you decline, fine, I guess we're done here. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bye then. I don't like to expend too much time talking to trolls, they see everything as nonsensical when it suits them, and they never appreciate the irony of lecturing people about bad faith, when they embody the very concept with their every word and deed, like your revert, your edit summaries, and your charming/less talk page edit notice. But good luck with the whole 'I can suspend WP:CIV at locations of my choosing' idea, I think it has legs. Not really sure who 'we' is supposed to be, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'I' all the way in your case, otherwise I'd have been blocked and reverted already, under your totally correct and not at all bogus rationale that "Arbcom-related pages are for real accounts, not socks and trolls". So see ya round, sport.Cracker92 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Suspicious barnstars

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

---

Hello.

When I ran into User talk:Abitoby, I noticed a couple of barnstars left by Nentu (talk · contribs), who only has a few contributions, most in the user talk space. It sure makes suspicion of a conflict of interest of some sort. If it is not the user, then it could still be a friend or family member. What's even more suspicious is that the editor does not appear to have good reception (not intending to make a personal attack) among other editors, and has been involved in disputes, which drives me to ask a question. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Supreme Court found the Stolen Barnstars Act unconstitutional.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I did some looking and found this edit by Abitoby shortly followed by this edit by nentu. If it is the same user, I feel that we might just need to inform Abitoby that he/she cannot operate two accounts. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is having a barnstar-only account a violation of policy? Would you deprive User:Materialscientist of barnstars? :-) Heh, I suppose you could follow up on it. First barnstars then heroin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia policies, unlike the law, have no technicalities, and sensitive, tricky workings, or fine print, nor is it a bureaucracy. Wikipedia policies are based on consensus and reasoning, and are applied discretionally. The act of using fake barnstars would violate Wikipedia:Honesty. While it is not a policy itself, it is still an expectation. This type of behavior earns no respect and lends no credibility to editors who engage in it, and, furthermore, even with that aside, concerns about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry are still warranted. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC), last modified 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To the extent it looks like I'm making fun of this report, I apologize. I do see it as no big deal, but that isn't to say that your intentions aren't constructive. Ryan (and you) may be right about the multiple account issue, but that could be dealt with at WP:SPI if anyone so chose or, as Ryan mentioned, you could leave a message on Aritoby's talk page if you wished just to see what kind of response you get, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if there is a multiple account issue, I'd do everything possible to avoid an SPI. It certainly doesn't appear necessary for this. I'll leave a note at Aritoby's talk page mentioning the suspicion and advising them not to use the other account if it is the same operator. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen this before, and have even gotten barnstars from such users before. My best guess was always that they thought they were doing something nice, not understanding that a barnstar only has meaning if you know why you got it. I wouldn't be surpsised if the issue were WP:MEAT as opposed to socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• To clarify one point, if a user has an alternate account for the purpose of giving barnstars only, then this would probably NOT be a violation of WP:SOCK. Socking requires abuse or avoiding scrutiny. Using an "anonymous" account for random acts of kindness only (yes, one other edit but it was trivial) wouldn't even require linking to your main account. Not sure if that applies, but there are a host of legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts. Ask my friends Farmer Brown or Pharmboy. Linking back to the main account is strongly suggested but isn't actually required for legitimate purposes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible editor-impersonation/disruptive account

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

---

User:Androzaniamy-alt has been making disruptive edits like [75], [76], and [77]. I don't believe the account is actually related to User:Androzaniamy. I'll be notifying editors shortly. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the editor has been reported at WP:AIV. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. (Worm That Turned beat me to it by 30 seconds.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Glanced at my watchlist and felt the urge to turn on my computer. I don't believe it's the same person, it's totally against her character. I believe this can be shut. Worm^TT(talk) 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this was her either, but there is the issue of who it was. Who ever it was did a poor job impersonating her but there were a few aspects that would necessitate one be familiar with Androzaniamy's past editing style (the leave me alone stuff, etc, was quite a while ago). Unfortunately this may lead us to conclude that this was a regular editor acting disruptively. Can a CU look at this or would that be considered a fishing expedition? SÆdon^talk 20:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of looking for an editor with similar behaviors and haven't found one yet. It is hard since there were only 4 editors. Doesn't a check user need a specific other editor to compare this with? Are there any editors she has interacted with who have since been blocked? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No one I can think of. A CU can see both what user names were used by an IP and which IPs are used by a user name. So technically they can make the connection to whomever it is but it may be against policy to do so. May be a case of WP:IAR though I don't know if we can IAR in regards to CU. SÆdon^talk 20:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure checkuser is needed based on this limited incident, though if one of my colleagues ran one I wouldn't criticism him or her, either. If this sort of thing happens again someone will probably run a check at that point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The leave me alone incident may not have been that long ago. There was a thread her talk where Androzaniamy was presenting Civility issues when Worm was absent. I was asked from Worm to step down on her talk page. The thread was blanked not too long ago. Maybe they simply read the talk page or went through her contributions. I would definitely recommend a checkuser look into this. Perhaps one of Amy's relatives was playing a joke on her.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been a talk page watcher of Androzaniamy's since she appeared on ANI some time ago. Ever since Worm took over as her mentor there has been no problems, barring the issue with cyberpower. The one thing that makes it an obvious impostor is the swearing. For those o us who interacted with her previously, Amy is entirely against any form of swearing. There was quite a kerfuffle kicked up when she was linked to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I don't think any CU is necessary and only a simple indef block on the alt account for impersonation is required. Blackmane (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The swearing tipped me off as well and I believe you are correct that a CU isn't necessary. All problems seem to be resolved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:Tarc/Editnotice

