Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

RfC close goes beyond the RfC question

A recent RfC on Frank L. VanderSloot was closed by User:Lord Roem in a way that I believe exceeds the question posed. The question was, should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of the article? LordRoem has decreed that the term must be removed from the entire article in relation to VanderSloot's current activities. Discussion at this section has not led to a satisfactory outcome in this regard. The key point is that LordRoem ought not close an RfC in a way that goes beyond the question that was posed; as things stand, he is using his status as an admin to dictate content (together with implicit threat of blocks), instead of determining the consensus of the RfC participants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Let me give some background to this dispute. After seeing a post alerting admins to edit warring on the 3RR Noticeboard, I protected the Frank L. VanderSloot article. I suggested either talk page discussions or an RfC to resolve an apparently long-running dispute there on the term "multi-level marketing". After discussion calmed down, essentially everything that was going to be said was said, and in response to concerns that a contested phrase remained in the protected version of the article, I closed the RfC. After reading through all the comments, I found no consensus for including the term. Under policy, that disputed phrasing then should be removed unless and until a new consensus is reached on whether to include it. While the initial RfC question was focused on the lead, I found that the discussion went far broader; debating whether the term was, in and of itself, an attack or sign of implied corruption. In the RfC close, I said that uncertainty about whether the term was appropriate required that the term be removed. In no way was I "dictating content", as a look of my close reasoning is based entirely upon the arguments raised in the discussion. I think my close was reasonable and I feel I'm correct to insist that there be no edit warring over the disputed phrase until a new consensus emerges. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff that initiated the RfC: link. The role of a closing admin would be to determine consensus on that question. To go beyond that question and decree that the term should be removed from the entire article -- and to threaten blocks if it is included -- is to use one's admin status to dictate content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the admin went beyond what was asked of him, but I also feel he preemptively headed off another edit war that would be almost certain to erupt if he had not provided some guidance in the matter. His logic seems quite unassailable: If the MLM term is contentious and potentially harmful to the WP:BLP subject (thus possibly to Wikipedia as a whole) in the lede, then the same term would be equally contentious and potentially harmful anywhere in the article. I am glad he actually provided that guidance rather than making us simply guess at the ramifications of closing the discussion on the lede itself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I both !voted against LR's Rfa and !voted in favor of keeping the term MLM in the lede, not to mention the article. Now this action, which I feel crosses the line. Nomo's objections are both correct and proper, in my view, and I find this new admin's actions are troubling. Jusdafax 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say (but without having found to time to read through all of the lengthy discussion yet) that I find L.R.'s closure rather incomprehensible myself. So we're told a term can't be used, even though reliable sources agree that it is appropriate, merely because some editors don't like it and think it sounds pejorative? That is a misstatement both of policy and of the weight of editorial opinion in the talkpage. Where BLP says we must avoid contentious claims, the threshold of what counts as "contentious" is quite a different one: it's about factual contention in reliable sources. I'm open to more discussion, but at first sight I'd recommend to Lord Roem he should undo this closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an important point, and in fact there are no sources independent of VanderSloot himself that contest the term (apart from one article in a Malaysian newspaper -- surely an exception that proves the rule). There's also the matter that the RfC went only for 11 days; the point was to get new voices (not just the 10 editors with a longer history on the page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to (essentially) wheel-war to restore "MLM", as any person who thinks logically about what should be in the article must conclude, but, I increased the promenance of the fact that the company was accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme; copying from the last paragraph of the appropriate subsection to the first paragraph. Perhaps further revision should be done, but removing that is an even more clear WP:NPOV violation. In other words, I'm replacing MLM with "accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme"; there being absolutely no doubt that that is among the most notable things about the company, and it's sourced to at least 7 reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think the result of the closure is contrary to policy; there need not be a consensus for inclusion, only a consensus that the material is adquately sourced by BLP standards. WP:BLP does not require exclusion for material of WP:UNDUE weight, if adequately sourced, unless there is a consensus for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad close per FPaS, AR NE Ent 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) Agree along the lines of Future Perfect and Arthur Rubin, the administrative issue presented is was there a well-supported consensus that this is a violation of BLP, which turns on heightened sourcing; NPOV holds that any matter that is well sourced can be presented in a neutral fashion, which turns on presentation, which is an editorial function and not an administrative one, unless in enforcement of a well founded consensus that there is no possible NPOV presentation. So, the close overstepped its mandate in dictating content, without consensus to do so. Also, censoring arguable terms used by sources counsels administrative restraint when the decision is to censor sources. MLM is not an obvious pejorative, rather than a descriptive, as shown by the discussion. And in any case it is not shown to be presented as a pejorative description of a person. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at the discussion or the article, so this is purely a response to others' comments. Reliable sources aren't necessarily bound by requirements that we have; in particular, if we think that the sources have been biased, we need to implement WP:NPOV by treating the subject impartially instead of praising or attacking it. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

True, certainly as a matter of well founded consensus of editorial judgment, but not an administrative fiat. Part of doing so is recording and presenting sources that have biases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The close was proper and fully-reasoned. The concept of forumshopping in the guise of reviewing the reasoned close is problematic. In the case at hand, the more restrictive use of consensus for an edit with specific WP:BLP implications was properly invoked. Noting further that some wish to state in Wikipedia's voice that the company was an "illegal pyramid scheme" or to ascribe the "illegal" as an adjective at all on this BLP requires that WP:BLPCRIME be followed - and since no such legal finding by a court is cited, the policy appears to bar that claim in any case. Collect (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? The term dealt with was MLM. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The "term dealt with" was, I believe the words "illegal pyramid scheme" used by Arthur Rubin a few lines above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with FPaS. If I were to close that, I'd have said that using the term in the lead violated WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD but was acceptable in the article as a WP:BLP. BLP is not a shield against bad words in an article. It's a shield against real world damage to a person's reputation. What we're required to do is determine if we would be the cause of that damage or not. Putting this term in the lead would be damaging because it would give too much weight to this person's life. Putting it in an appropriate section in the article, however, would not if sourced to several reliable sources and balanced with neutral language and counter viewpoints (if available).--v/r - TP 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the present situation. But it can hardly be said that there was a consensus in the RfC that putting the term in the lead was "undue". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No consensus on a WP:BLP defaults to the safer option. That would mean not to use it in the lead. BLP RFC's work a little different. No consensus doesn't necessarily default to 'status quo' like everywhere else.--v/r - TP 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis. That was actually what I was aiming for with my close (as I mentioned undue weight at the top of the section) but then never delineated that issue. I didn't intend the close to bar the term, and gave the wrong answer when asked that. Looking back on what I wrote, I feel that I was trying to say that using the term in the lead would probably be undue weight. I apologize for not being clearer earlier in both the close itself and the comments here. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you -- but we might still contend with the view (e.g. FPaS) that the close was wrong in broader terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with the RfC decision. I have outlined the reasons for my objections on the article talk page.[1] Either the RfC should be reopened or this should go to ArbCom. I also find it a bit odd that the admin asked if there were any objections, and when an objection was raised (based on the admins lack of experience), the objection was ignored.[2] Why ask the question if the answer doesn't matter? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology? Well, okay, but I'm not seeing the closure being either reverted or updated. NE Ent 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The initial closure of the RfC was correct as no consensus, if a little (lot) long-winded. But the RfC was about including the term MLM in the lead. Extending that discussion outside of the lead to try to ban the term from the entire article was over-reaching. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to to try to justify the RfC decision post facto based on WP:UNDUE when that issue was never raised during the RfC. If the weight issue is critical, it should have been discussed and a consensus reached on that point in particular, rather than being ramrodded by administrative decree after the fact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP's gives administrators wide discretion when determining consensus to introduce elements that were not brought up in the RFC when they should have been because of the legal and real world damage that can be done to living people.--v/r - TP 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within a certain scope, of course, yes. Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within reason, yes, exactly.--v/r - TP 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Several admins have passed through this BLP but refused to get further involved. I believe that Lord Roem should be given some latitude here, given that he's the only one willing to wade into this long-running edit war. For example, Barek, another admin, wrote this about the BLP: "the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas." Plenty of others have expressed similar sentiments. Andrew³²⁷ 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Other admins did get involved; they've responded numerous times to issues of edit warring, noticeboard requests, etc. They didn't get more deeply involved because an RFC hadn't been filed until this one. For context, Andrewman327 is an involved party and one of those who had been campaigning hard for removing the term MLM, so it's not surprising to see that he advises giving unlimited authority to the admin who supported his POV. However, willingness to become involved in an RFC would not be an excuse for prematurely closing an RFC, reaching erroneous conclusions, or overstepping boundaries. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nothing in WP:BLP says that; certainly nothing says they can supervote RFCs. NE Ent 19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with NE Ent. Andrew, I'd say that fact argues that LR moved in on an 11 day old, active Rfc and made what appears to many here to be a hasty call that is well beyond the scope of the dispute, which combined with a threat to block, comes off as a highly top-down, authoritarian decision... instead of the consensus-based process the encyclopedia is founded upon. I am disturbed by the precedent this sets, made by an admin given the tools only weeks ago. Seems to me we are beyond "Within reason." Jusdafax 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff: " Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions: "That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people." and "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs: " Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard. Methods of resolving issues on the noticeboard include correcting clear violations of the BLP policy, working to bring about well-focused, knowledgeable participation in discussion of more borderline cases, and ensuring the final resolution of all BLP disputes complies with the BLP policy and takes account of the competing considerations that may apply to a given dispute." These are all linked in WP:BLP, so yes it does give administrators wide discretion.--v/r - TP 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TPs statement was wide discretion when determining consensus (emphasis mine). LR didn't delete the article and given the sourcing by reliable sources, referencing VanderSloot's pyramid / MLM business is not a "clear violation." Can and should an admin act decisively and quickly to correct egregious BLP violations? Of course. Does that mean supervoting RfC discussing gray areas? Absolutely not. NE Ent 02:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it means and it has been upheld and discussed on RFAs countless times. It's a standard consideration for any admin closing an AFD and any admin working a BLP RFC. Local consensus on a topic does not supersede WMF policy on BLPs and admins are responsible for ensuring that policy is enforced. As I bolded above, admins are required to enforce BLP policy and that takes precedence over procedural concerns such as closing an RFC by only summarizing the discussion or "sticking to the question".--v/r - TP 03:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just making stuff up. Show me a case when an editor was desysoped because they didn't enforce BLP policy; the AC case was about a deletion, not an Rfc close. Obviously we don't make policy at Rfa. NE Ent 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We discuss and scrutinize candidates understanding of policy at RFAs. In fact, I think there was a question in my first RFA about BLPs. Anyway, only 1 of 3 AC cases quoted was about the technical deletion of an article. But deletion of content and deletion of an article serve the same purpose. One just involved more content. I should ask you the same. Show me a case where an admin was desysoped for cautious interpretation of BLP.--v/r - TP 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Where is this headed, folks? Lord Roem has repudiated his interpretation of his own close as it applies to the body of the article, but he has conspicuously failed to revert or revise his close. Other uninvolved admins have advised that the close was indeed inappropriate in that (and perhaps other) respect(s). The lack of clarity is now facilitating further edit-warring on the article (with editors who want MLM removed exploiting the confusion, imo). An RfC is supposed to settle the dispute -- but Lord Roem's close has definitively failed to achieve that outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say give Lord Roem a little more time to revise it. In the meantime, I've protect it until he does; if that's helpful. If he doesn't by tomorrow, I'll step in and change it myself with my own timestamp.--v/r - TP 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Nomoskedasticity's question is apt. The Rfc close itself is at issue here. LR's actions should be reversed across-the-board, period, as I see this matter. The Rfc was closed early, and an incorrect decision was made at LR's own partial admission, and now LR leaves a mess for others to wade through. (Striking, issue clarified by LR.) Not a promising beginning for a new admin. We need a broader canvass here, so let's open this for discussion. Therefore the section below. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Per TParis' note on my page, and after reflecting on the comments raised in this thread, I have revised the RfC closure rationale. The new rationale is limited to the way the lead is phrased. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Reverted. You either get to close the discussion or have an opinion in the discussion. Not both. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  As I explained to NE Ent above, WP:BLP and WP:Arbcom give admins great leeway in determining consensus on BLP RFCs. Reverting an admin's BLP close isn't going to do you any favors if this matter gets to Arbcom and that idea has already been thrown around several times. Specifically, you need to be aware that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns."--v/r - TP 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reopening of the Frank L. VanderSloot Rfc

• Support - As proposer. This sort of close is contrary to the consensus-based core mission of Wikipedia itelf. I also support a "trouting" for rookie administrator Lord Roem. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's been sufficient trouting; LR has responded to the community feedback in reevaluating his closing statement. NE Ent 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No one is trying to take advantage of this confusion, as has been implied above. People simply feel as if the situation was resolved, but have different impressions as to how, so have been acting accordingly. The page is now locked again to ensure this stops, which was a good step. Many editors weighed in, with a large amount of good thought. Let's try and be collaborative rather than combative on this Wikipedia project, and move forward from the revised RFC close no matter the result. Additional RFCs or a move to arbcom may occur, but let us decide this after our immediate concern has been addressed. No one argued about Lord Roem being involved until he started saying things that certain parties disagreed with and things started leaning away from them in terms of the weight of arguments. It is natural for a few of the stauncher supporters of having MLM in the lead will be unhappy with the decision, but that in and of itself is not grounds to throw the RFC result out in its entirety. I'm not fighting for either side, I would just like to see this official action brought to its eventual conclusion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "imply" it, I stated it explicitly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING applies in spades. There is no consensus above that Lord Roem exceeded his reasonable discretion as an administrator, and of you wish to have him removed, Arbcom is thataway. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• No one is talking about having LR "removed," at Arbcom, like a community ban. This is a proposal for the mere reversal of a bad call, the too-early close of an Rfc. Why not let the community decide on that issue? Jusdafax 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The RfC decision was flawed on multiple levels and closed prematurely. The core claim of the admin's closure summary was the belief that the term multi-level marketing carries inherently negative connotations and therefore should not be used in an article for that reason, despite the fact that the MLM detail is widely and reliably sourced. It was an arbitrary and puzzling decision without basis in fact and which conflicted with the consensus view of the outside editors who commented on the issue -- the very people who the RfC was intended to solicit and whose opinion should have carried the most weight (instead they were essentially ignored). This decision (a bureaucratic fiat) also sets a precedent that has far reaching implications for virtually every article in which MLM is mentioned in WP (and there are dozens if not hundreds that do so). The admin has now backslid on their conclusions several times so that now even the rationale for the decision is unclear. Either the RfC should reopened or this needs to go to ArbCom. The former would seem to be most appropriate at this stage. For full disclosure, I was one of the previously involved parties participating in the RfC (as were Andrew and Collect, who argued for removal of MLM). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The summary for Lord Roem's closure, despite being amended, is still based on a fundamentally flawed argument; i.e., Lord Roem said "there is no consensus as to whether this term (MLM) is, in and of itself, a term that implies corruption or illegality". This is a gobsmacking conclusion -- it is simply wrong at its core. There is no way that this conclusion can withstand scrutiny. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on a reading of that discussion, I don't agree. I've read through most of the comments there, and only a handful of people commented on whether MLM was a negative term. You indicated it wasn't, and Jeremy112233 indicated it was, amidst all of it, and a few other people made much more vague allusions. Considering how few of all the participants in the discussion commented on that particular thing, I think LR's assessment that there was no consensus on that answer is fair. If you believe that conclusion is 'wrong at its core', can you point to where consensus on the negative nature of the term has been clearly established? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My argument was that there was a consensus viewpoint that the term is not intrinsically negative; not the opposite as you stated above. I base that assessment on the the nearly unanimous comments (4 out of 5) from outside editors who commented (I ignored the fifth because it came from a newbie and didn't make much sense). The comments were as follows:[3]

1. Prhartcom: "The term is simply a label describing a business practice or strategy. In this light, it emanates neither negative nor positive connotations."
2. Capitalismojo: "MLM is a long established marketing approach. I see nothing to concern BLP issues and it is clearly the foundation of the subject's wealth and hence notability."
3. Jusdafax: "I support the inclusion of the term 'MLM' as a descriptor of his company's business activity, which seems simple enough … Those pushing with vehemence against it strain my observance of WP:AGF, and invite speculation as to their motives."
4. FurrySings: "VanderSloot is primarily a businessman – what his business is, and what it does should be in the lead. MLM is just a business strategy, I see no BLP concern. The term should be used since it accurately describes his business. Also, I agree with what Prhartcom said".

The RfC was intended to solicit views from outside editors, yet these views were ignored. Why? The FTC acknowledges that MLM is a legal and recognized business model. The assertion that the term MLM is intrinsically negative is opinion-based, not fact based, and it is a red herring. No one presented any evidence whatsoever to adequately support such a conclusion. The negative connotations angle was not a central point at the outset of the RfC; if it was, more people surely would have commented on that detail specifically. If we were to go back to RfC and focus on this point specifically, it would wither on the vine. The admin's summary of the RfC indicated that a consensus supports using "MLM" in the body text of the article but that the term shouldn't be in the lead because it might have negative connotations. How can the term have negative connotations if it's in the lead but not when it's in the body text. The conclusion makes no sense at all -- flawed at its core IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This BLP needs to move forward, and Lord Roem's amended RFC closure enables it to do just that. It is within policy and there isn't exactly a long line of admins chomping at the bit to get involved in this fight. Let the RFC stand and allow editors to try to collaborate on remaining issues. Andrew³²⁷ 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The aim here should be to achieve long-term stability and resolve the conflict conclusively. Those aims have not been accomplished, as the admin's decision appears to have created more problems than it has solved. Reopening the hastily closed RfC would allow the matter to be resolved properly. Surely that would be a good thing. As for the number of admins who might be "chomping (sic) at the bit" to get involved, I am not aware of any list that provides this information, but regardless, I don't see how admin availability would be a hindrance. Seems like a very odd assertion to make as the basis for not re-opening the RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeb2003, article creation issues.

I think we have an issue here, jeb2003 has had a very rocky entry to the community, he persists in making promotional articles, previously removing csd tags, improper use of block templates and eventually sockpuppetry and blocked for a one month period. His first edits upon expiration of block is to recreate an article Gaisano Iloilo City Center which was deleted via an AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaisano Center Iloilo. I am greatly doubting his WP:COMPETENCE or willingness to edit constructively within the community guidelines, can we please have an Admin review and determine whether this editor should be blocked or some other community restriction be issued to correct this. Thanks in advance, and for evidence of concerns please look at his talk page, a very large number of issues are evidenced there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I believe we also missed one of his Socks, User talk:Good man76, same area of interest only a few edits before he was ip hardblocked to which I added to the sock puppet investigation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left Jeb2003 a message suggesting he seeks adoption. Whilst his conduct is disruptive, he appears (to me at least) to simply be unaware of or unable to comprehend Wikipedia's policies. An adopter may be able to guide him towards more productive editing. If not, well, the blockhammer is always there in the toolbox. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocko hammer is needed, he has again recreated the article and is once more removing csd tags. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

4 times and counting [[4]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted and tried to give some constructive advice. I'd be hesitant about tagging reverts as vandalism though - I think we can still assume he probably thinks he's doing the right thing (even though we know he's not). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree had he not been blocked for sockpuppetry, removing csd, putting block templates on other peoples pages and a return to the behavior immediately at the end of the block. Take a look through the talkpage, enough is enough. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Number six removal of csd just happened, and he knows how talkpages work becasue he used his sock to ward himself two barnstars...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

All the same, it's good just to keep calm about these things. Maybe if he comes out with something like this gem I'd change my mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ip socking to add to the list [[5]]. I'm calm about this, I just think that teh disruption should be stopped. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to stick a spanner in the works, but a news search for "Iloilo City Center" does return a few hits such as this and this - tenuous mentions, granted, but just about enough to get over a CSD and up to the level of a redirect. The AfD mentioned above seems to be just a handful of people saying "But it's just not notable!!!!" Throw into the mix that Jeb2003 might not speak English as a first language, and I can see why he's annoyed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He knows enough to write the articles. award himself in English no less [[6]] and at least 5 confirmed sock puppets not including when he IP socks [[7]] and [[8]]. I respect your attempt at assuming good faith but if he can't speak English enough to understand the policy or even attempt to work in good faith he shouldn't be here. Also [[9]] he understand English enough to change his block length out of the template. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on his edits in the last hour or so, I'm starting to agree with Hell in a Bucket - either there's a serious competence issue, or this is deliberate disruption. If Jeb2003 still doesn't get it, whether it's because he doesn't speak English as first language, is too young to understand the complexities of Wikipedia, doesn't want to, understands but is being intentionally obtuse, is pissed off at the community, or just gosh-darn-it ain't that all that blessed in the brains department, his activities need to stop. If he won't stop them voluntarily, well, that's why admins get paid the big bucks. I'm not going to block-slap him myself, but anyone doing so will hear no argument from this quarter. At this point, it's gone beyond a question of whether his created articles should be kept or not; this is fast becoming a purely behavioural issue. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess all I'm saying if you do block him (and I'm not saying you shouldn't), it should be more "please come back when you're older" rather than "don't let the door hit you on the way out". I suspect the "2003" in his username is related to his age. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why the debate? If there's socking, it calls for blocking... now. Jusdafax 18:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, that's catchy.--v/r - TP 18:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that too. However, Jeb2003 doesn't appear to have created any new socks since his last block (for sockpuppetry) expired; this is more a question of his repeated recreation of inappropriate pages in the face of community disapproval. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not the only issue that had happened, he was IP socking logging out to remove csd templates, removed the csd template a total of six times from the article, and just overall editing issues. It's stale at this point so I don't think it's actionable at this time now, but when it does start again, and I'm fairly sure it will it should be dealt with swiftly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just given him a month off for breaking WP:3RR at Iloilo International Airport (I know a month's a bit strong for a 3RR violation, but given the previous disruption and continued refusal to engage with other editors I felt a longer block was justified). If any sockpuppets appear during that time, I see no reason not to make it indefinite. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat by subject of article.

Recently I made note on Karl Shuker, a "leading cryptozoologist" that the article, although he advocates for a pesudoscienc field that is all but laughed out of real science (i.e. the people who hunt bigfoot and the loc ness moster..) that there was no critques of his books or work, and all the sources were clearly pro-cryptozoology or self published. So I tagged the article and made note on the talk page that it needs attention to bring it closer to WP:NPOV. Well, what I didn't notice beforhand is that the article's subject, Karl Shuker actively monitors and edits his own article, and he jumped in with a very abusive response, clearly violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, essentially telling me that I was ignorant of the subject therefore should not edit the article. So then I pointed out how he even barely meets WP:N under WP:AUTHOR and that it's tenious at best at that. So, his response was legal threat that if I was to put in information critical of his work he would seek legal action. Thought I would bring it here for discussion. Talk:Karl_Shuker#Criticism — raekyt 15:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a blatant legal threat of the "if you do this, I'll do that" variety - in direct contravention to orderly editing and maintenance of this encyclopedia. I've indefinitely blocked his account from editing accordingly. Rklawton (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work. He was obviously just a self-promotionist. Basket _Feudalist 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He has promised not to make any more threats, and he has promised not to directly edit his own article. I have unblocked his account accordingly and consider the matter closed. Rklawton (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where did he promise not to make anymore threats? He apologized to "wikipedia" for his civility, but not to me, he promised not to edit the content on his page, but he didn't promise not to make legal threats, and did not retract those threats? — raekyt 17:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It wath a thecret promith to hith thecret friendth Basket _Feudalist 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm... *confused look on my face*.. what? :) — raekyt 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I really hope for your benefit that you're not affecting some sort of gay lisp there to mock the subject. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. Basket _Feudalist 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shut up, Winthrop :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I just don't feel comfortable editing this article unless those specific conditions are met, and I don't see them. He threatened me with legal action, never reacted them and never stated he wouldn't do it again... so I'm confused why the block was lifted. — raekyt 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An apology is not a requirement, nor is there any requirement that you accept the editor's promises. As the blocking editor, that's my job, and I'm satisfied. Given your antipathy toward the subject, it would be best for you not to edit his article as it can be construed as a conflict of interest. Rklawton (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Any edits I make to articles is pretty strictly in compliance with policy... Me not accepting a group of individuals who hunt bigfoot as legitimate scientists shouldn't exclude me from editing articles about them or their field. Theres a big difference between language used on talk pages to discuss something and what you contribute to the actual article. I wasn't aware beforehand of tagging this article that the article's subject was so closely watching it that after a year of not editing would show up to comment on my comments within 24 hours. As far as I'm aware there isn't an automated way to notify you of comments on an article's talk page, just your userpage, so he obviously watches it very closely. Took me off guard, and then he made legal threats and was very uncivil in his responses. Irregardless, I'm a very long standing wikipedian and take editing articles very seriously, so I really don't see an COI here? — raekyt 18:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There isNE Ent 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh.. didn't remember there is a way to get that e-mailed to you... I suppose that would work if your watchlist wasn't IMMENSE like mine, lol. — raekyt 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Raeky, may I offer some advice? The problem was in your approach. There is a difference between arguing your point to a BLP subject, and getting them to see the light. It's always better to take the "seeing the light" approach with some extra hand holding that we don't give to most people because it saves everyone time and frustration in the end. These folks need to be treated gently because they are emotionally invested in themselves and we can't expect someone to take the disconnected approach to themselves that we expect of all others. Which is why we have a COI policy in the first place. We need to educate these folks on the appropriate responses because they arn't aware of them. All they know is that they have a right to legal action. But we can teach them that there are venues available to them, or better yet, we teach them why we do what we do and the spirit and intention behind it. It doesn't always work, but it leaves folks with a better feeling and we appear in the media less often.--v/r - TP 19:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with above. Also I don't recall anywhere in the NLT policy where an apology is required, just retraction, and it's Rklawton's (the blocking admin's) call if that requirement has been met. Ditch ∝ 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

remember also there must be hundreds or even thousands of generic 'notify me when the web page changes' which would likely mostly work here (although also picking up stuff like template changes) Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree an apology isn't needed, a retraction is. I can't find it either. Could Rklawton please provide a diff showing that Czbiker has retracted his legal threat? All I can find is a vague apology for being unprofessional, which covers the incivility but not the threat IMO. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's Rklawton's block, he can undo it for any reason.--v/r - TP 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that admin action is exempt from WP:ADMINACCT? And since he has not retracted his threat, does that imply another admin can block him or is that wheel-warring? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If Rklawton can't or won't provide evidence of withdrawal of the legal threat, another admin should block until the threat is explicitly retracted. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It also appears that Rklawton has a grudge against raeky, by calling their nomination of the subject's article for deletion bad faith. RNealK (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I notified Rklawton of this discussion and was told The matter is closed. Go make drama somewhere else. Is this the kind of behavior expected of an admin? Would another admin please determine whether the legal threat has been withdrawn? RNealK (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it seems clear he's sorry for his response. Therefore, he shouldn't need a block. Just ask him respectively to retract the threat and wait for him to get around to it (his mother's supposedly sick, so it could be couple days maybe). He hasn't violated NLT in the past, and he clearly isn't going to pursue legal action, so I think we can wait for him to voluntarily retract the threat, even if it's not immediate. Just my opinion. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The matter is closed. The user gets the point, and Rklawton obviously feels the apology is an implied retraction. Besides, as I discussed with Rklawton, it was not necessary to block anyway per WP:DOLT. WP:NLT is not a block-on-sight-without-thinking rule. Pestering him about undoing his own action isn't going to achieve anything neither with him nor with ANI. Neither is accusing him of a vendetta against Raeky when none is present. He blocked a user on Raeky's request and has been discussing colloquially with Raeky. The AFD was withdrawn by Raeky after a slew of keep !votes. This matter is largely put to rest at this point. After ec: Per Thumerward below.--v/r - TP 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hysterics aside, I'd agree that the apology was somewhat specifically not a retraction, and as such this is still NLT territory. But a far better approach would be for someone to politely request such a retraction, rather than to jump back in with a block on an editor still stinging from a sharp cluebat application. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I've done so. I don't really think it matters much, so won't likely be involved further whatever happens but respect not everyone agrees so thought it best to give Czbiker the opportunity to clear this up. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think Raeky's comments were unnecessarily nasty. They reflect a problem I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia: too many editors think they can say whatever they want about writers who promote unusual ideas - human dignity be damned. Shuker does deserve to be treated as a real person; there's no need to be so snarky and drown him in alphabet soup. I do know a little bit about Shuker's writings, and he's one of the more reasonable writers in his field. He certainly has some romantic notions, but he's also shown a willingness to reassess and even debunk cryptozoolgical claims. (See [10], for example.)

I'm not saying that we should actively promote Fortean claims on Wikipedia; I'm just saying that, sometimes, we need to tone down the rhetoric. Especially with regards to living people. Zagalejo^^^ 05:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I really wish people could be more mindful of the need to treat article subjects with respect, and not just in this case. What went on at Talk:Karl Shuker (and the AfD) was over the top and uncalled for, but not unique. Editors with a COI are not always conversant with how Wikipedia works. Education rather than instant attack is always better. One of the most pernicious outcomes of the exponential increase of paid editing and using Wikipededia for corporate advertisement is that as editors, we become fed up and jaded. Our first reaction is to stamp on the head of anyone with a COI. I know I've been sorely tempted myself. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

Reason: Continuing WP:NPA, WP:POINTy and non-good faith comments despite repeated messages and warnings: Start of recent history:

Diffs and extended history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[11] – Starting point of edits following block for NPA. Instituted 8 January and ended 22 January: Xerographica's remarks: (Notes: Words in bold was made in AfD comments. (In one instance he did a bold/all caps SHOUT.) Xerographica frequently uses ellipsis (...) in comments, but not to signify removed wording (I read them as pauses). Ellipsis added by me (as omitted material) are bracketed thus [...].) 22 January [12] – "If you don't understand ... you have not shared a single concern...." In response to my remarks about editing behavior. 23 January [13] – "Here's my problem. Where are your bricks? Where are ANY of your bricks? You removed all my bricks [...] ...but then you never added any of your own. How is that a "good or helpful" method of building an encyclopedia? Show me how to build an encyclopedia [...]. Don't just talk about building an encyclopedia...for once just do it. Then, and only then, will I consider the possibility of giving any weight to your feedback." In response about my remarks about building WP. [14] – "Have you read through all the reliable sources on the benefit principle entry?" In response to User:Morphh's remarks about the Tax article. [15] – "Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary ... Have you read through all the reliable sources?" In response to my remarks about off-topic nature of added material. [16] – "Let me know when you thoroughly read them so that we can have an informed discussion on the topic." A reply to Morphh's comment about reading/glancing at material. [17] – "If you want to "balance" this article then DIY and BUILD a criticism section. [In response to me; then:] "SPECIFICO, yes...because Brandeis and DeVito were making the same exact argument as a Nobel Prize winning economist. If you insist on editing economic entries...then why not concentrate on reading reliable economic sources for once?" In response to SPECIFICO. [18] – "Like I said on my talk page, once I see evidence of Rich actually building the encyclopedia...as in building actions speak louder than words and put your money where your mouth is...then, and only then, will I consider giving any weight to his words." And, "[...] If you, for once, actually look through the reliable sources, then you will find the expressions "other people's money" and "four ways to spend money"...and perhaps a few more. But because Wikipedia is not a dictionary...the focus of this entry is the concept that the reliable sources discuss. So please focus on what the reliable sources have to say about the CONCEPT and NOT THE TERM ITSELF." Both remarks directed to SPECIFICO. (A follow-up remark by Xerographica in this thread is here: [19].) [20] – "Strongly agree. It's nice to assume good faith...but having to constantly clean up after editors who do not understand the concepts that they are editing is a colossal waste of time/energy." A response in a CIR discussion. [21] – "Here's a bit of insight. Chances are pretty good that the passage came from the internet. So just click and drag your cursor over some of the text in order to highlight it, right click on the highlighted text and then click "Search Google for..."." In response to SPECIFICO's remark about no source for a quote.' January 24 [22] – "Rich, why would it be better handled in the theory of taxation? You're the one engaging in disruptive editing by engaging in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS. If you dispute any of the content then please create a section and share your concerns. We will discuss the content problems like reasonable editors. You're not assuming good faith by implying that I've added content that is not based on RS." In response to my remark about quotefarming. [23] – "I'm engaging in disruptive behavior by adding content that is supported by RS? It's not disruptive when you engage in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS? Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if I WAS the one who was headed towards an unpleasant outcome while you, the person who actually IS engaging in disruptive behavior, suffered absolutely no negative consequences." In response to SPECIFICIO's remarks about disruptive editing. [24] – "Rich, you added tags which indicate that certain sections may contain original research. I know that the content is based on RS. My question is...why do you not know that? Have you read the RS?" A further response (labeled as a new section) to my remarks about quotefarming. [25] – "You're telling me that I'm doing it wrong...but can you give me a single example of where you've done it right? If you genuinely want to improve this article...then why don't you just do so? Build the article rather than simply tear it down. Improve the article. Make it better. Add more value for readers. But that would require reading numerous reliable sources. So yes, the issue really IS whether you have read the reliable sources. Tell me what the RS say about the subject. Tell me EXACTLY where there's a disparity between what I've added and what the RS say." In response to my comments about NOR. January 25 [26] – "Please assume good faith by adding citation requests to any material that you believe to be original research." In response to my template message about adding unsourced material. [27] – "When notable economic concepts are deleted...then it's no wonder that editors with knowledge of economics see little value in making the effort to contribute." In response to User:Bwilkins' remark about consensus and notability. January 27 [28] – "Please copy and paste the exact policy rule that you are referring to." In response to User:Arthur Rubin's comments about appropriate See also links. [29] – "If you had actually read the entire policy you would have read this: [...]." In response to Rubin's comments on the See also's posted by Xerographica. [30] – "[...] I contributed while the reader simply vandalized. Do YOU not understand the relevance of the links? If you do not, then let me know which ones you struggle to understand and I will be happy to include a note next to those links." In response to User:72Dino, referring to Rubin as "the reader". [31] – "I'm trying my hardest to help you understand the relevance of the links...but you're not interested in answering a ridiculously simple and straightforward question." In response to 72Dino's inquiry about adding See also links (following on previous comment). [32] – "Comment. Clearly the AFD process needs to occur at the relevant projects...not in a general area. It's hardly a prefect solution...but it should hopefully cut down on editors editing well [[WP:COMPETENCE|outside their areas of expertise]]." Comment in an AfD discussion. [33] – "[...] That's why I understand the relevance. The question is...why don't you understand the relevance? Unless you tell me what you DO understand...I can't possibly discern where the gap in your knowledge is. [...] WE can't possibly improve the article if you do not understand all the relevant and important concepts involved." In response to 72Dino's follow-up comment, expressing no desire to make further comment or continue discussion thread. January 29 [34] – Removed {{verification failed}} template placed by Arthur Rubin, with edit summary of "[...] please stop wasting my time" [35] – "If you had actually read the reliable sources then you would have known that this article has always been about the concept." AfD comment, unclear to whom addressed, but edit history indicates Rubin. [36] – "Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article?" Comment to Rubin in AfD discussion. [37] – "[...] My dispute with him is that he rarely rarely ever reads the relevant reliable sources...but he edits the content anyways. For an example of how it's supposed to work...look on the talk page of public choice theory. You can see some exchanges between Thomasmeeks and myself. That kind of exchange has never ONCE occurred with Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO. If it has actually occurred with Rubin or the others...then I'm sure Rubin would be able to provide one such example." In response to User:CarrieVS who had said: "[...] And if we do discuss it here, we will be strictly discussing the content in question, and not anyone's general conduct or editing behaviour." [38] – "Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic. Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice. Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics. Thanks." Comment added to AfD discussion. [39] – "Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics." Comment in AfD discussion. [40] – "[...] So if you dispute a point or argument that I make...then please bring your own reliable sources to the table. Show me the evidence that you've actually spent your own time researching the topic. Thanks." Comment in new section, perhaps in response to Morphh. 30 January [41] – "[...] ...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. [...]" Comment in an AfD discussion. [42] – "Can you cite the policy that states that secondary sources are required to establish the relevance of a passage from a primary source? If you're concerned with blockquotes and copyright issues...then you should probably head over to the Wikiquote project and start removing quotes. But if you're genuinely interested in improving this article...then you're welcome to add some reliably sourced prose." In response to User:Volunteer Marek about concerns with blockquotes and possible copyright issues. [43] – "[....] Have you read any reliable sources on this concept? In other words, what are you basing your argument on?" In another response to Volunteer Marek. [44] – "Please copy and paste the passages from those policies that you think are relevant here." In another response to Volunteer Marek about OR and SYNTH concerns. [45] – "[...] Regarding your ultimatum...can you please explain to me what exactly is your own contribution to the improvement of this article? Because I'm just not seeing it." In response to Volunteer Marek comments about secondary sources (unclear what "ultimatum" is being referred to). [46] – "[...] Except, you've removed nearly all the relevant reliably sourced content...and now it's little more than a dictionary entry. Are you going to build it up into an encyclopedic entry? Or is your contribution simple to tear down other people's modest, albeit highly imperfect, efforts?" In further response to Volunteer Marek. [47] –"[...] Again, please copy and paste the exact relevant policy passage." In further response to Volunteer Marek's comments about blockquotes, OR and SYNTH. 31 January [48] – "Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... [...]. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it." In response to Volunteer Marek's comment about secondary sources and quotefarms. [49] – "If you think quotes are copyright violations then go head over to the Wikiquote project to inform them that they are violating copyright. If you do not see a connection between the quote and the topic...either the connection does not exist...or maybe the connection does exist but you're just not seeing it. Which one do you think it is? Well...given that it was your idea that this topic be redirected to TOC...I'm pretty sure I know which one it is. Have you ever considered reading what the reliable sources have to say about the topic? " In response to Rubin's comments about quotefarms and possible copyright violations. [50] – "If you truly believe that it's a personal attack to ask another whether they've read the material then update the policy accordingly." In response to my template message (modified) about NPA. [51] – Quotation omitted. Bringing up his previous 2 week block, asked for clarification in NPA policy specifying that particular comments be considered disruptive or not. [52] – "And how many of those editors use reliable sources as the basis of their disagreements?" In response to Volunteer Marek's comment that many editors were disagreeing with Xerographica, while his response was WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [53] – "If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on [AfD page] with an informed comment." In response to User:Lukeno94's observation that other editors could very well be economics majors or other types of experts. [54] – "Have you read the reliable sources?" In response to Rubin's comment about material not in the sources. [55] – "Morphh, I created a section in the body for the Principles of taxation but, as usual, Rich and Rubin removed it. I moved the section over to my subpage...[...]. Rich and Rubin arbitrarily remove any content that I add to a page...so you'll have to add it yourself." A second comment following the one above. [56] – "Great, so contribute the reliably sourced content." In response to Rubin's comment about what certain material says or does not say. [57] – "Can you link to a single article where you and Rubin have contributed actual content? As I've told you countless times...if you disagree with my meager efforts to build an article...then please show me how it's supposed to be done. Clearly, based on numerous reliable sources, the benefit principle and the ability-to-pay are significant tax concepts. Clearly they are missing from this article. Clearly I've made an effort to include them. Clearly you've disagreed with my effort. So please, for once, show me how it's supposed to be done." In response to my comment about the above remark. 1 February [58] – "How can you say that the addition of the passages count as original research if you aren't even able to articulate or identify what, exactly, is original?" In response to Volunteer Marek's remark about needing sources that directly support the material. [59] – "A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge." Reply to comment in AfD discussion by User:Lukeno94 about consensus and relevance of an essay in discussed article. [60] – "Hi, can you please lock [...] again? SPECIFICO is again [diff omitted] removing entire sections of reliably sourced material without bothering to share his concerns on the talk page. Thanks." Request posted on User:Bbb23's talk page. [61] – "An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency." In response to Lukeno94's comment about Xerographica's comments on an article talk page. [62] – "Again, as I've told you countless times, if you have concerns with content, then please post your concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks." In response to SPECIFICO's comment about OR and possible ANI complaint. [63] - "Hi, can you please link me to the instance that you are referring to? Thanks." In response to User:Little green rosetta's (LGR) comment about multiple warnings given regarding AGF. [64] – "If he wants to challenge the content then why doesn't he add "citation needed" tags? Isn't he failing to assume good faith?" In response to User:Writ Keeper's message about Xerographica's inappropriate behavior. [65] – "Can you please assume good faith and create a new section to share specific concerns? In other words, I'd like to improve this page but you're not offering specific suggestions. Thanks." In response to Rubin's comment about an unspecified article edit. [66] – "If you'd like to offer some clarification regarding what, exactly, constitutes a "personal attack"...then that would be awesome. Please share your thoughts on the personal attack talk page... [link omitted] Thanks." In response to Bwilkins' remark that 'Pretty much' of Xerographica's entire contribution list was 'an instance' of his BATTLEGROUND behavior (brought up by LGR). [67] – Entire quote omitted. Is in a new section, but includes "I'm the only one doing any "building" while there are plenty of editors simply "demolishing" anything that I build." [68] – Entire quote omitted. Is in response to User:Famspear's advice about article improvement, but includes "You won't find a single contribution where they've improved on my prose or added their own prose or added citations or added relevant sources. How can I hope to collaboratively build a project with editors who are clearly far more interested in tearing it down?" and "[...] have these editors show the initiative to build up rather than simply tear down." [69] – "If you are correct that these editors are genuinely interested in removing OR regarding the opportunity cost of war...then why haven't they made any effort to remove this section... [...] Let's see how sincere they are at removing OR when it comes to [...]." In response to LGR's comment about OR. 2 February [70] – "[...] Regarding your prose, if I had to choose between sharing with someone else the actual passages...or your prose...it wouldn't even be a difficult choice. But it's doubtful that I could do a better job. [...]." In response to my explanation of removal of unsourced and non-prose-summarized content. [71] – "He was talking about We, the People. Have you read it? Do you know what the plot of the story is?" In response to Rubin's comment about 'tax choice' not being in the referenced short story. [72] – (5 paragraphs added, partial quotes provided without [...] "And if you had actually read through all the sources, then you would have found plenty of arguments against tax choice. The fact that you didn't...clearly indicates that, either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you haven't sufficiently researched this topic to be making substantial edits to the content." "I very reluctantly have to admit that some of your edits haven't been half bad. But please read more and edit less." In response to my remarks about article edits. 3 February [73] – "What's the argument of Scroogenomics? Have you read the reliable sources that I just added to this entry?" In response to my remark about source and See also entry did not pertain to the article. [74] – (4 paragraphs added, only the first is provided) "I've asked other editors if they've read the reliable sources because their edits did not reflect what the reliable sources say about the topics. If you think it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources...then change the policy to match your preferences. Because, as it stands, the policy does not state that it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources." In response to my remarks about improperly asking (and assuming) about other editors not reading material. [75] – "No, that was sarcasm. Progress would be for you to stop being disruptive." In response to SECIFCO's remarks about OR. [76] – "Are you interested in improving this article? So far it seems like your only interests have been to delete it and to accuse me of soapboxing. From my perspective, somebody cannot fundamentally improve an article if they don't have a firm grasp on the relevant concepts." In response to User:Capitalismojo's comment about the purpose of talk pages and the comments of other editors. 4 February [77] – "You're completely abusing the "no original research" policy. [....] If you don't even have a basic grasp of what foot voting is...then please research the topic until you do. Until then your edits and comments will continue to be disruptive." In response to my remarks about OR. [78] – "This was your edit summary, "Delete WP:OR Please find RS treatments of this subject matter if you believe it is relevant to the article." So again...why did you remove the opportunity cost of war from this article but not from the other two articles? " In response to SPECIFCO's remark about an Edit summary. [79] – "I'm trying to improve this article by including a section on the opportunity costs of war. But I can't do that if SPECIFICO is going to arbitrarily remove it. How do I know his decision was arbitrary? Because he has not removed the "OR" from the other two articles. Given that he has not removed those other sections, clearly he's not genuinely concerned with OR...instead, his interest is to be disruptive." In response to my remark about Xerographica's improper remark (quoted above). [80] – "[... referencing a warning I had posted on his talk page] Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences?" [81] – "[...] I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Despite the fact that these other editors have never read a single RS on the topic...they still feel qualified to make substantial content cuts to the article. That's a problem. [...]" In reply to critical comments from User:Calton. [82] – "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." In response to my remark about the "Hey Rich" posting on the NPA talk page (referenced above.) 5 February [83] – "It's your claim...so why should I have to be the one who substantiates it? The burden of proof is on you. Once you provide your proof then I'll look it over and decide for myself whether there's any credibility to the editor's claim. But what difference does it make if the editor truly is a Harvard-educated econ professor? When it comes to content disputes...whether somebody is "right" or "wrong" should be determined by what the RS's have to say about the subject. And thus far, really the only editor that I've interacted with who has shown any real interest in what the RS's have to say about the subject is Thomasmeeks... [...] Pretty much everybody else is far more interested in discussing their opinions on the subject." In response to Calton's remarks that amateur reading is not education. [84] – "[...] 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." Part of the response to Bwilkins' observation about Xerographica's "so fuck you" attitude. [85] – "[...] Once [SPECIFCO] makes his first positive contribution...then, and only then...will I consider the possibility that he's interested in improving this article." In response to Capitalismojo's observations about Xerographica seeing bad faith because some other article had not been edited. 6 February [86] – "Rubin, it took me at least an hour to thoroughly read the paper. But you removed it FOUR minutes after I added it to the references. How many times am I going to have to ask you to read more and edit less? First you read the paper and then you can make the argument that it's only indirect. Otherwise, how can we have an informed discussion when you haven't even read the material? Please stop your disruptive editing." Self-evident. [87] – "The topic of the article is the TV show and a strong recurring theme in the TV show is rent seeking. Have you even seen the show?" In response to my comment about the topic of the article being the TV show, and nothing more. [88] – "Yeah, you really nailed my logic there. Why don't you watch the show and then come back so we can have an informed discussion on whether breastfeeding or rent-seeking is more relevant." In response to my remark about keeping his inquiries about seeing or reading material to himself. (Referenced above.) [89] – "The editors review each letter and they have complete discretion over which letters are published. You never answered my question regarding Haldeman. Again, why did you remove his story from the "Further reading" section? Regarding Bird & Tsiopoulos...how do you know that Rubin is correct? Have you read the paper?" In response to rationale of keeping letters to the editor and other off-topic links out of article. [90] – "So according to [WP] policy, letters to the editors and guest posts are not reliable sources? I read over [...] RS policy...but I must have missed it. Can you copy and paste where it says that? Thanks." In response to User:Orangemike's observations about including posts mentioned above in article. 7 February [91] – "What, exactly, is your positive contribution to this article? I searched for, found, thoroughly read over and added specifically relevant material 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. Thanks." In response to Rubin's remarks about article editing. [92] – "Please "unbundle" your warning and specify exactly which part of my paragraph contains the personal attack. Thanks." In response to my template level 4 NPA warning that included the diff. [93] – "Can you whittle it down a little more?" In response to my quoting the particular language referred to in the above message. [94] – "So it wouldn't be a personal attack to tell another editor to WP:DIY?" In response to my remark that the entire comment to Rubin was improper. [95] – "Please copy and paste the relevant policy passage which states that letters published by editors are never reliable sources...except for the exception you noted. Thanks." In reply to Rubin's comment that LTE are not RS. [96] – "Is the purpose of Wikipedia to follow other editors around and undo their edits?" In reply to Bwilkins' remark about Xerographica's BATTLE mentality. [97] – "So if I followed you around deleting all the content that you contribute...oh wait...never mind." In response to Rubin's comment that removing inappropriate edits is proper. [98] – New section, not quoted, but contains remarks about Rubin, SPECIFCO and myself. 8 February [99] – Not quoted. Made in response to LGR's observations on his combative attitude. [100] – Not quoted. Further responses to LGR's observations. 9 February [101] – "They don't find their own sources and they don't read the sources that I find." In response to LGR's comment that we don't quiz editors on their competence or require them to read what others consider relevant. [102] – "[...] ...it's original research for you to allow Rubin to remove Mitchell's passage from this article. [...]" In response to User:Fishicus' comments about OR. 10 February [103] – "Also, are you aware that WP:NAD|Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" Comment to Rubin. [104] – "[...] How did Rich find the footnote...but not the relevant passage? Let me guess...he simply searched the paper for "consumer sovereignty" rather than actually read through the paper in order to see if any of the material was relevant to the concept. This article is about the concept...not the term itself. Did you know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" In response to SPECIFICO's comment about a deletion I had made. [105] – "How do you know his edit is valid? Have you read the paper? Also, I'm still looking forward to your reply... " In response to SPECIFICO about an edit I had made. [106] – "You have no idea how ridiculously easy it is to prove that Rich's edit was nothing but disruptive. I just go to my database, search for "Rizzo" and then filter down to find the relevant passages... [text from a quote apparently found in a Google search] If you or Rich had actually read the paper then neither of you would be wasting my time with your disruptive editing." In response to SPECIFICO's comment that I am innocent of invalid editing until proven guilty. [107] – "[AfD/Freedom of choice.] Does this count as canvassing or appropriate notification?" – New section in talk page. Follow-on comments by other editors said 'canvassing'. (But the bell had been rung. In follow-on comment ([108]) he noted that notices were appropriate on Project pages, whereas this was an article talk page. But Xerographica argued that there was no difference between posting here vice a Project page.) [109] – "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." In response to Rubin. [110] – "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." In response to SPECIFICO's unsigned AGF 3 warning. [111] – Quote omitted. Paraphrase: 'You deleted quotes from an article I worked on, why didn't you remove quotes from this other article?' [112] – "So, are you going to delete the "Key excerpts" section from that other article? If not, then why not?" In response to User:72Dino's comments about typical article structure. Follow-on comment by Xerographica [113] thanked Dino for not deleting sections and trying to help him understand how WP works. [114] – "Please copy and paste exactly what it was that I said that you consider to be a personal attack." In response to my level 4 template message about NPA, in which I cited the diff and the passage which was improper. [115] – "[4th of 8 paragraphs, largely quoting a source] Over and over and over I've told you about the opportunity cost concept. But evidently you still don't get it." In response to Rubin's comment about a particular source. 11 February [116] – "[3rd of 4 paragraphs about his goals in editing this article] I've added numerous sections to this article...and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have deleted them. There are plenty of reliable sources...yet I do not see these editors going through the RSs and adding the relevant material to this article. Cutting content is easy, but contributing content takes effort. Building is always more of a challenge than simply tearing down. Because all these editors do is tear down...I've lost my good faith in them. Once they start actually building this article up...then, and only then, will my faith in them start to renew." In response to Capitalismojo's suggestions for article improvement. [117] – Refers to an addition he made last month with a Sesame Street U-tube piece. In my remark that his original addition was WP:POINTy, he said "To a certain extent...I'm happy to try and teach these concepts. But you haven't been willing to meet me half way. You never do your own homework. Instead, you expect me to jump through your hoops like some sort of circus clown. [...] " [118]. And then: "Thanks for the positive feedback...but your advice is a day late and a dollar short... [...] The thing is...there are other editors who could really benefit from your advice to "measure twice, cut once". I've been telling Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO to "read more, edit less". (At: [119].) 12 February [120] – "SPECIFICO and Rich...are you guys going to build this article up? If so, then you're more than welcome to thumb your nose at Erin's quality and reliably sourced contributions. If not, then please don't criticize other people's contributions if you're not willing to make better contributions yourselves. Thanks." In response to edits on article page. [121] – "Speaking of rude...why would Rich undo another editor's positive contribution to Erin's user page? Why not just allow Erin to decide for herself whether she appreciated Djweinberger's contribution?" Remark refers to a revert I did to User:Erinbarnes in which a new (SPA?) editor did revisions to same. [122] – "I have no problem engaging with them...my problem is that the ioby page would have been better off without their edits. They go around tearing down but they never build up. No worries, I'm sure they'll do it again. Hopefully, eventually, you'll see the pattern." In response to LGR's comment about SPECIFICO and myself. [123] – Quotation omitted. While comment references his creation of the article (copied from a userpage), it also references edits by Rubin, SPECIFICO and myself on other article pages. [124] – Quotation omitted. Comment is on an article talk page, is addressed to User:Hugo Spinelli, providing "context" about past incidents involving other articles. (This comment has been removed by me as WP:TPNO ([125]). [126] – "Rubin removed preference revelation from the "See also" section because he believes that it is "irrelevant". Given that he evidently feels qualified to remove the topic...he must be sufficiently familiar with both topics. Is this correct Rubin?" Self evident. [127] – "Of course it matters...given that you follow me around undoing my edits. So what part(s) of that passage do you not understand?" Comment in the above discussion. Further edits and evidence worth considering: Xerographica brought up an ANI regarding SPECIFICO, Rubin and myself. Overall the discussion was more about his behavior. See: [128]." He developed a "to do list" (name changed after discussion) User talk:Xerographica/Archive 4#My To Do List as a WP:UP#POLEMIC during his block period. Besides numerous warnings, there have been efforts to promote positive editing since block expired: User talk:Xerographica#Article creation break? – started by User:Lawrencekhoo User talk:Xerographica#Unnecessary war – Comments by me, as a comrade in arms. User talk:Xerographica#Military SMEs needed – Comment by me suggesting a change of focus to military topics. User talk:Xerographica#Change your approach – Comments by User:Little green rosetta User talk:Xerographica#Burden of proof on Tax choice – Comments by User:Writ Keeper User talk:Xerographica#Suggestion – Editor Review – Suggestion by me that he undertake WP:ER User talk:Xerographica#Last chance – Further comments by Little green rosetta. User talk:Xerographica#Extra training – Suggestion by me, as a former US Army NCO. If he had agreed, I would have assigned WP:ER. Additionally, I sought to give him input via (confused) and (facepalm). But even (raspberry) did not faze him.

Comments about his behavior, attitude, remarks, etc. have been added by various other editors in talk page commentaries. These diffs are not provided.

Final observations:

• WP:TE is perhaps the most pertinent essay for analyzing Xerographica's behavior. I think that 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.13, and 2.14 are directly on point.
• WP:DE applies, particularly in terms of consensus building and ignoring community input.
• While WP:GRIEF pertains to spammers, the various stages of grief apply to Xerographica.

As the last diff (of 13 February) is the latest NPA, following repeated level 4 final warnings, this history is submitted for consideration.

– S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting the diffs above, not to hide them but for the sake of brevity. That is a longer list of material than I've ever seen on ANI. Many will just TLDR and not even look at it. I'm sure an admin will say the same that excessive material is not likely to be looked at. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the forbearance of many editors has enabled user Xerographica's abusive edit list to achieve unusual length. A shorter list is given here [129] [130] SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin: I made it through Feb. 05, and I'm just not really seeing anything other than an editor who is obviously frustrated, and should probably communicate a little more level-headed...but nothing crazy. Definitely not personal attacks. What are you wanting the admins to do with this? Ditch ∝ 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• An WP:RFC/U might be better equipped to handle this than ANI (has one been done already? Did I miss it?).--v/r - TP 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User Xerographica has already been blocked four times for similar behavior. [131]

The block log indeed shows action, some quite recent, and the subject's talk page is a train-wreck (deserves credit however for not "scrubbing" it, like some I could name) and I'd say the complaint is valid, taken all together. Agree that an Rfc/U may be the next step here. Good call on the hat also. Jusdafax 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Yes, I did consider RFC/U, but felt it would not result in definitive action. The result would be a "Nah-nah-nah, you tried to get me!" from Xerographica. The alternative, next stronger stop would be ArbCom, but that was not appropriate course of action either. As for the non-NPA nature of his remarks, I've felt he was "Borderlining" to an extreme, and thereby failing to work towards consensus. (And thanks for the hatting.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is certainly a two way street. But in my defense...I'd like to think that I'm improving and "evolving" over time to more closely conform to Wikipedia behavioral standards. For example...

1. Recently I have been seeking feedback from neutral editors...User_talk:Little_green_rosetta#ioby
2. Since this warning by Writ Keeper...User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice I have not undone a single edit by Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO
3. And as Ditch Fisher noted above, I am no longer engaging in personal attacks

Regarding my own complaint...well...if you've read over the evidence shared by Rich...it's clear that my biggest complaint is that they make substantial edits to pages without first reading the reliable sources. Therefore, given that their edits are not based on reliable sources...then clearly they violate the no original research policy. Unfortunately, it's not that clear to outside editors. I'm fairly confident though that it's just a matter of time before enough other editors start to catch on.

Additionally, these editors are engaging in Wikipedia:Harassment. They follow me around undoing my edits. For example, how in the world would Rich have known to undo my edit on the House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)? That's just too much of a coincidence. But doesn't the volume of evidence that Rich shared speak for itself? How could there possibly be so much editing overlap unless they watch my contributions? Our interests truly are not that aligned. If they were, then I wouldn't have to try and persuade them to read the reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Is WP:GAMING going on in Xerographica's remarks? I.e., 'Playing the victim' by saying these editors are harassing him. I.e., 'Playing policies against each other' by saying my complaint is a two way street – e.g., that he might have a complaint about me? I.e., "sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected" when he says that "other editors [will] start to catch on" to his POV regarding OR, SYN, RS? Other bits of gaming: 1. Ditch Fisher read through 5 February and did not say Xerographica was no longer engaging in PA. 2. It is clear to Xerographica alone that other editors are not reading the RS and are therefore engaged in OR. 3. The "recent" requests for feedback were not to evaluate his behavior, but to look at edits made by other editors. (Nevertheless, as the requests were made to Little green rosetta, I certainly accept the good faith of the requests in and of themselves.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – This is interesting. While this discussion is going on, Xerographica continues to make remarks about other editors. [132] – "Hugo Spinelli built the article up, and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are trying to tear it down. SPECIFICO is the one who nominated it for deletion... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freedom_of_choice. Where's their positive contributions? Where are the reliable sources that they've brought to the table? I know it's hard to see a pattern with so few instances. But thanks for taking a look at it." In a comment made to User:Writ Keeper referring to Freedom of choice. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it "gaming" to share my side of the story? And it clearly is harassment. Out of all the articles mentioned in your evidence...how many did you edit before I did?

And Rubin even admitted that he's harassing me...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#Stalking...

If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too.

I deserved to be "stalked" because my area of interest is public choice? The only other active editor who is also knowledgeable about public choice theory is Thomasmeeks. Here's what he had to say about the subject...Talk:Benefit_principle#Recognition_to_creator_of_this_article

Some tough things have been said above about aspects of this article. The Talk page is just the place for such. At the same time, I think the harshest critic would agree that the subject is very appropriate for WP and probably long overdue. Identifying that gap and trying to plug it is IMO a not inconsiderable achievement of User:Xerographica, even at the cost of falling well short of what are likely X.'s own standards and risking the kind of responses as above. Sometimes that's the cost of being WP:BOLD. That's not to condone any avoidable lapses of course but to at least keep them in proportion.

X. has to balance his own priorities & might have enough on his plate to keep way busy in other activities. Still, if time & inclination allowed, X. might be best qualified to improve the article in the near term. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is really only going to end when the three of you stick to editing articles that interest you enough to actually read about. --Xerographica (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Others have repeatedly suggested to X that, with a fraction of the time and energy he puts into his talk page and other non-article messages here, he could instead be improving the articles. He states that he is familiar with the various subjects and the associated literature. Over and over, he's been asked to use properly-sourced material, properly-cited to create encyclopedic prose content that would prove his talk page assertions correct, while improving WP. Sad to say, I can't recall any example of him simply citing the text of a reliable source which would support the specific content he insists should belong in any of these articles. Other users have patiently tried to mentor and encourage X to become a constructive contributor, but for whatever reason this has not happened. Given his recidivist history, I am afraid that only a lengthy block is going to give him the time to reconsider his perspective and priorities about participation here. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Seriously? You can't recall this... Talk:Tax_choice#Kennett_failed_verification.3F? Let me know if that doesn't jog your memory and I'll be happy to provide plenty more examples. Also, speaking of jogging your memory...don't forget about this...Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because it failed verification. I'm not going to say that you didn't read it, but no one with good knowledge of English who did read it would find it supported the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – I ask that Xerographica's comments directed towards SPECIFICO's past editing not become a distraction from the main issue. – S. Rich (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried taking these pages off of my watchlist, but the dispute seems to have followed me regardless, so I guess I should just drop a note here. From my somewhat limited prior experience with this dispute, it appears to me that Xerographica is very passionate about this subject, adn has good intentions. That's not in and of itself a problem, but who was it that compared strong opinions on Wikipedia to tigers in a zoo? It comes to mind. The things that I had an impression are the real problems are these: a) Xerographicahas little sense of discrimination as far as material that should be in the article as opposed to material that should stay out. It appears that, in Xerographica's mind, a reliable source guarantees inclusion in an article; any edit that removes sourced content is a negative edit, no matter why the material was in fact removed. See Talk:Tax_choice#Eisenhower_vs._Hitler? for an example of this. Second, and more importantly, it seems that Xerographica doesn't quite understand original research and especially synthesis; it seems to me that Xerographica is, perhaps unknowingly inserting their own inferences and conclusions between sourced bits of information. An example of what made me think this way is at User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice. Basically, this unfamiliarity with Wikipedia norms is leading to Xerographica's frustration with the other editors, who are objecting to their edits for seemingly incomprehensible reasons, causing the lashouts. Unfortunately, because Xerographica is so passionate about this issue, they're not particularly willing to accept criticism, and also prone to edit-warring and other seemingly aggressive behavior. The edit-warring is what drew my attention to Xerographica in the first place, but to their credit, I have not heard that they continued to edit-war after I issued a warning. Again, I haven't made a comprehensive survey of Xerographica's edits, so I can't say if this is a consistent problem, or if this is the same issues that others have noted. This is just what I've observed in the conflicts I've been exposed to, and what seems like the root of the problem to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:TIGERS is what you were looking for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I had one rather strange and frustrating interaction with X on electoral fusion; I think the portion of Writ Keeper's comments beginning "Second, and ..." and ending "... aggressive behavior" are an excellent diagnosis of the situation and of X's behavior. --JBL (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is part of the problem. However, while it's perfectly understandable that a new editor might start out that way, most will listen to advice and guidance and develop the ability to work within WP norms and protocols. In X's case, however, despite a lot of guidance and supportive dialogue from a number of capable editors and experienced mentors, X has simply failed to progress beyond the dysfunctional behavior. In light of this, the situation will not be remedied by more of the same mentoring or guidance. Those have been demonstrated to be ineffective. A significant block is much more likely in my view to have a beneficial effect. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt a block will have a beneficial effect on Xerographica's editing. Quite the opposite, if anything. Of course, there is a time when it ceases to matter what will improve Xerographica's editing; whether we've hit that point, I don't know and don't really have an opinion. While we're on the subject of sanctions, a well-targeted topic ban might be more effective, but who knows? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Observations: 1. The very day the tiger was released from his cage/block, he started clawing about the museum. (Indeed, the block was extended because he would not retract his fangs when appealing the block.) 2. I think a ban would have to be pretty extensive to be effective. Namely, anything in the economics category. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Economics" was what I was thinking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding improvements in my editing. Here are three of my most recent articles...
• The Other Invisible Hand
• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
• Scroogenomics

Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up? My contributions are certainly far far far from perfect...but can you name any editors who are actively creating/improving economic articles? I mentioned Thomasmeeks already...and recently Hugo Spinelli did a great job with Freedom of choice. Yet look on the talk page to see his difficulties with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO. They criticize and tear down other people's efforts but I've never once seen them build up any article. I can share plenty of articles that I've made a highly imperfect effort to try and build up. Yet where's a single article that these three editors have significantly improved? Where's an article where they've done it better? Doesn't anybody think it strange that these editors cannot provide a single example of an article that they've built up?

I wouldn't at all mind criticism from these editors if they actually led by example...but they really do not lead by example. They can't even provide one single example! I can show you plenty of my contributions so you know exactly what you'd be losing if you blocked me from editing economic articles. But what would be the loss if you blocked Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO? There would be no loss...and that's a problem. --Xerographica (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

wow, 168 violations in the hat. did anyone read each example, is there a highlight reel? since i havent clicked each, which was the worst? the few random examples i did follow seemed rather tame? whatever happens with this case, i suspect one of the parties is in error. either X has flown under the radar for quite some time, or R is looking too hard. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Clarification for Darkstar. The count is 116, as the diffs begin with #52. The first (#51) is the block log, provided as the starting point. Was I looking too hard? Well, there is the pre-block history, which is not included. And I might have given descriptions to the his comments, like "snide" or "cute". (I did so in response to him directly a few times.) But the point is, that Xerographica constantly throws out these comments. So, given the borderline nature of many of them, they are invidious. Alas, someone needed to do something; and, as there are other things I rather do, I did not enjoy this project much. – S. Rich (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I have had the same problems with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO since I edited Freedom of Choice, but now things seem to be moving on. Anyway, as far as I know, I don't see any serious violation of WP's policies by Xerographica. I find it really hard to assume good faith with their disruptive edits and abuse of DRs, so I can understand Xerographica's frustrations. I share the same. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – In reply to Xerographica immediately above.

I'll refer you to Carl Eytel, which I started and which took one year and over 500 edits from myself and 14 other editors to achieve Good Article status.

Here are the diffs on Scroogenomics: [133] – 3 by you at the start in setting up the article and 22 subsequent edits by 5 other editors.

Hugo Spinelli did not suffer disruptive edits from me. I modified the talk page headings in accordance with WP:TPO to neutralfy them. I posted the rationale on the edit summary when I did so. And I have quoted the particular language of the TPO guidance on that talk page. And I apologized to Hugo when it appeared that he did not understand the rationale. (And I am sorry to see that Hugo finds it hard to AGF. This essay WP:AAGF, is one that he might find interesting.)

– S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

if cute and snide are grounds for action, i fear the whole of wikipedia will need to block itself Mr Richiepoo. Have a dandy doodle day sweetheart. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The deingrating comment of "richiepoo" and "sweetheart" above and in the edit summary certainly is, however ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Please see my response to Darkstar on his talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support RFC/U Look, I don't know what the hell else to try in order to get Xerographica to fall in line with Project and Community Norms. Blocks don't phase him. Polite correction has xero effect. Attempts by some of the most patient and knowledeable editors are ignored. It's either indef-block and lose the potential for some good edits, start an RFC/U, or let this editor run roughshod over everyone. My choice is b. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i see what you did there Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am not an admin and I am unsure whether I should comment here. If not, I apologize and will remove this. I was mentioned in the 'extended history' above and have two thoughts. First, it is inappropriate to hide Easter Eggs in articles (humorous or otherwise) in order to make points about whether Wikipedia editors read or comprehend your additions. Second, the assertion that other editors are incapable of understanding or are insufficiently interested in and hence incapable of editing is appalling. This editor has passion and fire. It needs some tempering. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – To Bwilkins & Capitalismojo: please see my comment to (my buddy) Darkstar here: [134]. I really don't think there is a pony under all of that horse shit. To Capitalismojo: your comments are most welcome. We are not just "users" of WP, we are contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment While I have noticed problems with X (and they appear to continue to a lesser degree) I can understand his frustration with a cadre of editors following his every move. Not that him being followed is a bad thing for the pedia, but it is certainly making him uncomfortable.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – Various observations about Xerographica being uncomfortable, upset, frustrated, or whatever are missing the point. The fact that certain editors, or any editors at all, are monitoring his activity, and making repeated efforts (with both honey and vinegar) to get him to improve his attitude and editing, is missing the point. The fact that he might have something to contribute alongside his tirades, pleadings, unfounded admonitions, complaints, highhanded sounding superior comments (and attacks), is missing the point. Note, please, that his disruptive, truculent, and selfish pattern of editing and commenting has gone on for some 2,000 edits, 770 of which are on article pages and the remainder on article/user talk pages. (I cannot tell you how many comments have been made about or to him. I suspect the number would be a comparatively high one.) Pleading, discussion, warnings, blocks, etc. have not helped. Moreover, with the conclusion of each block, he continues with the same behavior. (Indeed, he has had blocks extended because of his comments made in appealing the blocks.) The point is that the community is being treated unfairly when his behavior continues as it has. The point is that actual contributors, not just those editors who are following him, are frustrated, upset, uncomfortable, and disrupted each time Xerographica issues another "you are not qualified to comment because you are biased, did not read, do not understand, do not see the wisdom that I seek to impart to the world, etc." Is it unfair to "hound" Xerographica? Only if the hounding lacked basis or was simply personal – but that is not the case. Is it unfair to the community to have him continue on? Yes. I am convinced that a RFC/U would have no positive results. The RFC/U could only repeat the admonitions about his DE, and ask him to stop what he has been doing for these 2,000 edits. Xerographica had had his chance to behave according to community standards when the last block ended, but his behavior picked up again immediately following the block. So I ask, who is being treated unfairly? In my opinion, the community is. And allowing Xerographica to snarl about, unleashed, uncaged, is a disservice to the community. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's a case of the snarling tiger versus the proverbial bull in the china shop. I'm only snarling at the bull because it's destroying the china. But maybe it's not destroying the china? Unfortunately, there just aren't enough editors to form a credible consensus with regards to economic topics. That means that any "snarling" on my part is far easier for outside editors to spot than the destruction of china is.

But I've honestly made an effort to tone down my "snarling". The thing is...I really don't think it's "snarling" to ask another editor whether they've done their homework. These three editors follow me around and undo my edits. Maybe they know something that I don't. So I ask them whether they've read the material. And then they accuse me of personally attacking them. If they asked me the same question I would simply answer "Yes, I have". If they produce a source that I haven't read (which has never happened), then why would I accuse them of personally attacking me if they ask whether I've read it? --Xerographica (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Observations:
  • We had much of the same in [135] the block of last December. Arguments were made in that appeal which simply repeated the behavior that lead to the block. With the December block in mind, I submit that the "They don't read" is nothing more than the other side of the the same "They don't add value" coin.
  • Last month's block [136] has the same thing that we see above. E.g., he said "I think I've shown Good Faith in wanting to learn about what behavior...is...or isn't acceptable." (X's closing remark in appealing the block.)
  • Both before and after this last block I and others talked to him about what a worthless and disruptive question the inquiry is. E.g., I tried to tell him that he should not ask "have you read the sources I provided?". (And here he repeats it!) Why?
    • 1. AGF means you assume the other editor has read it. On the other hand, asking if "Did you see this part: 'The world is round' in Columbus' diary? I think it supports the idea of ...." That sort of question opens dialogue. That sort of question is focused. That sort of question can and does AGF. But no ....
    • 2. No what? No, X has figured out on his own that other editors have not read stuff, and he declares so directly in his comments.
    • 3. In any event, what are the two possible answers to X? They are: a. "No. I haven't." Which would only reinforce his smug, superior attitude and thereby engender another remark belittling the editor. Or, b. "Yes. I have." In one such case, X ended up saying [137] "read more and edit less" in his edit summary. (Albeit not directly to Rubin who had answered yes. The ES was, perhaps, more directed to me.)
    • 4. Regardless, Xerographica purports to know so much about this stuff that no editor could overcome his superior knowledge and analysis. But he misses the point, repeatedly made, that his OR and SYN is unacceptable.
  • Xerographica had repeatedly said "Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up?" Patting myself on the back, I hope Carl Eytel will shutoff that spurious comment.
  • His "they don't read" comments are only part of the problem. He has engaged in POINTy behavior and other disruptive conduct.
  • Here's a suggestion. What if this ANI was a RFC/U? (In a sense the last few months with Xerographica have been an ongoing RFC/U on his user talk pages.) Would we get a different result? No. I submit that his comments above are simply burying the pony even deeper in the pile.
  • Last point, consider if Xerographica had made the above remarks in a block appeal. Would they survive scrutiny? Has he made a WP:NICETRY? Does he consider and comply with WP:NOTTHEM? Has he actually agreed that huge portions of his behavior are unacceptable? The answer, pre-block appeal and now, is no.

– S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

if he promises to stop snarling altogether can we close this thread? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought he had already promised to stop snarling.... But, perhaps, we disagree as to who the the proverbial bull in the china shop is.

Many editors assert that Xerographica is the "bull", creating articles which are not encyclopedic, promote his POV (which I generally agree with, but, I recognize it is a POV), have excessive quotes and "see also" links, and do not have references (and probably other problems I don't recall at the moment.)

Xerographica asserts that many editors have not read (his provided) source materials; are removing relevant quotations, references, and Wikilinks; (and probably other offenses I don't recall.).

So, who is (creating the) bull?

As an aside, in most cases, I don't think X is violating WP:OR except as WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Suggested course of action:

1. While I am not familiar with the technical details, I recommend a one-month WP:TBAN on Xerographica from editing on any pages related to economics, libertarianism, capitalism, or politics. Article categories (by parent) would be the determinants.
2. Likewise, Xerographica be interaction banned from commenting on any talk pages, user or otherwise, for the duration of the ban. (His own talk page would be the exception.)
3. Xerographica undertake an WP:Editor review during his ban. If he completes it before the close of 30 days, he can appeal the ban and ask for an early termination. If he does not complete the review, he must go to the banning administrator/community and justify the delay.
4. As part of the ER process, he post the ER templates on his user/talk pages.
5. In return (and at the risk of making this nonsense look like a personal battle), I will WP:DGF and undertake two reviews of the backlogged Editor Reviews. One at the outset of the 30 days and one upon completion of Xerographica's review.
6. This ban may be imposed in one of two ways. If technically or administratively possible, as a WP:CBAN IAW WP:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. If not by Banning policy, then voluntarily by Xeriographica.
7. In either case, the sanction gets logged.

That's it. I'm putting away my WP:BLUDGEON. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on commenting again in this thread, but I'd like to say that a ban from posting on any talk page is a terrible idea. If we're considering sanctions other than blocks, it should be because we're trying to guide him into being a more productive editor. An essential part of the editing process is discussion of differences on talk pages; taking away that option will only make things worse, not better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For everybody's consideration, here's one of my most recent interactions with Rubin and SPECIFICO... Talk:Free_rider_problem#See_also_-_preference_revelation. Was there snarl on my part? Yes. Like I said, it's frustrating when the same three people follow you around and undo your edits. In the past I would have engaged in an edit war and would have been far more snarly. But now I simply post my disagreement on the talk page. In this instance I made a genuine effort to try and help Rubin, and then SPECIFICO, understand the connection and relationship between the two concepts. I could have been nicer, I could have been more patient and I certainly could have better explained the connection. But if it had been anybody else (other than Rich) I certainly would have been nicer and more patient.

From my perspective, just like I'm completely clueless about physics...these three editors are completely clueless about the free-rider problem and all of the other economic concepts that they edit. But now I'm posting my disagreements on the talk pages. It might take a month, or a year or 5 years...but hopefully eventually another editor will come along, read what I've posted on the talk pages and undo the damage caused by these editors. It's certainly not "natural" for me to standby and patiently and politely voice my disagreement with their edits. But I've got the standby part down. I no long undo their edits. Regarding patience...well...I did spend my time trying to help them understand the concept. That took a lot of patience on my part. Regarding politeness/civility...I no longer engage in what most would consider to be personal attacks. Can I eliminate the "snarl" though? Could you not be snarly to editors who are clearly and constantly harassing you?

How about this. If you guys actually enforce the policy against harassment...Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding...then I will really try to stop snarling at these three editors. If not, then all I can promise is that I won't engage in what most would perceive to be personal attacks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding:

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

Whether or not you agree, I see related problems on multiple (economics) articles, and articles you perceive as economics articles, including {{quotefarm}}, providing "references" without indicating what text in the reference might be relevant to what text in the Wikipedia article, misreading sources (often, by adding your own knowledge of (a particular school of) economics to interpret the source), adding "See also" links which are only relevant through another article already Wikilinked, or are not relevant at all, interpreting common "folk" sayings as economic concepts, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion, edit warring, uncivil and disruptive approach

A Colombian based IP, 190.46.98.195 (talk · contribs) has been involved in a number of aggressive edits, edit warring with anyone who disagreed with him and with some rather uncivil summaries in his approach with others. He was blocked early today by Kuru for the fourth time. The IP has now hopped to another address—190.208.49.108 (talk · contribs)—and has continued to war, going past WP:3RR earlier and leaving yet another insulting message. It's becoming tedious to try and explain what the MOS is all about and to keep pointing out what WP:CIVIL is supposed to be about. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• He's not still edit warring over Cleo Rocos is he? Oh my word. Indef away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Clear cut case - need an admin to block the sock and as Ritchie notes, indefs are called for now. Jusdafax 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• I blocked 190.208.49.108 for 72 hours, not much reason to go longer since IPs are disposable. I also semi-protected the page for a month via sockpuppeting (close enough). Left the talk page alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• While my "indef" comment was flippant (IPs rarely get indeffed), the length and determination of the edit warring makes me concerned we'll be back here next month after the protection expires talking about it all over again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Is it OK if I agree with the content of the IP's edit? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Same here; I don't really disagree with the content. Methodology is lacking. Kuru (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Certainly. They started off with an insult. But I have restored the edit and explained why on the talk page. One more thing. It takes two to tango, and it doesn't take much more to get an IP blocked by tag teaming and that's what happened here. I won't deny that the IP went about this the wrong way but can we please look at ourselves a bit here also: this was not seemly. Edits should be judged on content, and IPs shouldn't be reverted just because a. they don't have an account and b. they are rude. If we reverted every rude registered editor we'd all need mass rollback. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually the IP had edit warred and been uncivil to a whole host of editors—not so much a tango for two, but a mass dust-up of 9 or 10 outside the club afterwards! Drmies, next time—and with all due respect—come to a consensus with others before you revert, otherwise you are just joining in an edit war and liable to ruffle the feathers of others. - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I see your due respect, and raise you a nice and appropriate essay. What I see is a bunch of editors throwing acronyms of policies around, and one IP throwing around insults after becoming exasperated, no doubt. I don't see anything there that address English, the language. Getting consensus on that talk page probably means buying everyone a kitten. For the last time, "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring" is not acceptable English, it is not mandated by the MOS, it is not POV. That's the consensus: common sensus. Now, you may go ahead and revert, and get a couple of others to revert as well. I won't be rude, I'll just throw up my hands and say...well, there won't be anything left to say. Or, it is reported in many sources, or at least some sources, a number of which were deemed to have been reliable, that a certain editor was reported to have said that there wasn't anything left to say. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Drmies, I think you need to look into this a little more closely. This is an IP whose first port of call was uncivil language, regardless of whether the edit was right or not. Have a look again at the Irish Pound article: good edit, stupid summary. He's been like that since day 1: although most of his edits have been moving in the right direction, his summaries have not. His insults have not been through exasperation, they are his starting point. I also suggest you look into the hisory of the Rocos article a little more closely. The mention of the press was where it ended up after the previous, gramatically-correct and preferred version ("best known for starring alongside Kenny Everett") was warred over by the IP against the consensus of others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I can't speak for anyone else, but the two "reverts" I did in January were both adding sources and adding content supported by them, and neither was to the version that Drmies just reverted from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Being an entirely involved editor - although having removed the pages in question from my watchlist, I was unaware that it was still ongoing - I can say that only one editor became exasperated, and that was me. The IP editor has not changed their editing style (with regard to summaries) since the word go. They claim to be an experienced editor, yet when challenged avoided or ignored the question, which is, I suppose their priviledge - but doesn't help their position. The question has really moved on from their contributions, and is instead concerned with their conduct - which is why it's ended up here at ANI. Is there any reason why 190.208.49.108 has not been blocked for block evasion? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis blocked that IP for 72 hours. See here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

72 hours does seem to make something of a mockery of the initial one month block tho. Not only will they be free to return in a few days (rather than the month their first account is blocked for) they have hardly been given a deterrent to returning to further their abusive and disruptive editing patterns. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts, but a more important consideration is proper language in an article. I only had a quick look, but the IP edit which replaced "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring" with "who starred" looked good to me because it fixed the inappropriate language in the article. Was the IP doing anything in other edits that were less constructive? They should have responded more calmly, but perfection is not a requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is talking about perfection? We're talking about an uncivil and disruptive edit warrior only getting a 72 hour block for block evasion on a one-month block leading to their fifth block. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the point that shouldn't get lost: I offered no opinion on the quality of their edits and blocked for their methods, block evasion. That it is the same person is pretty obvious. The talk page is not protected, and perhaps they can use it for a bit, hopefully after waiting at least the 72 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate that the addresses are "disposable" and the editor can hop to another if they wish to, but to have a one month block on one address (for the fourth block) and then only 72 hours on the one they are using to evade the block (the fifth block for an even worse offence than the others) seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely the length of time should at least equate to the others, on the grounds of consistency alone? (Actually there is an argument for a longer ban, as they have compounded their earlier offences by adding block evasion to their list of previous offences). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally only one or the other is done except in the case of block evasion/socking. Any admin is free to revert, modify or remove any action I've done with no hard feelings, they all know that as that is the first thing on my user page. The reason the IP block was so short was simply because it was useless to block for longer, knowing he will just cycle to another IP, and the idea is to not punish the next person who gets that IP and might want to edit. If you look carefully at the type of IP address that is, I probably should have made it even shorter. Keep in mind, my goal isn't justice, it is creating a solution, which I think this addresses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm on the IP's side, as far as the comment in question goes. It's my opinion that the formulation he was criticising was well deserving of criticism. I'd be exceedingly annoyed in his shoes. If this kind of thing is at the root of his testiness, I'd support an instant unblock, a shot of morphine and lots of hugs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the reason the IP got blocked. How do you feel about this edit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there an analysis of the whole situation somewhere? The diff just given shows a very reasonable edit, with a bad word in the edit summary. However, the edit summary also clearly states that, in the opinion of the IP, "X is best known for appearing on Y show" should simply be "X appeared on Y show" due to NPOV. The IP's edit could be regarded as pedantic (like demanding a citation for "the sky is blue"), but speaking as someone with no knowledge of X or Y, the IP is extremely correct in their implication that "is best known for" needs a citation. If every edit the IP does is accompanied with profanity, then block away. However, if the profanity comes after mindless reversions of the IP's good edits, a certain amount of latitude should be granted by experienced editors—we are here for the encyclopedia, not a warm glow. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A perusal of the history of Cleo Rocos will be necessary to get the full picture, but as you state, the IP was on point for saying "best known" required a source, to which I added one here. That got reverted, so I added two sources here. That got reverted, at which point I concluded I was starting to edit war, and dropped out. You'll have to ask everyone else what happened next. But like Dennis said, you don't get let off 3RR for being right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that "best known for" required a source. I said it was clear POV which had to be removed. It's an unverifiable and biased statement, no matter how many sources you find that might contain it. It adds no information. It's like saying "Slaughterhouse Five is Vonnegut's best book". You'll find plenty of sources saying so but I sincerely hope you can see that trying to force such a viewpoint into an article would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.110.207 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look at his summaries via his edit history, which will show you the levels of his "tastiness". His first summary (on this IP anyway) reads: "02:59, 2 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . .Ronnie Biggs ‎ (NPOV. It's a core fucking policy. Learn what the fuck it means. It means stating the facts, not imposing your judgement on them.)" I can't see any interaction on the page previously which would have led to him being so aggressive. Many of the remainder of his summaries on pages he's edited for the first time read the same way. Shot of morphine? That's two words too many, but you go ahead and hug away if you want to if you think his approach somehow shows he's interacting in a respectful and civil manner. I'll remind you again, not only has he edit warred past 3RR (something that was never specifically brought to his attention), but refused to discuss anything to the point of agreement on talk pages, he has been hugely aggressive and disruptive on a number of pages and is massively guilty of block evasion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All the same, your reverts to Cleo Rocos here, here, here, here, here and here are entirely counterproductive, as you've gone right up to the limit of WP:3RR yourself - twice! You should be counting yourself lucky you didn't get a block as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never said I haven't reverted him (and you also did, as did a number of other editors), but on each ocassion I've asked him to go to the talk page to discuss: something he failed to do in a constructive manner. Instead he reverted everyone. I'll remind you of his first edit on the page—before he is supposed to have moved into "testiness": "and who the fuck took it upon themselves to decide what she is best known for? NPOV people - read it, learn it". A great number of people have tried to reason with him on this page—utterly unsuccessfully. Never mind, he only has a 72 hour block to wait through before he comes back to his charming summaries to cheers us all up with their warmth, humour and goodwill. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are other avenues available to deal with this. You can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard or get the page semi protected, and if that doesn't work, come here. What you shouldn't do is carry on reverting yourself, propagating the edit war. On two separate occasions, you were one revert away from potentially getting blocked via WP:3RR, and had that happened, I think you'd struggle to use "But he started it!" as a defence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I am well-enough aware of WP:3RR and, as always, I stopped short of stepping over that line. (Actually, as you should know, as edit warring can be undertaken with just one revert, you are as guilty of this in view of the wider picture here). Regardless of that, I have not edit-warred against a host of other editors (and neither did you), but the IP has done. I have not started editing on any page with an edit summary of "pointlessly interrupting a sentence not once, not twice, but three fucking times is incredibly stupid" and I have not tried to avoid a justified block by IP hopping and now find myself sitting on my fifth block. He's damned lucky to only have 72 hours to be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to duck out of this conversation now, but I find "as always, I stopped short of stepping over that line" to be worrying. 3RR does not give you a Get Out of Jail Free card to do up to three reverts a day. That you seem to be unwilling to recognise or accept this gives me concern you'll do it again. I personally restrict myself to one revert, and the two here is a serious lapse of judgement on my part. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your parthian shot doesn't really look like that much of a truce, and neither does your ducking the point that just one edit can be edit warring in the the right circumstances. I've not said that I need or want a get out of gaol card, and I'm not overly happy about your previous implication that I would have wanted, needed or pleaded any form of defence for my actions. I'm also ducking out of this: it's gone way past anything useful and good luck dealing with this IP when he transgresses again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I was involved in this, but wasn't aware until now that this discussion was taking place here. The problem all along was not so much the content of the IP's edits, but their behaviour - the edit warring and generally confrontational attitude (which continues on their latest talk page post here). Everyone needs to bear in mind that, while blocked, they changed their mind as to the specific wording they considered acceptable. Their initial proposal was against talk page consensus; their final version was, if it had been considered rationally on the talk page, probably have been acceptable to most editors. If an IP (or anyone) is that uncivil and that bent on edit warring, it was quite right to have blocked them regardless of the merits of the wording they were proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "poisonous clueless cunts"? Nice - and it fits so well within the civil approach to editing! - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• And is that a new block evasion too? He appears to have hopped over to 190.21.165.248 (talk · contribs)

• Block evasion should not be tolerated. However, short of a range block, there's no way to prevent IP-hopping block evaasion. If the evasion is restricted to certain articles, we can semi-protect the page. (BTW, the IP appears to be based in Santiago, Chile - where does Colombia come from?). Uncivil editing is condoned all the time at Wikipedia. I don't see why IPs should be held to a higher standard than editors with accounts. SchroCat should be careful about edit-warring. Their disclaimers that they are not doing so are hollow. Also, at least in this topic they are as aggressive as they claim the IP to be outside of ANI, which undermines their credibility. Dennis's block was fine, but it's not going to help much (as I stated earlier). Drmies's focus on content shouldn't get lost in the procedural dance. Unless someone has a suggestion as to what to do next administratively - and skip the back-and-forth bickering as it's not constructive - that is warranted by the history, this topic is going to get closed. The article itself hasn't been disrupted in about 24 hours and the penultimate editor 24 hours before that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we condone incivility - we might tolerate it in context where patience has been sorely tested, but I don't think we should encourage it as good practice. Similarly, being able to circumvent blocks by IP hopping is a real problem, and one I have no simple answer for other than aggressive adherence to RBI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Condone" may not be the best word, but we don't tolerate it just when it is provoked. From a sanctions perspective, we respond inconsistently (I might say all over the place). Although we don't - and shouldn't - "encourage" it, editors' views as to what constitutes incivility are hardly homogeneous.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry at Japanese articles

Disruptive editing has continued at various articles after JoshuSasori's indefinite block for harrassment and disruption. The MO continues to be edit warring at Japanese articles (especially film related), stacking RMs and hounding the same editor. Recently used IPs include 124.102.61.115 (talk · contribs · count), 123.225.68.84 (talk · contribs · count), 124.85.41.187 (talk · contribs · count), 123.225.5.121 (talk · contribs · count) and 123.225.73.211 (talk · contribs · count). Affected articles include Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle, The Downfall of Osen, Taboo (1999 film), Shōtarō Ikenami, and Outrage Beyond. See also this previous report and the SPI.
Needless to say this has been very discouraging for the primary victim and disruptive to the affected articles and discussions. I suggest blocking the above IPs and semi-protecting the articles, and, unfortunately, their talk pages. I'm heading out so I won't be able to give this the attention it deserves. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I recommend re-protecting Tales of Moonlight and Rain and its talk page per this threat to resume their behavior there "sooner or later".--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I found another one, 123.224.162.194 (talk · contribs · count), that reverted my removal of some OR on the article jigai.[138] The existence of a dynamic IP following me around Wikipedia makes it very difficult to edit, since I can't monitor which pages they are reverting me on. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And another one: 123.225.11.135 (talk · contribs · count). This one didn't follow me, but did vote in a JoshuSasori-esque fashion on an RM. I have also noted that the nominator there, Mysterious Island (talk · contribs · count), also appeared immediately after JoshuSasori got blocked and has since made over 1,000 edits, all of them the same type of edits JoshuSasori made (RMs, removing macrons, etc.) elvenscout742 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These IPs aren't exactly dynamic as there's a clear range he's operating within. A couple of well constructed range blocks might eliminate the problem for some time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The sock has now reverted my removal of inaccurate fringe material from jigai three times[139][140][141], and I can't revert them again for a while without violating 3RR. How much longer to I have to put up with this?? elvenscout742 (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Semi-protect that article as well. I've gone back and undone that edit, apologies if anything decent in there got nuked as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think Mysterious Island is JoshuSasori. The edit summaries follow a different style.--v/r - TP 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban on user SuzanneOlsson

SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for disruptive editing by admin KillerChihuahua. Since the ban has expired she has returned and continues to push her fringe theories and make personal attacks on other editors. See User_talk:KillerChihuahua#SuzanneOlsson for the blocking admin's opinions supporting a topic ban. I would therefore like to propose a topic ban for this editor on the article Roza Bal, and any directly related articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you give more information like clarify the topic, what the mainstream views are, and what the fringe views are? What's the backstory here?--v/r - TP 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The back story is that SuzanneOlsson has incessantly pushed her own theories and website about this topic. Anyone who disagrees with her point of view, or dares to remove the link to her website is subject to a torrent of abuse. This can be seen at Talk:Roza Bal and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com --Biker Biker (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read the talk page. I don't understand it because I know nothing about the topic. Please educate me. What exactly is the problem, with diffs? It's your job to make your case and you've not made it. You're only alluding to the matter that a case exists and we have to find it. Not trying to be a dick, but we need you to be more clear here on this board instead of pointing us elsewhere and expecting us to gather what you're getting at.--v/r - TP 04:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Short version: Jesus didn't die on the cross, his brother did and then Jesus left Palestine and died decades later as a very old man and was buried at Roza Bal - he is supposedly one of the two graves - and that should be in the Roza Bal article and a couple of Jesus articles. Which is a problem, because there are zero serious historians and/or archeologists who think there is anything to it. A cross or rosary found there is cited as evidence. Now, no one cares what Olsson believes, that's her business. But she can't put it in our articles until someone serious, someone major, someone, IOW, who meets RS, has written about it. She's an SPA with The Truth(tm) and we've all had experiences with such before. This is why she's here, I'm afraid. To "set the record straight" (from what the regular historians and anthropologists and theologists say) to "let your readers know". I wish her well in her endeavors, but I wish her to stop trying to popularize them using Wikipedia to do so. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you have been left with such a bad impression of me. I have not been here to 'push my views' or my website. My website has been at Wikipedia for years associated with various topics. Recently I acquired the domain name Roza Bal and have moved my entire website to point to that domain instead of the old one. There is nothing sinister happening. I have however been shouting loud and clear that some editors have pushed their own agendas when editing the Roza Bal page. Scholars are shot down as 'crackpots' and valid sources and links removed so the entire theory looks like fringe crackpots- thus offending millions of Ahmaddi Muslims worldwide. Religious scholars like James Tabor, Elaine Pagels, and Fida Hassnain are not referenced, or are only referenced with a note that this is all fringe crackpot theories invented by local shop keepers and manufacturers of fake relics. It is all too shocking to see this deliberate, religiously biased misinformation at Wikipedia. This conflict with Wiki editors goes back several years and is always centered around one or two particular editors...I am not raising a ruckus to hurt myself so badly here- but to correct the terrible inaccuracies and biases at the Roza Bal Wiki page. I have been taking a terrible beating over this. It would be much easier to just walk away. But the editing has not been honest, fair, scholarly, or accurate. That's the problem. It's never been about me or my website or my personal "crackpot" views. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels is a well-respected intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have been monitoring this dispute from the outside and I notice that SuzanneOlsson has accused those who want to keep her from editing this article of calling her a "crackpot" (in quotes) multiple times; however, Ctrl+F on Talk:Roza Bal indicates that she is the only one who has used this word. There seems to be some serious assumption of bad faith, and not on the parts of those who are arguing against her. I would be willing to guess that some real-world experts on the subject have called her this in the past, and she is now projecting her feelings toward those people onto other Wikipedians. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know why SuzanneOlsson throws around names like Elaine Pagels. Anyone who has a look at the website will realize that this is not an academic publication, and linking to the site is basically spamming since the most informative thing on it is a link to Amazon.com. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing that out.The link led to my website- which never mentions Elaine Pagels there. The books are there as 'fillers' while the entire website has to be moved to a new server and created completely from scratch in a new program/format. It isn't intended to be 'scholarly' but to point everyone to additional resources. That's all I can manage for now. The site is under construction for the next few weeks. I did not perceive this as a "sales pitch" for amazon, nor spamming. I am sorry that you expressed that impression. Further, as websites go, it contains the least amount of information about me! So much for self- aggrandizement and self-promotion. I have promoted every other author more than myself! By the way, please note that I have done no editing, inserted no links to my website nor anyone else's. I have answered editors who attacked me and wrote misleading untruths. I regard that as necessary so the inaccurate info does not remain as the 'last word'...if anyone knows a better way, please explain it to me. I resent being called names and having innuendos about me posted by Wiki editors. Wouldn't that bother you too? Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne Olsson~~.

Elaine Pagels is a very reputable scholar. Minorview (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support formalisation of voluntary withdrawal from topic Article edits, but allow Talk edits - this is giant fringe, and has been massively disruptive creating/deforming Roza Bal, Unknown years of Jesus possibly some other articles, but as it stands Suzanne hasn't re added these self-published sources or websites to the articles. Suzanne has undertaken on Talk:Roza Bal to go away and try and get some basic refs with page numbers and ISBNs and come back. There are a couple of tangible page refs which only exist in Urdu translations and I suspect Suzanne is probably the only one who can get them. In the meantime, like it or not, Ahmadiyya claims and use of Sanskrit/Persian texts, however ludicrous to mainstream scholars are still notable, so they need WP:IRS sourcing. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If the problem is Ms Olsson's website, wouldn't it be a simple matter to just remove the link to the website until such time as the site has completed migration at which point its suitability as a source can be reassessed? Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I think T Paris' request for clarification with diffs is reasonable, given the length of talk page discussions and I will try to provide a brief response. I became aware of Ms Olsson's edits a few weeks ago, but my understanding is that the situation goes back to 2008 and may be characcterized as follows:

2008 issues

• Ms Olsen wrote and self-published a book that refers to a building known as Roza Bal and her book proposes that Jesus of Nazareth died in Kashmir at age 130 and is buried in that building.
• In 2008 debate started about possible WP:COI, her use of Self-published sources, including her own book, and the issue of non-WP:RS items
• User comments from then are on her talk page and I will just reproduce some here:

• In May 2008 she was told about reliable sourcing by user:PaulB
• She was told in May 2008 not to add self-published items to Wikipedia by user:Dougweller.
• And user:itsmejudith told her in clear terms that the Olsson book is not reliable and should not be used
• There were also basic policy issues in 2008 and there is a statement by user:Fullstop that: "Not only is SuzanneOlson not following what she's quoting, she has a general lack of understanding of how WP works.

2013 issues

• Recently Ms Olson obtained the website Rozabal.com and restared adding article links about her website, along with references to her own book and some people she knows in Kashmir.
• There were often less than properly sourced items that other editors objected to and removed. As far as I can tell I did not actually remove any of her article text myself.
• She was blocked for a week by user:KillerChihuahua. User:JamesBWatson, the admin who declined to unblock, echoed the same sentiment as user:Fullstop had expressed in 2008, and said: "you think everyone else is wrong, that you are the victim of a conspiracy, that anyone who disagrees with you is biased and prejudiced, etc." and added that the problem has been "your single-minded concern with the notion that you are RIGHT and anyone who expresses an opposing view is WRONG"
• The user has also made somewhat strange statements, e.g. that Doug Weller reverted her because he has a secret crush on her, etc. At one point she apologizes about saying things, but later says similar things. Very unusual.
• She decided to stop two weeks, but has since returned and made statements regarding sources by Elaine Pagels supporting her views. I think Pagels would be surprised to hear that.
• User:Biker Biker who was not involved in the previous discussions started this thread.

In January 2013 I predicted that this user would be banned sooner or later, partly because she said somewhere that she will defend the Roza Bal hypothesis until the day she dies, and that type of determination often results a topic ban; also because in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and still does not source properly. I saw no way out then, and see none now. I think a topic ban happens either now or later. May as well be now before more user time is taken up. I have really had enough of this. As I said on her talk page, I stopped editing the Roza Bal page 2 weeks ago and will not be editing that article or commenting on it ever again. This has been just enough. Wikipedia can be a very strange place. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Roza Bal related article edits, broadly construed, as suggested by user:EdJohnston on Feb 1 2013, prior to this thread. I have spent too much time on this, and this will be my last comment on the issue, and I will not be responding here further. Will just look back later to see what happened. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic and spam ban per "the puppy" (KC) and WP:SPA. If the site becomes a "WP:RS" in the future, then information and links can be added at that time. — Ched :  ?  14:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KillerChihuahua and History2007's useful information and diffs. That must have taken some time to collect and lay out, History; I don't blame you for sounding tired. But as regards a "spam ban", per Ched — well, I don't mean to go all lawyerly — of course I'm for that if there's some practical point to it — but surely Wikipedia has a generalised spam ban? Nobody gets to spam us. Most especially not with links to websites they have an interest in driving traffic to. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
• Support per KC and History2007.--v/r - TP 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KC and History2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. If we don't do it now we'll just go through all of this again at a later time. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Dougweller. Five years seems enough.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Just a quick look at Talk:Roza Bal shows that something indefinite is required to stop the waste of time regarding the peddling of unsupportable fringe views. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - though I'd have more faith if the editor in question came to understand the premise of WP:OR and volunteered not to make Roza Bal related edits on that basis. But failing that, community-enforced action is clearly necessary. Stalwart111 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You still have faith that might happen, Stalwart? People have been explaining WP:OR to her for at least five years. Here's a link from 2008, and here's one from 2013. Surely it's time we concluded she doesn't want to know. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

• Possibly not, and let me be clear - I support a topic ban entirely. I just tend to think there is a better chance of long-term "rehabilitation" of TB'd editors if there is some element of volunteerism in their instigation. But that's obviously not always possible and 5 years of WP:IDHT is justification enough for an enforced topic ban, absolutely. Stalwart111 12:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Recent comments like this suggest she doesn't still understand the issue here after five years.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Jesus of Nazareth, broadly construed, including the life of Jesus, the lost years of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, and articles about people who study the topic, and literature about the topic. Note that such a topic ban would effectively ban the editor from Wikipedia, as this topic is her only interest. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I made errors when I first came here in 2005.Even naively allowing others (children and grandchildren) use my computer and log on to Wiki was a mistake. They became 'sock puppets'.. something I never even knew existed (my mind didn't work that way- nothing devious or fraudulent was ever intended) and it stopped immediately once I was made aware the problem. Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not. I have been reminded of this by several editors, but I have not done this! They were reminders,. Nothing more. I also objected to discrimination at Wiki, such as attacking my 'self-published' book while allowing others to remain because they were 'more notable' according to certain Wiki editors. In one incident, the self-published author of fiction even acknowledged me as his source and inspiration. He remains at Wiki to this day. I dont come to Wiki more than once every 2-3 years, and then only to update a broken link on one or two pages, links that have been here for years. I have not gone around Wiki inserting links to my web pages or books, and what is here had been here since years ago.Why is it now suddenly criminal and sinister? Inaccurate, misleading,prejudicial information however, is inserted, the Roza Bal page being an example. I asked permission to make contributions to help the page, new sources, documentaries, et cetera. We all acknowledged COI and were mindful of it. My son suddenly died and I had to deal with that and the funeral right in the middle of this. Before I had a chance to search out the references as I promised I would, everything was deleted, I was under attack, and things from 5 years ago brought up as though this was ongoing and regular. It isn't. I acknowledged that since getting the domain 'rozabal' I would have to be more careful. But to accuse me falsely of going around Wiki inserting links to my book and website "everywhere" this is simply not true. I do not think that Doug Weller is a good editor for the Roza Bal page. I have always said that. I do not think that History2007 knows that much about history and should not be making contributions to the Roza Bal page. He knows as little about the facts of Roza Bal as does Doug Weller. I may not be swift at understanding all Wiki policies- simply because I'm not here often enough. I am not familiar with what keys to strike to create indentations or topic headings here.I dont edit much here, less than once every year or two. I don't pretend to know everything about Roza Bal, or about Wiki, but I do know when false or misleading information is promoted. That's the real issue, the real problem. I noticed that some new fresh eyes (editors) have come to the Roza Bal page. They too noticed problems and recommended changes. I am most grateful for that. Thank You,and whatever the outcome for me here, I hope the page will continue to be improved by others. That's all I've ever asked for here. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not." --->11:21, 29 January 2009 — raekyt 05:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another? 07:41, 14 February 2009 you as an IP? because minutes later you do that edit]. And this. Inserting a link to your webpage. adding your book as a cite. Adding your website as an EL... — raekyt 05:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for those links to edits. You showed where my book links have been there for years. You started with a link that was there since 2009. Virtually nothing changed except minor. Further, if the link pointed to an old website, and now to a new website,that isn't the same as the implication you are suggesting. The only point is they were already there for years. Thank You for taking the time though. I appreciate your efforts. I think it just goes to prove what I have been saying is true. If I were at Wiki inserting links on numerous topics for years and years, that's entirely different. I would not like anyone to be left with that erroneous impression. I think you just helped clarify this. The links were already there. Thank you for your efforts. I believe they really will be helpful.Peace. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It shows a long-term pattern of WP:PROMOTION. — raekyt 16:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on anything related to Jesus. Nsk92 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen M Cohen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Bbb23 Complained about my first edit and requested that I find other sources. I did a lot of research and found a current article with Forbes and without doing an edit, I Open the Stephen M. Cohen talk page for discussion on a consensus with an ending date of February 10, 2013. Talk:Bbb23 was not present or commented as part of this consensus.

One editor wanted a second source which I was unable to find on the specific subject of court case importance. Since I was not able to find an article, I agreed to remove that part.

When the time period ended I did my edit. Talk:Bbb23 immediately jumped in on my edit stating that my source was a blog. However, the Forbes article was not a blog and was the published article. I commented on Talk:Bbb23 and wrote the following:

I mean no disrespect but it seems to me that you do not want anyone editing the Cohen page even when it is properly sourced. Maybe a arbitration request is the proper way to resolve this.

I am a new editor and I am trying to make sure of the accuracy of the information with a neutral point of view as I do not have a conflict of interest.

I now understand why so many editors have left Wikipedia according to the article "Criticism of Wikipedia" subsection, "Complaints about administrator abuse." I find myself wondering if Wikipedia really wants new editors who follow the rules set by Wikipedia. Vanessamx (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Talk:Bbb23 wrote: I won't be able to respond to this until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) That is ok, please enjoy your night. Forbes deleted the article however I was able to find it again at [5] and you have to search Cohen. Vanessamx (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) As of this moment in time, I have had no response of any kind. I am a new editor and need some help resolving this matter. Vanessamx (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Being a new editor is hard. I would note that frankly this is not an ANI issue. This notice board is with problems with behaviors..and this falls flat..That being said if you want to post why you think this person is notable on my talk page I will discuss with you and help you make the article if it is indeed notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a point of order - I'm sure Bbb23 will see this thread and give you his point of view, hopefully in way that we can resolve everything and encourage you to continue working with us, but reverting edits and discussing them on talk pages is not an administrator role - anyone, generally speaking, can do that. Administrators are responsible for stronger actions such as protecting pages and blocking users, which isn't required here, and even then they're not generally allowed to do those things on pages they've had close recent involvement in, except in special cases such as vandalism, which this isn't. One further point I should make is that, ever since the Siegenthaler Incident, and many incidents since, we have to be very strict about what we put in biographies of living people, and the sources, especially for a subject like Cohen who is notable for something considered negative, have to be absolutely impeccable. If it upsets you that your edits get reverted because our quality threshold is high, that's a shame, but there is generally a good reason behind it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• As HIAB rightfully says, ANI is not the place for a content dispute. And as Ritchie rightfully says, sourcing for material, particularly controversial material, about BLPs has to be of the highest quality. That said, I apologize to Vanessa for not getting back to her. There's nothing worse, particularly for a new editor, than to be ignored.

The article has problems, even without Vanessa's edits. Putting that aside for a moment, the article says that Cohen owes a man named Kremen at least $65M for hijacking a domain name. Cohen says he has no assets. However, Kremen suspects that Cohen is hiding money and has been going after members of Cohen's family in an attempt to recover it. The last sentence before Vanessa added material discussed a lawsuit filed by Kremen against a cousin of Cohen's. The source, which I'm unfamiliar with, is apparently a news source in the adult entertainment industry (the domain that was hijacked was sex.com). Strangely enough, the article never mentions Cohen's cousin by name, although it says that the cousin's last name is also Cohen.

Vanessa then edited the article and said that the cousin (now with a name) was "granted summary judgment against Kremen" because Kreman didn't prove that Kremen had illegally transferred assets to the cousin. Vanessa also said that the cousin was now suing Kremen for the same amount that Kremen had been suing the cousin for. Vanessa cited to three sources for this material. Two of them were primary sources, copies of different rulings in the case Kremen filed against the cousin (neither involved a suit by the cousin against Kremen, although it's possible that the cousin filed a counterclaim). The third source was a secondary source written by an attorney on the Forbes blog. It was clearly an opinion piece and therefore could not be used. The combination of the three sources was inadequate per our policy to support the material, which is mostly why I reverted it. Also, the one secondary source (the blog) doesn't say anything about the cousin suing Kremen.

Finally, one thing that puzzles me is Vanessa keeps talking about a Forbes article that isn't the blog post by the attorney. I still haven't seen a link to an article that might be a reliable source. At this point, without reliable secondary coverage, the material shouldn't be included in the article. Also, depending on if secondary coverage could be found, the material probably isn't even noteworthy enough to be included. (Vanessa's purpose in adding the material seems to be related more to legal concepts about judgment creditors and debtors and third parties than it is to the subject of the article.)

I'm sorry for this long reply, but it is intended mostly for Vanessa's benefit. This is really a dispute that belongs on the article talk page or perhaps at WP:BLPN, not here. Nomoskedasticity was engaging Vanessa on the article talk page, and I made a couple of brief comments. I suggest that Vanessa return to the article talk page rather than post here. She still needs to obtain a consensus for her changes. If she can't obtain that, the usual dispute resolution mechanisms are available to her.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First I want to thank Hell in a Bucket and I will take you up on your offer.

Second, thank you Bob for responding. I will move this now to the article talk page. Where I hope we can continue this conversation. Vanessamx (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English Patriot Man states that he is a banned editor

English Patriot Man (talk · contribs) has said (at Talk:Adolf Hitler "I was banned before for editing stuff many don't like and labeled "anti-Semitic" for example saying Karl Marx was a Jew not an ethnic German, which is nothing but the truth" - another editor believes that he is a sock and linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeordieWikiEditor/Archive. Anyone familiar with this? If someone states they are a banned editor I'd say that's reason enough to block. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Could be referring to User:WitsBlomstein (sock User:Nikasheoo made this edit). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A conviction should not rely on a confession alone, of course Basket _Feudalist 16:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia ain't a justice system, so...(kinda academic, though, i think there's enough behavioral evidence anyway. We'll see what happens at the SPI.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nirajdoshi is very likely another sock of the same user. None of them seems to be banned though, just indeffed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I could see English Patriot Man being a GeordieWikiEditor sock. Can't see any plausible connection between English Patriot Man and Nirajdoshi, though. also, isn't SPI that way? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, also: indefblocked because duh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We're a happy family.

Well spoken. All block reasons should be so concise. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

This was my most-favorite-ever couldn't-be-more-concise-or-any-more-accurate unblock request response, hands down. Zad68 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fucking weirdest thing. I was just checking the history of the homophobia article on a completely unrelated matter, and I saw that name in the history with the strikethrough showing it's blocked (thanked to whatever script), and checked out the talk page to see what had happened... it's like when you hear a word for the first time, and then hear it everywhere you go. Sorry to go so wildly off-topic. Just had to say that. :P — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well confusing blocks and bans is a fairly common mistake. Also, I seem to recall one sockmaster who constantly pushes the POV that being Jewish is mutually exclusive with holding any other ethnicity, but I can't remember a name. Anyone know who I'm talking about? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do! But, unfortunately, I can't remember the name either. I'm not sure why I replied, really. – Richard BB 16:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Y'all are probably thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#Talk:Germans and User:Guitar hero on the roof/User:Danton's Jacobin. I thought that too, at first, but looking at the contribs, GWE seems likely. I've started an SPI, so we'll see what happens. maybe I'm just slow today, but I can't tell whether Bish is being facetious... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You may think of Bishzilla as facetious, if you like. You'd do so at your own risk, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumour has it that the real reason that Finnish children's Heavy Metal band Hevisaurus split up was not a contract dispute with their record label, but that they were all seeking to win the affections of Teh Bishzilla and argued over who was going to send the biggest bunch of Valentine's Day roses.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more old school: [142]/[143].Volunteer Marek 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Aoclery on Ajativada

Regarding User:Aoclery, there is a long list of incidents:

• Personal attacks:

diff diff diff warning diff diff diff diff diff

• WP:OWN:

diff diff diff diff warning diff

• Avoiding reaching concensus:

diff diff

• Not providing reliable sources c.q. removal of maintenance-templates:

diff warning diff diff diff warning #2 diff

• Original research:

diff

• Vandalism:

warning diff warning #2

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathon was harrassing me by continually editing the ajativada page he was put up to this by his fellow non djualist john le kay...and he doesn't understand the concept either .How can you edit something you cannot grasp...that is why i exposed it on my facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed this editor but with a message, as you will see from the diff, that this can be immediately lifted if he is willing to desist from personal attacks and from claiming ownership of pages. I didn't feel inclined to go for escalating blocks as this kind of attitude either needs to change (in which case the block can be lifted instantly) or if this doesn't happen, be permanently prevented. I'll be happy for another admin to review this block and make it time-limited if they feel this is better, and/or to lift it if an effective appeal is made. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This guy's made too many attacks, and been too unconstructive to be worth unbanning any time soon. Good call on the indef. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Leave it indef definately: [144] & [145]. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Serbian anonymous (at Bunjevci etc)

An anonymous editor using Serbian dynamic IPs has been pestering myself and some other Croatian users for a while now because of a series of edit wars related to the Croatian-Serbian nationalist hot topic issues - Bunjevci and similar.

• 24.135.66.10 (talk · contribs)
• 24.135.73.223 (talk · contribs)
• 94.189.197.200 (talk · contribs)

The anonymous editor has engaged in a vaguely valid content dispute, but their behavior has deteriorated to the point they're pretty much disrupting Wikipedia to prove their point - persistently calling people names, taunting them, saying explicitly that they'll evade blocks. Three other Croatian users (User:IvanOS, User:Sokac121, User:Shokatz) have now complained to me about it because I'm an administrator. In parallel, I've tried to explain WP:ARBMAC concepts to the anonymous user (as well as at least one of the three complainants earlier), to no avail. At this point the anonymous user has pretty much crossed the line, but I'm still wary of wielding the axe myself because of the painfully obvious escalation potential. Two of the three users told me they think it's User:Oldhouse2012, another said they think it's User:Nado158. I told them to ask at SPI, but none of them have come forward yet with such a filing - I'm guessing they can't put their finger on it - it could really be a third person still. I'd appreciate some assistance from an uninvolved administrator. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt, based on a number of bits of evidence, that they are all Oldhouse2012. I have lodged an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldhouse2012. Apparently there is no point in CU, but the IP should be blocked as a sock. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are now four, 24.135.65.205 is now active. Some help would be appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First that's a lie and second I have a new address,so I don't care.

• 24.135.65.205 (talk · contribs)

*facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Anon 64.183.48.206's refusal to discuss adding excess to film plot summary

For several days, anon 64.183.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added superfluous details to the plot summary of Lolita (1962 film), which already has more than 850 words (and that's after I trimmed it). WP:FILMPLOT clearly states "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." I have tried discussing with this anon on his talk page, but he refuses to respond. I tried to compromise with the anon by leaving part of his edit and trimming other parts of the plot summary; his only response was to restore his edits in their entirety. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining the information at WP:FILMPLOT. I asked the anon to discuss on the talk page and stop edit warring. His only response was to restore all of his edits. I have given him warnings about edit warring. During all of this, the anon has never made one comment in an edit summary, on the article's talk page, or on his talk page. In addition to my reverts, another editor also has reverted his edits. I am not asking for sanctions necessarily, but I hope an admin or someone can convince this anon to please discuss, wait for other opinions, and follow the usual procedures of WP:BRD. I have notified him about this discussion. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like they've probably violated WP:3RR. Might be best to take it to the appropriate noticeboard after giving them the standard warning. Doniago (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, no technical 3RR violation, and my experience generally is that slow-motion edit warring by an anon does not result in action at the 3RR notice board. I'm more concerned with his unwillingness to discuss. Cresix (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This anon appears to be the same editor as 69.231.39.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both have made similar disruptive edits. 64.183.48.206 recently came off a one week block for IP hopping to make disruptive edits. Cresix (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is still edit warring even though they didn't violate the 3RR, which is blockable. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, for future reference you might want to take things like this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some films where the plot is complex enough that a little excess verbiage is required to give a good accounting of it, but Lolita is not one of the them, the story is fairly straight-forward. IP should be blocked for edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I left a pretty clear waring on the users talk page. If there is anymore edit warring the user should be blocked immediately. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even I've reverted a no. of edits by this IP. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

The IP did respond at its talk page, at 00:53, 15 February 2013: "It's very important that the Ping Pong game that is played in the film, be mentioned before the piano playing. Also the word "Let" really should be the word "Rent" TO "Let" is the wrong form of word that is used." 69.95.203.11 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Both IPs look like potential Bambifan socks to me. There are a couple common targets that pop up in both of their contribs (not naming them here) that are tells. Are there any admins/editors who have more experience with Bambifan who could take a look? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reverted 69.231.45.122 and blocked 64.183.48.206. I don't want to assume just yet that those are the same though I suppose there is no basis for my assumption besides ridiculous good faith and the clock, which tells me I need to be doing other things. I encourage further digging. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

IP has now hopped to 69.231.45.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cresix (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies blocked the 69...122 IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-reporting

I have been accused of WP:BLUDGEON at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Brandon Brown. One of the recommendations for being accused of such an offense is to "ask an uninvolved administrator their opinion" and a link is provided here. Naturally, if my actions are disruptive to the process I want to correct them. Please advise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• My 2 cents - first and foremost, thank you for self reporting this here. My initial comments are that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, not a policy... all the same it is an essay that makes sense in many respects. However in this case I think it is fair of you to say that there may be some difference in interpration of how people should be applying WP:VICTIM. I am not commenting on which interpretation is correct, as both sides have merit (yes, this article is about the crime, but the article starts with what is essentially the BIO of the victim). I don't think I would have said that you were bludgeoning the discussion myself, but I would suggest that now that another editor has mentioned it to you that it may be better to take the WP:VICTIM discussion out and put it at a higher level {{comment}}, perhaps above the !votes to explain your view on how/if that policy applies, rather than replying to each !voter who uses that link in their argument.  7  05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's an extent to which participants at AFD are more sensitive to WP:BLUDGEON, given AFD is provided as the primary example of where bludgeoning might occur. Generally speaking, though, responding to every comment that states a position contrary to your own will be seen as "bludgeoning". From what I can see, you have been the first responder to every delete !vote there (except for the last couple after WP:BLUDGEON was pointed out). Has your activity there breached the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON? Sure, maybe. Is it a hanging offence? No, not really (at least I hope not; I'm sure I've been guilty of it a few times!). It's just seen as generally not collegial. I see you've not been tempted to respond to the last few comments - probably best. And  7 's advice above is good. As you noted there, the essay says "it is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question". No need to respond to every one. Stalwart111 08:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Questioning every vote that is contrary to yours is also considered to be badgering. Make your policy -based point the first time, and AGF that all goes nicely --(✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On a totally and utterly unrelated note, could somebody trout Barada (talk · contribs) for having an image in his signature, violating the guideline in WP:SIG#Images Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't trout him, but I approached him as any editor could/should have (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Chowkatsun/Beatles MoS sock

Pretty sure it's him again. For context see this SPI. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an indef block in place for a few minutes. I have no idea where it went. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Immediate return to personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User HiLo48 just returned from a ban for violating WP:NPA, and immediately returned to form. The trademark of this user seems to be that all those who don't agree are simply too stupid. At the talk page of Jesus, several users questioned his insistence on a theory that all academics reject, and asked him to provide a source for his alternative theory. While he never gave a single sources, this is a sample of what he gave us instead [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151]. I wouldn't say that any of these is particularly harsh, but the pattern is rather worrying when a user consistently refuse to provide any WP:RS and instead spends all his time commenting on the intelligence of other users.Jeppiz (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the comments don't seem like the usual problem HiLo48 has been accused of. Instead he seems to be saying that people don't understand what he has written. Whether or not that is a good response, or even correct, it isn't a personal attack. - Bilby (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the user so you're likely correct. Still, constantly commenting on the (low) intelligence of other users is hardly constructive.Jeppiz (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, I don't see anything worthy of administrative action in the diffs provided. Even if he could surely spend his time more constructively seeking sources in support of its argument instead of self-complaining about not being understood.Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks are evident in the diffs. Jeppiz, I'm sorry but you need to grow a thicker skin if you think this merits a further block (not a ban, as you wrote.) If you find HiLo abrasive, just ignore him. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all. And Kim, I certainly don't take it personally (particularly as most of these comments aren't directed at me...) but as you can see from my confusing ban/block, I'm not so familiar with the policy that I know exactly what constitutes a personal attack and what constitutes a relevant argument. I still believe that only commenting on other users' intelligence is neither helpful nor relevant, but if you say it's not personal attacks under WP:NPA, I take your word for it.Jeppiz (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but would suggest not making this a storm in a teacup. I recommend the closure of this thread just to save time and move on. By tomorrow it will be forgotten. History2007 (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, closing the thread is fine by me.Jeppiz (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Borderline Legal threat.

I have a strong concern with the account User:Katiefisher because she is part of Public Relations for the subject of Bill Browder. I had my suspicions that she was editing as the IP in what appears to be a whitewash attempt at this page so I did a simple google search and found [[152]]. Not sure this raises to the level of a blocking concern so I'm bringing it here for advice and opinions.

• [[153]] is a good example of the POV pushing.
• I reverted the change that was put on the page (original and neutral title was Criminal Charges of Tax Evasion (simply a fact not leading arguments one way or another), the change was made to "Persecution by the Russian legal system" (purely a non nuetral heading)[[154]]
• I did this to make it a more neutral tone as well [[155]]
• Youtube is not a [[ reliable source and when it's a statement by the person invovled can not be used [[156]]
• And this was a purely grammatical edit [[157]] while also removing what appears to be a WP:SYNTHESIS.

The claim has been made is that these are defamatory and libelous changes[[158]]. These are serious claims that should be examined by the community at large to determine the course forward to the benefit of everyone involved. Thank you, unless specifically asked I do not have anything further to say here regarding this issue as I would prefer a consensus be reached and my opinions in this matter are sufficiently stated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see where this is going, but perhaps if someone explained to her NLT then this might be a non issue? Of course a block for NLT would prevent the NPOV violations, but the end doesn't justify the means.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing to state here, a block may not be the answer I think that the main concern here is that we indeed have a neutral article and some eyes more experienced then mine would sure help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You failed to notify the editor of this ANI. I took the liberty of doing so myself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• [[159]] Lol I informed it just got screwed up...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to notify yourself on a regular basis (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arg. I can never see your name and not think "Bilbo" now....  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why I was supposed to consider being called "Bilbo" an insult. But hey, the road goes ever on and on... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My cat is called Bilbo... so I don't see how that's supposed to be an insult either... Lukeno94 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because it sounds like dildo?--v/r - TP 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the purpose of that instrument, why again would that be an insult? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The criminal charges section is IMHO a little too long compared to the rest of the article - could it not be reduced to a couple of shorter paras? Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we don't need a blow-by-blow account.--ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of an EW

Sorry for this maybe "strange" report but looking for Brunodam's puppet I can assure there's a sufficient background. Here you can find a potential edit-war and before starting a revert-war I'd ask a mediation from some keen sysop. From my experience I know (per above) that the other position (the use of *only* modern names instead of historical ones or the mix of both which is my favourite solution) seems to be irreducible, that's why I'm skipping talkpage asking for administrative intervention directly. Though I think it's time for a TB for DIREKTOR, please take a look at what is happening to the page. Please note even the name of Fiume's historical State has been turned into an anachronistic free State of Rijeka before my intervention: honestly I have not enough time to find how many vandalisms such as this are in our pages, but I'm scared of the high potential number of them --Vituzzu (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Using my Sherlock Holmes-esque deductive skills to piece together the completely omitted context here:

1. "Brunodam's puppet" refers to Brunodam (talk · contribs), who apparently still socks here (although it's not immediately obvious what similarity is being made to Brunodam's edits here).
2. "Fiume" and "Rijeka" are the Italian and Croatian names respectively for a town which has belonged to both, and the diff shows DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) changing the former to the latter under the rationale that "Rijeka" is the English name for the settlement (presumably regardless of historical period).
3. Vituzzu considers this "vandalisms" and is requesting an unspecified topic ban on DIREKTOR, along with other unspecified administrative action.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of en.wiki's sysops have a deep knowledge of this kind of "affair" and they are the main target of my request which doesn't contain any specific request for administrative actions in order to avoid any kind of influence

I bet your Sherlock Holmes-eqsue got lazy while investigating ;p

--Vituzzu (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. An ANI thread. Doesn't this belong on the talkpage? Mind you, I've not been properly informed of the report, as WP:AN (where I have been directed) is empty of any threads on this. Up 'til now I assumed Vituzzu's thread was simply scrapped, being aware AN is not the appropriate venue.

• If you direct your attention to the "Place names" subsection of the relevant article you will notice a long-standing disclaimer (not of my devising) that explains the article uses contemporary English-language names. This is not out of any "national interest", its because it would be highly confusing to use two toponyms interchangeably in different paragraphs for a whole host of towns and regions. The names preferred are the most common terms in English-language usage, complemented, of course, with a one-time mention of the relevant Italian-language name (as per WP:NCGN). Its just that some Italian users hanging around such articles find it, shall we say, "distasteful" not to use Italian-language terms there for foreign lands claimed by Italy.
• As I explain in my edit summary, the user is correct in reverting the "Free State of Rijeka". "Free State of Fiume" is the English-language name, and I did not restore the mistake. Either Vituzzu did not read my edit summary, or its a deliberate straw man.
• I have no idea why Brunodam was mentioned.. If the user is actually suggesting I am his sock, I'd like to point out I was among the folks who originally reported him for socking all those years back; and he's hardly the one to be removing Italian-language terms (quite the opposite). One explanation might be that Vituzzu is, in fact, Brunodam's sock...? I don't know.

There you have it. -- Director (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, Vituzzu is a WMF Steward. While not impossible, it makes him an unlikely sock candidate. Vituzzu, I think you've fallen prey to a difference in IT vs EN policies. I just don't see a single revert as ANI worthy. Did I miss something?--v/r - TP 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, accusing me of being Brunodam's sock is even more ridiculous. Like I said, I have no idea why he's mentioned. -- Director (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

An intercessory poem

"My friend, you would not say with such high zest
to children who'd write history so tricky,
the New Lie: Dulce et Decorum est
Pro Patria Wiki."

"It is good and proper to edit-war for one's country." DS (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AKA quis custodiet custodes?... Who will edit-war the edit-warriors?! Basket _Feudalist 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Other edit-warriors? :) -- Director (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Censorship by archiving

The discussion at Talk:Jesus has been archived twice while ongoing. In both cases, the pattern has been that those doing the archiving insist that others are disruptive merely for expressing their views. In neither case was the thread started by those accused of "disruption." Rather, we gave our opinion. Then we were accused of disrupting, for responding to what others had said. Then the discussion was archived, always less than 24 hours after the last comment, and always with the archivers giving themselves the last word. It is outright censorship.

In the most recent case, I was in the middle of typing a response to comments directed at me, when the entire thread was archived. I consider it censorship, because what is considered disruptive is the mere expression of certain opinions, such as that there is a problem with the sourcing and claims made for historical existence of Jesus.

Current dispute: Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, History2007. The former accused me of vandalism on my Talk page--for what? Humanpublic (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous time this happened, I was warned for 3RR. I read the guidelines, which define 3RR as involving edits that undo someone's else's work. Exactly how is it somebody's "work" to archive a thread (that is active)? It seems to me that archiving an active discussion is actually an undoing of the conversants' work. Humanpublic (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment User Humanpublic is a highly disruptive user who has been actively disrupting the talk page of Jesus for months. Almost all of his comments violate WP:NOTAFORUM as he challenges the facts in the article, supported by several academic sources, and all he has to show is his own personal opinion. He has been told time and time again to present his own sources, yet never cared to do so. He has also continued to ignore all comments about the talk page not being a forum. His accusation that he was censored is ridiculous, as he has been given tons of occasions and time to present his arguments using sources. He has never taken that opportunity, and there was no indication whatsoever that he was about to do so.Jeppiz (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic is a thinking editor who challenges the conservative status quo. Jeppiz is a highly disruptive user who takes completely innocent editors who also happen to disagree with him to ANI, wasting everyone else's time in the process, and suffering no consequences. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec x3) see multiple warnings by various users on OP's talkpage, dating back to December last year; beating this horse almost SPA-like since September, and rationale for closing the section in question (permalink). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He also deleted my comment: [[160]] and then accused me of vandalism. Yes, those who disagree with me, give a lot of "warnings." Warnings for responding to what they say to me. Humanpublic (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your responses are good material for a blog or op-ed pieces; feel free to write those. It's not what wikipedia is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My response was a direct answer to the question posed to me by History2007. He asked for a source about a claim I made, and I gave him the source and the quote. As for "disrupting for months", not counting the Talk page comment you deleted, I've made 3 comments on the Talk page in the last month. Humanpublic (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts or if you really this that that is what happened. The facts of the matter is that after you returning for the umpteenth time repeating your own personal opinions, you were reminded about WP:NOTAFORUM and urged to present sources. You decided to ignore all that, and just went on and on about your what you believe, as you've done so often before. Seb_az86556, who had not been involved in the discussion, then stepped in an archived the most irrelevant parts that clearly violated WP:NOTAFORUM, clearly stating that further violations would be treated as vandalism. You ignored that, you deleted his archiving - and you went to posting your own personal opinion over and over again.Jeppiz (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NOTAFORUM are NOT vandalism in the wikipedia sense. They may be disruptive, (and in this case they certainly are,) but they can not be treated as vandalism. Sperril (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec x lots) Okay, I get it - everyone's pissed. Jesus is one of those articles that will bring out incredible POVs all round, and anyone editing it needs to have a very thick skin to survive. That's just the way it is. Is anyone reverting anyone's edits or deleting stuff in the article? If yes, there are available channels such as WP:3RR. If no, simple thing would be to ignore until sources turn up. I can't hand on heart see any vandalism here - bring us some diffs of talk comments being changed, refactored or blanked, then we might have something to go on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave it to you. My comment was deleted : [161]. My comment gave a source. Then he attacked me for a lack of sources and told me to go write a blog. He archived an active discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed Seb_az86556 is an admin. Maybe I should quit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Learn to read. I'm not. And why would that matter, anyways? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Have any of you tried going to dispute resolution on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a content-dispute. It's a behavior issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. To the best of my knowledge, WP:DRN is for content disputes. If Humanpublic had presented sources when first encouraged to so (or the second, third or perhaps twentyfifth time), there might have been something to discuss at DRN. When a user spends month after month just repeating his personal opinion, which is at odds with what every academic in the field says, I don't see a content dispute. There are several content disputes at Jesus, but this isn't one of them.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing at odds with what "every academic in the field" says (what field is that, anyway? history? hardly any of the sources are classical historians. they are theologists). I said most of the sources are Christian, which is a fact. I said the lack of secular historian sources matters--my editorial opinion about sourcing, not about the subject itself. I said there is no contemporaneous evidence of the existence of Jesus, which is sourced to the sources already in the article. Then I gave the actual source and link, and it was deleted.

I'm going to restore my deleted comment from Talk. I'd like the deleter warned for vandalism. Humanpublic (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't do that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has butted heads with Seb in the past, let me make it explicitly clear that this is not 'vandalism' in the Wikipedia sense. It may be many other things, but vandalism is intentional defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Despite that it seems like a dick move to you, you cannot demonstrate that Seb did it to harm the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you supply us with diffs of where you've discussed this before? Sorry, but I think everyone here has got carried away, shot their mouths off, and just needs to just calm down and take a deep breath. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is getting carried away except for the OP. OP must launch a diligent search for sources that are relevant, then come back and make his case. That's how it works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are also getting carried away. Do not delete edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. Vandalism has a very specific definition on wikipedia. This isn't it. That being said, Humanpublic is simply not getting it. This has been going on for far too long. Admin action needs to be taken. Sperril (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Herein ANI commenters go off the ANI track and get into content discussion better held at Talk:Jesus NE Ent 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's hard for me to want to sanction Humanpublic, because he's fundamentally right. The article should be treating Christian and Islamic sources as biased: it would be extremely remarkable for a Christian or Islamic historian to objectively examine the facts and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is a fictional character, as he is a central figure in both religions. It would be far more enlightening to find out what atheists, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have to say on the topic, because they don't possess an inherent desire to affirm his existence. Instead, the editors of the article refuse to examine the sources for bias and take into account the simple fact that most people that publish papers on the existence of Jesus are people that undertook the question with the forgone conclusion that not only did he exist, but he is either the son of or a prophet of an all-powerful being that created the universe. Only in religious articles do we tolerate this kind of bias. I don't know how to fix it, but it would be better to figure out how to fix the article than to figure out how to shut down Humanpublic.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) While I am sensitive to your concerns, we have an entire article on the subject already. The talk page of that article would be a great place to have the discussions that Humanpublic wants to have. I can't think of a single good reason that this needs to be discussed on the main Jesus page except that Humanpublic knows it will cause the absolute maximum disruption there. (Is Humanpublic even aware of the existence of that page?) Sperril (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Because the lead of the article contains the problematic statement that the majority of historians believe the evidence supports his existence, perhaps? That would seem like a reasonable motivation.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I think this is diverging into a content discussion now. I will not try to prolong it, but given that Kww's main tenet is the exclusion of scholars based on their religious beliefs, I would just point out in passing that based on his reasoning, Jewish scholars would also need to be mostly excluded given that a number of references in Talmudic sources are interpreted as having references to Jesus and rejecting him as divine. So that reasoning would exclude Christian and Jewish scholars. And of course Buddhist scholars hardly write on the topic (given the need to be able to read sources in Koine Greek) so the only permitted scholars would have been agnostics and atheists. And as it happens Ehrman (the first source used) is an agnostic, and Price (the 2nd source used) is an atheist. But again, this is a divergent issue here, the sources were discussed on RSN and the recommendation there was that they are WP:RS, and that is the general scholarly consensus. RSN was the natural venue for that discussion rather than ANI and the issue has been discussed there several times, with the same conclusion, as user:DGG mentioned there.History2007 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Jews are less biased than Christians on the existence of Christ. Saying Rabbis are reliable sources for the existence of Moses would pose analagous problems. Is there a policy on archiving? I don't see anything disruptive in the discussion, and have seen no credible explanation of why an ongoing discussion should be archived against someone's will. Isn't the official way to get a disruptive editor dealt with to bring it here, rather than trying to cram an archiving down his/her throat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC) May be so, and Jewish scholars are in fact highly respected in the field. Yet not a single Jewish scholar who denies existence has been presented. Yesterday, I specifically asked for a single historian from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem be named as an opposing source and none was offered. But again, this is a content discussion now. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Actually, Christians are even more biased, since Jews don't conser Moses the son of a god and current salvation. Minorview (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree with History2007 above. Humanpublic had repeated the lie that Jesus's existence only comes from Christian sources for months, and Kww (probably in good faith) repeats the same lie above. It's quite simply not correct, there are several non-Christian scholars who argue exactly the same thing. Even if we took out every Christian scholar, the topic at hand (did Jesus exist) would not change. So not only are the posts above about Christians being biased utterly irrelevant to ANI, they are also irrelevant to the discussion about Jesus's existence. However, that is a content discussion. What matters is that since September 2012, Humanpublic has been repeating the same argument over and over again, never with any source. It's that's not disruptive, I don't know what is.Jeppiz (talk) Oh, grow up and try to understand what others are saying. Even if not practising Christians, the scholars being used as sources are (almost?) entirely from Christian cultures. It's a systemically biased sample. Wikipedia has to take a global view, avoiding a cultural bias. It's not a lie to argue that. Allegations of lying are personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC) That's a significant charge against a whole field. Is this your opinion or do you have a source, written by a historian immersed in the relevant primary sources, to support this contention? Frankly, even if the field is biased and no authoritative sources address this there's nothing to be done as there's no solution that we can offer. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The Jews are biased-vs-Christians are biased line of discussion needs to stop. Like right now. Discuss the sources all you want, but if the accusations of bias against entire faiths continues there will be blocks issued. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. This is a content discussion that should be on an article talk page. I do not think the situation warrants a ban or block on Humanpublic as of now. But the point is that the discussion really belongs on the Christ myth theory page, given that he is repeating John Remsburg's arguments, which are discussed on that page. I suggest we stop this content discussion and just continue spending this lovely time on the myth theory talk page, not here. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The contention is more like "no one can be considered an objective source about tenets of his own religion", Beeblebrox. Certainly not a statement that should lead to threats of blocking.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Could you clarify that wording please Kww? Do you mean to say "no one can be considered an objective source about tenets of his own beliefs" or just religion? History2007 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) We don't accept the ancient "sacred" texts as reliable sources. We cannot automatically accept the views of adherents as objective. So, rather than trying to silence Humanpublic, how about showing some interest in his concern about the archiving of active discussions? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Of course WP:Primary supports your statement. However, Kww's point (which goes beyond ancient sources) is a general point that needs clarification, now that it has been stated. History2007 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It's not for Wikipedians to determine themselves if an entire discipline is biased due to the beliefs of its scholarly practitioners (or for any other reason). Such issues are pertinent to an article, with regard to due weight, only if reliable authoritative sources (which in this instance must mean authors who have studied the primary sources in depth) have made statements on the issue. Articles here should reflect the scholarly consensus (or major conflicting views within a field, or better yet, the state of the field). They can't offer original, unsupported, or insufficiently supported interpretations of the field. Thus, if the beliefs of scholars within the field is an issue this has probably been addressed within the field itself, or minimally, by reputable scholars in related disciplines.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Excuse me??? Exactly why would I be blocked for the opinion that Christians are biased about the existence of Jesus? Why don't we cite a bunch Hindu scholars and state as fact that the world was created by Brahma? Do reputable scholars disagree on whether the world was created in 7 days? If you give equal weight to Christian theologians, then yes they do. I sure hope Wikipedia does NOT give equal weight to Christians on that matter, and does not claim it is a matter of dispute whether the world was created in a week. Take your threats of blocks and shiove off. Minorview (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Precisely my view. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The question of the existence of an historical figure called "Jesus" is not equivalent to offering proof for the existence of god/a god. It's a historical question, answered in the realms of probability, on the basis of available evidence. The article must reflect the conclusions of the field. If you have the presumption that the field is biased as a whole in its general conclusions then you need reliable sources to make that point for you. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Religious scholars are not authoritative sources on the creation of the world; they are authorities on religious beliefs about the creation of the world. It's not a question here of their religious beliefs but of where their proper and recognised expertise lies. This is a historical question, not a metaphysical one, addressed by historians. Their beliefs are central to the discussion only if reliable sources – that is ones with historical expertise who have consulted the available evidence and have the competence to do so – have made it so.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It is also often a question of opposing sources, e.g. in global warming there are two groups of professors who debate the issues. Multiple requests have been made for a list of opposing scholars on the talk page, and have to date been met with general silence. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) If sources are not produced (which should be a trivial task) there's no argument to be had and editors who behave in this way, are in my opinion, detrimental to content production (which is the primary goal here, no?). Dissension in a field is not unusual as most scholarly fields are organised around points of real scholarly contention. Establishing the weight of various viewpoints in a field, unless very marginal, is often a problem and solutions naturally veer close to original research. You really need expertise to address these issues (i.e. map the field adequately).FiachraByrne (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Please see the talk page. Multiple requests have been made for a "single opposing professor" and none has been produced. There is no debate at all about the shortage (or indeed lack of) of opposing sources. The discussions produced are "arguments from first principles" not about sources. History2007 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) HiLo48 has been blocked before for what were, in my opinion, reasons lacking almost entirely in merit and where he was largely correct on content issues. Without prejudice to their contributions elsewhere, character assassination, or derision of their point of view, I would ban both HiLo48 and Humanpublic from that article and talk page in a heartbeat. Their talk page contributions are not forwarding content production and are made without regard to the sources. There's simply no way they should have anything to do with writing this encyclopedic article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Actually I would personally not support suddenly tarring and feathering these users without proper warning, at this point. HiLo has been far less argumentative, and had in fact left the discussion when the current brouhaha started; and he was totally upfront that he knew there are no opposing sources. And HiLo is not a WP:SPA by any measure. I think he was just probably expressing his frustration with the way the world works. So a mild reminder to him is all that may be needed. Humanpublic is, however, a WP:SPA with no other apparent focus or contribution. I would support a warning to Humanpublic to read WP:V, WP:Forum and WP:HEAR for real and only discuss things when he has exact sources that support his position. History2007 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The more I look at WP the more ban-happy I become – which is probably why I wouldn't make a decent admin. Yet, I think there is an argument for a more liberal use of relatively short, non-stigmatising topic bans in a range of non-productive content disputes. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) And blocking/topic banning, becomes a viable option, in my opinion, when an editor's contributions to an article or article talk page are detrimental to decent content production. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC) This is easy Atheist sources, and sources of non-Christian religions, cannot be used, they are biased. Ohh, do not forget that the world is flat. Sources that argue otherwise are biased because they believe the world in round. Also, sources about Earth and Universe must be removed because they have a conflict of interest being as they are on Earth and in the Universe. We can go in circles all day long, but it comes down to this: present a source that demonstrates that Christian scholars have a bias. Anything other than that is WP:FORUM and a pointless discussion since it will never be included in the article until we have a source. It's as simple as that. Why are we arguing? 2/3 if the world's population are not Christians, finding a source to support the opposing viewpoint should not be hard.--v/r - TP 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. History2007 (talk) Wikipedia does not automatically accept as fact news about North Korean from that country's own official news agency. We almost certainly don't need a source to tell us to make this decision. We do it because it's common sense. Similarly here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Really? Demonstrate it. Where has it occurred that a North Korean source was plainly wrong, there were no opposing sources, and we ignored that source anyway? You can't, we use sources that oppose those viewpoints; which there are plenty of.--v/r - TP 00:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) If the N. Koreans say that they are manufacturing all the iPads that Apple sells, and no US news agency, nor Apple Computer itself disputes that, is that news rejected? But this is again, most probably not an ANI issue. But this type of issue has been discussed on RS related ages a few times, and the example that I recall was that if a professor writes: "most scholars agree that the global warming debate is over" there will be serious protests from the opposing side, unless the opposing side has already conceded the debate and there is no scholar left to oppose the statement. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) But there are reams of sources that contextualise and interpret offical North Korean government statements for their underlying meaning, treat their official pronouncements as unreliable, and make statements of the same determination. Are there equivalent, knowledgeable, authoritative sources that treat this field in a similar way? Do you in fact think that the scholarship in this field is of equivalent authority to and has a analogous position with regard to evidence of that of the North Korean government? Has anyone credibly characterised the field in this way? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Actually HiLo has readily accepted that there are no opposing sources, from the star. His complaint is about the world at large, it seems. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic at hand

Threads on Talk:Jesus will be archived 3 days after the last comment by Miszabot. If editor(s) don't like or find Humanpublic's et. al. arguments unconvincing, I highly recommend they ignore them. If editor(s) feel specific editors are being disruptive they should first politely address the matter on user, not article, talk. If editors truly feel additional steps must be taken, they could bring them here -- but I encourage anyone contemplating such action to have their ducks in a row and bring diffs not rhetoric. Slapping archive tags on conversations with pointy comments about editors is not a good move, not actually supported by written policy, and is itself disruptive. NE Ent 00:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring user comments may work at times. But there have been cases in Wikipedia where some users have relied on silence amounts to consent arguments when they have been ignored. So quite ironically this goes back to the no opposing sources issue, and the silence of Apple Computer about news reports that all iPads are manufactured in N. Korea, just discussed above. But I would prefer to sign off from this discussion now, before it takes up the rest of my life... History2007 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Having had a look at Humanpublic's contributions, I see no evidence whatsoever of disruption to the Jesus article. His replies have generally been polite and courteous, unlike some of the editors who've disagreed with him. The case of him going to 3RR has a very strong sense of "go ahead, punk, make my day" from those who filed it. Therefore I utterly endorse Ent's comments above that if you don't like Humanpublic's opinions on talk, and if you think he sounds like a broken record, but is not damaging the article, to simply ignore him. I appreciate patience has been tested, but losing your rag over it will never work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But the accusation here was the primarily problem with Humanpublic's comments have been they are forum or blog like comments i.e. have nothing to do with improving the article. In that case, I don't see how 'silence amounts to consent' comes in to it or matters. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Ent, although I would be less soft: moves like this one are highly disruptive, plain and simple. Humanpublic is free to express opinions and concerns in the talk page, especially if supported by sources, even if they are minority views, and noone is allowed of misleadingly marking them as vandalism. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP editor removing inter-wiki links

Can someone take a look at 109.48.79.85's contributions? He is removing interwiki links for what seems to be a dubious reason, but I cannot be certain of that. Someone with more knowledge of such things should take a look. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking too deep, with the release of Wikipedia:Wikidata, interlanguage links on en.wikipedia are redundant, unless they aren't already on Wikidata. Not sure if that's the issue here, but just wanted to make sure that was spoken :) gwickwire^talk_edits 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the editor's improving the project here. The only concern would be if he's removing them from pages that don't contain a link to edit the links in the side bar. Handy Mandy in Oz is an example of one where the links shouldn't be removed. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See, this is exactly why I am glad I came here, because none of what you guys are saying is at all familiar to me. My question now is whether I should revert my reversions of his edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change much on the page, but if I were you I'd self revert. Just in case the IP didn't make sure, check to see that the interlanguage links aren't removed from the sidebar afterwards (or check beforehand by seeing if the edit link exists under the interlanguage links). More information on the interlanguage links can be seen at WP:VPP#Are interlanguage links unnecessary now?, that page also says that it's best not to remove the links all at once, but rather to remove them from an article when you are editing it anyways. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The key thing to check is that all interwiki links are now on Wikidata. To check this, enter the title of the article in question into the search box at http://www.wikidata.org and go to the article's Wikidata page. There you see all interwiki links known to Wikidata. In simple cases (all articles are precisely equivalent), you can simply add any missing interwiki links. (Typically these are interwiki links added since December.) I don't know what to do in more complicated cases. Hans Adler 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic image change request - red head

Hello all,

I am unsure on the exact rules and regulations surrounding image selection for wiki topics, but I bring to you my humble request.

I have a photo here of my friend 'Mat' http://fitboost.co.uk/images/red_head.jpg

You will notice he is pretty much the very definition of 'red head'. Would it be possible to change the current photo of a grimacing woman with red(ish) hair for this picture of my friend?

Yours faithfully

Oliver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.70.158 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;

Hi Oliver! Thanks for the offer. It looks to me like a good example.

• Do you own the rights to the image? (Basically meaning, "did you take it yourself"?)
• If you do, does your friend agree with you using it?
  

Probably the best path would be to start by uploading the picture to the Wikimedia Commons. (The link will explain what that Wikimedia Commons is about.)

The next step would be to discuss on the "talk page" of Red hair whether the picture should be used in the article.

If it's agreed that it should be used in the article, then you can put in a link to where the image on the Wikimedia Commons, and the picture will be included in the article.

That's just one way to go about things, and there may be better ways. For questions like these, the best place to ask is at the Wikipedia Help desk. I've been on Wikipedia a while and I ask questions there quite often.

Hope this helps! Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: And (since if I don't mention some very vaguely-related literary or artsy what-not, people will think my account has been compromised) I also suggest that you read the Wikipedia article Elizabeth Siddal.

• Per WP:HOTTIE, I prefer the current image at that article. Tarc (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't make get me Shakespearean on your ass, Tarc.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Would this be considered a legal threat?

It looks like one to me, in the edit summary.[162] (For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership.) I warned the editor User talk:70.22.150.151. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Upper Crust Pizzeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:70.22.150.151 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please keep an eye on Upper Crust Pizzeria. The IP editor listed above removed about 5k from the article with the note: "For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership." Diff[163]. GabrielF (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• That is absolutely a legal threat. IP blocked. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

They took out valid, sourced information calling it libelous (which it was not). A NLT block is in order here. The fact that their company may have made some mistakes doesn't mean they can just erase it from the internet. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a new set of IPs are involved now. I just blocked 24.221.237.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for edit warring. 24.221.237.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also active currently. I have done a little fact-checking to make sure that the IPs didn't have a point; however, I found that the claims in the article are backed up by sources. I don't think I'm sitting too close to the situation to do it, but more apparent-socks come in to join the situation, I'm going to protect the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with the situation from living in the area. The IP editor says: "The Upper Crust LLC filed for bankruptcy, but the brand did not. You continue to include libelous material that is factually incorrect. The brand never filed for Chapter 11, and is under new ownership"[164]. I am looking at a Boston Globe article from January 8 that says: "Upper Crust filed for bankruptcy protection in October with at least $3.4 million in debts, and about $1.6 million in claims have been filed by government agencies for unpaid meals taxes, along with back wages and damages owed to workers." I don't quite understand what the IP is saying. I'm not certain how a brand can file for bankruptcy. A new company, UC Acquisitions bought the leases to four restaurants. According to the Globe that company has some ties to founder Jordan Tobins but Tobins and UC Acquisitions claim it is not Tobins money that is being used. We should probably change the owner listed in the infobox. Even if there was some merit to what the IP is saying about bankruptcy, that does not explain the other deletions, related to labor issues, that are well-sourced. GabrielF (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, brands don't file for bankruptcy protection, companies do. It is the job of the bankruptcy trustee to reorganise the entity which can involve selling off its assets, including its brands. It would appear that in this case the brand was sold to a new owner. Why yes, IAAL, how did you guess?--ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP notified of this discussion.[165] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted a two-year-old claim by anonymous employees that the operation is being investigated by customs and immigration. It was not confirmed by the agency and denied by the target, the claim has not been repeated by the Globe subsequently and article reporting the allegation has been removed from the Boston Globe website.

Also, could someone please check the source supporting this?

In early 2012, further allegations of criminality surfaced, as Jordan Tobins was placed on leave after using company funds for personal expenses.

• Abelson, Jenn (June 19, 2012). "Upper Crust accused of scheming on pay". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

(I've used up my free monthly quota). I looked at the article earlier and mentally noted that "criminality" seemed a bit over the top. Also, they're eight months old, and they're allegations of criminality - not charges, not convictions - is this OK per our biographies of living persons policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the last query about BLP concerns to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Upper Crust Pizzeria, since that's the more appropriate forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from the article: "Marcus’s about-face comes in the middle of a fierce battle for control of the gourmet pizza empire between Tobins and co-owners Joshua Huggard and Brendan Higgins. The pair recently sued Tobins, accusing him of charging the company more than $750,000 in personal expenses, including the purchase of a plane, and placed the founder on administrative leave in March." GabrielF (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Tuscar

• Tuscar is a relatively new editor, and his sole edits so far have been related to the Lambretta SX 200 article.[166] These have consisted of adding a non-reliable link in, first to the external links section, then into the article itself - which has been reverted by Mr.choppers and Biker Biker in addition to myself. He's been warned by all 3 of us about the link, but the major issue is his personal attacks and attempt at ownership of the article, accusing Biker Biker of censorship[167], and, to myself, been incredibly rude (in the process, attacking Biker Biker and Mr.choppers as well).[168]. Can someone have a word with him please? I don't want to get involved in this guy's tirades any further. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Biker Biker posted a WP:NPA warning, I'll wait to see what Tuscar's response is. (I was too tired last night to really think about things further) Lukeno94 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Paavo273 Complaints

Nothing of substance here likely to lead to admin action, except perhaps a boomerang. OP warned by MBisanz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Complaint: Abuse of administrative position by Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page & request for relief. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page 1. Complainant User:Paavo273 (C-Pvo) requests AdminFutPerf's self-described "unusual" special findings and editorial content rulings, especially of "consensus of sources"--all made under color of administrative authority[b ] constituting gross, prejudicial, reversible error--be rolled back; that AdminFutPerf’s subsequent dictating the terms of discussion [c ] in Talk:Continuation War in violation of Wikipedia dispute resolution policy be noted as a violation or stricken; that ordinary WP dispute resolution process be allowed to run its course; and, finally, that AdminFutPerf be blocked from further rulings on Finno-Soviet and Baltic issues, as AdminFutPerf has shown clear bias in favor of the Sovietist perspective, (Why is there a WP article for Russophobia but not Finnophobia?), while expressing disdain for or ignoring the conventional Western view, which is clearly represented in the Continuation War article alongside the Finnish and Sovietist perspectives. Another reasonable possibility is that AdminFutPerf merely repeated false allegations of others and did not even read the article. 2. C-Pvo respectfully requests to know: Is there a prior connection between AdminFutPerf and User:Paul Siebert and/or between AdminFutPerf and User:YMB29? 3. C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo [c ] (bottom half of new diff. paragraph) which appears to establish a new, low standard for WP research and to send a message to a particular user that a Google keyword search any eight-year-old can perform is that new standard. Real research, C-Pvo humbly suggests, is based on possessing and understanding the entire scholarly source or a substantial part of it enough to have understood and analyzed the reasoned basis for what you are citing. The CW article, C-Pvo asserts, for the most part reflects serious scholarly research (as far as can be determined at present) whereas the lists of sources cited in the talk page, especially the list by YMB29 [z] like the original citation for the “Soviet victory” result [u] are only bits and pieces. 4. If the disinterested WP administrative community should find AdminFutPerf's "unusual" editorial content rulings authorized by WP administrative procedure, C-Pvo respectfully requests in the alternative, firstly, that AdminFutPerf specifically OUT these alleged supporting sources and that thence a full impartial hearing be conducted by the disinterested admin. community within the framework of the sourced CW article content that has been hashed out over time, rather than merely simplistic count-up-my-sources treatment now endorsed by AdminFutPerf. (In this case, about half the mini-cites, i.e., “Finnish surrender” are unsupportable given the undisputed facts in the article. [y] The remaining mini-cites from the Google search stating Soviet Victory refer to a contention covered in depth in the article, [x] , [w] , [e] , etcetera.) 5. C-Pvo argues (and has argued), e.g., [ee], [ff] , that the infobox is not a proper area for separate research, especially when a body of vetted, well-established sources exists in the article. Complainant would especially appreciate an administrative ruling on this particular issue. 6. Finally, C-Pvo, the complainant, alternately avers, in direct response to AdminFutPerf's "unusual" special findings and rulings, that when taken as a whole, contrary to Admin. FutPer’s snap rulings, the CW article does not depict a Soviet victory as against Finland, unless at most a very narrowly qualified one. Soviet treatment of very many other, nearby countries as discussed in subsection “Buffer Zones” [j], (even as filtered through the Soviet perspective) and Assessment [e] are especially telling of the entire lack of any unqualified Soviet victory when placed in context. (See also, especially, introduction [f] and background [g] as well as [h] and Motives… [i] ). The article does not allege unqualified Soviet victory. 7. No Consensus on what victory even meant: Many reputable sources (See also Winter War) cited in the CW article (including [e] ), state the USSR had like intentions for Finland as for the many other whole countries whose entire “absorption” or enforced communist puppet-government installation the USSR “required” as buffer zones. [j], As such, the very meaning of victory is not settled, and therefore in the humble opinion of the complainant, unqualified victory objectively cannot stand as a result. The infobox template guideline [r] specifies the result as optional and allows, “In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used.” Complainant respectfully requests admins and other discussion-participants identify any personal connection or bias regarding the subject matter. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for injunction, rollback and blocking from Finn-Soviet and Baltic articles of User:Paul Siebert 1. I, Complainant User:Paavo273 (Pvo) request revert/rollback for User:Paul Siebert’s edits to the Winter War article [z] and others, whereby Paul Siebert, apparently taking heart from AdminFutPerf’s self-described “unusual” ruling (alleged in separate complaint above to be gross error), has been changing other wars’ infobox results (on the basis that the rules allow no other choice) with no discussion whatsoever on the relevant wars’ talk pages, e.g., see Talk:Winter War. I further request a block against Paul Siebert from editing privileges for all Finno-Soviet wars, battles, and related issues, as he has shown a clear contempt, bordering on anti-Finnishness, for the mainstream Finnish and non-Marxist Western positions. 2. Paul Siebert complained and threatened me for changing and declining to self-revert an infobox result to the Continuation War, even though my change had followed discussion among other parties at Talk:Continuation War on the exact subject. 3. It is my contention that Paul Siebert’s discussion in Talk:Continuation War and subsequent edits misrepresent the infobox result parameters; it amounts to forcing a cookie-cutter approach on the infobox that was never intended. See template [a] (“result optional”) and discussion [b] In addition, User:YMB29 cites a lack of consensus among the infobox developers [c], which if still current, makes it only a nonbinding guideline altogether. In either case the infobox parameters clearly state result as optional. 4. Despite all this, Paul Siebert, taking license, in part from AdminFutPerf’s decision (“[W]e can renew this discussion, and follow the way outlined by Fut. Perf.”) [d] (bottom of diff), which I am seeking to have set aside in a separate complaint above, still insists, "[I]f you think the infobox page is misleading, try to fix it first. Unless it has been done, let's stisk (sic) with the standards.” [e] 5. Another point of complaint: Why is Paul Siebert quoting in Talk:Continuation War a long reference [g] (bottom of diff), in any event contradicted by the article, about the Winter War? These are two discrete conflicts, whose main common thread is Finland trying to preserve its existence. (See Winter War and separately Continuation War.) 6. Paul Siebert has noted the “we” Wikipaedians guideline and admonished others to focus on content and not personalities [f] but has himself been willing to use ad hominem attacks [g]; practically in the same breath as promoting "our" Wikipedia, alleges to know as prevaricating darkness another user's heart, ("Please, do not pretend you didn't oppose to (sic) the word "victory" in the infobox before.")[h], never mind that "limited victory" is all this other user has ever argued for,[1], [2], [3], etcetera, in fact long before Paul Siebert entered the discussion.; and has shown a general unwillingness to see another side. Such rigid inflexibility and hyper-adherence to perceived WP procedures, assuming good faith by Paul Siebert, appear to evince an overt hostility to those who would disagree with him, and possible personal issues with Finnishness as a whole. Paul Siebert appears to not be satisfied that the Sovietist side is well represented in the article. 6. Finally, while it’s not important that English WP users' English be perfect or even good, it should be coherent. The English of Paul Siebert is normally excellent, but I would propose a change to the following (I thought at first he was talking about a political party) [h], perhaps something like, "Anticipating possible accusations of bias (He anticipated aptly), I would inform pro-Finnish users that I intend (or am intending) to fix such errors in other articles too." Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for Reversal of Warning issued to User:Paavo273 as abuse of administrative discretion by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise User:Paavo273 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise I respectfully request that the warning issued to me for “disrupting” by AdminFutPerf be rescinded. I contend that AdminFutPerf's and User:Paul Siebert's actions described in this and my other complaints demonstrate either Finnophobia or naked promotion by illicit means of their own political bias. I humbly allege that acting either coincidentally [aa ] or in concert users AdminFutPerf and Paul Siebert (See separate complaints) have themselves disrupted the talk page and short-circuited the established WP:dispute resolution process. I incorporate by reference my two above complaints, one against AdminFutPerf and the other against Paul Siebert, as grounds to rescind the warning. Additionally, I humbly contend that the warning issued by AdminFutPerf, later declared to be based on “walls of text,” “extraneous material,” and “filibustering” is false and a bald attempt to silence views opposed to his own. At this hyperlink is my longest copy: [bb ] and there were a couple other shorter ones also exactly on point, where YMB29 was complaining to his mediator in a related case about the Continuation War talk page and another where YMB29 and another user were arguing about the same exact infobox result. (Now that I know how to use hyperlinks, I realize it would be simpler and shorter to provide one of those for each of the diffs on the other pages, but there was absolutely no mass copying or filibuster, an outrageous and as to my alleged malicious intent, also libelous accusation. The entire CW talk page immediately prior to AdminFutPerf’s cleanup, including the my alleged misdeeds can be seen if you scroll down from this diff.: [rr ], and I request impartial, disinterested administrative review. As to the defamatory claim of filibustering, a review of the relevant talk page diff [rr ], will reveal, on the contrary, that despite a fusillade of false rules violation accusations directed at me from user YMB29 and later Paul Siebert, I whenever possible assumed good faith and tried to steer the discussion back to content, just e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. On his user page AdminFutPerf boasts, “This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level," and he links to an “article” ( [ss] ridiculing, mocking people who disagree with his rulings. Complainant Pvo would submit that if this decision by AdminFutPerf and the subject of the other complain against him are indicative of his body of actions as a whole, there are good grounds to complain of rogue administrative abuse. If he wishes to be the next Rupert Murdoch or Katherine Graham or even a mini-Murdoch, he should start his own media empire rather than commandeering Wikipedia. I do not believe the Libertarian über-genius internet innovator from the American South state of Alabama had this in mind when he created the people’s encyclopaedia, not either a fawning Sovietized infobox version of history that contradicts article sources, nor a short-circuiting of dispute resolution processes (See my separate complaints.) I wonder how many other users have become victim to preemptive scorn and ridicule from this administrator pushing his own agenda. I have no history of administrative sanctions, and a general caution to the group against edit-warring would have in my opinion been appropriate. Your consideration is appreciated. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I hope you are kidding, yes? The Banner talk 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Being that this user posted three consecutive threads here (which I had to divide into subsections), calling for the relief of adminship of a respected sysop and the block of another user; I don't think this report will be taken very seriously at all. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) tl;dr much? Anyone wish to summarize? Just from what I can see (not looking at diffs), Paavo is over-exaggerating quite a bit... gwickwiretalkedits 01:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Plus, when you realize that there wasn't anything really bad done by any of the two complained about, it's only a content dispute. gwickwiretalkedits 01:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I stopped reading when I got to this: "C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo". I would humbly request that you format your complaint in concise, plain English. It would make it much easier on the admins here, many of whom have limited time and are not fast readers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Not just any content dispute... This has been through mediation twice, one which I presided over at MedCab, and another one at MedCom. I think it's probably in need of administrative intervention of some sort, but I'm not sure exactly what that should be as I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I have warned him at User_talk:Paavo273#Warning. MBisanz talk 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC) With your background, you could at least give some credit for the hilarious nature of the format :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My quick skim of the above chose "As to the defamatory claim of filibustering..." as the highlight. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the dispute might like to check if any topic bans should be recommended (has it gone that far?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Well, if this is a regular tactic for Paavo, it is definitely disruptive per WP: WALLOFTEXT and WP: MWOT. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)My quick skim of the above gave me a headache and thoughts of storms of boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC) This has already been rejected by Arbcom. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User: Ysfan redux; rangeblock likely needed

User: Ysfan, who was brought to AN/I not long ago , and indeffed by User: Bwilkins for some very nasty personal attacks. He has begun socking as User:MegaMind75, and was subsequently blocked by User: Qwyrxian. He has stated that that he has an intention to continue socking and making personal attacks (here), and thus, I believe a rangeblock is warranted. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 04:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As the target of one of the personal attacks, I think it's just better to WP:DENY oxygen to this fire. Lets not make a bad situation worse.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We generally don't through down rangeblocks in cases like this. I don't even think that most of our WP:LTA users get rangeblocks. Besides, the user is probably right in that rangeblocks would effect too many good users in the process. If a checkuser wants to investigate, they can do so, but I think the easier solution is just to block and reblock. The user is primarily interested in a single topic, so blocking socks as they come up should be simple. Even if they get another interest, the editing style is clear enough that we'll still spot them eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably one of the most unfortunate blocks overall. Had a bad day, went ape-shit over another editor, and is now persona non grata. This really didn't have to get to this point, and really doesn't have to end this way. I left Ysfan an exact way forward last week, but apparently community behaviour is not in his nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to pull out the area of denial weapon and just RBI them. Feeding him isn't going to make it any better now. They've joined the dark side so if he's not willing to help himself, then there's nothing for him here. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses.

What can be done about this IP editor. He is obviosuly a sockpuppet and is causing me a lot of trouble. He insists on leaving his changes in place before we discuss. He can't be banned, because he is using a dynamic IP address (a different address from Vodaphone appears to be allocated to him every time he logs on), yet he is threatening me with 3RR action.

• User:212.183.140.3 (12 February 2013 - 13:00 to 13:21)
• User:212.183.140.4 (16 February 2013 - 09:32 to 09:45)
• User:212.183.140.5 (11 February 2013 - 20:08 20:42)
• User:212.183.140.38 (13 February 2013 - 13:26 to 13:31)
• User:212.183.128.129 (13 February 2013 - 17:41 to 19:56)
• User:212.183.128.192 (15 February 2013 - 11:29 to 12:47)
• User:212.183.128.207 (12 February 2013 - 11:07 & 13 February 2013 - 16:20 to 16:38 & 15 February 2013 22:32 to 23:02)
• User:212.183.128.211 (13 February 2013 - 14:01 to 14:11)
• User:212.183.128.236 (15 February 2013 - 14:03 to 16:09)
• User:212.183.128.242 (14 February 2013 - 19:25 to 19:45)

BTW, I can't inform this editor that I have placed this message as he is an editor of No fixed abode. For the record, Vodaphone uses IP addresses 212.183.*.*, giving a potential of about 64,000 addresses. The above evidence suggests that Vodaphone uses addresses 212.183.140.* and 212.183.128.* for its mobile customers, giving 510 addresses. Martinvl (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Backstory is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeFacto. Garamond Lethet
  c 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Checkuser needed Interesting. Same address range being used in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound. We need a checkuser to make sure that we can implement rangeblocks without causing too much collateral damage.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately there is likely to be significant collateral damage. I made 10 random searches on the range in question, avoiding those that I know are associated with the editor in question. Every one of the hits showed editor activity. The one thing that I can think of is to declare that any edits to a range of IP addresses on articles of a specified category or categories are likely to be the work of a sockpuppet and may be deleted on sight. (In this case the categories would be "Category:SI units", "Category:Systems of units" and "Category:Motorways in England". Whoever undoes such work would paste a standard message on the user page. I know that this would be a new policy, but with increasing use of WiFi and I-phones, this is likely to become an increasing problem. Alternatively, this could be reported on the 3RR page and an administrator could give the agrieved editor permission to undo edits from the IP address range in a specified category as though they were sockpuppets. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Addbot

I think Addbot should be stopped and its recent edits reverted, see my three sections of today on User_talk:Addshore. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading the timestamps, Addbot (talk · contribs) hasn't made any edits for more than two hours, and in particular not since your first problem report less than an hour ago, so a block may not be urgently indicated, and we might be able to give the bot operator a little time to respond. In the meantime, I realise you might be feeling frustrated by seeing automated changes that you disagree with, but you shouldn't be communicating here on Wikipedia with messages like your first one: "Please let me know what you plan to do about this, or I will have to report your bot." It's not collegial, and doesn't make the bot operator more likely to respond positively. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)