User talk:Miradre/Archieve 5

No More Reverts
See WP:3RR. Users are not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours in an article. You have now done 3 already so further ones may be reported and lead to a temporary ban.

You've done several reverts to the psychopathy article. If you do any more in 24 hour period you will be reported. Witch Hazzel (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He hasn't done more than three reverts to the psychopathy article and they were not the same edits that he reverted and is therefore outside of 3RR.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you're a sock puppet. You've supported everything miradre has done in very short order which isn't common at Wikipedia. This may warrant further investigation and a heads up to the administrators. Witch Hazzel (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I just have the page on my Watchlist. WP:AGF.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 00:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, actually no, I got that wrong, I don't have this page on my Watchlist, I saw the edit on Huggle and came to investigate your claim. But no, frankly basing that type of accusation on one edit is preposterous.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think that you so quickly responded is suspect. Wikipedia seems to move a bit slower than that, in my experience. Witch Hazzel (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not Wikipedia.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not wikipedia.....you're miradre!!! Witch Hazzel (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe me to be a sockpuppet, then you can take it to Suspected sock puppets. But I doubt you'll get much joy.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 00:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COIN
FYI. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Handling previously published text
Hi. :) As you're aware, Mathsci pointed out some potential misunderstanding of how Wikipedia handles previously published at my talk page; I just wanted to stop by and clarify how things are handled on Wikipedia and why. There is a basic overview of approaches at Copy-paste that you might find helpful, but it does not go into that much detail.

As a general rule of thumb (in accordance with copyright policy) if the source you are using is under copyright (or might be) and it is not obviously licensed so that we can copy it, you have to put the information you get from it completely into your own words. This frequently means using both different language and structure. Doing otherwise can result in a close paraphrase, which may be an issue of plagiarism, a matter of copyright infringement or both. Since one of Wikipedia's goals is to produce content that can be freely reused by anyone anywhere (and since the only way to know for sure if closely following content is infringement is to take the matter to court), the Wikipedia prefers either a thorough rewrite or a limited quotation, which must be marked clearly as a quotation and must be used for good reason - what in copyright law is referred to as transformative use. (There are some example reasons set out at WP:NFC; that list isn't exhaustive, by any means, but it's a pretty good overview. The real danger enters in when we use the words just because the original source put it well and we want to use their language to describe something ourselves. In that case, we are most likely to be "superseding" the original work, which can fail fair use.)

Certainly, quotes are welcome on Wikipedia. As a scholarly source, we'd not do too well without them. :) Quotations sets out some thoughts with regards to these, including a bit on copyright aspects. But in general, we should try to keep the amount of material we quote to a minimum and make sure that the reason for any quotes we do use is obvious in the text, to help support transformative use. And what's described as "intext attribution" should always be used for direct quotes.

This issue is taken pretty seriously on Wikipedia. It would usually be better to err on the side of caution here, particularly in making sure that material you do not quote directly is completely rewritten. I've been working copyright issues heavily on Wikipedia for a few years now, and I've seen a number of good faith contributors who really struggled with these issues and who ran into some serious trouble because of it. :/

Although I'm afraid I don't have as much time for volunteering on Wikipedia at the moment as I used to (and will again, when my current job contract expires), I am always happy to talk about rewrites, and I have a number of "talk page stalkers" who are generally very knowledgeable and helpful. If you ever have any concerns about whether content is properly rewritten or just want to talk about copyright stuff, you are welcome to come by my page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your informative post. I certainly agree that citing sources correctly and avoiding copyright problems is very important. I may have done some mistakes regarding this in that past and I will try to improve. Regading Mathsci, I and others have already commented regarding his continued harrassment of me.Miradre (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent merge
Hi Miradre,

I appreciate your effort to seek consensus through a merge proposal before merging Motivation for rape to Causes of sexual violence, but as you are no doubt aware, no one participated in the discussion, meaning that while there was no articulated consensus against it, there was also no consensus for it. May I recommend undoing the merge for now, re-opening the discussion, and seeking wider input at the relatively large number of WikiProjects that handle those articles? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I notice that Mathsci has approached you on this issue. Mathsci has a history of following me around Wikipedia and opposing me on topics he never has been interested in before as well as trying to report me or articles I edit for various claimed problems. If there are any concrete points regarding the article in question, please raise them on the talk page of the article. The correct merge procedure was followed and I waited 10 days for any objections. Miradre (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for the merge. Please undo it on both pages and request opinions from the wikiprojects listed on Talk:Motivation for rape. If your edits appear not to follow wikipedia guidelines, other users will monitor them. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the correct merge procedure was followed. State any objections regarding the articles on the talk page. Stop following me around Wikipedia to topics you have never been interested in simply to oppose whatever I do.Miradre (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The best way forward for you is to do as Roscelese advises: revert your merge and seek more input at the pages of the wikiprojects. If you think that this suggestion is against policy, feel free to raise the question on WP:ANI. Mathsci (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The correct merge procedure was followed. Again, raise any objections on the relevant talk page. Stop stalking me.Miradre (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I followed all the instructions in WP:MERGE. Furthermore, no one has raised any concrete objections to the merge. Either during the ten day wait or now. Also, my talk page is not the correct place to discuss content issues. Do not discuss the issue here. I will remove further replies. Continue any objections on the talk page of the articles.Miradre (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Miradre. I personally haven't looked over the "before" and "after" of the merge, so I don't express an opinion on whether it was good or bad, and I'm unaware of the problems between you and Mathsci, so if there's harassment going on I'm sorry to have been a proxy to it, but I still maintain that in the absence of any talkpage discussion, seeking input at WikiProjects would have been a good idea, from a process point of view. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I followed WP:MERGE and contacting any Wikiprojekt is not mentioned. No one has had any concrete objections. Either during the ten day wait or now. Please raise any further issues on the talk page of the articles.Miradre (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Please see WP:AE. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added a comment in support of your edits. Memills (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Miradre (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

PTSD - recent augmentation of article - "Evolutionary psychology"
Thanks! This appears to me to be a useful and worthy addition to the article. I'm troubled by the organization of the whole Causes section, and have proposed a restructuring of it (see PTSD's Talk page), but this is part of a grander review/rewrite of whole article. This evolutionary stuff certainly should be a part of the revised, restructured content, in my opinion.

I wonder if you would consider being more particular with your references (the second one appears to have a problem, by the way - look at the reference list). It's easier to control future bogus edits if references are placed immediately after the sentence which depends upon them, rather than at the end of a group of sentences. I hope I'm making sense.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! For the articles I used the Template:Cite doi which retrieves the info and then formats automatically when given a doi so I am not sure what problem you are referring to regarding the second reference. It seems to look OK in the reference list. I think it is understood that a reference at the end of a paragraph refers to the whole paragraph. Of course, one could place a reference after every single sentence but that would look cluttered and not necessary when the whole paragraph has the same source. Miradre (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating the ARBR&I topic ban on the page Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  At am a  頭 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)  Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."


 * You seem to have missed the rest of the line after making an "unblock" request? Kuru   (talk)  19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Miradre (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Miradre
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Miradre (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : One month block. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, logged at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Miradre

 * 1) It is dubious that Atama is uninvolved since he has been involved in a complaint against me started by the person (Mathsci) who also started the AE case: See.
 * 2) That Atama states that someone asked him to look at this case raises the question who did this? Someone already involved who knew that I had had a dispute with Atama?
 * 3) That there has been a long period without agreement regarding AE indicates that there is uncertainly regarding the situation. So there should preferable be some discussion and consensus by uninvolved editors and not an unilateral decision. Atama stated his intention to block and allowed no time for discussion by uninvolved administrators regarding his justification and the length of the block but blocked and closed the case immediately after stating his justification.
 * 4) The block seems very long for such an uncertain case.
 * 5) Finally, the justification for the block is wrong. There is no mention of IQ anywhere in Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Atama states that there is a section regarding ethnocentrism in the article. But that section states that evolutionary psychology does NOT look at ethnic differences but rather about universal human behavior. As such the article and evolutionary psychology is explicitly NOT about either racial or ethnical differences. So to me it seemed that article was safe to edit just because of this section... Note also that no else has argued that the article as a whole are under the ArbCom sanctions. The arguments has been regarding specific statements. No one except Atama has argued that the sanctions apply to everything in the article regardless of contents of the edits. This is a new accusation that I have therefore not replied to. As such it seems to me that Atama should have made this new accusation as an involved party and allowed an uninvolved adminstrator judge its merit after I had had a chance to defend myself against this new accusation. Miradre (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you reply Atama. But regardless of the merit of point 1-4, you made no reply regarding the last point. I think the article makes it clear that it is not about race or ethnicity. Which is why I felt safe editing it so long as I avoided statements about race or ethnicity. Would you therefore consider reverting the block? If you still think that you have a valid accusation, would you consider instead entering the case as an interested party making a new accusation and thus allow me defend myself against the new accusation and allow an uninvolved administrator judge your new accusation? Miradre (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no reply for the last point because I explained my reasons for the decision I made at the arbitration enforcement request before I closed it and didn't feel the need to repeat myself. I have no interest in the articles covered by the arbitration and don't care to become involved in any of those articles. The only reason why I took on the request was because I'm uninvolved, and could close it. I honestly don't like Arbitration Enforcement because (no offense to you) administrators who choose to get involved there have a tendency to be harassed. I closed it in a way that seemed right after looking over the arbitration case, the topic ban, the article, and the actions you took. I have nothing against you and no friends on the other side of the argument (even today I was criticized for being too hard on Mathsci at the COI noticeboard). --  At am a  頭 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Atama
I was asked to close the AE request, by Captain Occam. I was only asked to make a decision because the request had been open so long, I wasn't asked to do anything in particular.

I commented in a COI noticeboard thread that Miradre's COI accusation against Mathsci and another editor were unfounded, and later warned Miradre that continuing to make allegations could be considered harassment, but that I had no intention of imposing any sanctions at the time. I don't see how that could in any way make me involved. Miradre withdrew the accusations, and the issue ended peacefully (or I thought so at least).

The block is no longer than what the arbitration discussion suggested as an initial block length. I also don't see that arbitration enforcement requires asking for a consensus from other administrators before making a decision. --  At am a  頭 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Miradre

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I've copied this over to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for you. If you wish to add further comments, please post them below along with the helpme template and an explanation of where they should go. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I need help with responding to EdJohnston's comment at AE. This is my reply:

Reply to EdJohnston: EdJohnston make no comment regarding whether this block was justified on AE grounds but instead takes up what caused the topic ban itself. Hopefully this AE is about possibly current wrongdoing and not past. But since he takes up the past instead of current behavior, I have learned from my mistake and will certainly not revert similarly in the future. However, I will also note that there are two sides to a dispute and that Aprock reverted more times but me but received no topic ban which seems unfair and possibly biased. I know that some of the the sourced views I have introduced are unpopular but I hope that this will not cause bias among those judging me. See: User:Miradre/sandbox2 Regarding whether I contribute to Wikipedia, I think anyone reviewing my edits will that I have added much new and interesting material sourced to many scholarly sources. Miradre (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅  Ron h jones  (Talk) 12:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for prior help. I need some further help. This is my reply to memills in the section titled "Statement by memills" at the AE case:

I agree completely with the above statement by memills. There are several subject experts who have commended my contributions to Wikipedia:


 * Regarding my edits to the IQ article by a subject expert on this area: by User:Tim bates
 * Regarding my edits to the PTSD article by a subject expert on this area: by User:Tomcloyd
 * Regarding my evolutionary psychology edits in general, see the statement above by Memills who is a subject expert on evolutionary psychology.

On the other hand, many of my critics are anthropologists or more generally opponents of biological explanations in social sciences. While there is certainly no necessary incompatibility between anthropology (or social sciences) and evolutionary theory, some important theories within anthropology (and social sciences more generally) are incompatible with evolutionary psychology theories. Such as the incest taboo and the definition of kinship being arbitrary social constructs and more generally social behavior being arbitrary social constructs on a blank slate mind with little influence from genetics. Thus, I feel this is part of a larger, ongoing conflict within the social sciences where a group of editors with a specifc anti-biololgical POV are trying to push their own POV by using wikilawyering and ultimately banning those wanting to include biological views in Wikipedia.

I expect that the next step after this AE is closed will be to try to ban me indefinitely from Wikipedia while I am unable to defend myself properly. In preparation for this I am therefore pointing that I have used scholarly sources in order to add much new and interesting material and that subject experts find my contributions to Wikipedia valuable.

Also since I expect an attempt to ban me indefinitely while being blocked, when I have difficulty defending myself, I will state that I will avoid any editing conflicts regarding race and intelligence as long as those pages are controlled by a dedicated group of editors with the same strong POV. The ArbCom explicitly does not judge content disputes. The subject matter and statistical arguments take a long time to grasp and in the end there are no clear answers and will likely not be such answers until we have better genetic testing. On the other hand, there is an extremely strong public opinion and prejudice against biologic explanations in this area. When the Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA James D. Watson was essentially fired and forced to make a public apology for suggesting biological causes in this areas there is currently no hope for lesser persons. As such I will not just avoid editing conflicts in this area, I will actively warn other editors who attempt to introduce biological views to be extremely careful when editing this area and that they can expect wikilawyering with the goal of an indefinite ban by the group controlling these pages. Instead I will strongly suggest that they concentrate on more productive editing in other, less dangerous areas, as I intend to do.  Miradre  (Talk E-mail) 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ 94.116.82.8 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is my reply to Maunus in the section titled "Statement by Maunus" at the AE case:

This is a reply to this edit by Maunus in case he changes it. Maunus here more or less confirms what I stated above in my reply to memills. This is part of a wider conflict regarding EP. Manus states that he thinks evolutionary psychology is a fringe science: "making it look as if EP is a mainstream approach to psychology and cognition" and more generally that his own POV regarding various things is correct and other POVs are fringe. Maunus also makes various unsourced and factually incorrect statements. Regarding sourced views, please again see User:Miradre/sandbox2. Miradre  (Talk E-mail) 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

✅ 94.116.82.8 (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would need some further help. This is subsection called "Reply to Atama" that should be in the "Statement by Miradre" section

Atama claims that the sociobiology article mentions the race and intelligence debate when it never does. There is a hidden link to the race and intelligence article which I was not aware of since the link was hidden. Yes, there is a single mention of "ethnic nepotism" but does that mean that the whole article is under the sanctions? Another example would be the Paleoconservatism article which also has such a mention. Does this mean that everything in the Paleoconservatism article is under the sanctions? Regarding the "Criticism of evolutionary psychology" articles I repeat what I stated previously. Atama states that there is a section regarding ethnocentrism in the article. But that section states that evolutionary psychology does NOT look at ethnic differences but rather about universal human behavior. As such the article is explicitly NOT about either racial or ethnical differences. So to me it seemed that the article was safe to edit just because of this section... Now Atama is turning just this against me.

Furthermore, Atama is again, as he did previously, bringing up a new accusation. He certainly did not warn me, much less allowed me to defend myself with any counter-argument, before banning me. In effect he bypassed the whole AE process and banned me due to a new accusation without allowing me (or anyone else) to present any arguments regarding his new accusation. Miradre  (Talk E-mail) 22:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

✅ 91.85.210.144 (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)