Misplaced Pages

I'd probably agree to that were it not for the fact that this is hardly the first time Ihardlythinkso has had serious battleground issues, including multiple blocks for it. Given the latest round of wild accusations towards me and Toddst1, I don't see that he's learned anything at all, and I certainly don't think the problem is just going to go away; that's what I tried last night, and it lead to the aforementioned threads on each others' talkpages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principal, that Ihardlythinkso went too far and got emotionally involved and over the line. I've been on the exact same side of the stick, with the same editor, I fully understand. I'm not ignoring or excusing it. Blocking is an option, but I don't think it is the best option because it is likely to antagonize the situation rather than resolve it. This makes it a no-win scenario, and I don't like to block if it isn't going to really resolve anything. It just feels dirty. That doesn't stop you from doing so, but I would encourage everyone to accept that some editors are a little more emotional but worthwhile contributors, and for us to try just a little harder to work it out, that is all. I've added a note to a conversation that Ihardlythinkso and I are having on my talk page, and just consider my intervention as one last effort to try to find resolution peacefully. I'm not going to interfere, I only hope to find a better solution if it is possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me understand: suggesting MO that Blade & Toddst1 are "admin-friends", constitutes "wild accusations", is emotional and "over the line", and is valid basis for a block? Also, my two past blocks keep being referred to here, as they are some sort of Gold Standard, when they were both from the hand of User:Toddst1, the second of which was overturned by Arbcom, in addition to other actions taken by Toddst1 against me (removal of my WP Email access while blocked) that were extraordinary and unjustified. And Dennis, my purpose of our past dialogues was to show that you are "not perfect" in case there was any danger in your thinking you were (because, everybody seems to compliment you, and as human being, that can easily cause a puffed-up self-image). That is not the same kind of thing here, where I'm defending, where User:The Blade of the Northern Lights seems to be hard bent to hang me high. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, my indefinite block of IHTS for "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" was not overturned - The user was unblocked per appeal to arbcom after a month. Upon being unblocked, IHTS was noticed that "nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." This is an important fact that IHTS seems to have lost and would do well to take to heart instead of fabricating conspiracies and projecting repeated problems onto others. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1, first, I was not "noticed" what you quoted. (What you quoted is news to me. Did Arbcom say this? Can you give me a link on my Talk, please.) All I was told, a day or so after my appeal, was that I was "free to edit". Second, for the record, the month time duration you mention, was my choice, no one else's. Third, please drop any notion of accusing me of "fabricating conspiracies", ok? (Unless you want to get into that, I don't, in which case I'm likely to ask you to specify what multiple conspiracies you are talking about, etc.) Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. To be clear about this, you indef'd me, I appealed to Arbcom, I was not noticed, I was told a day after my appeal that I was "free to edit" (no restrictions given). That is what I meant by your indef block being "overturned by Arbcom". (Is there some kind of "Misplaced Pages legalese" going on here re term "overturned". Because if so, I didn't and don't know about it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I took a month before appealing, is that I wasn't sure I wanted to return to WP at all, back into what I perceived an abusive environment. My unblock appeal contained my contention at the outset that IMO your block was excessive and inappropriate. You also removed my Misplaced Pages Email privilege while blocked, a measure that I understand is done only under the most extraordinary of abuse circumstance. There was no abuse by me of Email to any degree at any time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I will reply below to keep this somewhat readable. Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And I still think you could have chosen some of your words more carefully and are creating problems for yourself by not admitting it. Blade is a good guy, he is human, so he is fallible, but I've always known him to try to do the right thing, and he is likely frustrated because you have been more than a little rude to him. I also know you are good guy, fallible, and a bit oversensitive at times. My goal here is simply to lower the drama level and deal with the issues, which looking over the previous ANI, is due in part to a sharp tongue. We don't have to agree with each other. Hell, we don't even have to like each other. We DO have to get along with each other, and you know that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)And on that note, which I fully endorse, can everyone please drop the stick? Perhaps tossing fish of various sizes and quantities around first? - Jorgath (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well Dennis, if you think Blade is a good guy, that is good enough for me. To Blade: I'm sorry that I got snarky with you. I didn't enjoy being compared to a 10-yr. old, and decided to hit back with snarkiness. Sorry.

Dennis, if you now tell me that the additional admin also deserves apology, I will draw the line. (Because that admin, took pains to "bury me six feet under", and "tighten screws to my coffin". The measures were extraordinary, and reversed with the help of Arbcom. It was an experience that is hard to forget.

