Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial that the topic is controversial [23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

• 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/socking

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)

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)

Varlaam and the Hedd Wyn article

• Varlaam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hedd Wyn (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We seem to have a problem here, and a long term one at that. It's previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#And now for the aftermath and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Varlaam's recent edits, the latter resulting in a two week block for what he's doing right now. Edit summaries from back then included "Enough with the anti-English Welsh racism", "Rule, Britannia. Britannia rules the waves. Britons (including the Welsh) never, never, never shall be slaves.", and "Wow, you are really, really racist. You are probably in gaol."

Despite the 2 week block in December 2010, he tried changing it again on 17 May 2011, then 21 January 2012, again on 21 January 2012, 23 January 2012 (edit summary of "You are a pathetic embarrassment to dispassionate, disinterested scholarship"), 24 June and 25 June (edit summary of "Your irrational, one-issue POV pushing is a sad, sad embarrassment to all concerned. Why don't you try making a genuine contribution to anything anywhere?").

There's a discussion about it on Talk:Hedd Wyn (film) that Varlaam has never once taken part in. So sporadic long term edit warring, failing to take part in the relevant discussion, abusive edit summaries. It seems little has been learnt since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive187#User:‎Varlaam reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 60 hours) which was just two weeks ago.

Any ideas on a solution? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Simple solution. Indef block for sustained disruption, general incivility, tendentious editing, slow edit warring, editing against consensus, personal attacks. Did I miss anything? Blackmane (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have to echo ONiH here. I was involved in the dispute that resulted in his most recent block, and it seems the same behaviour is continuing. Edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, attacks on other editors, there certainly seems to be a problem in need of addressing. Mo ainm~Talk 23:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my vigorous and full-throated support of an indefinite block for Varlaam. He's been allowed to engage in his out of control behavior for far too long, with far too few sanctions. Varlaam is a profuse editor who feels himself an expert, and the final word, on any topic where he chooses to edit. If only incivility and edit warring were only the problems! His standard mode of response to being reverted is edit warring coupled with spates of personal attacks. Unfortunately, the numbers of personal attacks appear fewer than they actually are because they are spread out among the sheet numbers of small edits he makes, making them appear less frequent than is actually the case.

I had the misfortune to cross Varlaam's path on the various season articles for ER (TV series), where he was attempting to add a. long lists of "notable" guest cast without any discernible criteria for notability, and b. OR interpretations of individual episode titles. His response to reverts wass to immediately become disproportionately angry and abusive in an effort to browbeat what he appears to view as an opponent into recognizing his superior knowledge and allowing him to do as he wishes. He takes tremendous pride in the sheer volume of edits he makes both here and on the IMDB, and his talk page is a collection of revelatory "how much/how many" lists that go a long way to explain his attitude to editing and being reverted. Quality simply doesn't concern him; it's all about the numbers of edits and having others stay out of his way as he does as he wishes. Moreover, he sees nothing wrong with judging or demeaning other editors' contributions or editorial style, always viewing his own approach to contributing to the project as superior.

My most recent encounter with him was in February, when he attempted to add a bit of non-notable trivia to an article related to the TV series Rizzoli and Isles. When I reverted it he responded with what was without question the vilest comment on a talk page I've ever had the misfortune to see an editor make, followed by an attempt to bully me into putting in his edit. This is an editor who sees himself as above Wikipedia policies and practices, sees nothing wrong with what he does, sees the other editor as to blame for whatever behavior is called into question, and is prepared to be as combative as it takes to get his way. Worse, he carries grudges endlessly, one major reason the problem on the Hedd Wyn article persists. He's been allowed to get away with his abusive behavior for far too long, and it's past time he was indefinitely blocked from editing. --Drmargi (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So......anyone? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get an admin comment - even if it just to tell us why you don't want to respond to this. Considering the drama that we went through over alleged slights to socks who had shown that they did not have the communities best interests at heart it would be nice to know why this abuse of long time and productive editors can continue without action or even comment. MarnetteD | Talk 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, MarnetteD. It's troubling that a discussion this high up the list has been left without comment while new ones get immediate attention, particularly given the long-term problem the editor addressed has been. --Drmargi (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's the thing. (With apologies for the delay, on behalf of the entire admin corps.) If you look at the diffs given above, for the film and for that 3RR case, it seems obvious: an indef block is the way to go. But this editor has 62,000 edits (probably not enough on talk pages), and their block log isn't necessarily that long. I know, any block is bad, but they've had one since 2010, and that makes me hesitant about an indef block. And since the disruption of the film article is so sporadic, a block would only be punitive.

  I'll make you a deal: I'll give the editor one last warning--the next revert on Hedd Wyn (film) will lead to an indefinite block, since it's time to listen. Now, another admin may decide to indef anyway if more edit-warring and incivility occurs on other articles, of course, but this is what I'm willing to do right now. I'll leave them a note pointing to this conversation. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I'm honest, that will keep him away from the noted article for a little while, which is a good thing for that article and the editors trying to improve it, but in time, he'll head back when he thinks no one will notice and start again. However, it will have no effect on the larger problem of his confrontational, uncivil interactions, his failure to respect consensus-building processes and his repeated slow edit warring the minute he enters into the process of editing where collaboration with other editors is concerned. Yes, he has 62,000 edits; sheer numbers are the name of the game for him, as I noted above. But a scan down his list of contributions is revealing: when you separate the voluminous small copy edits from the edits where he must interact with other editors, the glaring pattern of problem unregulated behavior is clear; his appallingly short block history simply means no one has taken action in response. And that is why he is emboldened to liken me to to Josef Mengele simply because I challenged his adding trivia to an episode description. --Drmargi (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of talk page messages from Jason Clare

Resolved

 – Withdrawing from this complaint. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I added a comment to the talk page of Jason Clare, but it keeps getting removed. See here and here. I've asked for this not to be done, and added a comment as to why I think my comment is relevant to the article here, but it keeps being removed.