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

---

Done: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Tarc/Editnotice. Cracker92 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

When recently a few threads up I was invited to leave a message at User:Tarc's page, I encountered this charming edit notice. Noticing the rank incivility of the image, and the clearly incorrect warning to IP editors, I attempted to remove the items, fully explaining my actions in the edit summaries [78][79]. The response from Tarc was to reinstate them with some hostility [80] (which was apparently going to be a lot worse in the first draft [81]). He seems to think he owns that page, and that his talk page is some kind of civility free zone, or at least hinted above that none of you admins would mind if he acted like it was, so I'd like to test that theory - who here thinks the image is appropriate, and who thinks the IP warning is appropriate, and what if anything are you minded to do about it if you think they're not? Cracker92 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the message kind of funny, who can seriously be offended by a cartoony middle finger? The rest of this is munging a bunch of dissimilar issues together. The "civility-free zone" comment stems from this user complaining that he is unable to get away wit saying things that he perceived Malleus getting away with all the time, so I invited him to post something on my talk page (provided it was posted via his real account and not this new one) and I pledged not to report it for CIV or NPA reasons. Like in the movies where the guy gives the other guy one freebie punch, y'know? That's all that was, then when I come back here a few hours later I find my humorous edit notice (though I am serious about IPs; 99.9% of the ones that take time to contact me are hiding identities and/or vandalizing) edited by this guy. That is rude, and I reacted accordingly.

All in all ,this is a frivolous filing, vindictive behavior on Cracker92's part for opposing his presence in the Mallus Arb discussion, and for asking a clerk (AlexanderDimitri) to look at a recent contrib of his there to see if it was appropriate )it wasn't, and was redacted from the Arb discussion). Over the past several hours this user has been nothing short of disruptive, and should probably at this point take care that a certain flying object doesn't come back at them. Tarc (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Interaction ban between Flyer22 and me

User:Demiurge1000 has suggested on User:Flyer22's talk page that there be an interaction ban between Flyer22 and me because he feels I am bothering her. Should there be one, and what should the scope of it be, should there be exceptions to it, and would I be topic banned from articles she edits? --RJR3333 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, somewhat rude refusal to type someone's username aside, you can't figure that out without running to ANI? Is an administrator needed for this? You can't sort out a problem on your own? OohBunnies! (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bunnies's comment makes a little less sense only because I cleaned up the original post and section header after she commented.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Hi, nice to see you.

I propose;

1. That RJR3333 be barred from opening any new discussion about, or related to, Flyer22, on any page on which Flyer22 has not already commented.
2. That Flyer22 be barred from opening any new discussion about, or related to, RJR3333, on any page on which RJR3333 has not already commented.

Slightly unfair to Flyer22, but I think this would be a step in the right direction and would avoid a lot of wasted typing.

I'm happy to add lots of context (diffs and such), if commenters feel that's needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(The username problem was basically my fault, since I used a similar formulation on a user talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) )

Aha, thanks Bbb23. :) Maybe we should get some diffs, and maybe some opinions from RJR3333? RJR3333, do you feel that an interaction ban is needed? OohBunnies! (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into what's going on here once my Yankees finish beating the shit out of Boston, but a preliminary look doesn't really cast you in a good light. I think an interaction ban would be a good start, but I'm not sure something else shouldn't be done as well. Incidentally, for future reference Flyer22 has identified as a she, so anyone happening across this would do well to watch their pronouns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. The last thing I wanted was to be dragged into yet another discussion with this disruptive user. I am tired of debating with him. As I just got through stating on my talk page, see here for what was stated at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to see what the deal is. I included diffs there. The To Catch a Predator talk page is full of diffs with User:RJR3333 acting inappropriately. His current contributions show him going from talk page to talk page to discuss me with other editors, usually with a twist on what I or others stated. He has been advised by others to stop posting about me on talk pages, but he continues to do so, spamming any and every talk he can about our disputes. This is sometimes partly in an attempt to get me to comment because I banned him from my talk page.

A little back story: RJR3333 first showed up to Wikipedia, I think, last year. He was a fairly new editor and, as such, made mistakes that new editors are prone to making. Eventually, I started correcting his mistakes, only dealing with the articles we both edit, and advising him on the appropriate ways to edit. After some time of having to continuously aid his editing, he became hostile, asserting that I was out to get him. At one point, this led to him stating how much he hates me on the "To Catch a Predator" article talk page before leaving Wikipedia for a few months. Since he's been back, he has reentered the same topic space that led to our unpleasant interactions last time -- that topic space has mostly concerned the To Catch a Predator article and Pedophilia article. I've mainly stopped editing the age of consent articles, which he also edits, but he has also edited inappropriately in those places.

Basically, RJR3333's editing and conduct on Wikipedia is generally problematic, even though he is well-meaning. He is often combative, deciding to repeatedly revert instead of taking matters to the talk page, and often adds POV-laced edits or WP:SYNTH. I believe that he has WP:COMPETENCE issues because he never seems to grasp Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. Very recently, he continuously violated WP:TALK by posting to my talk page. And again by repeatedly removing a comment of his (the one where he stated that he hates me) from the To Catch a Predator talk page. This is a violation because I've already replied to it and his removing it takes it out of context. When I legitimately archived the talk page as a way of removing the comment, so that he doesn't have to worry about the text being out in the open anymore, and so the original text is left intact, he unarchived and removed the comment again, stating that it was inappropriate that I archived the old and settled discussions.

