Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial that the topic is controversial [23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hm, not sure exactly what you are objecting to here? The version before your recent massive edits and deletions to the article described what the sourced chapter stated accurately. You have also inserted a quote not in the sourced chapter. Your edit summary here [44] seems to indicate that you do in fact know that the sourced chapter support what you deleted. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)
  • 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)

• Reasonable question. There only seems to have been one !vote made since that time, an "oppose", by User:Wnt, at 16:14 on July 7. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have updated my numbers below. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

DoD Acadēmica Orientālis on behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The comment about starting reading is somewhat strange from someone who has actually admitted not reading sources claimed to contain relevant information: [45]. But yes, I will certainly follow constructive criticisms and and make every effort to improve my editing. When one makes as many edits as I do some are bound to be mistakes of various kinds ranging from spelling errors to more serious. But this has not been done out of malice. I have acted in good faith. I would like welcome a RfC so my editing in general can examined which I think will show that I have many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have not "been subject to Arbcom sanctions for non neutral editing". I was topic banned for making several reverts over an extended time period for which I received the maximum possible penalty. I agree I should not have done so many reverts but the penalty seems excessive. The editor accusing me made more reverts but received nothing at all which arguably demonstrates the systematic bias regarding this topic. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any cure, I think most of us were hoping, just hoping this whole thing would archive by itself. I can't see Acadēmica Orientālis ever shooshing up, so I suppose the only other thing we can do is, and this is a radical idea, accept the possibility people are allowed to talk, especially when they are the subject, and welcome to comment, and that's wikipedia for ya. Radical, annoying, but what can we do ? I'm guessing if giving him a Donut didn't work, lets give him the last word instead ? it's an outrage to our delicate egos, it's a sacrifice to me, you have no idea, but we've tried everything else. What do you say ? shall we give it a go ? Penyulap ☏ 01:16, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

"most of us" meaning who exactly? Who is it that your are speaking for? the 15 editors who disagree with you?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

that'd be the people who haven't commented today, and please note that I qualified the statement with 'I think'.

The alternative is for someone to find a policy suitable for ANI, and close it that way, It's possible, anything can happen at ANI, but it's looking like the longshot to me. Penyulap ☏ 01:42, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Oh god no he's back with that NUCLEAR powered mouth of his, oh this is just what we need. Acadēmica shut up and get out of here, can someone confine him to his userpage PLEASE before this gets totally out of hand. ZOMG !! Penyulap ☏ 00:16, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

See the problem here is that mouth of his, it's unstoppable, a force of nature, oh yes, these 15 swordsmen all cluster to do battle with this windmill, but the wind never stops, it just goes on and on and on. It reminds me or that film, you know, the one with that tornado that comes and destroys some peoples house, and then they goto another house, and it comes and finds them, and then they get on a plane and fly across the country, and it comes and finds them and chases their car, yeah, I see the parallels here. How can we stop this guy chasing people around answering them again and again every time they make a comment or ask a question on the talkpage, it's got me stumped. (slow reply, phone call.) Penyulap ☏ 00:32, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your "mouth" is equally a problem. Shut up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Pen, you are really not helping his case here. You've mentioned you have this need to defend people's right to speak, but your repeated exaggerations are making things worse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

AO proposal

• Comment/proposal IF Academica were to actually acknowledge what is obvious to all - even several of those who have voted oppose - namely that his edits in nature-nurture related articles fall short of our standard of neutrality by not including all relevant viewpoints aand ignoring bodies of literature that contradict one view, AND if, instead of simply arguing ad nauseam that he is pure and without fault and is being silenced by nasty political correctness, he were to state a will to try to follow our core policy of NPOV by better representing also those notable viewpoints with which he might not agree - THEN I would be content to not impose sanctions. But as long as Academica denies that his biased and one sided writing of Nature nurture related topics is in anyway problematic then I see no other solution - for the sake of wikipedia's integrity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already stated several times that I have made mistakes which is arguably not unexpected when one makes as many edits to as many articles as I have done. But this has not been done with malice and I have acted in good faith. The couple of articles presented here regarding my recent editing is not evidence of any systematic wrongdoing even assuming every single accusation presented is true. I will certainly make every effort to avoid mistakes in the future. Again, I would like to point out that I have made numerous substantial edits to many nature/nuture articles with no complaints whatsoever. Again, as discussed above, have a look at the Psychopathy article where I substantially reduced the incorrect nature arguments and introduced nuture arguments which were entirely missing before my editing.Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, and surely there is room for that in wikipedia. But we are not talking about making mistakes but about consistently making a particular kind of mistake, and continuing to do so after having been made aware of it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Offers should come from Academica. There are 15 editors who have noticed this and taken the trouble to explain their support for an indefinite topic ban (Maunus, Johnuniq, Beyond My Ken, The Bushranger, Mathsci, IRWolfie, MastCell, Arthur Rubin, Yobol, TFD, aprock, Binksternet, Jess, ArtifexMayhem, Skinwalker), and 5 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)

Let me remaind you that you are one of the editors who voted to ban me before there were any diffs regarding recent editing and who argued that I should be banned by citing old R&I talk page comments. In articles in which you yourself had argued against me. Yes, I would call such reasons a political ban for daring to disagree with your own POV in the past in a topic I now avoids. Regarding my recent editing, see my reply to Maunus above. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I considered recent history before commenting: I do not need someone else to gather diffs because I have seen the edits and the talk pages. I mentioned the old Guns, Germs, and Steel case to illustrate that the problem has existed for a considerable time. In the 82 comments that you have posted here, have any addressed the substantive issues raised by the 15 editors who support a topic ban? Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Acadēmica Orientālis is making too many contradicatory statements. They talk about making many edits, but they have made just over 3,000 content edits with this account, which is not very many. They describe edits from February as being too old to be considered, but those edits are very recent. They stonewall on the talk pages of articles in a subject they claim they no longer edit, which is almost as obstructive as edit warring on the articles themselves. They have made claims during the recent arbcom review on WP:ARBR&I that wikipedia is WP:CENSORED in that subject. They have sought to separate themselves from their past editing history as Miradre while giving misleading descriptions of the multiple reports at WP:AE, contradicting statements by regular uninvolved administrators at AE. The problems with this editor seem similar to those with Abd in cold fusion: that editor found excuses to dismiss all those who criticized him and similarly chose to adopt a one-sided non-neutral approach to editing. Too much WP:IDHT: the responses to Maunus in this section are not encouraging. Mathsci (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note to AO: if there's this many damned pages about your actions and behaviour, there's an issue. Period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Future timestamp. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting admin closure

Can someone please close this discussion sometime soon? It has basically been inactive for some days now, and I think it is in everybody's best interests that it be resolved, one way or another. Granted, that someone is going to have to read all of this, and that is an onerous task in itself, but I can't think it is in the best interests of the project to have this hanging unresolved for too long of a time. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

[Closing note:] The Mediation Committee has opened a formal case on this dispute. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles -- Dianna (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Un-closed. The disruption is ongoing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not close this until a decision has been made about IBs and topic bans. Lets just finish the process so that hopefully, we won't be back here again with this. Also, please take the time to look at some of the abusive diffs I added below. This is a symptom of a pattern with one person in common. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the decision to unarchive. This matter is ongoing, and time is needed to gather relevant input. I see now that I should have spoken out a year ago after my experiences at the Pete Best talk page, and GabeMc has brought additional material to light, which indicates long-term abusive editing. The ownership issue by Andreasegde of Beatles-related articles is now the larger subject under discussion. Jusdafax 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But I don't support him. Stop being a child, already. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

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)

• FTR, I am not causing disruption I am combating it. Please look deeper before you suggest a block for both parties. This is what drives editors away from wikipedia IMO. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Absolutely not. Your actions are beyond the pale. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can you make one comment without blaming Andreas for something? Mythpage88 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

It's not ArbCom's remit to decide between t and T. Nobody Ent 10:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then whose remit is it to prevent disruption, intimidation and harassment? Also, who defends our MoS, if not ArbCom? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with GabeMc that the MOS should be observed or edited to accomodate exceptions etc., but WP:MOSTM also states that

• Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks, as proper nouns, are written with initial capital letters wherever they occur in a sentence.
  
• Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized

WIll you defend that part, also? Why are your arguments contrary to that part of the MOS? You are being combative here. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• My experencies with Andreasegde have been extremely unpleasant at the Beatles-related Pete Best article talk page [46]; 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)

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)

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)

Jusdafax has it exactly right. Andreasegde has no logic, just resentment that the MoS (rightly) disagrees with his subjective view, so he bullies. Rothorpe (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Patterns?

• From the Pattie Boyd talk page, (Andreasegde's most recently edited page before this edit war broke out) here, an exchange very similar to Jusdafax's experience at Pete Best, keep reading there are several parts.
• From the Mimi Smith talk page, here they wikihound/wikistalk an editor for adding a RfD tag (look at the very bottom) and Here again they wikistalk an editor for adding an RfD tag. Ibid
• At Julia Lennon here, here and here.
• At Brian Epstein here they attempt to defame an editor who disagrees with them. Here and here they attack an editor and their comments are so outrageous they are removed from the record for that reason, I'm sure the admins will know why. Here, shutting down discussion since 2006. Ibid. Here, here and here. I of course could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, like the "The/the" debate, or, someone could step-up, mediate this, and put an end to it once and for all. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

More on patterns

• here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here said user is hostile and insulting to an editor who is presumably a child, here, the last comment in the thread, here, again, the last comment in the thread, here and here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

History repeating?

• here
• here
• here ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Take a deep breath... I have been accused here of driving editors away, personal attacks, disruptive editing, being a sock puppet, being "extremely unpleasant", "disruptive, hostile and deliberately offputting", wikihounding/wikistalking, ownership of articles, "hostility and threats", provoking arguments, blatant personal attacks, gratuitous incivility, "acting like a petulant child, screaming and stamping his feet when things don't go his way", and of being a bully: "I've watched Andreasegde bully myself and others for over 2 years!" I'm surprised a person like me is still here, don't you think? At least nobody accused me of tampering with small animals.--andreasegde (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this editor may be using a mouse. Penyulap ☏ 13:17, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Shhh, don't tell anyone else. I want to love him and hug him, and keep him for my very own.--andreasegde (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Recent disruption (all from today) by Andreasedge here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Here and here Andreasedge is edit-warring with Szyslak and Future Perfect at Sunrise. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given the fact of additional edit warring today by Andreasedge, and the satiric replies from same as evinced just above in the exchange with Penyulap, is not a block in order? If Andreasedge has no willingness to discuss the matter here seriously, and a continuation of their hostile editing pattern is demonstrated, would not a preventative block be in order at this time? A look at the subject's talk page today is also of interest in terms of a clearly combative and hostile attitude. Jusdafax 03:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC) NOTE: The Andreasedge talk page has been scrubbed of the aforementioned material since my previous post. You now must go into the page history to read what I refer to. Jusdafax 06:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, GabeMc. You have new messages at #Hey, what do you call this kind of thing ?

Penyulap is an indonesian noun, it means magician, so I've seen this show before Penyulap ☏ 09:37, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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)

You seemed quite concerned over your capitalization with your last comment. Didn't just made your own point moot with your own attempt at ridicule with a capitalized example. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that we don't understand what irony is. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• support - the users involved should write apology letters imo Maractus (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Andreasegde only - per my comment and link above. My experiences have made me avoid anything this person has to do with. Jusdafax 04:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

photo of a dog collapsed by Nobody Ent 11:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, what do we have here

Well I'm sure there are plenty of people this can be snuck past, but I'm not one of them. His minor ownership issues are garden variety stuff, blatant canvassing and disruptive polling is drawing everyone into you little content dispute, it is manipulation and disruptiveness on a wide scale by it's very definition.

Now I've given you a big ass slab of diffs in that subsection thing that define what canvassing is, and it is a big list of editors who have been sucked into this mess, and then there are the duplicate polls as well. So I've laid out one slab, and I'd ask for a slab from you now, so can you give me say, a big ass slab of Andreasegde turning up at long list of uninvolved editors talkpages telling them to f off away from the Pete Best article ? That might convince someone that his minor ownership issues are as bad as the scale of disruption GabeMC is causing.

I might as well disclose that I have messed with the WP:OWN policy page, but not since this issue started.

Penyulap ☏ 09:09, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask an admin to remove or hat the comment by Penyulap as disruptive and distracting. By trying to marginalize my extremely unpleasant experiences with Andreasegde's ownership of Pete Best as "minor" (I assure you I did not and do not find them so) and using edgy, attention drawing language and a big dog photo, Penyulap diverts attention away from the pattern of, again, long-term systemic abuse by Andreasegde that GabeMc has brought to light by way of this quite valid complaint. Since it appears that consensus is forming up against Andreasegde, we should continue to focus on the behavior of the editor the complaint has been made against and not the "look over here" attempts to divert attention to red herrings. Jusdafax 09:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much the dog as it is the pattern of behaviour that is important, the antagonising someone continually and then running to ANI to suggest that they caused the whole incident. That is the pattern that I see here, and that is a pattern that is so very well known and very well understood here that yes, people have gone so far as to make cartoons about it. Seriously, I know some people are idiots, I am generally regarded as a big one, but everyone ? really ? do you think nobody would recognise this pattern ?

But how about a smaller dog, maybe a pug or something, a shitzu ? would that be any better, or is it my writing that is the problem, or my idiocy. God help me it's my sheer idiocy that does it every single flipping time. Penyulap ☏ 10:12, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed on IP 99. Maybe he's a sock, maybe he's just a professional troll who came along at the right time. Either way, he's not here to help us build an encyclopedia. szyslak (t) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. Something very odd about IP 99 doesn't pass the smell test. Jusdafax 08:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I love the smell test, big fan, it says so much more than evidence ever could, nothing like it really. The smell test. Penyulap ☏ 10:21, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • COmment Both editors actions are too far beyond the pale for mere civility to work. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• 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[47], called him a liar repeatedly[48][49], accused him of ulterior motives[50][51], and has otherwise shown gratuitous incivility to GabeMc and others[52][53][54][55]. 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.) - Addendum: I changed my mind on supporting an interaction ban. It's become ever more clear that between GabeMc and andreasegde, there is only one guilty party in terms of making personal attacks and generally acting WP:DICK-ish. szyslak (t) 10:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

I scrounged together these diffs knowing there was worse from andreasegde. How about this one: He called GabeMc a vandal and called for admin "help", after GabeMc set aside andreasegde's comments into a separate section. I'm not a big fan of comment refactoring, but I don't think GabeMc's edit is anywhere near "vandalism". szyslak (t) 10:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was watching the calls for help and the resultant comments at ANI, but I'm bored of all of this already. Not my game really. I can pick the troublemakers miles off and see who is causing the trouble, but what's the use, I just stumbled across another Vet ed who was ill-treated so I've lost my appetite for defending this place,... for now. Penyulap ☏ 11:36, 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)

Not bad response time, and a good looking comment too. Can I ask for assistance now and then ? Penyulap ☏ 11:36, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Taking this at face value, yes. You (or any editor) are always welcome to bring stuff to my talk page. I get an email when it is changed so I can basically keep on top of things. Protonk (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

... my comment and the childish WP:AN/3RR report supports this in theory, although I suggested voluntary IB and 1RR ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think the 3RR report was childish at all. It looks to me like Andreasegde visited the Paul McCartney article and performed a series of "The/the" edits on an article that had only been promoted to FA four days before. The person who achieved that accomplishment was GabeMc. Do you suppose that Andreasegde visited the article to improve it, or to send a message of some kind to Gabe? I think the latter. Andreasegde has a history of problematic behaviour dating back quite a while, for example, this exchange on the Pete Best talk page from May-June 2011, this exchange on the Pattie Boyd talk page from the start of this section to the end of the page (March 2012 to present; a user offered to collaboratively edit to improve the article, and was given the bum's rush). User:Evanh2008 says above that he quit the Beatles wikiproject rather than put up with Andreasegde's behaviour. My opinion is that Andreasegde has got some ownership issues regarding the whole suite of Beatles-related articles, to the point where other contributors are being driven away. The argument over the capitalisation issue is a symptom of a power struggle amongst this group of editors. I don't know what the solution is here. Interaction bans won't work if all they want to do is edit Beatles articles. -- Dianna (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear! This has long since gone beyond small "t" vs. big "T", and may never have really been about that in the first place. Maybe andreasegde feels that the McCartney article's star is rightfully his? szyslak (t) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban, support topic ban for Andreasegde, and oppose topic ban for GabeMc. Like Protonk, I was contacted by GabeMc about this. And like Protonk, I think it's a mistake to throw up our collective hands and treat all parties to a complaint the same way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban, oppose topic ban for both. (To save space, in the following I will refer to G and A, and for want of information to the contrary they will both be referred to as "he".) For my money, what's happened is the A feels envious that G has got an article to featured article status with fewer edits than A's own efforts, with more edits, failed to do. Both editors have expressed the view that "more edits means more respect due", but A has used this argument more. The rights or wrongs of using the/The are viewed by G as being a matter of grammar and adherence to the MoS, and favours "the". A on the other hand has expressed the fact that use of "the" makes him feel ill (although such a post no longer exists on his user page, having been deleted some time back). It is also clear that A feels personally aggrieved, and is of a mindset that feels it necessary to publicise this state of mind by means of bitter postings. It is also apparent that A is not averse to wikilawyering if things do not go his own way. G, on the other hand, is more focused upon the establishment of the way to proceed, and is not going to give up in his attempt to get the results of a straightforward poll without it being sabotaged by those who want it to go specifically their way (and in this it appears that A may not be alone in this). A complains that there is a spirit of anti-A partisanship, failing to perceive that he himself, by dint of his own behaviour, may have been the architect of this attitude. In summary, let G get his poll result without interference, let the chips fall as they will, and let the result be binding. (I myself have my own opinion, and have voted / suggested accordingly.) Once this has happened, and the decision been implemented, if either one of them, or any of their undoubted socks (and in fact anyone else connected with this dramatic production) amends the contentious articles in violation of this decision, let them be sanctioned appropriately. --Matt Westwood 09:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• support long-term full topic ban for Andreasegde, support short-term topic ban for GabeMC for the remainder of the two current RfCs, and support the same measure for Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs). I think WestwoodMatt in the posting just above is spot on about his analysis of Andreasegde's attitude, and I honestly cannot see how on the basis of this analysis one can still argue for anything but a topic ban. With GabeMC, I agree with most posters above that his conduct has been less objectionable, but still, his presence, as well as that of Steelbeard, in the discussion currently have a polarizing, inflammatory effect, and that is making participation for other users who might be bringing fresh outside arguments to the fore highly frustrating. GabeMC and Steelbeard have made their opinions understood, so there should be no problem in them now simply taking a step back and letting the RfC run to let other people have their say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree, and I will refrain from posting anything inflamatory at the polls, nor will I change any "T"s to "t"s until the mediation is completed. There is no need to topic ban me at all, I am not the problem here, I am trying to encourage the community to solve the problem. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The Mediation Committee has just accepted the case for formal mediation, and a case page has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. -- Dianna (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Andreasegde only. This is based on a reading of this entire thread as well my personal experience with Andreasegde. In addtion, Andreasegde has a history of battleground behavior and has been warned multiple times by multiple editors on a variety of topics, Beatles related or not.
  • April 2011 you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:The Beatles -- Gamaliel
  • May 2011 if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Sepp Blatter, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Sandstein
  • Aug 2011 Try reading WP:OWN. --Harkey
  • Aug 2011 Please be more WP:CIVIL to other editors.-- PamD
  • Aug 2011 You are being unneeedingly confrontational when you interact with other editors. This comment stood out in particular, but there are many more like it in your editing history. Please adopt a less confrontational tone when you interact with others. It is rude...... Jayron32
  • Aug 2011 Andreasegde you should really consider what Jayron32 is saying carefully--Sven Manguard
  • Aug 2011 Do not disparage other editors...... Avoid sarcasm...--Chzz
• On the Patti Boyd artcle, I (and possibly another editor) was driven away from the article in March 2012 by Andreasegde's battleground mentality, threats, incivility and gaming of the system. You can see the interactions between us on the talk page beginning with this thread here and continuing for several more threads below it. When I pointed out Andreasegde's incivility on their talk page they replied by saying: "You do not understand simple sarcasm. It's a form of humour, and it is legal. I am talking about the content. If you have messed up the article with inept edits, you have only have yourself to blame. ......You will find that your case is weak. I know the system. This is the type of behavior that drives editors no only away from articles but away from WP altogether.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Andreas, but not for Gabe, who has argued passionately but reasonably in spite of continual provocation. Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Andreasegde, the result of which will almost certainly solve the interaction problem. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic bans as not being a real solution, Oppose "interaction bans" as leading to too many noticeboard posts, Support trouts for both with a stern warning against starting any of this sort of drama again here. Collect (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for both editors and myself, if you can find any actual diffs that I have injected any WP:Disruptive editing or processes. Andreasegde has reacted to GabeMc in the same style similar to GabeMc, on a few occasions, and should get fingers slapped for reacting to the provocation. Perhaps a One Week Topic Ban for Andreasegde? Andreasegde has previously been a leader in resolving the huge "the/The" issue and this should be taken into consideration when establishing merit and intent of editors. GabeMc has been very disruptive, using many methods of distraction, including side issues to attack, including sockpuppetry accusations, WP:Canvassing ad nauseum, using mispelled names to irritate, launching arguments behind every vote on any process he is involved in, disrespectful of the WP process, to silence other editors differring with his points. Have a look at his request for Adminship here responses, where he argues with every suggestion made to him by the Administrators attempting to "mature" him. GabeMc has been asked many times, I have witnessed in my short lifespan, here, to stop this behaviour, he has apologized to various editors repeatedly, and then repeats the behaviour within hours. It has become obvious that GabeMc cannot become a good editor in The Beatles articles without severe bias and emotion, and has already inflicted years of disruption to the editing process. History shows us, in many locations, administrators telling him to "get over it", and other phrases implying less polite actions. He has great potential but, has become too deeply emotionally involved in article displaying WP:Ownership and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to remain neutral in Beatles articles. A permanent topic ban may be too harsh and discouraging but a One Year Topic Ban to cool down, is my suggestion for GabeMc. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty rich attempt at sidetracking IP99, coming from you, since you posted this [56] at the ANI complaint against Gabe that you filed which resulted in no action taken [57] against him whatsoever. Since you threaten people there with "serious admins" that you know despite your "short lifespan" (your comment above) if they fail to focus on the complaint against Gabe, your argument here carries little weight. I would ask you to explain how it is that you know "serious admins" and come to file complaints at ANI despite being here a short while. In any case, since your previous attempt to complain at ANI against Gabe has been quashed, let's move on. It appears to me a number of uninvolved editors find that Andreasedge's editing, both short and long-term, is actionable. That's the focus now, I believe. Jusdafax 00:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, what do you call this kind of thing ?

unconstructive subthread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 support after neutral 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 support after initial oppose Nigelj ‎ (→‎Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) 23:14, 8 July 2012 support or something I guess 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 support x2 after initial 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 support after initial oppose 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) 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) Actually, I never said I had a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it, it generates discussion and makes the eventual consensus all that more meaningful and diverse of opinions, except in the context of the pot calling the kettle black, as happened here with Andy. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Oh ok, so you never had a problem with it, but you diff these things just for fun ? to make useless busywork at ANI, is that it ? is that what the ridiculous string of diffs up above that reaches across the page is all about, some kind of wild goose-chase that everyone will enjoy ? Oh I am sure there is a word for this sort of thing, I don't know what it is, but it's not Bullshit, because Bullshit doesn't start with a WP: in front of it. No, I think I'll leave you to the mercy of the experts here. Penyulap ☏ 10:06, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) Unconstructive is a vague term, giving the impression to some that the issue raised is just fine, also there is the impression that not signing your work is fine too -pen

Unarchived

I have unarchived this thread. The disruption by Andreasegde (talk · contribs) is still ongoing. He is now edit-warring on two pages [58][59][60][61][62] adding out-of-process notices trying to discourage people from further taking part in the polls (which weren't going the way he wanted). Also, I don't see why, just because there will be a mediation, the proposal here to impose community sanctions on this editor should suddenly have become void. As I see it, that proposal is still very much on the table – and the mediation could only benefit from it if we take the most obviously abusive element(s) out before it starts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• All we are saying ... Chedzilla (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise's comments directed at myself, I refer you to my talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for unarchiving this report, which may seem on the surface to be about the "The/the" issue, however it is actually not about that issue at all. This report is about a long history of abusive interactions with Andreasedge that stem from their ownership issues at articles related to the Beatles, and others. Their actions have been driving people away from wikipedia for years, and this needs to end here once and for all. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather unusual moved by an admin who favours the small 'T' at articles about The Beatles, which coincidentally is GabeMc's position as well. I am personally asking andreasedge to cool it, just as I have asked Gabe to quit further inflaming this issue by continuing to change the 'T's after mediation was accepted. I therefore oppose any sanction against andreasedge at this time. Radiopathy •talk• 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Radiopathy, FTR, I changed those "t"s last night, before the mediation was accepted and I have not changed a single one since. The timestamps prove your above assertion is incorrect. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be clear Radiopathy, you are not innocent here. You changed all the "t"s to "T"s and during the grueling Macca FAC which was concluded successfully just 4 days later. You tried to stir up an edit-war at an article that was at the end of an FAC and on the verge of promotion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur; I saw the exact same thing GabeMc did. szyslak (t) 08:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, attempt to stay on topic for once! You guys need to pick a person to attack and stick with it. Anytime somebody comments negatively on your behaviour you attempt to change the topic to that person. The attempts to distract attention from yourself is really quite obvious and doing yourself more harm than good here. Admins are typically seasoned editors and have witnessed all these debating tricks before. I know I launched the same complaint about GabeMc previously and it worked for you and your ilk to ridicule the WP process into a circus until it became too complicated for admins to bother with. Sound like a plan or do you want to actually get serious for once? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just close the debate for a while

Overlooked (among all the calls to block and ban and other harsh things) seems to be a simpler approach. Just end the discussion and lock the page for a bit. It is a bit of a lame debate anyway, whether to have a "t" or a "T" in 'the'. This isn't a violation of policy to have it either way, and yet we see people getting bent out of shape over it. So there's no rush in any sense to 'fix' this, considering that only the nitpicky are affected by this. It seems the easiest thing would be to simply say, "stop talking about this for a while" and move on. -- Avanu (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this will help. The fact that it's such a lame issue that people are getting "bent out of shape" over here is one reason more to ban them, not a reason less. And what page exactly do you want to lock down? There are two legitimate RfCs ongoing, and some of us – who are outsiders to the issue and have no part in the lame fight – want nothing else but to be able to register their opinions in peace and don't have their arguments drowned out by all the shouting. There is also supposed to be a mediation, and here too I suppose there are some who would just like to use that opportunity to exchange their argument in peace. Imposing an enforced break for everybody won't make the warriors stop – some of them have been at it for years. The people who have become so obsessively fixated on this drama and have been creating all the ridiculous bitterness around is need to be taken out, the sooner the better, so that we others can finally breathe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping things under the rug and ignoring past and ongoing problems is not helpful to the project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Shoot 'em all and let God work it out, I've heard that one before. Penyulap ☏ 06:25, 18 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The non-smoking gun

Update: I have been accused here of "driving editors away, personal attacks, disruptive editing, being a sock puppet, being extremely unpleasant, disruptive, hostile and deliberately off-putting, wikihounding/wikistalking, ownership of articles, hostility and threats, provoking arguments, blatant personal attacks, gratuitous incivility, acting like a petulant child, "screaming and stamping his feet when things don't go his way", satiric replies, jealousy: "A feels envious that G has got an article to featured article status", and of being a bully: "I've watched Andreasegde bully myself and others for over 2 years!" (The last one by GabeMc, among others). The new ones below: "throwing personal attacks, refusing to answer, not observing some basic forms of respect, an extremely abusive stance, a highly unwelcoming editing style, continued abuse, hostility, threats, mean-spirited sarcasm and bluster, and long-term needling". Taking all these into account, I should have been here at ANI every single week over the last few years. Why wasn't I?

If anyone reads this, you may be extremely surprised to read that I wished GabeMc luck on the McCartney FAC, even saying I would Support the FAC if I hadn't worked on it too much. The conversation was on 3 July 2012, and there was no talk of bullying or bad behaviour at all. Read it for yourself. It was very pleasant.--andreasegde (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, I took a look at your contributions, and I have been pretty unimpressed. We had you going and basically closing a bunch of RFCs you participated in and then playing like you didn't know what the problem was. You also were quite rude in your interaction with User:szyslak, throwing personal attacks at him (when he threw none at you), ordering him off your talk page, and then claming he was ignoring your request and harassing you simply for posting an "OK I will stay off your talk page" (and, when he politely asked you for an explanation on his talk page in the thread you started to complain about it, you refused to answer by saying "Goodbye, 'nuff said") If you'd like a tip from me, please stop telling everyone else what to do and observe some basic forms of respect for others and their opinions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, you have yet to say a single word about your extremely abusive stance at the Pete Best talkpage [63] which so sickened me that I left off. A number of other people have pointed it out as an example of your highly unwelcoming editing style. It is clear to me now that my experience was by no means unique. True, you got away with your continued abuse for quite a while, but GabeMc finally brought you here for a long overdue reckoning. You have been warned numerous times, I see, but continue on unabated. Your hostility, threats, mean-spirited sarcasm and bluster drive reasonable editors away, and my view, and that of many others here, is that the community has finally had enough, and that remedial measures are now in order. Jusdafax 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

More insults and attacks. My question is, have you actually read the comments between GabeMc and myself in my archive? It was a mere two weeks ago. By chastising me further, it appears you have not, or don't wish to. Harking back to conversations a year ago, and misinterpreting my conversations with User:szyslak to suit your own opinion is not good conduct. I truly hope an admin will read my conversation with User:szyslak, because then the truth will be made clear. You can read it here, and here, if you wish.--andreasegde (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is an interpretation of that first link which would lead me to understand why you offered it as some sort of exculpatory evidence. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc has been extremely industrious regarding this case against myself, making accusations that I "bullied him for two years" as well as numerous other charges, but looking at the conversation that took place only two weeks ago clearly shows that almost everything he has accused me of is a falsehood.--andreasegde (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I myself find there is some frustration between being asked to diff absolutely everything and the precise diffs which are required. It's difficult for a person who has an awareness of the entirety of the comments in a conversation to 'put himself in the shoes' of someone who can't see everything and determine which references are required to make an informed decision. Basically, Andreasegde thinks you should read all of the conversations on all of the relevant pages, rather than pick and choose the bits that you like. This is how a completely accurate factual decision can be made, actually, it's the only way, anything else is asking him for instructions on how to look at part of the conversation and come to a possibly flawed computation. On the other side, everyone has no intention of reading everything and considers the request an insult. They are not looking for a twitter sized summary, but filling things into chains of diffs (but omg don't do what GabeMc did) is a good idea. Make more of a sentence of the diffs to say something that you want to say. (although being on Andreasegde's side of the fence we need someone to help translate what it is that you are asking for when you don't want to read all the diffs and contribs given, as I'm sortof imagining at what you'd like.) In that first diff, Szyslak makes a statement saying Andreasegde is 'making demands' but gives the wrong diff to back the statement made. Penyulap ☏ 03:17, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

For the record, and a summary for those who haven't read it, andreasegde refers above to a cordial exchange between himself and GabeMc in which he politely and warmly wished G. good luck on a FAC, and the latter graciously accepted such. But an analogy: a man accused of the crime of theft can not offer up as a defence "But look, here's a receipt from a shop, proving that I paid for something on one occasion." --Matt Westwood 08:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're implying that after I said, "My best wishes", "it looks good. I'd vote Support", and "Good luck", on 3 July (two weeks ago), I suddenly had a massive change of heart and wished him the worst? (The Paul McCartney article was promoted to FA just six days after our conversation). I find your implication to be highly unlikely, and very insulting.--andreasegde (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it curious that you would point to this one normal interchange as evidence against the near-constant sniping that you take at GabeMc. Sure, it's a fine interchange but it does not erase or even counterbalance the other evidence that you are spending too much time working to undermine GabeMc. I think an interaction ban should be implemented. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you say I am trying to "undermine GabeMc", as he started this ANI about me. Is the shoe on the wrong foot?--andreasegde (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc is clearly at wit's end with you. Why is that? Your long-term needling of him.

Also, please do not refactor your own earlier comments to include a later phrase of mine. It messes up the chronology. 16:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts, because I don't know who you are.--andreasegde (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's Binksternet. He most likely typed five tildes instead of four, which just produces the date and time without a username, like this: 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC). He made a typo. Everybody does that from time to time. szyslak (t) 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Andreasegde and I had a pleasant exchange on 3 July. But look what they posted to my talk page less than four days later. I call that intimidation and threats of edit-warring without provocation. See: WP:OWN. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt he created the whole archive page. Please submit a better link.. perhaps diffs??

Done. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

here's what I said: "I have not had Macca's page on my watchlist for some time, which is a pity. As you are undergoing the trials of an FAC, I will refrain from saying anything at the moment, but be advised that I will later." Intimidation and threats?--andreasegde (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Back up the truck: both of you were advised (in AN/3RR) to keep a voluntary interaction ban and not even mention each other's name anywhere on the project - are the both of you seriously breaking that already? How pathetic! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You suggested an IB, and others supported, but no one has imposed anything on anyone at this point to my knowledge. Are you saying that I cannot/shouldn't mention the name of the user about which I filed this report, in the report, and while the report is open? How can this report/discussion take place if neither can mention the other by name? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It sure was not a suggestion. "Voluntary" means "before the community imposes it". That means grow up, act like an adult, and the both of you go away and behave so that the community doesn't have to force it through this ANI process. In other words, both of you back away and leave each other alone (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bwilikins is right. If the community makes a decision, you MUST abide by it. If Andreasegde is in a discussion that you are inadvertently involved with too, just walk away. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take yours and BWilkins' advice and refrain from replying to them or commenting about them. To clarify, does this apply to the current open mediation of which we are both parties? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere that there's consensus for an interaction ban. I may be missing it somewhere. Absence of that consensus doesn't mean that a suggested ban somehow has the force of a potential future ban. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Summing up

Since we appear to be reaching the point of diminishing returns here, I will re-state and clarify my position.

I first became aware of Andreasegde via the Beatles-related Pete Best article, which I had tagged, about a year ago. Andreas showed considerable hostility, threats and ownership issues on the article's still-current talk page, so much so that I warned him and withdrew rather than file a complaint here, which I have never actually done with anyone. Since then I simply largely stayed away from Beatles-related articles despite some previous work on them, including Geoff Emerick back in 2009. This is the extent of my involvement with Andreas.

As for GabeMc, I voted against his Rfa, going so far as to urge an early close. Not much later I got a Rfc bot request on my talk page regarding the Beatles, and that led me to several polls, then here. GabeMc has asked for my participation twice, based on my participation from that first bot-generated request.

Now that I have summed up my own involvement, I would like to note that in my view a topic ban on Andreas for all Beatles related articles is called for, and that others in the community agree based on the poll above. I think initial votes to sanction both editors waned as the facts became clear, as also shown above.

I don't think Gabe is a model editor as I noted in his Rfa, but I believe he can grow and change. Not so Andreasegde, who as I see it seems incapable of learning how to express contrition and work collaboratively, and indeed is sarcastic, vindictive and insulting across a wide range of Beatles and Beatles-related articles he has been involved with for some time. I don't believe the community has the patience and time to continue on with editors who drive others away. Let's say enough is enough: this is now way beyond the The/the issue, and in my view goes to an established long-term pattern of disruptive editing by Andreasegde to the present day. I now ask an admin to be bold and issue a ruling here, and let's go back to building an encyclopedia in a spirit of collaborative good will. Thanks. Jusdafax 01:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think you have made enough attacks here? Because I didn't agree with your attitude one year ago doesn't give you the right to act this way.--andreasegde (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Was there a point to that comment or were we just being childish again? Mythpage88 (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Baiting again? Try something more original. :))--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The obsession across many pages with the word childish needs addressing. Penyulap ☏ 01:45, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Closure by admin requested

Many editors have made statements indicating some sort of action regarding Andreasegde and/or GabeMc is appropriate. At this point, it would be reasonable for an administrator to review the thread and determine consensus. If the determination is there's no consensus for action I'd suggest WP:RFC/U would be the logical next step as the concern here seems to be much more of patterns of editing rather than the single-incident situation this board handles best. Nobody Ent 10:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would make important point that the long-term edit patterns of Andreasegde back up the original complaint in this thread of his ongoing tendentious editing (regarding the disruptions of polls surrounding the The/the issue.) As I note above, the trend of the past several days has been towards sanctions of Andreasegde as his larger editing pattern became clear, with this latest comment today by editor szyslak being an example. [64] Jusdafax 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• A note for the closing admin - By all means do what you must, but please don't close this without some resolution. I would rather not have to replay this horror at WP:RFC/U, and I would risk being criticised ad nauseum for doing so. In fact, after the treatment I have received here, for doing what I thought was the exact right thing to do, I seriously doubt I would ever come back here or engage in any similar process regardless of the issue. I would rather just run and hide from the problem, and move-on to another article, project or site. I would compare it to asking an assault victim to defend their personality, and if any tendency to engage in debate/contention is found, then the victim is from then on considered pretty much as guilty as the person they are reporting. I must admit, I am rather surprised by this, and more than a little disappointed in the process. Judge me as you will. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  

I have to second GabeMc's argument, to not close this, for similar reasons. Leadership needs to be demonstrated, here.

• As an involved admin, I'd suggest the solution is rather easier than it might appear. Block or otherwise limit Penyulap and (edit: My mistake) Andreasegde from participating on Beatles related pages. Tendentious editing is easy enough to spot and the solution is easy as well. It is only made hard when we demand maximal dispute resolution and leeway in situations where that isn't needed. If these were newer editors or the dispute were any less trivial (on face), we would've done this long ago. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Block or otherwise limit Penyulap"? "Tendentious editing is easy enough to spot"? Is Penyulap "participating on Beatles related pages"? Before this started, I had never heard of this editor, and I have been working here since 2006. Shocking. Protonk, please read your own talk page to see how "involved" you are.--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I made it abundantly clear that I was involved. I have no ability to (or willingness) to undertake any admin action. But that doesn't make your edits any less tendentious or the resolution of this scenario any less clear to me. Go ahead and be shocked. But if you're going to act like a jerk to people and pressure them off articles because you're unwilling to compromise or work with them then don't be surprised to see some blowback. Protonk (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap isn't involved on the article, he's just another regular attendee of the peanut gallery that watches over ANI (kinda like myself really). They do have a tendency to throw in unhelpful digressions at times. Blackmane (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoilsports ! Ok, the block for swearing at sceptre was good, but I could have had another lovely block to match my last one out of this, please don't ruin my chance here so fast. I love peanut gallery, and think that 'digressions' is to be applauded as a great balance between 'petrol' and 'comic relief' but 'unhelpful' didn't have much thought at all. 7 out of 10, a great effort. I want to see just who can do a proper close on this too, that last big close was a bit too mobbish for me, but meh, whatever. Penyulap ☏ 01:42, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

In regards to my 'involvement', it is probably completely unclear to most observers. I had no involvement in any of this beyond seeing a RfC advertised on Aunties page and thinking Ohh, Beatles !, so I've popped a vote in on one or two of the polls and taken no further interest in the page, pretty sure it's zero article edits across the board. GabeMc approached me on my talkpage, and then got the Boomerasskicking he so totally needed. Thing is, I'm just way ahead of the rest of you at reading everything required and backing the right horse, that difference makes me look involved in the dispute, makes me seem like I'm taking sides, when in fact I simply finished my homework ages ago and am out playing in the yard while you lot of slowcoaches are still at your desks wrestling with your reading and comprehension test. But OMFG, I just realised that when he appealed to Protonk on that OMFG admins? talkpage that I don't just want to 'call on Protonk for help in future' I want Protonk on my speed-dial for this sort of thing, OMFG !!!!! WOOHOO !!!!!! JACKPOT !!!! I need to look at who else GabeMc applied to for help. Whoa yea !! I'll get that list tattooed onto my arm for next time I need bail when nobody has the cash.

Anyhow, I note that my lovely version of a trout, the Grumpy editor is so not smelly, and so fresh and new that it has been accepted as an award. Now that is proper. The trout lost all it's humorous camaraderie long ago, and became a monotonous rubber stamp devoid of anything but blunt complaint long ago. Institutionalised humour what a oxy-freaking-moron right there. My dealings with Andreasegde and Academica Orientalis show how to make friends and criticise people at the same time without compromising either goal. This is how to tell people they are wrong and become better friends as a result. Your obsession with dead fish has rotted away in the sunlight from overuse. Penyulap ☏ 02:45, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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[65], 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[66] 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[67], here[68], 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[69] 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[70]. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article [71] 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.

• [72] Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
• [73] edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
• [74] Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
• [75] Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.[76]
• [77] IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version.[78] Again this was reverted.[79]

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[80] and here[81].

Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here[82] and here[83]. I made one last edit here[84].

After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here[85] and asked[86] for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did[87] 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[88]. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation[89]. When I did each of these, I left messages[90][91] on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded[92] on his talk page, I wrote back one day later[93].

Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again[94] 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[95] that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

His sources are always broken links or like here[96] inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out[97] 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)

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)

• Restored from archive with post-dated datestamp. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at WP:COIN? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was brought to COIN and I mentioned that up above. Nothing happened....William 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the POV-pushing socking puts it a bit beyond the usual COIN case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another of his socks but it is stale. Compare this edit by Jddsc3434 with this edit by 98.167.164.178 which has been Fastballjohnd's persistent IP since last September.

Isn't this thread a bit premature though? He has only made three edits since the SPI case ended...two as his account and one as the IP over several days. Shouldn't he be allowed a bit of rope? A CU advised to refile an SPI if the IP continued to edit. If it were me, I'd overlook the one IP edit and be patient.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastballjohn is in denial. He says[98] that is his only account. That was after the sockpuppet investigation. He has a clear COI and he thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not doing anything now is just postponing the matter IMHO....William 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Pushing South Asian and East Asian religions

Please have a look at Special:Contributions/Krizpo. This user keeps misquoting refs and adding purely personal speculations to articles in order to push South Asian and East Asian religions into more prominence than is necessary for the articles. I have tried curbing some of the more excessive POV's but the amount of edits is getting out of hand and very hard to verify what is correct and what is pure speculation and fantasy. The user never responds to any messages but just keeps going at it. - Takeaway (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Krizpo needs a block to get his attention. If he doesn't cooperate after that, he's not going to cooperate at all and doesn't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Going through his edits, he misuses a lot of sources, making claims nowhere in them. He also downplays the role of Islam in majority Muslim countries. His dishonestly and tendentiousness indicate to me that he's completely useless to this site. I suppose we should only use a block to get his attention, but I won't argue with any admin who chooses to indef Krizpo. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Holy crap. Krizpo has about 2 dozen "last warnings" on his talkpage - all of them by Takeaway. I really enjoyed the one in ALL CAPS. Looks like we have more than one person with an issue here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, Takeaway shouldn't have needed to go that far. Krizpo should have stopped and said "hey, I wonder why I'm getting these messages..." Takeaway's reversions are all reversions I'd've made too, and I'm going through removing a bunch of false and POV material Krizpo's been dropping all over the place. Please block Krizpo. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, if I had 2 dozen messages from the same person, I'd say "who's the WP:DICK and why won't they just leave me alone...I'm going to ignore them". It's also possible they don't see the shiny orange bar. It's also possible that nobody considered asking for page protection on a few pages that just might get his attention (like WP:DR might suggest) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please quit defending a tendentious editor who's been doing nothing but inserting WP:OR and WP:FRINGE material, against WP:UNDUE, often using sources that don't even begin to support his claims. If you don't want to make the block, fine, but take a look at Krizpo's edits and tell me with a straight face that they're good before you defend him. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

At what point have I defended him? I asked point blank if you ever asked for any articles to be protected, which you refuse to answer. You're reaching right for a block, which is the last weapon in the bag, not the first. The guy may be WP:TE, but none of you is either a) following the process, or b) treating him like a human (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It certainly seems as though User:ian.thomson is on a mission to get editors banned here. Can anyone really defend the abuse of templates that user:Takeaway has engaged in? Certainly it would be more helpful to the project to help Krizpo understand problems with his edits rather than template him to death and then ban him, as ian.thomson proposes. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Whilst we wait for User:Krizpo to respond here, I have full-protected his 3 most recently-edited articles, left him a note, AND emphasized the ANI notice that was haphazardly left on his takpage. I have added that talkpage to my watchlist. If the editor makes any more edits before responding here, please advise ASAP. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I'm supposed to apply for protection to Religion in the United Arab Emirates, Buddhism in Africa, South Africa‎, Hinduism in Africa, Religion in Europe, Religion in Iran, Religion in North America, Religion in Africa, Oman, Religion in the Middle East, Buddhism in the Middle East, Buddhism in Norway, Religion in Saudi Arabia, Religion in Libya, Buddhism in Italy, Religion in Korea, Sri Lanka, Hinduism in Arab states, Yemen, Buddhism, Christianity, and Christianity in Thailand? And how is "if I had 2 dozen messages" not excusing Krizpo's refusal to discuss matters? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• You know something? You've stated your stance. Repeatedly. Now if you're quite done with Krizpo Delenda Est! every half hour, perhaps not only can we wait to see if Krizpo cares to respond, but other people might get the opportunity to weigh in. Ravenswing 04:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't expect to be insulted here. Someone otherr than Krizpo has issues here and it is surely isn't me. - Takeaway (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Of course not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

However suboptimal the multiple templated warnings may have been as a strategy for warning Krizpo, the fact remains that (a) Krizpo has been a thoroughly disruptive presence; (b) with several hundred edits (nearly all of them contentious and problematic) across more than a year, he no longer gets a newbie bonus; (c) he was properly addressed by several editors when he first started editing disruptively, and showed the exact same failure to respond back then as he is doing now. In fact, in all these months, Krizpo has never made even a single talkpage edit.

Please keep in mind that we must not only not bite newbies, we should also not bite and insult editors who are trying to do the difficult work of keeping articles free from tendentious disruption. In this light, I must say I find some of the reactions above not much better than Takeaway's overuse of warning templates. I also disagree that protection – or requests for it – would have been the better tool here. Protection is for cases where several editors are engaged in problematic content editing, and has the serious collateral damage that it stops other, unrelated editors from contributing. Where a single editor is repeatedly making obviously unacceptable edits and the need for removing them is obvious, blocking is the more appropriate response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I really don't see how people who have only become involved with this issue for only a few seconds can make blanket statements on my behaviour. If one doesn't issue warnings, one gets the remark that not enough warnings were given. Too many warnings don't seem to garner a positive response either. As Fut.Perf. said, the user had been already issued warnings before but didn't heed them. I hoped that if the user knew that his edits were being monitored by other editors here on wikipedia, the user would actually start editing in a more correct way. When it became apparent after the first series of 1st level warnings, talk page requests, and edit summary requests, that no one else seemed to care much about the user's ongoing tendentious edits, I issued a series of stronger warnings. I still didn't know which way this would go because some of the edits bordered on vandalism and then it might have been an item for the AIV board where issuing multiple warnings is the correct method of procedure. If I had known that this would be negatively commented on by some of the people here on this board using snide remarks such as "Looks like we have more than one person with an issue here", I would have not have bothered reporting user:Krizpo here but just let the matter go and hoped someone else might do it. If you'd actually look at what I did to rectify these tendentious edits, you'd also know that I didn't just revert everything user:Krizpo posted but actually worked my way through the edits and sources trying to make sense of the content that was added to those many articles. I had hoped, in vain apparently, that other editors would become involved in monitoring this user's edits but it didn't happen at all because, apparently, they didn't care enough. I therefore had no other choice but report the user, something I postponed doing (hence the many warnings) because, to me at least, it is something that one does only as a last resort. - Takeaway (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Without taking a stand on Takeaway/Ian.thomson vs Krizpo, I think what I find most disconcerting is that no one has seemed to try to talk about these edits on the article's talk pages (with Krizpo or anyone else for that matter). The sole exception, as far as I can tell, is a different user on the Talk:Religion in Africa page. In fact the talk pages of articles like Talk:Hinduism in Africa, Talk:Buddhism in Africa, Talk:Buddhism in the Middle East, Talk:Buddhism in Norway, Talk:Religion in Saudi Arabia, Talk:Buddhism in Italy and Talk:Religion in the United Arab Emirates are essentially blank with only project templates. Looking at the articles histories and Krizpo's talk page, it seems like the only thing being done are (some) of these edits being reverted and Krizpo templated. While it would be nice if Krizpo responded to his talk page, slapping a template on a talk isn't the same thing as an invitation to discussion. Another problem with this revert/template pattern is that there was very little opportunity to get other editors involved until this escalated to an AN/I issue. Plus, the absence of any meaningful talk page discussion makes it difficult for other editors to see what exactly is problematic about certain edits as edit summaries aren't always the most clear. I just wonder if this wouldn't have become an AN/I escalation if the original "content issues" were taken to the articles' talk pages in the very beginning instead of templating. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. However, article talkpages are best used to discuss concerns specific to that article. When one editor's work is problematic across a wide range of articles, the editor's talkpage is the best place to discuss it rather than having fragmented discussions across many talkpages. (Alternatively, a WikiProject talkpage might be a good place to discuss problems with many articles which are all within one wikiproject's remit).

WP:BITE is not a suicide pact. Being gentle with inexperienced editors is vitally important, but that's only a means to an end - maintaining a strong community which can achieve our ultimate goal - better articles. If an editor is a detriment to articles, not just initially but persistently, for a year, then strictly adhering to be-nice-to-the-newbies line is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Turns out, not surprisingly, that Krizpo's additions were also full of copyvios. For instance, his additions here [99] are from [100] (which also appears to be a highly unreliable, probably fringe source). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Leontopodium alpinum and Ravenswing: Find anything good in Krizpo's edits before you defend him, which is all you are doing by going after me. The "on a mission to get editors blocked" bullshit is insulting. If you're going to make that sort of accusation, please file an open RFC/U on me instead of making a veiled attacks on me, unless you're just a coward trying to make snipes to feel like you're bigger. Even Helen Keller could see that (after ignoring a YEAR's worth of messages, warnings, and reverts) Krizpo has no interest in cooperation or discussion with other editors. Don't come after me just so you can play hero and feel important defending an "innocent" (not-so-)new editor, unless you can show me anything worth defending from that account. As Fut.Prof. wisely pointed out, page protection only works it's multiple editors causing problems on a few pages, not one editor continuously causing problems with WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:COPYVIO on any article relating to religion, Asia, the Middle East, or Africa. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protection CAN work to create discussion from a silent editor: if an editor signs in, checks his fave articles, finds his edits are gone, he'll try them again. If the page is protected, he's going to say "WTF?" and maybe start to talk to someone somewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is "defending" Krizpo, so you can get off that riff any time. That being said, your own behavior isn't winning you any friends, and it gets worse by the post; that while tossing around insults by the hatful you're citing WP:NPA is quite ironic. Bushranger is exactly right - you've come down with a strong case of WP:NOTTHEM, and you might want to work on that before the boomerang hits. As I stated before, you've made your case. Rest on that and stop trying to pick fights. Ravenswing 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Bushranger was referring to me. It must feel great to be able to strew instant judgements around while on autopilot. - Takeaway (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing, Krizpo is shown to be nothing but a tendentious editor unwilling to communicate or cooperate, and I'm the bad guy for pointing that out? When presented with an alternative, I'm the bad guy for pointing out problems that come with those alternatives? And it's totally OK for you to come in and tell me to shut up while I'm in the middle of a discussion with another editor?

Then, when Leontopodium alpinum makes very insulting accusations, I'm the bad guy for asking him to own up to his comments like an honest man or take them back for the slanderous lies that they are?

Bullshit!

Neither of you had anything to say about the case at hand, all you two could do was fucking with someone who hasn't done a damn thing and make him out to be the villain. You two completely failed to assume good faith with me, and you haven't even been paying attention to what's going on! If a single purpose account treated an established editor that way, the SPA would be blocked as a troll.

For the record, NOTTHEM is a guide to appealing blocks. I didn't do anything block worthy, I just responded to some completely unsolicited assaults by demanding a either a good reason or an apology for them. Neither of you has yet to present a good reason. If Krizpo was a new editor, or had shown that he was willing to try to cooperate, I'd be in the wrong for calling for a block. He hasn't, though. He is useless to the site, and until anyone can demonstrate otherwise, it's completely justifiable to call for him to be blocked instead of asking him for the hundredth time to try and discuss things, or completely prevent good editors from working on the past few pages he fucked up.

If you didn't like me saying that in the first place, all you had to do was keep scrolling, or give a reason why Krizpo should not have been blocked. Instead, you just told me to shut up. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Back on track

Before childishness sets in, let's get back on track.

You have an editor with an issue. Although the right path was not taken at first, their 3 most recent articles have been protected. This may or may not kick them into "time to talk" mode. I note that they have not edited anything in 2 days. It's unknown as to whether or not this is due to the protection. However, that means we're still waiting for a response, but in the meantime, as no more problematic edits have happened on ay articles from them, that's a good thing - some form of temporary stasis.

Let's stop throwing darts at each other, learn from what went wrong on this one, and move forward constructively. I still want to know when/where this editor edits next ... it should be right here if they actually are paying attention; if not tell me ASAP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice words from the initial dart thrower! - Takeaway (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually be contructive towards this process, or just keep sniping because a number of people all gave you shit for the way you handled this? So, grow up and move towards resolution instead of recursive trips towards infantilism (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So, the most 3 recent pages he messed with cannot be improved by any good editors. Nothing is really forcing him to communicate (which he has yet to demonstrate any desire for). Krizpo is free to wait until this discussion has died down and then start again on some other article. Since he edited in off-and-on spurts between this summer and last summer, that doesn't seem impossible.

If Krizpo only focused on a few articles, and didn't go through periods of decreased activity, I could see this working. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read how we're proceeding here? All articles - even protected ones - can be updated through protected edit requests. RIGHT NOW the project appears to be at least temporarily protected from crappy edits. You - the article watchers - have been asked to advise if he edits again before explaining himself. I will have no qualms about a block if such explanation does not happen, but right now, we're taking an interim step. The goal of any admin action on Wikipedia is protection and never punishment, period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk... Temper temper. Not happy that people don't agree with "your" correct way, oops, "our" correct way I mean, of doing things? Why is it that only you are allowed to make snide remarks? Anyway, I tried to keep the guy in check in a certain way which didn't work with this persistent guy. Now I reported him and you can go do things the way you want from now on. Have fun running things your way. - Takeaway (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There's actually only 2 people showing a temper and making snide remarks (and I'm not one of them), so pot, meet the kettle. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here; this is the War Room! bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is really hilarious! Bye bye gentlemen and Bwilkinsl! - Takeaway (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics

User:Plasmic Physics has been editing {{chembox}}es and {{drugbox}}es for some time, at least some months, replacing and removing valid information, and introducing fact tags to chemical names that could be easily checked via the sources or via various free chemical software. For example, this diff introduced a broken param (ImageFile_Ref), removed part of the IUPAC name (6S,9S,12S,15S,18S,21S) and added a fact tag asking whether this was the preferred name, although he changed the param from "IUPACName" (any IUPAC name) to "PIN" (preferred IUPAC name) himself. He also added a fact tag to the name "Argireline" asking whether this was a non-proprietary name although the chembox documentation says the "OtherNames" param can take any name, and "Argireline" occurs in both sources of the article. He also changed several chemical identifiers (InChI, SMILES); I didn't check in this specific article but at least in some cases his changes introduced wrong information -- see User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it (and also the previous section of his talk page). This is just one edit of dozens, maybe hundreds.

Recent related discussions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#What is going on in the chemboxes? and Wikipedia talk:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs. The issue has been discussed on WikiProject Chem, and with Plasmic Physics, on and off; but nothing ever seems to change. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have been trying to counsel this problem editor for many years. Here is a representative exchange of the recent episode:

user:Beetstra "you have removed a lot of information which should be restored. ... Do you expect other users to do it [correct the hundreds of erroneous edits]] for you?"

user:Plasmic Physics "Well, yes. I made those edits in good faith." Vandalism is one thing, and can often be readily detected and corrected, but technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work. So the effects of Plasmic's work are perverse. And this editor actively defends "this turf," pushing away those that try to edit these tables as illustrated here. In my several years of editing here, I have not witnessed a more damaging editor.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a history over several years of making hundreds of contentious edits without consensus (particularly WRT chemical nomenclature issues), often doing more harm than good. See, for example, User_talk:Plasmic_Physics/Archive_1#Trilithium.281.2B.29_Ion_Azanetriide for an example of exactly the same thing from over four years ago. All attempts to dissuade him / engage him in discussion are fruitless, and he really does more harm than good. Check out his archived talk pages for many many messages from annoyed editors. Chris (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I never misinform, I only over inform, and if that is the case, I'm happy trim the over-informed infobox upon request. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet the presumption among WP:CHEMISTRY regulars appears to be that your edits all need second eyes to screen out lots of mistakes (which are often buried among complex article-diffs due to their also including stylistic and other personal-preference changes). You readily admit to making them and make no effort to avoid making the same type of mistake even after you are alerted to the problem (this pattern applies to many content disputes in which you have been involved). These sorts of disputes have been happening fairly regularly over your entire several-years' work in this content area, and often take many iterations of discussion during which you continue to make the same edits (WP:BRD behavior problem, often compounded by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and maybe WP:OWN), which is why this is disruptive (and now landing here on ANI due to our exasperation) and a high cost and not just a mistake here and there that everyone makes.

My latest example (as Smokefoot says, "technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work") is User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it centering on addition of "SMILES" values that contain lower-case letters (which by definition of SMILES represents an aromatic ring). There you yesterday recognized that your value was not correct ("a simple copy error") and then today performed this edit in which your SMILES string has the same type of mistake. In an edit with a summary "Isolating stereomer data." that does not make any changes or additions of stereoisomeric information (which is all difficult to see by eye because of so many field-reordering and capitalization changes that mostly have zero visible effect). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What same mistake re you talking about? I wish you'd be less vague. As I've said, you don't yet understand how SMILES work, so stop critising how I use it. The mistake I admitted to, was missing the C button when I copied the SMILES using the Crt+C shortcut. This resulted in a previously copied SMILES being pasted. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I articulated this on Plasmic Physics' talkpage as well, but I am going to reiterate it here. Regarding diff:

• Preferred IUPAC names are not yet supported by the IUPAC, they are still debating it, it is still under development (I am following the discussion there). But, the IUPACName is changed to PIN, while removing all the stereo-chemistry information from the compoundname. For as far as I can see, this is a piece of peptide, which hence is the optically pure material (i.e., with specific stereo-chemistry information) that is mentioned there (and that is the one actually shown in the image). Plasmic Physics changes the name, and immediately requests a citation for that name, which is, with PIN by definition, original research based on rules which are incomplete. In the request for the reference, is asked "Is this the prefered IUPAC name? If not, move to OtherNames"
• The caption for the image is changed to include the stereo-chemistry information, which was removed from the preferred naming of the compound.
• As stated, the compound is a specific form of the compound, which is reflected in on of the identifiers for it, the ChemSpiderID. Plasmic Physics there adds a name with stereo information, while that was removed from the IUPAC name, and not included in the preferred IUPAC name. The ChemSpiderID is for the specific compound, but it is now pulled out of line with the names of the compound.
• There is an other-name mentioned "Argireline" - which is also mentioned in the article and at least in two references. Still, not doing the research, a {{citation needed}} is slapped on it: "Is this a genuine, non-proprietary name?"
• 2 other identifiers are added - the pubchem ids. The first one (which is typically used for the compound discussed in the page) corroborates with the new preferred IUPAC name, without stereo information. The other one (which are the additional pubchem ids) corroborates with the stereospecific one. So the main PubChemID corroborates with the Preferred IUPAC name, the main ChemSpiderID corroborates with the image, and the second pubchemID mentioned.
• If I see it correctly (I don't have the software to check), the InChI and SMILES (which are representations of the molecular structure of the compound, and they include the stereo-chemistry information) are both changed - likely to the one that is corroborating with the Preferred IUPAC name, and which does not include the stereo-chemistry information.
• and a lot of other data - which by now is completely unclear whether it is for the compound displayed in the image, or one of the other stereoisomers.

I know that the data in the chemboxes and drugboxes is confusing somewhere, and some people have put a lot of effort in it to get the data together, but this is bringing the confusion back. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The IUPAC name was moved to the PIN because it is not the systematic name. Moreover, the stereo segment of the name was removed to generalise the article. Since it is a IUPAC name, but not the systematic name, it could only be the PIN by default. It is common to use an image for a stereoisomer if a racemate image is not available. I have already stopped to add new citation templates, or at least ones that displays.

Stereo data was added to the image name to describe the image.

The chembox fields can be translated into coherent statements. In this case, the OtherNames field can be translated into the statement "Argireline is another name for this compound." I challenged that assertion, and requested a source stating an equivalent statement. The sources in the article is alledged to contain the name, but does not directly say "ABC is another name for DEF." Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have earlier reverted the changes I discussed here, but Plasmic Physics does insist to have the data changed without discussion - he performed another edit moving data around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Regarding diff" Beetstra is discussing here, for bullet-point 2, PP actually moved the stereochemical designations to the image alttext (not caption), removing it from the visible content. Moving these data to be specific to the image alone rather than the chemical entity topic of the article and infobox is in keeping with Beetstra's other comments that PP does not recognize that this entity is intrinsically this single stereoisomer (i.e., did not read the refs and/or doesn't understand really basic biochemistry). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The page was fixed according to Beetstra's demands, specifying the stereomer, and only the stereomer, which is the usual practise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I encountered Plasmic Physics at Barack Obama where the user added the extraordinary text "While it is not confirmed that Obama is indeed a freemason, he has been witnessed to make public use of several documented freemason 'grips' when meeting certain dignitaries." three times with no sources last March: diff, diff, diff. The subsequent pointless and time wasting discussion can be seen here ("I need proof that the fact which I attempted to add is either gossip or original research, or at least the requirement of for it to be not construed as such. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012") and here (permalink). I have re-read those discussions and the only reasonable conclusion is that Plasmic Physics was enjoying a personal joke by provoking volunteers. That situation (aka trolling) should not be permitted to continue, particularly in articles on technical topics where skilled editors are in short supply. The community needs to defend useful editors and save them from days of pointless "discussion". Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the expected outcome here? A block? Topic ban? For Plasmic Physics to apologise? C'mon, people. ANI isn't simply for categorising editors' wrongdoings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor has been repeatedly requested to discuss proposed changes with the WP:CHEM community to gain WP:CONSENSUS for his plans prior to editing sprees, but generally does not do so (and even continues disputed edit-patterns after being advised of the discussions others start). I would like to see uninvolved admins clearly instruct him (with block if not) to work with the WP community and not against it, including discuss-first if controversial, pause-and-discuss/BRD, etc. I would like to see the editor work to undo the mistakes he has made before doing any further additions at all. Given the technical damage, this may well mean simply reverting to "pre-PP-edits" state--the nature of the concerns and amount of cross-checking required of the whole edits (given that there is a trend of problematic edits) strongly weighs against the possible loss of some good bits he may have added as part of these edits. For me and I suspect for several other admins here, we would have blocked long ago for disruption, except we're involved in the content. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which plans, I was not told. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your plans. You must have decided at some point to go through the chemboxes and put a citation needed template next to every uncited name, or to go through and insert your own version of IUPAC names in and all these things you've done in the past. The problem is that you make edits of the same kind to so many articles without seeking consensus from the chemistry community first. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't plan any of those things. You guys said that I can only insert IUPAC names, if I source them, so I did. So I thought that it's only fair that I am also allowed to question names, so I did. Scientific accuracy is important to me. Question, why are the mojority of the identifiers referenced/verified to death, but the names are to be let alone? I don't know what specifically the community wants to discuss? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Chris Cunningham: I was hoping someone independent would contemplate suitable action. It would be good if someone who understands the situation with the articles Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) has been editing recently would comment on whether the positives outway the negatives. If not, perhaps an indefinite block should be recommended (that is, the user be blocked until showing an understanding of the problem and how to avoid it in the future). Certainly the situation I outlined with the Obama article is unacceptable, but I don't know if it is that bad in other areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that incident, I was accused of gossiping and/ or original research. As far as I know, I'm not schizophrenic, I would know my own motive better than anyone else. So, if anyone tells me that my motive not my motive, then would naturally require a source for that bizzare circumstance. Of course, no one can, thus I asked for what is needed so that my edit edit does not appear as gossiping and/or original research - that they would not do either. This resulted in a stale mate, they just kept parroting the same accusation back at me, without giving any advice. I did eventully get an answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with DMacks here. I think that it is time that uninvolved administrators take a look at what is going on and consider options. Most of us are too involved to take action, but I think that a look at WT:CHEM and especially the 2010 and 2011 archives of that talkpage is .. quite telling that something needs to change. Suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would propose a ban on editing pages that fall under the auspices of WP:CHEM. Failing that, a ban on editing chemboxes, drugboxes, and anything to do with chemical nomenclature, including inserting or changing any chemical names. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I wasn't allowed to add unsoured IUPAC names, now I'm not allowed to challenge names. The names I added wasn't wrong, just not good enough. Why is such a need to monopolise naming? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You ARE allowed to add unsourced IUPAC names. What is your problem? Boghog (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not, that is how the problem started. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. Even if your statement is true, a wrongful action is not a morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to cancel or correct a previous action with the template. I'm used the template in good faith, for what it was designed for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the discussions of this editor's actions, many of these discussions are long. They illustrate the great amount of time invested in trying to steer this editor.

• Jan. 2011: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Plasmic Physics
• Jan 2011: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Systematic Name
• June 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#user:Plasmic Physics
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics (continued from above)
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Excessive number of chemical identifiers
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Categories: Arsenic
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics edits
• Dec 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Chembox
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Block for Plasmic Physics
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Controversial use of the term ‘Oxoazinic acid’ in the chembox of Nitric acid
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#OR introduction of systematic names
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Cleanup of overspecialized silanes categories created by User:Plasmic Physics

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked this over, I think either a topic ban or rapidly escalating blocks is appropriate. Plasmic Physics may be well-meaning, but it seems that they have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. T. Canens (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Time.

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

---

I am calling out a nakedly POV editor that is trying to self-righteously clothe himself as "upholding Wikipedia standards" when what, in my opinion, he is doing the opposite. This editor has brought an AN/I against me in the past (and it hasn't stuck). This editor changes comments that I make into absolute falsehoods or into unreadable jibberish and will not accept criticism of it at any venue. When I am making the criticism plain and clear, his ally claims it's personal attack where it does not satisfy a single criteria of WP:NPA. Now an admin is getting involved at the request of this editor. I believe more admins should get involved. Please take a look. 71.169.186.167 (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As a bit of aid to any reviewing admins the contribs are here. Presumably as a result of an IP change, the reporting IP user does not have any contribs to the article. The debate starts here and is expanded on here. Also, the comment that was considered a personal attack, and reverted a couple of times, is here. Personally, though I don't even see the debate as being heated, maybe lukewarm. The reverted comment wasn't really helpful to the discussion and was certainly a borderline personal attack. Calling someone a "crappy editor, POV pusher" is absolutely ad hominem and falls under commenting on the editor not the content. I have no comment on the material under discussion. Blackmane (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering the active block highlighted by blackmane this looks like block evasion. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Active block? Blackmane (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the block that IR Wolfe is referring to can be seen here [101]. Under a different IP address, this person is blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. As far as I can tell the IP restored PA remarks after they were removed five or six times [102], [103] [104] and this includes removing bona-fide talk page discussion at least once[105].

Under that different IP this person actually began to vandalize the page by adding text from WP:NPA, along with the original NPA remarks, in an in a manner that disrupted the talk page at least twice [106]. And as you can see in that last diff an administrator got involved who ultimately blocked the IP [107]. This person has a history of using different IP's and the following diffs may help sum up the situation [108], [109], including a note left by a third editor [110]. I will leave a diff for the previous ANI complaint related to this matter later. suppose the remarks weren't bad, but The remarks came across as irrational, not appreciated, not helpful and were not appropriate for the talk page discussion, and of course the vandalism was not appropriate. This person appeared to me to be going crazy, and was somewhat out of control. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see, so for Steve to label the IP "crazy" is not an ad hominem but for the IP to label Steve Quinn a "crappy" Wikipedia editor and POV pusher violates WP:NPA when the text says "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem..." or "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence..." when diffs were provided, so that is a personal attack. Has it ever occurred to any of the admins here that User:Materialscientist might have erred in accepting Steve's characterization of "personal attack" prima facia? Again, the question is was there ever the crossing of the borderline of WP:NPA. And quoting the relevant content from WP:NPA is vandalizing the talk page? 71.169.186.167 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As an involved editor on the article in question who has been trying to mediate and negotiate between the different parties there, with this anon on one far end and JimWae on the other far end, I find the repeated deletions of this anon's strongly-worded but not-inappropriate comments on the talk page, and especially blocking him for repeatedly restoring them (but not JimWae for repeatedly deleting them), an egregious overreaction, especially when earlier complaints were that this anon was not participating on Talk enough. I was dubious when the anon made accusations of WP:OWNership earlier, but it is looking more and more like that to me; every action he makes seems assumed prima facie to be disruptive when I don't see that as being the case, and the overreactions to him seem far more disruptive to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying the IP block. I was squeezing a bit of wiki prowling before I got stuck into work this morning. so I didn't get around to all the IP addresses. In reply to the IP, I believe any sort of common sense reading of Steve's comment would refer that back to your actions of repeatedly reverting back in the comment that you made on the Time talk page. Your suggestion that Materialscientist erred is an assumption of bad faith. However, until Materialscientist comments here, speculation about their actions is pointless. Your quoting of WP:NPA was not vandalism, but your repeated reversion and insertion of your other comments violates WP:DE and WP:EW for which one of your IPs was blocked. That being said, I agree with Pfhorrest that JimWae should not have been deleting the IP's comments, but rather requested that they retract it. The deletions did little but stir the pot. However, once Materialscientist stepped in to remove the text it would have been a simpler thing to just cop it on the chin as it were and move past it without bringing it to ANI. I may be looking like I'm taking sides here, which is not what I'm aiming for. This is just my take on the situation. Blackmane (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to as vandalism [111]. Unfortunately, you have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to see it. It wasn't just quoting the WP:NPA. It was posted and formatted in manner that was disruptive and would most likely be called vandalism under any other circumstances. It wouldn't matter who it was. Also, the IP claims to have been editing on Wikipedia since 2004, and claims to have a lot of experience. Also certain remarks from the IP indicates that this person is familiar with guidelines and policies. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I characterized the IP as crazy and what not after most of the repeated reversions and the inappropriate formatting at the bottom of the page. Combined with the clear hostility that was comeing across, along with comments such as "I am calling him out" it looked like irrational behavior compared to editing that is normally conducted on Wikipedia. Also, at the bottom of the page you can see the comment about calling me out. In total this kind of behavior contradicts WP:POINT. Under the circumstances I did what I thought was best, what editors normally do. Maybe if things had slowed down, or I saw the page a lot sooner things would be different. I don't know. However at this point I feel the IP is trying to equate what is not truly equal. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am unilaterly restoring the IP's comments on the Time talk page minus the "creative" formatting with quotes from the NPA. And I will leave out other editors' names unless I recieve permission to restore their name (that's the best I can do on my own). Hopefully this settles the issue. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments restored. Also, I am also going to go so far as to say that it appears to me (this is what I think) that mistakes were made all the away around by everyone involved. So maybe we can call it even and move on? Phorrest has some great proposals for a lede over there at the Time Talk page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I made 2 deletions/reversions of what was clearly predominately ABOUT another editor, and clearly derogatory. Nameless' response was to quickly restore the comments in full and claim they were not a personal attack. I then tried hatting the comments, which Nameless also reverted. In total, Nameless made 6 reversions - 3 of me, one of 2 other editors, and 2 of himself, with a net result of 4. I did not engage in a personal attack. I limited my reversions to 2 and tried another way to deal with the problem. Yes, perhaps it was a mistake on my part to not try other tactics instead, and I will certainly consider others in the future. However, I think responses limited to saying I did anything that I SHOULD NOT have done is to naively shift responsibility away from the nameless editor who claims to have been on wikipedia for 8 years. When personal attack screeds are accepted as part of talk page dialog, we all suffer. Nameless has, just minutes ago (before his block expired, btw), himself put the comments back inside a hat - one of the methods I tried last night, but which he reverted. Given that the subject of the attack has agreed to restore the screed, I am content to leave the comments inside the hat, as I tried to leave them last night. --JimWae (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

When I sue Wikipedia (any time now)...

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

---

This stuff probably has something to do with that stuff. Arcandam (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The ip was already blocked for it and the block logs notes it is linked to the sockpuppet. Ip addresses aren't usaully indef blocked, see WP:IPB for why. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The sockpuppet investigation has a huge list of socks, but the categories aren't fully populated because someone marked all the accounts "retired" and locked them, and blanked all the IP pages with "OTRS 2012062410000386". Question: assuming this was done because of a request through OTRS, does the fact that this person is still actively socking supercede? Or should the new IP sock not be tagged? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Grace Saunders thing has been going on for years. Honestly, I think at some point this goes beyond the ability of the community to handle this disruption. I don't know whether arbcom or the foundation should be involved, but given the complexity and annoyance this causes everyone in the general population, and given the tools and access to additional information that the bigwigs have, I think that it is time this problem is dealt with by someone with real powers... --Jayron32 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.148.97.79 – Grace is back with another IP address. Wrestling-related revisions? Check. Removal of a sockpuppet tag? Check. That's him alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked I blocked 78.148.96.0/23.--v/r - TP 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Grace_Saunders

I propose a community ban of Grace_Saunders (talk · contribs). While a "de facto" may seem obvious, there has been a fair amount of back and forth over the years, with admins replacing sock and puppeteer templates with "retired" tags, which gives the appearance that this user can just come back under fresh accounts. This needs to be clarified and solidified, the accounts need to be properly tagged and someone probably ought to start a Long-Term Abuse page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Adios. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support great idea. Arcandam (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, if this is the user who has been making the legal threats, the user is not permitted to edit until all threats are withdrawn, as described by the policy. That's probably sufficient. Peter E. James (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - this user has outlasted the community's patience. The "de facto ban" stuff just means that all they have to do is say "oh, no, I won't sue" and they get unblocked by anybody - which is not something the community wants, hence the formalised WP:CBAN requiring the community's consent for any return. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support baby, bath water, bath, bath tiles all out Blackmane (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - it's been a long time coming. GiantSnowman 09:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User Renejs and telling the truth about sources

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources.

User being reported: Renejs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User notified: [112]

Reporter: Zero^talk

Summary: Two incidents show Renejs lying about the contents of sources.

Background: Renejs has been in Wikipedia for 6 years but recently returned after taking a break. Most of his/her edits are to the articles Nazareth and Nazarene (title), where he/she is known for promoting a fringe theory about the ancient history of Nazareth. His/her contribs show an aggressive style with large numbers of reverts. His/her talk page shows many complaints from other editors. There was a complaint of disruptive editing on this noticeboard and one on the 3RR noticeboard that led to article protection.

Incident 1. Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation in Nazareth:

"However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.<ref>B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.</ref>"

This text and citation was added to the article by Renejs in 2007. I located the source and found that that no such information appears at the stated place, so I removed it with a comment that the source was fake.

About 9 hours later, Renejs reverted me with the summary "The reference is in Bagatti. It's not at all fake. Just check it." I retrieved the source again (it is beside me) and checked that the given information is not only not on Plate XI but not anywhere else in the book either. Then I asked on Renejs' talk page, "I want to ask you if you have verified that 'B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.' is a source providing the information 'However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.'" Renejs replied, "Bagatti provides a chart with the slope of the hill. Measuring that slope provides the information that it averages a 14% grade. That is very steep."

The book is the report of archaeological excavations made in Nazareth. Renejs' reply to my question indicates that he/she knows what is in the source at "Plate XI, top right" but is not telling the truth about it. What appears there is a sketch map of the excavation area, approx 200m by 340m. There are two vertical cross-sections showing a total drop of 16.59m in the long direction (4.9%) and 15m in in the short direction (7.5%). (These drops are written in the source, they are not my measurements.) There is no value of 14% here and in any case the diagram only shows a small part of the nearby hill that has the shrine Nebi Sa'in on it's peak. There is also nothing written about whether the slope is appropriate for ancient dwellings. So Renejs is misrepresenting what is actually given in the source. But he is also misrepresenting the book's viewpoint, since its author is completely confident that ancient dwellings existed there and never says anything else. Since he himself added the material in the first place, he does not have the excuse of trusting another editor too much.

Note that the "slope was too steep" argument is a standard part of the fringe theory Renejs promotes (represented by the book The Myth of Nazareth by René J. Salm) and Bagatti was one of the archaeologists whose work had to be discredited in order to prove the theory. Falsely painting an opponent as an ally is a serious offence.

Incident 2. In this edit at Theudas, Renejs removed the citation "Emil Schürer (1973). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Volume I. revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black (revised English edition ed.). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 456, n. 6. ISBN 0-567-02242-0. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)" with the summary "No mention of Semitic etymology of 'Theuda' in the given reference of Schurer." However, Semitic etymology is mentioned exactly in the place indicated.

Scans of both sources are available from me, just send me mail.

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources. Zero^talk 11:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth. For example, consider this whopper:

"Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation" --Zero0000

That text was added in July of 2007 and in the five years it has been there you have made hundreds of edits to the page. Suddenly you "just noticed it" and did not bother to check to see who added it and when? Riiiiiiiight. --Guy Macon (talk)

• Contrary to your "hundreds of edits", I have edited Nazareth exactly twice, both in the past 4 days. Administrators: Can someone tell such bare-faced lies on this noticeboard with impunity? Notice that Guy Macon reinserted the challenged material after seeing this report, despite admitting that he doesn't have the source. Zero^talk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you for tracking down when the text and its phony source were first inserted. I didn't realise it was inserted by Renejs! This means he/she doesn't have the excuse of trusting another editor too much. I'll add it to his indictment. Zero^talk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(Goes back and checks) You are correct. I searched for Nazareth in your history from July 2009 to July 2012, and it picked up a bunch of edits that were not to the Nazareth page. It did not occur to me that a person would use the word "Nazareth" so often when editing other pages.[113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122] And even then, I should have said "tens" not "hundreds". I apologize for the error.

I would also note that my revert was proper. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD and then ponder why it is that we have a citation needed tag if, as you claim, the only allowable response to a sourcing question is deletion. Reverting to the last stable version before a content dispute erupted is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• The statement regarding the slope of the hill and how the slope disqualifies the assertion apparently is not found in the source cited. If that is true then the problem is that of Original Research. If I remember correctly, a violation of Original Research is not protected under WP:PRESERVE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Vishal Deshraj

This user has been warned by myself as well as another editor, and continues to introduce copyright violations to articles. The most recent two violations are [123] and [124]. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence in your second diff is rather underwhelming; all the user added were a couple very short factual sentences. There's not much room for uniqueness of creative expression (and therefore copyrightability) in them. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: The copyvio cited by User:Aaron Booth is from the TV show's official site. (In case someone is wondering if it really is a copyvio or not.)§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also another copyvio insert can be seen here [125] which is also taken from its official site. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: The user is now blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Talk:Jesus

As can be seen at the page Talk:Jesus#Is this page running into WP:TE, User:Cush has been engaged in some regular editing questioning the use of sources which are considered reliable enough by major independent reference books that they are used regularly in their articles on the subject. He has provided no reliable sources himself to support his contentions, but simply seems to be declaring that his opinion must be adhered to by some form of personal fiat. Also, as has been pointed out on that talk page, Cush has a fairly significant history of such edits, as History2007 found regarding the number of times Cush has been the subject of two RfC/U's regarding this matter already, as can been seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive, been brought to ANI before several times as can been seen in the ANI archives here [126]. I believe it is not unreasonable for the question to be raised as to whether this individual should be made subject to some form of sanctions, as I myself have already said on the talk page in question. Under the circumstances, I personally believe a topic ban from matters relating to the historicity of Jesus and the early New Testament be considered. I do however acknowledge that my own previous involvement in the discussion might prejudice my opinion, and believe that the matter in general, and the possibility of some disciplinary sanctions in particular, be reviewed by an independent editor before any such action take place. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Some evidence and examples of Cush's behavior:

• "Religious authors are never reliable sources for issues about core components of their respective religion. Objectivity is simply impossible there. And those authors who rely on religious authors without conducting their own scientific research are not reliable as well. Of course because so much time has passed, the chain of authors who rely on what others have written before is very long. But the chain breaks at the first religionist author or the first author who relies on hearsay (e.g. Josephus)." - He dismisses individuals like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and other scholars cited in the Jesus article because they do not go out of their way to "prove" that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist.
• Here he dismisses Géza Vermes and George Albert Wells (both non-Christians) for their affirmation that there was some historical Jesus of Nazareth, despite their earlier denial. No matter how many scholars are provided who affirm the historicity of Jesus, no matter how many sources are provided that state "most scholars" or "the majority of scholars" affirm Jesus's historicity, he denies that most scholars affirm it because a fringe minority exists that he agrees with.
• "But what exactly is a scholar? The word lumps real scientists as historians and archaeologists together with frauds as theologians and any other believers - he then goes on to advocate his own theories, presenting no sources for them.
• "historians who work for Christian institutions or adhere to certain Christian beliefs are in a conflict of interest and are not reliable sources" - with some rather Birther-esque demands for a minor religious teacher in the boonies, in an era without mass-communication or even mass-literacy.
• Here he argues that because there is no consensus on exact details regarding the historicity of the Tanakh, none of the general agreement by most scholars is valid. Again, pushing for his own unsourced POV instead of what the sources say.
• Here he dismisses the Gospels as politically and religiously charged, without acknowledging that the Roman sources (indeed, almost all sources from that period) would be as well, and ignoring that our articles do not cite primary sources but secondary sources by professionals trained to interpret the primary sources.
• Here he argues that editor disagreement with sources (even if they meet WP:RS) trumps WP:V. He also makes some more Birther-esque demands, yet I fail to find him treating Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama in the same way.

As JohnCarter has pointed out, when Cush is called to present any sources for his constant assertion that no real Scot- I mean scholar-- accepts the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (or for any of his claims, for that matter), he doesn't put forward any (except for one instance where he linked to a youtube video that is essentially a religiously anti-religious blog).

This is only on Talk:Jesus, and doesn't even begin to cover his similar behavior elsewhere.

As JohnCarter has pointed out, two RFC/Us have been filed in the past, as have prior ANI reports, all to no avail. He was previously indefed for anti-Semitic speech, and only unblocked on the condition that he not use such inflammitory language again, which he later violated anyway. In both instances (and others), he revealed a highly problematic bias on any topic relating to Judaism and Christianity.

As History2007 points out, Cush's insistence that "no reliable historians exist" is similar to:

• Someone going on the page for earth and saying: "the earth is flat"
• When asked for WP:RS sources by geologists, they refuse and say: "no reliable geologists exist".
• Given multiple chances to provide sources by scholars, professors, etc., they refuse and continue saying the same thing with no sources.]

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I support some type of end to this un-merrygoround. How can the assertion that "no reliable historians exist" be accepted any more than "no reliable scientists exist", unless Phlogiston is real after all. That will be the day. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This debate is long and boring. Not too long ago almost every single person with an education was a believer. Cush's latest edit on the article itself is dated 19:13, 10 June 2012. He has edited the talkpage a couple of times after that. If someone has WP:IDHT problems on a talkpage you can simply ignore them. If that person edits the article without consensus, gets reverted and starts an editwar over it they will be blocked. Arcandam (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An important question: You say this is only his behavior on Talk:Jesus. Can you provide evidence of his behavior elsewhere on the project, recently, that shows similar problems? Someone saying this kind of thing on one talk page can be ignored, per Arcandum, as someone who doesn't realize we're not a message board. Someone saying this kind of thing across multiple areas, or editing in article space to push this POV, should be topic-banned at the very least. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about everything: Historical Jesus. Oh look, a shitload of sources in the section Denial of a historical Jesus. More info can be found here. Arcandam (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But you are discussing content now when referring to Historical Jesus. Is "just ignore him" a policy? As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking. And please do stop being vulgar here Arcandam. This is a family encyclopedia after all. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a family encyclopedia if you are using the word "family" as a euphemism for censored. And I wouldn't recommend reading Wikipedia to people who are offended by the word shit. We even have pictures of it! Please read Wikipedia:Method_for_consensus_building#.22Spoilers.22_may_be_excluded. It is not a policy, it is an essay. Arcandam (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Just ignore him" when dealing with just being dumb on a talkpage is in line with the spirit of WP:DENY. Arcandum saying "shitload" or any other swearword not actually used to insult a person is WP:NOTCENSORED. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But WP:Common decency should still prevail. And WP:DENY is an essay and of no relevance to policy. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is a cultural difference, it was obviously not my intention to offend anyone and where I am from this word is not considered vulgar. I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands BTW, the social norms are different here. Arcandam (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not watch Dutch TV, so I do not know how often the nightly news on Dutch TV uses that word. Most US TV networks avoid it, for all I know. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning: links may contain offensive content! The newschannels probably won't use it, but we have television programs like Spuiten en Slikken that would be considered extremely offensive by some. A lot has changed since the days of Phil Bloom. You wrote: "As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking". I am not sure why you are mad at me but the reason I posted that link is because that article contained that sentence. Arcandam (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY being an essay rather than policy doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and much of policy and guidelines are promoted essays. Also, on the term Arcandum used, it's really a mild vulgarity. And WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. There are no rules against swearing. Period. That said, if your request on the vulgarity is a polite request not to use that term unnecessarily in conversation with you, Arcandum may or may not agree to your request, but they ought to consider it. In sensitivity to your opinions, I myself will refrain from swearing in this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk)

The true issue here is that History2007 tries to own the Jesus article. On the talk page every second or so post is his. And he seems to keep out all who do not share his view on the article and its encyclopedic subject.

Archaeology and History are based on evidence, not on speculation, and not on the authority of any academics. And it does not matter whether a layman or an academic does the speculating. I am not saying that there are no reliable historians. I am saying that historians who provide no evidence are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. Conjecture, even if is is done by some respected high-profile academic is still conjecture and must be presented as such in the respective articles. Without primary sources (i.e. writings form the lifetime of Jesus from people in his personal vicinity or from people who report about him as there are report about other persons from the same time frame and area) History2007 can claim some "academic consensus" all he wants, but this has no substance. Historians who only reproduce what ancient writers had put down from hearsay when Christianity already existed as a religious group, are not reliable sources by any meaning of the word. And this is not about Jesus as a religious figure, but about Jesus to be established as a real historic person. There is no definitive establishment, and the article must reflect that.

And as for the tendentious editing. I have been here long enough to know that WP has a strong bias towards a religious POV and that many editors tend to insert religious claims and doctrines as facts into many articles. That goes for nearly all articles about persons, places, and events mentioned in the Bible. My suggestion would be that there should be a policy about reliability of sources in the context of articles that are also in the scope of religious subjects. A policy that is much stricter than the current requirements for the reliability of sources. That would solve a lot of problems. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cush, the problem is that you seem to see yourself as the arbiter of what is reliable and what is not. Do you have some kind of advanced degree in historical studies that makes you more reliable or authoritative than the historians that are being cited? ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if he has an advanced degree or not, but the statement that ""no reliable historians exist" can just not be supported. What if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist"? Will that cause a problem on the page for physics? It will for sure. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't cause a problem for Wikipedia if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist", because that person will be ignored by the majority of our users, but if that person is stubborn it may cause a problem for that person because it is likely that person will end up being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your "it is likely that person will end up being blocked" statement. That seems to be what needs to happen here. One can not keep supporting Phlogiston for ever in an encyclopedia while refusing to provide sources. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As a note, there is a relevant cleanup tag to that: {{religious text primary}}. It's for use when an article attempts to use a religious text as a source for anything other than what that religious text says. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough I do no seem to have edited Christ myth theory for as long as I remember, but it says the same thing. So no ownership issues there Cush, but WP:V issues against you all over the place. So your "content based argument" is not valid. And again, and again, and again, you have never provided any sources for your assertions. Sigh.... History2007 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As the two prior RFC/Us and various ANI threads demonstrate, Cush has a long-term problem when it comes to handling issues pertaining to Judaism and Christianity. I'll grant that he's useful elsewhere, but when religion is involved he's insanely bigoted. In the past he's claimed that mainstream views, if they coincide with religious views, should not be accepted on the site. While he's entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wants, he cannot edit based on those beliefs, just as we do not allow other extremists to push their beliefs on the encyclopedia. There have been calls for topic bans on Cush pertaining to Abrahamic religious topics, and he just waits until the trouble dies down before starting up again elsewhere. For some more examples of problematic behavior over time, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush_(second_RFC). It is not simply a matter of him disagreeing with religion that is the problem (again, he can believe whatever he wants), it is his refusal to respect any possibility of objectivity or intelligence from anyone who is not religiously anti-Abrahamic, and his calls to reshape the site to reflect that view. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban to prevent more time-wasting may be a good idea if there is another big war in the mainspace and if Cush is not willing to accept the fact that he is not going to get his way. But it would be kinda cool if we could explain that in a way that is acceptable for Cush. Arcandam (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page, we have repeatedly asked him to provide sources. We received none. We tried to avoid ANI, as on the talk page. We did not get far. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should point out that he's behaving more like the boogey-man religious extremists he imagines all theists are. After all, he has no problem complaining when someone religious presents a claim without evidence while ignoring evidence to the contrary, it's only hypocrisy to then go on and do that himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(multiple e-c's later) Like I said earlier, some of the New Testament sources are considered reliable enough that they are used to substantiate content in existing academic encyclopedias which have no apparent bias in favor of any individual beliefs, like the Mircea Eliade/Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, probably counted as one of the two best reference sources currently available on religion. What it seems we are talking about is, basically, an assertion, which is apparently unsubstantiated, that because Cush doesn't like these sources, we can't use them, even if the leading academic reference sources in the field do. Also, in response to some comments above, I don't know if Cush's problematic conduct has extended anywhere else recently. However, the record of his conduct regarding such material over time is also available, and it seems consistent on this point. Bluntly, I think that, given his failure to reasonably deal with the two RfCUs, his multiple problems which have been brought to ANI and elsewhere, and so on, the time has come for a topic ban on this subject. That is more or less what I said at the start of this thread. Would anyone care to respond directly with their own opinions? John Carter (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, the situation is really simple. If you go on the page earth and keep insisting for ever that it is flat, and refuse to provide sources when asked for again and again, and say "no reliable geologists exist" you will get topic banned from geology. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Cush proposed by User:Jorgath

I propose the following solution: User:Cush is topic-banned for six months from the subjects of Jesus of Nazareth, the history of Christianity, and the history of Judaism, broadly construed, in all namespaces (except in appealing this topic ban). Violations of this topic ban can lead to the topic ban being extended to an indefinite topic ban and/or blocks. Cush is also strongly encouraged to read WP:STICK, and to re-read WP:V and WP:RS. They are also cautioned that in the future, they should bring up questions about the reliability of sources at the Reliable sources noticeboard rather than making unsubstatiated claims against sources on article talk pages. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support... but I am not holding my breath that it will not be back here in 6 months and a day. I would suggest a topic ban altogether. He has been on RFC/U and ANI for far too long and we have repeatedly offered him the avenue for using sources I do not think anything will change in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Given his other edits, I'm willing to hope he's smart enough to learn from this experience that while we accept editors regardless of their beliefs, extremism for those beliefs (whatever they are) is not accepted here. If he does fail to learn from this, we'll have this to point to and something'd better be done about it then. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not just "belief" but WP:RS sources. The point is that we have used the WP:RS/AC mantra for long, to no avail. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted: Ian.thomson was referring to Cush's extreme belief that those sources are not reliable. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I am sorry. But still, sources should rule. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have copyedited the proposal to say "namespaces," which is what I meant to say, instead of "mainspaces," for which I Facepalm. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support But I think we should extend it to anything under the scope of WP Christianity and WP Judaism. His tirades have not been limited to just Jesus, and the History of Christianity. He has called all theologians frauds as well as called the entire Hebrew Bible prior to the divided kingdom religious folklore. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the accusations were more than "folklore," which could have a historical basis but is more important for non-historical matters (and thus is the term I would personally use off-site to describe a lot of the Tanakh). He dismissed it more as complete fantasy, and from there dismissed any secondary sources that mention the Tanakh without calling it fantasy. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support but I might propose changing the subheading name to "proposed topic ban of Cush" or something similar to make it a bit easier to find if, for whatever reason, it has to be found and referred to at some point in the future. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Extremism doesn't further the building of an NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Belief or non belief, extremism exists from all sides of any issue. Cush's editing is inappropriate. I support an indefinite topic ban, with the option to appeal, on all religious topics.--v/r - TP 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would prefer an indefinite ban from articles relating to early Christianity and early CE Judaism with the option to appeal after a year myself. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support that too: Indef topic ban, with the option to appeal after a year. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution too... but I think it needs to be expanded to Christianity and Judaism as a whole. He has shown radical bias against not just early or historical perspectives, but contention against all of those who hold those religious views. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Should we end up here again after the end of the ban, the next one will probably be indefinite, but I hope Cush changes his attitude towards mainstream academic sources (at least on Wikipedia). Huon (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Normally, topic bans are only imposed on highly disruptive editors who for instance edit war. Going by Cush's editing of Jesus and its talkpage — I haven't looked further afield than that — I really can't agree that they're being disruptive or unreasonable. I have trouble understanding the repeated IDHT accusations, and they certainly haven't edit warred. They has a POV, yes. So do John Carter and History2007. As somebody pointed out above, the last time Cush edited Jesus was 10 June 2012; even if their editing were disruptive, would 19 July be a good time to topic ban them? They have edited the article 8 times altogether, not disruptively as far as I can see, spread out between February and June of this year. See this page for the article's overall editing stats (History2007 is by far the most prolific contributor). Cush has contributed many more times to the talkpage (54 posts in 2012 (and altogether), last time 11 July) than the article; but topic banning or restricting people from talkpages is an extreme measure which should be kept for extreme circumstances. Disagreeing with the majority of the editors of Jesus is not an extreme circumstance.

I agree with Cush (above) that History2007 is a dominant presence at Jesus and its talkpage. It's scarcely too strong to say that s/he owns the talkpage by force of the number, volume, and repetitiousness of their posts. While I wouldn't call him/her "disruptive" either, these stats impel me to propose a polite request to him/her to practice a little voluntary restraint. 350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day, every day, for the past six months. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

If you read my user page, you will see that I am becoming less active on Wikipedia. And that I had stated on talk that it would be best not to end up here. And your inference about "an average of two posts a day" is flawed logic, because there can be several posts on one day in a conversation and no post for a few days by any user (say July 11-18 2012), and a single statement may have 4 edits as typos are corrected, etc. But, given that you astutely observed that I am not disruptive, I will quit Wikipedia when I feel like it, at my pace, after I have tied up all loose ends, and added references when they are needed, not before. But rest assured that I have lost faith in the project. WMF just started a travel guide... when most encyclopedic items are far from sourced, with more glaring errors than one can count. Next step: a 3 way merger with Facebook and Tripadvisor.com. Way to go...Yet Cush's behavior is inexcusable. I hold to that one... And I view your defense of "source free behavior" as unacceptable. This type of waste of time debate about fringe views only hinders the lost dream of an error free encyclopedia. So do not support source free behavior. Go on physics and say "no reliable physicists exist" and see what happens. Try that one, ok? Just try that one. History2007 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that, with Johnbod, History 2007 has gone through an extraordinary amount of effort to get the article up to GA status, recognized or not. In fact, if you check the talk page, you will see I looked at the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is counted by the religion field as one of the two best reference works in the field (there's some argument about whether it or Brill's Religion Past and Present is better), and found only a very few, rather slight, variations regarding Jesus in other faiths. And, yes, the article is, whether we like it or not, probably one of the central points of POV pushing in wikipedia, and regularly subjected to "my side says this" edits. I would not fault History2007 for commenting as often as he has. Other editors would have just reverted or used the user talk pages of editors involved. If anything, I think the frequency of his edits to the talk page may well indicate that he has held himself to a higher standard than most other editors, including admins. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, this thread is not about yours truly, but Cush. So let us not get sidetracked. Anyway, I will stop watching here for a while. I have had enough of this repetitive, and obvious issue. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

History2007, you must have missed the word "average" in there when you called my statement that "350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day" "flawed logic". It's the simplest of arithmetic, not what I'd call an "inference". As for what this thread is about, are you familiar with WP:PETARD, an essay much cited on this board? A common statement on noticeboards is 'this isn't about me, this is about them'. There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is 'changing the subject' and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. Anyway. I don't mean this in a bad way, John Carter, but you're not exactly an independent voice in your intepretation of History2007's massive posting as a sign of virtue. Do you regard his apparent compulsion to respond to every objection here on ANI in the same light? I'd be interested to see someone without a dog in the fight engaging with the points I made. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Except that you've hardly demonstrated misbehavior on History2007's part. If you provided some diffs showing that his messages have WP:OWN problems, or that he was inserting biased sources into the article, or misrepresenting sources, etc, etc... then you might have something. As there's plenty of posts, it shouldn't be hard to build a case if there is one. Until you do so, the explanation that he's simply working hard to make the article a GA is the most reasonable one under WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While I haven't been very active on Talk:Jesus, in my interactions with History2007 in other places he has always been an exceptionally knowledgeable user with supreme knowledge of the relevant sources and the willingness to bring articles in line with what these sources say. If there's any flaw in his conduct, it's a short temper when Randy in Boise pushes his private pet theory. Regarding the number of talk page edits: As he said, he tends to use several edits to get a talk page comment just right where I would use only one (and typos be damned). I'd expect the number of independent edits is much lower than two per day. Even if he really wrote an average of two posts per day, I'm with Ian.thomson: So what? Huon (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not even see a need to respond to Bishonen further, given that in his opening statement he acknowledged (I said astutely so) that my posts have not been disruptive. So I posted on there and I have not been disruptive. So what? History2007 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is not about History2007. If you want to make a complaint about History2007, you are more than welcome start an ANI inquiry regarding that, but please stop trying to distract from the discussion at hand by shifting the focus off Cush and his behavior. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The user doesn't seem to understand the principles of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. His behaviour is disruptive enough to justify a topic ban, in my book. If he shows willingness to abide by policy in the future, maybe it could be lifted later down the road. Right now, there's no constructive reason for him to remain an active part of that talk page, or any related ones. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support editors get patience while they learn what reliability is. This, however, is a case of disruptive IDHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I see a total inability to adhere to NPOV. While I don't think it is intentional, that doesn't change the fact that it exists. While I don't normally like solving conflict through topic ban, I think it is the only real solution in this case. Trusilver 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin closure based on consensus

The last vote here was cast about a day ago and there have been no major discussions about the user in question since then, although peripheral discussions have taken place about the statistics of how often I type on a talk page.

Yet, statistics aside, the existence of consensus for a ban here is clear: the reasoning among the ten users who support it is uniform and no one is even debating the issues about the user in question any more. And the supporters amount to 90% of those voting. That looks like consensus to me.

The only discussion in the past day has been about my talk page statistics, yet all those commenting have considered my edits non-disruptive. As stated by others, if someone has an issue with how often I post on a talk page they can, of course, start a new thread below and say "this fellow types too much" and we can discuss that. No problem at all.

However, the current proposal for a ban seems to have clear consensus and should likely be concluded so we can move on. The length of the ban should, of course, be determined by the closing admin based on the comments above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted Deletion

Hello,

This is SupremelyYours. I tried to submit a professional and unbiased contribution to the article of Lady Gaga, and this was removed on the grounds of an account named "Tay" finding that adding information on natural gas fracking is irrelevant, grammatically incorrect, and unrelated to the section of "Political activism". Please note that my contribution was about Lady Gaga recently signing up in support of an activism website of celebrities opposing natural gas fracking. "Tay", and another account called "Drmies" (whom remarked that my information was "tangential" to political activism), both commented that I needed to cite reliable sources. I cited three in response, directly inserting those sources into the contribution. I was not making a brand new section, I was making a sub-section for a section already in existence.

"Drmies" felt my addition was irrelevant because we cannot add everything to an article, which would make sense to me if I wasn't adding information that was perfectly related to the section of "Political activism", and natural gas fracking is a hot topic that I was revealing Gaga's position on in a short contribution.

"Tay" and "Drmies" were at least professional, though I didn't see their reasons to remove my addition. "Tay" ended the conversation by saying that I might have my editing abilities "blocked" due to "disruptive editing"; oddly enough, "Tay" had accused me of "vandalism", and later admitted I hadn't vandalized anything, even though falsely accusing someone of "vandalism" is also mentioned as wrongful doing in the disruptive editing article. Even after admitting I hadn't vandalized, Tay accused me of such again.

I would like the consistent deletion of my contribution to stop. I have always been a thoughtful and careful editor, and author of two articles, for this website. I am offended by the idea of having my editing abilities "blocked" when I have only worked to preserve the good in Wikipedia and improve the site.

I thank you for reading this appeal. I have disclosed the exchange between myself and the two other editors below.

Yours Truly, SupremelyYours — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupremelyYours (talk • contribs) 04:53, July 19, 2012‎ (UTC)

There was text here copied directly from SupremelyYours' talk page. Elektrik Shoos removed it and put a link here instead for the sake of brevity.

• I've removed the text copied from your talk page, as it doesn't need to be copied, you can just link to it as I did above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (I also notified both Teman13 (talk · contribs) and Drmies (talk · contribs) on this user's behalf. Forgot to mention that before. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC))
• A couple of problems -- it's an article about a living person, and you're trying to use "beforeitsnews.com" as a source. User-generated sites such as that are not acceptable sources for BLPs (please read the policy link). Also, if all she's done is "signed up in support" is that seriously important enough for an entire section in a biographical article? By the way, as this is a content issue, you should discuss it on the talk page for the article. Oh, and what you did is certainly not vandalism, unless there was another edit I missed. No one should be accusing you of that. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It was yet another lazy use of Twinkle to make a robotic comment with boilerplate wording, and yet another example of what Twinkle looks like from the receiving end. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• The brevity of my contribution was certainly not more than a hair shorter, at the most, than the immigration sub-section. Also, no it is not seriously important enough for its own section, which is why, as I said in my appeal, I didn't make my own section for it. I was putting in a sub-section on her political activism. If there is a reason why a political topic cannot be covered in "Political activism", I would like to know, but why refer to it as a "section" when it wasn't? --SupremelyYours (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerim

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

---

On July 15th, I nominated the article, God of War: Chains of Olympus, for GA (here is the article at time of this post that's in accordance with the GA review currently in place) Everything was going fine and I was addressing the concerns brought up in the review. On July 18th, User:Bluerim, who hadn't edited this particular article since July 10th, edited the article stating on the talk page that "Some of the changes have been beneficial, and in most case have only required minor tweaking." However, he disregarded the GA review and guidelines that I had previously pointed out to him multiple times on different articles in regards to the character sections for video games, as well as a Third Opinion that I sought for the matter. I reverted the edit and asked him to please comply with the GA review and discuss any disagreements before editing so it does not interfere with the GA review and confuse the reviewer. I also pointed out the guidelines again on the talk page.

Bluerim returned later that day, and instead of editing in accordance with the GA review (which asked to rework the flow of the prose for the characters section), he blanked the section only leaving one wiki link, stating that he had "Done some further research on other game articles & a link for Characters all that is required. Yes, no lists, which solves other issue. However, no need for VO section and monsters belong in Gameplay." He acknowledged that a list should not be used, but a blank section is not the proper way to address the issue and just causes issues with the GA review and reviewer. I reverted this edit and stated the guidelines on the talk page one last time before I took further action.

He returned on July 19th and reformatted the "Pot" section. In his edit summary, he stated "Reworked formatting based on the FEATURED Final Fantasy articles. This is THE format to use. Solves many issues." He was asked to discuss any changes or disagreements he had before he edited so it would not interfere with the GA review or confuse the reviewer. He left a post on the talk page, but he did not allow for any discussion before he made the changes. I reverted this edit to the version that's in compliance with the GA review and have now brought this issue here for help with this situation.

I had asked Bluerim to make his edits in compliance with what's brought up in the GA review. I asked him to discuss any disagreements or proposed changes before editing, that way we could discuss them and bring them before the reviewer, that way the reviewer would not come back to a completely different section than the one he originally reviewed, thus having to re-review it, slowing down the GA process. Any help would be appreciated. JDC808 (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, GAR is an informal process, and nominating an article for GAR doesn't somehow lock it down so that any changes made which aren't strictly in line with the GA comments can be summarily reverted. Go and discuss this properly on the talk page. If that disrupts the GAR then so be it: we're here for improving article content, not for collecting GA badges. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim's prose tweaks (I have no comment on the formatting) are a definite improvement. I wish they were a bit more diplomatic on the talk page though. But there is nothing here for an admin to do: even if the complaint were justified there is no need for intervention. I'm closing this. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Attempted outing

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

---

Another user with whom I have had virtually no contact with has attempted to out and discredit me here in a particularly nasty and vindictive manner without providing any evidence whatsoever of their claims as to my identity. Please help. I would like these claims removed and their behaviour rectified. Famous_dog (c) 09:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:OVERSIGHT to have the accusations permanently deleted; I'll remove them for now and warn the editor in question. GiantSnowman 09:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Disney Channel (UK and Ireland)

I have been trying for the last week to attempt a cleanup of Disney Channel (UK and Ireland), which is heavy with about half the article not devoted to the subject of the network itself, but the logo and graphical styling of the network, which I feel most normal readers would not care to read about. It's also solely sourced to Logopedia, which from my understanding should not be used as a source as it's an all-user contributed site like IMDb or TV.com, but even more questionable as it was solely created to round our restrictions on overuse of fair use content, which I completely respect but Logopedia does not.

This is the final result of my cleanup attempt, which also fixed grammatical and WP:MOS issues, along with removal of WP:ADVERT material. However I have run into ownership issues with editors who refuse to let me change the text in any way and have begun to get profane in their attempt to assert their version is better. I removed the logo variations and reduced them down to one paragraph of text instead of a morass of examples we can't see and tables and tables describing graphics (and again, are unsourced except to Logopedia), along with splitting the chronology of the channel's history into "logo eras" rather than years. This edit especially concerns me and makes me feel like abandoning my cleanup attempt as I cannot get any headway. An advert template and encouragement to talk on the page has not given any response, and I have never seen a cleanup attempt on my part attract so much vitriol. The editor of the diff above I also have taken to AfD for unsourced Nickelodeon articles, so I'm looking for advice on how to clean this up, as children's network articles always seem to be a battleground to state just the facts and not turn it into a cheerleading article for the network. And advice is welcomed, even guidance to another noticeboard. Nate • (chatter) 09:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have protected the article for a month (in what appears to be the policy-compliant version, for a change). I am also getting the impression of possible sock or meatpuppetry from that history, I have to say, especially as we have at least two blocked/banned long term sockpuppeteers who are very keen on Disney articles. An SPI may be called for. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events, the user who lashed out at me, DylanGLC2011 (talk · contribs) likely abandoned the account DylansTVChannel (talk · contribs) after the TVChannel account had most of their articles deleted but was unnoticed as a lot of TV network patrollers usually avoid the children's networks because of all the issues of fighting off network cheerleading. Thank you for the protection, although I'd like a judge if my cleanup attempt was proper or took out too much content (I tried to streamline and make it MOS-compliant). Nate • (chatter) 11:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The size of the cull is not really an issue. The branding section that replaced the poorly sourced stuff could probably be expanded a bit however. But any article on Disney-related subjects could have quite a bit on their branding, given how often and aggressive they are in changing/promoting/protecting it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I did intend to build the "branding" section more as I read through the text and focused on important items, but the non-cooperation did avert that. I will try to build up the section a little more. In the meantime, I just noticed that in the course of my AFD for the List of Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events that content has been moved to List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland)#Upcoming Nick Programming by DylanGLC2011 as a firewall if the Events page was deleted, and the same unsourced section exists in the List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel in the UK & Ireland article, despite a successful AFD regarding that network's "list of events" article six months back. I won't delete it but I have warned the user that an AFD deletion doesn't mean 'merge it somewhere else to avoid scrutiny'. Nate • (chatter) 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well there is a minor problem in that at an AFD, if no one knows of an appropriate place to put the info thats being deleted (in a relevant article) then no one will propose a merge. An article dedicated to channel programming including a section on programming 'events' would probably pass discussion on that articles talk page. Although no doubt the crystal ball will be brought out to counter it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Help wanted for disambiguation page

There is there are two completely different meanings for the term 'fish slice', one mainly in US usage and one mainly used in the UK. We currently describe one at Fish slice, which I would like to move to Fish slice (food), and Fish slice (kitchen utensil). I would like help in moving Fish slice to Fish slice (food) without a redirect, so that the original page can be a disambiguation page. Can any admin help please? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

With only 2 uses, the current method of determining/referring seems appropriate. Although, to be honest, the kitchen utensil looks merely like a WP:DICDEF and not an encyclopedia article ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only is no administrative action needed here (you can just, y'know, edit the redirect page directly after the move), but as Bwilkins says a disambiguation page for only two terms means strictly more inconvenience for our readers (who will now require a minimum of one additional click to get to the article they desire by visiting fish slice than at present, where they will only require that click 50% of the time). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't obvious, the preferred approach with two items is to add a hatnote to each. I see a hatnote on Fish slice, so you just need to add one, mutuatis mutandes, to Fish slice (kitchen utensil)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAMB suggests that a hatnote on Fish slice (kitchen utensil) would be incorrect, because the reader will not arrive at that article in error. William Avery (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Potential legal threat

Hi there. I just wanted to alert everyone to a potential problem over at Nemesysco. We've got what appears to be a WP:COI editor, possibly using multiple IPs, who is using language suggesting that we may be going in the direction of legal threats. We've got edits like this and this, which are categorizing other edits as "defamatory" and "slander."

It's obviously not a direct legal threat in and of itself, but if the editor is actually an official of Nemesysco (he acknowledges first-hand knowledge of the company), then we should be aware that the company has engaged in somewhat aggressive legal tactics to defend the reputation of its much-maligned products. (See here.)

I've given the page a full rewrite to pull out anything vaguely WP:OR-ish and ensure that every statement is backed with a WP:RS. I think that puts us in a better position from a legal standpoint, but I'm hopeful that someone here could help keep an eye on things. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly alarmed by the allegation in an edit summary that the article was "slander." However, no article should be the kind of battleground this one has been. Your thoroughgoing scrub of that page ought to reduce future combat, but I am puzzled by some of the content removal. One example is the removal of information about the "Love Detector," a technology marketed by the company several years ago and covered by reliable third-party sources. It seems to me that a company's history is an important encyclopedic aspect of an article like this. Can you explain your thinking?

If the edits to the article don't eliminate the damaging activity by anonymous IPs, that article deserves to be semi-protected. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. It seemed borderline, but I still wanted to get input from someone more experienced.

If I'm remembering the edits correctly, the Love Detector probably just came out it was part of what had initially been written as a sort of catalog of their products, which I took out per WP:WWIN. No objections, obviously, if anyone reinserts it in a less advertorial style. As for company history, I don't really remember taking any out. If I did, then it was probably because it was part of a large swath of material that I took out because it didn't have any citations. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Request review of block by arbitrator Risker

Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a member of the Arbitration committee, recently [127] blocked NewtonGeek (talk · contribs · count · logs) for allegedly being an SPA who was not here to participate in building an encyclopedia. NewtonGeek had, it is true, primarily contributed to the Fae ArbCom case, but they were being constructive, not disruptive, even if they had limited edits to article space. In my opinion, this is a massive WP:BITE. In several other opinions, it has been suggested that this was a failure to WP:AGF and possibly a WP:INVOLVED matter. I request input from the larger community on this matter. I will notify parties shortly.- Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For more information, visit the following pages:

• User_talk:NewtonGeek#Not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia
• User_talk:Risker#Newtongeek
• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Blocked_for_being_a_commentator

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Notified. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Being a single purpose account is not in and of itself a blockable offense. There is also no requirement specified anywhere in policy that an editor must edit articles in order to remain in good standing here. I have asked Risker to provide evidence of some apparent wrong doing on NewtonGeek's part, but he has not yet had a chance to reply. It does appear from Risker's notification that Newton was blocked that Risker is open to other administrators undoing the block if they can be convinced the block is in error. So, I don't think there would be any sense of wheel warring if it was undone. A careful administrator should contact Risker before undoing the block, however. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• It is probably a good idea to be a bit patient in this case. Arcandam (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the history of that account, I have to say I'd be spectacularly surprised if it turned out they're not just here to make a point about either Fae, Wikipediocracy, Arbcom, or some combination of the three. In that sense, I think Risker is right that they're an SPA, and I would add my speculation that they may be a reincarnation of some other user, here to push whatever their Fae/Arbcom/WI POV is - in which case this wouldn't be biting a newbie. Those things said, however, NewtonGeek doesn't appear to have been particularly disruptive on the Fae case pages (in fact, they appear to have been one of the calmer voices there), and I'm struggling to see the reason for why this block, for this reason, at this time, was needed. We have a lot of editors who sort of fail at contributing to mainspace at times. Unless there's underlying disruption, we generally don't block them for it, so I wonder if there's something else going on here that Risker just hasn't managed to explain very well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2)Exactly. I would have had absolutely no problem if Risker had decided to ban NewtonGeek from Arbcom pages or something like that. But indef? I have a problem. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Involved"? Admins who see "remarkable" behaviour by a "newbie" are not automatically "involved" just because the newbie is commenting on pages in which they are "involved" ex officio as members of ArbCom, else no blocks could ever be made by them for behaviour on ArbCom pages. So much for that. "Limited edits to article space"? Did you view the actual edits? I find it incredible that Minerva sparng forth fully-armed from the head of Jupiter, and this is less likely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to note that I do not believe Risker was WP:INVOLVED, but the suggestion was made (by Hammersoft) and I thought it necessary to relay it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the Cirt case there was another such new editor, and he/she was not blocked rather his/her contributions to the ArbCom case were removed. In that case the editor actually took part in the evidence and the workshop phase, posting proposals there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• From what I can see, NewtonGeek fails the WP:DUCK test and is a single purpose account. They are welcome to comment in project space anywhere as long as they use their primary account, unless they are already banned from the project (please see WP:ILLEGIT). Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• What arbcom does in managing its own case pages is none of ANI's business. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically an indef block is well beyond 'managing their own case page'. However I concur with the general thrust of the argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd note that Risker was acting as an administrator, not speaking FOR THE COMMITTEE (and if they were being for the committee, they weren't explicit about that fact). Actions as an administrator are the business of ANI. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if NewtonGeek is a high profile editor (e.g. Jimbo) who used an alternate account in order to be able to make some comments without his/her mere presence there becoming Wiki-Breaking News. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lulz. No, this is no Prince and the Pauper tale, Newton is a user tied to the Factseducado stuff from a few months back, and is a user also (along with Facts) recently banned at the Wikipediocracy. These are an odd pair of users who first ran into difficulties here, went to the 'ocracy as a general refuge, were generally rebuffed, then kinda glommed onto the whole Fae affair near the end of their stay. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – @Fluffernutter and others: NewtonGeek isn't a sockpuppet. He was editing Citizendium before coming to Wikipedia. That's why he's familiar with wikis. NewtonGeek learned about Fæ from Wikipediocracy. WP:AGF. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This strikes me as an outstandingly bad block. If arbcom pages don't support the building of an encyclopedia, then why do we have them in the first place? If they do support the building of an encyclopedia, then contributing to them is building an encyclopedia. One might as well say that working in the court system is unproductive labor because it doesn't produce tangible goods. In fact, a working court system supports the production of tangible goods, so working in it is productive. NewtonGeek is trying, in a clumsy way, it's true, to act as part of this community, and it is harmful to this community to slap him down for it. He has not been disruptive, and his edits to the arbcom pages show no discernible POV pushing as far as I can see (so much for the duck test). Blocking him serves no useful purpose.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Further Comment: WP:BITE says, at one point "13.Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them." Risker didn't talk to NewtonGeek before blocking them. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You do remember that the WP:Admin page says Administrators "are never required to use their tools"? Yet I see over and over, these bad blocks where someone acted on a questionable basis and instead of asking AN/I preemptively for guidance, AN/I has to review the block instead. The Admin summary of "Not here to build an encyclopedia - 2.41% contribs to article space" is completely and utterly out of line, and I don't know when our Admin corps is actually going to start doing some self-reflection on what it means to do the job well. The fact that this isn't already reversed is simply an example of a system that fails to protect our editors from emotionally-driven, reactionary use of the tools. Take a break, eat a sandwich, and think before pressing that button, especially when it is something that isn't causing immediate harm. I would hope that is a reasonable request. -- Avanu (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• The status of the block at the moment is uncertain. It was discussed and agreed by four members of the Committee before Risker enacted it. I would suggest that the block is not undone until it has been established if it is an ArbCom block or not. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment makes it even more clear that the person shouldn't be blocked right now. If you're not even sure of its validity or whether it was requested, AGF and remove it until it is certain that it is actually the *right* thing to do. -- Avanu (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, SilkTork said nothing about its validity, just about its status -- namely, whether it was an ArbCom-imposed block, or one by Risker acting alone as an admin. The second could be overturned with an unblock request -- the first would require a strong community consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Heck, if it's decided that this is an ArbCom block, rather than a Risker-as-admin block, I still would disagree, but I'd be inlined to retract any request for an overturn. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be an Arbcom block unless Arbcom has voted on it? Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This kind of editing is similar to what Chester Markel, Alessandra Napolitano, etc have done. I'm not saying that this is another sockpuppet of John254, but editors who suddenly involve themselves in arbcom cases in this way always arouse suspicions. Just knowing that these processes exist on wikipedia makes it highly unlikely that they are new editors. The declared criterion (< 2.41 % content editing, or should that be ≤ ?) is presumably not intended to create a precedent. Mathsci (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There has been a trend recently of new accounts turning up in arbitration cases and then becoming very prolific posters there. It's happened three or four times now. Up-to-date figures are not currently available, due to the server lag, but NewtonGeek seems to be the most frequent poster to the PD talk page by some margin – which is very odd behaviour for an account that has never edited before. I'd say good block.
  • I'd propose that editors wishing to comment at arbitration cases should at least have 200 mainspace edits and have been here for 3 months (unless they are themselves a party to the case, of course, or have a disclosed relationship to one of the parties, or a clear prior interest in the subject matter). I've opened a discussion at a more suitable location. JN466 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• How is this NOT a case of WP:BITE? ArbCom members should really know better than to engage in this kind of abuse. WP:SPA does not appear to have any prohibition against the kind of commenting NewtonGeek is making. And given the number of admins who make their name operating primarily in the user space, I can't see how this sanction is valid at all. Why is the admin caste and ArbCom moving in this direction of shutting down debate with blocks and struck edits lately? T. trichiura Infect me 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:SPA is also just an essay, not policy. T. trichiura Infect me 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of single-purpose accounts... Tarc (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Speaking of violating WP:AGF ... T. trichiura Infect me 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I have looked at your contribs (as have others, i.e. your spat with Nobody Ent) and see nothing but a user hiding his original editor's account for whatever reason, there is nothing remotely "new user" about you. AGF is set aside when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Good luck with that. You're obviously just trying to discredit my contributions with wrong and irrelevant opinions. I looked at your edits and see an editor who's bent on towing the administration and anti-new user line. T. trichiura Infect me 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see now that Tarc believes civility is optional. No need to address him any further, per WP:DENY and I'm glad we can ignore his attempts to distract the discussion. T. trichiura Infect me 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Where's Cla68 and his ad hominem schtick when you need him? :P That's as classic an ad hominem as anyone could hope for. Assuming Tarc does believe that civility is optional, surely that doesn't invalidate his point that you're an alternate account being used for wikipolitics? MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Alf's comment is well taken, also aren't there usually supposed to be warnings and discussion with the User first (although the User maybe any number of bad things, absent repeat vandalism, it seems like some graduated warnings should occur). If it's a new g/f user they may be really confused right now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

((ec))::AGF and remove it? Or AGF and wait at least until it's explained, especially as it wasn't just Risker who is a respected editor, acting alone. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exclaiming "I am a new user - don't BITE me!" is very snide, to say the least. In any case, I would be happy to send Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia to MfD in the near future, but I'll wait for more information and/or developments. --MuZemike 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This was a good block. There's a long-standing precedent that alternate and throwaway accounts aren't to be used in ArbCom proceedings (or, ideally, anywhere in project-related discussions). I don't think anyone seriously believes that NewtonGeek was a brand-new user. I'd have made this block myself if I cared enough to follow the ArbCom case in question. More broadly, I don't see any convincing rationale to start allowing random sockpuppets to participate in ArbCom cases, which are messy enough as it is. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• NewtonGeek was advised by one of the case clerks, Lord Roem (talk · contribs), to take a break from the discussions. He failed to abide by that. Recall that there has been heated arguments on that page, where we are expected to keep everyone civil. Adding fuel to fire does not help here. It is very likely that, should the block to be found to be not-initiated as ArbCom, NG would be banned from the Fae RFAR case pages for the duration of the case, for the exact reason that I pointed out. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Starting a sentence with "I think" doesn't send a clear message. Lord Roem's comment shouldn't be treated as if it were a clear, stern message or a warning. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The full text was, "I think taking a break from the discussions wouldn't be a bad idea. They can get heated really quickly, and it doesn't persuade anyone when it gets to such points." That is anything but a warning to stop. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While the parent statement is technically correct, the fact that advice in the first link on Lord Roem's talk page at 12:24, 19 July 2012 was not followed when this user edited a different page at 12:25, 19 July 2012 is not surprising. The two posts are a rounding error away from having been done at the same time- if they had been on the same page it is likely there would have been an edit conflict. It is unreasonable to expect a user to be following advice one minute after it was given, and I think characterizing the second edit as a failure to abide by the advice offered a minute prior is quite unfair. --Noren (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can see an argument for banning NewtonGeek from the case pages, but I think it's a stretch to say that an indefinite block is necessary. Is there really a case for saying that he should be thrown off Wikipedia rather than, for instance, simply asking him to refocus his interest on a different area of the project? Why was a gentler approach apparently not considered here? Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support block, since I had reached a similar conclusion about NG after reading his contributions to the Fae case and then examining his contribution list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce to a week, or whenever arbs feel the case will be over. Presumably there will be a Jimbo appeal, but Jimbo knows how to ask people to leave his page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block. The stated rationale, regarding edit ratios, is invalid, because the WP:SPA/WP:HERE/WP:NOT#Social prohibitions concern new editors who spend all their time making personal pages - not those who contribute to policy discussions. These are not a blanket ban on opinions. Note that systematic enforcement based on this precedent would alienate Wikipedia from the world audience, because the answer we usually would give to readers who complain about anything from Muhammad images to biased articles is that they are free to start an account at any time and get involved. Once you break that, once you say that giving an opinion in a case is a privilege for the good editors (I actually saw someone in that discussion saying anyone with <1000 edits wasn't even a contributor) ... then you're making the editors (and by extension, admins and Arbs) an elite jealous of their special perks. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been following the arbitration case very closely, and I consider the block to be a very complicated matter. First, let me say that I see zero merit to the argument that Risker has a COI or acted out of policy in any way. This is a controversial block, but it should be evaluated on the merits of the account blocked. I'm leaning a little bit in the direction of wanting to let the block be lifted, but I recognize that this isn't a simple decision, and I'd like to lay out what I know, in the hopes that the Arbitrators can take a look at it, and maybe it will be useful. I've been reading the comments about the case at Wikipediocracy, and based on what I've seen there, I'm pretty sure that Newton Geek and User:Factseducado are connected to some extent. I'm pretty sure also that we are dealing with two people here, who are husband and wife, although I'm totally at a loss as to which is which at any given moment. (I also haven't educated myself about Factseducado's history that led to them getting blocked.) On the one hand, I think that there is a good likelihood of sockpuppetry and block evasion going on. Perhaps, that right there is reason enough to keep the block, case closed. On the other hand, I have to say that I have never seen anything Newton Geek has done during the arbitration as being disruptive or unhelpful, in terms of what they have written. (That stands in vivid contrast to a bunch of users who have repeatedly been derogatory and downright nasty during the case discussions. And some of them, if not literally canvassing, are coming razor-edge close to it at Wikipediocracy, egging one another on and sounding like they are getting red in the face over things that are mostly in their heads and not in the real world. I point that out because no one is blocking them, and there usually has to be a good deal of requesting just to get their comments hatted.) I see no reason to question that Newton Geek wants to contribute positively to the project, just that they don't get it about the right way to have an account. I do think there is some WP:BITE in all of this. I think that a case can be made for a conditional lifting of the block, accompanied by a ban from commenting on the Fae case, and some sort of supervised editing, all conditional on Newton Geek acknowledging any non-clean start and committing not to repeat that infraction. Beyond that, I see absolutely nothing that the block is preventing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Good block (perhaps reduce or restrict to arbcom space if there are indications of an interest in writing an encyclopedia). It is obvious that someone arrives just to sti the pot in the Fae case is not an encyclopedia writer but here for another purpose altogether, and probably here through off site alerts. Bite does not apply. WP:MEATPUPPET/WP:CANVAS probably does.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, you had the arguably bad luck of commenting just after I did, so it's going to look like I'm arguing with you, but I really don't mean it as criticism directed at you. Rather, I want to draw some logical distinctions. Newton Geek isn't stirring any pots, although a lot of others on the case pages are. I don't think Newton Geek particularly agrees with or is either parroting or rebutting anything at Wikipediocracy, so they aren't a meatpuppet of others there (and we aren't blocking the editors who are). This block tests us as Wikipedians: do we just tick off boxes on a checklist and say, yes, block, or are we mature enough in our thinking to actually look at how the user conducts themselves, and make a decision based on that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In my view anyone who clearly demonstrates that they are here for the politics and not for writing an encyclopedia should be on a very short leash indeed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not exceedingly familiar with the account in question, or the ins and outs of the case. All I'd like to say is that we are not Conservapedia. We don't have a 90/10 rule (i.e we have no requirement that a certain percentage of edits must be to article space), and with good reason. If NewtonGeek is here only to cause trouble, then that should be dealt with via the appropriate channels. If they haven't actually done anything to deserve a block according to actual policy then the current block should not remain in place. OohBunnies! (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - As with a couple of the comments above I don't feel particularly strongly about this and if the account was doing something wrong, which it doesn't appear to me then fine the block is valid. If however it was a constructive account and wasn't violating one of our thousands of rules, policies and guidelines and the block was just based on Risker's gut feeling that this user might be a sock, then I have a problem with that. As it is I think the Arbcom ruling on the Fae case was one of a series of bad decisions that Arbcom has had in recent months so I have a rather tainted view of good faith at the moment. Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block - per comment by OohBunnies. My feeling regarding this matter can also be found here. Tamsier (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't the bar be set higher for ArbCom members when it comes to AGF? While NG showed a more than keen interest in the Fae case then one would expect of most new users, it is plausible that he truly is a new editor and not a sock having learned about this case off-wiki. And even if he were a sock (in that case tsk tsk), he might want to be protecting himself from future retaliation from Arbcom or other participants. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Observation - I would suggest reserving judgement for now. There is more history than the contribs show. I'm the first to speak out on a bad block, but I think everyone should assume good faith in this particular block while waiting for more information. Situations like this are never as simple as they seem at first glance, and I'm confident more info will be coming soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• What info are you looking for? It all appears to be right there, the user was blocked for making less than 2.41% articlespace edits. It was a vindictive block, obviously. Arbcom didn't like the way the user was acting in the case, since they were being mostly calm and managing to knock down their arguments, so they had to come up with some reason to block the user. I just wish they had actually come up with a plausible reason. Silverseren^C 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Risker either screwed up the block because she's wrong - or she is right but screwed up by implying it was due to the ratio of edits when there is another reason (SPA, troll, whatever you want). Either way Risker screwed up, handsomely, and should, of course, consider her position. Let's make no mistake here - whatever the other issues an active arbitrator has just blocked someone for not editing in the "right" places. Conservapedia would be proud. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• It does appear that some mistake was made, but as I explain a bit more below, there are more things going on than just this one Arb case. Until then, I thinking keeping an eye out and waiting for an explanation is worthwhile, but jumping to conclusions and drama isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block This entire thing is just blowing my mind. Did Risker seriously just block someone for making <2.41% articlespace edits? Seriously? Is that the precedent now? Because there's actually quite a few long-term users I know of who have very low articlespace contributions, so I suppose we should be going after them now. Silverseren^C 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Somewhat amusingly, it appears that Risker themselves has only four mainspace edits in their last 166 edits. Not saying anything, just sayin' Resolute 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just so we're all on the same page here: policy explicitly forbids the use of undisclosed alternate accounts to comment on ArbCom cases. That's not a gray area in any conceivable way; it's written down at WP:ILLEGIT, second bullet point. This is obviously an alternate account of an experienced user, so Risker's block was explicitly supported by policy. It's blowing my mind that people are commenting in apparent ignorance of the underlying policy. I suppose one could argue that NewtonGeek should be unblocked and simply instructed not to comment in project-related discussions, but that argument would have to be made with an awareness of the underlying policy supporting Risker's actions. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's blowing my mind that people are commenting in apparent ignorance of the underlying policy. -- Really? How long have you been editing here again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek. Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember when ArbCom actually ordered someone to "familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it" as a remedy. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• How do you know it's an experienced user? If you mean experienced as in a prior contributor to Citizendium and Wikipediocracy, then yes, they're "experienced". Doesn't mean they were a prior user on here or, if they were, it was a long time ago and it's an account they've abandoned. Silverseren^C 20:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MastCell, I understand your point and think I am on the same page, but there are varying degrees of experience when we talk about "experienced users". I have the sense that this is someone who is experienced enough to have formed opinions about dispute resolution, but not to have educated themselves about policy. I fully agree with you that Risker did things just fine, but I don't see Newton Geek's conduct in such black-and-white terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your starter for 10: In which current arbitration case is a (former) admin about to be sanctioned for failing to respond to criticism of or questions regarding their admin actions? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for alternative solution

Given the comments above and my own view that indeffing Newtongeek is disproportionate to the perceived offence, I'd like to propose the following solution which resolves the issue of their participation in the Fae case while respecting the rights of the arbitrators to manage case pages:
User:NewtonGeek is unblocked with immediate effect but is henceforth banned from the Fae case talk pages until and unless an arbitrator grants permission for them to resume their participation on those pages; and NewtonGeek is counselled to refocus their interest on other more productive areas of the encyclopedia. Prioryman (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see and have seen no evidence indicating Newtongeek anything wrong other than have few contributions to mainspace, which is not a blockable offense. If ArbCom wants to forbid someone from editing their wp:own anyone? pages fine, but the block is completely out of line barring presentation of evidence of disruptive behavior. Therefore, the latter half of your wording is inappropriate. It presumes he was being unproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, it presumes that arbitration is unproductive, which I think is probably beyond dispute now... Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We're still waiting to hear from Risker and/or Arbcom about the reasoning behind and status of this block. There's nothing to be gained by hastily unblocking before Risker/Arbcom is able to provide some explanation of what's going on here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I made a somewhat similar suggestion above, but I think that, additionally, there would need to be an acknowledgment by Newton Geek of problems with a not-clean start of their account, and a promise never to repeat it. I also agree that we should wait for ArbCom to evaluate the information. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence that NewtonGeek had a previous account? I believe someone said they were a Citizendium contributor so they would have some established familiarity with editing a wiki, if that's the case. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think there is. You can look, in part, at my comments above. I think there are also privacy issues, per what Dennis Brown is saying, and the bottom line is that I'd like to give ArbCom some time to review things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is premature as we don't have all the facts yet. I only know enough from my previous multiple emails from NewtonGeek (I've never emailed back, answering here instead, his YGM are in my talk page history.) and his SPI investigation months ago, and many other events, that there is more than meets the eye here, which is why I have asked people to reserve judgement. We want the answers, but should be a bit more patient. I don't know if the block was good or bad, but I know this isn't likely to be as simple as it looks based on my experience helping NewtonGeek. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but this is shooting first and asking questions later. The block doesn't appear to be time sensitive, but it is preventing NG from participanting in the case talk page. Since that might be closing soon, this block should be reversed ASAP unless there are reasons otherwise not known. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I agree it's unlikely to be simple - given that Risker should have either taken no action or justified her action by proper policy, ARBCOM or similar mandate. As it is Risker has made it appear to be a block based on her perception that the editor doesn't edit in the "right" areas. As a sitting arbitrator this sort of incompetence is not acceptable. Self evidently we now have a huge and likely pointless debate because or Risker's lack of clarity. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I put off responding here until I thought s/he would have, instead of just on their talk page. SilkTork made a comment above that it was based on 4 Arbs, and no one has come back to clarify that yet, and it is a bit different if it is an Arb decision or an individual Admin decision. The whole situation is less than optimal, to say the least, but reverting the action without discussion from the block admin (Arb committee?) isn't without its own drama as well. I'm not condoning, just trying to be a little patient while waiting for an answer that might be coming from a committee instead of an individual. My patience isn't infinite, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• FYI Pause 1. There is a current halt on review on NewtonGeek's talk page because Arbcom has not made clear whether this is an Arbcom block according to SilkTork, and 2. NewtonGeek is denying all the bad things thought of him. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, it would be nice if there was a presumption of innocence for Newton since nobody has proved anything about him. Deny? How about someone PROVE something for him to deny? (not voicing this at you specifically Alan) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per my favorite sandwich. Arcandam (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Unfortunately for purposes of the discussion, I do so based in part on non-public information that I can't share on this noticeboard. I'd ask that speculation about what I'm referring to be avoided, although I have zero hope that some people will honor this request. I also note that Risker, who in my experience has extremely sound judgment on matters of this nature, has been away from the keyboard this afternoon, and that no action should be taken until she has had an opportunity to comment further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While there is undoubtedly more to the story than meets the eye, ArbCom has been quick to sanction Fae and parties to previous cases for failing to respond to good faith concerns about edits or admin actions. Arbs should at the very least hold themselves to the same standards as they hold other admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad, since you are endorsing the block "in part" for privacy reasons, can you clarify if you would endorse it absent the private reasons? To clarify. Do you agree that an account that only comments on arbcom cases without being disruptive should be blocked? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 204.101. Let's be clear -- if Risker had said that he had confidential evidence that this was a "sockpuppet" account, then he'd have a better case. However, I believe that the sensible way to interpret the ban on "undisclosed alternate accounts" editing ArbCom pages, etc., is to prohibit the use of more than one account to do so, not to arbitrarily designate one account the "alternate" and prohibit it from activity. Specifically, I think that it would be understandable for an editor in this contentious case to leave his normal account out of it and to use a different account to do all this for privacy, given that the normal account isn't also editing the same or related pages to provide a false sense of extra support. And no matter how confidential the evidence is, can't Risker still take it to one checkuser-admin for a formal WP:SPI so that you have the finding on record and you can block for "confirmed sockpuppetry" rather than "not enough mainspace edits"? Wnt (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Although I understanding the reasoning behind Prioryman's proposal, I am somewhat in agreement with Hammersoft. I see no evidence to prove that NewtonGeek has done anything wrong. All I am seeing is "presumption of guilt" with no tangible evidence to back that up. Where is AGF in this? I also believe it is grossly unfair that NewtonGeek, who is the subject of this discussion, is not even allowed to come here and defend his/her name. This issue has been raised above by Fasttimes68 and I strongly agree with it. Tamsier (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  As far as that's concerned, NewtonGeek appears to be monitoring this discussion and replying to some points on their talk page. I urge all editors paying attention to look in there too. That was me, sorry. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as being beyond the legitimate purview here. If ArbCom decides that the block is improper, I trust it will, sua sponte, remove it. If it is proper, it is not up to us to remove it. In either case, this proposal is thus ill-formed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree with you on the propriety. If this is an ArbCom block, you are correct, of course. But that has not been decided or declared. In the absence of a declaration that this is an ArbCom block, I am treating it as if Risker were acting as an administrator. Per WP:ADMINACCT, any admin must be responsible to the community for any decision they make as an administrator. Obviously ArbCom operates by different rules, but if an arbitrator is operating in an "administrator" capacity rather than "for the Committee," then it is proper for us to review their decisions. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How can this possibly be an ArbCom block. The original block notice says "..If you can convince another admin that..." here is the whole thing from NG talkpage. I am copying the text instead of a diff because it seems to me that many people are commenting without having read it.

NewtonGeek, having reviewed all of your contributions, I note that you have a grand total of 166 edits, of which exactly four are to article space.[1] It appears that you have a mistaken understanding of what Wikipedia is about, and are treating this site as some sort of opinion forum or social website. This is not what Wikipedia is for. It is time for you to move on. I am blocking you indefinitely. Unless you can persuade other administrators that you will restrict yourself to building encyclopedic content in the article space, I do not see a reason for you to continue to participate here. Risker (talk) 9:17 am, Today (UTC−4)

I asked Risker on NG talkpage, in less temperate language, how where another editor chooses to contribute can possibly be any of their buisness. Should I be cowering because I have very few edits? Jbhunley (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

The block is being discussed with the user on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Umm, it appears more that Risker continues to fail to provide evidence of negative behavior by Newton while insisting Newton conform to his demands under pain of not being unblocked. Brad, I respect your previously stated concern about private matters regarding this block. However, Risker is not behaving in a way that confirms this. Risker's behavior is highly objectionable. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  No admin has overturned it thus far: her block. Not a newbie at all, so BITE doesn't apply. No brand-spanking new editor jumps to an Arb page for their second edit. Maybe a "forward observer", but definitely no newbie. Doc talk 05:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, clearly not a newbie. If this was a new editor, I'd be concerned. Given that it clearly isn't, I'm supporting the block until someone comes up with better reasons to unblock. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  If this is correct, and Factseducado edited the other day ... Doc talk 06:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of acting in bad faith

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

---

User:Earl King Jr. is (again) accusing me of acting in bad faith. I filed an ANI on him several weeks ago for the same reason (in addition to the fact that he deleted one of my comments on the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement back then [he has not deleted my comments since then]). He is now repeating his accusations. I warned him to stop but it seems he is ignoring my warning.

[Diff]. Earl's comment accusing me of not acting in good faith, including, among the sea of accusations against me, the highly unusual step of Earl copy-pasting a box from my user page onto the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.

Diff. My comment explaining to Earl that he is again accusing me of not acting in good faith, and warning him to stop.

Diff. Second comment by Earl accusing me of bias and not acting in good faith.

Diff. Third comment by Earl accusing me of bias and not acting in good faith.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

After a quick readthrough of some of the dispute and the DRN open, it appears the problem editor is you, WP:BOOMARANG might be in order, you've been warned MANY times for this kind of behavior, POV pushing, personal attacks... — raekyt 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Um yes, as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#The Zeitgeist Movement demonstrates, IjonTichyIjonTichy simply doesn't understand, or fails to admit to understanding, Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and (hover over link to see the implied joke). Normally, I'd suggest a topic ban, but given that Ijon is the least obnoxious TZM supporter we've had to deal with, I think we may be best advised to put up with him some more - on that basis I propose we flog him repeatedly with a decayed squid, tell him to explain things once not fifty times, and then impose a 100-word limit on each posting he makes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the like button? — Bdb484 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here: Like. (that can be done with {{like}}). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm requesting that an administrator please get involved and notify Earl King Jr. to stop harassing me with his repeated accusations calling me biased and accusing me of acting in bad faith. Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As an admin I have reviewed your request and I decline to take any action against Earl King. His contribs do not amount to harassment and you would be better advised to take some of his advice on board than to reject it as hostility. Questioning you as having a potential COI is an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances. Suggest closing this thread. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The word WP:HARASSMENT has very strict meaning, so be cautious with its use. Also remember, that when you file at ANI, all of your behaviours come under the microscope too ... are you sure you're doing this correctly? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. It doesn't work like that. When admins get involved, they look at the behaviour of all concerned - they don't just do what the complainant says. But then, I'm sure you know that already... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The Garden City Hotel Article

Good afternoon,

I have identified unreliable and unreferenced information that is not verifiable and in conflict with Wikipedia’s terms and conditions. They include:

<Redacted BLP Violation that was being reported> Kindly remove this content from the page. Correctdataservice (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Please discuss this at Talk:Garden City Hotel, as this page is not the proper venue for these particular concerns. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've redacted the report of the violation to avoid further spreading it. The article has been reverted to a clean version again and BLP warnings have been issued. Admin Dougweller has semi-protected the article for a month. Blatant enough BLP violation that the talk page of the article isn't a good place to deal with it. Looks resolved for now. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been taken care of already, it seems. Something that is in need of admin assistance though is to take care of the apparent sock/meat-puppeteering and conflict-of-interest going on there;

• Myrons children (talk · contribs)
• My friend Myron (talk · contribs)
• Friend of Myron (talk · contribs)

Tarc (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion

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

---

The article "Joan Alderson-Rosazza" must be deleted. There was confusion when creating her page. Initially, it was thought that individual was one person. However, There is a "Jody Alderson" and a "Joan Rosazza". I moved "Joan Alderson-Rosazza" to "Jody Alderson". But "Joan Rosazza" is redirecting to "Joan Alderson-Rosazza". "Joan Rosazza" must be an entirely new page (or blank page at the moment), as it is a different person, and not be redirected to "Joan Alderson-Rosazza". Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. Philipmj24 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong location, sorry. Philipmj24 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have now deleted Joan Alderson, Joan Rosazza, and Joan Alderson-Rosazza. If you could double check that everything is right now, that would be great. -- Dianna (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

SPI backlog

Can a few folks with the right tools swing by WP:SPI to help clear up the backlog? At least one of the open cases is a week old. There also appears to be several cases that are closed and waiting for admin action. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the closed cases, the clerks will handle those. Admins are needed to patrol open cases. Much appreciated.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RM bot inactive

This bot, which maintains the list of requested moves, suddenly stopped working after 17:30, 18 July 2012‎. I'm asking this group if anybody knows how to kick start the bot. I recall the bot has been stopped before: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 7#RM bot inactive, but it seems to be a different problem this time. The last request to be processed, Talk:2012 Damascus bombing, seems to have been redirected or moved after its move request was submitted, so possibly may be the culprit that crashed the bot (if it crashed) – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to happen every now and then. Bit irritating, but I'm sure things will be resolved in time. The bot op, HardBoiledEggs, has been notified of the problem. Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Best not to rely on the bot op to fix it, as their last edit on Wikipedia was 18 February 2012 – we could be waiting a long time. The earlier problem I linked to was resolved without the bot operator's help. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As per Wbm1058, the last edit was to 2012 Damascus bombing which has now moved. However, a request I posted yesterday was processed by the bot, just not posted on the RM page. So the bot seems to be partially working still. If 2012 Damascus bombing crashed it, could temporarily recreating the page fix it? I'm thinking of quick fixes as we now have a broken bot without an op, and an increasing backlog. MatthewHaywood (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is perhaps what might be called an edit war between 18 July 2012 Damascus suicide bombing, 18 July 2012 Damascus bombing and July 2012 Damascus bombing. They certainly are not waiting for the RM process to come to consensus before moving and redirecting the article. I don't know for sure if this is the problem, but it is the last request that made it to the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions page. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Three users involved in viscious uncivil and disruptive behaviour

User:Bryonmorrigan, User:W.J.M., and the anonymous user User:66.234.60.131 engaged in repeated uncivil comments, repeated personal attacks, and combative behaviour in complete violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE. These violations of Wikipedia policy can be seen throughout the discussion here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism.

Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. in particular were responsible for driving the discussion into a viscious battleground between them where they both engaged in insulting each other. This unconstructive behaviour was disruptive and renewed combative conversation has started between Bryonmorrigan and the anonymous user 66.234.60.131. Bryonmorrigan has been warned many times in the past to stop his repeated instances of battleground behaviour and use of uncivil comments and personal attacks, he has refused to heed those warnings. W.J.M. was equally irresponsible in responding by fighting fire with fire, replying to Bryonmorrigan with uncivil comments and personal attacks. I recommend that strong disciplinary action be taken, preferably equally to each user - to avoid issues of one user being less disciplined than others - preferably an indefinate block for all the users. If different levels of blocks or warnings are deemed necessary by others, I will accept that.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, upon looking at Bryonmorrigan's talk page where I posted the address for him to arrive here, I noticed another uncivil conversation above on his talk page with a user he was arguing with, in which the user implied to Bryonmorrigan a warning he would get in trouble with his behaviour, to which Bryonmorrigan responded in an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here [128], where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - again revealing Bryonmorrigan's regular grossly uncivil behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since R-41 has provided no edit differences to support his case, I recommend that this discussion thread be closed. No one has actually posted to the Talk:Nazism thread for over a week, and nothing there appears to be incivil, battleground, etc. R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions. TFD (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And since it is your opinion that the reports from R-41 were "numerous" and "baseless" and since I find them neither "numerous" nor "baseless", I suggest your personal battleground with R-41 is showing <g>. Bryopn's styles of saying things like Grow up, and deal with it. You're selling, but nobody's buying (from the talk page cited) is less than helpful. [129] uses a similar style of ad hom argumentation. The defense that Bryon is not a "frequent editor" (only 50 edits/month) does not affect whether or not his behaviour in posts poses a problems of any sort. This does not presuppose what any discussion here will end up at, only that the OP here should be granted the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, give him a generous trout-slapping for the use of 'viscious' in a section heading in an encyclopaedia . There is no such word - see [130] and [131]. Or it this a neologism relating to evil, immoral or depraved actions carried out while immersed in treacle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if everyone would just agree to stop using such colorful langauge and focus on the sources, prose of the article. dilligaf about your opinion of an edit? do you really need to classify a good faith edit as childish, absurd, or really anything? simply make your case or why you revert, site a source, or a wp:dontdothat. reading all the extra text is hindering the progress of the article for some editors, or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

swearing in edit summary

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

---

diff

At first I thought this user was joking but looking through Pelecan Shtzu (talk · contribs)'s edits, this was done for disruptive purposes and may need to be RevDel'd. (And the user blocked as being for vandalism only, especially with that name.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pelecan is either a troll or a vandal, in my opinion. I happened across his edits to Kevin Trudeau yesterday and warned him several times. If he had done it again it would have gone to a level four warning, and then to AIV. I don't think we ought to wait for formalities like that, in this case. Block him and be done with it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I see now that I did give him a level four warning. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, AIV would be the place for that, but I've blocked them. No RevDel as it doesn't come close to meeting the criteria imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Continuing disruptive behavior by User:Earl King Jr.

User:Earl King Jr. is continuing to attack me and continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith. I filed an ANI regarding his disruptive behavior only a few hours ago, and I also filed yet another AN/I on his personal attacks several weeks ago (the first AN/I was also due to the fact he deleted one of my comments on the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.

His behavior continues to constitute WP:HARASSMENT. He is intentionally targeting me, and his purpose is to make me feel intimidated, to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine me, to frighten me, and to discourage me from editing.

He has been increasingly emboldened by the fact that almost no action was taken against him on the two previous ANI's. The closing of the ANI a few hours ago was especially hasty and erroneous. Earl's comments constitute uncivil and disruptive behavior and create a nasty, ugly atmosphere and environment on both the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement and on the on-going DRN. On the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, Earl openly discussed the material in my user page, which is irrelevant, because WP policies clearly limit the discussion on article Talk pages to focus exclusively on the topic of the article. As if discussing my user page is not bad enough, Earl took the extremely unusual, irrelevant and highly offensive step of copy-pasting a box from my user page directly onto the TZM article talk page. He then called me "a member advocate of Zeitgeist", "Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist," "Your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate." Thus Earl has repeatedly attacked me and accused me of acting in bad fate. And he repeated his attacks five more times on the current, on-going DRN for the Zeitgeist movement. His most-recent attack is particularly nasty, ugly and offensive.

(My edits on The Zeitgeist Movement were based on an editorial (content) disagreement with him and were not sufficient reason for him to attack me personally, and his repeated attacks are definitely not "an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances" as the administrator who closed the previous AN/I erroneously said. As can be seen from the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, the specific content dispute between Earl and me was resolved practically instantly when editor Bbb23, who has firmly established his credentials as a fair, impartial, and reasonable arbiter on several preceding content disputes between Earl (and several other editors) and me, intervened again. I fully accepted all of Bbb23's recommendations and reverted all my edits.)

I'm requesting that an administrator take action against Earl to put a stop to his harassing me.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where any action is necessary. I think Earl acted in good faith with this comment and focused on Ijon's contributions and not Ijon as a person. There is no obligation for Wikipedia editors to sugar-coat constructive criticism they give. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no constructive criticism. There is an on-going series of comments intended to harass me, pure and simple. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple question. Are you a member of, or do you advocate for, the Zeitgeist Movement? And if not, why do you state that you do on your user page? You have apparently voluntarily chosen to make this information known, so why do you object to people commenting on it? In the recent ANI discussion, I suggested that a topic ban on you might not be the best course of action, but am beginning to wonder whether I was mistaken. Can you point to anything in Wikipedia policy that makes pointing out that someone has a userbox indicating an affiliation with the subject of an article constitutes 'harassment'? As for you being 'frightened', I have to ask how someone who apparently advocates the abolition of capitalism, a fundamental reshaping of the economic system, and a complete shift in the locus of political power expects to bring this about without suffering from at minimum the occasional personal insult? You are familiar with the writings of Marx (or at least, you claim to be), and you are no doubt familiar with past history in regard to previous attempts (no matter how flawed) to bring about such changes. Do you really expect such change to come about without any signs of personal antagonism? Is TZM really that clueless, or is it just you? Either way, I suggest you either accept that political advocacy of necessity requires a thick skin, or find another cause to promote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ijon, did you not notice that the last ANI basically you barely escaped a topic ban or some other administrative action, with another frivolous ANI hours later if WP:BOOMARANG doesn't apply now, I'd be highly surprised. A topic ban might now be in order, to give you a little time to contemplate your behavior and learn how to get along with people of different views. — raekyt 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem getting along with other people. And I'm not the one doing the personal attacks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're just practicing WP:TE and WP:IDONTHEARYOU and other disruptive editing behaviors right? WP:HARRASMENT is very clearly defined, and noone except you thinks he's violating it. Just because someone disagrees with you and starts to get frustrated at your relentless repetitive behavior is not harassment. — raekyt 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to reread this and reconsider your claim of not doing personal attacks? —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment you are referring to has not been posted on an article talk page or a DRN, like Earl's comments. It is an attempt to provide constructive feedback to an administrator whom I feel has made a mistake, and was posted on the administrator's talk page. Yes, AndyTheGrump has posted ugly, mean-spirited, disgusting, invective-filled, offensive, childish and juvenile comments on the current DRN regarding The Zeitgeist Movement. (His first few comments on the DRN were great, but got progressively worse. And by the way his comment above regarding 'thick skin' is very good, insightful and helpful.) And did Earl ever finalize his "feedback" to me with civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes, like I've done in the comment you are referring to? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be "civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes" such as " You still have a long way to go before you become a good administrator"? Are you out of your mind? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"My best wishes for you, I hope you continue to grow and learn and develop as an administrator, and especially learn from your mistakes. Take good care and regards" IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The "ugly, mean-spirited" string is what I wanted to point out: starting this ANI thread over personal attacks really looks like the pot calling the kettle black. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How would you characterize comments such as "bollocks", "By implying that there was a link between L. Susan Brown and TZM, other than the one in your head? Or can I add a link to David Icke to to the article too, because former goalkeepers who think the world is run by shape-shifting lizards are under-represented both in Wikipedia and in TZM (or at least, I hope they are...)?" "We aren't the slightest bit interested in your bullshit," "you clearly have some intelligence, try to be a little more creative at least". Andy's comments were disruptive to the DRN discussion (e.g. my exchange with Judith, with whom I got along just fine and had a productive exchange with). And again keep in mind I did not post my comment on the TZM article's talk page or the DRN but only to point out to an admin. that he may have missed the 'bigger picture' in making, I believe, a hasty decision. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred, Andy, and Raeky for providing feedback and for your insights. All your comments and recommendations will help me become a better WP editor (and more), and especially Andy's first comment above, which is full of truth and wisdom. Truth, knowledge and understanding are not easy to come by, and wisdom is especially rare. Thank you all (especially Andy). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

[p.s. Your comments motivated me to delete the comment I posted on the talk page of Kim Dent-Brown, the administrator for yesterday's AN/I. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)]

Proposal

I think that this has now gone on far too long - IjonTichyIjonTichy clearly either doesn't understand why he is getting to be a pain in the nether regions, or doesn't care. As an involved party, I should probably leave this to someone else, but it seems to me that the result is a foregone conclusion, and therefore propose that IjonTichyIjonTichy be topic-banned from any articles relating to The Zeitgeist Movement, to Peter Joseph, to The Venus Project, and to any other matters concerning politics or economics which might, loosely construed, be seen as related to the policies of TZM, until IjonTichyIjonTichy demonstrates through his contributions to Wikipedia on unrelated issues that he is competent to contribute constructively to the project as a neutral and constructive editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Since I don't think he's malicious in his intent but just unaware. This should be a temporary topic ban maybe only one month, then he goes on a strict zero revert, and any more of this kind of behavior would make the ban permanent, maybe also forced mentoring. — raekyt 04:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - yes 'unawareness' (or a reluctance to admit to being aware) may well be the fundamental problem - which is why a time-limited topic-ban would make little sense in my opinion. What is needed is for IjonTichyIjonTichy to demonstrate such awareness in the context of articles with less personal involvement. He clearly is a person of some intelligence, and as I've argued before, is preferable to some of the other TZM advocates/spin merchants that Wikipedia has had to deal with - but by all evidence is incapable of changing his behaviour as long as an alternative course is available. A time-limited topic ban will merely postpone the inevitable, as far as I can see. If he is a net liability to the project now (as I'd argue is self-evident), I can see no obvious reason why the mere elapse of time would change this - we need him to change his behaviour, so why not make this need explicit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support One month as well, though I suspect he will be blocked by then. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

IP asking editors for private e-mail addresses

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

---

The anon IP 131.239.63.5 has gone around to at least a couple dozen editors so far today (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.239.63.5) asking each of them some variation of:

I cannot discuss the matter here on your talk page, but if you would email me at uno1dos2tres3quatro4@gmail.com (or simply post your email address below this message) I would greatly appreciate it.

It seems like some sort of scam. At the very least, it's odd and suspicious. I'll let the IP know about this discussion. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it is odd. IP has been blocked before for socking; blocked again for two weeks. They can explain on their talk page, or email me at my secret account. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Ang Kapatiran

Would somebody take a look at this article about a political party in the Philippines? It looks like somebody is just reproducing the party literature. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shootings

Standard notice about a recent event that will likely draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article. --Rschen7754 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's our policy in order to inform readers that it may not be up to date. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Stungrenade

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

---

User appears to be wiki-stalking me and exhibits strange, erratic behaviour. My guess is this user is a previously blocked user considering how much they know about how WP works. Two blatant edit summary violations here [phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stungrenade&diff=503254818&oldid=503254530] and here [132] making a blatantly false report about my username here [133] Vandalism which the user tried to "justify" here [134]. (Not entirely sure why some of the links wont work, may have to copy paste xD) --Τασουλα (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Stungrenade has vandalized multiple times (that's what the warnings or alleged stalking is about). Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose an indefinite block here, as Stungrenade appears to be a vandalism-only account. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's this users erratic behaviour and accusations of slander and libel that worry me the most. Per WP:DUCK this user is most likely a user who has been blocked in the past. And yes, I agree - a permanent block. The users ridiculous attitude warrants one too I think. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Τασουλα

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

---

From the moment I joined up today, user:Τασουλα has not left me alone. The user continues to make innapropriate comments towards me on my talkpage here, which include slanderous accusations of being a blocked user here and here as well, before removing a valid complaint I have made about his username here, note please, the continuation of his abuse and slander in the edit summary. I now feel threatened by this user, as after less than an hour of being registered on this site, he continues to hound me for spurious and unprovable reasons. I request that action be taken to prevent his abuse. Stungrenade (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're hilarious. I cannot believe you are accusing -me- of wikistalking you. And it is obvious you are a previously blocked user. --Τασουλα (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing with your slander and harrassment on this page? You truely know no limits to your hatred of me, do you? Stungrenade (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Further slander and lies from this user have been added to the username report. [user claims I have said things which I never did]. Stungrenade (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He is not stalking you. It's called a vandalism warning. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hatred? I'm following standard procedure, something you are not. I am not slandering you and I do not hate you. Your behaviour is erratic. My original issue with you was with your vandalism over at ITN/C which you got a standard warning for. You removed this as vandalism which is a violation of edit summaries and not assuming good faith. You then went on to file a false report about my user-name. You then admitted it was a false report and when I removed it as such, you restored it even after admitting it was false. You then proceed to accuse me of libel and slander which is completely untrue. It is blatantly obvious you are a user that has been blocked in the past per WP:DUCK. Again, stop with the slander nonsense. You did admit it was a false report! You even apologised, thou I doubt that was sincere. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have never, ever "admitted" anything to this user, he is continuing to lie through his teeth. I have never "apologised" for anything either. I am now genuinely fearful for my offline safety, if this user can so easily come up with such blatant and outragous lies about me, what could he do given access to my personal information? Stungrenade (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

[135] I REST my case. This is getting really boring now. I have not threatened you in anyway. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And you failed to apologise for your wide slander and abuse, so I came here. I guess reading and comprehension aren't your strong point. Shame really, they would be much better talents than your current hatred and grudge holding. Stungrenade (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No abuse. No slander. I am trying to go through standard procedure but you are making it difficult. And that's just a personal attack in regards to my literacy skills. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

All you have done is abuse me. And until you can actually provide evidence that I have had an account here before (which is not true whatsoever), it is slander. It is also not a personal attack to point out the shortcommings in your reading skills. Stungrenade (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Convencience links: This edit by Stungrenade most certainly appears to be vandalism, Stungrenade later defends these as edits as "correct", and labels Τασουλα's {{Uw-vandalism1}} warning as vandalism. I can't judge the merrit of this and the previous edit by both parties. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• The one edit Stungrenade made in which he wasn't harassing Τασουλα, is blatant vandalism. Obvious vandal/troll who is getting way too much attention here. Just block and be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if that edit was a little too...hasty Sgeureka. I've tried to handle this in the best way I can but it is extremely difficult. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your apology did not cover the slanderous comments you continue to make about me, the harrassment you have subjected me to, the lies you have propogated about me and the generally hostile attitude you have had towards me from the second I became a target for your venom. Stungrenade (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

... really, that's enough with the "I hate you" comments... I don't hate anyone... --Τασουλα (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you do. There is no reason for you, an experienced editor to be targetting me, someone who is brand new to this site and who just wants to improve it for the benefit of everyone else. Stungrenade (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly not a new editor! Your first contribution here was nothing but vandalism and all you're doing now is wasting everyone's time. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Prove it. Prove that I have had an account here before. You can't, because it isn't true. Until you can do so, you are slandering me. Something which needs to stop right now. Stungrenade (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"WP:DUCK" - that is my sole basis for this. I have not just come up with it because I have something against you. You have a lovely day now. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest an indef block as a disruption only account. Clearly a returning user (though who exactly, is not clear.) First edit was a reversing of four people's votes at a discussion and all others have followed from that and demonstrate close familirity with WP processes. I'd block myself, but am currently on a machine that doesn't have Firefox to give me easy access to the tools. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Stungrenade for a week for disruptive editing. I am happy to extend or shorten the block according to consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A week? What kind of arbitrary length of time is that? All the disruption happened within 2 hours. Just block indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A week seems about right, considering the circumstance. Likely not to be the last block, but we should assume good faith in all things and give everyone a second chance to contribute. Still not holding my breath. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

...And we can try to match this sock in the meantime, which would change everything....Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's standard procedure to start off with a non-indef blocked. I'm off to spend time in my garden ^_^, and apologies if I didn't handle this as well as I could of to all those involved. I actually have this distinct feeling that I've dealt with this editor before but under a different username. I have no idea why I get this feeling. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Zip. Although I was going to propose an indefinite block, we'll see what happens in a week. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice goodbye message. Yeah I really want this guy back in a week.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Indeffed per these two personal attacks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've revoked his talk page access for continued personal attacks. See? The system works. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you got there a second before I did. Ah well, drama over - back to building an encyclopedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging and User talk:Merbabu

talk and talk have been censoring (in my opinion) just about all of my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966 in the "Foreign involvement and reaction" section as the history shows. All gone. When reasoning is given it is often for more than questionable reasons. They will come up with any excuse no matter how ridiculous or shaky to remove content they dont like. Any information that can be considered embarrassing to the United States government is removed and when they finnally leave my contributions alone they flag it with "undue weight" and "neutrality" tags. I tried to compromise with them after I realized that my reactions to their behavior were out of line. They complained that I was using too many quotes so I paraphrased it but they would not accept anything less than removal of relevant information directly based declassified US government documents. They like to try to find loopholes and exploit the system in order to be able to engage in censorship. In other words, they arbitrarily try to use the rules to intimidate people away from contributing to the page. They look for any opportunity to do so. It is difficult not to question their motives because it's so obvious. They are relentless. Their records speak for themselves. They are clearly on a mission to sanitize pages involving the US government. Furthermore, talk erased ALL my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration . and I worked on it for over a month.

Anyways, I am confidant that their censorship is so obvious that I can spare you the details here. Thank you for your time.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Horhey420, I added your report to a new section and made a direct link to the users in questions talk' pages. You also need to notify the two users of your report. Lovely day now. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they've been notified. Thank you.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Horhey on one thing, the record does speak for itself, but just not quite the Horhey believes. The above complaint is so ludicrous that I choose not to respond further unless another editor has something to say about it. As I said, the record speaks for itself. --Merbabu (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You can follow the discussion Merbabu, I, and SatuSuro had with Horhey here, here, and here. I believe you will find that we tried very hard to deal with his personal attacks, disruptive editing, and POV. I would also suggest that you look here for an example of Horhey responding in a paranoid and vituperative manner to innocuous requests, and here for general concerns editors have had with him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend a close reading of the article and the diffs SatuSuro 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging Your record is pretty dismal. Id rather be a hot head than a censor. But as you know, my attitude has changed since I read the rules.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, remember your audience has just got a look bigger now that you've posted here. --Merbabu (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb keeps restoring articles that got redirected per AfD consensus

These articles have all been redirected via AfDs:

• Thessalmonster (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thessalmonster)
• Kopru ‎(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopru)
• Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons))
• Jermlaine (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jermlaine)
• Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (Dungeons & Dragons))
• Astral dreadnought (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astral dreadnought)‎
• Athach ‎(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athach)

Yet User:Joefromrandb apparently decided to unilaterally restore all these articles (examples: [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142] ) apparently labelling all attempts to enforce AfD consensus as "disruptive", and not making any attempt at discussing, or contacting the users who took part to the AfDs, that I can think of (article talk pages remain empty). Joefromrandb is now revert-warring to push his POV, and is responding neither to mentions of the AfD results ([143]) nor to links to the AfD archived discussions ([144]). I can't see how the user could be reasoned with, since the slightest mention to previous AfDs earns me a "rvt disruption" edit summary from him, and so I ask a temporary block for Joefromrandb.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not just asking for a block. He has guaranteed me I will be blocked if I "ever again touch any of the articles he mentioned". It takes two to tango; Folken is at 3 reverts himself on most of these pages. As I too am at 3 reverts on some, I have stopped reverting, and have sought outside assistance. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you have stopped reverting - that saves the need for anyone to ask you to do so. The other user is correct that when an article has been through an AFD process, and the outcome was "delete" or "redirect", it is not permissible to simply recreate the article as if the AFD did not occur. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athach. Please respect the AFD consensus, or start a discussion in an appropriate forum if you feel that the situation with respect to a particular article has changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't recreate anything. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have restored those that had not been restored, and full-protected all the redirects listed above. Yes, a block is guaranteed if Joe continues down this path (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then go ahead and indulge yourself, by all means. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)