I would much prefer to know why this information can't be added to the article, a response would be best I'd have thought! I don't want to keep changing the version, as it might make it a bit hard to edit the talk page (though I don't think that would necessarily be a problem as the talk page doesn't seem very busy...). Anyway, I checked out where I can ask about this and this seems to be the place! I will add the notice to User:Timeshift9's talk page as it says above. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find multiple Reliable Sources (RS) that discuss it, it might be includable. Until then it violates Wikipedia:No original research and has been and will continue to be removed per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Dru of Id (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. It might have been nice if this had been explained on the talk page. I guess I wasn't expecting this sort of thing - I'm sort of new here! I just saw it disappeared from the talk page. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on your contributions thus far, I question "I just saw it disappeared from the talk page"... Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw it go missing from the talk page, so I checked the revision history. It's not rocket science you know. As I say, I'm new here - so far, I've worked out how to create a talk page, make some minor corrections to articles and participate in some discussions (well, sort of - you removed my comments with no real explanation). It was very nice to see that I got welcomed after this though. I have been reading through the policies and guidelines pages, and I notice that there is an assumption of good faith on Wikipedia, is this not the case? - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right for someone who's new to wikis in general but is pretty computer-literate, in my opinion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you :-) - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass recreation of previously CSD'd articles

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236 § Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi

By User:AlanM1 (talk) (contribs). They're all articles on obscure time zone classifications, as far as I can tell, and the user may or may not be a sock of a previously blocked user. I don't know what's up, but someone should look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

————————————————————

I wouldn't call 14 articles "mass recreation", nor are they obscure to people that use them because they live in or deal with data from those zones. They are names of various time zone identifiers from the tz database – probably the most accurate, widely available and used source of time zone info. The individual articles currently contain mostly reformatted data from the database (which is still easier to browse/read than its native form), but are meant to eventually contain maps, history (from the notes in the database), DST rule history, etc.

That is, if everyone would stop freaking out and deleting them.

As far as I saw, they were deleted simply because of G5, with no discussion. The one article that was actually discussed (one of the Time in... ones) failed to get whatever it needed to be deleted. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: That article, BTW, was Time in Illinois. The discussion about deleting it is here. It took all of another 13 days for someone to mark it for G5 deletion and another admin to completely ignore the previous discussion and delete it anyway :( —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock, meat, or any other kind of puppet, and I'll try not to resent the implication. A look at my edit history and writing should make that clear, though I am getting increasingly tired of the time I'm spending on things other than editing, and not necessarily being very nice about it.

I'm simply trying to pick up where TC left off. It will take a while, and there will occasionally be some things that don't work right or be incomplete during that time. Please just take a breath and wait and I'll be glad to discuss it when the collection is, at least, functional as it was apparently intended. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

————————————————————

Agreed. They may be "obscure" from your perspective, but that doesn't make them not notable. Time zones are basic information of international importance, used every day in numerous countries and recorded in multiple reliable sources, and these articles complete a set of highly notable items, even if some are now only of historic importance. Given that, I don't believe that CSD is appropriate here. -- The Anome (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

————————————————————

Also note there was a mass-deletion followed by re-consideration and restore of some of these articles here: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Time_articles and another mass deletion here that broke all the individual zone articles: User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury#Time_articles, for which I'm hoping for a similar resolution. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I specified, "may or may not be", and the only reason I made the statement was because of the statement made by User:JamesBWatson here. The articles look plenty notable enough to me, and I wouldn't support CSD or any other kind of deletion procedure for them. On further review, I see no evidence of any puppetry here, either. Carry on. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The articles which I deleted all qualified under G5 criterion, being created by a banned user and have no meaningful additions made except by the creating user or by editors identified and blocked as his socks. This {{speedy}} criterion does not, as you are doubtless aware, require any consideration as to whether the article is otherwise a valid article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have at no time accused AlanM1 of sock or meat puppetry.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AlanM1 is someone who volunteered to clean up after Tobias Conradi. If you're looking for Conradi's latest sockpuppet, as far as I can tell its Indiana State (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt this, and I have at no time criticised Alan, or indeed anyone else in this thread. But the fact remains that the articles I deleted are, IMHO, clear examples of a G5 deletion. If community consensus decrees otherwise I have no argument to make; this has not so far happened. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that your deletions were valid under G5. That said, the recreation is also valid as long as there is no evidence of a connection between AlanM1 and TC (or any other banned user). There does not seem to be any such evidence, except that Alan did take on the task of re-creating some legit G5s because Alan felt that the articles were worthy even if the contributor wasn't. Absent any other evidence, Alan's behavior deserves a cookie and a "good job," not an AN/I discussion. Still, Evan's concerns have enough validity that Evan doesn't deserve any sort of fish for this. So Alan, have a cookie. Evan, thanks for checking, but there doesn't seem to be a problem, so carry on. Anthony, thank you for clarifying. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to trade my cookie, and borrow two more, to trade for the 4 templates that I asked to be recovered so I don't have to reverse-engineer them, since they are transcluded by 40 other articles/templates of value:

• Template:Tz/utc-meridian-central
• Template:Tz/utc-meridian-east
• Template:Tz/utc-meridian-west
• Template:Tz/utc-hue4map-color

"Because policy says so" is not an appropriate response, nor sufficient compensation for my knowledge, time, and effort, is it? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Otherwise the "a banned editor did it" reason is itself disruptive. If anyone objects, this is where I feel WP:IAR is legit. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my agreement with Jorgath, and apologize to anyone and everyone for any misunderstanding I may have caused. The G5 criterion itself is a little silly, in my opinion, but my involvement with this bit ends here. Bye, all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support y'all. Please also see #AlanM1_TiI for more disruption, contrary to community agreement. Please add Time in Illinois to the list of articles to be restored. Again, how can we keep this from continuing to happen? Is there a required-reading newsletter for admins? A hat-note that only someone trying to admin (e.g., propose for deletion, move, delete, etc.) an article would see? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• G5 is one of the most worthless of the CSD criteria, possibly only trumped by A7. However, per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting, Alan is perfectly allowed to reinstate articles by a banned user, since that means he's taking responsibility for them. What i'm getting out of this discussion is that Alan recreated or undeleted articles that had previously been made by a now banned user, correct? If yes, then no, G5 is not proper at all, because Alan was taking responsibility for the content, meaning that the articles should essentially be treated as being made by him now. Silverseren^C 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite. My understanding is that Alan protested the G5 deletion of these articles. Once they were deleted, he re-created them himself under the portion of WP:BAN you quoted. Evan wanted to make sure Alan wasn't doing so in bad faith. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have, as I hope everyone accepts, absolutely no intentio n of being difficult. I have re-checked the deleted articles in question, and it is not obvious that Alan has re-created them. Had that been obvious then clearly i would not have delted them. An edit on the talk page, or in the text of the article itself, might have made the situation clearer.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so how do I get the above-bulleted templates (here), and Time in Illinois un-deleted (or moved to my user space, or whatever)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored them to Special:Prefixindex/User:AlanM1/utc. I don't see any reason why they can't be restored to Template namespace once reviewed, but I am unfamiliar with the topic area. Orderinchaos 21:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. You may have my cookie. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on unblocking policy

A request has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:40, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, these announcements usually go on WP:AN, where they will get left longer. (Though now that I have edited this thread, I guess it'll be good here for another couple of days. :-)) Bishonen | talk 15:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

Please keep an eye out on Bradford Bulls

Bradford Bulls are an English Rugby League team. They (or to be more accurate their holding company) entered administration yesterday. There's already been an instance by an IP of a "defunct" added to the article's infobox, and an IP changing tenses ("are a team" to "were a team", etc.) Both sets of edits looked like good-faith jumping the gun. Fact is, they've entered administration (which is correctly cited in the article) but not yet liquidation, so aren't (yet) defunct. Could admins interested in Rugby League (or insolvency law) in the UK add Bradford Bulls to their watchlists and revert overly-eager reports of the club's demise? If things get messy some page protection may become necessary, but hopefully not. Thanks, Tonywalton ^Talk 00:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm a very active editor and I know something about RL, so I have added the page to my watchlist.  Tigerboy1966  13:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User AB9715

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

---

Resolved

 – sock block

AB9715 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sock of Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs). There's already an SPI underway. What's needed, once his latest incarnation is blocked, is to undo the mess he's created with article moves. Some of those articles are favorite targets, and maybe should be move-protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Now indef'd, but someone with the magic and the know-how needs to correct Bowei's tomfoolery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any page moves in Ab9715's history--just a bunch of redirect creations, the majority of which seem at least a little bit plausible to me. Is there something else we should be seeing? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess it's not a problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Animemidatlantic and article Anime Mid-Atlantic

The following relates to User:Animemidatlantic and article Anime Mid-Atlantic about the user's company.

The user appears to have been editing the article as a Single Purpose Account for 24 edits over 5 years. The user was directed to WP:COI five years ago, 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC). Editing continued without much incident.

21:03, 21 June 2012‎ (UTC) The user changed "*Attendance Numbers basedon turnstile not unique registration" to "*Attendance Numbers basedactual attendance* If anyone changes the numbers again without authorization. Legal Action will ensue. We know who you are*" and was reverted and warned by Tiptoety with "uw-talkinarticle", including in the Edit Summary of the reversion "Please address on the talk page".

03:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC) The user removed "3,000
(est)<ref name="hr2012"><</ref>" (39 bytes) and the next minute added five attendance numbers, with no explanation.

03:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I reverted and notified with "uw-coi-username".

03:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I warned with "Uw-delete4".

03:54,22 June 2012 (UTC) The user removed the same 39 bytes of text, again with no explanation. Tiptoety reverted and included in Edit Summary "Please stop removing sourced content".

04:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Tiptoety blocked the user for 24 hours for disruptive editing at Anime Mid-Atlantic, and changed a setting a minute later.

15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 76.104.61.168 (evidently the user logged out) removed the same 39 bytes of text, again with no explanation. I believe this to be the same user logged out, as it is also an SPA only interested in that article. Tiptoety reverted.

16:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Tiptoety blocked 76.104.61.168 for 24 hours for block evasion. Tiptoety appears to agree with me that it is the same user logged out.

19:45, 23 Jun 2012 (UTC) The user (undoubtedly the person responsible for http://www.animemidatlantic.com/ given the "About / Contact Us" link) used Special:EmailUser to email me the following message (in which I have only obscured my email address and eliminated the end matter boilerplate):

Email received by User:Jeff G.
(Email content removed per WP:EMAILABUSE; no authorization given to reproduce.) --64.85.214.21 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I was advised to post the preceding here by an Administrator.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that you aren't Wikipedia's legal counsel, I'm not sure what (person's name redacted by User:Jorgath) hopes to gain informing you that he will file a lawsuit. Having read the site policies though, wouldn't this be a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats? However, I've also read Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, so perhaps the content is wrong? If so, can we just correct this? - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the article, and actually this seems to be a storm in a teacup. Firstly, making legal threats is very foolish and won't get the editor very far. However, there are actually two sets of attendance figures, so while the figures we have listed are accurate, they aren't the full story. May I suggest that folks take it to the talk page - I've started a discussion. I'm sure that a compromise can be made - it seems a little silly to be battling over this matter! - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While an Admin advised you to post it here, you probably should have redacted the real-life name of the person who sent it to you as well, per WP:OUTING. Not your fault; you were advised to do this by an admin. Could someone oversight that? I've redacted the name for now, but that won't help in the edit summary. As for them, they should be reported at WP:COI and also possibly banned for the legal threat. That said, if Letsbefiends (or anyone) can figure out the proper answer to the problem raised, good. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor who made the original legal threat should be directed to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject), and almost certainly should be blocked from editing until the matter is resolved. If it were me, I would also send the email (with all headers) to info-en-q@wikimedia.org, including a link this ANI. The talk page discussion will handle things from a content end. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: - User:Ironholds blocked the editor who made the orginal legal threat. I have added a note on the editor's talk page explaining the block. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but are there any sources other than SPS and local passing news for this article? Also, although we should not ignore a threat, does it make sense that a reputable organisation is using a free @(domain redacted by User:Jorgath) email? Anyway, back to the matter at hand... --Tgeairn (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense re: the e-mail. As someone who's been to - (and once helped to organize) - sci-fi/fantasy, gaming, and anime conventions, I can assure you that only the larger ones (and 3,000ish per con is sort of medium) will bother with getting their own e-mail server. Most will get a domain name for their website, but will just link a perfectly normal business yahoo or gmail account from the website. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have much experience in the convention field. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the content of the email per WP:EMAILABUSE, which states "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows). This is partly due to copyright concerns, given that Wikipedia pages are able to be re-used by anyone." I saw no authorization given by the sender to reproduce the email here, so I removed it. Since some personal info was included in the original post, some info may need to be oversighted. If I am in error, please feel free to revert. --64.85.214.21 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You were and were not correct at the same time. Reproducing the e-mail exactly is counter to WP:EMAILABUSE, as you said. However, the sender should have no expectation of general privacy of the e-mail unless they specifically ask for and are promised confidentiality. In this case, what there should be is a summary of the e-mail's contents, which may include limited quotation, but not the actual full text of the e-mail itself (nor any really significant portion of it).

My attempt to summarize this: The source e-mail address that I saw before it was removed, which I will not go into too much detail on, was unmistakably linked to the user and article in question and was hosted on a free-registration e-mail site. I think that's enough detail about the address without revealing too much private info. The content consisted of a legal threat, unambiguously, against WMF/en.wikipedia. The sender appeared to believe, for some reason, that Jeff G. was a person of authority in those bodies. The sender was upset that a) someone (Jeff, in his supposed role with WMF and/or en.wikipedia) had not responded to an urgent e-mail, and b) that "Wikipedia" (again, in the person of Jeff) was insisting on including information in the aforementioned article that was in some way detrimental, financially, to the business of the convention. The sender demanded that something be done, and that they get a response, or else unspecified legal processes would take place. The sender signed the e-mail with their real name and job title, claiming a position of significant authority with the convention organization (Assistant Chairman of something-or-other, I don't remember). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 08:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The part where you say the sender has no expectation of privacy may be true under normal situations, but by reposing it on WP our licensing opens up the email to endless re-posting via CC-BY-SA. Since the sender did not agree to those terms when they sent it (I don't think they did–I've never sent an email using WP), re-posting it here is not the same as re-posting it on a typical website. Just saying, NBD. I know this is straying off-topic, but seeing as the sender has been blocked and a summary of the email has been provided, I guess this is resolved (unless oversight/revdel of the email is necessary). Rgrds. --64.85.214.21 (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The sender has an expectation of copyright with regards to their e-mail, and doesn't freely release it. However, precedent on WP seems to indicate that a summary of such an e-mail, rather than the e-mail itself, is fair use. Furthermore, as I understand it (and IANAL), the sender has no expectation of confidentiality - if you say something to me, I'm free to say that you said it unless it would break a policy (like WP:OUTING) to do so. It's just that the actual e-mail text should not be posted under CC-BY-SA without the sender's permission, and so should not be in Wikipedia. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 09:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have had the following text on my userpage for years:

"I do not accept any messages sent via PM, IM, or Email. If any such message is received, the sender acknowledges that: the message (including its source IP Address) will not be considered confidential or proprietary; I and my affiliates are under no obligation to keep it confidential; and I will have an unrestricted, irrevocable, world-wide, royalty free right to use, communicate, reproduce, publish, display, distribute, exploit, post, report, and/or ridicule it in any manner I choose. "

I hope that puts the outing issue to rest.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but what you have there is called "implied consent." The implied consent is that if someone is sending you an email, it is implied that they consent to it's release based on your message. However, many US states (and I an not sure about other countries) require explicit consent. The user has to say, or even sign, that they explicitly waive their right and expectation of privacy. So on a personal level, I'd just recommend you not expect such a statement to hold too much weight if you get into any trouble.--v/r - TP 13:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If Stephenie Meyer were to email you the next installation of Twilight, do you think your disclaimer buried in your confusing meandering userpage that someone dosen't even need to look at to email you would be enough to imply consent for you to release the novel under CC-BY-SA? Given that the answer to that is obviously "no," why do you feel it's enough to imply consent to something else? Given that the page they got to when they emailed you stated "Unless the matter is confidential, it is usually better to leave a message on the user's talk page," do you not think there's an implied confidence there? Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes and no. I am not a lawyer either. I'd venture that your disclaimer does in fact give you the right to re-use e-mails without the sender having an expectation of confidentiality, at least without them asking to opt-in to confidentiality. However, that doesn't mean that WP:OUTING wouldn't still apply, in the sense that private information e-mailed to you is not automatically considered to have been self-disclosed on-wiki. What it means is that you can't shouldn't get in trouble for forwarding an e-mail, and you probably could post that entire e-mail under CC-BY-SA. But if you post it on en.wikipedia, you still would need to redact personal info (name, address, e-mail, IP address, phone number, etc.) from that posted e-mail, unless it had previously been disclosed by that user on-wiki. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe WMF System administrators (formerly referred to as developers) have access to logs that can confirm said viewing (that the offender viewed my userpage prior to emailing me) in the case of an actual lawsuit. Also, I did not release the email as if it were my own work, I quoted it and criticized its sender's behavior under fair use. In addition, the sender's email address was already plainly visible on his organization's website, and he had already made a legal threat on-wiki, so I believed he was just forum-shopping and had no expectation of the privacy of his email address or his threatening stance. Furthermore, I did email info-en-q@wikimedia.org per Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) on the user's behalf and to protect English Wikipedia, the WMF, and myself; [Ticket#2012062410003829] was assigned and as a result, Dougweller (talk · contribs) asked me to take the original email to ANI in these two posts. I am willing to add to the statement "make derivative works, use in a commercial manner, " if that will help.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, if you are in, they are in, or the state of Florida is a 'explicit consent' state, it's not going to matter diddly squat what you have on your userpage or what can be proven in the HTTP Access logs. What is going to matter is if they explicitly said 'I consent'.--v/r - TP 14:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The sender is in the Commonwealth of Virginia, is that an 'explicit consent' jurisdiction, and do you have a ref for the applicable statute?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The hell if I know. I'm just giving you a heads up. Not everyone in the future who sends you an email is going to be in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I'm just expressing to you what I've been told in the course of developing instructional videos and audio. What I am saying could be a load of crap. I'm just suggesting you not be surprised if you find out that your disclaimer really isnt worth shit in law.--v/r - TP 14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The sender's name and the first half of his position are mentioned in the article's second reference (I stopped looking when I found that).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Jeff, you keep pointing out who the sender was and equating that off-wiki person with an editor here. That information has been redacted in this thread twice already. You were right to bring this here, and I don't think anyone is looking to slap you over the Outing, but probably best to leave the two personalities (onWiki v offWiki) separate. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Private e-mails are not to be published on-wiki, whether sent through the Wikimedia e-mail system or otherwise. Disclaimers on talkpages or the like do not change this rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've always heard that e-mails, in this kind of circumstance, are considered copyrighted, so there is no "implied consent". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think there's one exception: that if I sent an e-mail to someone else, I would have the right to post my e-mail here. But not their response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mayumashu

User:Mayumashu has been going around removing the ", Nova Scotia" from the titles of Nova Scotia community articles. While WP:CANSTYLE does allow this, this mass move of articles, without any explanation, makes me doubt this user is going through the care and attention a move needs. I have reverted the obvious violations, but I wonder if all moves this user has made in the past couple of weeks should be reverted. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANSTYLE does allow for these moves, so how have any been "violations"? ", Nova Scotia" is a disambiguate that is not necessary for the renames I've done, when the place name in question is unique to WP articles. Where the disambiguate has been necessary, I've not renamed of course. Mayumashu (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's busywork that accomplishes nothing useful for the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If the current title is fine then it is probably best to leave it. However, things like this are not correct as per CANSTYLE and should be reverted. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANSTYLE#Places #2, "smaller settlements must have unique place names to qualify for a page move," as well as further criteria listed there. Unique names like Hantsport and Tatamagouche can be moved, but your mass moves makes me doubt you made sure all passed all the criteria, the names may also refer to a person, a stream, or lake. 117Avenue (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have any other articles with such names, the ", Nova Scotia" is not needed as a disambiguator, so what's the problem? bobrayner (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:71.72.151.150

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

---

I'm sure he's just mouthing off, but I suspect we don't want editors like 71.72.151.150 (talk · contribs) going around making threats of violence. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that their talk page access has been disabled by MaxSem. Not much else to do really, as we know from WP:RIGHTS that IPs cannot send emails. Minima© (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Questions on missing page history and moving a list into an article

Resolved

 – List and history restored - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that List of Museums and Cultural Institutions in Chicago was recently moved into the Tourism in Chicago article. Where is the edit history of the now redirected list? Also, there is no discussion on the talk page. Are there guidelines for such moves, it seems we have lists and articles for different reasons? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The merge was done by Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but it seems he did not comply with several of the steps mandated by WP:MERGE. There's no move proposal or discussion, no mandatory edit summary (which means the merged article is a copyvio), nor appropriate use of the {{Copied}} tag on both articles' talk pages. I'll inform Thomas Paine1776 of this discussion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps when he appears, he can also explain the thinking behind renaming an article about an organization (The Convention Bureau) into a generalized topic on Tourism? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a content discussion best held on the appropriate talk pages, or through the relevant dispute resolution pages if that fails. The matter of copyvio-creating merges is, however, appropriate for WP:ANI. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK just wanted to get the full history out, so that any dispute (or no dispute) would be streamlined, as it could possibly effect the proper procedures on article arrangements for getting done whatever he wanted to get done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The information in the list was placed in the tourism article, since there is no need to have a list that is part of the same subject, unless the list is so exhaustive as to makes the tourism article too long. Tourism articles generally contain lists of sites including museums. There is no history to speak of for the List of Museums article, only a couple of lines. Not opposed to having a separate list per se. Incorporating it helps improve the article. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Re the history of the list. That cannot be right, as I've previously seen a much longer history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The are dozens of edits by a number of users to List of museums and cultural institutions in Chicago, not "no history to speak of". By merging without proper attribution, as mandated by WP:MERGE, the merged article is not properly licenced. Complying with Wikipedia's copyright policies is not optional. You need to fix this right now. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list of Museums history [44] to which I was referring (I see someone moved it once before). A public information list probably cannot even be copyrighted, so not sure what is being discussed about that. The editing notice says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here, etc. . . ". Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Organization of a list is copyrightable. And proper procedure for merge still have to be followed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, any text written is subject to the copyright of the author. That is the position under English law, at least, and I would think US law is pretty similar. But the point made on copyright is puzzling given that editors release their text for free use per the licence. Could you expand on "By merging without proper attribution, as mandated by WP:MERGE, the merged article is not properly licenced." I've not seen that point made before, and I can't see it in WP:MERGE. Out of interest, could you point to the source for that. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're parsing what I wrote differently to how I'd intended. I mean: to comply with the copyright attribution requirements of CC-by-SA and GFDL, when merging one must add the appropriate "merged from" info to the merged article, so someone can know who owns the copyright of the merged article by looking at its history. Without doing that, the merged article contains unattributed content, and so that merged article doesn't comply with CC-by-SA or GFDL. I wasn't saying that WP:MERGE creates copyvios, I was saying that ignoring it does. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Paine1776, where did this content come from? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the content is summarized from the main page. Regarding the prior history isn't it accomplished by a link on the tourism article discussion page? Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't sufficient. WP:MERGE tells you what to do. What you're doing, large chunks of text appear, seemingly from nowhere, with no edit summary and no explanation on the receiving talk page, which makes for an impossible papertrail. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago of this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we need Admin tools here. Can the status quo ante be restored? The only time I was involved with something like this there was an admin merge of the histories. I take it this article was created by moving the article about the Convention and Tourism Bureau, an organization, and adding the list of Museums and Cultural Institutions to it. It seems, it would be better organized by creating an article on tourism (if that is what is wanted) and linking to the separate organization article and the separate list. The organization has a separate existence, and the list is not just for tourism or tourists. At least it would be simpler to approach incrementally and it avoids the copyright problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the content in the current article is a prose article followed by a list article. The list article should be separated. Based on the discussion above, I think that is how it use to be. I am in favor of restoration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tony on this. The list article and the prose article should be separate. If the goal of the project is to make Chicago-related articles more organized and readable, this is counterproductive as it is not an improvement over what was in place before. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Have restored the List of museums and cultural institutions since there seems to be interest in keeping a separate list.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and good faith work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Request If some Admin who understands the technical aspects can make sure the history of the List is properly back in place that would be appreciated before this is closed.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of the list is not affected, its still there.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Block for move warring

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

---

I have blocked Bidgee (talk · contribs) and Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) for move warring/3rr at Australian wood duck/Australian Wood Duck. Please take a look; admins, please feel free to undo if I'm out of line here. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Good block. As neither editor has any actual 'priors', I think the length (3 hours) was correct as well. Jenks24 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

+ 1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocks are defensible, although it would have been better if this could have been resolved another way if possible. Bidgee is obviously very unhappy about the situation, per his talkpage and its history. Could someone who has interacted with him before please reach out to him? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is a distinction in that one of the users blocked was an administrator who (frankly) did not act appropriately by contributing to the warring. The other was an editor. Although I note that EricHaugen provided a warning in advance about approaching 3RR to both users, and the length of his blocks on both users are not really 'excessive', I think there are plenty of admins who were active and uninvolved who could have made the block (if necessary). If EricHaugen had the best of intentions when he chose to involve himself, he should reconsider whether it was really helpful in the end (I do think this should have been resolved in some other way). If an administrator imposes a block for move-warring and proceeds to move the article in question himself (as has happened here: [45]), that admin should make an effort to address the resulting legitimate concern about his use of tools, rather than leaving it to another admin (SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) who provides a similarly unhelpful decline reason in the unblock request ([46]) which inflames the situation further ([47]). It also seems to have opened an unnecessary opportunity for trolling of the blocked editor too ([48]). Also, merely leaving it in the hands of a Community review ([49]) is not really going to be sufficient to fulfil your expectations as an administrator either. Overall, this is a highly unsatisfactory situation, and I would strongly suggest ErikHaugen urgently contact both users and get them to agree to avoid the warring, and lift the block himself before further ill-effects are felt by the situation. That would be more ideal than a block review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  Good point, I should have been more communicative with Bidgee; I will try to amend that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock Bidgee (talk · contribs) as soon as possible - move protect the disputed articles so as there will be no return to the warring, if they are not already. Its unfair the admin has been unblocked. Was there misuse of his tools? Youreallycan 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any misuse of Jimfbleak's tools, no. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone semi Bidgee's page, please? Doc talk 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I semi'd. I think the block on both users was appropriate, however, I extended the same condition to Bidgee that Jimfbleak received.--v/r - TP 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee has pointed out that the edit warring administrator Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) user his advanced administrator permissions during the war - diff - Youreallycan 17:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Admins whom are part of the Bird project" - are any of the admins here involved in the bird project? - All? Youreallycan 17:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer this or the curious note below about how I'm a bird lover. I think you could say that Jimfbleak is "involved" in the bird project—afaik he's a "regular". I also am involved to some extent—the project page is on my watchlist, anyway. I guess I like birds, sure. The picture I uploaded was more about plants than birds, though—the point of it is showing how the seeds get dispersed. What does this have to do with anything here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tch - can one of you just unblock him and move him to discussion - clearly now punitive with WP:INVOLVED issues - Youreallycan 17:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How was the tool use related to the warring? I'm not seeing the connect? Are you saying that if I am in a dispute with the user on the article about F-22s that I cannot use my tools on any aircraft articles?--v/r - TP 17:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That move looks connected to similar issue and to the same user - diff ? Looks like its all part of the same content/issue/style format war to me.Youreallycan 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it all appears to be part of the same episode. The problem with that move, in my opinion, was that there was no edit summary. Don't revert non-vandalism without an edit summary, please! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I only see a single revert by Jimfbleak on Tooth-billed Bowerbird. That seems like a legitimate BRD revert, not an edit war. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Leave him blocked He wants to stir drama rather than deal with his clear move warring. This diff seals the deal for me. Let him walk. I'm done. --v/r - TP 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice - let him walk - not nice - he will be unblocked soon anyways - but someone should do the right thing and just unblock him now - Youreallycan 17:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guy clearly has an axe to grind. He got caught red handed behaving inappropriately, and now he is too proud to admit it and intends to strike at anyone who threatens his pride. That's where drama originates from. He didn't need to ask me to stay away in his edit summary, I'd already committed to leaving by that point. I'd support an indefinite block until he comes to terms with the fact that move warring is wrong even if you think you have the truth on your side.--v/r - TP 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea - go on then indef him - do your worst - Youreallycan 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd never happen. No one is going to put forward a motion for a indefinite block. I'm just pissed off and stirring my own drama.--v/r - TP 17:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

When admins get pissed off, of course, they are permitted to threaten to indef-block users, because that's what WP:ADMIN says, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish it were, I'd have threatened you a long time ago. On a serious note, since this will be taken completely out of context by you anyway, I gave my opinion in a discussion. I haven't threatened the user nor have I put forward such a motion so...there.--v/r - TP 17:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well just go away then - walk away from your internet connection - stop getting involved in such as this dispute resolution - Youreallycan 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Going...--v/r - TP 17:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a travesty - Jimfbleak abused the revert button, and probably his admin tools in deleting something that was, in fact, controvercial, and ErikHaugen dramatically abused his admin tools by blocking both parties in an edit war and then reverting to the version one of them preferred as opposed to the version that was the status quo ante, or the version that had consensus, or even a random version. I get that admins can do no wrong, but how much wrong can they do before they've actually done wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be admin abuse if you weren't here. Open up a recall or RFC/U if you feel so passionately. I dont know how the deletion relates, but I'm going to call it bogus that it is related unless someone can make it more clear. As far as the move war, Jimfbleak admitted he shouldnt have done it and said he would stop. He got unblocked. The other user is being stubborn.--v/r - TP 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And ErikHaugen who blocked both parties, and reverted to the version one of them preferred? Yeah, that's the abuse. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like EricHaugen correctly reverted to the status quo ante version which had consensus, per your comment. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin , User:ErikHaugen (a bird lover - member of the bird project Erik? - here is one of his lovely bird related uploads - Sooty_tern_and_sticky_Boerhavia_fruit.jpg) did not link to this consensus for his revert and what happened to WP:The wrong version - and "alleged previous consensus" is not as I understand it a good reason to revert - this thread is one of the worst cases of administration I have ever seen in over three years editing here- Youreallycan 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is longstanding consensus to capitalize the names of birds. WP:LOWERCASE within WP:COMMONNAME recognizes the capitalization convention for birds, i.e., "See also the special rules on capitalization in bird naming. For more guidance, see Naming conventions (capitalization)." And as far as I can tell, the article title has been stable with caps for years. That stable name supported by explicit consensus (the WP:COMMONNAME exception) and implicit consensus (the stable title for years) was the correct version to restore after the edit war, regardless of whether one of the edit war participants preferred it, and regardless of any links in the edit summary. That is also the version that would have been in effect had WP:BRD been properly followed, pending discussion. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article had been at the capitalised version (which is the correct one per convention and IOC naming) for years (and hence Erik Haugen was correct to move it back to there). Bidgee moved it, it was moved back, and instead of discussing per WP:BRD he started edit-warring. Whilst Jimfbleak shouldn't have continued the edit-war (and shouldn't have used the rollback button), Bidgee started it and continued it. A 3 hour block for each was reasonable; I can't see Bidgee's problem here (except that he didn't get his own way). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever else may be said about me here, I can assure you I did not move the article(s) back because I want them there. Them moving back to uppercase was simply inevitable; I was seeking to avoid any further drama or hassle. I realize this may have backfired and my moving them so soon probably contributed to Bidgee's sense of frustration, and I regret that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot's being made out of nothing here. I'm not sure I see the need for accusations of admin abuse when the blocks were clearly justified: User:Bidgee and User:Jimfbleak were move-warring. WP:WRONGVERSION doesn't apply as the page has not been protected. Bidgee is throwing a tantrum over being blocked (including now taking his ball and going home), Jimfbleak has yet to edit since his block expired, and User:Youreallycan is trying to turn it into a witch-hunt (which is getting quite old). No action needed here, provided Jimfbleak doesn't do it again (though an explanation/affirmation that he will not do so in the future would be appreciated). -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User 2001:558:6026:97:44AF:E2BF:9B1E:3DD9's personal attacks

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

---

2001:558:6026:97:44AF:E2BF:9B1E:3DD9 (talk · contribs) has a history of personal attacks. The user routinely removes warnings on their talk page, and continues attacking other editors in edit summaries and on their user pages. The user also edits under the IP 76.116.65.4 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please report this to WP:AIV next time. IP is temporarily blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Erased and Stalked

Resolved

 – A prox upon thee

This dude keeps following me around and reverting someone else's edits. When I tried to explain to him that I'm not the man, he gets confused and calls me a liar. Just sayin. 218.247.129.7 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

[50] - 218.247.129.7's little brother did it. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:01, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:BOOMERANG time. The above IP address made a personal attack on an editor, and tried to troll another. He then claims that his internet was broken and then that it was his little brother. Per WP:BRO, those claims are moot. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that this IP is rather aware of WP jargon (used WP as initials for Wikipedia instead of the colloquial "wiki", knew to indent and how to, knew to come here and leave a message on my page after doing so). Quack quack, folks, this IP is being used by a sockpuppeteering troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are being LOLZed. The ip knows s/he is being absurd and just looking for laughs. The IP is using some Chinese proxy and probably can't be traced back to any regular user. Best idea is to ignore and block if ip keeps it up despite being ignored. IP is definitely a regular user, probably one that hangs around 4Chan. Dave Dial (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is completely bogus! I don't even know anyone that's Chinese. The point is that the dude above shouldn't be messing with the mans edits, then blaming me when there is no way that I could have done it, the internet has been broke and he knows it. 218.247.129.7 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"The internet is broke"? That's a new twist to the Little Brother Defense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, it's broke. They've run out of money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Better start draining -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Leontopodium alpinum talk page again

Resolved

OK, I've seen about enough of this kind of stuff on Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Even though he doesn't want it semi'd, I think it should be, to fend off 174.231.134.170 (talk · contribs), 174.255.98.236 (talk · contribs) and other such ilk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen, there is a clear edit war going on, and, while I am not an administrator, I believe the page has already been a battleground, and will get much worse if action is not taken. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked XXX.170 temporarily for having a potty mouth and trolling. But really, this is just weird. Then again, if it's a personal attack, it's of a very moderate kind, and this is hardly a BLP violation on the front page. Why not just DENY? Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the page would be an effective "denial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, I do appreciate that your effort to watch my page exists, but I do not want to semi-protect. The better way would be to simply let the edit stand and ignore the IP editors. The original edit is a bit trollish but not really the personal attack. Always reverting this stuff is just what the IP wants. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edelweiss' insistence on keeping that harassment of Dave1185 on his talk page is starting to raise suspicions that Edelweiss himself is behind this stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My name isn't Edelweiss, and I have to think that you keep referring to me this way in order to troll. You should not accuse users to being a sock puppet just because one doesn't want to prevent IPs from commenting on his page and hopes to limit this obnoxious back and forth by leaving comments alone. Don't make bad assumptions Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Think again. And I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely raising the question. Your unwillingness to remove harassment of another user from your talk page, naturally raises suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I know what my name means. But I don't go by "Edelweiss" and I don't like that you keep calling me that. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember your real username. But I can remember "Edelweiss". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also kind of odd that Leon will be gone for several days, and then magically appear to defend the IP's, right after those IP's start messing around with his page again. Must be psychic or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, you don't get emails when someone edits your talk page? I do. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I get enough spam as it is. And I don't really care when some troll attacks me on my page. But when a troll attacks someone else on my page, I won't let it stand. And Leon shouldn't either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there's yet another troll on that range, 174.253.19.71 (talk · contribs). If Edelweiss won't allow semi-protection, maybe a range block of that IP series is in order? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the latest IP sock says, "...take heed that you are nearly violating 3RR", which is funny since he's already at 3 reverts. I'd like to see LA demonstrate some good faith by removing that harassment of Dave from his own page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"take heed..." is a uniquely Dave1185 idiom. The Chicago IP is obviously very familiar with his speech patterns, not just a drive by participating in a revert war. It would be safe to say that Chicago is a sock of one of those involved in last week's drama. 123.30.181.137 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that the above IP is now glued with e-proxy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the troll said most recently was bad enough to trigger semi-protection. So dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User: Logical Cowboy

Logical Cowboy (talk) has been on a constant harassment of my articles past and present, which appears to be due to a failed attempt to have this article deleted. He has been WP:HOUNDING me on several locations [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56].He has also made several snide comments,[57] at an attempt to possibly have me engage in some kind of confrontation…so as to perhaps have me blocked. Now I understand the need for spam, and vandalism control, but he has taken it to an unfair level with me. There has been no constructive input from this editor, only constant badgering nit picking, of my references, and article creation. [58] --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 02:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the addition of the "confusing" and "essay" tags as the article may be perplexing for viewers. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't look like Logical Cowboy is trying to hound or harass you. From what I can tell from his edits he means no ill will and is following good faith. Logical Cowboy may have unintentionally insulted or alarmed you, however, to the "snide" comments that he made, that was in fact you who made them, so we may all feel the bite of a WP: BOOMERANG. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Penguin. This may all be just a confusion between you and Cowboy, since I can't find clear evidences of hounding or any other notable behavioral harassment against you. Regards. —Hahc21 03:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting again

See User talk:Alan Liefting, specifically my commenbt here, his reply (to further comments by other editors) Take it to ANI, my final warning here and his further actions [59] [60] [61] [62] . I'm going to bed now, so if someone wants to unblock (or extend the block further), go ahead. Alan's edits are still likely to damage Wikipedia, by making more work for editors creating drafts in user-space or AfC before moving the articles to the live encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also the related discussion Wikipedia:Bot requests#User sandboxes in content categories - again. On the one hand, he considers it a trivial matter[63], but on the other hand it (or the principle) is important enough for him to get blocked over. No one doubted that the initial edits (and the bot request) were made in good faith and to improve Wikipedia: but his refusal to change his approach after being asked by different people to do so, and his immediate continuation of these edits after it was made clear that it would get him blocked are clear examples of disruptive editing. It's sad that a block is needed for something that could have been easily avoided. Fram (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

vandalism

Please block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.207.212.95 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.100.245.178 for BLP vandalism, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.57.28 (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 192.203.57.28 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Robertmossing continued disruption at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I looked in at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is an article I removed from my watchlist after a series of personal attacks from User:Robertmossing. Out of curiousity I looked in today and noted that he has continued in the same vein following a block for edit warring.

See [64] he is continuing to edit war as before.

See here, here, here, here and here, where the personal attacks are continuing.

Judging by his comments the last time, he appears to be seeking an indefinite block [65] in order to prove that his views are being "censored". I think the time has come for a warning, followed by a series of escalating blocks if his disruptive behaviour continues. Bringing it here for community discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Either I'm blind or the personal attacks are masterfully camouflaged. The argument is spirited and there's a lot of back and forth. I could possibly go along with Robertmossing being a disruptive but civil POV pusher. Personally, I think you're going to have to do much better than those diffs to call him out for personal attacks. If anything, apart from the digging in of heels by Robertmossing on various points, there doesn't seem to be anything more serious than a marginally heated debate on the talk page of an article dealing with a controversial topic. Blackmane (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Blackmane. Civil disagreement is not the same as personal attacks. If there are diffs I may have missed, feel free to provide them WCM. --John (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)