User talk:Goramon

Welcome!

Hello, Goramon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Anglo-Celtic Australian[edit]

Hi, you are continuing to insert your edits into Anglo-Celtic Australian. It is against policy to add original research into articles (see WP:OR). We're also started discussing on the Talk page - please continue to discuss on Talk page before making these edits again. Please assume good faith - we all want a better article. Also, perhaps the point you are making is valid, but it does not appear that it is being understood - spending a little more time on the Talk page to explain might help to resolve the issue. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research in my edit, it is all referenced, unlike the synthesis you have insisted on unsuccessfully defending.Goramon (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anglo-Celtic Australian. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --HighKing (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Anglo-Celtic Australian, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been asked to discuss before changing the article against concensus. Continuing to tendentiously edit the article in this fashion is highly disruptive. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing Report[edit]

See here --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified and corrected the Original Research (i.e. using ABS data in a different way than was intended) you have included in the article. If you can identify which OR I have included (or any OR you want removed from the article (there is some in there but it isn't mine)) I'll happily remove it.Goramon (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reported your disruptive behaviour - namely of continuing to insert edits that were being discussed/disputed into the article without waiting for comment or consensus. You can see that your POV's have been reflected in the article after discussion, but without the disputed OR (*all* australians = anglo-celtics), and you can see that the poor/confusing representation of data (Total Population stats) have also been removed. We're not orgres here, but we prefer discussion and agreement over content. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caucasian race. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stormfront (website). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbal chat 09:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, you've already violated the rule you are now pretending to enforce and you are POV pushing.Goramon (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give 4 diffs of reverts in a 24 hour time period. I have not broken 3RR. Please restore the sourced material. Verbal chat 10:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on user talk pages doesn't contribute to a collegial environment, shows a lack of good faith, and is against policy; see WP:UP. Consider this a further warning. Verbal chat 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal hasn't violated 3RR. And by coincidence, I told someone else today what our talk page guidelines say, which is "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller 3RR violations don't necessarily have to be within a 24 hour period, that's WP:Wikilawyering. Apart from that Verbal is flagrantly violating a number of important policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:BURDEN, WP:ASF not to mention now WP:NOTTRUTH].Goramon (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding your unsupported accusations very WP:UNCIVIL, as is your general editing behaviour. I suggest if you want to continue to make 3RR accusations, you get it confirmed by posting a request to WP:AN3. However, I'm sure they will not consider my behaviour here improper. You should also have a look at WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Verbal chat 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks? That's unsupported. Every accusation I made about your editing is true it's violating NPOV and burden of proof. Anyway, i'm not interested. You're pretty clearly violating WP:ASF, and that really is the end of the story. If you want to use that source, then quote and attribute it accurately in the article and don't push your POV. This isn't complicated.Goramon (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry[edit]

Having multiple accounts to edit war in similar topics without getting blocked is against the sock puppet policy. I have blocked User:Zzmang indefinitely and your account for one week. Brandon (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User appears to have learned lesson, other account is blocked. No need to keep blocked.

Request handled by: lifebaka++ 17:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but want to check that I'm not missing something. I've asked Brandon about it. Waiting for his response. lifebaka++ 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts are used to edit, and edit war in race related topics. Zzmang received two 3RR warnings and was blocked for edit warring. This account also has received 3RR warnings and has been blocked for edit warring. This is explicitly against the sock puppetry policy, covered in the "Avoiding scrutiny" section. "Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." You are not allowed to use multiple accounts because you want to avoid making enemies. Brandon (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zzmang may have recieved 3rr edit warnings, a long time ago but that would be a stale issue. The point is Zzmang wasn't used to avoid blocks, avoid detection of 3rr or as a sock puppet in voting issues. Zzmang has not been in any recent edit wars, so can hardly be said to be a "multiple accounts to edit war in similar topics". Also the change I made would not result in a block, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=prev&oldid=305033944 and is actually a clear case of upholding WP:NPOV. There would have been no problem using Goramon to make that edit. So I was not doing it to avoid "getting blocked" and my accounts have not been "used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account." .Goramon (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have. If you made all the edits on a single account you would have received escalating blocks or even an indefinite block for continued edit warring and disruptive editing. Brandon (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit with the other account was a month ago, and i got blocked with this account a few days ago. What you just said was completely untrue.Goramon (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what account is the one you last used a month ago? Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zzmang.

lifebaka will the block be overturned?Goramon (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sorry, I was away for the weekend. I'm unblocking you on the assumption that you'll avoid using multiple accounts in any way that could be conceived to violate WP:SOCK again, though I don't believe a block on this account was ever necessary. I'm not going to tell you not to use multiple accounts (I merely suggest against it), but if you do please keep the alternate accounts as clean as possible, and avoid getting into disputes at all with them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot ;-)Goramon (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really disputing that Zzmang is your account? Brandon (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm seriously disputing that I have a sock puppet and that an investigation confirmed it.Goramon (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want me to file a SPI I will, but I already ran a CheckUser so I'm not sure what the point would be. Brandon (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand that a sock puppet isn't the same thing as a multiple account. A sock puppet is an account used for deceptive advantage in edit warring, discussion pages or voting. There was no behavorial evidence of sock puppetry, why would have you have run a check user in the first place?Goramon (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on recreating “Race and crime”.[edit]

I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in editing the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:

1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.

2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded (User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.

Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]