Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:56, 18 July 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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)

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

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

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

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

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence has been provided that this takes place on a large number of articles and their talk pages. AO was not a WP:CLEANSTART: the new account was created apparently because of a hard disk failure which also resulted in the user losing their password for the account Miradre. It certainly is relevant to look at AO's prior editing as Miradre, before the accident. The EP related edits and talk page discussions did not change much. Here for example are two threads on Talk:Incest taboo. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is an ongoing poll here, (Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), which User:GabeMc is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on The Beatles' talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a request on a mediation page (which User:GabeMc started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The result of the mediation page was:

"Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", Lord Roem (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)]

Because User:GabeMc is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.--andreasegde (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that both editors be barred from interacting on the Sgt Pepper talk page. Enough is enough. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the best approach at the moment, there is a lot of talk of sockpuppets, so placing tbs would punish the innocent, I'd suggest instead that we take your understandable desire to see the problem solved and put it into specific fixes for specific issues one by one, like similar polls for a start. Penyulap ☏ 02:50, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

This editor, User:Mythpage88, is a fervent supporter of the complainant. He has insulted me on my own talk page many times. Enough is enough.--andreasegde (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How am I a "fervent supporter"? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I support him. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you insulted me and did not mention one single negative word about User:GabeMc. It's quite simple, because it was not neutral.--andreasegde (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Hey hang on a minute, you can't say that, it's a personal attack, and believe me I know, I been blocked for such nonsense before (good block btw) anyhow, you should say you're sorry for that, or someone will tell their mommy on you, I mean it. Penyulap ☏ 02:55, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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

FTR, I havn't made any snipes in several days, it is Andreas who continues to snipe at me, and it is Andreas who is driving editors away from Beatles related articles, not me. ~ GabeMc 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the sound of one hand clapping? No, it's both of Andreasegde and GabeMc. Each should just make the best possible argument they have once and cease the back and forth. They're not going to change each other's minds and there's no benefit to Misplaced Pages to sort out which editor is more disruptive. If intervention turns out to be required, Richerman has the correct idea. Nobody Ent 02:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Richerman that issue has become much larger than it need be; we're talking about the letter 'T', for Christ's sake. This has dissolved into edit warring, the bickering and personal attacks which are linked to above, and a poorly thought-out SPI (for which the reporting party apologised, which I accept). The genesis of this SPI can be seen here.

If you follow GabeMc's comments at the SPI, you see that he acknowledges that he doesn't know if I'm a sock of the IP in question and then accuses User:Andreasegde of not only being the sock, but of having a "fake dialogue" with himself as the IP. Unfortunately the SPI was closed without establishing whether the was any socking taking place at all. This one incident by itself is well beyond the type of treatment to which the community or any of the individuals involved should be subjected.

I also support topic and interaction bans against GabeMc. The abuse of process and of other editors has to be stopped now. Radiopathy •talk• 02:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban for me? Are you serious Radio? I just got Paul McCartney promoted at FAC (admittedly with much of help from others), and you suggest banning me from editing all Beatles related articles? How convenient for you, an editor who is clearly biased against "the". FTR, I have made my best argument at the Beatles talk page, and I pledge to uphold whatever outcome arises from this process, while reserving the right to take this to a higher-level if needed. I have reason and grammar on my side, and I trust a mediator will choose wisely should it come to that. BTW, this thread is about disruptive editing by User:Andreasegde however, not the "The/the" debate. ~ GabeMc 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The FAC doesn't negate your behaviour here the past few weeks. You have antagonised and alienated several editors with which you formerly had a good rapport. Your attempt at subverting your own request for mediation shows at least that you have no respect for the way things are done here and that you'll stop at nothing to impose your lower case 'T' on everyone else. Some of your interactions suggest something other that a collaborative spirit. Radiopathy •talk• 03:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I support full topic ban, and interaction ban for both editors AND the 99. IP editor who got into this whole mess. It's God Damned ridiculous! It's CAPITALIZATION FFS! It's not gonna make a damned bit of difference on the article. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Mythpage88 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see you getting a block long before that happens, and I see Andreasegde coming out looking like a saint in all of this. I also see lots of work for the fishermen to do in these polls, oh yeah ! they'll feed the family with this haul. Penyulap ☏ 03:29, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Mythpage88, you want to ban me from editing all Beatles pages, really? You do realize that it was Andreas and ip 99 that dragged this out and forced my hand. See: here and here. Please reconsider your radical position. I havn't even cursed at anyone. ~ GabeMc 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How dare you assume that I haven't looked into it. How dare you! Arguments like this drive users away from Misplaced Pages.! Mythpage88 (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, okay right, you got me, my bad, good one Mythpage88, I'm sorry. (with tongue in cheek) Please, please, pretty please allow me to continue to donate several hours per day of my time to the project, please!!! I need it!!! Maybe we should all have a laugh and relax huh? ~ GabeMc 03:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Well, I thought admins wanted us to report disruptive edits to help them protect and improve the culture of wikipedia. I've reported seven above, all from today. I really believe that I have never made one single intentionally disruptive edit ever at wikipedia, not even once. If I get a block for reporting this kind of wikistalking, wikithreats, harrassment on my talk page, defamation of character and bullying, then so be it. I am not the problem here, I represent the solution to the problem. ~ GabeMc 04:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I do see an awful lot of childish behaviour that is bat-blastingly baffling to be honest. Damn childish, in toto. Get a grip and stop playing such stupid, childish games (✉→BWilkins←✎) 04:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

(ec) I disagree, grammar is grammar, and to intentionally disregard our MoS, and at least 8 others is silly IMO. What's really silly is that a simple decree from above could end all this once and for all. This is only going on because no one will give a clear directive; a 1RR situation. So don't blame the soldiers when they disagree because the general won't/can't/refuses to give a clear order that all can follow. This could all end with one decision from a mediator, do we follow our MoS, ignore our MoS, or change our MoS. If wikipedia took a firm stance on this we would never have to hear about this nonsense ever again. ~ GabeMc 04:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an argument over which shape of a letter to use. Give it a fucking break. Mythpage88 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• My experencies with Andreasegde have been extremely unpleasant at the Beatles-related Pete Best article talk page ; so much so that I was indeed driven away from working on the article. The talk page link speaks for itself, in terms of aggressive hostility and violations of good faith and article ownership guidelines, and I challenge anyone to conclude otherwise. I was so disgusted I decided even a complaint would just make me feel sick at heart. This ANI complaint by GabeMc is utterly justified, in my view, and the fact is that I was unaware of this ANI complaint until just now and discovered it by way of the poll. I strongly suggest steps be taken, up to and including a block or topic ban, to inform Andreasegde that this type of combative editing is unacceptable at Misplaced Pages, which is about collaboration, not ownership. My experiences with GabeMc, in contrast have been cordial, and I salute his willingness to bring this matter to ANI. Jusdafax 04:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I concur completely! I've watched Andreasegde bully myself and others for over 2 years! This needs to end now. ~ GabeMc 04:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I feel that any objective look at how I was dealt with at the Pete Best page indicates who the disruptive, hostile and deliberately offputting editor was. In the end, I did not feel that further interaction was worth my time. It would restore much of my shaken faith if the community would agree on where the problem lies. Jusdafax 04:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Patterns?

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

More on patterns

• here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, the last comment in the thread, here, again, the last comment in the thread, here and here. ~ GabeMc 08:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

History repeating?

• here
• here
• here ~ GabeMc 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

full topic and interaction ban

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Since I was asked to comment, I suppose I'll submit to banging my head against a brick wall once more. The reason I quit the wikiproject was not in protest of Gabe's behavior, or even of that of andreasegde. I quit because the wikiproject has been in dispute over this issue for years, and no one in a leadership position at this site (*cough*ArbCom*cough*) has cared enough to impose a solution for it. This is a major issue, as I see it, and fundamentally comes down to whether or not the MoS matters. When it managed to get before ArbCom, they declared it (in their words) "silly", in the process effectively delegitimizing every MoS-based argument that ever has been made, is being made, and ever will be made. Consensus has not solved this issue so far, and I see no reason to acquiesce to the delusion that things are going to be different this go-around. Until consensus is reached (and at this point I care little what that consensus is -- even though I firmly believe that the MoS, the English language, and reality itself is on the "small T" side, I would take a consensus for "big T" over no consensus at all), I cannot edit Beatles-related articles and remain a sane and productive editor. It's an either/or decision for me, and I believe in the goals of Misplaced Pages too much to take part in this nonsense any longer.

If it matters, I think andreasegde has been more unreasonable and taken this to greater heights of incivility than Gabe has. He made comments at Talk:Paul McCartney that were absolutely incongruous with logic, and with the type of contributor I have always known him to be. But I don't for a second believe that he, or almost anyone else on the "big T" side, is acting in bad faith. IP 99 is clearly the exception to that statement; s/he came to this site to start shit, as should be clear from his/her editing history. Blocking him/her will not bring this dispute to a close (not by a long shot), but it will at least be one fewer troll defacing the project.

I unconditionally oppose topic bans and bans/blocks of any kind for both Gabe and Andreas, provided they both act with the utmost decorum going forward. But please do not assume that I am condemning both equally; I am not. Andreas has been unreasonable and uncivil to multiple editors, including me, but blocking for relatively minor infractions during the course of a major discussion is not going to solve anything. Let the conversation run its course. Evanh2008 04:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider my vote changed to oppose for any kind of action against Gabe and support for a topic ban against andreas. This edit is pointy, and his comments at Talk:Pete Best are reprehensible and inexcusable. Evanh2008 05:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, is that the correct diff ? I opened that diff two times, and I'm seeing changes to text for "band" and "group" ? Penyulap ☏ 06:04, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

He does have ownership issues with Pete Best so Wikiquette assistance is a good idea. Penyulap ☏ 06:19, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

No, that's the right diff. It's an issue that has never, I believe, been raised anywhere else, ever, and he just happens to bring it up during a high-profile FAC led by someone he's had disputes with in the past. I don't know what point he was making, but that's the only viable explanation I can see. This and this show that he does not understand (or, at least, does not care about) WP:CIVIL and has a problem with collaboratively working on content and accepting criticism to content he was worked on. Evanh2008 06:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

These additional examples of ownership and bullying by Andreasegde do not surprise me one bit after my experience at Pete Best. They indicate a systemic pattern of abuse at Beatles-related articles and as such, do not call for a Wikiquette board discussion but a topic ban by an admin, at the very least. The Beatles are a huge entry area for editors, and the hostility and threats by Andreasegde are unacceptable. Jusdafax 08:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

photo of a dog collapsed by Nobody Ent 11:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Penyulap ☏ 09:09, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Canvassing is already taking place for this. I was canvassed at my talk page. This proposal and thread is a fucking joke and Gave,Andreas and Mythpage should be blocked for 48 hours for ratcheting up the bullsnit at ANI instead of other venues.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and Propose a strict WP:Civility standard for all involved editors. If editors cannot "always treat each other with consideration and respect... keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia... help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and "behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates" then immediate blocks should be imposed. Civility is a part of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct, and one of the pillars. Trying to enforce topic bans or other half-measures does not hold editors to our code of conduct; this is core to the project. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • COmment Both editors actions are too far beyond the pale for mere civility to work. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban, support topic ban for andreasegde (or just a plain old site ban), oppose topic ban for GabeMc. I started copyediting the Paul McCartney article during the FAC, after some light contributions to Beatles content over the years. Shortly before and after it was promoted, andreasegde and several others provoked arguments over issues like whether to call t/The Beatles a "group" or "band" and what order to list McCartney's teen rock-and-roll idols. Worse, andreasegde has made blatant personal attacks on GabeMc, called him a liar repeatedly, accused him of ulterior motives, and has otherwise shown gratuitous incivility to GabeMc and others. andreasegde is acting like a petulant child, screaming and stamping his feet when things don't go his way. As for GabeMC, he isn't 100% innocent; he has assumed bad faith on andreasegde's part and allowed himself to get into edit wars with him, though not without provocation. Yet GabeMc's presence on articles related to the Beatles and other music topics is a net positive, especially with his successful efforts to bring McCartney and other articles to featured status. szyslak (t) 05:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (P.S.: I would also urge that User:Radiopathy's part in all this not be overlooked. Though the recent SPI went nowhere, he's tried sockpuppetry before.) - Addendum: I changed my mind on supporting an interaction ban. It's become ever more clear that between GabeMc and andreasegde, there is only one guilty party in terms of making personal attacks and generally acting WP:DICK-ish. szyslak (t) 10:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm looking at those diffs and getting all excited that maybe I have the chance to give out a grump award, but this guy is not even a patch on Andy, who we all know and love, because he just doesn't let fly with the dictionary definitions like Andy does, andreasegde is too quiet and restrained if anything in those diffs, he is holding up better whilst under attack. But I'm keeping my eyes open on this one, because not everyone can measure up to Andy's level of grumpiness, he's a hard act to follow, so I'm looking for 20% Andy or so. Penyulap ☏ 05:57, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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

Well, I was watching the calls for help and the resultant comments at ANI, but I'm bored of all of this already. Not my game really. I can pick the troublemakers miles off and see who is causing the trouble, but what's the use, I just stumbled across another Vet ed who was ill-treated so I've lost my appetite for defending this place,... for now. Penyulap ☏ 11:36, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Opposed to any action against GabeMC and generally support action against Andreasegde WRT topic bans (or more). While I am not uninvolved w/ Gabe I find it absurd in the extreme that we would insist "both sides do it" in absence of any real evidence. Just because two editors appear at ANI and make a case doesn't make it "a pox on both your houses" each time. Protonk (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, what do you call this kind of thing ?

Unarchived

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just close the debate for a while

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

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

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

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

The non-smoking gun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done. ~ GabeMc 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summing up

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure by admin requested

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

User Fastballjohnd

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

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

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

In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here, here, and here. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit was the following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

His sources are always broken links or like here inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

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

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

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

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

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

Invalid closure

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

This non-admin close Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Skeptoid_(2nd_nomination) appears invalid in that it expressively ignores the merge arguments because no-one voted delete except the nom, votewise 4 merge, 5 keep, 1 delete (nom). Can an admin look at the AfD and weigh up the consensus on merge vs keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus that deletion is not the desired outcome, as such its proper to close the AfD. As there is insufficient consensus to determine if a merge is needed, discussion of that should be resumed on the article talk page, which is basically what the close says. Looks proper to me. Monty₈₄₅ 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That rationale does not say there was no consensus to merge. It does not attempt to weigh up the arguments of keep vs merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Closed by admin.--Chip _Contribs 13:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This improper non-admin closure has been overriden, and the AFD now shows the proper consensus (merge). I remain mystified why people tolerate Colonel Warden's presence.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the close. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see how you can read that discussion to contain a clear merge consensus... Monty₈₄₅ 13:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of the keep votes didn't have policy based reasons, or didn't give any reasons to counter the merge arguments (such as the requirements of WP:WEB). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of the merge !votes were even weaker, the first waivered on whether there was notability of a separate article, the second changed their !vote to a keep, one just says coverage doesn't justify a separate article but doesn't explain why, and another admitted it passes WP:WEB. None cited a policy for why it should be merged despite passing the notability criteria. So it was 6 to 4 keep to merge, the keep votes had better aurguments, yet it is merge? Monty₈₄₅ 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see: a "merge" by IRWolfie, citing lack of coverage, which an examination of the article bears out. A "merge" by S.Rich, citing lack of coverage and complete redundancy, which an examination of the article bears out. A "keep" by Belchfire that reveals that he didn't read the article, linked articles, or the nomination, so no weight can be given to that. Dustinfull's keep argument relies on the article being mentioned in blogs. Devil's Advocate reinforces the original merge nomination, and, as it does, passes examination. Sgerbic votes "keep" based on the improvement, but failed to note that the improvements were sourced to the podcast. Skeptical Raptor votes "keep", but presents no verifiable evidence as to why. Dream Focus echoes Dustinfull's flawed arguments. Otterhome supports a merge. Using any weighting, the merges outweigh the keeps by a substantial margin.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to mystified why people tolerate

Misplaced Pages tolerates all sorts of less than perfect editors because:

1. Written Misplaced Pages policies are vague and incoherent, so good faith interpretations are all over the map
2. Written Misplaced Pages policies have become fossilized, so improving them is well-nigh impossible. (See WP:V)
3. There's a shortage of decent editors
4. There's a shortage of active administrators
5. The Rfa process is ... standard blah blah about Rfa
6. RFC/Us are a lot of work, frequently don't accomplish a lot, turn into mudslinging witchhunts instead of the intended/ideal community feedback and tend to make enemies out of participanting editors -- bad if there's an Rfa in the future and bad for just day to day getting along.

In this case we have a good faith non-admin close, a good faith reversion & and gf reversion of that, appropriate appeal to ANI and a good-faith closure by a qualified admin. Let's celebrate the fact the process works, close this and move on. (Three verses of Kumbaya optional). Nobody Ent 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should go get my bit back and start closing AFDs again... but I'm not sure DRV is ready for the extra work. Spartaz 14:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Colonel is tolerated because he does excellent content saving work that outweigh his occasionally non-standard approach to policy. I'm more concerned over the edit warring over the close. This would have been better left for an admin to reclose then for the close to be voided and then reverted back by another editor. Otherwise DRV would have been a good revising location. Spartaz 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Correct (re:Colonel anyway). Kww, something similar applies to you, BTW, in response to the question why you're tolerated. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread can be closed as the issue was solved. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this particular issue has been dealt with, it should be made very clear to Colonel Warden that, given his notoriously out-of-mainstream opinion on the matter of content deletion, he should not be NACing anything remotely contentious. His previous NACs have all been fine (speedy keeps for the most part), but this is too far into the grey zone for an NAC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Bad close. WP:IAR is still a pillar. If you don't like a NAC, revert it. Nobody Ent 02:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR is fully capable of dealing with my close here, as is the exception to everything. It doesn't apply in this particular AFD example that I can see, nor is it claimed. And I did say "should", not "must", which is at least as lenient as the actual policy. Of course, you are always free to revert any close if you feel is sufficiently flawed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this close, as was the consensus here among a couple of admins including this one, who will close this again. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a close, that's an invalid refactor which changes the meaning of my comment -- by putting my remark inside a previously closed section, it makes it appear as if I was referring either to Col Warden's original Afd close or Kww's reclose, not DB's close of the thread. This is a "subsequent comment" and should be closed separately. Nobody Ent 02:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, let this run on for a few more days until it gets archived, if you are so intent on keeping the "h" in dramah. I disagree re:meaning, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just how exactly did the closer decide the consensus was to merge? I'm not seeing any consensus whatsoever in the AfD. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If only he'd given a full and detailed rationale somewhere. Such as in the comment he made in this very section at the time of the close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

<snark> He'd best be careful with those full and detailed rationales, or it could be called a supervote.</snark> - Jorgath (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

User VALLEYMAN25 aka FORESTMAN38

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

The account VALLEYMAN25 (talk · contribs) was created a couple of days ago. Though well-intended, VALLEYMAN25 introduced a lot of content that constituted copyright violations and I first noticed this in new articles about novels (for instance this copied from the author's website). I removed the copyrighted material and warned him , gave more details after he reintroduced the copyrighted text and a stronger warning after he insisted . It didn't stop so I tried again to reach out to him and this seemed to work. He then registered an alternate account FORESTMAN38 (talk · contribs) (given the usernames and pages edited, there's no doubt that this is the same editor) and proceeded to violate copyright again and I warned that account. Now he's back to editing as VALLEYMAN25 and has shifted focus to violating image copyrights despite a long list of warnings. I've never managed to get the slightest feedback from this editor and at this stage I feel he needs to be blocked and restricted to a single account since he's wasting everyone's time. Pichpich (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw some of that stuff in passing (on some basketball player's article) but didn't see an immediate need to block since I didn't see the copyvio (it was pointed out in an edit summary but I didn't check it out). I'll have a look again, since I'm just waiting on a plane. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• I blocked Forestman--it is pretty obvious that the account was created to avoid scrutiny on that Friends Forever article. I am not an image expert and this is not a learning moment for me, but if Pichpich is correct and those uploads are invalid, and they were continued after warnings, then Valley should be blocked as well to prevent disruption in the near future. Thanks Pichpich. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me just clarify the issue with the images. It definitely starts with an honest mistake that many newbies make: uploading non-free images of living people and using them as fair use. Save for a crazy few exceptions, these cannot be used because they are always considered as replaceable by a free equivalent (since the subject is alive) and therefore fail criterion 1 in WP:NFCC. I don't fault him for this as it's a common mistake. He received automated warnings when the first few of his uploads were deleted and I also wrote a non-automated message which explained the situation in more detail. The real problem is that File:La Salle Green Archer Jun Limpot.jpg was uploaded after all these warnings and this shows that he either doesn't read his talk page, doesn't understand what's written there or doesn't care. In all three cases, the result is disruption and a waste of time for many editors. Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My plane is boarding so I can't follow up after your helpful clarification, but I'm sure someone else will. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was about to block after reading over this, the talk page, and the contributions again--but the strangest thing seems to have happened: the block on Forestman seems to prevent Valleyman from editing! As if they would have the same IP address! But the one has no idea who the other is! Strange things are afoot, and I think we can close this. If the Valley ever owns up to having planted a Forrest, there's an offer out there. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Doncram at it again

• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier today, Doncram added information to the Mauch Chunk Switchback Railway that indicated that it had survived to the present day, despite the previous sentence indicating it had been sold for scrap in 1938. He also claimed that "a section" had been listed on the NRHP, when the description clearly listed the entire railway. I reverted with the edit summary "The railway doesn't survive, and as far as I can tell, that describes the whole thing, not a section", whereupon Doncram promptly re-reverted with Restore. I don't welcome this, SarekOfVulcan. Discuss at Talk. If he's going to restore made-up information to articles just because he doesn't like me, he shouldn't be editing here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So, is his addition sourced, and did you discuss it at Talk (before coming to An/I)? Also, in the title you say "he's at it again", what is "again" here? -- Avanu (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Again" is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs, among others. Note the part that says he's not supposed to pad out articles with extensive verbatim quotes from the sources, and check his recent contributions -- shouldn't take long to find an example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, didn't take long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So far, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. Could you give one or remove this thread? —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Inserting made-up information to articles and reverting it back in because he doesn't like the person who reverted it isn't good enough? Even given this ANI report, he still hasn't fixed it! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is your word against his that the information is made up. This seems to be an ordinary content dispute, and if both of you are acting in good faith here, maybe you can find sources and discuss it on the talk page? Certainly it would have sufficed to remove "survives and" if you don't believe that part unless you doubt that 47 acres are listed in the NRHP. —Kusma (t·c) 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't "my word against his". Take a look at the article, and see what it says about the history of the railway, excluding Doncram's assertion that it survived to the present day. See what statements are sourced. Then tell me again it's my word against his. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I tell you again that this has no business of being at ANI. From what I can see, there is no longer a railway. So what is listed in the NRHP? The area where the railroad was? It would probably be useful to clarify that. It does not seem to be useful to personalize this. —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I can just about guarantee you that Doncram doesn't know what's listed in the NRHP either. And that's why it's useful to personalize it -- he has a long-term pattern of working off the database reports, rather than the reliable sources that tell why something was listed. (And then he claims that it's critics' fault for not requesting the freely-available nomination documents directly from the NPS...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be exhaustive.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Quoting: "While all that remains of its past is the right-of-way, and various ruins, the SGRR’s significance lies in its historic landscape and national contribution to industrial heritage and the history of tourism."--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Very useful source, Ymblanter -- thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Doncram has posted a comment at the Talk page about his addition. From what I can tell his reasoning is OK on this. The addition may need to be reworded, but something was added in 1976 to the National Register of Historic Places, and while the source Ymblanter found is unbelievably excellent, it appears that both doncram's addition and the information above do not conflict if used appropriately. Again, this does not appear to be an issue for AN/I to resolve. Go back to the Talk page, Assume Good Faith, look at each others' points and come to reasonable compromises via logic and thoughtful consideration. So far, I haven't seen a lot of this take place, and a content dispute either belongs on the Talk page there or other forums that exist for that purpose. Administrative intervention isn't needed yet. -- Avanu (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If this were the first time this had happened, I'd agree with you that it was a content dispute and that admin intervention wasn't required. But the fact is that this keeps happening over and over and over. Look at the comment about the addition! He starts off by apologizing for wasting future readers' time with actually responding to us. He states that I have no idea what I'm talking about, Orlady has no idea what she's talking about, and you have no idea what you're talking about, and that he knows what he's talking about, even though he doesn't actually know what he's talking about, but that doesn't matter because he's right anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You guys need to stop and listen to each other. Obviously there's a dispute or you wouldn't have been reverting each other. The debate needs to stop being about how people are talking and instead needs to be about sources and context. It is very simple. -- Avanu (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I returned to wikipedia recently and, after a few days SarekOfVulcan re-began a pattern of following my edits including at brand new articles and jumping in to edit and perhaps to contend. I requested he stop, and for a few days he did, but he seems to have resumed now. There is a past history of contention between SarekOfVulcan and me. I don't welcome SarekOfVulcan following my edits closely and jumping in to dispute, which in the past has then often led to SarekOfVulcan initiating ANI reports, AFDs, and other wikilegal disputes in a pattern that I see pretty much as wp:wikihounding. Others have previously advised him not to follow and contend. I would hope that other administrators might advise SarekOfVulcan to back off, and that someone would please close this ANI report quickly. --doncram 13:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll repeat this. Is his addition sourced, and did you discuss it at Talk (before coming to An/I)? And thank you for clarifying what "again" meant. -- Avanu (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The addition does not appear to be sourced. However starting a thread on ANI and the comment by SoV If he's going to restore made-up information to articles just because he doesn't like me, he shouldn't be editing here is not AGF. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Point of fact: The addition always was/is sourced, not in the lede, but down below where the NRHP listing event is given slightly longer treatment. SarekOfVulcan had deleted both parts. --doncram 14:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I share Sarek's perception that Doncram is "at it again." At Anderson County Courthouse (Kansas) he seems to be working at starting a war to defend what he seems to regard as his right to quote opinionated statements without saying whose opinion he quotes (see page history -- it seems that readers who want to know who made this judgment are supposed to download the PDF document that he cites). He tries to represent himself as St. Doncram, who has been martyred for his devotion to Misplaced Pages, but his problem is his refusal to abide by standards of quality -- and his practice of labeling/treating everyone who criticizes him (or in my case, even attempts to indent one of his comments on an AfD page -- see ,, , ) as a personal enemy who has singled him out for persecution. (BTW, I can't consider trying to discuss this with Doncram anywhere else because he has started a practice of ignoring and deleting my comments from his talk page, even after someone else has replied to me.) --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily look like an intentional removal of your comment; do you have other edits that show he is doing that? -- Avanu (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is off-topic, right? But sheesh, I did remove Orlady's 2nd comment on my Talk page, but tried not to make it too obvious to the whole world. In the removal, I replaced it by a copy of a statement that I had made further above, which I hoped she would read. There is indeed a past history of contention and what I believe amounts to wp:wikihounding by her against me, too. I previously, many times, asked Orlady not to post at my Talk page. I would appreciate if she would abide by that, let me ask that here. I am not following these two editors; they seem to be following me. I would appreciate if they would disengage. However, I do not want to engage in a big discussion and I don't believe ANI would be the right forum. (If Orlady would agree to a mediation to address whatever issues she has, I would participate in one, but she has previously declined.) Can this ANI report please be kept limited to the incident first stated, please? --doncram 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is poor form to remove commentary in an arbitrary fashion from your talk page, even though you are given wide latitude to do so. I would suggest that you avoid it in the future. -- Avanu (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it appears that doncram is asserting there is a source, and while I don't know how good of a source it is and if it is being used in context, I don't see any commentary from Sarek on the Talk page of that article. I have reverted the addition, for now, of doncram's material, pending the outcome of some discussion and consensus, but it appears that several steps have been skipped in bringing this to AN/I. This thread probably needs to be closed for now. -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that Doncram didn't discuss his edit on talk before reverting, as in WP:BRD, he just reverted and trotted to talk to go "Sarek's harassing me, so I'm not going to bother following WP-standard dispute resolution." Note also that when I filed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site on a dozen of his recent stubs, his response claiming wikihounding was longer than all but one or two of the stubs under question.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That tendency to make a molehill-sized problem into a massive and complex argument is, indeed, one of the issues. I hesitate to open discussions with Doncram because (if he deigns to talk to me) I don't want to become embroiled in massive debates over minor matters -- such as content-free stubs, WP:OR-type misrepresentations like the one at Mauch Chunk Railway, or arguments about a couple of words in an inconsequential stub like that Kansas courthouse. It has been suggested that it should be easy enough for people like Sarek and me to fix the individual problems we see in Doncram's output, but that doesn't work when he decides to start revert warring and shouts "harassment" and "Wikihounding", nor when there are large numbers of inconsequential stub articles with the same common patterns of serious problems. This is what the remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs were supposed to resolve (back before Doncram got himself blocked for several months). --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for a mountain here. Either there is a source or there isn't. And if there is a source, it is either referenced properly or out of context. Simple. -- Avanu (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since *I* have already reverted that (pending the outcome of a proper consensus), it shouldn't be a problem now. Unless there is a legitimate reason otherwise, the Article's Talk page is the proper next step. -- Avanu (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If SarekOfVulcan could see his way to making a summary statement about what happened and a complete apology here, I would welcome it. I don't expect to see one though.