Like I stated, the editor is repeatedly focusing on me, commenting about me across various talk pages and often twisting my words (and I believe that part of that "twisting" is due to him not being able to properly digest what I've stated). I don't know whether to report him, pursue a topic ban for him while reporting him, or ask for some type of interaction ban. It will prove difficult not to interact with him since we edit a few of the same articles and I am often having to correct him/asking him to defer to any one particular guideline or policy (which he ignores until I inform him that I will be reporting his misconduct).

The problem with reporting him is that it will result in an extensive debate with him, with him twisting my or others' words. And I've been through that so much these last few days that it's horror to think about it happening again, like it is now happening here. He's additionally started another discussion concerning me at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not interested in interacting with him, but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. The editor needs a mentor more than anything, but there has been no one to properly mentor him. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me. She has made claims against me that were false and she has talked incessantly about the possibility of getting me topic banned, although never proceeding to nominate me for a topic ban. This interaction ban eliminates the possibility of her doing it, and it makes it easier for me to edit the articles. Also Flyer22 has claimed that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 18, that is false and anyone who sees my earlier editing would notice that I was biased in the opposite direction, of it being 16 or lower, and at least two editors criticized me for constantly putting that position in the articles. Also I have even reworded some of the articles that expressed a pov against adults having sex with adolescents, for example in the pedophilia article I changed the wording that pedophilia could mean "any sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to "any sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to make the wording more npov. I believe that now I have been editing more neutrally but perhaps there is still bias in my edits. Some of the criticisms Flyer22 made of me also were not ones that were very valid. She says the vast majority of my editing is "sloppy" and "unsourced" although she admits I have rarely made good edits. However lately there has been no issue with unsourced editing. And I do believe that she had a focus on me and not on other users because, for example, in the age of consent and age of majority articles at least half of the statements in the first place were unsourced, but she only criticized me when I added unsourced content, but not other users who did. Also my editing has improved lately, and in some articles, particularly the marriageable age article, I have a lot of citations for previously unsourced statements, and removed uncited statements.--RJR3333 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22, and RJR3333, do you support or oppose, the proposal that I made above? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How about for six months, eh? What do you say to that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, read what I have stated on the matter. RJR3333's take on what has been happening is a spin game (for example, stating that I disliked him from the beginning, as if I dislike editors automatically for making mistakes, that I have talked "incessantly about the possibility of getting [him] topic banned," or that I never criticized any other users for making unsourced edits...especially as if I am supposed to remove already-existing unsourced material before reverting his), and I am not going to debate that spin game with him any longer. All of my criticisms of RJR3333's editing have been valid and have been echoed by others. Demiurge1000, I oppose the interaction ban you proposed because there is no way that I cannot open a discussion about, or related to, RJR3333...seeing as we edit a few of the same articles and it is always a matter of time before he makes an edit that needs reverting or violates a policy or guideline. The only thing I support is that he stop inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages and stays off my talk page. I am not posting about him everywhere, and have no problem staying away from his talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I could settle for a compromise where we are only allowed to criticize each other on talk pages and revert each others edits where an edit or incident has taken place which was so bad that it has to be commented, i.e., a case where no reasonable person could possibly disagree. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The only articles where my editing caused real problems were the Chris Hansen article and the To Catch a Predator article. But in my edits to the age of consent and age of majority articles the articles were actually improved in many ways. So I think I should just be banned from the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles. --RJR3333 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please see AN topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to see AN ... it's being discussed here, so I closed that one. Ridiculous for anyone to have split the discussion across multiple boards/threads (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• An interaction ban should only be necessary when two editors are incapable of playing nicely with each other. In this case, I don't see any disruptive behaviour whatsoever from User:Flyer22 (indeed, the major issue appears to be that RJR is disruptive across a number of articles), so I can't see that a two-way ban is fair or necessary. Any enforcement here should be focused on User:RJR3333. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22 has been uncivil to me. She made comments such as telling me to "go play". I also feel like she has been trying to WP:Own a lot of the articles. And she has constantly been attacking my editing and talking about getting me topic banned, without allowing me to even discuss the issue with her, I only started talking to other users about it because she banned me from communicating with her and I don't want to get a topic ban. She has also accused me of having biased views thinking that people have to be over 18 to have sex which I don't have, as my post to the Polanski talk page, and my previous editing from 2011, make obvious. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated at Dennis Brown's talk page: Throughout our interactions, I was only rude to you when you repeatedly refused to listen to guideline or policy-based rationales, especially as far as WP:CONSENSUS was/is concerned, and/or when you were rude to me first. And I have repeatedly reverted and/or corrected your editing when not doing so meant that it was a detriment to Wikipedia. As for only having started talking about me to other editors after I barred you from my talk page... You started that before I barred you from there. I am not trying to WP:OWN any article and I was not consistently talking about topic banning you. I mentioned it once, and then you took that and ran with it...all over Wikipedia. Like I stated at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page, "You acted like I had already proposed a topic ban or that my belief that you should be topic banned should be debated between us or taken to the Wikipedia community. If I had proposed one at the appropriate venue -- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- it would have been even more inappropriate for you to go around asking others about this. That type of WP:CANVASSING is a no-no, even with you not asking anyone to take your side. And as you were told at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, it is my right to believe what I want. I didn't have to debate this with you. And there was no issue of a topic ban because I had not proposed one. But, no, in the days before that, you just had to go berserk, pushing and pushing, and finally forcing my hand to discuss something that I quite obviously did not want to discuss at this time. If ever. And don't state that "I didn't have to comment." Yes, I did! Because it concerns me and our interactions." Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC) ‎

