PetroAntonio

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bacondrum (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.

• Hey mate, welcome to Wikipedia. You need to stop edit warring as per WP:EDITWAR. Your addition to Bruce Pascoe has been reverted a number of times now, this would usually result in a block, but as you are new you should be given a few chances to understand what the issue is and to correct this behavior. Please read up on WP:BRD - You've been bold, your bold edit has been reverted and now you are expected to discuss it at the talk page rather than edit war. Here's the relevant talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruce_Pascoe. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Scrap that - You need to declare your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and recuse yourself from editing relevant articles including Bruce Pascoe as writing about your own work is not permitted. You cannot promote your own work here. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

PetroAntonio, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PetroAntonio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, PetroAntonio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Laterthanyouthink. This guy is the author of the book they are writing about Bitter Harvest. As you can see they have been made aware that they are prohibited from adding their own book and editing this article in a conflict of interest. I think this complete lack of ethical understanding, after previously having had the COI issues explained to them, warrants an ANI report for violating COI rules. Bacondrum 11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Bacondrum, yes, you could be right - but I wanted to ensure that they have the rules set out in front of them clearly and that they understand that good faith has been extended. (See also the DE talk page.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink I know this for certain, they've both had it brought to their attention in the past, they know they should not be doing this. Bacondrum 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

COI and defamation

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bacondrum 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021 indefinitely blocked

This is a disruption only account.[1] Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hope I have done this correctly. I understand that I have been blocked for disruptive editing. The only sub-category of disruptive editing that I believe I have been guilty of is "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research". I accept that I failed in this respect and, should I be re-instated, I undertake to ensure that this does not happen again PetroAntonio (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised here. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Last year I attempted, in good faith, to include a mention of my book Bitter Harvest in the Dark Emu section of the Bruce Pascoe article. I did not attempt to argue my case, just to highlight the fact that the book existed. When I became aware that I had inadvertently breached Wikipedia protocol, I argued my case for inclusion in the talk page. It was ruled that I had a conflict of interest. I respected that decision and have not since attempted to have the book included. Recently I engaged in discussion on the talk page of the Dark Emu article, supporting the inclusion of mention of Dr Ian Keen's academic paper as a valid criticism of Dark Emu. Again I made no attempt to argue my own case. I have no conflict of interest in respect of Dr Keen's article. It seems my conflict arises from the fact that I am a critic of Dark Emu, which, I accept, makes me a partisan player. But I do not believe that should preclude me from participation in discussion or even proposing edits to the article itself. Editor HiLo48, in arguing against the inclusion of Dr Keen's paper is also clearly a partisan player having declared that he/she "sees no point in reading Dr Keen's article because Dark Emu is an excellent book in which he/she can see no flaws". It is clear that many other editors are also in this camp. PetroAntonio (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I will not unblock you to continue editing/discussing Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu, due to your clear conflict of interest (it's not a conflict of interest regarding a specific paper, it's the subject itself). Wikipedia articles should be developed by disinterested editors who have no conflict of interest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This ruling is contravention of Wikipedia's COI rule viz "Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." It clearly allows me to discuss the article and propose amendments. That is what I did most recently. I proposed an amendment and invited other editors (other than HiLo48 - who has as much a COI as I do) to object. No-one did, so I posted the amendment. 2001:8004:1420:1A41:9C72:9020:C81E:9FAE (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Technical decline only. Unblock requests must be made logged in, so we know it's you. So please log in and make a new unblock request, and someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is anybody considering this request? PetroAntonio (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Full discussion that led to block here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Serious_conflict_of_interest_issues,_blatant_advocacy_and_defamation Bacondrum 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC) This is a very telling opinion piece penned by this editor: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/ Bacondrum 00:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The "You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review" thing applies to editors in good standing, not those who have repeatedly abused their privileges to push their own agenda. Oh, and you made your unblock request logged out, making it invalid. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am now logged in. This ruling flies in the face of Wikipedia's COI rule viz "Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." It clearly allows me to discuss the article and propose amendments. That is what I did most recently. I proposed an amendment and invited other editors (other than HiLo48 - who has as much a COI as I do) to object. No-one did, so I posted the amendment.PetroAntonio (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL^{Query me!} 03:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article .... You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review..." also applies to editors in good standing, not those who have repeatedly abused their privileges to push their own agenda. Editors are frequently topic banned, formally, from specific subject areas, and I doubt anyone will unblock you without such a ban being either agreed by you or decided by community consensus. Would you like me to ask the community whether you should be subject to a topic ban? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes please PetroAntonio (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm busy with real life right now, but I'll do that shortly (and there's no need to place replies in new unblock requests). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you PetroAntonio (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• I have proposed a topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban for User:PetroAntonio?. If you have any comments you want to add, please post them here and I or someone else will copy them across. Please note that the topic ban would not automatically result in an unblock, and and unblock would still need to be negotiated separately regardless of the topic ban outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment

Looking carefully at this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Serious_conflict_of_interest_issues,_blatant_advocacy_and_defamation

and in particular this op-ed PetroAntonio penned in order to attack other editors offwiki (they refer to me as a sub-category of human and a dog eating it's own vomit):

• https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/ they should remain indef blocked, their behavior here and offwiki has been totally and utterly appalling. If they are to be merely topic banned then that should be broadly construed to include all topics relating to Aboriginal Australians and the Australian culture wars, at the very least. Though I think their behavior here has been so far beyond the pale that they should remain indef blocked. They've made numerous unblock requests yet they still have not even began to address their problematic behavior, they have not acknowledged it in any meaningful way, instead they are still carrying on about WP:NOTTHEM. Bacondrum 21:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You should make your comments at the AN discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool, sorry I mistakenly thought this was the appropriate place. thanks Boing! said Zebedee. Bacondrum 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• No. When an editor has only shown an interest in topic related to their disruptive editing, a topic ban is not appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman I've been advised that we should raise objections here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban for User:PetroAntonio?. Cheers Bacondrum 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman: And, I'm not proposing a topic ban as an alternative to a block, but in addition to it (which would cut off one avenue of appeal). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wrote a book, Bitter Harvest, critiquing Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu. In late 2020 I noticed that the Dark Emu section in the Wikipedia article on Bruce Pascoe lacked a reference to my critique, so in my naivete and ignorance of Wikipedia protocols, I added this entry:

Pascoe’s claims in Dark Emu have been challenged in a 2019 book by Peter O’Brien, ‘Bitter Harvest – the illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Brue Pascoe’s Dark Emu’, published by Quadrant Books.

I was very quickly made aware of my error for which I apologized and requested in the article’s Talk page that my edit be reinstated. Here is the discussion that ensued:

I am new to Wikipedia and it seems I did not understand how to process an edit. I inserted the following passage:

‘Pascoe’s claims in Dark Emu have been challenged in a 2019 book by Peter O’Brien, ‘Bitter Harvest – the illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu’, published by Quadrant Books.’ which was subsequently deleted. I did not receive any feedback or suggestions as to why this happened. I guess that was because I did not use this forum initially. I would like to request that my edit be re-instated. It is a factual comment, it is relevant, it is not controversial and it is not abusive. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Peter O’Brien is not a subject matter expert, the book was panned/sold poorly, poorly received by academics and published by an unreliable source of which Peter O’Brien is also a regular contributor. You have a serious conflict of interest issue which has not been declared and you should not be editing this article. Bacondrum (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not write ‘about’ my own work. I simply pointed out its existence. My book has sold out its first print run and I invite you to identify who has panned my work and on what basis. (PetroAntonio)

If an editor is pointing out the existence of their own work then that editor is obviously writing about their own work and it’s not permitted. Please see WP:PROMOTION and WP:CONFLICT. Bacondrum (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, it seems to me that this article is deficient in that it fails to mention the existence of a serious, well-researched 300-page book rebutting Pascoe’s claims. It should not matter whether it is me or someone else who rectifies that omission. However, since you did not know I was the author at the time you first deleted my contribution, it is clear that the real reason you objected is because the book is published by Quadrant. Regardless of your personal ideology, Quadrant is a serious and successful publication that survives without any help from the public purse and represents the views of a significant portion of the Australian populace. (PetroAntonio) However, I realize I am wasting my time here and I don’t really care enough to waste any more time on this matter. I am busy putting the finishing touches to the second, expanded edition of my book which will be in production shortly. Adios. — PetroAntonio

Yes, of course Peter O’Brien thinks his own books are great and his publisher is great. However, Peter O’Brien is not a subject matter expert, the book was panned/sold poorly, poorly received by academics and published by what is widely considered an unreliable and highly partisan outlet. One does assume though that they have some ethical standards and would never try to surreptitiously promote an obscure book they published as encyclopaedic content, surely they’re above that? Bacondrum (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I no longer care about this article but I cannot let those slurs go unanswered. If the subject matter is history, then, yes, I concede I am not a historian. But then neither is Bruce Pascoe and it does not take a historian to check Pascoe’s sources and discover that he almost uniformly distorts or misquotes them.

As to my book, I again invite you to quote those critics who ‘panned it’. When I registered to be a Wikipedia editor I tried to use my own name or something close to it, but I could not do so. So I chose an old nickname. When I responded to one of your emails, I made no attempt to disguise who I was, signing my response Peter O’Brien. So, no, I did not try to surreptitiously promote my book. — PetroAntonio

Quadrant is not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia content in general … In addition, it’s credibility on this topic was extensively discussed on this Talk page before. It really does seem to be a waste of time to be discussing this again. – HiLo48

So far, no substantive response to the points I raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And you have made no response to the archived material I linked above. Please stop wasting out time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

“I don’t really care enough to waste any more time on this matter” lol. Bacondrum (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

At that point I decided to let it go and from that point on I have not attempted to get a mention of Bitter Harvest into either the Pascoe or Dark Emu articles. I consider that I was polite, forthright and restrained. My proposed entry was a simple statement of fact objectionable to Wikipedia editors only on the grounds that it was inserted by me and that I write for Quadrant. But I decided the issue was not worth pursuing. However, at that time I also thought to check the Talk page of the Dark Emu article and discovered that there has been discussion of Bitter Harvest. Here is a sample of what I read:

There's a general consensus that Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu is a hatchet job, a stridently biased work with an agenda, it's not reliable, views expressed are fringe - it's an attack piece. It is published by Quadrant. Peter O'Brien has dedicated a lot of time to writing defamatory and deranged attacks on Pascoe in Quadrant, such a vitriolic and stridently biased punter cannot be considered for inclusion. Bacondrum 21:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Bitter Harvest hasn't been refuted because no one takes it seriously enough to bother…... Bacondrum (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The "substantial criticism" is all from the same tiny group of mostly discredited and unethical liars. ….. Straw man arguments like that are used by people without a decent argument against what is actually being claimed. Stop wasting our time here using the claims of bigoted liars and professional racists to defend your own ignorance and hatred. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no objective evidence that Pascoe mishandled sources. Every critical article saying such things includes bullshit from discredited sources. Any new content in such articles is therefore also questionable. ….. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bitter Harvest is about as obscure as a published work can be, there's no grounds for it having an article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be giving undue weight to fringe views. Where else have these criticisms been raised? If O'brian is the only one who has raised them then they are next level undue and fringe. Who is O'Brian? Nobody, at least not as far as publishing his criticism here is concerned. If I write a book about how shit I think Tony Abbott is, should that be added to his article? How is O'brian any more of an authority than the next punter? No way. Bacondrum (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the overwhelmingly positive response, the many awards and accolades this work has received, I'm okay with the inclusion of mainstream criticisms from reliable sources - but not Quadrant and Peter O'Brians vitriolic rubbish, I know it is harsh, but I've actually had a read and to put it politely, it's tedious (no I didn't read it all, because it's a woeful excuse for a book). Who is Peter O'Brian? A regular contributor to Quadrant, an unreliable source. Who publishes Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture? Quadrant, an unreliable source. How many units has Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture sold? Hardly any. If criticisms are to be included they need to come from reliable sources. The inclusion of this poorly written, unpopular, stridently biased, unreliable attack piece is not on, it is massively WP:UNDUE, a blatant hatchet job produced by an unreliable source that's barely sold a few dozen copies. I'll fight its inclusion with all means available. Bacondrum (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with The Drovers Wife, but I'd add that Bitter Harvest deserves no mention at all, any mention would be completely undue - the book is awful, hardly anyone one has read it. I do also agree with Scott that calling detractors (no matter how tedious their tired old agenda driven clap trap is) "discredited and convicted bigots and liars" would not be even in the same dimension as a reasonable inclusion. Only mainstream and reasonable criticisms should be included, really. The argy-bargy with Bolt et al is really a feud between Pascoe and the "usual suspects", it's covered in the Bruce Pascoe article, this article is about a widely acclaimed, award winning book which posits arguments that have been very well received by the overwhelming majority of Pascoe's peers, even those peers that have questioned his assertions have gone nowhere near the vitriolic response of O'Brian and the other "usual suspects". In context, the views of the "usual suspects" are certainly WP:FRINGE. Bacondrum (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see the argument for including Bolt and Cashman's criticisms, but not O'Brian's - they are the unhinged rantings of someone with no expertise on the subject. Who is Peter O'Brian? A one time author, retired military officer and contributor of tin hat conspiracy theories (ie: Waubra Foundation) to Quadrant, other than that I've not heard of him before and can find nothing else about him online. That barely readable rant and its obscure author are fringe and deserve no mention, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Naturally, I was pretty stung by this attack and so I wrote a scathing article and published it Quadrant Online. (https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/) I do not resile from this position. But there I left the matter until February 2021 when I became aware of the existence of a well-researched paper by anthropologist Dr Ian Keen who also has critiqued the central theme of Dark Emu. So I joined the efforts of some other editors to have mention made of this paper in the Dark Emu article. You can read the substance of this discussion here: (https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/01/tell-the-truth-get-wiki-whacked/ I proposed the following amendment:

The central premise of Dark Emu viz that Aboriginal people were essentially sedentary agriculturalists rather than nomadic hunter/gatherers, was challenged by anthropologist Dr Ian Keen, in a paper entitled “Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture” published in the journal Anthropological Forum in January 2021″.

Once again, this is a simple statement of fact, objectionable only on the basis that it was proposed by me. Having received no substantive objections to this proposal from other editors, I posted it. It was almost immediately removed. I then proposed an even more anodyne version:

The evidence that Dark Emu offers in support of the extent of pre-colonial Aboriginal agricultural practice has been challenged by anthropologist Dr Ian Keen, in a paper entitled ‘Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture’ published in the journal Anthropological Forum in January 2021. Keen argues that the evidence has been exaggerated and that the designation ‘hunter-gatherer’, that has traditionally been used to describe Aboriginal society, is appropriate.

For my pains I was ‘indefinitely blocked’. And yet today the article includes the following paragraph:

Anthropologist Ian Keen has argued in the journal Anthropological Forum against Pascoe's thesis that Indigenous Australians practised agriculture. He concluded that "Aboriginal people were indeed hunters, gatherers and fishers at the time of the British colonisation of Australia", although acknowledging "the boundary between foraging and farming is a fuzzy one.

So it is clear that I and Austhistory99 were quite justified in our efforts. The only difference was that we represent the ‘hateful racist right’. The Wikipedia COI rule states that:

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Neither Austhistory99 nor I have breached that rule. In the first instance I edited the article unaware of the spirit of the rule. When I was made aware of the rule I apologised for my transgression and proceeded according to the ‘you may request corrections or suggest content’ proviso. And as far as Bitter Harvest, about which I have a COI, is concerned that is where I left it. On the subject of Bitter Harvest, I note that no Wikipedia editor critical of my work has actually read the book. That does not speak to an objective or rigorous attitude to editing an encyclopaedia. On the other hand, Professor Geoffrey Blainey has described Bitter Harvest as a ‘powerful critique’. There have been several positive review including one from Bill James writing for the National Civic Council. (https://ncc.org.au/newsweekly/music-cinema-books/bitter-harvest-the-illusion-of-aboriginal-agriculture-in-bruce-pascoes-dark-emu/). Goodreads provides an interesting perspective. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50508475-bitter-harvest) Overall, it rates Bitter Harvest 3 ½ stars. It gets three 5 star ratings, two 4 star ratings, one 3 star rating, two 1 star ratings and a zero star rating. The 3 star rating and one of the 4 star ratings provide a detailed positive review of the book. The three adverse ratings are as follows:

Harry Peterson 1 star: Absolute trash. Psuedo-scholarship from a sad old man.

Paco zero stars: Just rubbish.

Tom 1 star.

I have searched in vain for any other substantive adverse review of my book (and believe me I have left no stone unturned). Oh and by the way, Dr Keen, newly ensconsed in the Dark Emu article, states

Many critiques of Dark Emu have come from the political right. They include the writings and broadcasts of Andrew Bolt; articles in, and a book published by Quadrant magazine (Peter O’Brien), whose editor Keith Windschuttle engaged extensively in the ‘history wars’; and the Dark Emu Exposed (Anon. 2020) as well as the Quadrant online (quadrant.org.au) websites (sic). Unfortunately, in my judgement these critiques of Pascoe’s treatment of his historical sources are largely correct.

Editor Bacondrum is now opposing my re-instatement as an editor on the basis that my conduct has been ‘appalling’. I will leave it to more objective editors to decide whose conduct has been appalling. I have probably stuffed up the indenting, for which I apologize. PetroAntonio (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL^{Query me!} 03:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jesus wept, WP:NOTTHEM. This is the fifth unblock request and again it does not address the behavior that got them blocked, in-fact they seem to think they did nothing wrong. I think it's time they were also blocked from their talk page, they've wasted enough of the communities time now, surely? Bacondrum 20:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Community-imposed topic ban enacted

Hi, PetroAntonio. This is to notify you that, irrespective of the block/unblock matter being considered above, per a community discussion (permanent link), you have been indefinitely topic banned from the subject matter of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu, broadly construed. The sanction has been recorded at WP:EDRC. Regards, El_C 18:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Editor Bacondrum is a partisan player in this dispute and should recuse himself from participating in the deliberations on my unblock request. Failing that he should be removed. PetroAntonio (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests should discuss your behaviour, not complaining about others. You have made too many unblock requests, so I am turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If any further evidence is needed

• https://quadrant.org.au/?s=peter+obrien Bacondrum 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What is happening with my unblock request, please?