Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Bridge Boy

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

---

Requesting a temporary block of Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) for violations of WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. After a copy-paste move [1][2] was repeatedly reverted [3][4][5] by SamBlob (talk · contribs), Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), he began a series of tendentious and pointy edits [6] and attacks on other users.

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

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

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

• [9] While attacking other editors for lack of subject knowledge and sources, he disingenuously twists the meaning of sources. Here is cites Japanese Grand Prix Racing Motorcycles by Mick Walker, Redline Books, 2002 for calling two-strokes "parallel twins", yet elsewhere has repeatedly said that the term "inline twin" is not used. In fact, Mick Walker uses "inline twin" again and again, in the cited book, and in others (Mick Walker's European Racing Motorcycles ). "Neither you, nor anyone else, are offering any alternative reliable sources at all. "
• No acknowledgment at all of the large number of sources that contradict his arguments.[10][11]. He bluffs by falsely calling the cited sources in books by recognized authorities, and mainstream newspapers and magazines, "merely blogs or PR releases (primary sources)". And forget about an apology for all the personal attacks against those who disagreed with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• But someone might block him for personal attacks and disruptive behavior if he doesn't work on his vocabulary and methods. If his behavior continues to disrupt the normal editing of other users, then a block to prevent further disruption is certainly an acceptable way to deal with the problem. His few edits since this ANI started [13] aren't inspiring me as well. I'm all for explaining to an editor what they are doing wrong, but they have to actually listen, and he doesn't seem to WP:HEAR too well. It would have been nice if he actually came here to explain his position. Dispute resolution isn't going to fix him telling others to "Oh fuck off you twat." either. WP:DRN only works when all parties are acting in good faith. After all, it isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I'd rather invest what free time I have on developing a related topic like Straight engine which did not even have a "--References--" section until I added it or Inline-twin engine, for example, which does not yet exist. The work I am interested in are obscure but significant titles relating to motorcycling, e.g. [14]. I don't expect thanks but equally, as a volunteer worker, I don't expect such irrational obstructions from individuals who do not know the subject matter. Nor do I understand what is to be gained by the tactical creation of such conflicts and casting such accusations. Surely it is only bad for the morale and productivity of your voluntary workers?

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

In this case Dennis is telling us that "almost all" of the 63 references I added have "been harmful". I am lost for words and would like a second opinion on their acceptability. [15] He has even attempted to have the page reverted to it original state 6 months ago, erasing all my work. [16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) You made the surprised statement of agreement here.

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

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

Proposed resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Brown,

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

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

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

Title: Bridge Boy and Dennis Bratland

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

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

There is no smoke without fire.

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

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

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

Move or moves, Bwilkins?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inline-twin engine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The KR250 engine has its twin cylinders mounted fore and aft [17]
• The KR1 engine has its twin cylinders mounted side by side [18]

These are two considerable differences and deserve an equal status.

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

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

• The Rotax Type 256 engine has its twin cylinders mounted fore and aft. An image is here [19].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal from uninvolved Jorgath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly oppose renaming to parallel twin.

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

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

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

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

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

"I see he's moved more articles"

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

Dennis Brown specifically referred, elsewhere, to these moves of the Toyota and Hyundai U engine pages: [20][21][22][23]. It's not in the history, but this a revert of this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion of Inline-twin engine

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

---

That was really unhelpful. Please restore it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Brown: admin falsifying evidence to justify block.

I apologise for having to bring this up but I consider it seriously unethical enough to warrant a discussion and addressing. It would seem highly unethical for administrators to fake evidence (removing/hiding others edits) or state what they know to be the opposite of the truth in order to justify a block.

Admin Dennis Brown stated that the reason I was blocked for the reason given here [24]

"User blocked 48 hours - Looking at what he has been doing since the ANI started, I see he's moved more articles this poorly, completely ignoring the issues raised. ie: Presenting problem -> Chief complaint and then said "It is commonly used but, due to my lack of expertise in this area, I am happy to defer to others wisdom." No discussion, no consensus and isn't wise enough to create a redirect pointing to the existing article, and instead moves a long standing article without any regard to consensus."

• a) This statement was completely false and opposite to the truth. I HAD created a redirect.

• b) It was DENNIS himself who MOVED the topic [25][26], and deleted my contribution.

For a fact, I DID create a redirect at "Presenting problem" and then flagged it up on the talk page, [27] Talk:Identified patient page, [28] WikiProject Psychology [29] and WikiProject Medicine.

My contribution log proves this, "14:36, 4 July 2012 (diff \ hist) . . (+497)‎ . . N Talk:Presenting problem ‎ (←Created page with '(WPMED\class=Stub\importance=Low) (WikiProject Psychology\class=\importance=) I've redirected this to Chief complaint, as it included the British term ...') (top)"

And yet, mysteriously, my creation of the redirection page at the same time has been Revision Deleted. [30]. I understand other admins will have the powers to be able to see what has happened here and would like it confirmed.

FYI, this is what actually happened.

i) I searched for "presenting problem" as it is a common term and discovered it had no page on the Wikipedia

ii) I searched for alternatives or pages that included it.

iii) I created a redirect to the most likely one

iv) I politely flagged it up on all the related talk pages and related project talk pages.

v) Dennis came along and moved the Redirect page over Chief complaint and then accused me of doing so.

I argue that there was nothing disruptive or improper in what I did, that I did it the correct way and DID NOT move any page as accused.

From Dennis's logs:

"22:53, 5 July 2012 (diff \ hist) . . (+32)‎ . . N Chief complaint ‎ (Dennis Brown moved page Chief complaint to Presenting problem over redirect: Moved improperly) (top)

22:53, 5 July 2012 (diff \ hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Presenting problem ‎ (Dennis Brown moved page Chief complaint to Presenting problem over redirect: Moved improperly) (top)"

I am raising this because even in my short time editing it is not the first time that revision deletion has apparently been abused to remove all traces of a topic creation or edits from all users logs.

(BTW, strictly speaking I think 'presenting problem' is not the same as 'chief complaint' nor 'identified patient' and I am surprised it does not have a topic of its own. Normally, and in references, you read of "an identified patient with a presenting problem" underlining that they are separate and hence my comment to raise the issue and engage others in discussion on the project page [31]). I would not have made the move Dennis did.

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If the admin was mistaken (and that's if), we can be pretty certain that it was a mistake, and the report above is using a misguided approach. I took a very quick look at User talk:Bridge Boy, and you might like to consider adding jpgordon ("Reading the lengthy ANI discussion makes it clear that not only is the block appropriate, it is generous") and Nick-D ("I've reviewed the ANI thread, and I agree that this block is justified") to the report. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so it does not particularly matter if a block reason was poorly worded. Also, Wikipedia relies on collaboration—let's assume that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. You still need to slow down and reduce the drama. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Serious and unfounded accusations. The ANI report that went on for pages and pages showed enough overall WP:DE and WP:CIR issues that led to the block - not the redirect of a couple of pages that don't look like they even belong on Wikipedia at first glance. Such lack of understanding of this project, how to interact with others, not knowing when to drop the WP:STICK and a failure to understand absolutely anything does not bode well for this editor. Personally, I'd indef them for these senseless, baseless accusations because competence is required around here, and this is sheer incompetence (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@BridgeBoy, the previous two editors have stated that you are most likely looking at poor wording for a block or perhaps not seeing the reason for why you are blocked. In your own words, could you answer just a couple of questions? Do you feel like you've done nothing at all out of line with Wikipedia policy and don't deserve a block for anything you have done? Is there a reason that Dennis Brown would have decided to block you if you had done nothing? And finally, what was your original goal in all of the editing that started this, and how is that goal going, in other words, are you making the best use of your time toward that accomplishment? -- Avanu (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Denis stated that the block was for "disruptive editing". As is obvious from the above report which lead to the block (WP:ANI#Bridge Boy) this was well deserved. Denis' move appears to have been one of several he made to fix up the damage you'd caused, and occurred only four minutes before he blocked you for 48 hours. I too think that an indefinite duration block is in order here, and the only reason I haven't applied it is that this report is almost word for word the same as the unblock request I declined, so another admin will need to press the button. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Back from his block, and within hours he's already flooding the talk pages of the debate with walls of text and harrying other editors over their opinions. I think a longer block is called for, at least until the discussion at Talk:Straight-two engine and the inline twin engine AfD is completed. Bridge Boy has made his point, over and over, and there's no need for him to say any more. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to get that, and continues to push his point ad nauseum, and it's rankly disruptive. He's completely incapable of dropping the stick. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I'm trying to figure out the purpose of this ANI filing - I see nothing that suggests any requirement for Admin action, unless one unleashes the WP:BOOMERANG. This filing really goes back to that whole football player who shall not be named thingamajiggy, but I'm trying to confirm that with the filing editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well before you guys fill the page with a bunch of comments about how awful the editor is, can we first and foremost work on actually understanding and diffusing the issue, and work on helping the editor understand how and why this occured? I get weary of the 'hang em high' attitude that frequently permeates the discussions. It makes admins appear to be a special interest block ready to punish and embarrass, rather than a group of concerned editors trying to promote a cooperative spirit. -- Avanu (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually only a small subset of admins are compelled to behave in those unfortunate and demeaning ways, and Dennis Brown is not among them. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Avanu, as I think is clear from the previous ANI thread, a number of editors have in fact already tried that. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Avanu means that when everyone jump to boomerang the reporter, it looks like a pack of animals jumping on a carcass, even when they are completely right. Avanu, as to explaining, if you check all three previous ANI subsections, I really did try to explain along the way his problems, but I really don't think he gets it, and CIR might actually apply here. I would suggest we do NOT boomerang and that no block should be based on this filing. If he can find a way to contribute properly, great. If he can't, then let the process work at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• If I screwed up the move/redirect, sorry, moves are not my specialty. As for the block for WP:DE (which I explained on his talk page, ANI, etc.), keep in mind that there were 3 separate threads ongoing about him, not one. I think I was fairly restrained and did everything possible to avoid blocking, and then only used the least amount of time to prevent further disruption. I will leave the decision as to the appropriateness of my actions and any action that need to be taken here to my peers, but felt I should at least acknowledge the process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• If anything, Dennis Brown should be mildly warned to stop being so nice. A 48 hour block was too lenient, and there was clear consensus for a longer block, and well-argued justification, and sufficient consensus, for an indefinite block. The immediate return to disruption, here with this absurd ANI complaint, and back on the article talk pages and AfD, was predictable. We've all seen editors like this before. When they don't give the slightest hint that they understand in any way that they've screwed up, and don't admit even the tiniest incivility (after throwing f-bombs straight in a gentle editor's face, and more), that is a clear warning that a temporary block is pointless. Dennis Brown should have known that this wouldn't be over when the 48 hours was up, and he should have heeded the other admins who favored an indef block, or at least a month. Long enough to get it through this guy's thick skull. A trout to Dennis Brown for that. BTW, I accept the WP:WHACK! somebody offered me above for taking the bait and responding in kind to Bridge Boy's provocations in the past. I will try to do better.

  Now if Bridge Boy does not cease and desist and get back to peaceful, collaborative editing and quit pushing an issue that has no hope of winning consensus give him an indef block so we can all get back to doing something productive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  You aren't the first to say this and I respect your opinion, but I still think that a short block the first time is the better solution in the off chance that the person will stop after a couple of days break. I would rather block someone indef the second time than the first if there is even a tiny chance that it will accomplish something. Of course, now it is out of my hands as I'm "involved" and can't block him at all, so odds are the next admin to get involved will be less troutworthy than I in this respect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu, my understanding is that other admins can see previous and deleted page creations etc. Those who can will see that I created a redirect and then placed notes on all respective talk pages.

Could we please just confirm first whether I did what I said I did - and followed policy in an exemplary fashion - or whether I did what Dennis Brown said I did and "disrupted the Wikipedia" by moving Presenting problem on top of Chief complaint etc? If someone will do so, perhaps Dennis himself, then I will answer you?

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

user:Koavf : POV edits on Western Sahara related articles

Hello,

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

The facts:

• WikiProject Western Sahara [32] : persisting (+ edit warring) on adding SADR's flag (example) despite the fact that this issue was previously discussed on Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote and that the decision was to avoid putting any flag to keep the page neutral (June 2012) ;
• Western Sahara conflict : persisting on adding a POV/Propaganda/non-sourced photo montage to the article : File:Moroccan police brutality with Sahrawis.jpg (June 2012) ;
• Western Sahara : persisting on adding a photo of the "Army museum of the SADR" as related to the culture of the territory [33] (as POV as adding a photo of the Army museum of Morocco) (June 2012) ;
• Sahrawi refugee camps : removal of -not in favor of Polisario's claims- sourced content [34] (January 2012) ;
• Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement : adding a section [35] despite the fact that there is a clear controverse upon these facts and that he got no consensus through discussion (January 2012) ;

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

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

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

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

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

The claim that "persisting on adding a photo of the 'Army museum of the SADR' as related to the culture of the territory [36] (as POV as adding a photo of the Army museum of Morocco)" is obviously untrue as the museum is a cultural center of a part of Sahrawi culture and the Polisario Front are the legitimate representatives of the Sahrawi people according to the UN. He refuses to use the talk page to discuss this and in reality, he is edit-warring against Dzlinker, Sean.hoyland, and myself who have all restored the picture (note that he may be 197.247.3.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but I don't know.) Several users keep on reinserting this and he refuses to address their concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "very old dispute"? Please, the aim of the RfC is to find a solution and some users don't seem to be able to accept that their POV wasn't adopted... It is not a "very old dispute" anymore, it is a deliberate POV-pushing acting against the RfC. --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a very old dispute. Did you really think you were the first Moroccan to get the idea into his head that he was right and every last other person outside of your country was wrong? This noticeboard discussion over here, for example, predates the very existence of your account by almost three years, and even that discussion was woefully tardy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And of course, Koavf doesn't care about the fact that the version he opposes is sourced by 3 references, he just reverts other user's edits and removes the POV tag, putting his preferred version despite that. --Omar-Toons (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to the slow edit warring on the article I have fully protected Western Sahara for a week. Please continue discussing issues at Talk:Western_Sahara#Lack_of_neutrality rather than edit warring. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to be around in a week (or however long it takes) to properly deal with this mess, then? …or is it going to be once again some different admin doing the very least he can for this matter? ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Flyer22 and me