• While I view Flyer22 as more sinned against than sinning, I find the following, posted above, troubling: but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. Those words reflect a choice on Flyer22's part that keep her in the line of fire. She goes on to make additional statements to the effect that she feels she must edit RJR3333 when edits are needed. I don't agree that she must (emphasis added); that can be left to other editors, and reduce Flyer's problem considerably. If you keep putting your head in the lion's mouth, the lion will eventually bite it off. I think that's part of the point RJR3333 is attempting to make. Consequently, I believe any solution to this issue should include at least a voluntary cessation of editing RJR3333's work by Flyer22. Otherwise, we're creating a situation where she has what is effectively license to continue to poke at him with a stick, even if that isn't her intention, without his having any reasonable recourse. --Drmargi (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and others for weighing in, Drmargi. As has been made clear, RJR3333 and I only edit on a few of the same articles. And if his edits require reverting or need discussion, I shouldn't have to wait for another editor to revert him or bring the matter to the talk page, especially on such a contentious topic as pedophilia and topics related to it. For example, despite the fact that its log shows that it has 574 watchers, there are not a lot of people watching over the Pedophilia article these days or actively editing it. And even fewer people who understand the topic. Sometimes, I am the only person there to recognize what needs reverting or fixing because the other regular editor there who understands the topic as well as me -- Legitimus -- is absent at those times. He doesn't edit Wikipedia as much as I do. So leaving RJR3333's inaccurate/incorrect and/or badly-formatted edits to others does not "reduce [my] problem considerably." RJR3333 wants it so that his edits aren't likely to be reverted and/or corrected in these contentious areas, seeing as he knows that I am often the only one there to revert or correct him. To describe my reverting or correcting RJR3333's editing as "putting [my] head in the lion's mouth" or as "license to continue to poke at him with a stick" is inaccurate and is exactly RJR3333's skewed way of seeing things. That's not what's been going on. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Extended recommendations

• This is ridiculous, and RJR's message above shows it clearly. RJR does not appear to have the maturity to edit Wikipedia. They do not show the maturity of self-reflection to see where they may have created issues, but then want someone else to "fix" them. What I see is the "that's not fair" attitude of a 7 year old. Recommend the following:

• RJR3333 may not discuss Flyer22 on any talkpage or user talkpage anywhere on Wikipedia
• RJR3333 should be immediately subjected to a 6 months topic ban on To Catch A Predator, Chris Hansen, and any related articles broadly construed
• RJR3333 should be placed on a complete civility parole for 6 months
• RJR3333 should obtain a mentor, to assist in learning how to interact with others in a mature manner on this project
• RJR3333 may not edit any page that has previously been edited by Flyer22 without that edit being approved by their mentor for a period of 3 months

Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit severe - what do you mean by, and any related articles broadly construed ? - This user has been editing controversial issues/content for over six months and has never been blocked or reported to the edit warring noticeboard - Why a six month civility parole - have they been reported for civility? There are issues but only imo limited and any control of the user should also be limited - Youreallycan 13:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was either the above or I was going to recommend a WP:OFFER-block ... I thought this would have been preferred to the block :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm , block if you feel it will protect the project - its tempting I admit - the users contributions have disruptive trolling aspects.Youreallycan 13:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - WP:OFFER-block - for disruptive trolling in an extremely contentious area - Youreallycan 13:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Partial Support: I support the restriction on discussing Flyer22 and the topic ban. Civility parole rarely works, I've heard, but if it worked it would be a good idea in this case, so I'm neutral on that. On the mentoring part, if you change the wording to say "RJR3333 is recommended to obtain a mentor," taking out the compulsion aspect, I'd be in favor. And on the last one, I'd set a time limit on time between Flyer22's edits and RJR3333's, for example "any page that has been edited in the past month by Flyer22." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd support a modified WP:OFFER-block. I think the standard offer should be reduced to four months if we go that route. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I opppose anything this bureaucratic. Good intentions, but way too complicated, which means we will be back here every week debating whether or not he has violated the terms. Same reason I oppose ibans, as the odds of success are too low and the disruption of policing it is as bad as the disruption that led to it. (See DS and TG's iban for a demonstration...) And it isn't like we have people lining up to be mentors anyway. I think I would Support Jorgath's interpretation of the standard offer if we are forced to take strong action. This is a little more generous than the regular standard offer for good faith, and we can hope that this disruption break will lead to better behavior in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I accepted some responsibility I said I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. "I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me."--RJR3333 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence doesn't support your allegations, although at least you understand one of your faults. The other one is that you just aren't dropping the stick with Flyer22, even though you've requested an interaction ban. Have you considered that you may be misinterpreting her actions towards you? To us, it looks like she's trying to be helpful, although she eventually got exasperated. Also, why do you even need an interaction ban with her? Just voluntarily stop interacting with her. If she then starts causing you problems, we'll have real evidence that she's part of the problem too. If she doesn't, then you have real evidence that you're wrong in your evaluation of her actions towards you. Simple, eh? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the end, it doesn't matter RJR. Wikipedians have to get along with each other, even those that they don't like. You don't get that, and the fact that you don't get that is why you need to not be here for a while to prevent more disruption. The fact that you will at least admit some culpability helps your chances at coming back eventually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: If anyone told me I had to go through the complete edit history of any article I sought to edit, just to make sure a particular editor hadn't edited it first, I'd tell him back to stick it in his ear, only I'd likely be a good deal more obscene. Whatever RJR's sins, that's a ridiculously onerous clause. Ravenswing 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not uncommon ... but as suggested above, it can be amended to "within 30 days" or whatever. Of course, you've only commented on one of the possible restrictions ... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Bwilkins's proposal (and I've commented further above). I've stated before that RJR3333 truly does need a mentor. And if he got that, learning the ropes for several months, I'd be open to seeing him edit these contentious areas again...to see how his editing has improved. With the exception of some age of consent issues, he doesn't understand the topic of pedophilia and its related topics extremely well. But that's no reason to bar him from editing the topics if he can work better with editors who understand those topics better than he does. And by that, I of course mean taking things that are likely to be contested to the talk page first...and not immediately reverting (especially when two or three editors have reverted him). Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I really regret ever editing wikipedia so I think this is a good thing. I now have to live with knowledge that I posted content a large portion of which I no longer agree with for the rest of my life. The biggest mistake I ever made was editing wikipedia. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, and up front I will say I'm slightly partial to Flyer22 after helping her with some entirely unrelated issues. That being said, I largely agree with the comments of Bwilkins and Drmargi above, although I'll say that occasionally I can understand the perception that Flyer comes off as demanding two shrubberies of different heights for the terrace effect (I don't agree with the perception, but after it was explained I at least saw where it was coming from). I think RJR3333 is a particular kind of editor whose frustration can't be neatly packaged in diffs, so although I'm fine with RJR having a mentor I'll admit I'm expecting to see another thread here within a few months culminating in either an indef block or ban. I acknowledge that I'm generally very cynical about things both on-wiki and IRL, but I've seen this scenario play out many times before and I don't see any evidence this will turn out any different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

New account solely for vandaslims/hoaxes

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

---

Cmpunkasaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Only two edits so far plus one page creation request for a hoax. Have not bothered to warn as in my experience it would be fruitless.--Williamsburgland (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator intervention against vandalism." --Shirt58 (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was simply going by the policy on vandalism only accounts, which does not call for warnings in most cases. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be fruitless to open a discussion with a vandalism-only account, but WP:AIV is the better forum for reporting them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

user:165.155.200.88

_{NOTE: I've transplanted this text after it was dumped on my user page for some reason. S.G.^(GH) ping! 16:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

I was reading the "Solar Storm of 1859" - Carrington Event page and noticed that an anonymous editor had removed a section that was soon restored. Curious, I looked a bit further and discovered that the same IPN address had been used for years to vandalize a wide variety of articles. It is 165.155.200.88

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/165.155.200.88

The address is registered to NYC schools. However, the vandalism is rather unique and from the half dozen edits I reviewed, I would guess that they may all have been authored by the same person over a period of years, rather than multiple users accessing the same account. There is a very clear pattern. The frequency and intensity of the edits is also worth noting. There might be none for a six-month period, then many made over the next few days. I would speculate that the person making these entries either only has intermittent access to a computer with this IPN, or that the entries are made during a manic cycle.

If you view the four edits that the USER made to the title of a photograph of a homeless man, in the "Homelessness" article, I think he (or less likely, she) removed the identification of a Parisian homeless person and substituted the names of persons they intended to attack or disparage. I'm also guessing that the USER might be periodically himself.

I am guessing that the edits are being done by a schools' employee with mental problems. Because of their duration and similarity, it would seem rather unlikely that a student or students were making these edits from the same IPN over a period of years. I would hope that the IPN could be blocked permanently.

Not one of the edits I reviewed could remotely be considered to be constructive.

There are many warnings and blocks that have been applied, but none over the last couple of years, though the behavior has persisted. The warnings were essentially ignored. You were the last editor to post a warning on the USER TALK page.

If alternate users of the school computer(s?) want to make constructive edits, they certainly can establish an account with a legitimate USER name, and use a computer with a different IPN to make the edits.

The vandalizing is typically rather bizarre. For instance one edit moved Fidel Castro's birthplace from Cuba to the Bronx. Another contended that the uncle and father of Langston Hughes, for whom he had been named, were homosexual. A third transposed the male and female leads in the film, "The Postman always rings twice."

None of the edits I viewed were constructive.

I found a semi-literate entry on the "Muckraker" page by an anonymous editor last year, that claimed Michael Moore was a pedophile. It had been placed in the article and remained undisturbed for perhaps a year. It expanded on an equally rabid previous comment. I left a talk page note, if memory serves, that it should be undone. I had never made such a deletion before, I think, so wasn't sure of the protocol. However I checked back sometime later and discovered it remained in place. I deleted it.

Here's my entry: 08:11, 24 September 2011 (diff | hist) . . (-75)‎ . . Talk:Muckraker ‎ (→‎Michael Moore: Deleted gratuitous libelous remark by anonymous poster)

Here's what I left, but probably shouldn't have: Michael Moore is in fact a socialist zealot (I deleted this phrase: he had sex with little kids and was one of the most perverted man around ,) who produces extremely biased filth, that he outrageously tries to pass off as "documentaries."

I actually looked to see if anyone had ever made such an allegation in any venue, just in case it was simply Internet flotsam shared by a collection of nutcases. There was no evidence of any, anywhere, including on the sort of right-wing sites and blogs that persistently carry that sort of delusional crap. I concluded that, in many cases, no editor at Wikipedia was "minding the store."

I'm hugely busy, so don't have time to spend sorting it out, but I'd suggest that a Wikipedia volunteer might go through all of the edits made by this person(s?) and delete/restore all those that are unconstructive, yet might remain, to purge any residual Wiki graffiti, if I might possibly coin a term.

You can post a response to this on my Talk page. I'll try to check it regularly until I see a response. Activist (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Recommend range block - A quick review of the 165.155.200.64/26 range shows a large number of individual IPs Schoolblocked off and on over the past several years. The 165.155.200.0/24 range was blocked at one time, but that may be a wide net. The New York City Public Schools owns the /16 that includes this range, so there are probably other difficulty-prone ranges as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikiwatcher1's refusal to discuss their copyright upload issues and ....

Need some help

Admins: I am not sure if this is the correct forum for getting attention to my request. I created a page, Worlds Largest Round Barn and there is a replica of the page at central wisconsin state fair ground round barn. The link might not be correct, but it's close. I think the best course of action should be a redirect, however my concern is that the article I wrote about the barn concentrates on the fact of the barn being the worlds largest, while the other article focuses on the history side of the barn. Any suggestions? Thanks!Keystoneridin (speak) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the correct links are Central Wisconsin State Fair Round Barn and Worlds Largest Round Barn. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• THANK YOU!Keystoneridin (speak) 18:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. The other author decided to merge their article into the one I created. Looks quite a bit better. Sorry for the wasted space. Keystoneridin (speak) 18:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reopened this due to a disturbing pattern of misrepresented sources in the article in question. I have already left a very stern warning on Keystoneridin's talkpage, but I have neither the time nor the interest to comb through their other contribs. Misrepresented sources are a major problem here, and from my review of the article it doesn't look like a mistake or a little bit of fudging; statements in the article were cited to other webpages which simply did not say at all what the cited statement here did. This is a major concern. → ROUX ₪ 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please feel free to block of you believe it is warranted. However I made an error on my citations. When I create the page I did so in a word document to avoid a speedy being put on the page as I created the article. However something didn't copy correctly to the main page and as a result I ended up with the wrong links on the page. Additionally, after looking through the page, the complaintant removed all of the content which was introduced on the page. The links that I provided, although not the correct ones, did cite some of the information correctly. The user who left a home made warning template on my wall decided to delete everything and not take the due care to put the correct links on the page. I can assure you that I made these edits in good faith. I did not mean to list false links. But as I said in the beginning, if a block is warranted than by all means you have a job to do. Good day to you!Keystoneridin (speak) 20:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let's take that one by one:

1. "When I create the page I did so in a word document to avoid a speedy being put on the page as I created the article." -- mode of creation is irrelevant; it is your responsibility to ensure that it is correct
2. "Additionally, after looking through the page, the complaintant removed all of the content which was introduced on the page." - Yes, I removed everything that was either uncited or where the citation did not say what was asserted
3. "The links that I provided, although not the correct ones, did cite some of the information correctly." - the information which was cited without misrepresentation was left in the article.
4. "The user who left a home made warning template on my wall decided to delete everything and not take the due care to put the correct links on the page." - It's hardly my responsibility to look up the information you should have looked up
5. "I can assure you that I made these edits in good faith. I did not mean to list false links." - pull the other one, it's got bells on. You used citations to support statements which were absolutely and unequivocally not supported by said citations. → ROUX ₪ 20:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• The user above appears to be certain that there is no way possible that I made these contributions except out of bad faith and or a scheme to vandalize Wikipedia. This may be due to a past dealing with similar issues, but I understand the users concern with citation violations. At this point, I can only say that I honestly made these in good faith and any admin will need to take all of this into account when issuing a block or a banishment. Good day to you.Keystoneridin (speak) 21:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition the user Roax has taken it upon themselves to turn my talk page into a battle ground of belittling myself and those who I am trying to better. You can clearly see this from [2 Here], and [2 Here], and [2 Here]. User Roax gives me no assumption of good faith. This is gone on far long enough.Keystoneridin (speak) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I also put forth the idea that you are merely incompetent to edit, no maliciousness required. But since you're getting all annoyed that I'm pointing out your shortcomings and have effectively banned me from your talkpage, I wish to make a few things clearer.

As posted on your talkpage:

• Your text: The barn was built in 1916 to hold cattle for farmers traveling to the Mid-Wisconsin farmers market.

• Source text: says not even one of those things.

• Your text: In 1970, the Central Wisconsin state fair relocated from Wisconsin Rapids to Marshfield Wisconsin. During this time the barn received major renovations and became a carnival site holding cattle for sale and auction at the fair.

• Source: says not even one of those things. In fact, the link is to the top page, and I had to dig around the site to find this, which only supports the year the barn was built, and not any of the statements you attributed to that site

Keystoneridin has claimed s/he will provide the actual sources they intended to use later. I asked for clarification that these sources will actually support the statements made, some of which I have outlined above.

In addition, Keystoneridin has apparently taken it upon him- or herself to 'educate' new users. In one paragraph on his/her own talkpage, I identified multiple problems and blatant factual inaccuracies in what s/he was telling a new user, only to be told it was harassment for me to do so.

There's a problem here, and it needs to be sorted out. → ROUX ₪ 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have updated the exact "education" summary. It's exactly what I talked about in class. The point of the presentation was not to necessarily "teach" anybody what I know, but rather help them along the way to making established edits rather than the standard I.P. edits.Keystoneridin (speak) 22:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Blocks are not executed for one-off mistakes. Keystoneridin has stated that their misapplication of sources was an error. Without some evidence of an ongoing pattern and an indication that Keystoneridin is refusing to address the issue, I don't see the need for admin action. Tiderolls 22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also tried to explain the citations on Raux wall, but it must have been too big. The citations I used were from research articles which are free to my university, but apparently not free to everyone. They are not free then to the Wiki community so I will not be able to use them on here. Until I can come up with these sources from a free version, I will not be able to update the article.Keystoneridin (speak) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's an... interesting explanation. And you can still use paywalled sources; other people based in academia can review them. But that does not explain how you ended up using sources which did not say what you claimed they did. Explain this, please. Oh, and get my name right. → ROUX ₪ 22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your name definitely raux, but hopefully he'll rue mispelling it, Roux. Your name makes me wish I had a roux-based sauce to go with some nice fish or beef. -- Avanu (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

TBH I almost never thicken sauces with a roux (except when making e.g. macaroni & cheese, as the gluten helps prevent the Mornay from separating); I much prefer thickening by reduction or use of various hydrocolloids. When I'm feeling really bolshy, I'll use a liaison, but almost never on the line at work as one second of inattention and you have scrambled eggs. → ROUX ₪ 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Harrasment

Hello. Earlier today and probably about one or two sections up (Note: I've merged the sections. Black Kite) I needed some help when I created "World's Largest Round Barn". I attempted to create the page off of word as I had explained [in this edit]. Since then I have been harassed by This user even with a warning of this user [Having me blocked]. I just want it to stop. I made a mistake and I am sorry. I just want to get back to editing Wikipedia and not dealing with a lunatic edit stalker. Please help! Keystoneridin (speak) 23:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Then go back to editing and stop responding to any editor that you find is not helping you. Tiderolls 23:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I tried to [Bury the hatchet], but that still did not workKeystoneridin (speak) 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, um, no. Your first explanation for misrepresenting the sources was that they didn't copy over correctly. Now you're trying to say the sources you used aren't available outside a paywall.. which is it?

Re: 'burying the hatchet,' it seems blindingly clear to me that you don't so much want to bury the hatchet as you want to not be criticized for everything you are doing wrong.

As for 'lunatic edit stalker,' that is yet another false accusation. Time for you to be blocked. → ROUX ₪ 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Roux problematic edits

To the edits mentioned above, I'd like to add the following:

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances. The history of your attitude towards me is far too long for anyone with more than one braincell to believe you are unbiased.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it. Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

I trust we understand each other.

I don't think history bears out that I'm the one with the attitude problem here -- especially since the edit Roux's referring to is a simple, polite, non-templated warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Butter just wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it? Let me be even more clear, and I'm going to use grownup words:

SarekOfVulcan, leave me the fuck alone, forever. Your history of persecution against me is long and fucking annoying, and I have told you more than once to stay away from me.

Is that more clear? I prevented you from continuing your years-long harassment on my talkpage, so now you're bringing it here. Stop. → ROUX ₪ 23:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot stop an admin from doing admin work, where needed. It may behoove SoV to have someone else involved instead, but if they feel they're protecting the project, they have the authority to act on it, period. Maybe they shouldn't drop by to chat, but any valid admin-type work will and can continue, and ArbComm will hold that up. If you have an RFC/A to submit, or an actual ArbComm case to file, fill your boots ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

His bias is clear. He stays away from me or ArbCom gets involved, period. → ROUX ₪ 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Keystoneridin decided to take a break. Can't say I blame him.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You say break, I say avoiding scrutiny. Ksr's first explanation was that Word didn't copy the sources over properly. Now the explanation is that we cannot access the sources, being outside academia. These are mutually exclusive, and fail to explain why Ksr used sources which catergorically did not say what s/he claimed they did. → ROUX ₪ 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how taking a break avoids scrutiny. It's more like he's not here to defend himself. As far as I can tell, you're here to make sure he doesn't avoid scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody thought of making a melodrama from these Wiki story lines? Acoma Magic (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Resolution

First, if any editor asks another to not interact with them, to the extent possible, this should be honored. As BWilkins says, there are obvious exceptions.

Second, I think that Roux and Keystoneridin ought to give each other a little space for a few days, an informal 'gentlemen's agreement' interaction ban would probably be best at this point. Can the Round Barn article wait a few days to get sorted out? Maybe userfy it for a bit and let this be readdressed when heads have had time to consider things further.

Just my 2 cents. -- Avanu (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has been resolved; I removed all of the misrepresentations from it. Keystoneridin's behaviour, and the shifting and contradictory explanations for same, has not been resolved. It needs to. Resolution is also needed for Keystoneridin's self-appointment as an expert, when his grasp of various things is flimsy at best. → ROUX ₪ 00:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer

Philip Baird Shearer has deleted a page solely populated by a mbox. I worked on it. Undelete it plz? Anna 18:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please ask him first, on his talkpage. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Using tools while involved - great idea. Agathoclea (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No particular question of involvement here -- see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758#User:In ictu oculi. Iio said "If anyone objects to the shortcut - as it seems PBS does - then delete it." The only differences between Iio's last edit and the version PBS deleted seem to be formatting changes by Anna. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This passes the "any reasonable admin" test from WP:INVOLVED; any reasonable admin would delete a page with just an mbox, especially when requested by the creator. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment from User:SarekOfVulcan

I do not know what part of this:

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances. The history of your attitude towards me is far too long for anyone with more than one braincell to believe you are unbiased.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.

Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

...was unclear to Sarek, but he has elected to post to my talkpage again after being told unequivocally he is not welcome under any circumstances. This quite neatly proves his bias against me, is absolutely nothing more than poking the bear because he knows he can get away with it, and is conduct unbecoming an admin anyway.

Since telling him repeated times over the years to stay away from me has been fruitless, I would like an interaction ban please.

To wit:

• User:SarekOfVulcan is prohibited from commenting to or about User:Roux anywhere on enwiki, with reasonable exceptions provided for administrative processes which are both a) started by other people, and b) involving both of us. That this interaction ban would also forbid any admin action goes without saying. To be fair, I will accept the exact same restrictions on me.

→ ROUX ₪ 01:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm so happy you're willing to accept being banned from using admin tools against me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. → ROUX ₪ 01:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, why did you post a question on their talk page after they asked you to stay away? I'm confused. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Because Roux claimed to be ready to take me to Arbcom, and then proceeded to treat my "nonsense with the contempt it deserves", implied I was an admin zombie, while insulting BWilkins' intelligence, repeated the threat to take me to Arbcom, and continued insulting Keystoneridin. I can be reasonable, but I have my limits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please show me where I called you an admin zombie, or even alluded to you? You won't be able to, because I didn't. I was referring to the lockstep nature of admins closing ranks. Nor did I insult Bwilkin's intelligence; quite the opposite. nor was I 'insulting' ksr by saying his grasp was flimsy; his grasp is flimsy, which you would know if you bothered reading anything he wrote.

You were told to stay away from my talkpage. You didn't. I brought it here, hoping that you would get a fucking clue. Do I have to go to ArbCom or will you stay the fuck away from me? → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom, please. I really want to see what they tell you about reporting someone who politely reminded you not to edit war on other people's talkpages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, but I guess you knew that posting to their talk page would not diffuse the situation, rather the opposite. Although I can understand that it must be very, very difficult not comment on a thread talking about you. I think, in future, if a person is going to request that someone stay off their talk page, they shouldn't begin talking about said person on said talk page if they want that request to be honoured. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to oppose; however, Sarek of Vulcan should be able to seek attention from an uninvolved admin if he feels admin action is necessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that simply gives him the opportunity to harass by proxy. There are more than enough admins with eyes on me that if I do something egregious, someone will say something. There is no need for Sarek to be involved at any stage. None whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 01:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You do have to make the case for why you feel this is necessary. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Sarek posted to my talkpage after being told unequivocally that he was not welcome (and I have told him before that I am sick of his attitude towards me and that I am uninterested in anything he has to say) more than makes my case for me. He was told to stay away; he didn't. That is harassment. → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Roux, you attacked SarekOfVulcan and he defended himself. If you are upset that he defended himself, your best course of action would have been to not attack him, and your best future course of action would be to not attack him further. See? All sorted. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I told him to stay off my talkpage. He didn't = harassment → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*applause* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose on the grounds that no diffs have been provided demonstrating that SoV has "persecuted" you nor that he has a bias (as he asked on your talk: what is this bias of which you speak?). Some sort of action may be needed but there is nothing for anyone here to go on at the moment. Sædon^talk 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How about NO exceptions? If something needs admin attention an email be sent into arbcom. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has gone too far, too long, and in too many places. WP:Civility is a policy and a pillar, if any two editors cannot adhere to it then there are other places to spend their time. If an admin is not adhering to it, then there would be steps to take. Without any commentary on the editors involved in this instance, or their (in)actions to this point, this needs to stop. Either take it to RFC/U (RFC/ADMIN) (which cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures") or to ARBCOM and be done with it. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

While I wouldn't oppose an interaction ban, it definitely needs to include commenting on either user (except in specific places where allowed like if bringing an arbcom case or asking for admin action). As CalendarWatcher has said, Roux commented on SarekOfVulcan and it's generally considered unfair for you to be able to comment on others but them to not be able to reply. In other words, if Roux had wanted SarekOfVulcan to stay away from their talk page, they shouldn't have commented on SarekOfVulcan on their talk page. While they weren't the one who started the thread, a simply reply like 'sorry but since I have forbidden SarekOfVulcan from my talk page I cannot comment' or moving it to Bwilkins page where SarekOfVulcan was entitled to reply without violating Roux's request to stay away from their talk page would have been the best options. Also as with Count Iblis I think we need more evidence if the interaction ban is to include preventing SarekOfVulcan asking for admin action. Since the only 'harass'ment here was a reply to a comment on SarekOfVulcan. It sounds like this has been here and elsewhere before, links to those threads may be an option. Nil Einne (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable Request - rather than a formal ban, can both of you just simply agree to leave each other alone, at least for 2 weeks? I don't see where that would be unreasonable, and given the situation, it seems like a very practical and modest step? -- Avanu (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Because I do not harass Sarek. In fact, apart from I think one comment maybe two weeks ago? I cannot remember the last time I spoke to or about Sarek regarding anything. I stay away from him. I want him to stay away from me. The fact that he refuses to is proof of his harassment and it must fucking stop. → ROUX ₪ 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)