Dennis, I'll even agree about being "oversensitive" to someone crossing me with unfair stuff. (But you know what? That is relative. That is relative to the current environment here at WP. A nasty & hostile environment that evolved to its current state, long before I came along as 1+ years editor. I am not responsible for the environment here, where false accusations fly overhead like a busy airport, nor am I trying to "correct it" . But I have a hard time too, just "sitting and taking it". )

Dennis, what's troublesome here too, is there is a bias to look first, and usually *only*, at the "behavior" of a lowly user. And not the behavior of, say, the admins. (Implication: IMO, a good case, a very good case, could be made against the admins involved here, for incivilities, for "crossing the line", for rudeness, for snarkiness, etc. But, that seems to ... not count at all in the world of English WP. Admins we're told, are just other editors, with extra tools. Not true. They are given more rope to be ... anyway they wish to be ... with *much* less incentive. Because, to block an admin is against the admin-corps motto. It is a stacked deck for the typical editor, producing a demeaning, intimidating environment. I am not the only one who has made these observations. Specifically, when blocks are given, there is some sort of assumption, that the block is always valid, and the blocked user must "confess" or be slaughtered. It is one of the most abusive aspects of WP in existence, IMO, and colors even the dialogue here.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I accept that there is some bad blood between you and Toddst1 and allow for it. I haven't looked into it, but frustration from an admin that blocks someone (particularly if it is overturned) is not uncommon and I have no desire or need to inject myself in that history. We still have to get along or avoid each other when possible, which is likely the best solution. Blade's comments in closing the previous ANI were a bit strong but not altogether unfounded as there was plenty of snark before the close. I see a lot of positive attributes in you, but I'm not blind and I see a degree of defensiveness and bitterness that I think sometimes clouds your judgement. It does not serve you well. As for admins who err, all I can say is they don't go unnoticed. They may not get drug out in ANI, but I can promise you that they are not ignored, and I take a personal interest in them and have reviewed every case that has been dropped on my talk page. In this case, however, abuse clearly isn't an issue, and everyone just got a bit oversensitive, including Blade, Todd and you, after a frustrating ANI report. I would conclude that you all need to just drop the stick and stay off each other's talk pages for a long while. We're all good people here, we just piss each other off every now and then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you think you can handle this without blocking, I'm all for it. Hopefully it can work out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I will continue to follow up with him, and appreciate your trust in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm not the one choosing to continue this. Toddst1 has made additional comments here, and at my Talk. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I remain more convinced about you too, Toddst1. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought you meant that Arbcom "noticed" me, and there was a technical aspect about term "overturned" that I was unawares. But now you say the "noticed" was a message User:Guy Macon wrote. That editor was not involved in any way whatever with my appeal to Arbcom. His opinion about anything related has no weight, he does not represent Arbcom, only his own editor opinions, and, I've no interest in his opinions, sorry. (I see on his Talk you have now encouraged him to join the discussion here. What is the point, Toddst1? To bait me? I have had disputes with this user in the past, I'm sure you know. Is it your intention to inflame the situation?) Regarding responsibility, I have no problem with it. I have no idea what "actions" you feel I haven't "taken responsibility for". But I'm not interested at this point to continue the discussion, which everyone but you has been trying to shut down. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to put above quote by me in context. I was responding to the following quite reasonable question:

"If CIV is *sometimes* enforced, isn't that a trap whereby blocking Admins will use when they "want" to, and a chaotic non-uniformity of enforcement results like a Wild West of favoritism and prejudice gone berzerk?"

My response was:

"WP:CIVIL should be equally applied. That being said, it looks like you are making a "He was uncivil and got away with it so its OK for me to be uncivil" argument. No. You are not allowed to be uncivil no matter what other editors do. If someone is getting away with something, report them. Do not respond with incivility.

That is not what I said at all. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Although arbcom lifted the indefinite block (and I agree; a 48 hour block would have been more appropriate) nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again. If, on the other hand, you start taking WP:CIVIL seriously you will be in a good position to report anyone who isn't civil without fear of WP:BOOMERANG and they will get blocked."

That was and still is good advice for Ihardlythinkso, or for anybody in a conflict. Be responsible for your own actions, and don't blame anyone else for them. Make sure your own behavior is squeaky clean before accusing others. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how patronising that is. I have no problem with "responsibility". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I hope with the diff I presented and IHTS response, it was well in context (which was my intent).

Responding to IHTS comment "everyone but you has been trying to shut down" - actually, the only person that has suggested shutting this discussion down to date is Dennis. Blade, Jasper and I have each recommended blocking you for continued disruption - specifically TE and BATTLE. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1, I think you overlooked User:Jorgath's comments at 20:27. And it doesn't surprise me, the three editors you named, I've had disputes w/ Jasper, obviously you've blocked me twice, and Blade has been discussed earlier. (But it seemed, at least to me, Blade was interested to shut down too. By his remarks to Dennis. You seem to be interpreting differently.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Alas, Ihardlythinkso's comments like "you know what? That is relative." and his praise of another editor for "returning as good as he got" tells me that he has learned nothing and still believes that "He misbehaved so its OK for me to misbehave" is a valid argument. The problem is that we as a community cannot tolerate anyone who follows that principle. There will always be someone else who misbehaves. To be a Misplaced Pages editor requires a willingness to follow our policies even when other editors violate them. I just don't see how Ihardlythinkso can contribute unless he agrees to that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You misread that, Macon. What I did write is that I differed with Malleus in his approach of "giving as good as I got", and that I don't myself follow that approach, when faced with incivility. I don't recommend Malleus's approach, I think it just enflames things. But ethically, Malleus has his point, too. (Malleus is a very smart man.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So you fully agree with and promise to comply with WP:CIVIL even in situations where other editors fail to do so? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. The most that can be reasonably humanly expected. (But what about yourself, User:Guy Macon? Do you see yourself as "always civil"? Because I have an off-Wiki list of 15 things you've done toward this editor, now 16, that were far from civil. I can back up what I say, if you happen to be sometime interested.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Macon, please tell, is this an example of your respect for WP:CIVIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

This comment about Guy after your offer appears to be a defacto rejection. Very creative and constructive offer though. Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1, I've no idea who you're addressing, or what you're message is. (But I'm really not interested in clarification, either.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

28, of course I am interested in you to close this. It was never my desire or intent, to eat up anyone's time or attention here. User:ChessPlayerLev opened the ANI, and started listing a series of false accuses. I started to respond to some, in self-defence. User:Nobody Ent closed, at that point my only problem was with summary comments made by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. It's my understanding the thing to do in that case is to go to the user's Talk. I registered my view there. Ever since, it's been a piling on here, with editors I've had past disputes with, calling for "hang him high". Toddst1 has instigated the continuation of the thread, and introduced further enflaming that is unnecessary and unhelpful. In addition, I'm still confused why admins did not object to this being at ANI in the first place. (User:ChessPlayerLev shows lack of experience with several WP practices including WP:BRD, understanding WP:RS, civility, how to offer argumentation in content disputes, and even on this thead, how to write a section title. I've read time after time that ANI is to be used as "last resort" only when resolving issues. Why did no admin point this out to ChessPlayerLev?) Instead the opening has been used as a convenient opportunity for a piling-on, by editors I've had disputes with in the past. (Save Blade, whom I've just "met".) And this kind of thing, is not seen as aggressive and uncivil? There have been many things written in this thread that are completely irresponsible and unfair to me, meanwhile accusations of "bad behavior" and "irresponsibility" are comments and accuses I'm supposed to take at face value?!

You're asking me if I'd be "willing to pledge to stop commenting on other editors completely for the forseeable future". The way I translate that, is that you want to be sure if you close this, that, what?, I won't go to these users' Talks, and make comments? Or that I won't make comments elsewhere, about these users? Please let me make something clear. I don't initiate. I only respond. (The ANI was opened with false accuses. I responded. I had issue with Blade's summary remarks. I responded on his Talk. Toddst1 has contributed inflammatory material here, I've responded. User:Guy Macon has done ditto, I responded.) I have no interest in these users, to make comments about them. But when they initiate attacks on me, I've responded. Can you ask them to ... I think you know what! The environment at WP is an extremely hostile one, and, the thread here is proof for anyone to see. I have no interest in getting "into it" with any of these users. (I do have an interest in the quality of article Three-dimensional chess, which was recently rail-roaded into deprecated state by an overly-enthusiastic anon. User:Guy Macon seems to take a continued interest there against me, even though he never updated that article before he went there as a dispute resolution volunteer, and even though he wasn't a member of ProjChess until after that point also. He seems to want to defend the anon user at all costs, and explicitly against me, which IMO, is called at WP "enabling Randy". The environment at WP is quite dysfunctional generally, and small examples like this illustrate it vividly. I've been treated deeply uncivil my User:Guy Macon, in 16 ways I can name, yet, this seems to mean nothing at WP. Is there any wonder, why good content contributors leave WP? I was only 1+ years editor here, and improving my contributions. This kind of hostile environment, so painfully obvious that it is, is something I can barely fathom. Please close this immediately. Thank you. p.s. Thanks to Dennis too. And thank you too, to an admin who never showed up to pile on me: User:Bwilkins, whom I suspected might, but didn't ... so now I have a greater abiding respect of that admin! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problems were summarised fairly well a year ago by EdJohnston 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 Misplaced Pages 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! . 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. See also this review article for a different view on the subject: Nature Reviews Genetics: . 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: ]. 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. 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! . 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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): 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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?"

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

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

Denial that the topic is controversial

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

Arguing to have specific criticisms of heritability methods excluded:

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

Arguing that it has not in fact been discredited: but followed by acknowledgement of the non-quantifiable nature of twin studies: , 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 Misplaced Pages 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: 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 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 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: . 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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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: Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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 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  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 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)

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. 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, on Talk:War in October 2011, , 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 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) 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. Misplaced Pages 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: ) 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. New Misplaced Pages editors are according to research "entering an environment that is increasingly challenging, critical, and/or hostile to their work". 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 Misplaced Pages Community, as often is the case with groups, is becoming increasingly conformist and increasingly hostile and intolerant to views other than the "correct" Misplaced Pages view on the world. Editors with other views than the single "correct" Misplaced Pages 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: 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: 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)

• 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: 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.

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. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Margofilop

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

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

I suggest a temp block or something.

Thanks very much.

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

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

• My message failed to impress make an impression on the user. Blocked for 24 hours. Tiderolls 23:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC) My original wording was much more flip than I intended.

Oh, I'm being careful. Thanks again.

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

Copyvios are explicitly an exception to 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Nyttend, but there was bit of slap 'n tickle antecedent to the copyvio. Nothing egregious in my view, but it could've gotten sticky very easily. Tiderolls 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I popped over to commons an put an OTRS pending tag on the image. I also left a note on the commoms OTRS board. The commons talk page on the image says that the email has been sent. Would the blocking admin consider an unblock if the editor agrees to not put the image back in until OTRS approval?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would only entertain an unblock discussion if the user exhibits an understanding of the situation combined with a confirmation that the OTRS team is actually working on the situation. Margofilop has zero talk page edits; this may not be the root of their problem, but not responding to messages is a significant alarm signal for me. Tiderolls 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. The email may not exist for the one image that is in OTRS. I feel you can close this admin section now. Margofilop may have had a quick education about wp and commons and I think we can just hint to them again if there are more problems. I myself am assuming good faith on their part that the email was sent. I added the file name to the OTRS notice board at commons in case they get a strange email from Aus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

•  Done. The image is approved by OTRS now and all parties are happy with it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Airport articles

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

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

Range 58.97.192.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked); range 180.149.0.0/19 (up to 8192 users would be blocked): There's lots of edits coming from both of these ranges; they're not all your airport guy, and lots of them are constructive edits, so range blocks will not be practicable. In my opinion the way to go would be to protect the individual airport articles that are being targeted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read my message again. Semi-protecting a page hasn't worked. Once the semi-protection expires, the user starts vandalizing the page again. In the meantime the user will just go and find other airport articles to vandalize, and it's impractical to go semi-protect all of them. Just block the user please. The reason why I was suggesting a range-block was because the IP address the vandalism comes from always changes slightly. But perhaps that's overkill. Again, I would like you to do nothing but block the user. Semi-protecting the articles simply does not work, but blocking will. Thanks, Compdude 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate entirely that it's long-term and very frustrating whack-a-rat for you guys, when you'd rather be contributing new content. But if the vandal skips over the ranges you describe, we'd have to long-term block over 24,000 addresses, and we just can't do that. We've no more power or insight than you do over who the individual is, all we see is the same IP addresses. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If this continues, I'd suggest requesting blocks on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Airports' talk page. Maybe some of the admins there can work together to manage these? In any case Shahjalal is now protected for a longer period of time. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please just block the IP addresses that have vandalized Shahjalal Airport page and others. Keep in mind that there are multiple pages that have been vandalized and it's impractical to semi-protect all of them because the user will find other pages to vandalize. Trust me, he will. For the fifth time, just block the user! Enough with semi-protecting pages; block the user! As I said previously, go thru the history of the page and that of Shah Amanat International Airport (another page that's been vandalized) and block all the vandalizing IP addresses. Block 'em! Thanks, Compdude 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, so since Vegaswikian has brought this discussion over to the Wikiproject Airports talk page, let's continue this discussion there in order to keep the comments in one place. From now on, if you wish to comment on this discussion, please put your comments on the WP:Airports talk page. This will help to keep all comments in one place. Thanks, Compdude 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP with several IP addresses abruptly changes lede of article

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

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

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

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

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

So ... following WP:DR, your next step would probably be WP:RFPP to protect the page? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then again, it might just be a content dispute where multiple other editors (I am neither User:Stevertigo nore User:Pfhorrest) have identified that the article lede is simply substandard for an encyclopedia such as WP. Steve Quinn is clinging to a false notion that there is a consensus version when there is no such thing. He evidently believes that he's a lexicographer and has a better definition for what Time is than any English language dictionary of repute. He just cannot handle the principal definition of the word in Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary, and the OED. For Steve Quinn, time cannot be a phenomenon, it can only be defined in terms of measurement which is extremely non-neutral POV. Anyone who doggedly clings to their POV of a fundamental concept like Time, who cannot yield to the dictionary definition when their POV is challenged, has a problem regarding POV. Does not cut it with the second pillar of the project. 71.169.190.154 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For whatever my opinion is worth, I've been watching and discussing and now recently beginning to participate in this content dispute and have found nothing egregiously wrong with these anon IP edits either in the article or in the talk page, though several things strike me as wrong with Steve Quinn's edits; but none of it is anything serious enough to warrant escalation to ANI in my opinion.

The anon IP has a made well-written and well-cited edits to the article and Steve has flatly reverted them on insubstantial grounds like "consensus" (even as a very active discussion takes place on the talk page and Steve and other editors continue to make changes to the article reflecting that discussion); meanwhile Steve's own edits to the article have been haphazard and conversational in tone. Likewise, the anon IP's threaded response on the talk page is not at all an unprecedented format, and Steve has shown a misunderstand of the relevance of indentation to threading himself in at least one response.

This looks like crying wolf to me, an unnecessary escalation bypassing simpler steps of the dispute resolution process, and I would ask that RFPP or other admin action not be granted, at least not without consulting the other active editors on the page who are still hashing things out. Things are in an unstable state but certainly under control over there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As shown by my initial complaint dispute resolution with this anonymous IP has been tried over and over and failed. This person seems to be unresponsive. This can be seem by the numerous recent threads on the talk page where the IP has not participated.

During this latest discussion the IP arbritrarily changed the lede while all the other editors have been working on it . The IP is not making well cited edits and uses undue weight instead. I am not sure what "haphazard" Pfhorrest is referring to. I have been consistently editing the Time article along with the other editors involved for about a week or so. My editing has been consistent (hardly haphazard). I have also actively particpated in the multiple discussions that have been generated on the talk page.

I would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is . The anonymous IP was also WP:Canvassing pertaining to this round of editing , , . Although I admit the last diff doesn't look like much. However, if it is combined with the diff at User talk:Pfhorrest and the other two it seems to be part of the canvassing effort. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "dispute resolution" so far seems to consist of something halfway to an edit war; though I admit the anon IP could talk more at Talk, but edit comments count as discussion as well, and your counter-edits could try to integrate his material instead of just reverting.

By "haphazard" I meant the quality and coherence of your edits, not the regularity of them; such as which appears to begin the article mid-thought in a longwinded way, and which seems to be making comments on the editing process ("supports a single point of view") as much as on the topic, and where you included a <ref>Please see the other sources referenced in this article.</ref> tag. But I don't want to go into too much detail on that because I'm not trying to write you up here at ANI.

As for the IP's "canvassing", if you read the WP page you linked it explicitly excludes notification on WIkiProjects and involved editors (such as Stevertigo and I) from the definition of canvassing, and considered them acceptable practice. I still see no wrongdoing on the IP editor's part. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint. I have also shown the attempts at bullying by the IP by comments left in the edit history and on my and other's talk page. This person's editing behavior is uncivil and non-communicative. The person appears to edit with a battleground mentality. I do not agree that edit history comments take the place of talk page discussions. Also, Pfhorrest has an opinion on my editing but this is not an accurate representation -- not nearly an accurate representation. Also, the IP is obviously capable of spewing comments on their own as shown by my evidence above and their comments here. And WikiProjects and involved editors are not excluded from "canvassing" when there is a bias involved as has been shown. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior. So are you willing to hold up your behavior to scrutiny? Or just others?

I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint. Like this one, right? The problem with your attempt to communicate is not with your ability to transmit information, but is with your inability to receive and heed information.

I would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is... So let's see, what would your agenda at Fine-structure constant be in reverting my deletion of what is clearly WP:OR (in the form of numerology? It doesn't yet rise to the level of wikistalking, but some editors might think that following the contribs of a user back to other pages (that one never edited before) and reverting their edits solely because you didn't like their edits on a page you thought you owned, might be a form of wikistalking. It is, at least, an indication of an agenda (an agenda to undo whatever this other editor does, regardless of justification). Notice how fast your reversion there was reverted (by one editor and affirmed by another). This shows clearly that you reverted an edit, not because of content (because you apparently hadn't the foggiest idea), but because of who made the edit.

So Steve, I am happy and willing to put my editing behavior under a microscope, but only if your behavior is also. 70.109.182.232 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I misunderstand the function of ANI? Is this supposed to just be you accusing and him defending, and other involved parties keep out? I see someone making constructive edits being accused of unconstructive behavior and I want to stand up for him. I admit that he could talk more, but for the most part I think he has been constructive and we should not bite the newcomer by throwing admins at him.

Here is what I think is relevant history, with diffs:

• April 27th: Anon IP added new lede sentence
• Almost a month later, May 19th Stevertigo requests citations with expectation that they will support it and then adds one himself . So far the new contribution seems generally supported.
• Over a month after that, June 22nd, after standing for almost two months without complaint and with some support, Steve Quinn reverts it , takes it to talk, where a large discussion on the lede begins, in which the anon IP participates, albeit not much.
• Only July 1st, amidst that discussion, the anon IP reinstates a better-sourced version of his edits and over the next four days a slow semi-edit-war occurs; this is the only thing that looks problematic to me, but not egregiously, and is past now.
• Over the next week other editors, including Steve Quinn and at least two others, both continued to discuss, and made edits to, the lede , apparently breaking with BRD and everyone being OK with that.
• Then yesterday, July 11th, the anon adds his new first sentence again, with sources , without undoing any of the other improvements that have been made meanwhile. Steve Quinn makes some rather incoherent modifications to it , Anon (rightly IMO) restores the intact version which actually agrees with the sources it cites , Steve Quinn reverts again , and I decide it's time someone explicitly supports this guy, and revert Steve and call for further discussion before any more reverts. Steve and I are now discussing his complaints about it on the talk page. There is no edit warring going on, though we were close to it briefly for a while. The anon is not behaving flawlessly nor do I agree with his edits entirely, but I don't think he's done anything that requires admin intervention. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Pfhorrest's last response appears to be a balanced view of the situation. I was not aware of any strong suppport for this lede in any form until I began to interact one on one with Pfhorrest. No one said they explicilty supported the IP's lede until I noticed that Pfhorrest seems to a couple of days ago. Originally, three or four other editors and I were developing a different (agreed upon) version when it seems User:Stervitigo (not sure if he was working with us or not) jumped the gun and placed an unsupported lede . This was reverted a few edits later . This is when the Anon IP jumped in . JimWae tried to save the lede we had been working on for a week . The anon IP wasn't having it and stuck in their lede , so I tried to diplomatically copy edit the Anon's lede -- and so on. As Pfhorrest said he finally stepped in. He set it up so we should follow BRD and discuss the lede along with proposed edits. And here we are. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am close to withdrawing my complaint. I think there were six or sven editors involved (including the Anon) and not everyone was commincating (something like that). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my complaint

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

SPA pushing joke to disruption

Time for interaction ban? Users SplashScreen, Tomica and Status

• SplashScreen (talk · contribs)
• Tomica (talk · contribs)
• Status (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

Just a note - I originally suggested such a block on OohBunnies!'s talk page. SplashScreen (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a ban, not a block. Technical difference. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the issue with Status and Tomica, but my real problem is that I strongly suspect that SplashScreen is a returned user that isn't making a good clean start. I haven't been able to identify precisely who he is yet, but it has been apparent to me from early in his editing career that he had an issue with Status and other Rihanna editors from some prior interaction. I feel very uncomfortable supporting an interaction ban without a corresponding topic ban on pop music articles unless and until I know what the prior interaction was and can factor it into my thinking.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe SplashScreen will divulge a little information when he's back (it's early morning here in the UK). I agree Splash seems to be a returned editor of some kind, and it would be good to know if there were some past issues affecting this dispute. I wouldn't want to put the blame for all this entirely on him though, bad clean start or no. The behaviour of Status and Tomica has added to this "us v. them" mentality that we can see here. All I've really tried to do is remind the involved users to calm down and not make accusations, before one of them ended up blocked. I don't like to see users blocked. Although, if there ends up being consensus for a block of some kind then that will be that. But it would be really good to get some uninvolved eyes on the behaviours of all the involved editors here. OohBunnies! (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that an AFD ban on SplashScreen would be much more effective. Seeing as he clearly doesn't quite understand the process of nominating articles for deletion. For example, he nominated Feelin' So Good and Let's Get Loud for deletion as being "Non-notable concert film release" and revealed a few hours ago that he did so because they were "awful articles". I have been keeping an eye out on his AFDs for a little while now, due to what seems to be a lack of knowledge in opening them. He seems to fail to understand WP:BEFORE. He also feels the need to reply to everybody who disagrees with him; which has been pointed out by several users (and not just this little "clique", as he calls it). It should also be noted that, although according to him, I don't vote against him in every AFD he opens. I !vote the way that is correct. For example, I voted delete on this AFD, which he created. Statυs (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note - the longest oppose I have ever seen on a RFA. --Rschen7754 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not a returning user with a bizarre vendetta (as I made clear on Bunny's talk page). Of course Status is going to want me to be banned on AfD, because his articles Bennifer, Personal life of Jennifer Lopez and a series of perfume articles were all deleted because of my nominations. Other successful nominations that have nothing to do with Status include this one. That some of those articles have been resolved with keep outcomes is not a reason for me to be banned from AfD. "I have been keeping an eye out on his AFDs for a little while now" - indeed, and that's where this problem has started. At every turn I've received personal attacks and a barrage of keep !votes on AfDs (many of which are on articles that the group have never involved themselves with before) from Status, Tomica, Hahc21 (talk · contribs), Till I Go Home (talk · contribs) and all the other "friends" who leave talk page comments to each other asking the other to come on Facebook or GTalk. Often, Status will go out of his way and even oppose arguments he's made in the past to make sure that AfDs I start will fail (compare this to this, where he does a complete U-turn on his assessment of WP:NSONGS). My constructive edits have been reverted (and sometimes marked as vandalism) because I haven't "discussed things with them first" (going against WP:BOLD and, when I do instigate a discussion, the most frivolous of excuses are put forward to oppose my edits. Other users have commented on this bizarre group mentality.

In short, it seems that WHEREVER I go on Misplaced Pages, Status and his troupe and sure to follow. This is why I have requested this ban. I am sick to the back teeth of them bitching about me on their talk pages, I am sick to death of receiving rude and explicit comments on my talk page when I make edits that they don't "like", I am sick of this pathetic one-up-manship that has occurred simply because I'm an editor who sees things differently to their little clique and who doesn't believe that the Rihanna page should list every time she's ever done a WP:FART or that we should have long articles on who JLo has slept with. A positive of all this? A lot of the pop music articles are looking lot better and much less WP:CRUFTy; partly due to my own edits, but partly because my AfDs have caused other editors to improve the quality of articles. However, I can't deal with this feral campaign any longer and I would welcome an interaction ban with gusto. SplashScreen (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with KWW. It appears there is more than meets the eye going on here and it's not good. When an editor's 4th edit is to WP:ANI, you have a problem.

To Bunny's point, there is a group of editors that tend to scrum on these pop articles and the general dynamic is problematic. While I think Splash needs to be addressed, the general ownership of articles, edit warring and disruption by the others is also a major issue. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the impression I always got from SplashScreen was that they had done a fair amount of IP editing before they registered, which would explain odd patterns. - Jorgath (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Till I Go Home (talk · contribs) seems to have cooled off a bit but still pursues edit wars rather than other measures (see The Pussycat Dolls).
• Calvin999 (talk · contribs) appears to be working very diligently to stay within his voluntary 1RR after his last block.
• Hahc21 (talk · contribs) seems to have some of the best intentions but has had some issues in the past.

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

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

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

IBAN Proposal

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

• Support: per my comments above. Toddst1 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Question: What exactly does this type of ban involve? Statυs (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • An "interaction ban" generally means the following: Neither editor talks to the other. Neither editor mentions the other. Neither editor edits any article or discussion that the other has edited. There is usually an exception for people bringing up a violation of the interaction ban. Otherwise, violations lead to blocks. In this case, it should be noted that the proposed iban is SplashScreen-Tomica and SplashScreen-Status; Status and Tomica are not problematic in their behavior towards each other. - Jorgath (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Neither editor edits any article or discussion that the other has edited" seems problematic to me. Statυs (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Which is one of the many reasons many people dislike I-bans. But the thing is, there's no way to prevent interaction without banning one or the other party from editing the same article, and there's no way to do that fairly without banning both from editing the same articles. - Jorgath (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah; that's no good for me. Statυs (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Partial support: I support an iban between SplashScreen and Tomica based on what I've seen. If Status and SplashScreen wish an iban between them too, I'd support it, but I don't support an involuntary one there - they don't like each other, but they're usually civil. I do not support a topic ban, but the iban would mean that both Tomica and SplashScreen would have to stop editing articles the other has ever edited. - Jorgath (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) is a humungous AFD started by User:SplashScreen which is getting no traction. This user seems to be over-reaching and so limiting his actions would be sensible. I have no opinion about the other users mentioned here. Warden (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention this. Thanks for bringing it up. He claims that we come into his AFDs to vote keep, so they are kept. It appears none of us have commented on that AFD, but they are all keeps. Weird. Statυs (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nevermind. Looking at it again, two of the users involved seems to have commented on it. I must not have seem it in between all of the other keeps. Still makes his claims of us stalking his AFDs and making them all kept outrageous, eh? Statυs (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: this really isn't workable. An interaction ban on the three would wind up effectively slicing the Rihanna articles into two camps, and not much else. I support the intent, but don't think this will work.—Kww(talk) 12:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Much for the same reason as Kww. Tomica has worked on Rihanna articles along with Calvin and other users for quite a long time. If an topic ban is enacted, then Splash may edit all Rihanna articles and then leave Tomica out of the topic on wich he edits the most, and probably he will end up retiring the 'pedia. I Partially support banning both users to talk each other directly on talk pages or discussions, but not editing the same pages, unless it is clearly an edit war or content dispute. PD: I had no internet connection and no power supply, thats why i didn't commented before. Regards. —Hahc21 13:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kww. I'm not a fan of ibans to start with, as the success with them is a mixed lot and enforcement is always a drama-fest, but in this case it poses real world problems that are going to be hard to work around. I also share his suspicions that there is more than meets the eye going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that AFD

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

A list of the still-tagged AFDs can be found at User:Snotbot/AfD_report. I'll work on a few of them as I get the chance this morning - but any help is appreciated. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The rest should now be cleared. Monty₈₄₅<,/small> 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Splashscreen be restricted from creating new AFDs, or perhaps restricted to creating them under the mentorship of an experienced editor? He failed to notify the creators of the 246 or so articles in that mass nomination, and claimed that if anyone else notified the creators, it would constitute canvassing. His deletion reasons were mostly very much off-point.He didn't even tag all the articles he listed in the AFD, omitting tags on 1953–54 United States network television schedule, for instance. It seemed like a disruptive nomination, or that he has not familiarized himself with the basic information at WP:AFD. Edison (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A good point. Yes, I think a trout and perhaps a ban from creating AfDs is in order. I propose the following restriction: for three months, if SplashScreen wants to create an AfD, they have to ask another editor (who is in good standing) to do it for them. That way, they'll still be able to use the process for valid candidates, while learning more about how to do it properly. - Jorgath (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I support Jorgath's specific recommendation. A 3 month period sounds reasonable. Edison (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me (and thanks y'all for the help mopping up). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I also support the proposal. And btw Bush, i have been clearing some of them from the tag, do you know how much are left? I will be cleaning more today in a couple of hours. Regards. —Hahc21 07:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)