User talk:Academy Leader

Hello from Nick

Hello, Academy Leader, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 21:01, April 8, 2007 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

I disagree with you. I think that posting an edit that includes a link to an attack site that attacks our editors, and then proceeding to discuss attacks on specific editors here violates WP:NPA and possibly WP:POINT. Crum375 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Crum375 and myself to the existing mediation case. I've also asked to have the talk page protected until the "can we cite here" question is resolved. Mangoe 03:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently no place to do an RFC for policy pages. If you can figure out wheree, by all means tell me. Mangoe 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia[edit]

Hi, I wondered if you had noticed that this is an encyclopedia project. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i'll get around to it. haven't thought of any other areas to specialize this account in. (i am open to your suggestion, however.) in the meantime, i hope my comments on policy pages are not considered disruptive. i think i have been one of the posters most dispassionately pushing for a compromise there.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security[edit]

You're welcome to do so if you also advertise the page (e.g. on WP:RFC and/or the village pump) in order to get more feedback. However, I should point out that the page isn't really actionable; it gives some suggestions for people who want to protect their account, but there is no way we can make sure people are actually doing that (i.e. it's hardly "considered a standard that all users should follow"). >Radiant< 07:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute[edit]

[1] Well, I suppose you could always try... I might even ignore my personal policy of refusing to participate in that chicanery... Risker 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks[edit]

I'm removing your "proxy" support. I do want to see support for this position, but I want it to be from people who really mean it. They're evidently already (for whatever reason) reluctant to express it, and they'll be all the more so if it means seeming to agree with thinly-veiled sarcasm. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did seem a bit WP:POINTed given your other expressed opinions on the issue. *Dan T.* 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't participate in straw polls, but I'll concede. Last time someone tried this, DC was the only one to step up.[2]—AL ^FOCUS! 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for that link. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it[edit]

Why push Mantanmoreland's buttons? That entire discussion has been extremely frustrating (it's been going on for 3 months now!) and half of what makes it frustrating is the pointless needling of people on either side of the debate - the removal of reasonable links, the insertion of deliberately provocative ones. I had had hopes that you might be a relatively sensible editor on this subject; it was very disappointing to find I had misperceived you. Risker 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the discussion has been extremely frustrating, Risker, is because some editors are undisguised advocates of attack sites. This is not an ordinary policy discussion in which people disagree in good faith. This is an ordinary policy discussion in which people disagree in good faith and there are small number of vocal editors who are hostile to targets of attack sites.--Mantanmoreland 05:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat 'em with humor, I say. Though I will point out that you were the one breaking off the bad faith and snide remarks before I put on my jester motley.—AL ^FOCUS! 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can also argue that the "anti-linking" side contains some who take their position due to a good-faith desire for a more civil atmosphere... but also a small number of vocal editors who have a personal hostility to certain sites and the people on them which clouds their objectivity. Both sides have the problem of being dominated by a handful of pushy people, and it's possible to argue that some of them are failing to show good faith to the other side... but doing so would also be a failure to assume good faith. *Dan T.* 13:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot[edit]

I'm sorry to say this but judging from your contribs, your support, as carefully and civil as it is formulated, seems like pointy sarcasm. If I'm mistaken here, please excuse my judgement. You see, there have been much more than enough uncivilities, personal attacks as well as single-purpose accounts and possibly meat and sock puppets for one RfA. Again, sorry if I'm being over-eager here, but I couldn't help reading some sarcasm into your comment. —AldeBaer 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes you are right, but my suport was genuine. You see, if I were to oppose based on my strong ideological and ethical inclination to oppose, I wouldn't be any better than those who've opposed worthy candidates on the basis of, for instance, their stance on "attack-sites" or some other personal bias. My comment may have sounded sarcastic, but my support was genuine in light of the ideological battlefield WP has become, against its own rules, might I add. Best,—AL ^FOCUS! 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've never opposed anyone's RFA, even one I've tangled with before. My support is consistent with that.—AL ^FOCUS! 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, thanks for the explanation. —AldeBaer 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Order 66[edit]

I saw the reference on your user page, and the purge is occurring as we speak. Already someone has been banned using Wale's logic. [3] --arkalochori ^|talk| 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I see that this account has been used primarily for disruption. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, and this account wasn't being used for that purpose. To the reviewing administrator: this is a problem user. Do not unblock without discussing with me first, or achieving a clear consensus to unblock at WP:AN or WP:ANI. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here as I am unsure of the protocol for dealing with this. This is a legitimate WP:SPA used for commenting on policy discussions. I haven't used this account for editing, as it just progressed that my other account User:Amerique is the account i'm known by for editing, and this is the account I'm known by for policy. A checkuser will establish that I've never used these or other accounts in any malicious way to deceive people or to affect an RFA or something. So, what's the next step here?—AL ^FOCUS! 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice i'm being commented on at WP:ANI. Is it ok for me to go over there and defend myself or what?—AL ^FOCUS!

Ok, I've just noticed I can't defend myself over there. That is messed up. It would be disingenuous, not to say ridiculous, to use "Amerique" to advocate for myself... what does my use of this account for political purposes matter if it's long been designated as such and as I've even attempted to clear up some incidents on my part that this account has been involved in? I don't go stalking people, nor do i bear any ill-will towards anyone here. I do admit I was trolling in some instances earlier but I've ceased doing that and if you notice this account has only become active after drama at WP:NPA starts up, by others, not by me, more or less as I feel a certain responsibility towards that page as I feel my prior activities, in forking the BADSITES text specifically, lead to the past year's various outrages re: "Attack sites" across en.wiki—AL ^FOCUS! 20:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I request my block be removed or suspended so I can participate in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MONGO_2 case. I am at least as involved or invested as any of the named parties so far, and will accept ArbCom judgment as to my own activities leading to this block if they could be reviewed tin the course of this case. (I'll promise not to edit NPA or otherwise affect the encyclopedia through this account while the case is in-session, should it be accepted.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you've got some kind of limited-duration ip-range block on "Amerique," so now I can't even edit mainspace. As I don't recall having ever dealt with you before I was willing to assume good faith initially on this but the block on Amerique definitely looks punitive. (Not that the block on "AL" wasn't. The "support" for this on ANI comes from everyone I've spoken out before in opposition to.) Unless you really want me to stop contributing to academic and regional articles altogether I request the block of "Amerique" be lifted immediately, whatever happens to this account.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your request to have the block removed so that you can participate in the ArbCom case, 1) it hasn't been accepted yet and may not be, 2) blocked users can submit evidence to ArbCom by email, and 3) your Amerique account isn't blocked, so there's no reason why you couldn't use that in the event of the case being accepted. Regarding the block on Amerique, as I said, that account isn't blocked, and hasn't been, so there's nothing punitive about it. Amerique was simply caught in an autoblock. In fact, when it was pointed out to Jehochman that you had been blocked with the autoblock, he immediately unblocked you and reblocked with autoblock disabled. Unfortunately, he didn't think of actually undoing the existing autoblock. I have now done that. ElinorD (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That worked. Thanks ElinorD. I saw that the ip range block was set for a limited duration and thought this was a conscious decision. I noticed that the account "Amerique" wasn't blocked itself, but i thought the ip range block was some kind of attempt to keep me out entirely, at least for a few days.

:I've always been open about all my activities. There is nothing i could or would say in the ArbCase that requires the use of off-wiki links for evidence, as I don't comment on activities I do here on other sites elsewhere, nor have I commented about this site elsewhere. Using "Amerique" to defend "AL" would just be ridiculous, I think, as i took special effort not to co-mingle the activities of these two accounts. I would rather "AL" defend himself (this is schizophrenic!) than really involve my "good side" in this.

If the case is accepted and i am not listed as a party, then the Arbcom will have no recourse to review my actions or this block and issue any statement or remedy. If the case is not accepted, fine, but so far as my recent activities have been concerning NPA and so far as the case itself concerns NPA I would like "AL" to be listed as a party so that the ArbCom can come to a determination on this. Regards,—AL ^FOCUS! 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've had a further look at the comments at ANI, and it's obvious that even if I were to use "Amerique" I couldn't get a fair shake there. It is my belief that use of this account is entirely acceptable under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, and I would submit to an ArbCom review and comply with their determination on this. I do not want to participate in the ArbCase because I especially want to participate in or encourage drama, but to mitigate it as it involves me. I won't give or respond to evidence regarding other users, except as pertaining to my activities at NPA and elsewhere as they were listed as supporting reasons for this block.—AL ^FOCUS! 00:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A record at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#Academy_Leader_Blocked shows a discussion that I initiated to have the block reviewed. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]