Thank you Avanu, Kusma, Fasttimes68, Ymblanter and Shearonink (more at the article page itself) for being voices of reasons in this. Thanks for your constructive efforts. --doncram 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Need a subsection header for editing

For further problems, see a bunch of round barn articles lately; List of round barns had tons of unnecessary elements when created (and Orlady and I had to waste plenty of time cleaning it up), and at least one of his many recent substubs on round barns contained a patently wrong statement as noted by Royalbroil's comments at the end of the "Bert Leedy Round Barn" section of User talk:Doncram/Archive 20. This is all on top of his creating articles so fast that he doesn't even look for images that are provided and creates articles at the wrong titles, as is noted in the same section. As is said above, this would be pointless complaining if it were one or two articles, but when we're talking dozens (or more) of articles, it's too much to fix easily. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First there is no, never has been and hopefully never will be, a requirement to add a picture when an article is created so thats just adding an unnecessary requirement to the editor. As for making more work for you, perhaps but that is the nature of Misplaced Pages, someone adds some info, someone else modifies it and over time the article gets developed. I'm not sure what in the Wiki concept is not clear. I'm not sure about the wrong titles statement because I am unfamiliar with the case. Are they just flat out wrong or is it just a different name and might be needed as a redirect. Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Like the images, the wrong titles is an example of his refusal to pay any attention to how others are editing; he generates pages how he wishes without looking to see if information on those topics already exists on Misplaced Pages. I will not tolerate someone making me work to clean up elements that have already been taken as grounds for six-month blocks. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What Kumioko said. Thanks. Nyttend I think your statement here is incorrect: RoyalBroil helped find an update to add to one article, the factoid that one old barn had recently been demolished, a factoid which existed, unexpectedly, at a county NRHP list-article. There was no wrong statement to fix, there was just a factoid that could be added, and then it was added. Also he seemed irked that some photos of his were not immediately added to new articles, and I think they've all been added. I can understand that sentiment--you should be allowed to be irked--but I think it is unreasonable to make a public fuss and there is no policy or guideline that applies. There's a short conversation at RoyalBroil's talk page in which he apologizes for being terse. So, please don't make something of nothing on behalf of another editor. There's nothing for ANI about this, AFAIC. Also, thanks for an edit or two or more that you made at the new List of round barns article, but it was hardly a lot of work done by you or anyone else there, relative to what i put in already. Thanks, --doncram 19:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that after reviewing the List of round barns article that User:Nyttend stated had "tons of unnecessary elements when created (and Orlady and I had to waste plenty of time cleaning it up)" that the statement appears patently false. They did make a few edits however after looking at the article history they spent a lot of time quibling and moving the article back and forth from mainspace to userspace while the user was in the process of building the list. Apparently because it wasn't done yet, which again is not a requirement, particularly when the user is clearly in the process of developing it. Some editors prefer to build it all at once and others prefer to build it incrementally, neither is the right or wrong way, we shouldn't be enforcing one method because we personally don't like it. Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that he's creating substubs without any attention whatsoever to getting useful information. I'm not trying to require that images appear; I'm objecting to his bot-like generation of content-free pages when it's readily available on lists that he edits frequently. Moreover, look at the original version: Doncram's included plenty of notes to himself, which are completely inappropriate appearing in mainspace (that's why we have <!-- and --> coding), as well as two citations to "title", a whole list of items that are all numbered 1, and two blatantly contradictory statements in the intro. Had the list simply been lacking content, it would be one thing, but to include these elements is substantially different. As Royalbroil remarked, a simple Google search could have prevented Doncram's writing an article with false information. Let me remind everyone that repeated introduction of falsehoods is a pretty good example of "Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability", which is one of the major signs of WP:DISRUPT. Going by other points on that list, Doncram has been (1) tendentious, editing despite concentrated opposition; (2) not engaging in consensus building, move-warring and challenging the good faith of admins who attempt to correct his behavior; and (3) rejecting or ignoring community input, engaging in the same behavior that has resulted in multiple extended blocks. I have no recourse but to ask for a page-creation topic ban on Doncram. This is something that I opposed before as being too far-reaching, but I have lost faith in Doncram's willingness to avoid disruptive behavior in page creation. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I did look at the history and I did see where you (rightly so) removed a few minor things but nothing I would view as tons of unnecessary elements. I also see in the history where the editor was in the middle of editing the list and continuing to make improvements and then had to get into a back and forth tug of war. In regards to the Substubs, again, not an issue. You don't like them and I understand that but they are allowed. An individual editor nor a project can or should tell an editor that they can't create a stub for an article that meets notability and other requirements. As for false information, I agree that can be a problem but not when your still in the middle of writing it. I commonly run into problems where some references say one thing and others say another. It happens and in and of itself isn't a big deal. It just needs to be noted in the article. As far as being tendentious, I see thats somewhat true but that seems to be because 3 or 4 editors are hounding their every edit. He was still in the process of writing the List of round barns article when you all started moving it all over. I would get annoyed too. As for your reasons, I have reviewd some of the edits you and others have pointed out and as far as I can tell, the user is mostly following the rules but you and a couple of others are being overly stylistic in your interpretations of the rules. There is no requirement to add pictures when its created, its allowed to create a stub, its allowed to build the article progressively rather than all at once. Personally I think the actions of you all are worse than the actions of the editor. Again, I don't know anything about the history (I remember the name a long time ago) and I have had mostly positive experiences with most of you so its nothing personal. In this occassion though and from the evidence presented I don't think this is a very good use of ANI nor is the conduct by the admins in this case in particularly good light. It seems like a lot of nitpicking, wikistalking and hounding by editors who should know better. Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In many respects, the List of round barns contention was resolved successfully. Doncram created a rough draft in article space. Nyttend and I both had the goal of moving it to user space for development, since user space is where rough-draft articles belong, and that resolution was discussed in earlier noticeboard discussions of Doncram's rough drafts. (The edit history got messy only because of Doncram's move-warring, combined with unexpected behavior of the "move" feature.) Doncram fixed things up a bit before taking the page back to user space, so the current page is not an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. That's how user space is supposed to be used. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another example of how he pads out articles using verbatim quotes from the copyrighted nomination documents, which he's previously been instructed not to do by an uninvolved admin:

• - Jacob Friedt, of Zeeland, was one of a number of "German-Russian blacksmiths in central North Dakota" who developed individual styles in their crosses and whose "work was known for miles around them."
• - It includes work by Anton Massine of Orrin, who is one of a number of "German-Russian blacksmiths in central North Dakota" who developed individual styles in their crosses and whose "work was known for miles around them."
• - No individual specific blacksmith is identified in the National Register database listing for this site, but in other iron cross sites the work can be traced to specific "German-Russian blacksmiths in central North Dakota" who developed individual styles in their crosses and whose "work was known for miles around them."
• - It includes works by Joseph P. Klein and John Krim, both of Pierce County, who were among a number of "German-Russian blacksmiths in central North Dakota" that developed their individual cross styles and whose "work was known for miles around them."
• - Simon Marquardt, of Zeeland, North Dakota, was one of a number of "German-Russian blacksmiths in central North Dakota developed their own cross styles and their work was known for miles around them."

All of those date from the last few minutes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap, what garbage he creates. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Context, please

Maybe I'm missing a wikilink or two here, but what's the history here? I assume this has been discussed before, but where is said discussion located? Doncram's block log isn't revealing in itself (save for that Doncram has only recently returned from six months off for edit warring). ANI works best when uninvolved editors aren't obliged to personally dig through an entire interaction history. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there was an extensive discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs about his editing patterns, and he showed up in various other archives around that period. There was also an attempt at a second RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Doncram 2, but it was deleted after it failed to gain certification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs grew somewhat stale because Doncram picked up a succession of long-term blocks shortly after it concluded. I'd hate to think that we need to start all over again with the same discussions because of people who are newly arrived to the conversation. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that doncram has started a parallel discussion of this thread at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Help.21. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing I will remind you of, are we here to debate the reason Sarek opened the thread, which is the "Mauch Chunk Switchback Railway" addition, or are we here to make a huge case out of other things? If it is the "Mauch Chunk Switchback Railway", then for Heaven's sake, let's just stay on target (and I think that was already resolved). If you're here to debate doncram as an editor in his entirety, I believe there is a separate process called RfC/U for that, not AN/I. Either way, let's not resort to a witch hunt and an unfocused AN/I bashing marathon, ok? -- Avanu (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, not true. On AN and ANI all edits/behaviours can and will be used as needed. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not have the intention of debating about another editor here and I have no strong opinion on the issues. I am merely pointing out that a discussion about this ANI thread has been started in another location, that is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Sarek, but I can't imagine he would have opened a discussion here if his only concern was a difference of opinion regarding content at the "Mauch Chunk Switchback Railway" article. The title "Doncram at it again" indicates that his concern was the recurrence of certain behavior patterns encountered in the past, as illustrated at that article. Furthermore, many of the rest of us joined in because we saw this discussion as one about recurrent behaviors, not one about the railway article. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make justifications for whatever, but the initial reason for opening this thread has been resolved fully, and rather quickly. (It was a content dispute) I don't agree with using that as an excuse to jump the track to another possibly unrelated debate on the general fitness of doncram as an editor, and since we have a clear resolution to the problem already, it seems suspect to force the debate to continue unstructured here when there are clear processes and rules for how we are supposed to handle this. Considering how many times Administrators have forced a specious interpretation of rules on editors within AN/I, I would also consider this forum to be an inhospitable one for a positive outcome. Close this ad-hominem-fest and start an RfC/U or drop the sticks, people. -- Avanu (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you missed it above: On AN and ANI all edits/behaviours can and will be used as needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll get the Eternal Pool of Pudding ready for use. I'll make sure there's enough for 4 dippings, unless you think doncram will need 5. -- Avanu (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• At this point, this seems beyond what ANI is for. It isn't an "incident", none of his actions individually would be a reason to block him. The main complaint is a pattern of behavior that some editors find bothersome. Fair enough. We have a process for this, and it isn't ANI. It is RFC/U, which is what I recommend. The fact that it has been tried before and couldn't get certified doesn't provide a rationale to bring the issue here, as this is obviously an issue that is clearly too deep and complicated for ANI, and it will be very difficult to get fair resolution here. There is obviously some problems, but this is no incident and since it seems obvious that the target of this report is acting in good faith, and that this has gone of for over a year, AND I don't see any simple resolution possible at ANI, I don't see why it is here. I was tempted to just close this pointing to RFC/U, which IS the right forum for this long running series of concerns about the style and methods. It is my opinion that a close is in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Dennis, I started the previous RFC/U, but didn't certify it because by the time I was mixing in, I felt that I was only acting administratively, rather than trying to resolve the issues through appropriate dispute resolution. Since as far as I know, you haven't been involved in any of this to date, would you be willing to discuss the issues that have been raised with Doncram and try to get things settled without the BanHammerOfDoom?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sufficiently removed, but it would take more than a few days to settle and maybe a couple of weeks, but I would be willing to mediate a discussion, in or out of regular venue, but only if it could be done in a structured, semi-formal format. I can see there are a lot of emotions around this editor, and I completely understand that this happens, but to find a resolution we need to get away from the limelight and lower the heat of the discussion a bit. I will likely have to bone up a bit on a few policies along the way, but I'm comfortable with this. If an off-venue setting is preferred by the parties, I can provide this. I will check back in the morning to see if the parties are interested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  There's no need to reinvent the wheel by starting a new discussion. Countless hours have been devoted to documenting and hashing out the concerns that various people have. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs is one of several such discussions, and perhaps one of the more worthwhile ones that we had in that it concluded with some fairly clear directions to take in the future. Unfortunately, Doncram ended up being blocked for much of the year since that discussion concluded, so very little happened by way of implementing the conclusions of that conversation. It's premature to start a new far-reaching discussion when Doncram's been back for only a few weeks -- we should be able to use the framework resulting from that AN thread to define ground rules for his editing and for other users' interactions with him. I had been hoping that things would go better upon his return, but it's not been encouraging to see the emergence of the kinds of situations that cause other users to start threads entitled "at it again" or to contact me about his recent edits, nor to get indications that any time I interact with him, it's apt to be received as the opening battle of a world war. --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, I have no opinions on the content and no strong feelings about either editor. Sarek has asked a complete outsider to take a fresh look. If doncram would like the same, the offer to mediate in a more constructive environment still stands, but it has to be agreed to by both. The other ANI won't be ignored, but ANI is subpar as an environment for calm, rational discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Unless this "matter" is narrowly defined as limited to the Mauch Chunk railway article, it's not just about two editors. There's a much larger cast of characters involved. --Orlady (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  If the real problem was so narrow, I would not have been asked to come here. There is obviously much more at issue here than one article. If you want to only discuss one article, WP:DRN would be the venue. My brief observation tells me there are some root issues at play here, which will continue to fester if not brought out into the daylight. If I mediate a larger discussion, everything is always on the table, including any party participating. It would be unfair otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here?

I'm having difficulty understanding what's wrong with this edit. The information is clearly true, considering the document that was pointed out in this discussion. Is the issue that the NRIS link was just one to the general site and you would like it to be a specific page? Other stuff i'm seeing here is that you think the information he's added in other articles is trivial. Um, good for your opinion. How is this an ANI issue exactly? I don't even see an RFC/U issue here. Silverseren 02:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that's the first edit, and not the reversion, not as much is wrong with it as I originally thought. The first part, "A 47-acre (19 ha) section survives..." is clearly wrong, especially since it immediately follows "After abandoning freight operations, the railroad survived until 1938..." The second section is essentially correct. I was misled by the description of the railway as running from Summit Hill to Jim Thorpe -- I did not realize that as a figure 8, there was a large part of the track that looped around and wasn't included in the nomination. The ANI issue comes in where Doncram reverted me with the edit summary "Restore. I don't welcome this, SarekOfVulcan. Discuss at Talk." and at Talk, instead of discussing the content, attacked me with An editor, SarekOfVulcan, who has engaged in a long history of contentious editing with/against me, has followed me to this article and removed mention of NRHP listing in the article. I don't welcome this.
There is however a wikipedia policy/guideline of BRD, which I am willing to follow if there is some legitimate point about this article. However, it is absurd and obtuse or worse to remove mention of the NRHP listing. If there is some other point that the editor wishes to make, please state it here.. It's also completely inaccurate to claim that I removed mention of the NRHP listing, as a quick look at the article history will show. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If all attention that had gone into this, had gone into further improving the articles of the enthusiastic Doncram, instead of deleting his content, we wouldn't have a problem either in my opinion. If you poke someone with a stick, he might get angry, nothing new. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Silver seren for speaking up. I previously thought this ANI should have been closed, nearly as soon as it was opened, but SarekOfVulcan's response to your direct query is disturbing. Egads, he really seems to think he was entirely right in disputing at the article, and in opening the ANI! He has not absorbed that Avanu's and others judgements are that what I originally wrote was entirely consistent with the facts known when I wrote it, and with the facts now known, and is intent on justifying his actions (mainly that he didn't just participate in a real way in a real discussion with another editor). His assertion that he did not remove NRHP mention from the article, here, is surreal.

To TheDJ, thanks also. I wasn't even particularly angry. If SarekOfVulcan couldn't take a minor jab-back in an obscure article talk page, which in substance was actually a real invitation to discussion, he shouldn't be playing here. I don't believe that he is so sensitive, not for one minute. It's more like he was and is gleeful, to have something he can seize upon and portray in a negative way, in running back and tattling to his home / mommie / viper's nest. He is clearly playing a game, on a huge battleground.

This case is disturbing on many levels. About SarekOfVulcan's behavior, the case, together with previous ones, shows he doesn't get how BRD works and/or he entirely disrespects that process. He seems intent on gotcha journalism, on identifying something/anything to seize upon and bring back to ANI to display for approval of the often-chummy in-crowd here. And, what sanctions, what consequences are being considered, if any? Shouldn't there be some compensation, some cost imposed, when a too-avid, self-appointed prison guard gets carried away. There seems to be no discussion of that, among the ANI editors, of what they should do with respect to an out-of-control ANI-focussed editor. There are real costs to the community here, or to several communities within Misplaced Pages. Sarek, meanwhile, is i think delighting in this. He gets a lot of attention, and still thinks he has "scored one" against a big-time content editor who "deserves" to be brought down. He has "won" his ends, in fact, if this ends like it stands now.

Since I have some people's attention here, what about a bigger level: wasn't it in fact morally wrong for Philip Zimbardo to run the experiment, putting people into position of beating up upon those designated as "inmates" in the prison system? That experiment was shut down. --doncram 13:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD says

1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information. (Doncram's change)
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. (My revert)
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

That third step is not "revert again and post ad hominems to the talkpage". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and His assertion that he did not remove NRHP mention from the article, here, is surreal? *points at the great big infobox on the right side of the screen*

Childish of you to try to be misleading to others, to fabricate a hairsplitting legalistic claim like it depends on what "is" is. You did remove NRHP mention from the text of the article. You know i noticed no dispute to the NRHP iinfobox present, explicitly mentioned by me at Talk page.

There could be a simple accomplishment of this ANI, if it could be for the community to give SarekOfVulcan a clear directive on how he should interpret BRD in cases like this. I get it that he is asserting the Bold step in BRD was my initial addition of info. If a past editor of the article had objected and removed my addition, I would have understood it that way, as that editor would have legitimate standing for their previous work, and I would tend to want to defer to that standing, and I would duly go to the Talk page and explain what I was trying to accomplish, and pose it as a suggestion for them to adopt or not. But here and elsewhere, SarekOfVulcan is following me, and objecting to what I believe are pretty innocuous, well sourced additions by me. Or sometimes in the past objecting to tentative assertions that i was making in the midst of developing an article or list-article. It doesn't work for BRD to assume that Sarek's new objections are the Revert in BRD. Rather, Sarek has no standing established and it is his bold removal or change that is unexpected. I could accept and even possibly welcome Sarek following me closely, if he were also making additional source contributions (like he has helpfully done on a number of architect articles i started) and if he would follow this reasonable interpretation of BRD and show deference to what the content editor already present is doing. Instead, here and in other past cases, he has not truly been willing to discuss anything, and seems over-eager to find a fault that he can trumpet elsewhere. He wants to play a game that is a combination of bullying and cowardly behavior, in my view. I get that he is following a death-by-a-thousand cuts strategy to drag me down, with inflammatory ANI topic titles like "doncram at it again", and I recognize that he has some good success with that, with dragging me down. It is this behavior that should be shut down by the community with clear direction to SarekOfVulcan. Perhaps as a general rule, a following-type editor should understand he/she is in lower status, that their edits are the Bold suggestions; specifically here I guess if i could have my druthers I would like for others to agree to an editing restriction on SarekOfVulcan with respect to following me. Because of this and multiple past cases of him with me and I think others, which we could go into or not. --doncr am 16:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The way you choose to phrase your displeasure undermines the message and your credibility here. It is obvious that you and Sarek have a personality clash, and I have no idea who is "right" or "wrong" on the merits, but lashing out and inflaming the situation isn't going to get resolution and only serves to raise questions regarding your own objectivity here. You both have gotten more personal in this discussion than what is necessary (namely, none at all). This is why I recommended getting off of ANI and working out the issues together, with or without a mediator, and instead find a way to calmly and rationally discuss your differences. If I can be so bold, my first impression is that both of you are misreading each other a bit and jumping to a few premature conclusions about each other's actions here. An air gap between you two for a few days would likely be a good start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting analogy, although the Stanford prison experiment wasn't "shut down" as such - Zimbardo himself abandonned it when one of the volunteers complained. Quite a moral thing to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Doncram, aren't you asking to have your cake and eat it too? Stripped of all the emotional baggage, what you're essentially demanding is WP:Ownership of the articles you create, at least to the extent of being able to block edits from people you disapprove of, even if those edits are within policy and exercises of legitimate editorial judgment. But previously, when people have spoken to you about writing drafts in userspace or projectspace, you've insisted that what you write needs to go to mainspace right away, so that other people can see it and collaborate on it. You've indicated that you are uncomfortable or unhappy when you have to conduct additional background research on one of your articles, and would prefer to pull information from your database source and move on, leaving that additional research for others. If you are not interested in doing further research on a topic, and prefer to leave the article to be developed by others, I don't see how you have any standing whatsoever to dictate how that article is developed. I see three possible choices, depending on what you want to get out of your time here:

1. If you would like Misplaced Pages to have at least a stub on every place on the NRHP, every architect, etc., create them, source them to the NRIS, and then unwatch them and move on. The article has been created, and you can leave the details to others.
2. If you would like to maintain editorial control over the articles you create, then slow your rate of creation, bring in additional sources, clarify information from NRIS when it's cryptic, and you should have no trouble upholding your preferred version of the article when challenged.
3. If you would like to have a large number of articles on NRHP places that include every piece of data in the NRIS but do not require you to look up other sources, then you should register a domain name and find a web host, because the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is not your personal scratchpad.

I suggest you think about the possibilities carefully and choose, rather than trying to delay the decision indefinitely by rambling about emotions and personalities. Choess (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I can answer: pretty much #1, for now that is what I am interested in, and I do particularly enjoy and value making the NRHP nomination documents and certain other series of works available immediately in articles, i.e. it's more than just NRIS info, immediately, usually. (I do also create NRIS-only stubs where it serves other immediate purposes.) It was and is a motivation of mine to prevent future editors from simply relying upon second-hand inferior sources that are more conveniently available, when it is possible to access really good sources that are hard for most persons to find. And you don't mention all the connections to be made between the new stubs and other articles, which I enjoy weaving in. It greatly adds to wikipedia to have it be a real web of with connections between the architects and the places and the events and the lists like round barns, etc. I really do welcome further development of stub articles by others, and am happy to see many of my starter works greatly improved over time, as people take pics and add sources and so on. In the past I have enjoyed cooperative editing with SarekOfVulcan, even what seemed like a friendly competition to find bits of info to develop out decent starter architect articles. But I can't do what I enjoy and am good at, if an editor is targeting me to find any fault to magnify to an ANI incident. The multiple ANIs, whether frivolous and unfounded or not, do drag a person down.

Choess, about the incident starting this ANI, what have you to say? What is to be learned from this particular incident? I'm sorry, I do see it as one editor intent on tearing down another, behaving badly. --doncram 23:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Sarek has worked out the particular problem with your edit that brought him to AN/I. At this point, let's try to focus on the material and our policies, and I mean that for you too, doncram. I know you didn't bring this issue here, but it seems that fair or not, you've got some relationship building and smoothing over of ruffled feathers whether it was intentional or not. I wish you well. -- Avanu (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I can tackle the specifics (and then I need some rest). I should note that I have written a number of articles on obscure Pennsylvania railroads and I was in Mauch Chunk (Jim Thorpe) two weeks ago, so I have a fairly good grasp of the subject background. I think neither edit was 100% optimal. When you inserted the NRHP information, the absolute best thing you could have done is take a step back a minute and say, "Hmmmm. The article says the railroad was completely torn up, so maybe 'survived' is not quite the right word to use here. And the railroad is a linear feature, so maybe instead of stating '47 acres', I should state how many miles of the right-of-way were registered." The absolute best thing Sarek could have done is sit down and think "Well. Some of that material is technically true but misleading. I'll sit down and change 'survived' to make it clear it's only the right-of-way that's survived, and I'll figure out how many miles of the r.o.w. are part of the historic site and change that." Indeed, I think there's a parallelism between what you initially did and what he did. You wanted to make a quick addition of some data to the article, and didn't want to spend a lot of time getting tied up in the details of what's actually in Mauch Chunk and so on. Sarek wanted to quickly remove some misleading wording and didn't want to spend a lot of time getting tied up in the details of what could be salvaged from you additions to the text...then the usual back-and-forth started and here we are.

I don't think bringing this to AN/I was a great idea, but I think this whole issue does need some kind of dispute resolution with a greater scope than one article or set of articles. AN/I is usually better at flinging rocks and the occasional summary hanging than complex, nuanced dispute resolution, though. Choess (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been sitting here thinking about this for a while, and maybe what we need to do is focus on process. Right now a lot of the criticism is focused on personalities. 'Oh, that Doncram, always making careless mistakes.' But you obviously have a very regular and organized process for pulling up information and creating these stubs. Maybe the way forward is to figure out how to tweak that process so it's still comfortable and productive for you but there are less confrontational ways for other people to catch problems as it runs. Take the John W. Ross thing, for instance. If you're doing a quick pull from the database to get a bunch of buildings from the Midwest, pop them into an article, and send it on its way, it's pretty natural and normal to assume it's one person. You'd have to go out of process and look very carefully to realize it's two people. Perhaps the thing to do is go back over some of these mistakes and incidents in a careful, structured way (maybe supervised by Dennis), and instead of using it as an opportunity to beat on/humiliate you personally, we try to see why it happened and how we can fix it next time. For instance, maybe if we looked and said (hypothetical example) "OK, creating articles this way always includes the area of the NRHP. But if the registered place is really small, that number isn't very meaningful and it unbalances the article. So let's add a step where if the area is less than so-and-so-much, let's just drop it from the article text." I still see some thorny issues, like trying to balance your desire for immediacy against other people wanting to spend more time and thought reviewing for accuracy. But I think approaching this in the spirit of "how do we make a process that Doncram is happy carrying out" rather than "how do we change Doncram's personality" is going to be more productive than what's happened so far. Choess (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

TheIrishWarden (2)

While I think the previous thread was useful, I really don't think problems here have been resolved. TIW is still being harassed (just take a look at their talk), and while I see that TIW is clearly not "innocent" or anything, I think the trolling has been taken too far. But to my main point..

The IP User_talk:90.222.82.125 was blocked yesterday for harassing TIW. TODAY, a new IP, User_talk:94.2.68.11, appears --> and all they do is remove the block info on the first IP, and then make some more negative comments to TIW. If this isn't socking, I don't know what it is... this is quite troubling how much attention - and hatred - TIW has gained ... and I think this needs to stop. Blocks? Theopolisme _{TALK 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)}

Thanks TParis. Also, I think that we should take this as a lesson on WP: BITE. Many newbies here get attacked over some minor error that they make and end up leaving the project. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards