Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpacemanSpiff (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 14 July 2012 (→Oakley77: topic ban enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    At Elance [1] 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." ([2]), 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'll also note the user has added spam links to various articles: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Albacore (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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. SilverserenC 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban on all editors working through Elance. The situation is out of control. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • oppose We can't block people through guilt by association.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Appears to be as evidence-free a proposal as ever I've seen. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Who cares if an editor gets paid, as long as the content is good? Is there any evidence that Elane editors are more problematic than similar sites?Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's lots. Can't understand why the community won't act, but there you go. WilliamH (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Maybe I'm just tired and/or dense, but I don't see what's actually being proposed. Deletion of articles that stem from Elance? Banning editors who create such an article, even if they've been good contributors in the past? How will this new rule be publicized, if approved? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A G5 ban of all those soliciting work via Elance, in light of the chronic abuse stemming from contractors based on the site. WilliamH (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Not aiming to be disrespectful, but please don't assert a position on something if you aren't aware what that something actually is.[reply]
    Perhaps I misunderstood something. Do you mean CSD criterion G5? That applies to pages, not people. If you'd like to ban people who've created G5'd pages, that's not totally unreasonable, but there's no need for such a proposal to be framed in terms of one particular website. Banning people who've used a particular website on the assumption that their content work is bad, just so that ban can be used to G5 content which was created by those people but hadn't already been nominated for deletion through our usual processes, would be impressively kafkaesque. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted to oppose because as far as I could tell there was no clear statement, beyond "some sort of ban on Elance-bought editing," of what was being proposed; whether I personally understood the proposal is not relevant, because I am 100% confident that I am against enacting any suggestion if nobody can be sure of what is actually being suggested. And given that your clarifying statement of your the proposal doesn't completely make sense, as Bobrayner pointed out, my concerns are even stronger and my opposition is even firmer. (On the other hand, if you had pointed me to someplace I'd missed in your the proposal where it was made completely clear what people had been voting to support, I would have withdrawn my comment.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If one of my comments or the comments from those in support of the proposal are anything to go by, it is quite clear what is meant by it, and when G5 is used in such a context, is not the obtuse and stupid suggestion that we use administrative tools to delete people. And Bobrayner, if you'd checked the links I included, you would clearly see that the notion of their content work being "bad" was not merely an assumption, but self-evident. All I can say is that I am sorry the community is more willing to accept this abuse than grant the remit to deal with it. WilliamH (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I remain opposed to a proposal that I find to be vague and poorly thought-out as well as probably inappropriate for this venue. If you don't find my concerns about publication and enforcement of this restrction to be legitimate, or if you think it's foolish to oppose a proposal because one has concerns that aren't addressed, you're free to consider me an idiot, which is a right that goes for all of us. I won't be discussing my vote further. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The following claim in the first paragraph of this section is factually incorrect:

    "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."

    Elance contractors can get feedback up to 60 days after being paid. If a Wikipedia article is terrible and only stays long enough for them to get paid, they will get bad feedback for that article, which means lower rates and fewer customers. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see it ,am I missing something this is article done for Cameron E. King which has deleted but the feedback is good job and same is the case with most articles.The article is posted only after the customer likes the job and gives the feedback to say the author is posting it without his/her consent is wrong.This is true for all not only Wikipedia assignment ,project,coursework only after the customer likes it after that they cannot object later they can of course ask for an change in the draft done by the customer .Note if a student purchases a coursework likes it and pays after that even if he fails he cannot comeback to the site and blame the author after he can ask the author to make changes before paying the final amount but not after.It is one off after the customer likes it and pays the relationship unlike wikiexperts which do maintenance also.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oakley77

    User:Oakley77 is hereby banned from all content review processes, including, but not limited to GAN, FAC, FLC, DYK, ITN, AFC, any other mainpage processes, etc. At the end of three months from today, he can appeal this block at WP:AN (the ban does not automatically expire at the end of three months), subject to not violating the terms of this ban in the meantime and demonstrating an understanding of these processes as well as Wikipedia policies. Any violations of this ban will be dealt with blocks. —SpacemanSpiff 08:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    What exactly is your motive here? Do you wish to request a community ban from AfC or request that the user be community blocked? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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) [reply]

    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)[reply]
    (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. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    By the way, I also notified Oakley about this discussion. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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•roet•c 08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
        • @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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]

    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. BencherliteTalk 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • "Includes but is not limited to..." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "is not limited to..." is redundant. I trim that from articles all the time. Going forward, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Awarding oneself two awards, for crying out loud! Gold Standard 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have, and I still support a ban followed by mentoring. Also, Oakley, I recommend you delete the barnstars you gave to yourself. Gold Standard 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay then, I will do the following: 1. Acknowledge the 3 month ban on reviewing anything on Wikipedia, and obviously not violate it, and work cheerfully and dutifully with my assigned mentor (if any).
    2. Delete my self administered barnstars ;). Oakley77 (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your commitment to quit disrupting Wikipedia's processes would have been considerably more convincing it if you hadn't immediately followed it by signing up for the WikiCup (a contest based on article assessment) and proposing a Wikiproject on a topic you have no apparent connection with, have never edited an article on as far as I can see, and which would only cover 68 pages. (To go with the 17 other low-traffic WikiProjects you're already either tried to join or tried to start in the the last couple of months, presumably - [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. It's possible a user has a genuine knowledge of Puntland, Animals in media, Brazilian Antarctica, Australian music and the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon, but I find it unlikely.) Mogism (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I really don't believe you have done anything to show us that you won't resume your behavior. I have nothing against joining or creating low traffic WikiProjects, but please stop creating drama and please don't resume content reviewing until this discussion is closed. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit troubling that says "will work on Kiribati itself to GA status. " since he is topic banned from GAN. --LauraHale (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I didn't sign up for the WikiCup, just its informative newsletter, two very different things.


    2. All my WikiProject memberships are of geography related-topics, except for one. So yes, joining that combination of WikiProjects IS possible. Oakley77 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rabbits, Australian music, Deserts, National soccer teams, Animals in media... Mogism (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I am passionate about soccer, geography, and culture. Oh, and I wanted to start my own WikiProject. Please explain why being active in numerous WikiProjects is detrimental to Wikipedia? Oakley77 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be a bit blunt, it seems to me like you're more interested in joining WikiProjects than editing articles. --Rschen7754 23:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you even base that on? I join WikiProjects, yes, but that doesn't mean I don't edit much either. Is that a joke, have you even looked at my recent contributions? Oakley77 (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • C'mon people, it clearly states at the top of this page: "Do not clutter discussions here with irrelevant side-discussions". This discussion ended a while ago. Oakley77 will receive either a 3 month ban or a ban until the end of the year from all reviewing processes. In addition, a mentor will ensure that Oakley77 can demonstrate his full understanding of any reviewing instructions for any review process he wishes to participate in after his ban has lifted. Gold Standard 01:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept this ban on reviewing and can't wait to have a mentor. Again, I apologize for any time anyone feels was wasted. Oakley77 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I understood this ban, he was to not be involved with community processes like WP:ITN but has been involved there today. Can some one formalise the ban, inform the user what it means and close this? --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't draw up the ban, but I lead it to believe I was banned from all reviewing processes until I show competence, and a designated mentor thinks as well. Nothing about ITN or Current Events was in there. Can whoever devised this ban please clarify? Oakley77 (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "...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?..." That was discussed above. Please stop doing anything in the category of content reviewing. This includes, but is not limited to:
      • AFC
      • ITN
      • DYK
      • GAN
      • FAC
      • Anything that involves the Main Page, such as TFP or Current Events
    Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Does promoting stubs count as reviewing? I thought it did but Oakley77 has done three today [27] [28] [29]. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'm thinking he probably needs a block. No reviewing means NO reviewing. He can't identify qualities for GA. He can't identify what is needed for AFC. He shouldn't be involved with assessment period and that has been made clear. That he decided to re-assess three things today and be involved with WP:ITN despite knowing this going on suggests WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or possibly a complete lack of understanding how Wikipedia works. --LauraHale (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question If he could be made a project coordinator till April 30 2013?Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 05:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If it involves any sort of reviewing, then no, not until the ban is lifted. Gold Standard 06:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued Abusive Behavior from Ihardlythinkso

    WARNING ISSUED
    BNL issued warning both editors Nobody Ent 02:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ... and you call *my* behavior "a shame"?! (I think there's been enough aggressive hypocrisy from you!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here, you accused me of name-calling two editors "idiots" and "asshats", names I would never use against anyone at WP, ever. I never received any apology from you, only a fake, flippant one at the ANI. (The difference between you & me, ChessPlayerLev, is that I don't fabricate or intentionally distort or exaggerate. You do. I consider it more than uncivil, it's unethical. I don't care if you call me any name your imagination can muster; it's sticks & stones. But fabrications are a particularly underhanded dirtiness in my book, and IMO you swim in it. It's one of the reasons I love chess, because ChessPlayerLev, you can't *cheat* in a chess game, can you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, ChessPlayerLev and Ihardlythinkso, both of you need to back away from each other and from this thread. You're not 10 year olds on the playground anymore, and you shouldn't be acting like it. So here's the deal; we can let this go, and if I see any continued asshattery I'll start with the blocks. Both of you seem like otherwise quite reasonable editors, so I genuinely think that you're capable of preventing it from coming to that; I sincerely hope you'll both decide to take the high road instead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reopening

    Ihardlythinkso, The Blade of Northern Lights, and Toddst1 are highly encouraged to just cease discussing this and moving on. Nobody Ent 11:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think the accusations on User_talk:Ihardlythinkso#Re and User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Re_your_coupling are clear indications of WP:BATTLE. I've indefinitely blocked IHTS before for this type of behavior and s/he was unblocked after appeal, but it's unfortunate that it has continued. I'd support a block for WP:TE / WP:BATTLE. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2 weeks or 1 month sounds like a good length - he did not have any justification in calling Todd his "undesired nemesis", which clearly matches TE and BATTLE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Deng, I don't write things, I have "no justification" for. Toddst1 took extraordinary measures against me, that were unjustified. Those things weren't done in a vacuum. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read time and time again, ANI is to be used as "last resort" only, after all other venues over an issue have been exhausted. Apparently that was misleading, and ANI can be "plopped into" whenever it pleases the purpose of the opening editor? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, the fire is cooking... Be calm - snarky comments never helped anyone. Theopolisme TALK 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Am calm, just taken aback. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I make an observation or two here? Surely, everyone will be upset afterwards, but I wouldn't have it any other way. First, Ihardlythinkso, I think you are being a bit oversensitive in the whole event. Not discounting your feelings, but I think you might be wearing them on your sleeve just a bit and it isn't helping you, and may get you in trouble. I only ask you trust me just a little bit here, you are being snarky and it doesn't suit you. And everyone one else on the block button, I don't see how blocking is going to do anything but antagonize the situation and serve as punishment rather than to prevent disruption. Yes, we are admins so NPA doesn't apply and all that, but this is one of those situations where it is better if everyone just backs away from the dead horse, because nothing anyone says is going to make the other side agree. ANI happened, feelings got hurt, a few jabs were thrown, now lets all go back to writing articles and staying off each other's talk pages for a few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably agree to that were it not for the fact that this is hardly the first time Ihardlythinkso has had serious battleground issues, including multiple blocks for it. Given the latest round of wild accusations towards me and Toddst1, I don't see that he's learned anything at all, and I certainly don't think the problem is just going to go away; that's what I tried last night, and it lead to the aforementioned threads on each others' talkpages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you in principal, that Ihardlythinkso went too far and got emotionally involved and over the line. I've been on the exact same side of the stick, with the same editor, I fully understand. I'm not ignoring or excusing it. Blocking is an option, but I don't think it is the best option because it is likely to antagonize the situation rather than resolve it. This makes it a no-win scenario, and I don't like to block if it isn't going to really resolve anything. It just feels dirty. That doesn't stop you from doing so, but I would encourage everyone to accept that some editors are a little more emotional but worthwhile contributors, and for us to try just a little harder to work it out, that is all. I've added a note to a conversation that Ihardlythinkso and I are having on my talk page, and just consider my intervention as one last effort to try to find resolution peacefully. I'm not going to interfere, I only hope to find a better solution if it is possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me understand: suggesting MO that Blade & Toddst1 are "admin-friends", constitutes "wild accusations", is emotional and "over the line", and is valid basis for a block? Also, my two past blocks keep being referred to here, as they are some sort of Gold Standard, when they were both from the hand of User:Toddst1, the second of which was overturned by Arbcom, in addition to other actions taken by Toddst1 against me (removal of my WP Email access while blocked) that were extraordinary and unjustified. And Dennis, my purpose of our past dialogues was to show that you are "not perfect" in case there was any danger in your thinking you were (because, everybody seems to compliment you, and as human being, that can easily cause a puffed-up self-image). That is not the same kind of thing here, where I'm defending, where User:The Blade of the Northern Lights seems to be hard bent to hang me high. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, my indefinite block of IHTS for "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" was not overturned - The user was unblocked per appeal to arbcom after a month. Upon being unblocked, IHTS was noticed that "nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." This is an important fact that IHTS seems to have lost and would do well to take to heart instead of fabricating conspiracies and projecting repeated problems onto others. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Toddst1, first, I was not "noticed" what you quoted. (What you quoted is news to me. Did Arbcom say this? Can you give me a link on my Talk, please.) All I was told, a day or so after my appeal, was that I was "free to edit". Second, for the record, the month time duration you mention, was my choice, no one else's. Third, please drop any notion of accusing me of "fabricating conspiracies", ok? (Unless you want to get into that, I don't, in which case I'm likely to ask you to specify what multiple conspiracies you are talking about, etc.) Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. To be clear about this, you indef'd me, I appealed to Arbcom, I was not noticed, I was told a day after my appeal that I was "free to edit" (no restrictions given). That is what I meant by your indef block being "overturned by Arbcom". (Is there some kind of "Wikipedia legalese" going on here re term "overturned". Because if so, I didn't and don't know about it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons I took a month before appealing, is that I wasn't sure I wanted to return to WP at all, back into what I perceived an abusive environment. My unblock appeal contained my contention at the outset that IMO your block was excessive and inappropriate. You also removed my Wikipedia Email privilege while blocked, a measure that I understand is done only under the most extraordinary of abuse circumstance. There was no abuse by me of Email to any degree at any time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will reply below to keep this somewhat readable. Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I still think you could have chosen some of your words more carefully and are creating problems for yourself by not admitting it. Blade is a good guy, he is human, so he is fallible, but I've always known him to try to do the right thing, and he is likely frustrated because you have been more than a little rude to him. I also know you are good guy, fallible, and a bit oversensitive at times. My goal here is simply to lower the drama level and deal with the issues, which looking over the previous ANI, is due in part to a sharp tongue. We don't have to agree with each other. Hell, we don't even have to like each other. We DO have to get along with each other, and you know that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another way to look at this would be to figure out what behaviors IHTS is repeatedly exhibiting for multiple admins to separately develop the inclination to "hang him high." (as he put it) Then comes the question what, if anything, to do?" 20:19, 12 July 2012‎Toddst1 (talk)
    (edit conflict × 2)And on that note, which I fully endorse, can everyone please drop the stick? Perhaps tossing fish of various sizes and quantities around first? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Dennis, if you think Blade is a good guy, that is good enough for me. To Blade: I'm sorry that I got snarky with you. I didn't enjoy being compared to a 10-yr. old, and decided to hit back with snarkiness. Sorry.
    Dennis, if you now tell me that the additional admin also deserves apology, I will draw the line. (Because that admin, took pains to "bury me six feet under", and "tighten screws to my coffin". The measures were extraordinary, and reversed with the help of Arbcom. It was an experience that is hard to forget.
    Dennis, I'll even agree about being "oversensitive" to someone crossing me with unfair stuff. (But you know what? That is relative. That is relative to the current environment here at WP. A nasty & hostile environment that evolved to its current state, long before I came along as 1+ years editor. I am not responsible for the environment here, where false accusations fly overhead like a busy airport, nor am I trying to "correct it" [because, that would be impossible]. But I have a hard time too, just "sitting and taking it". [Why is it you think Malleus gets in trouble for "returning as good as he got"? Malleus gives respect equal to respect others give to him. Although I can fully respect that view, as I do nearly everything about Malleus, I don't practice it myself. Instead of dishing out equally, my pref is to answer directly and specifically; my fault is sometimes snarkiness creeps in, but not always.])
    Dennis, what's troublesome here too, is there is a bias to look first, and usually *only*, at the "behavior" of a lowly user. And not the behavior of, say, the admins. (Implication: IMO, a good case, a very good case, could be made against the admins involved here, for incivilities, for "crossing the line", for rudeness, for snarkiness, etc. But, that seems to ... not count at all in the world of English WP. Admins we're told, are just other editors, with extra tools. Not true. They are given more rope to be ... anyway they wish to be ... with *much* less incentive. Because, to block an admin is against the admin-corps motto. It is a stacked deck for the typical editor, producing a demeaning, intimidating environment. I am not the only one who has made these observations. Specifically, when blocks are given, there is some sort of assumption, that the block is always valid, and the blocked user must "confess" or be slaughtered. It is one of the most abusive aspects of WP in existence, IMO, and colors even the dialogue here.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that there is some bad blood between you and Toddst1 and allow for it. I haven't looked into it, but frustration from an admin that blocks someone (particularly if it is overturned) is not uncommon and I have no desire or need to inject myself in that history. We still have to get along or avoid each other when possible, which is likely the best solution. Blade's comments in closing the previous ANI were a bit strong but not altogether unfounded as there was plenty of snark before the close. I see a lot of positive attributes in you, but I'm not blind and I see a degree of defensiveness and bitterness that I think sometimes clouds your judgement. It does not serve you well. As for admins who err, all I can say is they don't go unnoticed. They may not get drug out in ANI, but I can promise you that they are not ignored, and I take a personal interest in them and have reviewed every case that has been dropped on my talk page. In this case, however, abuse clearly isn't an issue, and everyone just got a bit oversensitive, including Blade, Todd and you, after a frustrating ANI report. I would conclude that you all need to just drop the stick and stay off each other's talk pages for a long while. We're all good people here, we just piss each other off every now and then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you think you can handle this without blocking, I'm all for it. Hopefully it can work out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will continue to follow up with him, and appreciate your trust in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis, I'm not the one choosing to continue this. Toddst1 has made additional comments here, and at my Talk. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to your request (above) for the diff where you were noticed after unblocking, perhaps you were too busy telling Guy Macon to piss off to internalize what he said: [30]

    "nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again."

    To which you told Guy Macon to get off your talk page.[31] for no other reason that that you didn't want to accept his highly constructive comments.

    That is not the reason, Toddst1. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's important to note that Arbcom didn't endorse your behavior - it only accepted your appeal to terminate your indefinite block - and nobody here is standing up for your current behavior.

    The conspiracy that you fabricated (and seem to have quickly forgotten) was Blade's reason for reopening this thread about your disruption. See the lines right under the reopening.

    I fabricated nothing. Especially not any "conspiracy". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think what you fail to grasp here is that your behavior has been and continues to be problematic. More concerning is you continue to not take responsibility for your actions, instead continuing to blame others for your outcomes. The question is, what does the community want to do about it?

    I disagree, regarding who's behaviors are poor here. And I have no problem with "responsibility". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I came to the conclusion months ago that you don't have the skills to constructively engage others without "continued abusive, aggressive behavior" as ChessPlayerLev put it opening this thread. I remain even more convinced of that based on this recent fiasco. Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And I remain more convinced about you too, Toddst1. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you meant that Arbcom "noticed" me, and there was a technical aspect about term "overturned" that I was unawares. But now you say the "noticed" was a message User:Guy Macon wrote. That editor was not involved in any way whatever with my appeal to Arbcom. His opinion about anything related has no weight, he does not represent Arbcom, only his own editor opinions, and, I've no interest in his opinions, sorry. (I see on his Talk you have now encouraged him to join the discussion here. What is the point, Toddst1? To bait me? I have had disputes with this user in the past, I'm sure you know. Is it your intention to inflame the situation?) Regarding responsibility, I have no problem with it. I have no idea what "actions" you feel I haven't "taken responsibility for". But I'm not interested at this point to continue the discussion, which everyone but you has been trying to shut down. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to put above quote by me in context. I was responding to the following quite reasonable question:
    "If CIV is *sometimes* enforced, isn't that a trap whereby blocking Admins will use when they "want" to, and a chaotic non-uniformity of enforcement results like a Wild West of favoritism and prejudice gone berzerk?"
    My response was:
    "WP:CIVIL should be equally applied. That being said, it looks like you are making a "He was uncivil and got away with it so its OK for me to be uncivil" argument. No. You are not allowed to be uncivil no matter what other editors do. If someone is getting away with something, report them. Do not respond with incivility.
    That is not what I said at all. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although arbcom lifted the indefinite block (and I agree; a 48 hour block would have been more appropriate) nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again. If, on the other hand, you start taking WP:CIVIL seriously you will be in a good position to report anyone who isn't civil without fear of WP:BOOMERANG and they will get blocked."
    That was and still is good advice for Ihardlythinkso, or for anybody in a conflict. Be responsible for your own actions, and don't blame anyone else for them. Make sure your own behavior is squeaky clean before accusing others. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understand how patronising that is. I have no problem with "responsibility". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Guy. I hope with the diff I presented and IHTS response, it was well in context (which was my intent).
    Responding to IHTS comment "everyone but you has been trying to shut down" - actually, the only person that has suggested shutting this discussion down to date is Dennis. Blade, Jasper and I have each recommended blocking you for continued disruption - specifically TE and BATTLE. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Toddst1, I think you overlooked User:Jorgath's comments at 20:27. And it doesn't surprise me, the three editors you named, I've had disputes w/ Jasper, obviously you've blocked me twice, and Blade has been discussed earlier. (But it seemed, at least to me, Blade was interested to shut down too. By his remarks to Dennis. You seem to be interpreting differently.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, Ihardlythinkso's comments like "you know what? That is relative." and his praise of another editor for "returning as good as he got" tells me that he has learned nothing and still believes that "He misbehaved so its OK for me to misbehave" is a valid argument. The problem is that we as a community cannot tolerate anyone who follows that principle. There will always be someone else who misbehaves. To be a Wikipedia editor requires a willingness to follow our policies even when other editors violate them. I just don't see how Ihardlythinkso can contribute unless he agrees to that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You misread that, Macon. What I did write is that I differed with Malleus in his approach of "giving as good as I got", and that I don't myself follow that approach, when faced with incivility. I don't recommend Malleus's approach, I think it just enflames things. But ethically, Malleus has his point, too. (Malleus is a very smart man.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you fully agree with and promise to comply with WP:CIVIL even in situations where other editors fail to do so? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. The most that can be reasonably humanly expected. (But what about yourself, User:Guy Macon? Do you see yourself as "always civil"? Because I have an off-Wiki list of 15 things you've done toward this editor, now 16, that were far from civil. I can back up what I say, if you happen to be sometime interested.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Macon, please tell, is this an example of your respect for WP:CIVIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ihardlythinkso, Jasper Deng has asked me to comment here as I've spoken with you before. You have a large number of editors here who would like to see you blocked. Would you be willing to simply pledge to stop commenting on other editors completely for the foreseeable future? If the answer is yes, I would be happy to support Dennis in closing this. 28bytes (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This comment about Guy after your offer appears to be a defacto rejection. Very creative and constructive offer though. Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Toddst1, I've no idea who you're addressing, or what you're message is. (But I'm really not interested in clarification, either.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    28, of course I am interested in you to close this. It was never my desire or intent, to eat up anyone's time or attention here. User:ChessPlayerLev opened the ANI, and started listing a series of false accuses. I started to respond to some, in self-defence. User:Nobody Ent closed, at that point my only problem was with summary comments made by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. It's my understanding the thing to do in that case is to go to the user's Talk. I registered my view there. Ever since, it's been a piling on here, with editors I've had past disputes with, calling for "hang him high". Toddst1 has instigated the continuation of the thread, and introduced further enflaming that is unnecessary and unhelpful. In addition, I'm still confused why admins did not object to this being at ANI in the first place. (User:ChessPlayerLev shows lack of experience with several WP practices including WP:BRD, understanding WP:RS, civility, how to offer argumentation in content disputes, and even on this thead, how to write a section title. I've read time after time that ANI is to be used as "last resort" only when resolving issues. Why did no admin point this out to ChessPlayerLev?) Instead the opening has been used as a convenient opportunity for a piling-on, by editors I've had disputes with in the past. (Save Blade, whom I've just "met".) And this kind of thing, is not seen as aggressive and uncivil? There have been many things written in this thread that are completely irresponsible and unfair to me, meanwhile accusations of "bad behavior" and "irresponsibility" are comments and accuses I'm supposed to take at face value?!
    You're asking me if I'd be "willing to pledge to stop commenting on other editors completely for the forseeable future". The way I translate that, is that you want to be sure if you close this, that, what?, I won't go to these users' Talks, and make comments? Or that I won't make comments elsewhere, about these users? Please let me make something clear. I don't initiate. I only respond. (The ANI was opened with false accuses. I responded. I had issue with Blade's summary remarks. I responded on his Talk. Toddst1 has contributed inflammatory material here, I've responded. User:Guy Macon has done ditto, I responded.) I have no interest in these users, to make comments about them. But when they initiate attacks on me, I've responded. Can you ask them to ... I think you know what! The environment at WP is an extremely hostile one, and, the thread here is proof for anyone to see. I have no interest in getting "into it" with any of these users. (I do have an interest in the quality of article Three-dimensional chess, which was recently rail-roaded into deprecated state by an overly-enthusiastic anon. User:Guy Macon seems to take a continued interest there against me, even though he never updated that article before he went there as a dispute resolution volunteer, and even though he wasn't a member of ProjChess until after that point also. He seems to want to defend the anon user at all costs, and explicitly against me, which IMO, is called at WP "enabling Randy". The environment at WP is quite dysfunctional generally, and small examples like this illustrate it vividly. I've been treated deeply uncivil my User:Guy Macon, in 16 ways I can name, yet, this seems to mean nothing at WP. Is there any wonder, why good content contributors leave WP? I was only 1+ years editor here, and improving my contributions. This kind of hostile environment, so painfully obvious that it is, is something I can barely fathom. Please close this immediately. Thank you. p.s. Thanks to Dennis too. And thank you too, to an admin who never showed up to pile on me: User:Bwilkins, whom I suspected might, but didn't ... so now I have a greater abiding respect of that admin! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    What you are describing are content disputes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The problems were summarised fairly well a year ago by EdJohnston [32] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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! [33]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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.[34] See also this review article for a different view on the subject: Nature Reviews Genetics: [35]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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: [36]]. That would seem to be a minimum requirement. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Another content dispute. I have on the talk page given the exact quote from which the statement was made.[37] 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! [38]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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[39] 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)[reply]
    Content dispute. What the sources states. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    See no concrete arguments here. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    And no change in behavior since the criticism of your actions 23 months ago.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost every comment in the thread[40] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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):[41] [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[50] Their contributions here should be viewed in the light of that. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not supported anyone I knew was sock troll. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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?" [51]
    Arguing that a Journal of American Political Science should be assumed to reliably discuss Genetics [52].
    Arguing that newspaper coverage shows notability (I assume you mean weight) for primary sources in biology rather than coverage in secondary sources. [53]
    Denial that the topic is controversial [54]
    Arguing that even though acknowledging heritability methods are strongly criticized [55] the section based on the primary study using that method should still be kept: [56][57]
    Arguing to have specific criticisms of heritability methods excluded: [58][59]
    Still want the section kept even though there is a "large and complex controversy" [60]
    Arguing that it has not in fact been discredited: [61] but followed by acknowledgement of the non-quantifiable nature of twin studies: [62][63], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am talking about a completely different review article: [64] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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 [65] are clear evidence of actual damage to the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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: [66]. 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)[reply]
    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: [67] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Could you give a diff and explain what was unacceptable? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Collapsed trolling by sockpuppet of banned user Echigo mole
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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) [reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. [68][69] 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,[70] on Talk:War in October 2011, [71], etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think the editing pattern you have displayed here at ANI as well is also troublesome. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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: [72]) 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[73] New Wikipedia editors are according to research "entering an environment that is increasingly challenging, critical, and/or hostile to their work".[74] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    See the comments above to Aprock. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like we both expect you to receive an indefinite topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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, 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [75] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Comment - So far as I can tell, this discussion has been going on for about 2 weeks now. I count 15 votes supporting a ban, 6 opposing. I myself, as useful, waffled incredibly saying I would go with the majority. I really don't want to wish having to read this thread through on anyone, but is there any chance of it getting closed sometime soon? John Carter (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I counted 15 support, 5 oppose and named the editors so others could check. Since your numbers are different, would you mind searching for my post at "02:06, 3 July 2012" and saying what difference you see. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    I've DoD'd him. Penyulap ☏ 12:57, 28 Jun 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The comment about starting reading is somewhat strange from someone who has actually admitted not reading sources claimed to contain relevant information: [76]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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 6 editors who have explained their oppose (Kim Dent-Brown, Penyulap, Lionel, Shrigley, Warden, Wnt). 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) Updated numbers to include Wnt. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Fundamental policy is the fundamental flaw in this incident

    I am not going to attempt to close at this point where I am so involved, but I would like to make a statement of closure, and lucky everyone, I can use more than three words because I'm not using the archive template. (woohoo!)

    The issue is failing at ANI because AO has not crossed bright lines in the recent past. Whether people have had legitimate concerns in the past, or are grumbling because a previous matter was not addressed to their satisfaction doesn't change the inappropriateness of this matter being brought to ANI. AO agrees with the suggestion of Rfc/u, which likewise cannot proceed because it too lacks a recent incident or problem.

    Claims over AO's 'failure to listen' is countered by the people calling for action 'failing to listen' to policy, failure to find the correct venue, and in some cases failure to inform themselves of the issues raised.

    A majority consensus which does not address policy, but in some cases claims personal dislike, in some cases claims disagreements over content, in some cases claims TLDR, in some cases claims 'that many people can't be wrong' and so on, is not a consensus that can be accepted as a genuine consensus that AO has done anything wrong which warrants action. Content issues do not belong here, and such issues are subtracted. Personal dislike does not belong here, and it is subtracted, TLDR bullshit gets Zero attention (rather than the punishment it deserves imho), and is subtracted, and so on, until it comes down to one issue.

    In the poker game of Wikipedia, a majority showing of people who don't like AO doesn't beat one fundamental pillar.
    Anyone can edit

    You know, unless you get dealt a wildcard. Penyulap ☏ 02:49, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC) There was the opportunity recently to bring a RfC, but it was missed by bringing the matter here, and trying to argue it 1 to 1, which is not much of a dispute when it comes down to it, because absent of warring and absent of a 3rd opinion, it's just not a dispute. Manus, you need to find someone to work with so it's not simply your ideas versus his ideas, you need to ask someone who also disagrees with AO to take the dispute to a RfCu, that is the proper path, and actually he likes the idea, so it's not likely to fall flat. Penyulap ☏ 13:20, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)

    If you had any kind of familiarity with the issue at hand or the background for this request it would be easier to take you seriously. You have zero clue about who I have worked with and against, or whose ideas against whose. It is completeæy ridiculous to tell the 20 people who m´commented here to now go make the same comments elsewhere - that would be a huige waste of the community's time as if enough hadn't been wasted already - not least thanks to you. Now please go find some other corner of wikipedia to play facebook in while I go write an encyclopedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Sir ! Penyulap (marches off @ 07:01, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC))
    ·ʍaunus·is the primary editor who has expressed the problems with AO's edits and violations of NPOV; the number of editors who have had problems with his POV edits is not quite as large as with Δ, but it seems to be close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Future timestamp. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 23:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Margofilop

    OTRS to the rescue. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I'm not an wiki admin and this is my first time posting here, but the user Margofilop (talk · contribs) has been uploading and reverting copyvio images on the Lisa Gerrard article even after being warned several times on here and wikipedia commons. Here is the edit log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Gerrard&action=history

    I suggest a temp block or something.

    Thanks very much.


    Tribal44 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

    • I've left Margofilop a note on their user talk. Be careful, Tribal44, that you don't edit war yourself. I'm not saying you have but you need to be aware of the policy. Tiderolls
    Oh, I'm being careful. Thanks again.

    Tribal44 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

    Copyvios are explicitly an exception to 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Nyttend, but there was bit of slap 'n tickle antecedent to the copyvio. Nothing egregious in my view, but it could've gotten sticky very easily. Tiderolls 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I popped over to commons an put an OTRS pending tag on the image. I also left a note on the commoms OTRS board. The commons talk page on the image says that the email has been sent. Would the blocking admin consider an unblock if the editor agrees to not put the image back in until OTRS approval?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would only entertain an unblock discussion if the user exhibits an understanding of the situation combined with a confirmation that the OTRS team is actually working on the situation. Margofilop has zero talk page edits; this may not be the root of their problem, but not responding to messages is a significant alarm signal for me. Tiderolls 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. The email may not exist for the one image that is in OTRS. I feel you can close this admin section now. Margofilop may have had a quick education about wp and commons and I think we can just hint to them again if there are more problems. I myself am assuming good faith on their part that the email was sent. I added the file name to the OTRS notice board at commons in case they get a strange email from Aus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could admin pop over to the talk page an explain 'consensus' to the editors there? There seems to be an edit war going on without any discussion at all. Talk:Lisa Gerrard--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vandalism of Airport articles

    Article protected, discussion now elsewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, for some time, airport articles have been subject to vandalism by an IP editor with the address 180.149 and 58.97. One of the pages where this is taking place is Shahjalal International Airport. Let me give some background on what is going on. On every airport article, there's a section listing the airlines serving the airport and the destinations they fly to from that airport. This IP editor has been added a lot of made-up and non-existent destinations and also blanked a section in this edit. See the user's most recent contributions. Other editors including me have reported this IP user and the user 58.97 to AIV and the page Shahjalal International Airport was semi-protected every time, but the user was never blocked. So as soon as the protection expired, the IP user continued his vandalistic edits like nothing happened. I request that an admin do a range-block for IP addresses within the range of 180.149.xx.xx and 58.97.xx.xx. Everyone in the Airports wikiproject will be so glad that somebody finally did this! Thanks for your consideration, Compdude123 22:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Range 58.97.192.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked); range 180.149.0.0/19 (up to 8192 users would be blocked): There's lots of edits coming from both of these ranges; they're not all your airport guy, and lots of them are constructive edits, so range blocks will not be practicable. In my opinion the way to go would be to protect the individual airport articles that are being targeted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my message again. Semi-protecting a page hasn't worked. Once the semi-protection expires, the user starts vandalizing the page again. In the meantime the user will just go and find other airport articles to vandalize, and it's impractical to go semi-protect all of them. Just block the user please. The reason why I was suggesting a range-block was because the IP address the vandalism comes from always changes slightly. But perhaps that's overkill. Again, I would like you to do nothing but block the user. Semi-protecting the articles simply does not work, but blocking will. Thanks, Compdude123 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate entirely that it's long-term and very frustrating whack-a-rat for you guys, when you'd rather be contributing new content. But if the vandal skips over the ranges you describe, we'd have to long-term block over 24,000 addresses, and we just can't do that. We've no more power or insight than you do over who the individual is, all we see is the same IP addresses. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this continues, I'd suggest requesting blocks on Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports' talk page. Maybe some of the admins there can work together to manage these? In any case Shahjalal is now protected for a longer period of time. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please just block the IP addresses that have vandalized Shahjalal Airport page and others. Keep in mind that there are multiple pages that have been vandalized and it's impractical to semi-protect all of them because the user will find other pages to vandalize. Trust me, he will. For the fifth time, just block the user! Enough with semi-protecting pages; block the user! As I said previously, go thru the history of the page and that of Shah Amanat International Airport (another page that's been vandalized) and block all the vandalizing IP addresses. Block 'em! Thanks, Compdude123 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so since Vegaswikian has brought this discussion over to the Wikiproject Airports talk page, let's continue this discussion there in order to keep the comments in one place. From now on, if you wish to comment on this discussion, please put your comments on the WP:Airports talk page. This will help to keep all comments in one place. Thanks, Compdude123 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anon IP with several IP addresses abruptly changes lede of article

    Content dispute, editors working under BRD now, no tools needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This pertains to an anonymous IP with a different IP each time this person edits the Time article. However,this is not a case of sockpuppetry. Today's IP is [77]. Previous IP's are [78], [79], and [80].

    This person inserts an OR lede usually without discussion [81], [82], [83]. Then if this person is still around they will not allow a change in the lede (at all)[84], [85], [86]. You may notice that their justification in the edit history is not grounded in fact, policy, or guideline. It may this person accuses other editors of doing what they do [87], [88] as well as focus on the editor rather than the edit [89].

    The only time this person attempted a discussion (on July 2) they broke up the paragraph's of two editor's discussion in order to respond. I call it a shotgun scatter response [90]. I went through all three responses to restore the original format and placed the group of this person's comments after the other two editors [91]. It was a sequential order determined by time and a way to avoid confusion. This person did not believe this satisfactory. He or she admonished me on my talk page [92] and on another editor's talk page [93]. Today, I did try the IP talk page but to no avail [94].

    This person's editing today disregards discussions that have been taking place on the talk page for the last week or so[95]. The problem of course is a different IP each time this person returns, and lack of communication on this person's part. It seems that person does not feel they must abide by guidelines, policies, consensus, discussion, and is free to disrupt both the article main space page and its talk page. I have run out of ideas and that is why I am here. Help! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So ... following WP:DR, your next step would probably be WP:RFPP to protect the page? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, it might just be a content dispute where multiple other editors (I am neither User:Stevertigo nore User:Pfhorrest) have identified that the article lede is simply substandard for an encyclopedia such as WP. Steve Quinn is clinging to a false notion that there is a consensus version when there is no such thing. He evidently believes that he's a lexicographer and has a better definition for what Time is than any English language dictionary of repute. He just cannot handle the principal definition of the word in Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary, and the OED. For Steve Quinn, time cannot be a phenomenon, it can only be defined in terms of measurement which is extremely non-neutral POV. Anyone who doggedly clings to their POV of a fundamental concept like Time, who cannot yield to the dictionary definition when their POV is challenged, has a problem regarding POV. Does not cut it with the second pillar of the project. 71.169.190.154 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For whatever my opinion is worth, I've been watching and discussing and now recently beginning to participate in this content dispute and have found nothing egregiously wrong with these anon IP edits either in the article or in the talk page, though several things strike me as wrong with Steve Quinn's edits; but none of it is anything serious enough to warrant escalation to ANI in my opinion.
    The anon IP has a made well-written and well-cited edits to the article and Steve has flatly reverted them on insubstantial grounds like "consensus" (even as a very active discussion takes place on the talk page and Steve and other editors continue to make changes to the article reflecting that discussion); meanwhile Steve's own edits to the article have been haphazard and conversational in tone. Likewise, the anon IP's threaded response on the talk page is not at all an unprecedented format, and Steve has shown a misunderstand of the relevance of indentation to threading himself in at least one response.
    This looks like crying wolf to me, an unnecessary escalation bypassing simpler steps of the dispute resolution process, and I would ask that RFPP or other admin action not be granted, at least not without consulting the other active editors on the page who are still hashing things out. Things are in an unstable state but certainly under control over there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As shown by my initial complaint dispute resolution with this anonymous IP has been tried over and over and failed. This person seems to be unresponsive. This can be seem by the numerous recent threads on the talk page where the IP has not participated.
    During this latest discussion the IP arbritrarily changed the lede while all the other editors have been working on it [96]. The IP is not making well cited edits and uses undue weight instead. I am not sure what "haphazard" Pfhorrest is referring to. I have been consistently editing the Time article along with the other editors involved for about a week or so. My editing has been consistent (hardly haphazard). I have also actively particpated in the multiple discussions that have been generated on the talk page.
    I would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is [97]. The anonymous IP was also WP:Canvassing pertaining to this round of editing [98], [99], [100]. Although I admit the last diff doesn't look like much. However, if it is combined with the diff at User talk:Pfhorrest and the other two it seems to be part of the canvassing effort. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "dispute resolution" so far seems to consist of something halfway to an edit war; though I admit the anon IP could talk more at Talk, but edit comments count as discussion as well, and your counter-edits could try to integrate his material instead of just reverting.
    By "haphazard" I meant the quality and coherence of your edits, not the regularity of them; such as [101] which appears to begin the article mid-thought in a longwinded way, and [102] which seems to be making comments on the editing process ("supports a single point of view") as much as on the topic, and where you included a <ref>Please see the other sources referenced in this article.</ref> tag. But I don't want to go into too much detail on that because I'm not trying to write you up here at ANI.
    As for the IP's "canvassing", if you read the WP page you linked it explicitly excludes notification on WIkiProjects and involved editors (such as Stevertigo and I) from the definition of canvassing, and considered them acceptable practice. I still see no wrongdoing on the IP editor's part. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint. I have also shown the attempts at bullying by the IP by comments left in the edit history and on my and other's talk page. This person's editing behavior is uncivil and non-communicative. The person appears to edit with a battleground mentality. I do not agree that edit history comments take the place of talk page discussions. Also, Pfhorrest has an opinion on my editing but this is not an accurate representation -- not nearly an accurate representation. Also, the IP is obviously capable of spewing comments on their own as shown by my evidence above and their comments here. And WikiProjects and involved editors are not excluded from "canvassing" when there is a bias involved as has been shown. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior. So are you willing to hold up your behavior to scrutiny? Or just others?
    I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint. Like this one, right? The problem with your attempt to communicate is not with your ability to transmit information, but is with your inability to receive and heed information.
    I would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is... So let's see, what would your agenda at Fine-structure constant be in reverting my deletion of what is clearly WP:OR (in the form of numerology? It doesn't yet rise to the level of wikistalking, but some editors might think that following the contribs of a user back to other pages (that one never edited before) and reverting their edits solely because you didn't like their edits on a page you thought you owned, might be a form of wikistalking. It is, at least, an indication of an agenda (an agenda to undo whatever this other editor does, regardless of justification). Notice how fast your reversion there was reverted (by one editor and affirmed by another). This shows clearly that you reverted an edit, not because of content (because you apparently hadn't the foggiest idea), but because of who made the edit.
    So Steve, I am happy and willing to put my editing behavior under a microscope, but only if your behavior is also. 70.109.182.232 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I misunderstand the function of ANI? Is this supposed to just be you accusing and him defending, and other involved parties keep out? I see someone making constructive edits being accused of unconstructive behavior and I want to stand up for him. I admit that he could talk more, but for the most part I think he has been constructive and we should not bite the newcomer by throwing admins at him.
    Here is what I think is relevant history, with diffs:
    • April 27th: Anon IP added new lede sentence [103]
    • Almost a month later, May 19th Stevertigo requests citations with expectation that they will support it [104] and then adds one himself [105]. So far the new contribution seems generally supported.
    • Over a month after that, June 22nd, after standing for almost two months without complaint and with some support, Steve Quinn reverts it [106], takes it to talk, where a large discussion on the lede begins, in which the anon IP participates, albeit not much.
    • Only July 1st, amidst that discussion, the anon IP reinstates a better-sourced version of his edits [107][108] and over the next four days a slow semi-edit-war occurs; this is the only thing that looks problematic to me, but not egregiously, and is past now.
    • Over the next week other editors, including Steve Quinn and at least two others, both continued to discuss, and made edits to, the lede [109], apparently breaking with BRD and everyone being OK with that.
    • Then yesterday, July 11th, the anon adds his new first sentence again, with sources [110], without undoing any of the other improvements that have been made meanwhile. Steve Quinn makes some rather incoherent modifications to it [111], Anon (rightly IMO) restores the intact version which actually agrees with the sources it cites [112], Steve Quinn reverts again [113], and I decide it's time someone explicitly supports this guy, and revert Steve [114] and call for further discussion before any more reverts. Steve and I are now discussing his complaints about it on the talk page. There is no edit warring going on, though we were close to it briefly for a while. The anon is not behaving flawlessly nor do I agree with his edits entirely, but I don't think he's done anything that requires admin intervention. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pfhorrest's last response appears to be a balanced view of the situation. I was not aware of any strong suppport for this lede in any form until I began to interact one on one with Pfhorrest. No one said they explicilty supported the IP's lede until I noticed that Pfhorrest seems to a couple of days ago. Originally, three or four other editors and I were developing a different (agreed upon) version when it seems User:Stervitigo (not sure if he was working with us or not) jumped the gun and placed an unsupported lede [115]. This was reverted a few edits later [116]. This is when the Anon IP jumped in [117]. JimWae tried to save the lede we had been working on for a week [118]. The anon IP wasn't having it and stuck in their lede [[119], so I tried to diplomatically copy edit the Anon's lede[120] -- and so on. As Pfhorrest said he finally stepped in. He set it up so we should follow BRD and discuss the lede along with proposed edits. And here we are. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am close to withdrawing my complaint. I think there were six or sven editors involved (including the Anon) and not everyone was commincating (something like that). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I withdraw my complaint

    I think my last description of events is comical in retrospect. It's funny how there was so much tension behind the editing that one perosn (User:Stertivigo) inadvertantly touched off a chain reaction. The good thing is that it ended peacefully and now we are sifting through proposals in the talk page [121], [122], [123]. Therefore, I withdraw my complant. Unless there are objections, I request the Admin close this discussion. Thanks ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SPA pushing joke to disruption

    Resolved
     – Troll blocked. — Coren (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DNFTT
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    User:Inverted omoplata is a recent SPA on Renato Laranja. Renato is a character played by Rhasaan Orange as a private joke that's recently gotten some publicity on youtube. This user is trying to push that joke onto the article talk page and an ongoing AfD. There is no way to possibly mistake this character as a real person; we have sources documenting the joke by the author of the youtube videos, the actor, his associates, and so forth, on top of his wild and obviously fabricated claims. This kind of disruption to the article has been common since its creation (July 7, July 5, July 3). I've warned this user a few times, but he's taken to edit warring; he's simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Can we please have a block for this SPA? Thanks. I'll notify him of this thread momentarily. Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I pointed out on the talk page how the internet rumors about a martial arts instructor not being real were wrong and that there is no proof for them. Instead of providing proof, Mann_jess deleted my talk entry. So I tried to be forthcoming and created a new talk entry and provided proof myself that he in fact is real (I also stated that I attended a seminar of his so I know that he is real first hand, there should even be videos of his seminar). Instead of reacting to the proof I provided, Mann_jess just deleted my talk entry again. I might be new around here, but is this how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia? Do I have to fear that he will delete this here as well? I usually don't like to be involved in such heated arguments, but in this case I have to. You are spreading fake information about a well- respected martial arts instructor. What if this false information is hurting him financially? Did it ever occur to you, that he might be holding less seminars because you /think/ he is fake? Also you say the disruption has been common, why do you think that is, what if people notice the false information and it's you who is reverting the correct information back to false? Inverted omoplata (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked him not to refactor others comments on his talk page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC) (not an admin)[reply]

    While I'm open to constructive criticisms, templating me for violating WP:TPO was probably not incredibly helpful. TPO explicitly mentions that removing or refactoring trolling is allowed (which is in addition IAR, of course). This editor is claiming to know someone, and to have taken classes from someone, who does not exist. He's an SPA trolling for attention. While this isn't AIV, I was hoping for a quick block to end the disruption. He's now engaging with more editors at more venues...   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you would like your way and just delete anything that you don't like. Why do you have to insult me by calling me a "troll"? When did I say I was taking classes from Professor Renato? I said that I attended one of his seminars. I can try to digg up some picture of it, but I really don't feel like I should share private material with people like you. If you would do your research, you would know that he does in fact hold seminars and probably makes a living from it. Why don't you just provide proof for your claims, like I did for mine? I thought that is how Wikipedia worked. Can someone with authority look at this case please? I suspect that Mann_jess is a martial-arts practitioner from a rival association of Professor Renato and has bad intentions by keeping this article the way it is.Inverted omoplata (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    New contributors may be socks, trolls or simply new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Best reaction is to assume the latter and react minimally and calmly. This will help new editors become familiar with Wikipedia practices and become productive editors and will tend to make trolls escalate their behavior to get the attention they seek, making it be more obvious they are trolls, so it's a win-win situation (and way less work than starting ANI threads). I've restored Inverted omoplata's comment on the Afd with a SPA annotation -- it's not a vote so we trust the closing admin will properly factor the editor's comments based on their knowledge of policy and experience. Suggest a close here -- not as a boomerang -- this ANI was opened with good faith -- but simply a this is really the best way to deal with a new editor unfamiliar with WP policies Nobody Ent 11:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really taking WP:AGF too far. There is no question that the character in question is fictional. So an editor claiming he is real and the he has met him is either trolling or having mental problems which are seriously influencing their editing capabilites. Neither of which is acceptable behaviour for Wikipedia editors. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is Professor Renato holding a Seminar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_SmuqlzK8s, look at the comments "He did at 1.5 hour seminar after this and he's totally legit. Showed us a ton of passes and a major detail on the Marcelo Garcia north/south choke that is so critical, I think it should be renamed the Renato Laranja N/S choke." That wasn't the seminar I was attending, so he is holding seminars after all. I also talked to my BJJ friends. It seems that there is an online joke going about having him be 27-Time World champion and it seems he just goes with it. One thing is going with a joke, another is labeling a legit BJJ blackbelt as fake and not real. He might not be 27-time World champion, but he defiantly exists and gives seminars. Inverted omoplata (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think there's any way to assume he's a "new editor unfamiliar with wikipedia policies". He hasn't ever edited an article on this account; his only contributions are to talk pages and AfD, proper formatting and all, to claim that he has a personal relationship with a character that doesn't exist. If we got a new account who's only contributions were to ramble on talk pages about how he had a personal relationship with Goku or Neo from the matrix, would we say it's possible he's just "not familiar with our policies"? I'm not worried about him swaying consensus. I'm worried that he's an SPA here only to cause disruption and troll, and so far he's been able to do that. Shunning will work fine for now, but this is going to continue until the disruption escalates and he's blocked, or he loses interest before then. I really don't think that's the best way to handle this.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you even read what you write? You are 100% sure that he is not real at all and why? Because you THINK so. But If I think he is in fact real, I am trolling. By your definition you are trolling as well. Now actually, I am not trolling by your definition, since I provided proof that he is real (Interviews, News coverage, videos of his seminar). Mann_jess, did you provide ANY proof for your claims? No. This is a conspiracy Theory unless you prove otherwise. It insults a real and legit BJJ blackbelt.Inverted omoplata (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Troll blocked.

    Time for interaction ban? Users SplashScreen, Tomica and Status

    These three editors have been in a state of constant dispute for some time now. The first ANI thread is here, where SplashScreen got into a revert war with Tomica. Since then I've kept an eye on that particular area of Wikipedia to watch out for further disputes, of which there have been many. It seems that now these editors can't get into any sort of communication without it instantly devolving into bickering.

    I'm proposing an interaction ban between SplashScreen and Status/Tomica (not a ban between Status and Tomica, as they appear to be friends). It's clear they can't get along at all, but wherever SplashScreen goes, both Status and Tomica spring up, and SplashScreen has started many AfDs on articles one or the other has either created or worked upon, and recently today an AfD resulted in another revert-war (there is a thread on the 3RR noticeboard), which has now stopped. There have been been lots of veiled accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and similar silliness. See threads here, here and (lucky me) on my talk, here. Telling them to stop arguing didn't work, and I doubt it will, so I'm proposing an interaction ban.

    That Tomica and Status are now appearing on most of SplashScreen's AfDs to disagree with him is obvious, and the fact that SplashScreen's conduct at AfD is needlessly aggressive is also obvious (in my eyes), but I'm really just trying to focus on the interactions between these editors. I welcome any input. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note - I originally suggested such a block on OohBunnies!'s talk page. SplashScreen (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a ban, not a block. Technical difference. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    I understand the issue with Status and Tomica, but my real problem is that I strongly suspect that SplashScreen is a returned user that isn't making a good clean start. I haven't been able to identify precisely who he is yet, but it has been apparent to me from early in his editing career that he had an issue with Status and other Rihanna editors from some prior interaction. I feel very uncomfortable supporting an interaction ban without a corresponding topic ban on pop music articles unless and until I know what the prior interaction was and can factor it into my thinking.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe SplashScreen will divulge a little information when he's back (it's early morning here in the UK). I agree Splash seems to be a returned editor of some kind, and it would be good to know if there were some past issues affecting this dispute. I wouldn't want to put the blame for all this entirely on him though, bad clean start or no. The behaviour of Status and Tomica has added to this "us v. them" mentality that we can see here. All I've really tried to do is remind the involved users to calm down and not make accusations, before one of them ended up blocked. I don't like to see users blocked. Although, if there ends up being consensus for a block of some kind then that will be that. But it would be really good to get some uninvolved eyes on the behaviours of all the involved editors here. OohBunnies! (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that an AFD ban on SplashScreen would be much more effective. Seeing as he clearly doesn't quite understand the process of nominating articles for deletion. For example, he nominated Feelin' So Good and Let's Get Loud for deletion as being "Non-notable concert film release" and revealed a few hours ago that he did so because they were "awful articles". I have been keeping an eye out on his AFDs for a little while now, due to what seems to be a lack of knowledge in opening them. He seems to fail to understand WP:BEFORE. He also feels the need to reply to everybody who disagrees with him; which has been pointed out by several users (and not just this little "clique", as he calls it). It should also be noted that, although according to him, I don't vote against him in every AFD he opens. I !vote the way that is correct. For example, I voted delete on this AFD, which he created. Statυs (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note [124] - the longest oppose I have ever seen on a RFA. --Rschen7754 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a returning user with a bizarre vendetta (as I made clear on Bunny's talk page). Of course Status is going to want me to be banned on AfD, because his articles Bennifer, Personal life of Jennifer Lopez and a series of perfume articles were all deleted because of my nominations. Other successful nominations that have nothing to do with Status include this one. That some of those articles have been resolved with keep outcomes is not a reason for me to be banned from AfD. "I have been keeping an eye out on his AFDs for a little while now" - indeed, and that's where this problem has started. At every turn I've received personal attacks and a barrage of keep !votes on AfDs (many of which are on articles that the group have never involved themselves with before) from Status, Tomica, Hahc21 (talk · contribs), Till I Go Home (talk · contribs) and all the other "friends" who leave talk page comments to each other asking the other to come on Facebook or GTalk. Often, Status will go out of his way and even oppose arguments he's made in the past to make sure that AfDs I start will fail (compare this to this, where he does a complete U-turn on his assessment of WP:NSONGS). My constructive edits have been reverted (and sometimes marked as vandalism) because I haven't "discussed things with them first" (going against WP:BOLD[125][126][127] and, when I do instigate a discussion, the most frivolous of excuses are put forward to oppose my edits[128][129]. Other users have commented on this bizarre group mentality[130][131].
    In short, it seems that WHEREVER I go on Wikipedia, Status and his troupe and sure to follow. This is why I have requested this ban. I am sick to the back teeth of them bitching about me on their talk pages, I am sick to death of receiving rude and explicit comments on my talk page when I make edits that they don't "like", I am sick of this pathetic one-up-manship that has occurred simply because I'm an editor who sees things differently to their little clique and who doesn't believe that the Rihanna page should list every time she's ever done a WP:FART or that we should have long articles on who JLo has slept with. A positive of all this? A lot of the pop music articles are looking lot better and much less WP:CRUFTy; partly due to my own edits, but partly because my AfDs have caused other editors to improve the quality of articles. However, I can't deal with this feral campaign any longer and I would welcome an interaction ban with gusto. SplashScreen (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with KWW. It appears there is more than meets the eye going on here and it's not good. When an editor's 4th edit is to WP:ANI, you have a problem.
    To Bunny's point, there is a group of editors that tend to scrum on these pop articles and the general dynamic is problematic. While I think Splash needs to be addressed, the general ownership of articles, edit warring and disruption by the others is also a major issue. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the impression I always got from SplashScreen was that they had done a fair amount of IP editing before they registered, which would explain odd patterns. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that may be possible, but there appears to be a grudge and other problems have resulted. My observations are that the other editors in this cluster are at this point, in varying degrees less problematic (previous behavior notwithstanding):

    Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not edit warring if I'm removing poorly sourced info from the BLP. Per WP:EW, "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", and WP:3RRNO says: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" is a 3RR exemption. Till I Go Home 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @SplashScreen What series of perfume articles have been deleted? You took it upon yourself to redirect them, which we actually came to an agreement on. As for personal life and Bennifer, why must you keep insisting that I'm some how upset about this? I was upset about personal life at first, since I didn't have a back-up of the information, as a lot of it was not in her main article. But I got that now. I accept if an article gets deleted, it gets deleted. You were right in the sense of both those articles. I don't notice myself !voting on either of them, do you? You seem very paranoid people are talking about you behind your back, which isn't the case. You clearly seem to be talking about this comment [132] Till I Go Home left on my talk, in which he was asking for some Wiki assistance. Please direct me towards where any user has personally attacked you. You seem to be the one attacking other users, as seen in almost all of your AFDs. And I've already told you this, you've got to stop bringing up shit from almost a year ago. People are not entitled to change their opinions on things in a span of a year? Just drop it. I will say this one last time, I have never asked anybody else to comment on any of your AFDs. As I've already told (which you brought an ANI about it, for some strange reason) since we are all "friends" here, we often look at each other's contribs and see what each other are up to. I have not commented on all your AFDs, and have not voted keep on all of them just to "spite" you. I have voted the way I feel is right. I've repeatedly said this to you, and you don't seem to care enough to respond, yet you keep saying it. Statυs (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IBAN Proposal

    Per KWW, the proposal is "interaction ban with a corresponding topic ban on pop music articles" for SplashScreen, Tomica, Status.

    • Question: What exactly does this type of ban involve? Statυs (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • An "interaction ban" generally means the following: Neither editor talks to the other. Neither editor mentions the other. Neither editor edits any article or discussion that the other has edited. There is usually an exception for people bringing up a violation of the interaction ban. Otherwise, violations lead to blocks. In this case, it should be noted that the proposed iban is SplashScreen-Tomica and SplashScreen-Status; Status and Tomica are not problematic in their behavior towards each other. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is one of the many reasons many people dislike I-bans. But the thing is, there's no way to prevent interaction without banning one or the other party from editing the same article, and there's no way to do that fairly without banning both from editing the same articles. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial support: I support an iban between SplashScreen and Tomica based on what I've seen. If Status and SplashScreen wish an iban between them too, I'd support it, but I don't support an involuntary one there - they don't like each other, but they're usually civil. I do not support a topic ban, but the iban would mean that both Tomica and SplashScreen would have to stop editing articles the other has ever edited. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to mention this. Thanks for bringing it up. He claims that we come into his AFDs to vote keep, so they are kept. It appears none of us have commented on that AFD, but they are all keeps. Weird. Statυs (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind. Looking at it again, two of the users involved seems to have commented on it. I must not have seem it in between all of the other keeps. Still makes his claims of us stalking his AFDs and making them all kept outrageous, eh? Statυs (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: this really isn't workable. An interaction ban on the three would wind up effectively slicing the Rihanna articles into two camps, and not much else. I support the intent, but don't think this will work.—Kww(talk) 12:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Much for the same reason as Kww. Tomica has worked on Rihanna articles along with Calvin and other users for quite a long time. If an topic ban is enacted, then Splash may edit all Rihanna articles and then leave Tomica out of the topic on wich he edits the most, and probably he will end up retiring the 'pedia. I Partially support banning both users to talk each other directly on talk pages or discussions, but not editing the same pages, unless it is clearly an edit war or content dispute. PD: I had no internet connection and no power supply, thats why i didn't commented before. Regards. —Hahc21 13:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Kww. I'm not a fan of ibans to start with, as the success with them is a mixed lot and enforcement is always a drama-fest, but in this case it poses real world problems that are going to be hard to work around. I also share his suspicions that there is more than meets the eye going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding that AFD

    I've closed it as a snow keep; help untagging the articles and adding the oldafdfull template to the talk pages would be appreciated, as it's dinnertime here now and I only got about a quarter of them at most so far... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A list of the still-tagged AFDs can be found at User:Snotbot/AfD_report. I'll work on a few of them as I get the chance this morning - but any help is appreciated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The rest should now be cleared. Monty845<,/small> 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Should Splashscreen be restricted from creating new AFDs, or perhaps restricted to creating them under the mentorship of an experienced editor? He failed to notify the creators of the 246 or so articles in that mass nomination, and claimed that if anyone else notified the creators, it would constitute canvassing. His deletion reasons were mostly very much off-point.He didn't even tag all the articles he listed in the AFD, omitting tags on 1953–54 United States network television schedule, for instance. It seemed like a disruptive nomination, or that he has not familiarized himself with the basic information at WP:AFD. Edison (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)A good point. Yes, I think a trout and perhaps a ban from creating AfDs is in order. I propose the following restriction: for three months, if SplashScreen wants to create an AfD, they have to ask another editor (who is in good standing) to do it for them. That way, they'll still be able to use the process for valid candidates, while learning more about how to do it properly. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Jorgath's specific recommendation. A 3 month period sounds reasonable. Edison (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable to me (and thanks y'all for the help mopping up). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support the proposal. And btw Bush, i have been clearing some of them from the tag, do you know how much are left? I will be cleaning more today in a couple of hours. Regards. —Hahc21 07:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stodieck aka Amphorus

    Hi,

    I am getting nowhere in an ongoing dispute of some months, which approaches edit warring, because the other user's behaviour precludes any kind of resolution. This is way beyond a joke now, it has been one-on-one almost all the way and I cannot hold this guy back without some solid admin support. My apologies for the ragged air about this post, please bear with me.

    This person has been using two different accounts:

    I must stress that this request is about the user's behaviour, and not about the content of Wikipedia. The user's behaviour is getting in the way
    (see box below for my earlier effort to explain you guys, where I failed to get this message across)

    I am also coming to believe that my antagonist is now Gaming the system by, for example:

    • Using sockpuppets. Then, when rumbled, wriggling round the evidence - here.
    • Retailating to the sockpuppet issue by accusing me of WP:OUTING - here and here. This is ludicrous, as I made no such alleged personal remarks - it's Wikipedia that tracks this sort of IP connection, and the user who chose those account names - names that appear so close to each other in the page Histories.
    • Repeatedly accusing me of vandalism in edit comments here, here and here. It seems to me that at the very least this violates WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH.

    I could go on. Do I need to?

    Again I stress that this is about the user's behaviour, not about the content dispute. When you read the conversation below, you will understand why I so want you to bear this in mind
    If anything I have said in the above still leads you to think that this post is about the content dispute, please explain in clear and simple terms where I have gone wrong.

    So I appeal to you for the second time. Please, please can somebody resurrect this issue and check out this user's behaviour? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That earlier attempt, recovered from archive, is reproduced below.

    Hi,

    I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi again,
    Stodieck is again making edits without prior discussion or consensus. Diffs:
    And also going back and editing a previous discussion comment that I had replied to, making an IP edit:
    while logging in to make new comments, e.g. these two new comments were made respectively before and :after the IP edit of the old one:
    Please, at least tell me why nobody is responding to this request? Am I doing something wrong or missing something out? I'm not asking for a technical judgement, just a call on this editor's behviour. 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment The reason you are getting little traction here is that primarily this is a technical content dispute. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are mostly wrong on this. A control surface ahead of the wing will act as a positive feedback mechanism for pitch instability, so calling it a stabiliser is Orwellian or lazy terminology at best. As to the behaviour of the other party, yes, it can be very annoying if one is a technical expert in something and wiki policies are repeatedly used to frustrate the clear expression of fact. So I suspect he is frustrated by your obtuseness. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks so much for responding. Yes of course there is a technical dispute going on, but that's not why I am asking you guys for help. My problem is the other party's behaviour - riding roughshod over etiquette as I have tried to document. We cannot resolve the technical issue until the parties involved are behaving in a civilised manner. I am carefully avoiding technical issues here and focusing on the behaviour (so I'm not going to respond to your technical comments here). Why is that not working? Do you need more diffs of bad behaviour repeated here as well as on discussions I have linked to above, like when I got insulted on my own talk page, or should I be posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or what? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that you are dealing with multiple issues here, and I acknowledge that you have kept WP:COOL while attempting to get things sorted. This is just the wrong venue for most of the issues you have brought, and that's why so little traction. It helps (here at AN/I) to bring actionable items with specific requests that require administrator intervention. You may want to re-review WP:DR and (if necessary) start a thread at WP:DRN. Note that DRN has it's own guidelines for what works best, so be sure to review them. Copied from header (above):

    --Tgeairn (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the articles should be deleted, bu I would like to additionally propose a week-long block. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Need assistance with WP: Harassment

    Posting of personal information WP:OUTING Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, . . . . Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stodieck - Incident involves attempt to establish new private ID, needs permanent deletion of text. The sockpuppet allegation is false and easily disproven. The post violates "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." This is the request for permanent deletion.

    Offending editor is (Talk)

    See line below i.e. "Stodieck aka Amphorus" in this forum which is the 3rd violation of WP:OUTING in 2 days. --Stodieck (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

    I don't see any attempted outing. Pointing out a connection in behaviour between two active accounts is not inherently outing; the sockpuppetry report appears in good faith. If the issue relates to your username, then I don't see where you've made any attempt to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    TheIrishWarden

    I am requesting help. The users: EggCentric, Gareth Griffith-Jones, 83.119.142.202, 2.123.157.246 for the last 4 days they have hanged up on me calling me a troll and really making me feel threatened. It all started as the IP: 83.119.142.202 added gay pimp into an article this was previous reverted for vandalism by cluebot and then I reverted it again. Then I start getting malicious notices from EggCentric saying he was going to prove things while not telling me what was wrong. Then I looked at EggCentrics edit history and saw this group of 4 were talking about me in a nasty manor. I stepped in and then they all ganged up on me, the ip 83... Says anything I do is vandalism and the other ip is possibly operated by EggCebtric. I have sent many messages saying lets leave it and they keep talking about me, I'm not having that happen. I have sent reasonable msgs to them and they are still dismissed. I really feel threatened, please help. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that this is more of a case of WP: BITE than WP: NPA. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    what should I do now? TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Put a personal note on their talk pages explaining yourself and linking them to WP: BITE. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the situation here deserves some further consideration at AN/I. While TheIrishWarden erred, the response seemed way overly hostile, and I would like to know if there is a reason for the level of hostility that isn't immediately apparent from the talk page histories. Monty845 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree I was at all hostile. I cannot speak for the other parties. In the last half hour TIW has left two messages on my talk page - erroneous, threatening. I asked him to desist after the first message (for the record, I never, ever used the world 'troll' or variant) and he just went ahead and did it again. Look at this from the start. He bit hard on a diff of mine for highly spurious reasons and he's playing the victim card? Something is not quite right here, that much is obvious. I don't believe this editor is new to wikipedia. John --83.119.142.202 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What utter nonsense this is. Go through the guy's contributions - heck just the history of his user and talk pages will do. I'm not even going to waste time commenting unless anyone seriously, after properly looking at what he's been doing, seriously thinks there's a case to answer. He is almost certainly a returning troll, and if he isn't then he simply lacks the competence to contribute here. Egg Centric 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, he is not trolling. Please seem m: Troll. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said he was trolling (see above). Not sure how you would define the messages he's been leaving on my talk page - when asked not to do so - but I never used the word. Huge alert for 'politics of the playground', but I did not start this. Please also note, despite significant provocation, that I have not once left a message on TIW's talk page. John--83.119.142.202 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ELectriccatfish2 rather than encourage this editor to "Template the regulars" you would have done better to let them know that they "must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" here at ANI. I will go and fix that oversight now. MarnetteD | Talk 23:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake and apologies for making it. TIW edit summary lead me to believe that they had left a template for biting and not a notice about this discussion. Though that is a bit odd on the face of it. Again apologies for not being more thorough. MarnetteD | Talk 23:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is almost certainly a returning troll, and if he isn't then he simply lacks the competence to contribute here. As I and another admin habe been endeavoring to explain to Egg, it is often hard to tell the difference. Which is why we assume good faith barring actual evidence to the contrary. Present that evidence or STFU. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going co-operate with this as I have been wrong persecuted. I stand by my ideas. Au revoir to all if you, I am going ff to become a good editor and have been invited the CVUA twice this week, what does that say? Anyway I don't really care wha you say or what you do, I'm not going to reply to anything involving this. I am rightly UN co-operative. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have STFU. I have only responded to his forum shopping, and minimally at that. Since he's flouncing off again, I see no reason for this thread to be open. The evidence will be his block log in a few months' time. Egg Centric 11:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)`[reply]
    unbelievably aggressive and volatile reaction and they should be punished for it. No wonder so many users don't come back if they are bing treated in an awful way. I will still remain UN cooperative TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't do punishiments here at Wikipedia-en Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but Egg Centric is being highly uncivil and failing to assume good faith without any evidence to back up their failure to assume good faith. They deserve an entire ice-bucket of trout, and should probably apologize for incivility. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing someone of being a sock without providing proof is indeed uncivil, and can be harassment (it's my own userpage that says "file your SPI or STFU"). Of course, if someone is a sock and pretending not to be, they're an unethical dick. TIW is not helping their own case, one must agree. Also, remember, you cannot make someone apologize for anything (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made it clear on several occasions that I simply cannot be bothered to provide said evidence given that it is based on behaviour and gut instinct. I have also made it quite clear I am prepared to STFU. I am not however prepared to retract the accusation or apologise for it, yet, as I am convinced I will be proven correct, and rather quickly at that. I have also made it clear it will be retracted after a few months of TIW editing trouble free (or perhaps before hand on my own initiative) and that TIW has nothing to fear if he isn't up to no good.
    I would however like some clarification on one point: If I do start to accumulate evidence in a subset of my userspace that TIW is a troll, would this be a violation of ATTACK? Egg Centric 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (And another point - why is that users like Badmachine are blocked for the slightest imagined offence, yet I am having to waste time explaining that it's not unreasonable to have a teeny weeny bit of suspicion about a user who within 24 hours of joining was asking Wikipedians to leave messages on his talk page about whether they agreed with him that Hitler was the best politican ever [139]?) Egg Centric 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I did not mean that you should be forced to apologize, merely that, in my opinion, you ought to do so of your own free will. As for the rest of it, 1) extraordinary claims require proof, and 2) there's far more evidence for "troll" than for "returning." Also, in the spirit of "comment on the edits, not the editor," it's far better to say "User:Example is trolling" than "User:Example is a troll," if you see what I mean. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    <digression>That's an interesting point - obviously no one need be a troll for life (although I do enjoy Daniel Brandt's characterization of one our favourite editors who I'm certain won't mind and indeed would be amused by me mentioning it, something involving troll blood, I'm sure you've read it...) - then again I think that just saying the account is trolling isn't quite strong enough in this case either. Perhaps "User:Example (is created|is here) to troll" as a compromise? </digression> Egg Centric 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    <digression continued>Or perhaps "User:Example appears to have done nothing but troll so far" as an alternative? Either way is better than implying trolling-for-life, I guess. That's all I'm trying to say.</digression> - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't suggest that TIW has done nothign but troll, fwiw. About the most one could say in that vein is that every edit he has made has been directed towards a troll goal. But I wouldn't sugggest that either, actually... Egg Centric 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a point of order, EggCentric has had it explained to him/her (more than once) that Badmachine was finally blocked by Arbcom for something way more serious than just sticking a GNAA userbox and a piccy of a dick on their userpage. If he's decided in response to start carrying out random attacks on new users without providing any evidence, that could be considered disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points: The first is that I have made no such decision - that's ridiculous. This case has nothing to do with anything else. I also note that I am not the only user who is suspicious of TIW (indeed he has decided that one or two IPs and Gareth and I are socks of one another, although I'm not sure who). Also, I have not altered my beahviour one jot because of badmachine, at least not intentionally (it does make me less confident in wikipedia's leadership but that's by the by) I just mention it as the case seems pertinent as it's about trolling, as was badmachine's. Secondly, I haven't had that explained to me even once, never mind more than once. I even emailed arbcom about it and had no reply. Egg Centric 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request experimental lifting of edit restriction on Esoglou

    I would like to propose an experimental lifting of the edit restriction on Esoglou wrt Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

    Aside from a general desire to tap Esoglou's extensive knowledge of Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, the specific motivation for my request is that I wish to ask Esoglou for help in reviewing and improving the orphaned article Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy. I will, of course, also consult Orthodox editors such as User:Cody7777777 andUser:Montalban. However, I wish to include Esoglou in my efforts to improve this article and I will be able to benefit more fully from his knowledge if he is not under edit-restriction. (NB: His edit restriction is only in article space and not in Talk Page space).

    In May 2011, Esoglou and LoveMonkey submitted to voluntary edit restrictions where Esoglou agreed not to edit text regarding Orthodox doctrine and LoveMonkey agreed not to edit text regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. That agreement was more or less effective in reducing the conflict between the two users. However, as of Dec. 31, 2011, LoveMonkey has from Wikipedia. He may come back. He has left and come back before. However, he's been gone over 6 months this time around.

    LoveMonkey is not the only editor that Esoglou has been in conflict with in this topic area but the other conflicts have been much less contentious. With LoveMonkey gone, I think there is a good chance that Esoglou can contribute usefully to Wikipedia articles on Orthodox doctrine.

    So, I propose that we lift the edit restriction on a probationary basis with myself acting as Esoglou's mentor, working to mediate any disputes that may arise. If serious conflict occurs, then we will have to consider reimposing the edit restriction.

    --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The present editing restriction can be seen in WP:RESTRICT where you can search for 'Esoglou'. The intention was to confine Esoglou to Catholic articles and LoveMonkey to Eastern Orthodoxy to prevent edit wars. So long as LoveMonkey is inactive, there is no need to keep the restriction in place. Since this was imposed as a community ban, it needs to be at least mentioned on a noticeboard before being lifted. Please comment if you see any problem with lifting the ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC) See revision below. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of the editing restriction was simply not to avoid disagreements beween LM and Esoglou; it was to stop both of them from making personally motivated edits which pushed their theological POV, which is what was causing the conflict in the first place. I see no evidence that Esoglou has ever ceased to do this, and he can be consulted without this restriction being lifted. The additional fact that this proposal is being made by an editor who did little or nothing to discourage Esoglou from POV pushing (even when he acknowledged that's what was happening), does not incline me to support it.Taiwan boi (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually his talk page restriction was lifted in May, 2011 (see the wording in WP:RESTRICT). Now that I review the original ban discussion from 2011 I can see the logic of keeping the restriction in place. Esoglou can still propose changes to Orthodox articles using the talk pages so he can make his contribution that way. If the present thread were going to actually lift the restriction, there are a bunch more people who ought to be notified. Their names can be researched out of the original ban discussion. Cody7777 and Montalban should be notified also, since they are described above as Orthodox editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm a bit offended by Taiwan boi's characterization of me as having done "little or nothing to discourage Esoglou" but this is not the forum for an extended discussion of that so I will simply register my objection and move on. FWIW, the top of Esoglou's talk page is the most recent example of my attempting to improve Esoglou's style of interaction.



    Returning to the matter at hand, given Taiwan boi's objection and EdJohnston's revised position, I withdraw my proposal. As has been noted, Esoglou can comment on the Talk Pages and someone else (such as myself) can serve as a filter to add the worthwhile contributions to the article text. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I must agree with Taiwan boi wholeheartedly on the matter of Esoglou. Even when I offered sourced material I found what I wrote re-edited or rather slanted to fit a particular POV. I had no sense of fair play in these edits. I found Pseudo-Richard however attempting to find a middle ground even though I suspect he probably agrees with Esoglou. He did at least act in good faith

    Montalban (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopping vandal, committing BLP violations on Cam Janssen

    Hello.

    I found no need to warn the IP hopper given IP hopping combined with the fact that the user is deliberately violating policies. Page protection may be warranted, and I am requesting deletion of the revisions under criterion RD3. Thanks. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested protection here. Also, you must notify the user. Notify them on the last ip they used. It doesn't matter that the user is deliberately violating policies, most of the people being reported here violated policies, and it is still a requirement that you notify them. Gold Standard 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified per requirements, even though I disagree with this. I feel that the notification may constitute pouring lighter fluid on the fire. Thanks. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It just looks like standard vandalism from someone who probably couldn't get a date; nothing to break out RevDel over. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:06, 13 July 2012
    Given Janssen's Facepalm Facepalm inducing comments today, I suspect it is standard vandalism by a series of annoyed hockey fans. Resolute 00:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed to me to constitute purely disruptive material, which would be eligible for removal. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also indef blocked Hayhaytaytay (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts, vandalism, etc, who is obviously the same as the IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hundreds of possible hoax edits by 24.159.181.208

    Not sure if this should go here or to WP:AIV or both. I think I found a nasty case where not only does an IP need to be blocked for a while, but someone bold, possibly an admin or experienced rollbacker, should attempt a rollback of this IP's edits wholesale, and then someone is going to have to go back through the edits that can't be rolled back because of reverts, and find parts of the vandalism that weren't completely reverted in each case. 24.159.181.208 (talk · contribs) has been making hundreds of edits to television-related articles, changing years and false claims of hosts leaving. The edits have neither references nor edit summaries; in fact, several of the edits remove existing references. The account appears to ignore warnings, and after being blocked once, appears to have simply continued after the block expired. In some cases, the same claim was applied not only across the same article uniformly, but to multiple articles consistently: See, for example, Let's Make a Deal and Wayne Brady, in which the IP persistently re-edited the articles, in April 2012, to claim Wayne Brady had left the show. The revert-thrashing left a navbox at the bottom of Wayne Brady that (as of now) still says that Wayne Brady is not the incumbent host. I suspect this has happened in more cases. --Closeapple (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    When patrolling Special: RecentChanges, I see edits like this all the time, and I always revert such edits. This is very common, but I wonder how the IP evaded notice for hundreds of edits. Sometimes editors overlook such changes as "normal" or "insignificant" as I did before an admin discreetly told me that such edits are bad. Very peculiar. Anyways, I think the right choice of action is to block and rollback, as Closeapple said. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice this user has been blocked for this previously, a few months ago. So I have placed a lengthy block on the account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But how does that stop the IP from continuing to add false hoax edits when the block is done? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - violation of topic ban

    Multiple violations of terms of known topic ban - blocked 60 hours

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

    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) had a topic ban applied in December 2011 that applied no creation of new articles, or redirects. he was informed of this [140]. and was blocked in January 2012 was blocked for violating this and it was noted that this was an indefinite restriction. Given Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) block history he has a record of pushing the boundary to see how far he can get away with. only a few days he creates a redirect and a new article. I seek community and admin consensus on what to do. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The diff makes no mention of a topic ban. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks Youreallycan LibStar (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) - so this is part of my voluntary agreement to only make a single comment in regards to ANI reports and not to open any reports of my own - Is it disputed that User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) is not allowed to create new articles at this time? - Youreallycan 04:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @YRC. Maybe I'm just tired, but that diff (to me at least) sounds like it falls short of a ban. It was suggested he not create articles, but didn't go far as to say he was banned. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    nvm. I didn't see the top part where he acknowledged restrictions. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems a bit stale. What good will blocking him do? Also, is there some problem regarding the article he added? If RAN is willing to create articles that are not a problem, are we to insist on the letter of the ban? Seems shortsighted to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also shortsighted is saying "well, he was banned, but we'll wink and nod because he's not causing problems despite violating his ban" - should we not give somebody a ticket for going 120 in a 55 zone just because they're driving a Ferrari built for that speed? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We're also not the police. We're an encyclopedia, and we don't destroy good content simply to enforce some rule. No, he should not create articles. Yes he did create one. The Wikipedia servers will not crash if he is not indeffed. Every incident is judged on its own merit. That doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be blocked, and saying that doesn't mean that I think he should. But arguing from a point of blind adherance to the rules for the rules sake, without regard for the effect on content, is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's core values. If you want to argue that he needs to be blocked, fine, but find a better reason than you came up with there. Merely stating he violated his restrictions doesn't necessarily follow that he must be blocked without discussion. Maybe you think he needs to be blocked, but that doesn't preclude people from discussing the matter, or even arriving at the conclusion that this violation doesn't merit a block at this time. --Jayron32 06:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you make some excellent points. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah. Here is the topic ban. Black and white. The community simply does not trust RAN to create new pages, at all. He knows this. If he thinks that this consensus may have changed, he should suggest that the ban be lifted, not simply start ignoring it again. This is not "blind adherance [sic] to the rules for the rules sake"; it is uncontroversial enforcement of a popular decision made to protect the project. I'm inclined to block for a week, per the standard procedure of escalating blocks (the last was 31 hours, although in a depressingly familiar manner was shortened to time served after merely two hours on a technicality). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reply as soon as I get my head around blocking someone for creating good content (assuming, of course, that it is such).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just reviewed this users recent new articles and redirects and find them problematic. YMMV. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious, and based on the short discussion above it is problematic. RAN probably could have asked for a removal of his topic ban at this very forum - it may or may not have been successful. However, he merely thumbed his nose at it and broke it. I have been generous and only provided a mere 60hr rest from the project so that he can re-read his topic ban. His chance of having it removed/reduced just dove like RIM stock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Veyangoda Central College

    Article deleted, user blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This User has created a page about a college of the same name. The page contains obvious promotional material so I nominated the page for WP:CSD twice and both times had the templates removed by the author. I then nominated the page for deletion where it is currently being discussed at WP:AFD. During this process the author has removed the discussion templates three times and has been warned three times, but still continues to make disruptive edits. I don't know if a block is appropriate but the user blanked their talk page so that none of the warnings show up. Some help would be appreciated. Keystoneridin (speak) 06:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The article in question has been deleted as copyvio, and I have blocked the user with {{softerblock}}, which might have been a bit generous, but we'll see. BencherliteTalk 10:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Has archiving on this page been turned off?

    Yet more fallout from #Bad Person and removal from the pending block list, which so far includes a SPI case and a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. <nowiki>...</nowiki> is now around all of the URLs. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The last time the archiving bot ran was 13:46, 11 July 2012. There certainly appear to be sections with no postings in more than 24 hours, those titled "User:Nenpog" and "Intolerable Behaviour" to name two.

    Also, the top of the page says that sections are archived by MizsaBot II however looking at the page history the last few archiving actions were done by ClueBot III.

    Requested actions, in case it is not clear, is to clarify which bot does the archiving and update this page if needed, plus to get the thing running so that some of the at current count 56 sections, not counting subsections, can be cleaned up. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    MiszaBot was malfunctioning recently, so ClueBot was activated instead temporarily (the message in the header had been changed as well, I'm not sure who changed it back). I'm not sure why ClueBot is lagging now, but since Misza seems to be running alright on other pages I've now switched back to it. Give it 12-24 hours and it should clean things up. Equazcion (talk) 14:04, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    The bot attempted to archive however there was a blacklisted link (worldpharmacyverification dot com) which prevented it from writing the page and I can't restore it because of the blacklisting. The link may need to be temporarily removed from the blacklist in order to restore the threads and then the url could be mangled to allow proper archiving.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They really aught to make rollback exempt from the blacklist. I've run into problems where you can't revert vandal blanking because of it. Anyway, an admin will just need to handle it, as they are exempt. Monty845 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a similar problem on man AN page, see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_happened_to_archiving.3F Nobody Ent 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, as an admin I am not exempt from the blacklist; if I try to include a blacklisted link my edit gets blocked like anyone else's. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored the material removed by Miszabot, and removed the http leader from the URL, so that the blacklist won't get triggered. The next time the bot sees this page, it should work. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    P.S. ClueBot III was failing to archive for the same reason, however, it won't pull sections from the main page until they have been persisted on the archive page. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Greczia

    User Greczia violates WP:SCRUTINY and WP:CLEANSTART. He is a sock puppet of User:Tirgil34. The evidences for that are here and here. He continues behavior of Tirgil34, just compare contributions.

    The main reason of my report is his behavior. Some cases:

    That is from his recent activity. I request admins to infinitely block Greczia.

    P.S. All his known accounts are already blocked in German Wikipedia for the same behavior.--Bouron (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Beside the fact that Bouron is making sense of my contributions, the same discussion which was also opened by User Bouron ended with following Clerk note: "Insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion. Feel free to refile if there is new evidence."
    I don't know how many times Bouron tried to block me, but I think this would be the 3rd or 4th unsubstantial attempt. I am just fed up with his conspiratorial behavior.
    @Bouron: It would be nice to have a short look at here and here. Regarding German Wikipedia I wrote following: "Otberg and Koenraad got to know to my new account (Greczia) and that's the reason why they wanted to close my account again. They mentioned some past incidents to strength their fake-report. In short: they did the same as Bouron did. The problem with the dewiki is that there are many admins who are abusing their administrative rights to solve their private problems. I've protested against this decision on dewiki per e-mail. I hope to resist against this harassment on dewiki as well as on enwiki."
    So please stop it now. --Greczia (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Greczia understands the concept of WP:CLEANSTART, as he public revealed his identity. Thus, I don't believe that he violated WP:SCRUTINY, seeing how he basically invited scrutiny. Also, you can't really "violate" WP:CLEANSTART, only WP:SOCK and WP:SCRUTINY.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I don't see a real problem here. Greczia made a less-than-competent attempt to WP:CLEANSTART, which is not an offense, just a failure. Either accept that you didn't succeed at WP:CLEANSTART or try again and do better at it next time. I haven't seen any evidence that s/he's socking. Boroun is not harassing Greczia, as Boroun had a good-faith misunderstanding of what it means to fail at a clean start. Unless anyone has real evidence to the contrary... - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has already played out and been explained at the SPI that Bouron filed May 30, here [149], and where I already said there wasn't any way to connect to the other socks and there wasn't abuse, the person admitted the previous accounts. I suggest Bouron might want to drop the stick as this looks much like forum shopping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, it's bordering on Harassment now. So it's not clean start, it's merely close down one account and move to another - as long as the previous one was not blocked, it's fine unless behaviour changes to poor (granted, if it's not cleanstart, the accounts should likely be formally linked). Indeed, any restrictions on previous accounts automatically transfer to new ones - so unless there's something else this is open and shut - and time to move on (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Greczia were to ask, I would happily indef block the old account "per user request, moved to new account" without mentioning the new account, which would reduce some of this and then linking wouldn't be needed. Not sure if that is exactly how the policy says to do it but seems like a common sense solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor is not attempting a clean start in the usual sense. He wants to continue fighting the same battles in the same topic area, but he doesn't want anyone connecting his current account with his poor behavour in the same area using User:Tirgil34, User:Maikolaser, etc. I believe that is not permitted by WP:SCRUTINY, and the accounts should be linked in the usual way. Kanguole 00:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing by User:58.26.207.170

    Disruptive POV pusher blocked for 3 months Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:58.26.207.170 has a long history of vandalism and unconstructive edits, as well as a block. Recently, he or she has begun editing Tamil Eelam national football team with POV language about the Tamil Tigers conflict. User:MikeLynch and I have reverted these edits. The IP has now reverted thrice within a 24-hour period, and given the POV nature of the edits, I don't see any value in waiting for WP:3RR to be violated. I request a new block or other sanctions against this IP. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, the last one was a month, so I've gone for 3 months this time. The pattern of contributions suggests the IP is static. Watchlisted the article as well in case it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Andreasegde is disrupting a discussion and straw poll @ the Beatles talk page

    I am attempting to conduct a discussion and straw poll here, and User:Andreasegde is attempting to disrupt it. Please see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Please, we need an admin to stop the disruption caused by User:Andreasegde so a proper discussion can occur. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Recently they have unilaterally declared a consensus at Paul McCartney despite an open RfC with little to no discussion, please see here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an ongoing poll here, (Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), which User:GabeMc is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on The Beatles' talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a request on a mediation page (which User:GabeMc started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The result of the mediation page was:
    "Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", Lord Roem (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)][reply]
    Because User:GabeMc is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.--andreasegde (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose that both editors be barred from interacting on the Sgt Pepper talk page. Enough is enough. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the best approach at the moment, there is a lot of talk of sockpuppets, so placing tbs would punish the innocent, I'd suggest instead that we take your understandable desire to see the problem solved and put it into specific fixes for specific issues one by one, like similar polls for a start. Penyulap ☏ 02:50, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    This editor, User:Mythpage88, is a fervent supporter of the complainant. He has insulted me on my own talk page many times. Enough is enough.--andreasegde (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I a "fervent supporter"? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I support him. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you insulted me and did not mention one single negative word about User:GabeMc. It's quite simple, because it was not neutral.--andreasegde (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But I don't support him. Stop being a child, already. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey hang on a minute, you can't say that, it's a personal attack, and believe me I know, I been blocked for such nonsense before (good block btw) anyhow, you should say you're sorry for that, or someone will tell their mommy on you, I mean it. Penyulap ☏ 02:55, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

    User:Andreasegde and User:GabeMc are edit warring on Paul McCartney and talk:Paul McCartney and their constant sniping at each other is disrupting talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and talk:The Beatles. This has already driven one editor away. They should be barred from interacting on any of The Beatles article pages and, if this carries on, they should both be topic banned. Richerman (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FTR, I havn't made any snipes in several days, it is Andreas who continues to snipe at me, and it is Andreas who is driving editors away from Beatles related articles, not me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the sound of one hand clapping? No, it's both of Andreasegde and GabeMc. Each should just make the best possible argument they have once and cease the back and forth. They're not going to change each other's minds and there's no benefit to Wikipedia to sort out which editor is more disruptive. If intervention turns out to be required, Richerman has the correct idea. Nobody Ent 02:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Richerman that issue has become much larger than it need be; we're talking about the letter 'T', for Christ's sake. This has dissolved into edit warring, the bickering and personal attacks which are linked to above, and a poorly thought-out SPI (for which the reporting party apologised, which I accept). The genesis of this SPI can be seen here.
    If you follow GabeMc's comments at the SPI, you see that he acknowledges that he doesn't know if I'm a sock of the IP in question and then accuses User:Andreasegde of not only being the sock, but of having a "fake dialogue" with himself as the IP. Unfortunately the SPI was closed without establishing whether the was any socking taking place at all. This one incident by itself is well beyond the type of treatment to which the community or any of the individuals involved should be subjected.
    I also support topic and interaction bans against GabeMc. The abuse of process and of other editors has to be stopped now. Radiopathy •talk• 02:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban for me? Are you serious Radio? I just got Paul McCartney promoted at FAC (admittedly with much of help from others), and you suggest banning me from editing all Beatles related articles? How convenient for you, an editor who is clearly biased against "the". FTR, I have made my best argument at the Beatles talk page, and I pledge to uphold whatever outcome arises from this process, while reserving the right to take this to a higher-level if needed. I have reason and grammar on my side, and I trust a mediator will choose wisely should it come to that. BTW, this thread is about disruptive editing by User:Andreasegde however, not the "The/the" debate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The FAC doesn't negate your behaviour here the past few weeks. You have antagonised and alienated several editors with which you formerly had a good rapport. Your attempt at subverting your own request for mediation shows at least that you have no respect for the way things are done here and that you'll stop at nothing to impose your lower case 'T' on everyone else. Some of your interactions suggest something other that a collaborative spirit. Radiopathy •talk• 03:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I support full topic ban, and interaction ban for both editors AND the 99. IP editor who got into this whole mess. It's God Damned ridiculous! It's CAPITALIZATION FFS! It's not gonna make a damned bit of difference on the article. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Mythpage88 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I see you getting a block long before that happens, and I see Andreasegde coming out looking like a saint in all of this. I also see lots of work for the fishermen to do in these polls, oh yeah ! they'll feed the family with this haul. Penyulap ☏ 03:29, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    Mythpage88, you want to ban me from editing all Beatles pages, really? You do realize that it was Andreas and ip 99 that dragged this out and forced my hand. See: here and here. Please reconsider your radical position. I havn't even cursed at anyone. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I do. You blame him at every opportunity. You even did in your response. The both of you need to take a time out. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    And Gabe, two edits is nothing when you take into account how much has gone on. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    12/24 hour block for both of them if they don't calm down. According to RM above they are both causing disruption. A short time out (or longer) might be helpful. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How dare you assume that I haven't looked into it. How dare you! Arguments like this drive users away from Wikipedia.! Mythpage88 (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, okay right, you got me, my bad, good one Mythpage88, I'm sorry. (with tongue in cheek) Please, please, pretty please allow me to continue to donate several hours per day of my time to the project, please!!! I need it!!! Maybe we should all have a laugh and relax huh? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. Your actions are beyond the pale. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice to all is this: I doubt any admin is gonna touch this and come down on only one side at this point. If blocks are enacted, I see at least 2 of them being made. Your conduct on this thread will probably make the admin say "you two need a timeout" and force one on you. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I thought admins wanted us to report disruptive edits to help them protect and improve the culture of wikipedia. I've reported seven above, all from today. I really believe that I have never made one single intentionally disruptive edit ever at wikipedia, not even once. If I get a block for reporting this kind of wikistalking, wikithreats, harrassment on my talk page, defamation of character and bullying, then so be it. I am not the problem here, I represent the solution to the problem. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you make one comment without blaming Andreas for something? Mythpage88 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see an awful lot of childish behaviour that is bat-blastingly baffling to be honest. Damn childish, in toto. Get a grip and stop playing such stupid, childish games (✉→BWilkins←✎) 04:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I too agree with a temporary topic-ban, this is extremely sophomoric and has gotten way out of hand. Seriously, 99.99% of our readers don't care how it is capitalized, and especially not to this extent. Maractus (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I disagree, grammar is grammar, and to intentionally disregard our MoS, and at least 8 others is silly IMO. What's really silly is that a simple decree from above could end all this once and for all. This is only going on because no one will give a clear directive; a 1RR situation. So don't blame the soldiers when they disagree because the general won't/can't/refuses to give a clear order that all can follow. This could all end with one decision from a mediator, do we follow our MoS, ignore our MoS, or change our MoS. If wikipedia took a firm stance on this we would never have to hear about this nonsense ever again. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an argument over which shape of a letter to use. Give it a fucking break. Mythpage88 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My experencies with Andreasegde have been extremely unpleasant at the Beatles-related Pete Best article talk page [150]; so much so that I was indeed driven away from working on the article. The talk page link speaks for itself, in terms of aggressive hostility and violations of good faith and article ownership guidelines, and I challenge anyone to conclude otherwise. I was so disgusted I decided even a complaint would just make me feel sick at heart. This ANI complaint by GabeMc is utterly justified, in my view, and the fact is that I was unaware of this ANI complaint until just now and discovered it by way of the poll. I strongly suggest steps be taken, up to and including a block or topic ban, to inform Andreasegde that this type of combative editing is unacceptable at Wikipedia, which is about collaboration, not ownership. My experiences with GabeMc, in contrast have been cordial, and I salute his willingness to bring this matter to ANI. Jusdafax 04:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. I concur completely! I've watched Andreasegde bully myself and others for over 2 years! This needs to end now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I feel that any objective look at how I was dealt with at the Pete Best page indicates who the disruptive, hostile and deliberately offputting editor was. In the end, I did not feel that further interaction was worth my time. It would restore much of my shaken faith if the community would agree on where the problem lies. Jusdafax 04:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Patterns?


    full topic and interaction ban

    • Support and nom I suggest full topic ban to any and all Beatles related articles, and interaction ban for both editors AND the 99 IP editor who got us into this whole mess.

    It's God Damned ridiculous! It's CAPITALIZATION FFS! It's not gonna make a damned bit of difference on the article. Mythpage88 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Since I was asked to comment, I suppose I'll submit to banging my head against a brick wall once more. The reason I quit the wikiproject was not in protest of Gabe's behavior, or even of that of andreasegde. I quit because the wikiproject has been in dispute over this issue for years, and no one in a leadership position at this site (*cough*ArbCom*cough*) has cared enough to impose a solution for it. This is a major issue, as I see it, and fundamentally comes down to whether or not the MoS matters. When it managed to get before ArbCom, they declared it (in their words) "silly", in the process effectively delegitimizing every MoS-based argument that ever has been made, is being made, and ever will be made. Consensus has not solved this issue so far, and I see no reason to acquiesce to the delusion that things are going to be different this go-around. Until consensus is reached (and at this point I care little what that consensus is -- even though I firmly believe that the MoS, the English language, and reality itself is on the "small T" side, I would take a consensus for "big T" over no consensus at all), I cannot edit Beatles-related articles and remain a sane and productive editor. It's an either/or decision for me, and I believe in the goals of Wikipedia too much to take part in this nonsense any longer.
    If it matters, I think andreasegde has been more unreasonable and taken this to greater heights of incivility than Gabe has. He made comments at Talk:Paul McCartney that were absolutely incongruous with logic, and with the type of contributor I have always known him to be. But I don't for a second believe that he, or almost anyone else on the "big T" side, is acting in bad faith. IP 99 is clearly the exception to that statement; s/he came to this site to start shit, as should be clear from his/her editing history. Blocking him/her will not bring this dispute to a close (not by a long shot), but it will at least be one fewer troll defacing the project.
    I unconditionally oppose topic bans and bans/blocks of any kind for both Gabe and Andreas, provided they both act with the utmost decorum going forward. But please do not assume that I am condemning both equally; I am not. Andreas has been unreasonable and uncivil to multiple editors, including me, but blocking for relatively minor infractions during the course of a major discussion is not going to solve anything. Let the conversation run its course. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider my vote changed to oppose for any kind of action against Gabe and support for a topic ban against andreas. This edit is pointy, and his comments at Talk:Pete Best are reprehensible and inexcusable. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, is that the correct diff ? I opened that diff two times, and I'm seeing changes to text for "band" and "group" ? Penyulap ☏ 06:04, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    He does have ownership issues with Pete Best so Wikiquette assistance is a good idea. Penyulap ☏ 06:19, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    No, that's the right diff. It's an issue that has never, I believe, been raised anywhere else, ever, and he just happens to bring it up during a high-profile FAC led by someone he's had disputes with in the past. I don't know what point he was making, but that's the only viable explanation I can see. This and this show that he does not understand (or, at least, does not care about) WP:CIVIL and has a problem with collaboratively working on content and accepting criticism to content he was worked on. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These additional examples of ownership and bullying by Andreasegde do not surprise me one bit after my experience at Pete Best. They indicate a systemic pattern of abuse at Beatles-related articles and as such, do not call for a Wikiquette board discussion but a topic ban by an admin, at the very least. The Beatles are a huge entry area for editors, and the hostility and threats by Andreasegde are unacceptable. Jusdafax 08:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree. Something very odd about IP 99 doesn't pass the smell test. Jusdafax 08:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Canvassing is already taking place for this. I was canvassed at my talk page. This proposal and thread is a fucking joke and Gave,Andreas and Mythpage should be blocked for 48 hours for ratcheting up the bullsnit at ANI instead of other venues.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and Propose a strict WP:Civility standard for all involved editors. If editors cannot "always treat each other with consideration and respect... keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia... help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and "behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates" then immediate blocks should be imposed. Civility is a part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and one of the pillars. Trying to enforce topic bans or other half-measures does not hold editors to our code of conduct; this is core to the project. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support interaction ban, support topic ban for andreasegde (or just a plain old site ban), oppose topic ban for GabeMc. I started copyediting the Paul McCartney article during the FAC, after some light contributions to Beatles content over the years. Shortly before and after it was promoted, andreasegde and several others provoked arguments over issues like whether to call t/The Beatles a "group" or "band" and what order to list McCartney's teen rock-and-roll idols. Worse, andreasegde has made blatant personal attacks on GabeMc[151], called him a liar repeatedly[152][153], accused him of ulterior motives[154][155], and has otherwise shown gratuitous incivility to GabeMc and others[156][157][158][159]. andreasegde is acting like a petulant child, screaming and stamping his feet when things don't go his way. As for GabeMC, he isn't 100% innocent; he has assumed bad faith on andreasegde's part and allowed himself to get into edit wars with him, though not without provocation. Yet GabeMc's presence on articles related to the Beatles and other music topics is a net positive, especially with his successful efforts to bring McCartney and other articles to featured status. szyslak (t) 05:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (P.S.: I would also urge that User:Radiopathy's part in all this not be overlooked. Though the recent SPI went nowhere, he's tried sockpuppetry before.)[reply]
    Well I'm looking at those diffs and getting all excited that maybe I have the chance to give out a grump award, but this guy is not even a patch on Andy, who we all know and love, because he just doesn't let fly with the dictionary definitions like Andy does, andreasegde is too quiet and restrained if anything in those diffs, he is holding up better whilst under attack. But I'm keeping my eyes open on this one, because not everyone can measure up to Andy's level of grumpiness, he's a hard act to follow, so I'm looking for 20% Andy or so. Penyulap ☏ 05:57, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    • Opposed to any action against GabeMC and generally support action against Andreasegde WRT topic bans (or more). While I am not uninvolved w/ Gabe I find it absurd in the extreme that we would insist "both sides do it" in absence of any real evidence. Just because two editors appear at ANI and make a case doesn't make it "a pox on both your houses" each time. Protonk (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, what do you call this kind of thing ?

    I had a look at this section here to see just who was doing the canvassing if anyone, and wow, did I ever place my bets correctly. Anyhow, I'd be happy to hear what this continuous slab of contributions from GabeMc is about, because I love stories !!!

    I'm half arsed with the diffs, only a few are diffs, the others point to the sections and then just search for the name if you like, any editor in good standing can polish this up I give permission to uninvolved editors and whatsisname I placed my bet on, they can edit my text here directly to fix the diffs if they like to.

    23:26, 8 July 2012 support Koavf ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:25, 8 July 2012 support LessHeard vanU ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:25, 8 July 2012 support Catfish Jim and the soapdish ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:24, 8 July 2012 support, partial support and support on the same page Metalello ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top)

    23:24, 8 July 2012 support Leahtwosaints ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:23, 8 July 2012 support Y2kcrazyjoker4 ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top)

    23:23, 8 July 2012 neutral and then support (same page) Ericdeaththe2nd ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top)

    23:22, 8 July 2012 comment only Hula Hup ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:17, 8 July 2012 support diff Anthony Winward ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:16, 8 July 2012 support Ohconfucius/archive23 ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:15, 8 July 2012 support F4280 ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top)

    23:15, 8 July 2012 oppose first then support Nigelj ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:14, 8 July 2012 some kind of support or something Cresix ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:14, 8 July 2012 support Jmcw37 ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top)

    23:12, 8 July 2012 supports and an oppose Tearaway ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top)

    23:12, 8 July 2012 support Joefromrandb ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:11, 8 July 2012 support Freakmighty ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:10, 8 July 2012 whoops Penyulap ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:09, 8 July 2012 support support WestwoodMatt ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:08, 8 July 2012 Support (I don't need any link here it's my Auntie Pesky who will wash my mouth out if I tell a fib) ThatPeskyCommoner ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section)

    23:07, 8 July 2012 then support Alarics ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top)

    this was interesting as far as the summary goes...

    I'd also suggest it's worth 2 days outright, but this is more for turning down the equaliser in the middle, and bringing up the volume everywhere else, so the fishermen can do their business. Penyulap ☏ 05:38, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

    I call it the fallacy of selective observation. If you had been honest, you would have included that I pinged Andreas and several other editors known to oppose "the". Also, the bulk of the pings were to editors that have edited the page this year, and which I have absolutely no way of knowing how they would !vote. Did you also post Andreas' pings? Anyway, most of those links show me compromising and building a popular consensus, so thanks. Also, I pinged every registered user that has edited tha Pepper article this year. See Andreas' pings: here, here, here, here, here, here and here, here and here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So you don't deny that this is one single slab of edits straight from your contribution list ? I just want to make that part easy for everyone first, then I'll get to the other. Penyulap ☏ 06:56, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    I'm looking at a lot of diffs you are posting which are absolutely fine, what is wrong with this post anyhow ? Penyulap ☏ 07:07, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

    User:Neutralhomer

    This started with a content dispute with one editor claiming that an article should be merged due to a rule in an essay. The other editor said it should not because the rule didn't describe this particular situation. A discussion was started and the result was that there was no consensus to merge the particular article in question. All editors involved will remain civil going forward and try to reach consensus prior to any major changes (such as merge/redirect) to the article. -- Selket Talk 02:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Neutralhomer likes to Gaming the system

    [Notice about ANI Spshu (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The above is hilariously funny coming from someone who is dwelling on something that ended a little over 2 months ago, back in May! A little over 2 months ago a Move/Merge Request Discussion was ended at Talk:WNEM-DT2 with no consensus for move or delete. The discussion was started by User:Spshu, and was closed by User:Drmies, an admin. Today, I receive this post on my talk page (a little over 2 months after the discussion was closed) saying I was attacking users and gaming the system. Spshu tried to get consensus, failed, came back 2 months later with this fun little page (what you see above) and more edit-warring at WVIR-DT3. Now we are here. This is someone who is dwelling on something that is long been closed, hell I completely forgot about, to continue to beat a dead horse. Requesting this ANI thread be closed, Spshu admonished and the horse given a nice burial. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WVIR-DT3 is completely unsourced so the burden on the editor that place it there. Notability has not been established. Spshu (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NO, Neutralhomer, you have been an ongoing Gamer of the system and WVIR-DT3 makes it current. Second through the discussion at Talk:WNEM-DT2 you claimed that all discussions at WP:tv stations where in favor of subchannels getting their own page. I request that you point them out to me but you just repeat your statement. I thus did the research and find you are lying to game the system. Spshu (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Ok, Spshu, there was a merge/deletion discussion that didn't go your way. There has been some hostility from both camps, but it seemed to have cooled down. Let's accept things the way they are and move on. Also, please do not revert other people's talk page comments. -- Selket Talk 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but I never reverted anyone's talk page comment, but Neutralhomer accused me of doing so during the WNEM-DT2 merge discussion and could not show me were I did that. Second the accept things the way they are and move on status is that subchannels do not general get their own article. So Neutralhomer needs to accept things the way they are and move on. Spshu (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, let me be clear, I expect both of you to cool it. There's been some antagonism on both sides (templating regulars for example). Just stop, it's very easy to do. -- Selket Talk 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with Selket. This escalated to ANI way too fast. The vast majority of the diffs are from a month or more ago. Here's what I see from recent history. Spshu redirected a page. Neutralhomer undid the redirect. Spshu left a note on Neutralhomer's page citing an event from May and that wasn't a problem as Spshu stated. Spshu then gathered up a history of virtually every edit of Neutralhomer that Spshu disagreed with. Neutralhomer "templated the regular" and Spshu went to ANI in response. This is entirely unnecessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict): I am about as cool as I could get, I had completely forgotten about the WNEM discussion and about Spshu as I had taken the WNEM-DT2 page off my watchlist right after the discussion had been closed on May 9. I no longer have a horse in the race as the race is over and the horses are at the stables (to keep the "horse" metaphor going). Spshu came to me today, 2 months and 4 days after the fact, to continue something that had been closed and forgotten. I can't be any cooler, but obviously he is still dwelling on the subject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So your current attacks ([160]]) and threatens me with banning) didn't then just accur? Nor his attacks on DreamMcQueen in the edit over his ANI when he was acting fine in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Style and formatting issues nor 99.136.254.195 in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#WFSB removing unsourced material. Spshu (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is about a pattern of behavior on Neutralhomer's part. Spshu (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan please read the material, he has been attacking people as vandals back to 2007 and two other editors resently. Spshu (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Your first diff is a warning. A warning is not considered a personal attack. It may have been a poor decision to use a template though. The second one didn't mention banning, it mentioned blocking and he didn't threaten you with it. He just expanded on the template and pointed that continuing in a similar behavior could get you blocked. Let's throw these sticks away now. I'm finding this entire ordeal disruptive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict): Oh, they did happen, but after 2 months and you are still dwelling, a warning to you was necessary. DreamMcQueen's behavior was dealt with by an admin (two actually) and found to be in violation of the rules and policies of Wikipedia. If you wish to continue to beat a dead horse, fine, sure, whatever, I'll saw you down a tree for sticks, but I was done on May 9. Go argue with someone else. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You previously lost the argument over subchannels then claim false that they when your way.
    Ryan -- read this from that argument. "Hi Spshu,

    Thanks for your note. I've sent NH the external link, and asked him not to give out vandalism warnings to good-faith contributors like yourself. "Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)"

    A blocking or banning does it really matter what term he uses.
    That is interest that you have changed your tune now that it is at ANI. You already lost your argument here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#WENY-DT3 WENY-DT3 - 3 to 1 vote against subchannels recieving their own article with Neutralhomer for. So you didn't follow WP:STICK from that argument to the WNEM-DT2 discussion. Spshu (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a content issue to me. Take it to the talk page of WENY-DT3 not here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2007? Really? First 2 months, now 5 years? OK, if anyone needs me, I will be over on Facebook. It makes a bit more sense over there. Message me on my talk page if something needs to be addressed and I will be here posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Fastballjohnd

    Fastballjohnd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Note- This account also has two socks, Drjohndacquisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus an IP 98.167.164.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation[161], resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd.

    Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player John D'Acquisto. The editor has on more one occasion, here[162] most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete.

    In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here[163], here[164], and here[nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=APAB&d_place=APAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F8A15FC51053B7C&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM]. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit[165] was the following

    He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum [1], he never stole any money or committed fraud.

    That edit was reverted[166]. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article [167] giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits.

    From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights.

    • [168] Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
    • [169] edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
    • [170] Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
    • [171] Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.[172]
    • [173] IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version.[174] Again this was reverted.[175]

    It was shortly after that I got involved. Note I did make edits to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here[176] and here[177].

    Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here[178] and here[179]. I made one last edit here[180].

    After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here[181] and asked[182] for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did[183] and he wrote As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable.

    So I took it to the COI board and got no response[184]. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation[185]. When I did each of these, I left messages[186][187] on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

    On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded[188] on his talk page, I wrote back one day later[189].

    Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again[190] making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied[191] that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His sources are always broken links or like here[192] inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out[193] to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed remedy

    I propose that all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as WP:TPO or WP:CIVIL). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely sockpuppeting from banned user XB70Valyrie

    About a month ago XB70Valyrie, was banned indefinitely for highly volatile behavior, personal attacks and violating wp:NOTHERE. He specifically was active in trying to add a controversy section to the political activities of the koch family page and was attacking administrator Arthur rubin, going as far as creating and posting a youtube video about rubin with nothing but personal attacks. He was banned for those reasons and for sock puppeting, and has a list of suspected sock puppets. Most of the sock puppets start with 99 and a few are 99.181.

    Since this happened I've been on the lookout for more IP's with similar activity because when he was banned, he threatened that he would use multiple IPs to continue to harass Arthur and disrupt Wikipedia: "I can have a different IP every night, if I like"[194]. I noticed this IP (99.181.132.75) that popped up has been constantly reverting Arthur rubin on multiple pages ([195], [196], [197], [198], [199]) and has been involved with the political activities of the koch family again ([200], [201]). In this section of the William Nordhaus talk page the IP is involved in a discussion with Arthur. Looking at the discussion, there are 9 different IP addresses that respond as if they are all the same person. These are the IPs: 99.181.150.169, 99.181.155.96, 99.181.142.87, 99.181.143.128, 99.181.132.75, 108.195.138.38, 108.73.113.91, 99.109.127.226, 99.109.124.95. Each of these IPs are very similar to each other and also very similar to the list of suspected sock puppets of XB70Valyrie. If you look at the contributions of each, you'll find even more similarities. It seems obvious that these IP's are XB70Valyrie and he's using them to continue disruptive editing. Since he was banned indefinitely and has threatened that he would do this with multiple IP's, I think these IP's need to be blocked and added to the list of his sock puppets. Is this enough evidence to do that, and is there some way to block that 99.181 ip range as well? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible Arthur had some other sock or editor with a vendetta against him? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible and I'm sure and Arthur could weigh in on that, but I think based on the fact that the IP ranges here are so similar to the ones already in the list of suspected socks for XB70Valyrie strongly suggests that it's the same user. That is coupled with the fact that he basically stated that he would be using multiple IPs to continue to harass Rubin. I noticed some more evidence: On XB70Valyrie's talk page before he was banned he had multiple IP's post to the talk page talking about Arthur. The majority of those IP's started with 99.181 or with something similar to the one's listed above. It seems that he was talking to himself on his page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser would have have to have checked XB70Valyrie's IPs, but I really don't think these 99.181 IPs are XB70, nor are they the same person as the one who caused his stable base IP (97.87.28.188 at the Kalamazoo Public Libary) to be blocked for 5 years. They are disruptive, but I notice none of them have restored the particular statement which XB70 had insisted on creating. My sock-sorting skills (both here, and in real life) are not great, so I could be wrong, but I think (most of) the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of XB70Valyrie are improperly tagged. That being said, I did block some of them this month, but I think that was wrong, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Was there no checkuser done on XB70 after he was banned to check for the IP's he used? If not, that would probably be a good idea. I just think it'd be tough to call it a coincidence that so many IP's with such similar ranges would be posting in the same talk pages. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There were one or two IPs which were clearly XB70 (same edits, some articles), but I don't recall what they were. NewsAndEventsGuy was analysing my data (those IPs which I'm sure are the same people) for ranges to block, but I don't recall which IPs were clearly XB70 (making the same edits before XB70 did, although XB70 has been around for a while). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser will not disclose relationships between registered users and IP under almost all circumstances. Sometimes a CU can check their old logs and roughly match up, but that varies from CU to CU as it is as much art as science, but WP:SPI would be the place to file rather than here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, as they say,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or user Collect

    User:Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or User:Collect because he/she knows an edit I provided to User:Collect that he/she cannot have known about unless he/she was Wikihounding either me or Collect. The edit I made was admittedly a rather crude statement about a user's behaviour, I have since apologized to that user for it, here is the apology: [202]. If you at the noticeboard wish to take a reprimanding action against be for making that uncivil remark about that user, I will accept your judgement. However there is a conflict of interest between Writegeist towards me.

    Important background info: First of all Writegeist and I are not on good terms, our tensions began when at the WQA noticeboard, I went there to seek assistance to resolve a dispute between user Collect and User:Bryonmorrigan. Writegeist as a WQA volunteer insulted another WQA volunteer, and if I remember correctly he told that WQA volunteer in a condescending manner to get a desk job. I got angry that Writegeist as a WQA volunteer was insulting another WQA volunteer rather than helping resolve the issue, I told her/him that I thought he/she was behaving incompetently for insulting that volunteer. The volunteer reported Writegeist for uncivil behaviour - particularly trolling. And after some aggravating comments later, our relations with each other since then have been hostile to say the least. I did get very uncivil with him, as he did with me. I have told this user to leave me alone and stay away from me. However Writegeist continued to make condescending remark about me, after our discussions ended, to other users. Writegeist has also has made condesending remarks about user Collect to other users, after discussions with Collect ended.

    Now then: Writegeist knows about an edit I made to Collect's talk page even though Writegeist has been inactive on both of our talk pages for at months. Since Writegeist has bad relations with both Collect and me, why does he/she know about the edits that I have made on Collect's talk page? The only answer I clearly see, is that he is Wikihounding either Collect or me. I am asking for necessary action to be taken to stop Wikihounding either me or Collect, or both of us. The location for the comments by Writegeist are here: [203]--R-41 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Examine WGs UT page - which has for over three years now been heavily devoted to me - with over 3500 words. Or WGs posting history on noticeboards, which show a marked propensity to find threads in which I participate, with a likelihood of him disputing me of 105% or more <g>. Or his "remarks" to another editor clearly referring to me - which comprise a huge percentage of his UT posts. Wikihounding requires that he have some chance of driving me off Wikipedia - which he has thus far failed to do. He is thus more of a gnat than anything else - but his posts indicating that he is following your edits as well is disturbing and quite contrary to any Wikipedia policies at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This tool might be handy, [204] which shows the 109 pages you both have edited, and the 26 [205] in common with WG and R-41. I don't have time to go through them myself, but wanted to provide that for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) R-41's post is a bit short on diffs.

    WQA thread (R-41 reporting editor Bryonmorrigan for "being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect"), which R-41 refers to above: [206]

    Writegeist/R-41 interaction at User talk:Bryonmorrigan, [207] where R-41's threat "if I ever saw you in person I would let out my excess liquids from my kindneys onto your feet" is one of my most treasured Wikipedia gems.

    Writegeist's comments re. R-41 at Writegeist's UTP, which R-41 refers to: [208]

    • R-41/Writegeist interaction at Writegeist's UTP [209]
    • ANI report which R-41 refers to: [210] Report alleged "trolling" and kind of fizzled out. R-41 added numerous other allegations, including that I and another editor "have had long-term relations". Fortunately Mrs. Writegeist has a sense of humour.
    • R-41's personal attack on editor The Four Deuces at Collect's talk page: [211]
    • R-41's personal attack on The Four Deuces at DRN: [212]
    • Writegeist advice to R-41 at DRN: [213]
    • R-41's response: [214] (hope this is the right diff, he posted about ten different iterations of the same post, with different comments in each).
    • Writegeist's response to R-41's response: [215]
    • Writegeist's comments addressed to R-41 at Writegeist's UTP: [216]
    • R-41's response (which I subsequently removed): [217]

    Please note, I have not "had relations" with my dear old friend Collect or R-41 (I'm not into water sports anyway, and (s)he has expressed a desire to urinate on my feet, which is a deal-breaker for me). Or any other wikiperson whatsoever. Not even a peck on the cheek. I do wish R-41 would stop these salacious and totally groundless allegations. Note (2): the bulk of the 3500 words on my talk page that Collect claims are "about" him comprises a dialogue with him that I copied from his talk page--in which he made really quite spectacularly unfounded and unsupported allegations against me. Why did I copy it from his page to mine? Because he doctored the thread by removing contributions from me that did not serve his agenda of giving the allegations a semblance of veracity, and I wanted the thread accurately documented. Oy vey, thread-doctoring by an old friend! Who can you trust these days? Writegeist (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users) Yes, you are sure right I was uncivil then, I was very angry at you. I do not want to talk to you, nor have any interaction with you since I saw your snotty patronizing insult against that WQA volunteer who was trying to help out users. Most of what you did there as a WQA volunteer, was say cynical remarks, and you had a bias against Collect when you said that you didn't care about what he said while you backslapped and joked with Bryonmorrigan, you were supposed to help the two resolve a dispute between them, but you didn't take it seriously. Your behaviour there was incompetent and disgusting to me. That WQA volunteer you insulted, reported you - it was your own fault for being reported for that. I despise you, and I have told you to leave me alone because I desire no further contact with you to avoid another confrontation like this. You have not complied. You have spoken about me and Collect on your talk page to other users after our discussions ended. Why are you telling your friends about TFD's edits in a condescending manner? If they are not in the discussion you've had with Collect, it is none of your business to tell them what he said, so you have violated Collect's personal privacy. Your entire purpose for posting at the dispute resolution noticeboard was about your vendetta against me.--R-41 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please edit your posts offline and then post them here when done. Repeatedly re-editing and reposting them here makes for unneeded edit conflicts. So, anyway. I can't be right about something I haven't said; your threat was too hilarious to be "uncivil". About anger, someone advised: "When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear" -- quite good, I think. Marshall Rosenberg's books on non-violent communication might also be helpful despite the wooden prose. (I think he's brilliant.) And your assumption about a vendetta is mistaken. I have robustly defended Collect in the past, and I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that I might defend you likewise in the future. To me, R-41 is just another avatar on a website, and I take each post on its merits. And anyway I'm not Sicilian. Vendetta? Mama mia! I'm done here. Have at it! Writegeist (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users).--R-41 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I'll bite. I feel sad for your partner. But I hope you won't mind me saying a Wikipedia noticeboard isn't really the place to discuss her suffering. Just a thought. Writegeist (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While I, too, feel sad for your partner, I feel compelled to point out that...um...you're on the Internet. Which means it's very hard to avoid sexual references/humor. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are on a very highly watched page on a one of the Internet's most popular websites. Revdel process info is at the top of this page.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And you can't be raped by your partner! - jakk said at 05:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users).--R-41 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My daddy told me not to be smart with strangers, but he had consent if he was her partner! I'm gonna need a citation needed on that one, ha ha ha! - jakk said at 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please get this laughing psychopathic user jakk blocked from Wikipedia for what he has just said.--R-41 (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Consent does not work that way. Blocked for personal attacks for 24 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, R-41, no personal attacks and no legal threats, please. Mythpage88 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What legal threat? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take down the comments where I mentioned my partner earlier here shortly, it is true, but I didn't need to bring it up here. But I will leave this comment here for a bit of context, I get very frustrated and saddened when I look out at the world and think of the kind of comment that the user jakk just said about the situation that my partner had been in with her ex, I don't know what kind of human being would say that. That makes what I am frustrated with Writegeist about, mild in comparison. That statement by that user really has put me off, I'm leaving this conversation, talk with the user Collect, he/she says that Writegeist has been abusively tracking his edits for three years.--R-41 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not mysterious why Writegeist would pay attention to a dispute filed against me by R-41 about Fascism at DRN that mentioned Collect. Writegeist, R-41, Collect and myself have all been active on the Fascism article for over 3 years. Writegeist is also active at DRN. Writegeist has also conducted discussions with both Collect and R-41 on their talk pages. So when R-41 launched what he admits to be a personal attack against me at DRN, Writegeist may have seen the other personal attacks on his watchlist or may have looked at R-41's recent edit history to see if he were making attacks elsewhere. None of this amounts to wikihounding.

    I notice that Collect has asked R-41 to e-mail him about possibly starting an RfC/U against me. Collect writes, "I was victim of an "orchestrated" one Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect with 14 people CANVASSed for it."[218] Collect also asked R-41 to e-mail him on May 31st, after R-41 brought a WQA against me.[219]

    My suggestion is to close this thread and go back to discussing the content dispute at DRN.

    TFD (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COMPETENCE block for an IP

    It is just plain gibberish today from this user. I first noticed at Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, but the user's history is littered with warnings and a half-dozen blocks going back to Nov 2011 for the exact same thing. Is it time for something lengthy/permanent? Tarc (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=502197458"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy