User talk:Xerographica/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:CCI

Xerographica, I've just now come across WP:CCI. I bring this to your attention because various other editors have remarked that your blockquote additions may constitute copyright violations. Copyright is an area that I know very little about, so I won't opine on whether the quotations you post constitute copyvio. So please consider this as a helpful and friendly "heads-up". Reading up on this area now may save you difficulties later.-- – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And like I've told those others editors, if you feel that using blockquotes is a copyright violation then please take your cause over to Wikiquote. --Xerographica (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say I felt like you were violating copyrights and I do not have a cause to take anywhere. Jesh! This is an alert to you that other editors might bring up your postings on CCI. If they do, and if you are found to be a copyvio editor, you may end up being blocked. (Although I may be mistaken in this regard.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If they truly believed that I was violating copyright, then why wouldn't they bring up my postings on CCI? --Xerographica (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Tax choice, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This edit [1] improperly accuses another editor of being arbitrary, not genuinely interested in article improvement, or disruptiveness. You utterly disregard any other possibilities, such as his interest in editing articles that do you are not concerned with or about. You, of all people, are not the judge of any other editor's good faith. I am posting this as a "final warning" because on January 31 and February 1, you received messages from other editors about your improper comments. – S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Xerographica, I did read your remark [2]. You are just shooting yourself in the foot with such a complaint. That page is for discussing NPA policy, not to complain when I (or others) give you warnings about your behavior. Your addition will be looked upon as another disruptive edit. -- – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a complaint. It's my sincere request that you update the personal attack policy to match your preferences. That way you'll spend all your time warning other editors that it's a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive. --Xerographica (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

[[File:|25px|link=]] You're being cute. You addressed the comment specifically to me. You did not address anything to the community. The policy says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Walled Garden

Is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics on your watchlist? If not, you might take a look. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's on my watch list...thanks though. It's a funny description. Sure it's a garden...but it's not like the walls are very high. --Xerographica (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary and disruptive

I just received another warning from Rich...User_talk:Xerographica#February_2013_2. According to him, it's a personal attack to say...

that another editor is being disruptive
that another editor's edits were arbitrary
that another editor is not genuinely interested in improving an article

Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences? --Xerographica (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You know full well that the 3rd one in that list is one - you've been blocked for saying the exact same thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What about the first two? Regarding the third one... The first time I was blocked it was because I said that other editors were A. incompetent and B. VDEs (Value Destroying Editors). The second time I was blocked it was because I said that editors were "willfully ignoring reliable sources". I really don't think that "willfully ignoring reliable sources" is the same thing as "not being genuinely interested in improving an article". --Xerographica (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Remember the core part of civility: we comment on edits, not editors. The moment you say "the editor does x" or "the editor only does y" you're commenting on the editor. "These edits do not improve the article" is valid if, indeed, they do not improve the article. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But how can a community possibly function if we're not allowed to give feedback on each other's behavior? According to your core civility policy...even giving another editor positive feedback would be considered uncivil. Well...you can adjust the policy to say..."only comment on the edits...unless you're giving another editor positive feedback." But that would be the same thing as saying, "don't give other editors negative feedback". --Xerographica (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference in quietly going to someone's talkpage and saying "Bob, I think that THIS EDIT really doesn't help the project because it does A and B and doesn't do C" and using an edit summary to say "Bob is willfully ignoring sources" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But if Bob really isn't reading the sources...then it's a waste of time to try and explain to him why a specific edit isn't helpful. That's because the only way Bob can know the value of an edit is by having a firm grasp on what the reliable sources say about the subject. The greater the disparity between the edit and the reliable sources...the greater the harm. --Xerographica (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, your "I have offline sources that I insist that you read or else you have no business editing this article. I'm better than you because I have a book in my possession, and anything that I say comes from this book is the rule of law so fuck you" attitude that you have. Yes, so very helpful around here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, that's not my attitude. My attitude is "Please read at least one reliable source on the topic that you're editing...please, please, please." If you're truly interested in a topic, then I shouldn't have to beg you to read the relevant reliable sources. Conversely, if you haven't read a single reliable source...then clearly you're not interested in the topic. For example, how many relevant reliable sources have you read on tax choice? Zero? Yeah...probably...because you're not interested in the topic. Which is perfectly fine...unless you start removing entire sections of content. If somebody hasn't made a single positive contribution to an article...then it's really hard for me to assume good faith when they make numerous negative contributions to an article. And it's even harder to assume good faith when they remove entire sections and continue to insist that the article should be deleted. When their actions and their words are perfectly aligned...then there's no doubt in my mind that their intention is not to improve the article. --Xerographica (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it clearly is your attitude. When dozens of people all tell you that, you need to listen. Of course, you also bring up another crux: your very bizarre interpretation of the types of articles that are appropriate for an encyclopedia. You then fight tooth-and-nail for them, contrary to logic, intelligent reasoning, or the community. Do you see the overarching concept here: you are not interested in this community, and until you are, you'll run into problems - and will likely keep being blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop putting your complaint on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks because that is the talk page of a policy, and is not a place to air general grievances. Apart from that problem, repeatedly adding the text is edit warring which is never permitted. I'm not sure what page you would use to argue that a policy talk page should be used for a personal grievance, but there would need to be some kind of community consensus before similar comments are restored, in order to avoid an edit warring block. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, because it sure makes a lot of sense to discuss what does, and does not, constitute a personal attack on my talk page...rather than on the personal attack talk page. In other words, please stop being disruptive. --Xerographica (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, when most of the rest of the community understands it, and you're trying to wikilaywer your way out of things, then yes - keep it off the policy talkpage and keep it here where the individual editor doesn't seem to understand it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the community understands what? Rich warned me that it's a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive...but I've seen plenty of editors tell other editors that they are being disruptive. So which is it? --Xerographica (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to call another editor disruptive when he or she is being disruptive. Just like it's not a personal attack to call you a jerk when you're being a jerk. Now stop being a jerk. Crikey, I've only known you a few hours and already I want to strangle you. These other people must have the patience of Job. I'm gonna go beat a dead horse now -- more productive than this. Think of it as voting with my feet. EEng (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

NPA talkback

Hello, Xerographica. You have the NPA talk page at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks's talk page. LittleBen (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion – Editor Review

Suggest you look at and consider an Editor review. – S. Rich (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RSN posting – notifications

While you are not complaining about particular editors in this posting, you should WP:NOTIFY the other editors. Please do not assume that they are watching anything. – S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How did you find out about the posting? Let me guess...is it because you and Rubin watch my contributions? Isn't that how you found and undid my edit on House of Cards (U.S. TV series)? --Xerographica (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope you will Just Do It (Nike). Here is the template: {{subst:RSN-notice|topic|thread=section header of discussion}} --~~~~ – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Latest (and hopefully last) PA

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Bundling (public choice), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This inappropriate edit, [3], is a personal attack and completely lacks AGF. – S. Rich (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please "unbundle" your warning and specify exactly which part of my paragraph contains the personal attack. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"What, exactly, is your positive contribution to this article? [...] But rather than help further develop the article, you simply removed the material and are now telling me what I must do in order to improve the article. If you're not willing to strain your brain in order to paraphrase long quotes, if you're not willing to make the effort to repurpose this article... if you're not willing to sacrifice alternative uses of your time in order to actually read the reliable sources...in other words...if you're not willing to WP:DIY...then please refrain from making negative contributions." – S. Rich (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you whittle it down a little more? --Xerographica (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. All of it. (Each part and as a whole). – S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So it wouldn't be a personal attack to tell another editor to WP:DIY? --Xerographica (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Last chance

Listen, I don't know you from Adam. But I have seen your name pop up quite a bit recently on noticeboards. I certainly dont edit the articles you are working on. You are still questioning other editors if they have read certain sources. Stop doing this. Please. You well know by now that we must AGF - to a point. Questioning if someone has examined a source is the height of not AGF. I suggest you find another way to phrase your question, perhaps by quoting the relevant portion of the text you are discussing and asking for their interpretation.

Additionally, your sea-lawyer routine is demonstrative of a combative attitude. At some point an admin will decide you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encycledia, but rather to argue. I'd hate to see you get blocked, but I can assure you that is what will happen if you continue. If you have trouble with other editors, feel free to ask on my talk page and ill try and make suggestions on how you can resolve them. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand how it goes against AFG to question whether somebody is familiar with a concept or has read the relevant sources. It's a non sequitur. Perhaps it would be logical if there was a policy called...Assume Perfect Knowledge (APK). It would certainly go against APK to ask you whether you've read anything by Buchanan.

But it would be absurd for there to be an APK policy. Because Wikipedia itself is based on the concept of partial knowledge. That means that you and I both know different things. It means that I know that the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, based Wikipedia on Hayek's essay on partial knowledge. And if I ask you whether you've read Hayek's most excellent essay...then it would be a total non sequitur for my question to be considered an Assumption of Bad Faith. My question would simply be the most perfectly reasonable assumption that nobody can know everything.

Does that make sense? AGF simply means that I'm supposed to assume, until proven otherwise, that your intentions are to actually improve an article. Right now, given that we've never edited an article together, if we were to do so for the first time...then I would AGF that you would truly want to improve the article.

But what if your edits did not reflect what the RS's, that I've read, had to say about the topic? What if it becomes clear that you've absolutely no interest in reading the relevant RS's? And/or, what if I become convinced that you sincerely and genuinely detest the concept and you would love nothing more than for the entire article to be deleted? What if you yourself say, several times even, that the article should be deleted? Do I still AGF? When you say that the article should be deleted and you remove entire sections of content...do I still AGF?

Unfortunately, it's extremely easy for you, an outside editor, to identify when I'm "attacking" other editors or not assuming good faith. But I truly wish it was just as easy for you to identify editors that are intentionally being disruptive and/or editing way outside their areas of expertise. --Xerographica (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's easy for ~~lgm~~ lgr to identify when ~~you are~~ one is perceived to be attacking other editors because he had been so perceived. If I recall correctly, in his case, the truth of the accusation is considered irrelevant because he promised not to do it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

When discussing content with others, we always assume, unless given strong evidence to the contrary, that an editor has read the source in question. This is why I suggest that when you have a difference of opinion about what a source says for you to address the content of that source. For example, if you think source ABC means "X", and JoeBlow claims ABC means "Y", then instead of questioning if JoeBlow read ABC, quote the relevant portion of ABC and then explain why you came to your interpretation. It allows for focused discussion, and will avoid annoying others with perceived lack of good faith. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Arthur meant LGR, not lgm. More importantly, and

sadly, you, Xerographica, again fail to AGF when you repeat your allegation that other editors are "intentionally being disruptive and/or editing way outside their areas of expertise." I'm going to mull over another ANI notice. Even when someone comes in with Thoughtful, Helpful, Intelligent, Necessary, and Kind comments about your behavior, you react with negativity. An ANI may be the only way to go. – S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

LGR, I sincerely and most genuinely wish that JoeBlow claimed ABC means "Y". But again, JoeBlow never claims that ABC or BCD or CDE means anything because he has absolutely no interest in what the RSs have to say about the subjects.

Here's exactly the situation that you're talking about... Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#McEachern_and_the_USPS. I love that situation. But the JoeBlow in that situation is not one of the JoeBlows that I'm having difficulties with. Again, the only reason that I'm having difficulties with these editors is because they do not read the sources relevant to the articles that they edit.

Why don't they read RSs? One of the JoeBlows hates these free-market concepts and wishes that they were all deleted...while the other two JoeBlows are under the impression (that's been unfortunately reinforced by the community) that there's really no need for them to read the relevant RSs. I'm the only member of the community who has tried to communicate to them the importance of reading the relevant RSs...but to no avail.

It has to be you, or other community members, who kindly suggests that they actually read the relevant sources before they edit economic articles. And then you have to somehow quiz them to ensure that they actually did do their homework. And if they did not do their homework then you have to prevent them from making substantial content cuts to the articles. Then, and only then, can these editors progress to the point that they say that ABC means "Y". --Xerographica (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats not how it works here. We don't require people to read what you consider relevant. And we certainly don't quiz them for competence. To put it simply, we find sources and then paraphrase them. Of course there is sourcing requirements of reliability, relevance and weight before a source can be used. Once a source is found, then there is the prose which requires fidelity and NPOV. And all of this has to be accomplished in a collegial fashion. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

They don't find their own sources and they don't read the sources that I find. --Xerographica (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Extra training

Xerographica, some years ago I was a platoon sergeant on AD. Not in a line unit, but combat support. And, imagine, some of my troops misbehaved. While I was tempted to take a SFC Snorkel approach, I resisted. Instead I'd deny privileges, issue reprimands, assign extra training, etc.. (I was pretty good at my job – they made me the Operations NCO.) With this background in mind, I'll draw an analogy that may help. In your case I'm not your platoon sergeant, but I (and others) have told you to stop fucking up. In your case I'd be tempted to go to the CO and ask for NJP from the BC. (You'd get a field grade Art. 15 because the earlier company grade NJPs (blocks) had not worked.) Still, the CSM and 1SG would ask me whether I'd tried counseling, mentoring, extra training, etc. Well, the counseling on WP is easy. Editors post notices here on this talk page and say "stop". And administrators issue NJP in the form of blocks. So, how would the "extra training" option work? To answer my question, I'd say "Xerographica, here is your extra training. You are to ...." The next question is whether you'd undertake the extra training that I had assigned. I certainly cannot force you to undertake any particular assignment. (Indeed, I wonder if you'll consider my suggestion.) But I can tell you that the assigned extra training would help. At the moment I won't tell you what I have in mind, but if you'll agree to undertake it, I promise it won't be too onerous. Will you do so? – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation format

Although not mandatory, the use of {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, etc., can make the nature of your references more clear. You frequently give only an author, URL, title, and sometimes date, without specifying whether it's a book, book chapter, journal, journal article, a personal web page, or something else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Freedom of choice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom of choice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AVISO !!

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Consumer sovereignty. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 12:55, February 10, 2013‎

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Consumer sovereignty. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 12:55, February 10, 2013‎

Fool me once, I'll assume good faith. Fool me twice, and AGF is no longer applicable. You, Rich and Rubin have consistently removed reliably sourced content and sources. AGF is no longer relevant...there's an obvious pattern of disruptive editing. Well...it's been obvious to me for a long time...but I don't see any evidence that your behavior will change any time soon. So eventually it will be obvious to other editors as well. --Xerographica (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at WP:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Your cute, snide, disruptive comments, such as asking Rubin if he is aware of what Wikipedia is about (as in here: [4]) are just intolerable. Again and again people have pleaded with you, cajoled you, and warned you to cut out with the comments that are directed towards other editors. You've received final warnings in the past, to no avail, but I will give you one more. Expect an Administrator's Noticeboard action if you keep this up. You were defiant in the past and your attitude got you weeks and weeks of blocks. Your editing experience on WP faces the same fate if you keep this up. STOP with the insulting, malicious, unfounded comments directed towards other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please copy and paste exactly what it was that I said that you consider to be a personal attack. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The dif is posted in the warning. But since you "ask", you said: Also, are you aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Don't play so ignorant or stupid. Rubin is aware, and you know he is aware. Asking that "question" is not focused, in the slightest, on article improvement. (And it fails WP:AGF.) It is just like your "VDE" remarks awhile back. If you have any smarts, you'll go back and ~~strikeout~~ that line. And all the other PAs you've made. Given your history of PA, that will take you quite some time, but it might be a good learning experience for you. Xerographica, you might be able to redeem yourself if you do. I'll give you one more bit of advice: read All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rubin is aware? Then explain why he said this..."A quick search offers numerous sources for the term, which are almost certainly not about the concept." --Xerographica (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement was just the latest example of his tendentious behavior. Forming the sentence as a question is simply "walking back" his stated personal opinion that Rubin does not know what policies are. He repeatedly questions qualifications of experienced editors, he accuses them of not reading the RS. Other examples from yesterday: "If you or Rich had actually read the paper then neither of you would be wasting my time with your disruptive editing." (at [5]), followed by "Ah yes, Rubin's Relentless Red Tape. We need a source about a source about a source about a source. You tightly tie your hands with ridiculous red tape so you can rationalize why you consistently fail to add any content to economic articles. Why don't you first read this source...and then tell me what additional sources you want me to fetch for you." ([6]). Xerographica is not interested in consensus, he prefers WP:GAMING. I understand, LGR, that you want to be fair, and I commend you for that fairness. But Xerographica's problem is not just with this particular edit. His "borderlining" has got to stop. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

When I asked Rubin on the consumer sovereignty talk page...whether the article should be about the term or the concept...here was SPECIFICO's response..."The term, as applied to economics." This isn't a dictionary...the article should not be "about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history"...it should be about the concept. What is the concept? That depends on the reliable sources. Here are plenty of passages on the concept...User:Xerographica/Consumer sovereignty. All those passages say the same thing. If you disagree with what they are saying...then it's up to you to find and share reliable sources that say that consumer sovereignty is something else. --Xerographica (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I said, "a term as applied to economics" you said, "a term and its meanings, usage and history." You are playing the game "you said, who said?" Please re-read WP:NAD. Please see my edits and talk page suggestion we differentiate the economic term from the dictionary listing. Please discuss ideas and edits without gratuitous references to other editors. Also, I sincerely hope that you pay close attention to the text of the warnings on your talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

T - 1

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

You may not do this. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

or this. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

or this.

or certainly not this.

SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're arguing that it's a personal attack to tell another editor to "read more, edit less"? If so, would it also be a personal attack to tell another editor to "measure twice, cut once"? --Xerographica (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I hereby request you review your edits of the past several weeks and strike through all of the personal attacks and other off-topic comments about other editors. This might be your chance to clear the air here an move forward. Please consider this. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Strategies for dealing with the two party system

Category:Strategies for dealing with the two party system, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe he was already editing the CfD before you posted that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your message on ANI. FYI, it might be helpful for you to know that I have published on the provision and demand for public goods in refereed journals. Don't make the mistake of thinking that those who point out an error in your thinking are ignorant or malicious of intent. Sometimes they will be but it will not promote your success to assume that is the always or even usually or frequently the case. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All I can know is based on the sources that you bring to the table. So far, you have yet to bring a single source to the table for any of our discussions. --Xerographica (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As usual you miss the point. I assure you with great confidence that if you are able to take in other users' comments, ruminate, and keep them in mind until you are able to make sense of them, you will be greatly enriched. Many experienced and capable editors have tried to help you here, but you have squandered their wisdom and guidance. It's a pity, and what do you have to show for it? Just my personal advice. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, in all our discussions, all you've shared is your personal advice and opinion. If I was wrong, then you would have been able to provide one instance where you've brought a reliable source on economics to the table. --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that my previous message to you was a question? The answer is (b): Nothing. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Opt Out of Iraq War Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Opt Out of Iraq War Act is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opt Out of Iraq War Act until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Subpage userspace draft templates

I have added {{userspace draft}} templates to two of your subpages (the ones without templates). This may help avoid WP:UP#COPIES problems. – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No edits lately? Recommendations

I am surprised to see no edits from you lately, particularly to defend the articles you created from AfD. If you are on a break, you might add {{wikibreak}} to your user/talk pages. If you are gone for good or simply dialed way down you can post {{retired}} or {{semi-retired}}. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Forced rider

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please review WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:NPA. Please discuss content, not editors. The text you wrote on Forced rider did not conform to WP policy (and was, moreover, incorrect.) SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please copy and paste the personal attack. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO was referring to the fact that specific editors were named in the talk page remark, followed by "tag team effort". The specification of editors was helpful in laying out who did what edits, and I don't doing so is not improper. The description of "tag team" may have been intended as an impolite remark, but it was not uncivil or disruptive. IOW, SPECIFICO's remark about NPA was not well founded. That's okay in itself; but I think it is best to drop this matter vis-a-vis SPECIFICO and Xerographica. Then you guys can get back to revising the article. (If a dispute erupts about particular portions, then dispute resolution may be helpful.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:40, 3 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have been consistently harassing/stalking me... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Xerographica... yet I'm the one who ends up indefinitely blocked? They are clearly violating the Wikipedia policy against harassment...WP:Harassment...yet not once has an admin even warned them to cease and desist their harassment. Here are some of the articles that I've created... *Benefit principle *Forced rider problem *Preference revelation *Civic crowdfunding *Government waste *The Other Invisible Hand *Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy *Scroogenomics *Tax choice *Pars pro toto principle All of them, with the exception of tax choice, have been created within the past 5 months. Except, most of my time has been spent dealing with harassment from these three editors. Here's a recent example... Talk:Forced_rider_problem#See_also_items_removed. For reference, here's a recent example of constructive (as in based on reliable sources) collaboration between myself and another editor...Talk:Public_choice#Preference_revelation. Xerographica (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You must address your own conduct, not that of others. Sandstein 11:25, 3 March 2013 (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 is an awful mistake. Xerografica's contributions to WP proves his edits are not disruptive. Sandstein referred to WP:NOTTHEM, but according to WP:AOHA, accusing others of harassment "can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment", but there is clear evidence of wikihounding, that's why Xerographica addressed the conduct of others. Also, BWilkins' unilateral blocking decision configures WP:ADMINABUSE and is extremely damaging to WP, since Xerographica has done a great work and contributed a lot and I'm sure many future contributions will be missed because of this block. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want Xero blocked, and this is far from unilateral - but thanks for watching. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want Xero blocked, either, for what it's worth. I think he could be of great use to the project. I just don't think he has been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, please, I'm serious, your sarcasms are not helping. Rubin, I don't know how you can possibly say that. Do you have some personal aversion to libertarianism or something? Do you know SPECIFICO or Srich personally? This block is just insane! Blocking someone indefinitely for complaining about being harassed?! --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

True, Xerographica addressed the conduct of others by posting an ANI as to myself and others. However, that discussion turned and focused on his behavior. He just didn't get it and turned to posting complaints of harassment on article talk pages, etc. That alternative method of addressing the conduct of others was not legitimate.

True, Xerographica might have been a contributor to the project. But his contributions were outweighed, by far, by disruptive edits.

True, some of Xerographica's contributions – rather, stubs – have been worthwhile. Take one of the examples he provides: Scroogenomics. He creates it and then adds a category & a See also. Let's give him a Barnstar for his effort. (And two more for The Other Invisible Hand and Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy.)

True, others have been wikihounding him. But "[t]he important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. [Emphasis added.] Xerographica chose to characterize the followups on this edits as hounding and harrassment. He chose to not enjoy the collaborative effort we are engaged in. He chose to react negatively at each stage of the "hounding" when I and many, many others patiently pleaded, begged, cajoled, insisted, admonished, suggested, advised, etc. that he straighten up. The overriding reason of the hounding was to have him participate as a member of the community, but he lashed out and 73% of his edits have been to non-article spaces.

True, I nominated Club theory for deletion (see section below). Also true that I took the material Xerographica had supplied (including Buchanan) and posted it [7] in Club goods before posting the AfD. But Xerographica takes this normal collaborative process and distorts it into an attack on me.

I submit that Xerographica will always find fault with others, never himself. (Evidence: "I should have just posted the warnings on their talk pages.") I submit that unblocking him would only result in a renewal of this behavior, and thereby waste more time of other contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: I submit that Xerographica is complaining too much about the supposed hounding. In fact, I suspect he enjoys it and actually seeks to provoke contentious discussions. Evidence: His comment on the ANI he lodged. "Xerographica's had enough of an ANI beating ... can we close the thread now? NE Ent 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC) [...] No way, I'm a sucker for abuse. It's why I thrived in the infantry.[...] --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [Emphasis added to distinguish Xerographica's comment.] See: [8] – S. Rich (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I do love a good debate...and I have absolutely no problem with people personally attacking me. Thanks to the infantry I've developed an extremely thick skin. So I'd much much much prefer it if you followed me around insulting me rather than making edits that do not reflect what the reliable sources say about the topics. Why? Simply because your insults would not at all harm me but your unsubstantiated edits do harm the readers.

Let's review. Rubin nominated concentrated benefits and diffuse costs for deletion... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. Why? For the same reason you nominated club theory for deletion. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that I provided in the AfD...and despite the obvious lack of consensus...Bwilkins redirected concentrated benefits and diffuse costs to tragedy of the commons.

After the redirect, I gave Bwilkins the opportunity to look over the sources and reverse his decision... User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_11#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs... but he was more interested in saving face. Even when an economics professor vouched for the notability of the topic... User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_11#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs_2... he still wouldn't admit that he made a mistake.

Then despite the fact that Bwilkins was clearly involved in the dispute...he blocked me... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#ANI_Notice_--_as_you_wish. I said that it was additional evidence of his incompetence. Shortly after that, I was blocked for two weeks because I said that Rich was "willfully ignoring reliable sources"... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. In my unblock request I mentioned that Bwilkins was involved in the dispute. And guess who indefinitely blocked me? Bwilkins.

And here you are, arguing that I enjoy it when you, Rubin and SPECIFICO follow me around making edits that clearly do not reflect what the reliable sources say. It boggles my mind how oblivious you are. I obviously f'ing detest your shoddy editing. What I do enjoy is collaborating with editors like Hugo Spinelli and Thomasmeeks. Why? It's not because we agree on everything...or even on most things. It's because they're competent. In other words, they're interested enough in the subjects they edit to actually read the relevant reliable sources. And they do not edit subjects without first having done adequate research.

Bwilkins doesn't care about the project. If he did then he'd support edits based on due diligence. What he cares about is his power. This is simply his ego trip and nothing more. And the fact of the matter is that he's too incompetent to realize that he's clearly involved in the dispute. I shouldn't have been indefinitely blocked for saying that you three editors have been wikihounding me. At most I should have been blocked for a week for saying it in the wrong places. But you really don't have to block somebody to help them understand that warnings should only be posted on editor's talk pages. The excessiveness of the punishment only makes sense when viewed from the perspective of Bwilkins' clear long-term involvement. Clearly he doesn't want editors around who have no problem calling him out on his incompetence. --Xerographica (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realize it, you can be blocked from editing this talk page. Why? Because you persist in attacking the integrity of other editors. While Bwilkins won't respond with such a block because of your personal attack, I'm sure other administrators are willing to do so. If you had any sense, you'd strike out these aggressive, offensive passages and issue apologies to all concerned. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally refuse to be baited by the above absolutely bizarre interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. I believe I first became aware of Xero after I deleted an article at WP:AFD. Their "argument" certainly was not convincing, and they were directed to DRV. Neither makes me "involved". They then became a regular topic of complaint at ANI - and I watchlisted this page accordingly. That did not make me "involved". I implemented a block based purely on behaviour. That did not make me "involved". I attempted to teach Xero how to act within the community - that didn't make me involved, but it made me "engaged". The spectacular down-in-flames behaviour of Xero led to the current indefinite (not infinite) block, by me - but no, I'm not "involved". A crapload of people have gone out of their way to explain such things as "telling you you're fucking up is NOT harassment"; "claiming harassment without actual proof is a personal attack"; and "no, that does not eveb approach harassment, so stop saying it is or else it's a personal attack". You claim to have "thick skin"; bullshit. You may indeed have a thicker cranium because with all the whack of knowledgable resources who have all tried to pour information into your head, you fail to learn anything by either brute force or osmosis. It's your way or the highway, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a "harasser". That's not the way this project works. You do have much to add to the project: however, when you become a timesink, you become blocked Bloggins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Club theory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Club theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note – This nomination is now OBE. Upon suggestion of another editor a WP:BLAR of club theory to club good was accomplished. (Also, I initiated the AfD not knowing the block had been implemented.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect, in the very beginning, I should have warned you, Rubin and SPECIFICO to stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me...

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

You know I created club theory, and you knew it would irritate me if you nominated it for deletion. Same thing with civic crowdfunding. You know I created it and you knew it would irritate me for you to merge it into crowdfunding. Same thing with these three articles...

There are countless instances where you've followed me from article to article. When you posted all your evidence in this ANI...Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Xerographica...I thought it would be abundantly clear that you three were wikihounding me. Yet, none of the admins warned the three of you to stop. Instead, I get indefinitely blocked. For what? Simply for calling you out on your harassment. --Xerographica (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If all you create are non-Wikipedia articles, then someone who knows that (which is almost everyone) will be following you to them and nominating them for deletion. I'm not sure how many times you've been asked to stop creating non-Wikipedia articles (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

But clearly I don't only create non-Wikipedia articles...

For the most part, I thoroughly research topics before I make contributions. Not too long ago you were accusing me of academic snobbery and now it seems like you're arguing that the Wikihounding is justified/warranted because I'm incompetent.

So which is it? Rich nominated Club theory for deletion...because I'm incompetent...or because he's Wikihounding me? Let's see...this paper, "An economic theory of clubs", by the Nobel Prize winning economist, James M. Buchanan, has been cited over 2500 times. Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks it's a notable topic. Therefore, Rich didn't nominate it for deletion because I'm incompetent...he nominated it for deletion because he was well aware that doing so would irritate and provoke me.

From the getgo these three editors have been on the offensive...Wikihounding me and loading up my talk page with warning after warning. Evidently I should have been doing the same thing. I should have been giving them warnings and final warnings about Wikihounding. But I didn't. I naively had faith that admins would look past the warnings, dig a little deeper and identify that this wasn't just a one sided story.

So yeah, I admit I messed up by mentioning the harassment on article talk pages and on the AfD pages. I should have just posted the warnings on their talk pages. Lesson learned. --Xerographica (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Further comments related to User:Bwilkins

"I naively had faith that admins would look past the warnings, dig a little deeper and identify that this wasn't just a one sided story." Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Also, arguing with Bwilkins is useless. His block decline reason in my case was "Decline reason: Procedural decline: this unblock request appears to have been placed after the block had expired (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)" But it clearly had not expired. He also called me a jerk. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hugo, what the hell are you talking about:

17:06, February 20, 2013 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked Hugo Spinelli (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours
17:42, February 21, 2013‎ Bwilkins (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (53,315 bytes) (+248)‎ . . (→‎Edit warring at Brady Haran: procedural decline - block already expired

Do the math - your block expired at 17:06 on February 21 - I declined your unblock request exactly 36 minutes after expired. And please, oh please tell me where I called you a jerk... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And why is any of this on the talk page of an indefinately blocked editor? If Hugo wants to talk to Xerographica, he should do so off-Wiki. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's because Hugo is trying to make the block somehow irrelevant by trying to show I'm incompetent or something ... clearly boomerang territory. Besides, I don't expect Xero to remain indef-blocked. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you're being pretty competent on whatever you're trying to accomplish here. Just for the record, I was blocked at 22:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC). Bwilkins said "Procedural decline: this unblock request appears to have been placed after the block had expired (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)". My unblock request was at 17:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

And where did you call me a jerk? Here. Now you have also called me a liar.

Why am I discussing this here, Rubin? To show that this block has nothing to do with WP's policies, it's just a petty harassment against someone who was actually contributing to WP and didn't get intimidated by zealous deletionists. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

^ Now they're censuring me! Lol! Nice tactics! --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We are censuring you. We are not censoring you. You can say say whatever you want, subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in appropriate locations. This is not an appropriate location. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the hat because this is a perfectly appropriate location for such a discussion. So how about you and Rich just stick to worrying about what's appropriate for your own talk pages. --Xerographica (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note the following guidance from WP:TPO:

Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic ..., the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to hide this material as described above. It is still common to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution.
[...]
Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. ... [Emphasis added.]

With this guidance in mind, I propose that this entire subsection be cut and pasted onto Spinelli's talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." How ironic it is that you never do that... --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that Hugo has admitted that I'm being competent in getting Xerographica unblocked - which is my goal. Right now, it's actually Hugo who's doing the most damage to that with his wild accusations. I'm also glad that he has proven by his very link above that I did not call him a jerk, nor have I called him a liar. Srich and Arthur - I highly suggest that you 2 disengage from Xerographica - indeed, I would expect that any unblock conditions would include some form of interaction ban between the 3 of you. Srich - any further edits by you this talkpage will be considered harassment, unless it is a formal notification or valid warning of some type. Hugo: have a little good faith sometimes - I declined your unblock after it already expired - that's proven. Now if you really want Xero unblocked, you'd be wise to stop raising shit. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"I'm being competent in getting Xerographica unblocked - which is my goal" - You were the one who blocked him.
"it's actually Hugo who's doing the most damage" - By disagreeing with you dictatorial decision to block Xerographica indefinitely for correctly pointing out that he was being wikihounded?
"I did not call him a jerk" - You said: "you acted like a jerk to him"
"nor have I called him a liar" - You said: "If you're going to lie, you will indeed find yourself re-blocked."
"I declined your unblock after it already expired" - You said: "this unblock request appears to have been placed after the block had expired". Now tell me:

Is it true that my block expired at 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)?
Is it true that my unblock request was placed at 17:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)?

Now do the math. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for proving me right :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)