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

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

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

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

I propose;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment, and up front I will say I'm slightly partial to Flyer22 after helping her with some entirely unrelated issues. That being said, I largely agree with the comments of Bwilkins and Drmargi above, although I'll say that occasionally I can understand the perception that Flyer comes off as demanding two shrubberies of different heights for the terrace effect (I don't agree with the perception, but after it was explained I at least saw where it was coming from). I think RJR3333 is a particular kind of editor whose frustration can't be neatly packaged in diffs, so although I'm fine with RJR having a mentor I'll admit I'm expecting to see another thread here within a few months culminating in either an indef block or ban. I acknowledge that I'm generally very cynical about things both on-wiki and IRL, but I've seen this scenario play out many times before and I don't see any evidence this will turn out any different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I've had a look over this, and it's clear that RJR3333 needs some help here, and Flyer22 really does seem to be wanting to help steer them in the right direction. I'd strongly support the idea of mentorship for RJR3333 - I share some of the reservations voiced by Blade and others, but I do hope someone can offer mentorship, and I'd urge RJR3333 to take it if offered. (I can't myself, sorry, because my time here is too limited and erratic at the moment.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  PS: Just want to add that if Flyer22 lost her cool a little, it's entirely understandable after RJR3333's apparent obsession with her, repeated misrepresentation of her actions, forum shopping, and serious IDHT problem. After having re-thought some of the things I read last night, I've changed my comment to a support for BWilkins' proposal. It might seem over-harsh to some, but I think RJR3333's only chance of remaining a Wikipedia editor is the prevention of any further harassment of Flyer22, prevention from editing the problematic article, and mentorship - RJR3333 means well, but doesn't play well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just one thought, Flyer22 as part of her proposal for topic banning me, has said I have a fanatical bias against underage sex, my editing history suggests the opposite. I can provide evidence for this. Would an editor more neutral than Flyer22 please review my editing history because it DOES NOT support her contention? --RJR3333 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My editing history seems to disagree with Flyer22's contention, here have some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_npov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3#Age_of_Consent_Chris_Hansen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Hansen#.22Age_of_consent..22 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16_(number)&diff=prev&oldid=446877490 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=prev&oldid=446744492 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incest&diff=prev&oldid=446477923 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=prev&oldid=446598204 --RJR3333 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said that a person should have to be 18 and not 16 to diagnosed with pedophilia, I said that the proposal that this be made the definition should be added to the wikipedia article, that is not the same thing as endorsing the proposal. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated at your sockpuppet investigation: No matter what you state, User:FDR (your original account) displayed the type of bias you claim that you don't have. And I've seen your RJR3333 account display the same bias. But this discussion is not about that anyway. Not to mention, your bias was the least of reasons I was considering proposing a topic ban on you. And now I have nothing more to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And I have already said that my view on the marriage age, age of consent, and age of majority is that it should be 16 across the board, not 18. So Flyer22 is lying when she accuses me of this bias. I acknowledged my fault with the other account messing with the age of sexual majority in North America article and admitted it was a joke, I won't do it again. It was just vandalism, I should not have done it, but to read a bias into that would be like reading a bias into my vandalism of the 2004 election article where I said Freud ran against Bush, it was just a joke. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The only time FDR displayed the bias "you claim you don't have" was when I used that account to vandalize the age of sexual majority in North America article to say that the age of consent in most states was 17 not 16, I already admitted that was a joke. Can you find any serious edits I made there, that were not obvious vandalism, that suggest such a bias? And what about the debate I had with Malke where I insisted that the age of consent was in fact 16 in some states, if I am so biased in favor of the age of consent being 18, then why did I debate Malke so extensively? Not to mention the fact that I'm the person who originally edited the article the number sixteen to point out that sixteen was the age of consent in most jurisdictions at the beginning of my editing history, and at the end I'm the one who criticized the Polanski article for calling Polanksi's sexual affairs with girls under the age of sixteen "child sexual molestation" and changed it to "sexual relations" to make it more npov. And I changed the pedophilia article's definition of pedophilia from being "any sexual abuse of minors" to "any sexual contact with minors" to make it more npov. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The content you changed in the Pedophilia article is about a misuse of the pedophilia term anyway. When referring to prepubescents, adult-child sexual contact is always termed child sexual abuse or child molestation (and our Wikipedia article on the topic is titled Child sexual abuse, not Child molestation or Adult-child sex, per Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles; besides, most scholars don't view calling an adult engaging in sexual activity with a prepubescent "child sexual abuse" to be non-neutral). And I stated nothing of a "fanatical bias against underage sex." Nor was that implied by anything I have stated, so don't even go on about what you think I meant. You might as well be quiet now. Everyone here can see that you are often dishonest and that you twist words so profoundly that even your reporting of things that transpired cannot be trusted. And now I'm done with you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you DID say that I had a bias in favor of the age of sexual consent and age of majority being 18, do you deny that, I can show you edits where you stated that. And my point is that the edits from my history that I have shown argue that your accusation is false. So that is not a good reason to block. Since you are trying to topic ban me I think I have a right to point out that some of your accusations against me are false. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And I have already said that my viewpoint is that the age of consent and age of majority should both be 16 or lower, not as high as 18. So that disproves your accusation of bias, when combined with my earlier editing which was clearly biased in favor of a lower age of consent, if anything. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold your horses, probable sockpuppetry

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SqueakBox has been filed due to the likelihood that RJR3333 isn't a new editor at all. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, SqueakBox was a good editor. One who, if talking about the same SqueakBox, was wrongly reported as being pro-pedophilia by Fox News (although that Fox News report was late about the pedophilia problem anyway, seeing as it was taken care of a couple of years before 2010 and hasn't been rampant since that time). See here. In fact, I just got through talking with him this past week (Wednesday) about his departure. But RJR3333 is indeed a sockpuppet. His original account is User:FDR. In addition to comparing these diffs,[37][38] and FDR's sudden reappearance in light of RJR3333's recent editing troubles, compare the bulk of their contributions and you'll see what I mean. I interacted with FDR last year as well. See here. And I feel stupid for not having seen his tampering with RJR3333's user page for what it was. But FDR was so unbelievably destructive that it didn't occur to me that he could be the relatively "new" and well-meaning editor RJR3333. And FDR's edits definitely show what I mean about RJR3333's belief that the age of consent should be 18 across the board and that a person should be 18 (and not 16) to be diagnosed with pedophilia -- beliefs he claims not to have under his RJR3333 account, although I have seen both accounts display such beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

YMMV on whether SqueakBox was a good editor or not. Even so, there are significant similarities in editing interests between the two account, and not just age of consent/pedophilia related articles. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, SqueakBox has an extensive blocklog. But I am stating that I worked with SqueakBox for years on pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles, and that I therefore know the personalities of these two editors. They are very different, especially seeing that SqueakBox, unlike RJR3333, understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia. SqueakBox and RJR3333's editing and personalities are not similar. And there will be no match in that regard. There will be when comparing FDR and RJR3333. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the history, is it just me, or did FDR have a relationship with SqueakBox that's a less-intense version of the one RJR3333 has been having with Flyer22? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I was completely wrong. I guess I'm tireder than I thought. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Need some help

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

• Let's take that one by one:

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

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

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

As posted on your talkpage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrasment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roux problematic edits

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

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

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

I trust we understand each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Resolution

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

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

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

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

RESULTS First, I want to publicly apologize for my poor choice in words in describing Roax. I should have been more sensible in my word choices and not have allowed my emotions to get in the way. Second, now that this user is inactive I would think the best policy would be to Close this as resolved. I tried to show Roax my support for what I was doing. And just to be clear, I never called myself an expert. However that is neither here nor there. Good day to you all. Keystoneridin (speak) 04:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment from User:SarekOfVulcan

I do not know what part of this:

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

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

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

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

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

To wit:

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

→ ROUX ₪ 01:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you're really going to be that much of an asshole about this? Fuck you. → ROUX ₪ 02:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec)OK, so another way to interpret what you just said is 'Yes', because it sounds like that is what you are already taking steps to do. Can we expect a similar type of affirmation from Sarek now? -- Avanu (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Right -- so you're not looking for a two-sided interaction ban, you're looking to be able to swear at and belittle other editors without me complaining. As we say in Maine, "It don't work 'ike 'at, de-ah." (BTW, when was the last time I interacted with you before today?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all fucking counts, but you're too much of an arrogant asshole to stay the fuck away when someone has repeatedly told you to. Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, you pathetic excuse for a human being. {[subst:User:Roux/sig}}

Sarek, you are an Administrator here. It would help us if you could maintain your cool and bring a solution to the discussion through your leadership at this moment. I realize that this is a divisive and unpleasant situation, but let's stay focused on the goal. -- Avanu (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since both users seem to be intent on poking each other here, could I ask an uninvolved admin to implement a formal interaction ban for 2 weeks, and if either of them violates it, they will be subject to a 2 week block or voluntary suspension of editing privileges. -- Avanu (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: "admin zombie"! what a delicious topic for an essay – Lionel ^(talk) 02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Why not just say that from now on, SarekOfVulcan is considered WP:INVOLVED in matters pertaining to Roux? (Sarek, even if you're not, it's more helpful for anything that hits Roux to not come from you). In that case, Sarek can only interact with Roux editor-to-editor except in an emergency. Then, for editor-to-editor business, we do a limited disengage. Sarek stays off of Roux's talkpage except in the aforementioned admin-needed-emergency. Roux stays off of Sarek's talkpage. Each agrees not to discuss the other one on their own talkpages either. And Roux, you're cautioned about making any future accusations about someone else without providing diffs. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a much better idea, Jorgath -- why don't you provide evidence dating from before my second post to Roux's talkpage today that says I'm INVOLVED in matters pertaining to Roux, and then suggest that I be considered involved?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't get it. Sarek, in those diffs you gave above I don't see any urgent reason for you to post on Roux's talk page. The rest is predictable, of course, FUs and all. Sarek, please don't post on his talk page again. Roux, revert that user page of yours please--it is way too cool to abbreviate. Can we all cool it down now please? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. He asked Sarek to stay off his talk page. Sarek's diff was something another admin could have easily handled and it certainly wasn't time sensitive. Had he no inkling that posting on his talk page would set him off? Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with Drmies and Fasttimes68. Roux has now stormed out, which is really not surprising. I was too slow, as I often am, but I have belatedly posted an appeal, which I wrote last night, on Roux' talkpage. It's to Roux, Sarek, and somewhat Bwilkins. I hope they will read and consider it. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Ok, it may be 5:42AM and I'm two sips into my first cup of coffee, but Bish, your post there seems to suggest I was commenting on Roux's page on behalf of or at the bequest of SoV ... not sure where that comes from. I approached Roux out of common familiarity, and was attempting to de-escalate and pointing out some flaws in their logic (and logic is typically a dish Roux prefers). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intend to suggest such a thing, but I can see how it could be read like that. I meant that you "pulled rank" on behalf on Sarek as an admin in this post, note especially the edit summary. Not that you posted on his behalf or at his behest. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Timeline

Drmies, and others, here's the timeline for you:

• 17:47: This noticeboard section started.
• 19:53 – 22:46: Roux and Keystoneridin have an edit war on User talk:Keystoneridin
• 21:47: "Enough is enough. I realize you are angry about the article, fine. But posting to intervene on other communications which do not concern you IS harassment. Please do stop. This is getting ridiculous." — Keystoneridin to Roux
• 22:00: "Your communication on my talk page has become grossly inappropriate." — Keystoneridin to Roux
• 22:01: Blanking by Keystoneridin
• 22:09: reversion by Roux
• 22:15: "You are not understanding that I know this person one on one in real life […] Please allow me to handle my conversations as I see fit. If I need your help, I will ask for it." — Keystoneridin
• 22:38: Blanking by Keystoneridin
• 22:42: "Until then? This stays." reversion by Roux using Twinkle's rollback
• 22:50: "Can we just put this behind us? I want this warring to stop. Good day to you!" — Keystoneridin (section entitled "Bury the Hatchet")
• 22:57: "You'll have to do a few things first. […]" — Roux
• 23:11: "Don't edit war on other people's talk pages, please." — SarekOfVulcan
• 23:13: "Re: 'burying the hatchet,' it seems blindingly clear to me that you don't so much want to bury the hatchet as you want to not be criticized for everything you are doing wrong. As for 'lunatic edit stalker,' that is yet another false accusation. Time for you to be blocked." — Roux
• 23:17: "Way too late as usual, Sarek;" — by Roux using Twinkle's rollback

The rest is above. I issue a general request to others to read the contributions histories and find out what's actually going on before participating at this noticeboard. Going off half cocked is a perennial problem here. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

2 Week Civility Block on User:Roux

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

---

This has gone far enough. Given what I have seen here, User:Roux is way out of line and needs to cool down. This user has belittled an editor who tried to write an article, attacked an editor on their own talkpage and expected that editor to stay away because he was commanded to, and requests a 1 sided interaction ban. This user is being rude, ignorant, arrogant, and plainly put, uncivil. This user has requested, to put it mildly, for an editor to stay away from his talk page. This user has then made attacking statements against this editor and expects them to keep away instead of defending themselves. This user as a result complains loudly in an uncivil manner. I say this needs to be put to a stop and therefore:

Proposal by Cyberpower678

Proposal: Given that this user has severe civility issues. As an uninvolved editor, I am proposing a 2 week civility block be enforced on User:Roux. To allow them to cool off.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Cool-down blocks are not permitted by policy, and two weeks would be a Hell of a long "cool-down" block anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• A) We don't do cool down blocks, and B) You're too late. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yes we do. Civility blocks have been enforced before.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Hoax article W7H Syndrome

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

---

Resolved

 – by RHaworth, via CSD#G3. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention that I have just marked the new article W7H Syndrome as db-hoax. I'm leaving a note here because the hoax is pretty fancy and the hoaxishness might not be obvious to admins without any medical knowledge, but in fact the whole article is nonsense, and it is full of sly jokes. The level of sophistication makes this something worth taking notice of. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The image is clearly a copyvio as well, I've tagged it as such over at Commons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Paid advocacy

At Elance [39] there is a request for someone to write a Wikipedia article on U.S.Corrugated, which we now have a page on. User:Swdandap created the article and has been active up to five days ago. "Swdandap" is suspiciously close to "Swetha D." ([40]), the person who was accepted to write the article. Personally I feel there is a connection but further comments would be appreciated. Albacore (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unless the article is written in violation of some policy or guideline, there is no consensus that a paid editor is doing anything wrong. Is it notable? Neutral? Properly cited? Monty₈₄₅ 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Seconding what Monty said - this certainly looks like it might be editing for pay, but that's not strictly prohibited. What is prohibited is editing poorly, whether for pay or not. At a quick look over the user's contributions, I'd say her articles have evidence of notability provided in them and are written in coherent English prose. Some of the sourcing is a bit weak and there's a word here and there that could be swapped out for neutrality, but overall I give it a "meh, no better and no worse than most of our articles". If the user's edits are problematic, or if they're editing in defiance of a block/ban/topic-ban/whatever, then we have a problem. If the sole problem here is that they may have gotten paid for making them, then it's sort of a non-issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is not notable, and while it is probably one of the less puff-ish pieces I've seen by a PR worker, it is still a bit POV ("legacy?" and half the sources are for the awards and environmental records sections). Funny, Swetha D's page on Elance.com says she's a Wikipedia article writer as part of her job description. I'd say that's well more than a connection. We do have rules against conflicts of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review this previous ban proposal of one of the most prolific Elance spammers, and consider the lengths they will go to (falsely attributing things, misrepresenting press releases as reliable sources, inventing references, etc) in order to harm Wikipedia for their own personal gain. These articles should be treated with absolute prejudice: just because they might look OK at face value does not mean they aren't total crap. WilliamH (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of guilt by association. If this particular Elance writer is falsely attributing or misrepresenting then yes, action would be needed, but I don't think the article here is that bad. Scrutinize it if you want, but don't judge it based on the misconduct of others. Monty₈₄₅ 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting guilt by association. I'm reminding everyone that where money is involved for some people, harming Wikipedia is an acceptable way of getting it, and that any articles created by paid editors should be closely examined. WilliamH (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• There was more promotional trimming that needed to be done (so no, not neutral, not properly cited). Another thing: at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive, I read of a User:Skywagon5, now blocked and author of (now deleted) Bahamas Habitat; our Swetha D. claims to have written an article for Cameron E King--apparently this King person works for Bahamas Habitat. I wonder if anyone can run a CU, if the information is not stale, to see if there's anything there. Note that the "client" for that job is "skywagon5". Also flaunted on her page as having created is Ricardo Chávez, lest there is any doubt that the Wikipedia editor and the Elance worker are the same. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note the user has added spam links to various articles: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Albacore (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no interest in editing corporate articles myself, but it's probably worth mentioning that this article's title itself is out-of-date. According to this (currently linked as ref 3 in the article), after U.S. Corrugated was acquired by KapStone the new subsidiary's name was changed to KapStone Container Corporation. I guess the new bosses haven't wanted to shell out for a page update. Deor (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how many people are going to go out of their way to write very much about a company that makes cardboard boxes. The only secondary sources are likely to simply state that the company exists, and maybe it promoted a town charity or something. -- Avanu (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The diffs added by Albacore are quite damning and warrant, in my opinion, a spam ban. This is a paid editor whose prime interest is not improving the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just deleted Corner Travel Index (already prodded by Binksternet) as spam, and am having a look at the editor's other work. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Even after the extensive prior editing, I found I needed to give the article additional copyedits, including removal of both overlinking and elementary grammar errors. I would agree with a ban for the general good of both the encyclopedia and prospective article subjects. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please start logging these, and the associated "enabling" sites, as I perceive no difference between this and other systematic and collusion based vandalism attempts. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to draft a proposal and put it out on the Village Pump, I'd probably support it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I would too, without any reservation whatsoever. I have spent a long time dealing with this sort of thing by many editors and sockers from Elance, and it takes hours of volunteer time to clear up the work by those who are paid to harm Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, the work of any individual advertising their services at Elance should be deleted/reverted on sight by any administrator. I would also not object to an abuse report. WilliamH (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed that a log be kept regarding poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative action: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing

• US Corrugated has enough reliable sources to be notable. And bad writing is not a policy violation. If the article needs to be cleaned up, clean it up. We have hundreds of thousands of others that also need cleanup, not to mention unsourced BLPs, articles about Myspace bands that got through NPP, etc. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Elance

Speaking as an admin who's not inherently intolerant of editing for pay (I think it can, and sometimes is, done well and with good intentions for the encyclopedia), it seems that a disproportionate amount of problematic paid editing seems to come out of Elance, in particular. This actually highlights an important (to me) distinction among paid editors - there are those who are editing on behalf of the company who already pays them (many of whom seem to want to play by the rules, since it helps their employer if they don't make them look bad, and many of whom find their way to the noticeboard intended for them to engage with the community), and then there are those who are freelancing or have been hired expressly to write an article. Elance editors fall into this second group, and because their relationship to the companies is short-term and piece work, it's no skin off their nose if the article is good and meets our guidelines, or if it's terrible, just as long as it stays long enough for them to get paid. And when an Elance editor shows up here, we pretty much always seem to get the short end of the stick, much more reliably than when other types of paid editors show up. Given this - and this is just sort of taking a rough shape in my mind, so I welcome suggestions for how this could work or how to word it - I wonder if there's any traction for some sort of ban on Elance-bought editing, in particular? Not because all other paid editing is fine, but because Elance editing seems to be particularly, and quite reliably, bad in a way that other paid editing isn't always, and so if we can trim off the reliably-bad, it leaves our resources more free for dealing with the maybe-bad-we-should-probably-look-into-this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Well said. I unreservedly support a ban of all individuals soliciting work via Elance. Whatever one's views of paid editing are, edits by Elance contractors is consistently bad, facilitates disruption (usually in the form of socks so they can try and get their spam in undetected), and is a drain of precious volunteer time: time which I would much rather see spent cleaning up articles made in good faith, instead of articles which harm the project. WilliamH (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I would support a ban for all editors found to be editing from Elance. Though I would also support if, afterwards, they apologize and say they want to go through the proper channels and noticeboard, that we let them do so. Silverseren^C 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support a ban on all editors working through Elance. The situation is out of control. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As a freelancer myself, I find putting restrictions on editors on that basis alone to be inappropriate. Your comparison between a freelancer's motivation and a full-time employee is flawed; a full-time employee has job security and a motivation to keep that job, and he could easily be driven to long-term disruption, such as repeatedly slanting an article via sneaky POV pushing in the interest of maintaining his position. That's the very worst kind of disruption we face. A freelancer, on the other hand, has only his portfolio to find new clients and maintain his paycheck. As a freelancer, it's important to make sure your work is good, both for your reputation in the community to net future jobs, and so that you actually get paid and reviewed well. If a "freelance wikipedia editor" gets blocked, or put under increased negative scrutiny, that limits or ends his ability to find work and get paid. This issue is absolutely not about "freelancer vs full-time employee"; this is about "known paid advocates and unknown". Elance is public, and so we can easily track the jobs requested and writers who pick them up, which means we're naturally going to find a number of "bad apples" coming from elance. Full-time employees paid to write here are not so public, so when they get scrutinized or blocked, it isn't tied to paid advocacy at all. This discrepancy in disruption between elance writers and other paid advocates is an illusion, due to our ability to only see one side. Furthermore, ANI is absolutely not the place to be having this discussion. If editors are going to be blocked for something which is not currently against policy, then we need to adjust the policy, not arbitrarily decide they should be blocked here, and not tell anyone until they wind up with a big orange bar on their page. Please discuss this at the appropriate venue, and involve the whole community in the discussion. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• What do you think would be the best venue for this, Jess? I can think of a couple of possibilities - VPP, WP:Paid Editing, WP:BLOCK ...probably a couple more beyond that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right that this issue isn't about "freelancer vs full-time employee". It's about the fact that a lot of spammy crap originates from Elance contractors, and my experience over the last six months dealing with them reveals that what's most important is not to make sure that their work is good, but to make sure it stays there, and if that means harming Wikipedia, that's OK for them. If they did truly care about the project's interests, then they would disclose their conflict of interests and work with us. WilliamH (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, I would suggest VPP or Block. VPP is probably best. Since the paid editing issue has been discussed extensively in the past, with a lot of heated opinions, advertising the discussion would probably also be appropriate.

William, I get that a lot of bad content comes from paid editing. We should block editors who consistently make bad edits whether or not they are paid, such as we did here. Blocking editors who are public about their paid editing is not the solution, nor is basing our blocking decisions on the prior behavior of other editors who happen to use the same service, or happen to not be employed full-time and hence need to find work conspicuously. If the community decides that paid editing is bad, that's fine. In the meantime, paid editing is considered acceptable, and discriminating against editors on the basis that they freelance is a bad idea.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We block GNAA accounts rapidly, as their conduct tends to resemble one another. But lo! When a GNAA member edits in other ways, we accept them. Also, "paid editing is considered acceptable" is not the case, it is your fantasy of a contested situation. I might as well say, "Paid editors are scabs." Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For the third time: the issue is not paid editing. The issue is that a disproportionate amount of harmful material originates from individuals soliciting via Elance. A community ban of such individuals would be an appropriate way of dealing with a group of editors who demonstrate time after time that they do not wish to engage with the community, and that damaging Wikipedia is an acceptable means to their financial ends. WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you are correct. It would have been better for me to say "paid editing is not considered unacceptable". We do not have a policy against it, and so outright blocking a certain portion of paid editors who may not have edited poorly would be in poor taste without first discussing it with the same community who rejected a paid editing prohibition. I did not mean to imply that everyone was for it.

William, I don't know how to express this better than I have... but I don't get the impression that you've understood me. You say you're talking about "a group of editors who demonstrate time after time that they do not wish to engage with the community". That's not true; it implies that we're discussing blocking a definite number of disruptive editors... that they are enumerable, and persistently harmful. That's not the case. We're talking about blocking editors on sight who may not have ever caused problems in the past, on the sole basis that they happen to freelance openly. This does not address the problem of disruptive editors generally, nor the problem of paid editors more specifically. It simply encourages paid editors who don't wish to be ostracized to be more discrete. You're suggesting blocking by associating, and rather than addressing the problem by targetting disruptive editors, you're simply targeting any editor you can lock on to. If that isn't more clear, then I'm probably just not capable of conveying my meaning properly. Anyway, it's a moot point if we plan to have this discussion in another venue. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Who has the energy or time to debate with a paid editor? Even an obvious support some kind of restriction for obvious cases results in a wall of text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that the community is willing to engage with paid editors. It's just that they are the ones not willing to engage with us. If they were, we would not be having this discussion. WilliamH (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Elance is a corrupt off-site collusion attempting to wreck V NPOV and A Free Encyclopaedia Anyone Can Edit. AN/I is a perfectly good forum to gauge consensus on such an action. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. What Fifelfoo said. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Fifelfoo etc. Self-evidently harmful to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Just in case my above grumpy comment is not sufficiently clear. While gold might be produced from lead, and a good article might come from Elance, we have to deal with what actually happens—time wasting promotional spin. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - For the general "screw Elance with a rusty cheese grater, we're not their property" reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above. Of course, User:MooshiePorkFace/"Wikipedia Wizard" isn't the first banned Elance user -- see WP:BANNED#Desiphral. Another discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch#Wikipedia Bureaucrat or Admin services required in Elance. If this ban is enacted, we need a sanctions log page somewhere. MER-C 05:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  Separate to a sanction specific log for any action regarding potential Elance bans, I have also started a proposal at WP:VPR regarding logging all serious administrative actions against paid editors whose payer can be identified: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing. This is so that systematic patterns of off-site abuse can be diagnosed. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As Jess says above, "ANI is absolutely not the place to be having this discussion." If you're going to make a blanket ban on editors just because they accept an assignment from Elance, you better get a little more community involvement than the few hotheads we're seeing here. I see very little evidence, and I see a lot of inflammatory and judgemental comments. This should be at a much larger and longer discussion, and not here, unless you can start producing a system here that protects due process. Decisions at AN/I are geared toward specific threats from specific editors at specific times. You are now talking about an entire class of editor. A community-wide Request for Comment, with specific details and evidence, a specific plan (or plans) of action, with an emphasis on fairness and reason is the very least you ought to be doing. AN/I is not the place for a resolution of this issue. -- Avanu (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As per Fluffernutter ,WilliamH ,Mer-C ,Fifelfoo and further many of the main editors like Wikipedia Wizardry are site banned here .There has been little positive and the negatives far above outweigh the positives and further some seek admin tools to see there articles are not deleted rather than in writingPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm all in favour of taking measures against bad edits, but I don't think there is such a strong correlation between "edits via elance" and "bad edits". Aren't we already able to apply sanctions to spammers and pov-warriors? If we are, keep on doing that. If we aren't, then we have a broader problem. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - not enough reserach/knowledge on where paid editors originate from / how good/bad they are, and banning this one particualr site seems a tad off to me. GiantSnowman 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• 'oppose We can't block people through guilt by association.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77

(Thread copied from talk: AfC) User:Oakley77‎ has done several reviews that have been problematic, including passing three articles with copyright problems that are VERY, VERY obvious and passing articles that do not meet guidelines like Arctic Anthropology. This comes on the heels of having been community banned from Good Article nomination processes because of a failure to understand Wikipedia policies. It might be time to consider community blocking User:Oakley77‎ from this community process as he appears to be adding material that does not uphold community standard. contributions here and logs here. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If we're angling for a community ban from this process, mightn't ANI be a better venue for this? I'm not sure, which is why I ask. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is your motive here? Do you wish to request a community ban from AfC or request that the user be community blocked? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no reviewer approval process or quality review process, I think ANI would be the place to go.  :- ) Don 00:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the double-post, but a bit more digging reveals that this user appears to have accepted EVERY article that they reviewed. If there are that many good articles in AfC, then I'm a mouse. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm migrating this here so we can have some community input on this problem. (Oh, and to answer your question, Nathan, fairly sure Laura meant a community ban) OohBunnies! (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• (thread migrated from original topic) I'm not angling for a block for this user. This user can sometimes do very good content work when they work purely on content. They just have made some reviews that demonstrate a problem understanding notability and copyright issues. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rising Sun Lodge 29, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Model Driven Interoperability, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arctic Anthropology are I think the ones I recall. There was one that he passed that was subsequently speedily deleted. gives an idea of problems. I mention this only because another article I hadn't looked at before that he passed was mentioned on his talk page today. Hence the timing. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commenting again: He was community banned from GAN with out being blocked. You can probably do a community ban instead of doing a block as he just needs to stay out of reviewing without understaning policy. It doesn't need to go to ANI to escalate. --LauraHale (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan2055 (talk • contribs)

It's not that I think he needs to be blocked, it's just that talk:AfC is a very quiet venue, and this is generally where we work out community sanctions, isn't it? OohBunnies! (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not trying to escalate the problem, I just don't think we can add and enforce a community ban being added by a three-person discussion on a quiet talk page. Bans are typically either added through large community consensus or order of ArbCom. On a smaller note, I have finished merging the discussion and blanked the original thread. Please comment here instead. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just a comment: I looked on Oakley's talk page and notice a couple of instances where they have told other editors that they declined their submission because it wasn't well "formatted" such as here and here (see comment). According to WP:AFCR under "invalid reasons to decline a submission" it says "Declining an article because it contains easily solved formatting issues, such as no wikilinks to other articles or no sections, is not acceptable. Instead, fix it yourself, or accept and tag the article to alert other editors to the one or two issues that you believe are the most urgent issues." I wouldn't think it warrants a community ban, but just another demonstration that they may need help understanding some of the AfC criteria. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I also notified Oakley about this discussion. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think LauraHale means topic banned from AFC - not community banned (though at the rate this editor is going, that may well happen). The move of this to ANI was premature and should be reverted. --Rschen7754 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans are also community-imposed, are they not (unless via ArbCom)? The reason this is here is to get some input from the community. OohBunnies! (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this isn't exactly an "incident," isn't the proper venue for this actually WP:AN, not AN/I? Not that it matters much: its here now, it might as well stay. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we're trying to do here, or what sanction or block is asked for. But I have a proposal: Oakley77 should NOT be reviewing anything at all. Not GAs, not FAs, not DYKs, not AfCs, nothing of the kind. They simply do not have the reviewing skills, and they do not seem to understand or listen to directions. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, if this is in the incorrect place, I take the blame and apologise. But it's here now, and wouldn't be a good idea to move it again, so I'd like to simply make the proposal. As demonstrated above by the examples Laura Hale gave, Oakley77, though well meaning, doesn't have a firm grasp of certain policies and has been active in the Articles for Creation area. Most recently, articles were reviewed and passed by them that contained obvious copyright violations.

I propose that Oakley be placed under a 3 month ban from reviewing articles submitted via Articles for Creation. After 3 months, the ban can be lifted if the user demonstrates that they have an understanding of article policies such as verifiability and, most importantly, copyright violations. I think 3 months isn't too harsh and gives the user plenty of time to gain the experience and knowledge needed to continue to help out. How does this sound? OohBunnies! (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. first, there is no point in moving it elsewhere. second, that the three month ban would be a good idea, with careful watching to follow. There are likely to be need for other such afc bans, and I think this page a perfectly reasonable place to discuss them. AN should be kept for more general problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Or concurrently with this GAN topic ban? Informal mentorship was tried but did not work well. : / --LauraHale (talk)

Support - Keep it here, three month ban on reviewing as per OohBunnies proposal. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Support though I'd suggest extending it to all featured processes (FAC, FLC, etc). with delegates' input, as well as DYK. --Rschen7754 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Support, I also suggest making sure Oakley can demonstrate an understanding of AfC reviewing guidelines, in addition to other policies, before lifting the block. Also, I believe it is important that all articles that Oakley approved get moved back into AfC for reevaluation. Also, I think all users whose articles were improperly accepted need to be informed of it. One article creator contacted me in a very confused state, as I had just denied his or her article for not being properly sourced, and Oakley had approved a similar article that was sourced in the same way. Gold Standard 05:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I have removed the PROD from Arctic Anthropology as it as a relatively high impact journal for anthropology and on that basis meets the GNG. But by no means do I think this undermines what LauraHale has said about Oakley77's standards at AfC. I happen to be familiar the subject of the article and some of the more obscure guidelines surrounding it, but that's not something we can count on at AfC. When the article was accepted it had no independent sources and most of the text was copied directly from the journal's website. I think this highlights why it's really important to be diligent at AfC – if Oakley77 had declined the submission on these grounds, we as a project would have worked with the submitter to improve the article, get it accepted, and possibly gained a valuable long-term contributor to the encyclopaedia. Accepting submissions that only go on to get nominated for deletion gives a really bad impression to new editors (see User:Press Stevens' frustrated comments at Talk:Arctic Anthropology) and risks scaring them off for good.

Looking at Oakley77's contributions, he has created other similarly awkward situations by accepting unsuitable submissions. I'm sure he's not alone, but it's time we tightened up standards at AfC. joe•roe^t•c 08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with this user is BY FAR not only GAN. Here they created a one-line unsourced stub ALL information in which was in fact false (compare with the current version). At the time, they were creating several dozens such stubs per day. Here they replaced correct info in the article by wrong info. When I pointed out this at their talk page, I got no recation. My conclusion is that the user basically does not understand the basic policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • • @Ymblanter, same problem here. Completely read a source completely wrong and put factually incorrect information in to address something in a GA review, where he is specifically blocked from participating and after having failed to consult me about doing that. --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I support a ban, but with these new findings I believe first a block and then a ban might be even more 'correct': this user has simply made too many problems to let him walking around and 'destroying' that project. mabdul 08:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
        • My concern is that we're eventually going to have to ban him from every darn process if we can't get through to this editor... and then we probably will be left with no option but then to do a full community ban. I've tried talking to this editor and don't seem to be getting through. --Rschen7754 08:*29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
          • That's my concern too. He wanted to get back into WP:GAN and I agreed to mentor. I specifically spelled out what needed to be done. part of this edit made me vaguely nutty. Fact added in club section did NOT belong there and was not supported by the citation. Then, we derailed as they then wanted to do stuff outside the conditions of mentorship and eventually went shopping for a new article. I had to ding back a number of articles to Cs because he thought poorly written wrongly assessed Bs were nomination close to ready. He should have known the criteria that suggested these were not going to GAN any time soon.--LauraHale (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to an indefinite block on the grounds of WP:CIR and / or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Not something I suggest lightly, but this editor is either unable or unwilling to edit in accordance with the rules here. He is taking up too much time of productive editors like LauraHale and others who have to check anything that Oakley77 does, because he cannot be trusted. Bencherlite^Talk 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As someone else who's previously warned him about a completely unrelated issue (the mass removal of maintenance tags from articles without making any effort to fix the problems involved), and also had no reply from him - and who's witnessed his repeated malformed nominations at WP:TFAR despite repeated explanations as to what he's doing wrong - I'd support this. Any block should be very clear that "indefinite" is being used with the meaning of "unspecified", not "forever" - provided he demonstrates that he understands what he's doing wrong, and promises to stop trying to run before he can walk in future, I'd have no problem with said block being lifted. Mogism (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I support Oohbunnies! proposal and oppose Becherlite's. He's been constructive in other areas in the project, and I don't see why we have to block him for CIR issues. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• I would support either proposal. Alas, when looking at edits in other areas, I don't think mass-creation of error-ridden unsourced stubs, mass-removal of maintenance tags, misreading of sources &c can best be described as "constructive". Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but if an editor makes so many mistakes in different areas as to require constant supervision and cleanup by other editors, their contributions are hindering rather than helping the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support the three-month ban from AfC at the very least. We have a GA ban already, and I've remarked on their talk page that they should stay away from FA as well (duh). What's odd is that we have an editor who is active and interested, and seems to be utterly incompetent at the tasks they have taken up themselves. Laura's mentoring advice is instructive: there's plenty of "yes, sure," and then no improvement. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ban from all content review venues - This editor has already been banned from GAN, and now faces a ban from AFC. It seems reasoanble to expect they will simply move to another review process despite a demonstrated lack of competence. So why do it piecemeal? No opinion on an indef block, but frankly, that is the next step if problematic behaviour persists. Resolute 14:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all content reviewing. I think Resolute has it right. This should explicitly include GAN, FAC, AfC, and DYK. I think it should be an indefinite topic ban until the user can deomonstrate competence, perhaps with more formalized mentoring required. LadyofShalott 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What about ITN? Featured Sound/Image? FL? If you miss to include one, he/she will likely pick that one... mabdul 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Then use more general wording? "All content reviewing and promotion, broadly construed. This includes ITN, DYK, AfC, GAN, FAC, Featured Signpost Article, Category Of The Day, Good AN/I Thread Nominations, and Portals for Creation." No? bobrayner (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
      • "Includes but is not limited to..." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
        • "is not limited to..." is redundant. I trim that from articles all the time. Going forward, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Of course it's redundant. And good on you for trimming it from articles. But in this case, it's redundancy for emphasis, to make it absolutely clear that there's no loopholes; things we're leaving off the "includes" list are still in there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I will grant you that we're dealing with an editor on who redundant repetition is not wasted, to head them off at the pass--but I detest that cliche. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
              • "All Wikipedia content assessment processes, all discussions relating to content assessment processes, such as but not limited to…". Looking at his recent history, it looks like hijacking low-traffic WikiProjects is going to be his next move, so it may be worth shoehorning them into the proposal as well. Mogism (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• I would also support a ban from all reviewing processes until the user can demonstrate understanding of processes and policies, if that's on the table. I wouldn't support a block at this time, though. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I am voluntarily removing myself from the AfC process in order to stop wasting productive, precious time. The can still be placed as I see it, I just wanted everyone to now that I will not be reviewing anymore AfC articles. As for the GAN and me, I am learning as much as I can in order to hopefully be reinstated into the process as a nominator. I also will not review a FA, a GA, a DYK, or a AfC again until I fully comprehend the review process AND get an involved editors' permission. Sorry for any trouble I have caused, Oakley77 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that if Oakley can successfully move all articles that (s)he approved back into AfC, the ban be shortened to 1 month. Gold Standard 18:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about his problems at GAN, TFAR, FAC, WM, WP:COUNCIL and all the rest of the alphabet soup? The copyvio issue at AFC is a serious one, but it's certainly not the only disruption Oakley is causing. Despite the number of people who've tried to explain it to him, I don't think he realises just how many people he's irritating, or how much time is being wasted cleaning up his messes - while we don't expect perfection, we do expect people to have at least a vague familiarity with the relevant policies regarding whatever it is they're trying to do. If what happened following his ban from GAN is any guide, he'll immediately move on to another project page and start disrupting that unless he's expressly banned from doing so. Mogism (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No. Moving articles back to AfC would create more mess and confusion and would not solve anything, nor prove that a lesser ban is needed. OohBunnies! (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the articles he accepted need to be re-reviewed, no question. If someone can get me a list of them I will go through them. Never mind, found them using this. Also, I still support a 3 month (at least) ban. Gold Standard 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to open a proposal to ban Oakley from all content reviewing to January 1, 2013, to be lifted after the user goes through formal mentoring about Wikipedia policies. I'd also like to request the the topic ban from the Good Article process be extended to after the mentorship is complete. I formally oppose moving any content back into the AfC process, at the maximum those articles should be AfDd to avoid excessive biting. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support new proposal by Nathan2055. Gold Standard 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support all proposals to topic ban from all content review. Oppose indefinite block at this time. --Rschen7754 02:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support the broadly construed topic ban from content review processes. I supported the GAN ban, which doesn't lapse until November 25, 2012. I also currently oppose an indefinite block at this time, but I fear that one may be required in the end, so I harbor no prejudice toward such a proposal in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support either topic ban or block. I also have to say that Oakley's new article creations are not exactly helping the encyclopedia. I have been going through his contributions for a while now just to fix obvious errors, adding a source here and there, etc. I was very surprised to see the above statement "Just need better format and structure and we could have an article" on the AfC seeing as most of their articles have many formatting problems, from incorrectly formatting external links to not bolding the title, and more importantly, very few of their one line stubs are referenced. It seems to me that awarding oneself an award and all the above concerns about GAN and AfC show a profound lack of competence. "Pepper" @ 14:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support a ban from reviewing processes (Featured content reviewing, GANs, DYKs, and ITN too). I think a block will be too much. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from ALL reviewing areas for, say, 3 months? Anyone able to mentor in the meantime? GiantSnowman 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Earthquakes925

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

---

In chronological order:

1. This edit is name calling. I pointed it out and that resulted in
2. this edit where there is no attempt at apology or explanation.
3. This edit is outing me and I am now feeling threatened.

I am not amused to say the least. This is all over the other editor's insistence that a soccer rivalry is the biggest when no such claim can be found to support it. The discussion where the name-calling occurred and appeared to be resolved more than a month ago and then restarted a few days ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And now breach of copyright and another attack with the first edit at User:Earthquakes925. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this account is vandalism-only and should be blocked indef. Second of all, the third diff is stalking and needs to be deleted by an Overisghter. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Electric. However, it seems like the user never received a block warning - am I missing something here? Theopolisme _{TALK 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)}

(edit conflict × 3)Exactly what I was going to say. Add complete lack of WP:COMPETENCE to the reasons for block, too. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Been observing this. No block yet? Also - User:RealEarthquake...possibly related? Already been warned for their crummy conduct at any rate. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RealEarthquake is likely the puppeteer and Earthquakes925 is the sock, based on duck. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have indeffed User:Earthquakes925 and blocked User:RealEarthquake for a week. If the disruption resumes (either from another sock, or after the expiration of the block) let me know and I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Oversighted the edits, and  Confirmed that User:Earthquakes925 and User:RealEarthquake are the same person. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits like this should lead to longer timeouts. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

xkcd #1079 "Colorado" Vandals

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

---

I've seen a few anonymous users editing Colorado to match xkcd's joke article. The edits are being rolled back, but IP bans are probably in order. 68.80.18.61 has been seen rolling back a rollback of previous vandals' edits. IPs include:

• 68.80.18.61
• 71.196.165.102
• 24.231.221.65

The page has been semi-protected. --11rcombs (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need to play "Dynamic IP whack-a-mole" with blocks if the article has been semi-protected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; archiving. --11rcombs (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Obvious sock is obvious

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

---

Shaiatsu (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

First edit is revert in WP:ARBPIA area [48] second edit adding some obscure userbox [49],on the next day adding some large chunks of wikitext [50].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Context, please? Whose obvious sock is it? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One of problems of WP:ARBPIA area that it have many banned editors and it full of socks , such behavior that this user shows is not typical for new users but typical for socks.So this user is abusing multiple accounts.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But which user do you think specifically is socking? Theopolisme TALK 13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue have been discussed here [51]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Most likely it's NoCal100 (I blocked one of his socks a couple days ago, and this one bears striking resemblance), so I'll go take care of it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Stalking

Stalking is being hit by one or more editors intent on getting a reference to "gang stalking" in against consensus. A checkuser last year on Commons revealed that Elizabeth Blandra (talk · contribs) and PeaceFrog71 (talk · contribs) are the same: [52], and both are here, along with an IP that's doing the same thing. None of them apart from Elizabeth Blandra (a presumed good-hand account) are even pretending to avoid 3RR. Since I've reverted their edits, might someone else do the honors? Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked the frog and the IP. I've warned Elizabeth that any editing by her while the frog is blocked will be construed as block evasion and lead to an indef. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think an SPI is really necessary in this case, as it easily passes the frog test. Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:-) Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If Elizabeth Blandra (talk · contribs) is not allowed to edit, why is she not blocked as well? Bobby Tables (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say "don't edit again"; I said "don't edit until the end of the block". Think of it like a ban. We don't block someone with problematic histories when they're not misbehaving, and in the same way I won't block Elizabeth because she's not made any edits that I've considered disruptive. Since the frog and the IP were edit warring, I blocked them, but I see no evidence of the Elizabeth account being misused locally: she only edited once (to start things off) and in a way that isn't by itself sanctionable. This isn't to say that I would actively oppose another admin who blocked the account, but I don't personally think that a block is needed. A single step over the line and I'll levy an indef, but until/unless then I don't see the point. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please restore stable precision wording at WP:AT

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

---

Over the last day or two there has been considerable editing to the WP:AT policy page. Some of it is improvement, but an area of disagreement is the wording of the precision criterion under WP:CRITERIA. Because I've been asked[53] by an involved administrator to not restore it myself (since when is restoring stable wording "edit warring"?), I request that an uninvolved administrator review the situation and restore the version of that wording which was stable for many years, through July 7, 2012.

The stable version of that wording is:

• Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

The key part of this is the but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously clause, the stability of which is proven by its existence in the wording going back at least as far as November 13, 2009, and included in all versions since through this one on July 7, 2012. There has not been sufficient discussion to even begin to show that consensus no longer supports this important wording, though a few active editors seem to believe that to be the case. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that warning an editor that he was edit warring constituted involvement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your involvement is established not by the warning you gave me today, but by your editorial comment yesterday which accompanied an undo of wording that in meaning matches the stable wording: "does not match current or historical practices on WP" [54]. And telling an editor who is restoring stable wording that he is edit warning is also an indication of biased involvement, when no similar wording is given to anyone else involved. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated at the relevant AN3 thread, I'm an uninvolved admin and about to block you for 24 hours; I have to handle something IRL that will keep me away for about a half hour, and unless there are objections I'll do it then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Without actually looking at the substance of the dispute, wouldn't a promise not to do any further reversions obviate any cause for a block? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC) following is after an edit conflict with the below: Actually, I just did look at the substance of the dispute, and my head hurts. Incidentally, this edit[55] is what makes Sarek ostensibly involved - he reverted to the new wording as an editor participating in the content policy discussion, not as an administrator keeping order. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with a block here. B2C is being civil and not overreacting, he has immediately stopped reverting when he was warned, and the fact that he started this thread makes me believe that he will not continue to revert. Therefore, a block would be not be preventative at this point. In addition, he appears to have a valid point. His preferred wording has been stable for several years. Unless there is a discussion that I've missed, I believe that the stable version should be reinstated until a discussion shows a consensus for an alternate wording. Someone made a bold change, B2C reverted, now it's time to discuss. -Scottywong| prattle _ 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I so promise. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotty, note that there was indeed discussion, in which B2C participated -- but then he decided to keep reverting anyway, despite 4 editors disagreeing with him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Single-Purpose Account: Jamesmadison2012

Looking at the WP:DIFFs from user Jamesmadison2012's contributions—soon after the account was created—points to a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account as the edits are disruptive, drawing attention to Business Capital Corporation (B.C.C.) and UA Banc or (www.uabanc.com).

The WP:DIFFs:

• Binary options trading platform
• Binary option
• Financial betting
• Betting exchange
• Electronic trading
• Investing online

—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Obvious SPA is obvious, but I don't see a need to block just yet. If he continues now that he's received a harsh warning, then he can be indeffed. And if he comes back, we can blacklist the site, which I see is currently not linked anywhere on Wikipedia. But you do need to let him know that you started this thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User pages redirecting into article space RfC

there is sufficient confusion over the issue to warrant a RfC here, there is also a small amount of related comment at AN Penyulap ☏ 19:53, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

User:Nenpog

Nenpog (talk · contribs)

This contributor has focussed exclusively on our X-ray computed tomography article, and on articles related to it, and is intent on adding material related to the risks that such techniques involve, particularly in regard to the medically-significant effects of ionising radiation. Though our article discuses such risks, Nenpog has been intent on using original research and synthesis to add further dubious material. Needless to say, such attempts have been met by repeated efforts to make Nenpog understand our policies - particularly WP:MEDRS, but to no avail. Having edit-warred and forum-shopped over the issue, and run out of other options, Nenpog started a thread on Jimbo's talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Alert !. Cutting through all the off-topic waffle about 'logic' and about selling poisons to children, we are seemingly faced with an utter inability from Nenpog to comprehend why he/she is wasting everyone's time through endless repetition of the same nonsensical blather. Given that Nenpog shows no interest whatsoever in even attempting to comprehend Wikipedia policy, and given his/her insistance on endless soapboxing over an issue which he/she seemingly has some rather strange views on - in complete disregard for any pretence at objectivity - I can see no logical course but to request a permanant block on this 'contributor', per Wikipedia:Competence is required, before we waste any more time on this matter. For those interested in further details, Nenpog's contribution history is of course available, but I think the thread on Jimbo's page (including the section collapsed by Jimbo, presumably in the vain hope that this might make Nenpog put and end to this nonsense) is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Nenpog is suffering from what might best be described as Chronic Clue Difficiency Syndrome, and needs to be shown the door lest it proves to be infectious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your analysis but unless these problems are spread around I would recommend a topic ban as our first step. 63.234.136.9 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely support a topic ban of Nenpog, of infinite duration, from any article or discussion related to X-ray computed tomography. I can live with an editor who has a different interpretation of policy, but the lengths he has gone to to argue his position has become disruptive. I don't mind if someone on the wrong side of consensus takes the issue up at a second or maybe even third forum, but eighteen is just beyond the pale. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that Nenpog has only been involved with Wikipedia in regard to this issue, and give his/her demonstrable lack of basic competence, I can see no advantage in permitting a repetition of such behaviour in regard to other articles, should Nenpeg wish to continue on unrelated topics. Nothing in his/her behaviour suggests any hope of making any useful contributions elsewhere, and I think that we have wasted more than enough time on this already. Also, I have grave doubts that Nenpog is capable of understanding what we would mean by a 'topic ban' and anything less than a permanent block is likely to encourage even more tendentious behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog has shown a remarkable inability to understand and obey any of our policies no matter how many people have tried to explain them. He is completely ineducable. There is zero chance that he will obey a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has made threats to ban me at Jimbo Wales talk page. Later Jimbo Wales saw these threats and commented due to that, that it seems that I am about to be banned on a completely unrelated topic.

Now AndyTheGrump want that I will be banned, because Jimbo Wales noticed AndyTheGrump's ban threats, and mentioned seeing these threats. That doesn't make sense.

I have searched the archive here for AndyTheGrump, and found this complaint against him, where someone complained that AndyTheGrump resorts to personal attacks instead of discussing on topic.

I didn't read the whole case, which didn't turned out well for the one who raised the complaint, but I do share the impression, which the complainer voiced in his complaint, as in my case too, instead of staying on topic in that discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page, AndyTheGrump chose to diverge into completely unrelated topics from my history, to make ban threats, and now this complaint.

I am new to Wikipedia, and I am learning the written rules, and the unwritten rules, and perhaps I have done some mistakes in the past month, which for practical purposes is my first month in Wikipedia's collaborative process. However, my interactions with AndyTheGrump were completely confined to Jimbo Wales talk page, and there the discussion was on a completely unrelated topic, and thus does not merit or warrent any action.

I would like you to review that discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page and share your opinion about people who have commented off topic negative comments about me, and people who tracked me and commented off topic negative comments about me. On one of them I have already complained because of that at the WQA see here and here. --Nenpog (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The above provides further evidence of why Nenpog is entirely unsuitable as a Wikipedia contributor - but read the thread on Jimbo's page, and see for yourself what the 'other topic' was supposed to be: nonsense about poisoning children as some sort of 'proof by analogy' that Nenpeg's attempts to spin the CT article were 'logical'. A monumental waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't about that. It was about a much more fundamental problem in Wikipedia WP:NOR policy, which I used the example as an illustration of, and of the possible consequences of. Shame that you were too eager to diverge to other topics, that you couldn't notice the actual topic that was being discussed. --Nenpog (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Best response to apparent trolling. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This "New to Wikipedia" user first edited Wikipedia over four months ago on 7 March 2012 using IP 79.179.222.172 (Same ISP: Bezeq International [bezeqint.net], and same city: Tel Aviv Israel as the three IPs he lists on his user page.) By April 2012 he was actively editing X-ray computed tomography pushing the same agenda he is pushing now.[56][57][58] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have encountered editors that challenged my edits only in the last month, before that happened, I wasn't aware of the rules and policies. --Nenpog (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I changed my mind, Andy. Nenpog should be sitebanned indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Someguy1221, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you don't know when to stop. You don't get your way on one article, so you try at another. You don't get your way there, so you take it up on one noticeboard after another. When that doesn't work, you take it up on the policy pages themselves to change them or their interpretation to suit your needs. That doesn't work so you pester the man himself. This is not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to just keep arguing and arguing until you get your way. The consensus is against you time after time. But as Andy suggested, I'm not sure you even realize that. And until you do, no one should be made to suffer your endless complaints. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't modify any policy page. I have just joined one discussion at the NPOV talk page, and asked a question at the NOR talk page about the general problem. From both of these interactions I have learned. At the NPOV, I learned that the other editors were wrong about the interpretation of the policy, and at the NOR I have learned that I was wrong about the interpretation of the policy.

Yes, I think that the consensus interpretation of the NOR policy is bad for the Wikipedia users. I received a suggestion to take it to an RfC at the NOR, but I don't know much about RfCs, because I am new, I know about talk pages, so I went and talked about it with Jimbo Wales. It is a new topic, at the NOR talk page I asked about the consensus interpretation of it, at Jimbo Wales talk page I requested to change the consensus interpretation, because I think that it is bad. You should consider the possibility that I might be correct, and that I might be bringing a good change to Wikipedia, that will contribute to it. Do you think that I would have been better of right now if I have opened an RfC? Because I am new, I really don't know.

About the DRN noticeboard, I was advised to go there by an experienced editor. Isn't going to the DRN a standard procedure?

About the other articles, I was told that some of the sources were rejected due to not mentioning CT, or not being on in vivo humans. Ionizing radiation is a general article, that can benefit from sources that don't mention CT or that are not only about in vivo humans. I think that contributing the material there was appropriate. The other editor there didn't want to include it because he wanted that section to be shorter. We agreed that we will attempt to make a shorter version that will include my contribution.

About arguing again and again about the same thing, I am not. I have raised different issues at every place, except the DRN, which is normal.

Please bear in mind that I am new, and learning, and that some of the editors at the CT page didn't explain their actions, and seemed to me biased against mentioning adverse effects to CT. One of them, after rejecting every addition, have even took the whole adverse effects section and moved it from the top to the bottom of the article. What should I think about that? I found out later, that the same editor rejected some things due to incorrect interpretation of the WP:WEIGHT. The correct interpretation btw I learned at the discussion I joined at the NPOV talk page. I think that I was correct to go to discuss there. --Nenpog (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Please do read the entry on Jimbo's talk page. This is a clear case of tendentious editing. Nenpog has taken his "complaints" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Talk:Ionizing radiation, Wikipedia talk:No original research (twice), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, At least one IRC channel, User talk:Elen of the Roads, User talk:S Marshall, User talk:Jaeljojo, User talk:Avanu, User talk:Paul Siebert, User talk:RexxS, and finally User talk:Jimbo Wales. In every one of those many forums he has been told that what he is trying to do is against Wikipedia's policies, and his only response has been personal attacks, wikilawyering, and more forum shopping. I received a private email (which I will be glad to forward to anyone who is an admin) from a medical doctor who has done a wonderful job of improving a large number of our medical articles. He told me that Nenpog's behavior has made him seriously consider quitting Wikipedia. Nenpog needs to be indefinitely blocked. You can try lesser remedies if you like wasting time and effort, but that will just mean the indefinite block comes later rather than sooner. Nenpog has never shown the slightest willingness to conform to our behavioral standards. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have talked in a lot of talk pages about different topics, that may be related, but are not the same. This is because I am new to Wikipedia, and what people said didn't make sense, and was not supported by what the policy page say, and no one provided me with quotes from the policy page for a very long time. During these discussions I have learned a lot, including that the due weight policy is misunderstood by some people (see NPOV talk page). Due to that some of the rejections I have got at CT were not justified. After learning that, have I tried to insert it back to the article, no, I have talked at the talk page, and have waited for a response, just to get an off topic reply from you that sounded like 'you are wrong because I am biased against you'. I also helped an other editor to insert matter that was rejected due to misunderstanding of the due weight policy, and a third editor came in and supported my interpretation of the due weight policy, and the new matter was accepted because of my assistance. Have I made personal attacks, I don't think I did. I have acted according to the guidelines that I read, and according to advices that I received from experienced editors. You on the other hand have even admitted that you posted one of your post against me without actual assessment of the situation here, I think that was the case in all of them. --Nenpog (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If, as you claim, you did not engage in personal attacks, how do you account for arbcom member Elen of the Roads telling you that you did? (User_talk:Elen of the Roads#personal attacks and allegations) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not Elen of the Roads, so I don't know why she wrote that. But hey, everyone are humans, and sometimes make mistakes. Even Elen of the Roads e.g. she wrote about me that I demanded that people will discuss how much they are paid. I didn't make that demand. I asked her to specify what was the personal attack that she think I have done, she didn't explain. Maybe she couldn't find it. Maybe you couldn't find it, and because of that you now hang on Elen of the Roads word, instead of providing by yourself a link to what you think is my attack. --Nenpog (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You said it here and here. BTW, we can add editing other peoples comments to the list. (Nobody important; just an arbcom member...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks. First, that edit was done in good faith. I have just changed to bold the error she wrote, and then I have asked about that part "where did you come up with that?". If she wanted to, she could have changed it back. Second, in the first two links, I have only requested two things from everyone. A request is not an attack, and asking from everyone is not personal.

Do you know what a personal attack is?

A personal attack is what you did to me when you wikihounded me (here, here and elsewhere, see also) in every place I went, and posted there your FALSE off topic accusations against me, and brought in your friends, until some people believed your misleading information and got me in here. That is a personal attack.

Now you probably wonder what isn't a personal attack. That is when someone knows that you are a biased mediator, because the other party didn't show up at all at the DRN (here), and you have elected to argue in the role of the other side of the dispute. And that someone say nothing. And that is when someone knows that you work in the field that you pretend to unbiasedly mediate (here and here), and think that you have a COI, because damage to the field at any place would shrink the field, and damage you or your employer, or other companies in the field, thus making their employees compete with you on your job. And that someone say nothing. And that is when someone civilly ask people to disclose their COIs at an other discussion at the DRN, in accordance with the instructions at the WP:COI guideline, after thinking that the discussion is highly biased, and you get angry and refuse to declare having or not having a COI, and write hostile things (here), and yet all that someone write is that your outrage appear suspicious, as if you try to avoid declaring your COIs, and suggest you to declare them. And it does look suspicious, even without knowing anything about your work. And then that someone is told to discuss COIs at the COIN instead of at the DRN (here), and that someone goes to the COIN for a discussion, and doesn't accuse anyone of anything, but ask everyone to act in good faith and disclose their COIs in the matter, and you lash at that someone (here). And that someone still say nothing. And then the COIN case get closed because no specific accusation was made, and you talk with a friend in joy saying "‎Whew! That was a close one!!" (here). And that someone still not say anything. And then that someone ask at the COIN talk page, why was the discussion closed, and you get angry, and write off topic negative response at the COIN talk page (here). And that someone still say nothing. And then you wikihound that someone, and all that someone does is civilly take it to the WQA (here and here) in order that perhaps you would get some sense into your head, see that you are in err, that it has gone long enough, and change your way. That is how someone who wasn't making any personal attack against you looked like.

Are you able to see the difference? It might be a bit tricky for you to notice, but the someone who made personal attacks, was very active in making abusive comments against the subject of his attack. The someone who didn't make a personal attack, has tried to avoid making abusive comments against the aggressor, for as long as that someone could. That is the difference. --Nenpog (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support site ban. Nobody Ent 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Even while trying to ignore this case, it keeps popping up on my watchlist, and even a quick look shows that Nenpog interprets anyone can edit to mean anyone can argue the point until they get their way. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was informed about this discussion by Guy Macon. In my opinion, the very fact that Nenpog acts against majority opinion is not a sine per se: sometimes, majority may be wrong, and Wikipedia is not democracy. Sadly, but majority happens to be wrong too frequently, and that leads to dramatic bias of some Wikipedia pages. Therefore, I do not support the idea to ban Nenpog for going against majority.

However, by writing that, I do not imply no actions are required. I do see a problem with Nenpog, and the problem in as follows. Nenpog seems to have a strong belief that CT is a dangerous technique, and that the WP readers must be informed about that. To do so he tries to add the following syllogism into the articles about CT:

1. CT leads to formation of double strand breaks of DNA in human body;
2. It is known that double strand breaks are very dangerous and may cause cancer;
3. Therefore, CT is dangerous and may cause cancer.

The problem is, however, that the clause 3 is not a universally accepted mainstream viewpoint. No direct connection between CT and the onset of cancer have been demonstrated so far. The most probable explanation for that is as follows. Contrary to the belief of ordinary public, DNA damages are not something outstanding, and they happen very frequently in living cells. Therefore, small amount of damages are easily and efficiently repaired, and cause no harm to cells. Therefore, by writing about the damages and by omitting the fact that they are easily repaired we would mislead an ordinary reader. In other words, not only that will be SYNTH, it will be a misleading synthesis. I explained that to Nenpog on my talk page, and Jimbo seems to explain the same in much simpler words on his talk page. I do not understand how this explanations cannot satisfy a good faith user. In connection to that, I agree that we are dealing with a civil POV pusher here, so something should be done with that. In my opinion, Nenpog must concede his mistake, and never return to this behaviour again, otherwise the site ban is warranted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. We don't decide whether synthesis is 'misleading' or not before rejecting it. As for 'civil' POV-pushing, there is nothing remotely civil in accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having a COI, and then making this ridiculous sort of 'demand' [59]. The correct response to such offensive bollocks is a boot up the backside. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

To engage in synthesis and to engage in misleading synthesis are two quite different things. Whereas both the former and the latter can and should be rejected, the latter is a more severe violation. Regarding the diff provided by you, I didn't know about that. Obviously, that is ridiculous, and the only reasonable explanation for that may be Nenpog's unfamiliarity with our policy. However, if he hadn't retracted this statement after his mistake was explained to him, he should be sanctioned for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Paul Siebert, thank you for your objection to a site ban on me.

Regarding technical matters about CT, I think that such matters can be discussed technically at the article talk page and can be decided according to the sources.

Currently I have many sources supporting clause 3 (stating directly that CT cause cancer), you can see them here like source no.1 and no.5. And that DNA DSB are misrepaired sometimes and lead to cancer. If you think that these are not a "universally accepted mainstream viewpoint" surely you can accept that they are an "accepted mainstream viewpoint" that should be voiced. If other "accepted mainstream viewpoints" exist, I accept that they should be voiced too. That is what NPOV is all about. --Nenpog (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Listen, you halfwit. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your POV-pushing drivel about CT scans - the only question is as to whether we topic-ban you from the subject (if you agree to stay away from it, as Paul Siebert is asking) or block you from editing Wikipedia entirely, as seems to be the developing consensus here. You aren't going to get your nonsense into the article either way - this isn't open to negotiation. Are you willing to accept a topic ban from the subject of CT scans, and their possible harmful effects (broadly construed - which means that trying to weasel-word around the ban isn't allowed, even if you think you are right), or not. Unless you can give an unequivocal 'yes' to a topic ban, there is only likely to be one possible outcome. Make your mind up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog, I objected not against your site ban, but against a reason for this ban. I respect your attempts to persuade others, however, when you put forward your arguments, you must be open to the arguments from others. In actuality, you reject explanations that cannot be questioned by any reasonable person. Please, stop that, otherwise you will be banned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place to try to 'persuade others' regarding questions as to the risks of CT scans. We leave scientific research to scientists, and then make use of their results - in particular, per WP:MEDRS, we don't engage in cherry-picking and synthesis to 'persuade' anyone about the merits or otherwise of medical procedures - that isn't what Wikipedia is for. It isn't a debating society - or at least, it isn't supposed to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, Wikipedia is an appropriate place to try to persuade others in your vision of what reliable sources say. If you believe the sources A, B, and C say "X", and I believe the sources B, C, and D say "Y", we need to discuss together how to reconcile our vision of the subject, and which sources to use. However, both you and I must be prepared to a situation when opponent's arguments appear to be stronger. In that case, the only choice will be to accept other's point of view. That is what I meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Stickler for detail here: it is a universally accepted mainstream viewpoint that CT scans cause cancer, and the editors at X-ray computed tomography have long been in agreement about that. Nenpog's problematic syntheses have to do with cataracts and cognitive decline, not cancer. Paul Siebert is making some technical claims here that would not be accepted in the articles. However, he is making sense about Wikipedia policy, which is more relevant to this discussion.--Yannick (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog, I think you can avoid a topic ban or site ban if you agree to stop discussing anything on Wikipedia that is directly related to medical imaging, radiation, or those little logic puzzles that you use in lieu of the others, and if you can promise to avoid anything with any pretense of even coming close to those. If you can commit to do that at this time, for 3 months, you might be able to avoid your fellow editors taking action here. If after three months, you've kept your word and seem to be adjusting to a better understanding of the expectations, this could be revisited, and they might consider a topic ban then or just letting you go your way. I'm suggesting this as an alternative to you being required to be banned, and probably being blocked soon after. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, naturally I will respect whatever decision that will be made in this subject. However, I think that I can contribute and play by the rules, and thus a decision of sanction would be counter productive to Wikipedia, and I speak against it. I hope that honest people will not fear to say the truth here. Otherwise, this will be the form that will dominate Wikipedia, and that is bad for everyone. --Nenpog (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope that honest people will not fear to say the truth here.

Please review WP:NOT and take your pick of which one of the must not items you would like to violate next. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog, I think your patience and willingness to try to contribute is why people have been willing to talk this out with you and give you a chance rather than immediately take action against you. I think you will find it easier if you look for the solution that is being offered to you by the other editors' words here, and volunteer to live by that 'sanction', before something goes to the point of it being forced upon you. I think it is admirable that you will respect the decision made here, and I believe that implies you would honor a ban placed on you. A ban is not a block, and so you would be honoring the ban by your own willingness to abide in it. I think you could find a better solution by offering one now, but I wish you well, and hope you can do what is best here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the 'patience' as in WP:CRUSH that explains why Nenpog is here. There's a number of matters on which I have disagreed quite strongly with other editors here and have had to concede to the consensus against me. In most cases I still think what they are doing is harmful and cretinous, but the overall progress of Wikipedia does depend on having a halfway healthy and cooperative environment and forever pushing things and never giving up is not a route to that. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support an effective block/ban process (escalating if necessary) on ethical grounds. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support ban, preferably a full ban, at least a topic ban for anything related to CT scans in any form. Sorry, but this person is tirelessly POV pushing, twisting beyond recognition the valid complains made about his behaviour, and actively refusing to abide to basic content policies like WP:NOR. We shouldn't be letting this slide just because he is being civil about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not refusing to abide by WP:NOR. I had a discussion in WP:NOR talk page, and questioned what exactly what the policy mean, and people refused to answer to the general question until very recently. Probably since the answer is flawed. Now I understand that the consensus is about a flawed interpretation of the WP:NOR, and thus I can abide by it. --Nenpog (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support site ban, topic ban as second choice. Civil POV pushing is one of the encyclopedia's worst problems, and I'm sure it has caused the burnout and departure of countless highly qualified contributors who have to waste their best efforts trying to counter it and keep up the quality of articles. (Far more than those who, according to one quaint theory, leave because they're shocked by seeing the word "fuck" language unsuited to the best drawing rooms.) In medical articles it's intolerable. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC).

Support site ban. What has been asked was very simple. Use high quality sources that pertain to the subject matter at hand. After many weeks and thousands of words there is no indication that this has been understood. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 12:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Yes, Civil POV pushing is an issue, but there's no need to indef him or ban him from the site. If he vioates the ban and POV pushes again, than he should be indeffed, as it shows that he really doesn't care. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support site ban. This editor is a sterling example of the type of editor we don't want here. The inability to understand the basics of our policies, the personal attacks about COI, the tendentious refusal to concede they have done anything wrong are bad enough by themselves, but together the encyclopedia is better off with them somewhere else, where they are not damaging the encyclopedia and wasting the time of good editors. Yobol (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support total ban. Does not seem to be able to parse the most basic explanations of consensus, NPOV, NOR and other basic content policies. Engages in forum-shopping. Unlikely to mend his ways with a temporary block or a topic ban. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Stong Oppose Not to be uncivil, but this is using a jackhammer when a ball-peen hammer is needed. There is no indication (of which I am aware) that this editor has in any way misbehaved in any area of Wikipedia except on one article and in relation to that article (albeit in relation to that article on several boards, etc). Instead, let's consider the possibility of a defined-period topic ban, then reassess. At most, an indef topic ban is all that is called for. Jumping straight to the total-ban-sledgehammer is highly inappropriate and downright insulting at this stage in my personal opinion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban implemented

I'm going to go ahead and implement what I see as a clear consensus for a topic ban. Nenpog (talk · contribs) is topic-banned indefinitely from posting any material anywhere on Wikipedia related to medical imaging or ionizing radiation, broadly construed. The ban may be appealed at the administrator's noticeboard or directly to the Arbitration Committee.

I appreciate the concerns, voiced above, that a siteban would be more appropriate than a topic ban. I agree that, in my experience, an editor so obviously and grossly unsuited to collaborative editing on a single topic is likely to cause similar problems on other topics. However, in recognition of the (relative) inexperience of this editor, I think a topic ban is a more charitable alternative. That said, if the pronounced inability to edit productively is repeated in other topic areas, I would have a very low threshold to implement a site ban. There has to be a limit somewhere to how much we ask productive editors to put up with. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly

Hublolly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

There are too many individual diffs to paste, please see the following links and histories.

• special:contributions/F=q(E+v^B) (I have reverted/replied to him so many times it fills about 80 edits)
• special:contributions/Patrick0Moran (reversions by Patrick0Moran against Hublolly)
• History of Ricci calculus
• Talk:Ricci calculus
• History of Talk:Ricci calculus
• Special:contributions/Hublolly
• User talk:F=q(E+v^B)#ADMINISTRATOR INTERVENTION NEEDED -- See recent edits by Hublolly.
• [60]
• [61]

User:Patrick0Moran and I request for action taken against user:Hublolly becuase almost every edit is simply negative - the links should be self-explainatory along the lines of:

• changing someone else's post multiple times; (Quondum [62], mine [63][64][65] [66], Qwyrxian but changed them back [67], Patrick0Moran [68])
• edit warring (see History of Ricci calculus),
• blanking images [69][70] (from user:Maschen who has now sadly left WP),
• personal attacks/annoying (no matter how small) to JohnBlackburne [71], Quondum, JRSpriggs, LutzL [72], and (although indirectly they still count) Mgvongoeden [73] and Rschwieb [74], Maschen [75][76] Sbyrnes321 [77][78]
• inadequately motivated changes in articles (although only minor they are not an improvement) [79][80][81][82][83][84]

(many more diffs could be added...)

Thanks, any help will be definitely appreciated. (I'm not familiar with this procedure - so apologies if I get anything wrong...) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 23:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The comments directed at me I can ignore but this is clearly someone unable or unwilling to work with any other editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added two diffs at the end of the list above. My attention was drawn to Hublolly's modification to Maschen's user page making it appear that Maschen asserted himself to be gay. My concern is that Maschen's user page and talk page should be protected against words that are abusive and possibly actionable.P0M (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

P0M - the links are red, where do you mean? F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Agree with locking Maschen's page and talk page (inactive) so no-one vandalizes them. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I too can ignore personally directed comments or rude language; dissipation of others' energies through non-cooperative editing practices is more serious. My impression is that this editor has plenty of potential as an editor, but does not seem to respond to nor use commonly used ("civil"/WP policy) modes of finding common ground, and is nevertheless is very active. Thus, administrative guidance or intervention may be appropriate. — Quondum^☏ 06:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reasons! - its not for nothing...

Both of them obliterated Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2012, which is indeed very disruptive editing as pointed out by RockMagnetist, not to shout or swear.

Please contradict this statement: are there any editors who have made MORE errors than these, pulling the physics/maths projects backwards?

user:Maschen

See the following links [85][86][87], for that matter. There are many others where Maschen has fucked screwed up WP before, see in particular [88][89][90][91][92]Upright "d" versus italic "d"(there was much opposition to his shitty changes in the last three links after the linked changes) but there are far too many to even count never mind seek and paste. At least he did the right thing in leaving, now WP is better for it!! :-)

Even when Maschen's images were correct - they were still cluttered, incomphrehensible, and craply poorly coloured.

The users who defend Maschen are Patrick0Moran and Jprg1966.

Opinions on this editor (apart from arrogant and clumsy)?

Hublolly (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

user:F=q(E+v^B)

See throughout these edits [93][94][95].

Of course a 90-rated IQ like him may not (he says this himself - no attack there). I was the IP who gave him a "personally disparaging characterization" of him and your edits, then JRSpriggs and RockMagnetist sprang into his defence. I hope he is very grateful.

Just thought to say *sorry*, but I still had problems with some of his other edits (not hism personally):

• [96] (dares to call someone above himself "hipocritical"??)
• [97] (I agree!)
• [98] (offensive and antagonizing to call an expert's (Hcrater) hard work "genuinly nonsense" on the calculation of the fundamental forces: EM and the strong force, which appear to be a potential simplification in theoretical physics and could be a turning point in progress... TimothyRias and RockMagnetist correctly proved F=blah wrong though...)
• [99] (complaining for what? someone else (Michael Lenz) is trying hard and F=blah downtreads him)
• [100] [101] [102] (can't even get it right...),
• [103] (its rude and unconstructive to call someone else's words (FormerNukeSubmariner) "meaningless" who is again far above F=blah's intelligence and experiance - they have the right to comment, just like everyone else, then IRWolfie- sprang into defence).
• [104] (Huh???)
• [105] (disparages :Michael C Price?) [106] (and Dilaton?) and [107] (and Incnis Mrsi over nothing??)
• I could keep going...

Opinions on this editor (apart from hasty arrogant egoism)? Notice how many experts he annoys, which are very valuable to the project?

Hublolly (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks directed to user:Hublolly: who is bad now?

Hublolly, I want to be careful and make sure I understand you. At the start of this and the above section, you have 3 links by an IP address. Are you saying that IP address was you editing logged out on mistake? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Those were at the time - recently I looged in (never had an account before). Hublolly (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it looks like we need to indefintely block you. He has admitted to edits which openly and directly abuse other editors in clear violation of WP:NPA, has recent been on a spree of putting fake Wikimedia interface boxes onto other user's talk pages, and is clearly a net negative to the project. Yes, those edits are from six months ago, but the fact that he's trying to use his own abusive edits as some sort of evidence that other users are bad is a pretty clear sign. Since they're a little far back, I'd like to see at least one other admin agree before I/that person pull the trigger (I'm trying to be extra cautious with my block button due to previous problems). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

NO DON'T! - WATCH I'LL STOP...

ANyway - just give a chance becuase Quondum said I have "plenty of potential" as a contributor, you see either no edits or some every now and then... Hublolly (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Really. Do you have any clue how much time and energy we have wasted carefully and gently explaining WP:policy? Not to mention explaining why you went wrong in your edits when we reverted? =( That's all I have to say on this, unless anyone asks specific questions. (re-written to calm down) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

F =.. that's not very fair to say, when I AM genuinly apologizing; you have too much against people when you don't understand what is going on (remember Hcrater's article on Two-body Dirac equations YOU labelled as "painfully vague and genuinly nonsense" when its a fruitful and admirable article now?). :-(

Its also unfair that you get away with swearing and abuse towards ME all the time, and right now there is "no time like the present". Why am I the only one in trouble? - F=... is swearing and shouting violently just to get his way like a spoiled brat. :-(

If the admins do not gang up and block me - they will see either no edits or just minor ones, no accused abuse or vandalism. Hublolly (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My response has changed to this, but yours still seems to retain its meaning. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 10:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I looked at the contributions of Hublolly (there are not so many, in the end of the day), and, frankly speaking, I am surprised why they still retain an ability to freely edit Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"At the end of the day" is a Cliché - but what do you mean "surprised why they still retain an ability to freely edit Wikipedia" ?? Hublolly (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You should have been indefinitely blocked by now or at least placed under a serious topic-ban. I do not see any net positive in your contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me show you all the rudeness of F=... real response:

:What a f~@*!"# joke - the sooner you get blocked/banned, the sooner we can relax from clearing up your blasted vandalism and abuse. We are ALL fed up from here to hell after being so patient, gentle and welcoming with you AND carefully explaining your own sore misunderstandings of basic WP policies and other mathematical concepts (linear algebra), but you don't get it - you throw it all back. =( :Do you have ANY clue how much time and energy we have wasted reverting your changes??? =( :You deserve to get blocked as soon as another admin agrees - not to be let off easy after all you have done... =( :That's all I have to say on this, unless anyone asks specific questions. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hublolly (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Then as always someone has to stick up for him (this time IRWolfie-) [108]. However - IRWolfie allowed F=... to get away with this becuase it is F=... . Look at FormerNukeSubmariner's talk page, did IRWolfie-defend FormerNukeSubmariner against F=.... in this post [109] ?? No.

Why were those allowances by IRWolfie made for F=... but not for me or FormerNukeSubmariner? Hublolly (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure why you are involving me in your dispute. I have asked numerous editors, on their talk pages, to reword or change comments that I felt were WP:UNCIVIL or improper. Some listen, some don't. But I fail to see any significance for this to the issues concerning you. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Having been alerted by F= about my name mentioned here on my talkpage, User:Hublolly apparently stalked the edit and tracked their misbehavior to my talkpage. The willful use of profanity and insults (even against those such as myself who have never even heard of or talked with the user) seem to call for some sort of punishment. Rschwieb (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ARe you calling me a troll... A TROLL ???, Rschwieb? Hublolly (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh??? Stalked which or what edit or editor?? I have apologized in several places [110][111][112][113] at several times in this discussion - what "sort of punishment"? Hublolly (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

First, there is a conceptual difference between apologising and saying that you have apologised. I see one place above where you say "sorry", but a few lines further down in the same post you make another personal attack on the editor you apologised to. Which makes your apology less convincing. Secondly: you want to use the last of those diffs ([114]) as evidence that you are sorry about your previous behaviour? Really? --bonadea contributions talk 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Which editor are you referring to now? Why can't you just state the name of the editor? Hublolly (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:F=q(E+v^B). In this edit of yours above. Where you first say "sorry" and then start calling F=q(E+v^B) names below your list of diffs. --bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And yes evidence is evidence - what is the big deal about my evidence? If you don't like that diff ..... use the other three. :-) Hublolly (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the other three are not offensive, they merely state that you have apologised which, again, is not the same thing as apologising. So it's unclear to me why you wanted to give any of those diffs to support your claim of having apologised, but it's your business and not mine. --bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When someone has redacted their comment to remove strong wording upon request, it's uncivil to throw it back in their face when they have noted their own redaction. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Good. I said:

"Opinions on this editor (apart from hasty arrogant egoism)? Notice how many experts he annoys, which are very valuable to the project?"

which requests for opinions - is conceptually not the same as name-calling, no? Hublolly (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued Abusive Behavior from Ihardlythinkso

While I respect Ihardlythinkso for being a capable editor, his continued abusive, aggressive behavior makes editing chess articles both an irritating and laborious chore. Sadly, this is not the first time there has been a problem with this particular individual. He was eventually temp-banned for his behavior, including legal threats, but after a brief hiatus, he has resumed his behavior.

I have ignored it for a while, since I do feel he is an otherwise worthwhile editor who has something to contribute to the encyclopedia. For instance, here he makes an unmotivated personal attack against me on an AfD page, tell me to "find some dignity", and decries the "slanderous fabrication" I supposedly made, "which you got away with at ANI". I calmly ignored him.

Unfortunately, this editor seems to be following me around lately, insulting and warring over the smallest thing. While initially civil in this talk topic, his replies became more belligerent over time, until the end, when my research uncovered that he was, in fact, correct about the topic.

Shortly after this, he wrote more very aggressive, often personal replies on this AfD page. Again, I replied to him very civilly, and mostly overlooked his behavior.

However, his his recent replies on this Talk page have been too much. I finally asked him to stop the personal comments (calling my views "shrill", "reckless", saying I have no facts or arguments, and that "your hyperbole is tiresome"). His reply? More insults.

Again, this editor has been banned before, and has had several conflicts with other editors that have made it to the Administrator's Board stretching back to (at least) last year. While I believe he could be a valuable editor if he wanted to be, he displays a categorical unwillingness to avoid personal attacks or stick to the article at hand. As such, I think the negative he brings to the encyclopedia outweighs the positive. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked, not banned, which is something else entirely and which I do not want to consider here (Ihardlythinkso has been very productive). If I were you I would not poke the bear, which never ends well with Ihardlythinkso.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake with regards to term. That being said, this is hardly me "poking a bear". Rather, this is a bear following and attacking me wherever I happen to go! I'm perfectly fine with leaving Ihardlythinkso alone, and have ignored him for a long time now. (His first personal attacks linked above occurred in February) However, he is not willing to extend me the same courtesy, and makes my attempts to edit anything related to chess a chore. While I'm a lowly editor, not an admin, I disagree that we should let editors be as abusive and disruptive as they want to be. Especially since I'm far from the only editor or admin affected by this. (You have had an ANI issue with him yourself, if I recall) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You've had quite some heated arguments with him on the pages you linked. Did you ever consider just not replying at all?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely what I have done most of the time. In the first link, I ignore him altogether. In the others, I let him get "the last word" and ignore most or all of his personal attacks. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked. Also, I can't ignore him completely since those discussions are about content in the encyclopedia, and in at least one case, his revert of one of my edits. While I agree with your general attitude of "just ignore it and focus on the encyclopedia" and wish Ihardlythinkso would as well, it simply hasn't worked in this case. And if this was just an isolated incident with me, fine. But think of how many HOURS you have wasted of your life, Jasper, contentiously arguing with this guy either on the ANI board or on a Talk Page where he has started making personal attacks about you. Anyways, I'm okay with whatever the admins decide, but want to stress that this is a persistent problem that detracts from the encyclopedia.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Um:

• Above claim: "This editor has had several conflicts with other editors that have made it to the Administrator's Board stretching back to (at least) last year."
• Let's see ... Besides *this* one, there's been exactly one ANI case involving me, it was a case I initiated, as a result of a fabrication ChessPlayerLev made about me.

Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, Lev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Um:

• Above claim: "He was eventually temp-banned for his behavior, including legal threats".
• Let's see ... I was blocked exactly twice, both blocks by the hand of admin User:Toddst1, neither of which mentioning anything about "legal threats".

Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Um:

• Above claim: "He wrote more very aggressive, often personal replies on this AfD page."
• Like, can you point out even one "very aggressive, personal reply" in that linked thread?

Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Um:

• Above claim: "This editor seems to be following me around lately, insulting and warring over the smallest thing. While initially civil in this talk topic, his replies became more belligerent over time".
• Let's see ... I have Paul Morphy on my watchlist. You made an add of an unfounded quote assigned to Bobby Fischer, about something he never said. I reverted your add in accord with WP:BRD, explained my revert and asked you to go to Talk, where I opened a section. In response, you reverted me, with this as edit summary: "It would be nice if you gave me a chance to respond on the Talk page before rabidly reverting the most minor of my edits." I did not revert you a second time, even though your re-add was counter to WP:BRD. So where exactly was it that I was "warring"? And who was warring? And if this was "the smallest thing" (and presumably not important at all to anyone, including you), why did you put up such a lengthy contest on the Talk, insisting on your change until disproven by the author of the source? And please show me one instance I was "insulting" over the entire thread.

Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A rudimentary search reveals this ANI dispute with Elen of the Roads. There was also the whole fiasco with you going off on Jasper on this Talk Page although admittedly, I don't know whether it became a case on an Admin board or not. Your block log also indicates an indefinite blocking for your behavior on this page. None of those three cases involved me, either.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Um:

• Claim: You seemingly are attempting to suggest, that the thread opened by User:Elen of the Roads at ANI was about some behavioral issue, which it was not. It was a content dispute, over whether policy permitted use of "hide/show" feature on chess problem diagrams. An RfC was opened by Elen, thinking I just didn't understand policy. The consensus at the RfC decided I was right, not her. As a result, MoS was changed to make the use of "hide/show" explicitly clearer for chess puzzles. As a result, we have beautiful chess problems protected for eyes not to see, so that others may enjoy working out the solutions, without the "answer" staring back at them when they begin, e.g., Nenad Petrović (chess composer). I did a good thing by defending my side of the content issue to use "hide/show", it lead to improving the encyclopedia at least a little. (Can you tell how it is that you attempt to use that ANI as a disparaging remark against me now?)

Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for ChessPlayerLev: Is the ANI you opened here supposed to be about your complaints regarding thing(s) I said or did to *you*? Or thing(s) that you want to contend that I said or did to *others*? And second, in either case, are your complaints about thing(s) I said or did recently? Or about thing(s) going back as far back as you want without limitation?

(Because I'm not willing to go over with you everything including kitchen sink that you like to try and find to throw my way, for example, discussing with you the indef block I received from the hand of admin User:Toddst1, which Arbcom overturned without restriction. You really don't know what you are implying regarding the quality of that block and Arbcom's deliberations regarding same. You seemingly just like to use the existence of the block to smear me, to suggest: "if he was indef blocked, then for sure he is guilty of anything I want to complain about him". A fallacy. (Or, do you want it your way: Anyone and everyone who was ever blocked, especially indef'd, certainly deserved it, and it is perfectly civil to hold past blocks against them, as though they are bad editors and Wikipedia undesirables, especially if you feel like saying something disparaging about them to others at a free-for-all ANI. Right.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The complaint is about your behavior towards me during the last week. However, if this was an isolated incident, I would be happy to submit this to the Wikiquette board instead, or even tolerate your abuse. Unfortunately, it's the same behavior you have displayed over many months here, towards myself and other editors. It's gotten to the point where it's an actual impediment to improving chess articles. Hence, why I mentioned that in my complaint. It's a shame too, because you do have valuable contributions to make when you're not needlessly raging at someone. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not going to justify throwing every kitchen sink at me you can find. And, "if this was an isolated incident", implies that you are speaking facts, whereas I already started going over some of your "facts". (Did you even read what I wrote above? You certainly didn't respond.) I think it is *you*, ChessPlayerLev, who is being aggressive, abusive. (How else do you account for the smearing fiction that you propogated above?) Our first interaction "during the last week" was at Paul Morphy, and, you've made several accusations about me regarding following you around, "warring", insulting you, being "belligerent" and uncivil. I've asked you above, to show one instance of any of that. Meanwhile, I showed how you treated the WP:BRD situation, and how you warred, I didn't. (And on the article Talk, who was acting belligerent?! Me? Where? Because I find several instances of you acting that way, not me, starting with your edit summary, quoted above.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's hard for me to reply to everything you write, considering you edit your comments after I have already replied to them, adding a bunch of new material in the process. I don't have all day to closely monitor this page and edit it non-stop. It's also difficult since you continually ignore everything I write and instead keep repeating "you have shown no instances/facts of me doing anything wrong!" like a mantra. This, despite direct quotes in my initial complaint as well as corresponding links where you made them. I guess telling me to "find some dignity", calling my views "shrill" and "tireless hyberbole", etc. is perfectly civil on your part. (Keep in mind that this was all out of the blue; I made no abusive comments towards you, and in the first instance, wasn't communicating with you at all)

Again, it's a shame you continue behaving this way. Had you simply written "okay, no more personal comments, I will stick to chess", that would have been fine by me. But your only reply is more and more insults. Anyways, I would like to hear from other editors on this. If Ihardlythinkso's conduct was simply rude, abusive, and/or limited to me, I would have ignored it. But it's also tremendously disruptive to building a better encyclopedia, incredibly discouraging to other editors, and part of a pattern of behavior that has gone on for many months and affected a number of other editors and admins. This is my last reply on the subject before an admin weighs in.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, ChessPlayerLev, please be accurate. I never wrote "tireless hyperbole", what I wrote was that the hyperbole "was tiresome". (Big difference. The first asserts that you persist in hyperbole without end; the second asserts the hyperbole you were generating was taking a toll on me.) You said the ANI is about things "the last week", but there you go again, complaining about something said months ago. You say you made no abusive comments this week, but you haven't made comment on our first interaction of the week where you wrote in edit summary after my WP:BRD revert: "It would be nice if you gave me a chance to respond on the Talk page before rabidly reverting the most minor of my edits." I asked you on the Talk what you meant by "rabidly". (No response from you.) You've accuse me of making "personal comments" and "personal attacks" the last week. If I find your content dispute rationale questionable or confusing and ask for clarification or challenge it, you consider those "personal attacks"? If you say a contention is "laughable" or "silly" or "bunk" or "ridiculous" but give no rationale for that opinion in a content dispute, and I point out those are not arguments but shrill opinion in place of argument, then I'm making "personal attacks" and giving you "insults"?

I really want to know something from you, ChessPlayerLev: Please go back to Talk:Paul Morphy, read the interactions between us this last week, and point out something specific, even one thing, that you think or wish that I had done better. (Alright? Or is that asking too much?)

I wish you had come to my User talk instead of ANI, but, I can see your intentions were not to resolve anything between us, but rather, to "get [me] blocked", with arguments like "continued misbehavior" after "past blocks including indef", "the negative he brings to the encyclopedia outweighs the positive", and etc. That's really aggressive in my book, ChessPlayerLev, and you should have two legs to stand on when attempting things so serious as that, rather than generalities without specifics, accusations without facts, and so on. (To me, your serious endeavor here, seems to rely on generating prejudice, which in fact quite mirrors your argumentative style in the content disputes you've linked, where you've used disparaging comments in place of argument, for example: "that's ridiculous", "that's silly", "that's bunk", "that's nonsense", "that's laughable", and so on). Try to do better, and next time please come to my Talk. Ok? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Here, you were claiming User:GFHandel was being abusive!
• Here, you were claiming User:BashBrannigan (a respected ProjChess member) was being hostile, "ridiculous", biased, and "blatantly dishonest". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad Person and removal from the pending block list

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

---

I am not sure if this is the correct area to report a problem or not. My name is Abigail Gutierrez and today I received a message from Mer-C about Spamming on a domain name that I have never edited. I believe this individual got my name from an edit that I did on Medicina Mexico where I added some categories.

I was so shocked to receive this kind of message from someone at Wikipedia that I did my own investigation and learn the following:

In running a Google search for Medicina Mexico, I came across a website called WOT (mywot.com) which had nasty things to say about Medicina Mexico and they also listed other websites owned by Medicina Mexico. They also claimed that Medicina Mexico was a group of rogue websites.

In doing further research, I read their forums and saw messages from a Samuel Meza from Baja Datacenter in Tijuana, Mexico. Baja Datacenter is a large datacenter in Tijuana and is well known. I called the datacenter at +521664 138-2600 and I spoke to Mr. Samuel Meza.

Mr Mesa stated that Medicina Mexico was a customer of Baja Datacenter and that the owners only spoke Spanish and one of the owners was a personal friend of his. He also told me he tried to talk common sense with WOT and the conversations turned ugly when he told them that Medicina Mexico was a legit company. Mr. Meza told me that he had setup website DNS for traps to see if these sites were reported by WOT as being rogue pharmacies. The two sites he setup DNS only were tijuanarxstore.com and cheaprxmexico.com

Mr. Meza also said that WOT was really being run by LegitScript who has declared all pharmacies located outside of the United States to be Rogue Pharmacies even if they were licensed and regulated in their own countries. He told me that the owner of LegitScript had several ex felons working for him to discredit all pharmacies outside of the United States. He also told me that all of Medicina Mexico's websites were rated bad by WOT and Legitscript.

In order to verify what Mr. Meza stated, I then ran my own Google’s check and found these websites:

• http://www.chrisroubis.com/category/wot-criminals/
• http://dukeo.com/mywot-web-of-trust-review-modern-web-totalitarism/
• http://www.ripoffreport.com/directory/Web-of-Trust.aspx
• https://www.worldpharmacyverification.com/

I then called our Health Department in Mexico which regulates pharmacies (Secrtaria de Salud at +52 5063-8400) and learned that Medicina Mexico was in fact licensed and that they owned 48 pharmacies. I also learned that they have never received a citation for violating our laws.

I then checked the Wayback machine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) and discovered that tijuanarxstore.com and cheaprxmexico.com were never online as stated by Mr. Meza.

I then checked two other pharmacies from Mexico that are unrelated to Medicina Mexico and saw that they were also rated bad by WOT and Legitscript.

I then went back to Mer-C wilipedia page and found this webpage: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Medicina Mexico spam on Wikipedia Then I saw the websites Tijuanaexstore.com and cheaprxmexico.com listed along with all of Medicina Mexico’s other websites. The bottom of the listing for Medicina Mexico was See WikiProject Spam Item MER-C 10:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I then went to: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Medicina Mexico spam on Wikipedia and found that this same person has listed Medicina Mexico to be blocked.

The fact that two of the sites have never been online and the fact that this individual has listed them makes me believe that he is a bad apple and should not be on Wikipedia in any capacity. Further, that he is acting in the interest of others and not in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Conclusion

I believe that Medicina Mexico should be removed from the spam list and the pending blocking list and that an Administrator or Steward decide what action should be taken about Mer-C

I hope I am not out line for reporting this as my interest is always what is best for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail.gutierrez (talk • contribs) [[User: Abigail.gutierrez|Abigail.gutierrez 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

USER:MER-C notified. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am unclear which of your edits MER-C was referring to as spam, however your statement above that you did a web search AFTER receiving the spam notice and in that search "discovered" a site named WOT does not add up. On July 1, you edited the WOT article - eight days before the spam notice. Please clarify, thank you. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MER-C warned you for adding a link to rxmexicoonline.com (as seen here.) Here, we see you adding a link to rxmexicoonline.com to the Medicina Mexico page.

Your phone calls are not verifiable, and we cannot accept it as a source of information.

Last I heard, we do not use Web of Trust, we have our own list to define spam, which you saw and have linked to.

Wayback machine does not keep track of all sites, and would likely remove sites that are harmful to other users or dedicated only to scams and other criminal activities.

As for the links you provide:

• chrisroubis.com is currently hosting several anti-Semitic articles, so I do not trust that site any more than a neo-Nazi site.
• dukeo.com is a scam site that tries to teach people how to make money. I don't trust thieves' opinions about the police.
• Ripoffreport.com is user-generated, and filled with complaints by people who run the websites that WoT spoke against. There's a conflict of interest there.
• worldpharmacyverification.com is full of malware, which can only mean it's run by people who either don't know what they're doing or people who profit from screwing people over.

I don't see any reason to trust you at this point. If you are acting in good faith, you've been duped, and need to quit pressing this issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the Samuel Meza that Abigail.gutierrez contacted has been editting the Medicina Mexico article, which really doesn't pass muster, using edit summaries quite similar to Abigail.gutierrez ("Edited by name"). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/Mexicanreporter. I know that WP:SPI is that-a-way, but quack!. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For actual SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vanburrena JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Abigail.gutierrez assures me that she is only herself and no one else and hopes I will read her complaint here because I apparently have not done so ...despite responding to it in detail. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If an administrator or a steward wants my telephone number they are welcome to call me. I am a woman. Mr. Meza is a man. I am not him and he is not me. I do not know a joesperraza and I do not know a Ian.thomason. I did receive a message in my sandbox from Merc claiming while I writting this complaint that I was spamming which I was not. I then received a message from Ian.Thomason saying my complaint was not in reality. I am not here to have a fight. I suspect that these are the same people that I have complained about. PLEASE HAVE A STEWARD or a Administrator review the information that I have given. I am also sending notice to a steward. Abigail.gutierrez 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it you called Samuel Meza working at a Baja Database when Samuel Meza hasn't worked at the Baja database center since March 2010?

And to other editors, I don't consider that WP:OUTING, because, per WP:AGF, I don't know that Abigail.gutierrez is User:SamuelMeza yet, and even if that was not the case, we have no proof that is the real Samuel Meza. She did not refer to User:Samuelmeza when she mentioned speaking to Samuel Meza from Baja database. It seems unlikely that someone trusted to be the head of the IT department of the First National Bank of Mexico would be involved in this kind of petty spamming. Given these two facts, I'm perfectly willing to believe Mr Meza's name is being misused by User:Samuelmeza, or that they are two people with the same name (it does happen). I have no intention of asking if that resume is for User:Samuelmeza, as I have no intention of outing anyone. Without that evidence, I can only assume that Samuel Meza (whose resume I found) is a different person from User:Samuelmeza.

At any rate, it's all sockpuppet accounts for a spammer, who cares? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Read this, then try again. There are no excuses for edits like [115]. For the record, I have little doubt that you and your (likely imaginary) friends are professional spammer(s) pretending to be Wikipedia newbies. Stop wasting our time. MER-C 02:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I saw this message in my sandbox. Lots of reading. First, to Abigail thank you for the phone call of today. Now to the other nuts here from WOT and LegitScript, you have my governmental issued ID and you know I am real not sure about you but from what I have read on the internet if 1/2 of it is true then you are a group of persons that have been convicted of crimes in the U.S. courts. In short, convicted criminals. For anyone that needs to reach me, call me I am at the datacenter my number is +52 664 138-1441. And to Merc go back to WOT where you belong. I know who you are. Samuelmeza 03:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Samuelmeza, you just violated WP:OUTING, please retract your statement and apologize to User:Merc. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For the future reference of anyone coming across this, note that that telephone number is not the one that is in the aforelinked Samuel Meza's C.V., or the telephone number of the REPSS. It's actually the company fax number of the companies being spammed. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Quick question

If a WP:SPA claiming to be Jesus came onto the site only to distance the historical Jesus from the Jesus/Isa found in Christianity and Islam, to portray those religions as making objectively false claims about Jesus (and not making claims of faith)... That'd be a troll right? And if such a person were to show up on the site, I could point them out here so they could be blocked, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That or we set up the Holy Church of Wikipedia and accept User:Jesus as our savior.--v/r - TP 03:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So if Jesus or someone claiming to be Jesus came on, we should block them and see if they come back after three days, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty funny response, to be honest, but I have to wonder why Ian.Thompson is 1. bring a content dispute to here rather than discussing on the talk page and 2. not notifying the user [me] that he's trying to have banned on the sly as required by the rules here. Good thing wikipedia is transparent in showing edits. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to get consensus on the 3 days thing. Generally folks around here like to see a full 7.--v/r - TP 04:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Escalating blocks from 3 days to indef is a bit harsh, particularly since the user seems to have been scared off from appealing his block. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ecce Homo, Behold the Man. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And the user has been notified since I have now finally mentioned him, though this was a formality as he decided to identify with the hypothetical I raised. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that User:YourPalJesus has been trolling Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus and User talk:Ian.thomson. I am prepared to block the account failing some remarkable demonstration that this should not occur. Tiderolls 04:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not the correct conclusion, since I've been presenting reasoned arguments while being called a troll and disparaged here. Why exactly do you think it's appropriate to threaten users over content disputes who don't get in line with your opinion? To me that seems like an obvious abuse of your admin flag and an attempt to silence me through intimidation. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really involved in this at all, or an administrator, but I couldn't help but notice that on YourPalJesus' userpage, it says, "Im not yet an admin but will accept nominations". Seeing as he has had an account for only a few hours, I believe this is more evidence pointing to him being a troll. Gold Standard 04:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Trolling and making an obvious joke on a new user page are not really the same thing, I'd wager. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You might be right, I'm just pointing it out for the people who make that call. Gold Standard 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's quite enough of that. Blocked, and should he return you'll be able to view the scars on his block log in case you're not sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Whoa. I was just going to utter a call for peace, full of yet more puns. FWIW, I don't think this is just a troll. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail your puns, Professor, I'm sure I would find them amusing. Tiderolls 05:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a troll, but maybe POV pushing a bit. See m: Troll `Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help here!

I seriously need some help here in article Upendra. In last few days I have reverted his edits at least 20 times. Yes, I know three revert rules, but he doesn't care. Everytime I or someone else warn(s) him, he simply creates a new accounts (I doubt WP:SOCK) and again starts vandalizing. See this article history.
--Tito Dutta ✉ 04:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• NO. You stop reverting immediately or you will be blocked for edit-warring. This is a simple content dispute--I see no reason to believe that you're right and they're wrong. You are free to put edit-war notices on their talk pages, and I would suggest you start an SPI. But this is not a matter for ANI, and since there is no BLP issue here at stake that I can see, you would do well to stop immediately. Might I add that the article is in terrible shape (I just removed a couple of unacceptable sections) and that your revert restores or still includes phrasing like "Decent Hit, Completed 50 days." which is far, far from OK. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that you shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute, and perhaps using the talk page to discuss might help as well? - SudoGhost 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I have no doubt that filing an SPI would give our editor a more level playing field, but they're just going about it the wrong way, a way that might get them blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at the history of the article and saw Tito using rollback in this content dispute at least 4 times. This is not an acceptable use of the rollback tool and I have therefore removed the rollback flag from his account. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What is happening here? You are warning me? You are removing my rollback features? There are multiple notices in their talk! I tried to talk to this editor multiple times, see User_talk:Abhijit_puranik#July_2012, also see here User_talk:Subhash_Chandra_Gandhi#WP:RS, here User_talk:Subhash_Chandra_Gandhi#July_2012 also see my frustration here: User_talk:Callanecc#Three_revert_rule.21, there might be one two more! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your frustration may be understandable, but it doesn't excuse what we see in that history. You are, first of all, obviously edit-warring. Second, after so many warnings you should have considered passing the buck to AIV or filing an SPI, and you wouldn't have been in hot water. Third, the best argument in there for disruptive editing is the removal of the template, but it is worth noting that in this edit you actually remove a bunch of references, some of which appear to be reliable. The "vandalism" case is so weak here that rollback is really not an acceptable tool. Besides, the article talk page is where we would have loved to see your good faith (which I don't doubt) displayed. Here's the thing: edit-warring is edit-warring even if you're right, and you should have stopped and used other means a while ago. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, another mess in that topic area? As with many articles there, it'd probably be a good idea to indefinitely semiprotect it; I'm realy not seeing many useful edits from anons or new users. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tito, I have no doubt that you are trying to improve the project. However, edits like this one where you used rollback to remove content (cited even, although possibly poorly) is an example of using tools in a content dispute. Please keep WP:COOL, explain your position clearly, and demonstrate that you understand the correct application of tools. It will all work out.

With regard to warnings and the like, be sure to take the time to explain why content should (or should not) be included on the article talk page, and point other editors there. In the long run, it will always go better.

Lastly, where you're sure you're right... Go ask someone else. Don't get caught up in an edit war, they only leave victims. Above all, Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

See here too User_talk:Titodutta#Please_do_not_put_any_maintenance_templates_to_the_Upendra_Page_as_the_problem_is_resolved_.21. I requested them to talk at least (you may find my tone "funny" or "desperate" there "please reply" "post below" etc), but did not get any reply. Everytime you say anything they just create a new account. This is a reliable source? Either that is a mirror of Wikipedia or Wikipedia article is that article's copyvio. I ignored it. You are warning me? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm semiprotecting it. Hopefully that'll help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They have registered accounts! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It'll stave them off for a while at least (takes 10 edits and 4 days), and it makes the pattern easy to pick up on; a bunch of editors suddenly showing up on their 11th edit is pretty obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that might help! But, those 4-5 accounts are already auto-confirmed I think! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for some replies! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry everyone I interpreted this one incorrectly. Titodutta, as Blade said semi-protecting usually discourages editors from changing it when they have to go to quite a bit of effort to confirm their account. It also makes it quite obvious to everyone else. I would strongly suggest that you avoid the article and let other people keep an eye on it (I can tell you now that most, if not all, of the editors above will be watching the page). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given that the article continues to be edits with the content mentioned above, could it be fully protected please (I've requested at WP:RPP ([116])). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hoax article in User sandbox

I was curious how to handle a hoax article which is in a User sandbox. Are these still subject to using {{db-hoax}}? Clearly this is a hoax: User:Windows55 (2)/sandbox The article is just a copy of Katie (talk show), with all of the original refs. The wording has just been changed. In addition, the same article was created at User:KFC2012/sandbox just 2 minutes after it appeared in Windows 22 (2)'s sandbox. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for action -- they're sandboxes. Nobody Ent 09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well ... there would be some that argue that to call a living person X the producer or director of a fake show might be a BLP issue ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If he publishes it, we'll CSD tag it as a hoax. Just remind the user not to publish it onto mainspace. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Or you could take it to WP:MFD as an inappropriate use of userspace and it being used as a webhost for content which will never be an article--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best idea if this is a hoax. In the meantime, I've removed the non-free KFC logo from the two sandboxes. Resolute 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Windows55 (2)/sandbox, prior discussion or not, it's not what sandbox pages are for--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And closed since TParis went ahead and speedied them--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of any attempt to discuss with editor before filing the ANI. Nobody Ent 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hoaxing isn't acceptable anywhere, including userspace. I would have speedied it too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Anton Maegerle

Dear all, I come back to en:WP today because of the following: Anton Maegerle is a German journalist which is member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and is one of the experts about right-wing extremists in Germany. There is a right-wing campaign against him since many years with the aim to label him as "left-wing". In Germany Maegerle was able to reject those baseless allegations and e.g. one of the political magazines called FOCUS, who wrote that Maegerle is "left-wing" was defeated in a lawsuit. The magazine signed a cease and desists. Despites various won lawsuits against these allegations in Germany the German Wikipedia article was a target of the right-wing campaign. Because in de:WP they do not have any chance to label Maegerle as "left-wing", they have recently announced in de:WP to do that in en:WP. As you can see the article was changed recently in this way: [117]. What would you recommend?--♥ KarlV 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And as I can see, a single purpose account has made this edit last year.--♥ KarlV 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

Unresolved

 – waiting for admin close, see #Topic ban below Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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 [118] 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! [119]. 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.[120] See also this review article for a different view on the subject: Nature Reviews Genetics: [121]. 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: [122]]. 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.[123] 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! [124]. 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[125] 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[126] 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):[127] [128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135] 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.[136] 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?" [137]

Arguing that a Journal of American Political Science should be assumed to reliably discuss Genetics [138].

Arguing that newspaper coverage shows notability (I assume you mean weight) for primary sources in biology rather than coverage in secondary sources. [139]

Denial that the topic is controversial [140]

Arguing that even though acknowledging heritability methods are strongly criticized [141] the section based on the primary study using that method should still be kept: [142][143]

Arguing to have specific criticisms of heritability methods excluded: [144][145]

Still want the section kept even though there is a "large and complex controversy" [146]

Arguing that it has not in fact been discredited: [147] but followed by acknowledgement of the non-quantifiable nature of twin studies: [148][149], 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: [150] 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 [151] 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: [152]. 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: [153] 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. [154][155] 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,[156] on Talk:War in October 2011, [157], 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: [158]) 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.[159] New Wikipedia editors are according to research "entering an environment that is increasingly challenging, critical, and/or hostile to their work".[160] This does not explain exactly what these new editors are accused of doing. They are according to the link not of lower quality than earlier. One may instead suspect that the Wikipedia Community, as often is the case with groups, is becoming increasingly conformist and increasingly hostile and intolerant to views other than the "correct" Wikipedia view on the world. Editors with other views than the single "correct" Wikipedia view are being driven off the project. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hm, not sure exactly what you are objecting to here? The version before your recent massive edits and deletions to the article described what the sourced chapter stated accurately. You have also inserted a quote not in the sourced chapter. Your edit summary here [161] seems to indicate that you do in fact know that the sourced chapter support what you deleted. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It's true that I made these same points when commenting on the Noleander case, but in that case the deliberate misrepresentation of sources became an issue. Misrepresentation of sources by someone for POV reasons is fully sufficient reason for action, because there's no good way to correct the damage this does. But when I see two people adding sources to an article, one adding sources for one side and one adding sources for the other, what I see is a team, working together to improve Wikipedia. It's no more improper for editors to specialize in documenting certain points of view than to specialize in documenting certain types of sources or categories of information. The fact is, many many times an editor (myself included) simply sees a source, says, "hey, that's cool, let's mention it in the article so other people can read about it", and doesn't investigate any further. That's OK, even though it will reflect the editor's POV ("that's cool") every time. There is no duty for a single editor to produce a comprehensive article. That duty lies only on the editors collectively when they seek to promote the article to a higher rank of quality. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no duty for an editor to produce a comprehensive article, but there is a duty to produce a neutral one. The notion of two editors being a "team" is pretty ironic for anyone who has ever tried to do that kind of "teamwork" with AO. That is not the kind of team I want to be on - I would much rather be able to rest assured that new biased content is not being added to wikipedia by AO while I edit other articles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds a lot less frustrating than the more common problem of working with a serial reverter. From NPOV: "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." You've already acknowledged that the normal editing process is faster than AN/I, and it's what WP:NPOV says to use. If all he's doing is adding stuff, why can't you just add good sources criticizing the heritability idea to a few relevant articles and be done with it? Wnt (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Wnt, you don't know what you are talking about. The quote from NPOV says what to do when an article is already biased, it does not say that this means that other editors are responsible for following pov-pushers around and neutralizing their articles. I and several other editors have struggled with trying to neutralize AO's editing for several years at this point, that is not an efficient use of otherwise content adding editors' time. At this point you are arguing that it is ok that certain editors refuse to follow policy because the problems they create can be fixed by others. Somehow I don't see you fixing a lot of articles around here so that is an easy argument to make.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DoD Acadēmica Orientālis on behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The comment about starting reading is somewhat strange from someone who has actually admitted not reading sources claimed to contain relevant information: [162]. But yes, I will certainly follow constructive criticisms and and make every effort to improve my editing. When one makes as many edits as I do some are bound to be mistakes of various kinds ranging from spelling errors to more serious. But this has not been done out of malice. I have acted in good faith. I would like welcome a RfC so my editing in general can examined which I think will show that I have many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AO proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks by 92.40.68.49 (talk · contribs)

92.40.68.49 (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks on User talk:Materialscientist ([163]) & User talk:Redvers ([164]). I then warned 4im for personal attacks ([165]). The user then put the personal attacks back: Materialscientist & Redvers. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)