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

Legal threat in edit summary

From this edit summary[1], "Stop slander, lies and defamation, Mr. Schönherr. I will inform Mr. Hesemann on your campaign so he can sue you for compensation."

The article in question, Michael Hesemann, could use a few more sets of eyes on it, even without the threat, frankly - there's a serious edit-war going on there at the moment. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that this person didn't know our policy on legal threats. I slapped warning template on their userpage and linked them here, I'd say it's best to wait until they respond after they know the policy. Otherwise, clear legal threat. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• The claim in the lead that HSchnyder removed, calling it "slander, lies and defamation", comes from the lead to the German Michael Hesemann article. I've reinserted it with the addition of the reference from the German article. I'll take a look tomorrow at the other statements that HSchnyder has reverted, unless somebody else has taken care of it by then. It doesn't look like references would be hard to find for any of it. I note that HSchnyder has been warned of 3RR; if he should happen to revert me too, I hope somebody blocks him. As for the legal threat, I find it a little hard to take seriously (but then I often do). The only thing that makes it a little unpleasant is that the other editor, Maximilian Schönherr, uses his real name (or so I presume), and that HSchnyder actually mentions it in his edit summary threat: "Stop slander, lies and defamation, Mr. Schönherr. I will inform Mr. Hesemann on your campaign so he can sue you for compensation!" Still, the third-person nature of the whole spiel—'I will inform him so that he can sue you' (for apparently true and not in any obvious sense offensive statements, too)— makes it pretty un-alarming to my sense. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC).
• Yeah, it's all a bit...well, pathetic. I actually edit-conflicted with you Bish; I was going to do the same thing. It's an interesting affair, by the way, and I hope that Herr Schnyder finds other things to do here besides edit-warring. The BLP exemption does not apply, in case that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• One more thing: it's pretty clear to me why we see efforts to erase the UFO past--it's an attempt at becoming a more serious persona. "One of the most important religious historians in the world": I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see that claim made on the pages of a supposed reliable source. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Bish et al, this is getting funner and funner. Have a look at Talk:Michael Hesemann, for that preposterous claim about a multitude of Hesemaenner. I think that maybe some administrative tools, or a consensus about a topic ban of some sort, could come in handy. I wish Dougweller, DGG, or Randykitty would drop by to have a look at the article and its editor(s); I have seen no evidence, for instance, that the subject is actually an academic (with a degree and all that). Yes, we are dealing with a long-term cleanup effort, a whitewashing operation. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The latest edits came from an IP in Düsseldorf, the subject's place of birth and 'place of activity' [2].

Also compare:

• "Obviously there are two writers with the same name. There is also a third Michael Hesemann who is involved in microbiology and fossiles. Probably they were mixed up by this "ufoevidence" web site!" [3] HSchnyder on English Wikipedia, 2 January 2011
• "1990, Hesemann was 26. So still a [university] student. 'Well known' he became not through his folkloristic material collections on the UFO myth, for if he were well known, then at least a single big publisher would have asked him to write a book on the topic. Instead he self-published (!) everything, machine typed and hectographied, as was common at the time for minimal runs. Then in 1994 a mini-publisher called "Silberschnur" published one of his books on the topic, 1997 he wrote for Falken the hobby guidebook "UFOs over Germany" with practical hints how to examine UFOs and identify them as weather balloons, stars and advertising zeppelines. In the same year his bestseller "Secret Matter Fatima appeared, which saw 8 reprints since then. Another year later in another mass publisher, Herder, "The Jesus Plate". That is, Hesemann 'became well known', big publishers published him and he wrote bestsellers, when he concentrated on church historical topics." - My translation from Hschnyder on German Wikipedia, 3 February 2013 [4]
• "The additions are a mix up with another author with the same name and part of an anti-Catholic slander campaign, startet on German wikipedia." Edit summary [5] HSchnyder on English Wikipedia, 11 February 2013
• Unified account: Special:CentralAuth/HSchnyder
• Hschnyder account on German Wikipedia (blocked as non-constructive SPA since 4 February)

Clearly the story has changed from 'never happened' to youthful folly over the years. HSchnyder/Hschnyder is evidently aware that it's a good strategy to be consistent over time. He does not seem aware that one should also be consistent over space.

Also, if we assume that the youthful folly variant of the story is closest to the truth, then the subject has merely moved from UFO fringe to Catholic miracle fringe. Oh, and Falken-Verlag (where one of his UFO books appeared) was one of the 15 biggest German publishers in Germany in 1991. Practically all bookshops stock many of their guidebooks. Hans Adler 08:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked HSchnyder, semiprotected article. WP:BLP goes both ways: deliberately lying about the subject of a BLP is unacceptable, no matter if it's done to defame them or to defend them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

hi, i'm the author who was threatened by Hschnyder. in the german wiki we've had this issue (threats, edit wars) for years, and it's always been Hschnyder or anonymous IPs who removed the UFO history from the article and kept inserting ad-like praises for hesemann's theological works. i've returned to the german article after a long time when i read in a renowned german newspaper that a court in hamburg ruled against hesemann in mid january. i contacted the court and got this case confirmed. so, a new struggle began, mainly by other users, who fought for the pargraph about the court case - while Hschnyder was reverting and calling the autors dumb, anti-catholic and biased. Hschnyder finally got blocked infinitely.

then i walked to the english article about hesemann and found that it was even more an ad and praise. not a word about the UFO past. i did nothing more than inserting quite briefly the UFO-background plus hesemann's involvement in extremely conservative catholic circles (with source, of course) and cutting down several, but certainly not all non-encyclopedic sentences such as "the pope thanked hesemann...", "and he thanked hesemann again...".

being a journalist i met hesemann personally at the UFO world conference 1995 in düssedorf. i have nothing personal against him, as Hschnyder suggests. and, yes, i'm here under my real name. best, Maximilian (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well done everybody. Nice catch, Dawn, and special thanks to Hans and Maximilian. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

• The disruption made by this user, across multiple Wikis, makes me wonder if he deserves a global ban from editing Wikipedia, if there is such a thing... Lukeno94 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's called a global lock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Guerrilla of the Renmin removing links to China in many articles

User:Guerrilla of the Renmin has unlinked China in many, many articles, citing WP:OVERLINK as the reason. See his/her user contributions: [6]. There seems to be no overlinking in these articles, and it is only ever China that is unlinked, so for example we may get lists of countries with just one link missing, e.g. [7]. GotR has been warned that this is not how to do things by both me and User:Djsasso. However he/she seems to be adamant that his/her actions were correct. See User talk:Guerrilla of the Renmin#Overlinking to China. He/she seems to have stopped editing for the time being, but I suspect he/she will continue later. Please can an admin intervene? Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And in a blatant breach of etiquette, GoR just removed this thread: [8]. Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Has the editor explained why they are removing just "China".Moxy (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bazonka, you do not have evidence that I will continue, and I have promised not to do so. So duly refrain from stirring drama and running, crying to mother after just a few minutes. Would someone kindly close this thread henceforth? GotR ^Talk 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're going to stop removing links, is that correct? thanks in advance for your confirmation/clarification. And I would very much like to see a clear acknowledgement that you understand that you do not ever remove a thread on ANI which is about you; and very rarely one which is about anyone or anything else. KillerChihuahua 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I just disagreed with the mass unlinking on some pages I didn't think it should be. I don't think it needed to rise to the level of AN. I think both of you need to calm down and take a step back. No need to get so heated over what is really not that big a deal probably. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no reason given for why it is just China that has been unlinked. I suspect there is some POV involved, but I have no proof of that.

Normally, this sort of thing would not be one for ANI, but given the sheer number of articles that have been affected, and there is a risk that further articles could be affected in the future, it needs to be raised. Bazonka (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there is some POV involved—That's right! You only suspect, Bazonka. there is a risk that further articles could be affected in the future—Smacks of "if it snows today, it most certainly will tomorrow" type of idiocy.

@Chihuahua, once again, I vow that the Twinkle delinking will cease. GotR ^Talk 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet that's not the most serious issue here. Will you also "vow" not to remove threads from ANI? The delinking might be seen as good-faith, but removing a thread on ANI can only be seen as you trying to avoid scrutiny by admins. KillerChihuahua 20:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:TPG, yes. GotR ^Talk 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

NO. This is NOT a talk page. Please look carefully. This is a Wikipedia namespace page, IOW it is a project page. I still really need to hear you will never remove anything from ANI ever again, and not per a guideline that doesn't quite apply, just a simple, clear promise you won't do it. KillerChihuahua 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You have my word, then. GotR ^Talk 20:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What should be done with the edits - should the edits be reverted? Any recommendations?Moxy (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think most of them should be. I have scanned and found none where China had been previously linked in the article, but a couple where a city in China preceded the word "China". Such as; Beijing, China. It doesn't rise the level of reverting vandalism, and I see no reason not to leave it to the editors of the various pages, or revert all the edits as unhelpful. Either would be an acceptable approach. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@GotR: What does "the twinkle delinking" mean? Your edit summary alluded to the same thing. How about this: "I will stop delinking China period."--v/r - TP 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I manually reverted some of them from the top of GotRs contribs list, but it is a huge number of articles, and with the current technical problems Wikipedia seems to be experiencing at the moment, it seems to be a rather massive task. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working through them too. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If no one objects to an arguable technical misuse of rollback, I'm just gonna massrollback them here. Any cases where they should have been unlinked can be handled on their own. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh. Looks like Bazonka beat me to the bulk of it. Gosh massrollback is a fun script. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@TParis, "Twinkle delinking" should be unequivocally clear; there is an "unlink backlinks" option for every mainspace page. 2) Regardless of one's interpretations of WP:OVERLINK, Twinkle delinking (or going on delinking rampages) is more disruptive than delinking through general copy-editing; the latter is the case with my editing. So, no, asking me to "stop delinking China, period" is an outrageous request. GotR ^Talk 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How about "stop delinking period." Does that sound better. You've offered no justification or policy that supports your actions, so how about just stopping delinking China, before someone suggests a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

1) If it is really necessitated, then I will be pedantic. In most situations, articles on nations/states, which are gross overviews to begin with, would fit the example provided at WP:LINK#An example article, and do not fulfil any of the criteria offered by WP:UNDERLINK: A) Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully—clearly, for example, in an article about alchemy, linking to a nation/state article, which is a gross overview, is of no help. B) Articles with relevant information—same reason as for A, and distant nation/state articles, i.e. anything but the US and Canada for a British Columbia topic, go off on clear tangents. C) Articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions—This is obvious D) Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar with readers—Well nations/states certainly aren't. On to WP:OVERLINK, the second criterion of which states names of major geographic features and locations—Nations/states are certainly major.

2) Suggesting I am not invulnerable to a topic ban is laughable; no one in their right mind would think a topic ban pass, as I edit almost exclusively in the Sinosphere, and am indispensable to the project (far more than any of you above). GotR ^Talk 00:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you drop the "I am invulnerable" train of thought right now. Nobody is "entitled" to edit anything; nobody is "indispensable". A good Wikipedia contributor listens to criticism and alters problematic behaivor when it's pointed out. A bad one claims entitlement and usually winds up indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, given your unrepentant attitude and arrogance, a topic ban would actually pass. Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if GotR is trying to goad someone into blocking him, by stating that he is "indispensable to the project" - when there is no one who is indispensable.. (Look at the ArbCom case being brought against RAN, who is a massive contributor, for example) Lukeno94 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto Bushranger and Blackmane. Further to the linking issue, there are two things worth pointing out in this context. First, as needs to be pointed out too often, the part of overlink cited by GOTR above has a specific qualification to the advice against linking "major" geographic features, when said things are "relevant to the topic of the article". There can be a debate on how that might apply to places in China, but let's not pretend that that qualification is not there in the guideline and that blanket delinking of the term China is mandated by that guideline, as opposed to it suggesting editors make intelligent judgments in individual cases (this is a wider problem btw). Secondly, this should possibly be seen in the context of the move a year or so ago of the China and Taiwan titles and content. GOTR opposed those moves and has long been a warrior for the use of the more obscure terminology People's Republic of China/Republic of China to refer to each entity respectively. The term "China" no longer links to a broader "civilisational" article that implicitly includes Taiwan in its definition, but to the page about the modern country known officially as the PRC and universally referred to as China, which is generally taken to exclude the territory of Taiwan. N-HH talk/edits 11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That certainly clears up a lot of questions, and does indicate that this whole maneuver was very much of a pointy (as well as WP:POVPUSHy) character. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Blackmane: You have no right to suggest I am unrepentant when I, and as KillerChihuahua recognises, see the wrong in using Twinkle to blanket revert. Now get over it and stop beating a dead horse. @Bushranger: I meant indispensable not in the way you suggest, but perhaps "occupies an undeniably invaluable niche" is a better phrasing.

@N-HH. Wrong again on count 2, and you have nothing to corroborate your claims. Yesterday's actions were out of discontent with the treatment of Chinese geography (This is an example of what I'm talking about) by much of the media and even many of our own editors. For instance, I am irked by linking such as "in northeast [[China]]" (instead of "in [[northeast China]]") since it does the average reader no justice by not linking to the regional article, which clarifies that that region is restricted to three or parts of four provinces. GotR ^Talk 17:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a better phrasing, but it doesn't change the fact that a "come at me bro" approach to the prospect of being topic banned isn't a good way to go about things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But that wasn't what you were doing. You weren't carefully going over links and exchanging them with others that would be more appropriate, you were mass delinking every instance of the China-wikilink on a huge scale with no obvious reason provided. If your edits was in fact made "out of discontent with the treatment of Chinese geography" then WP:POINT does indeed apply, since your edits did nothing to fix the problem, but was intentionally disruptive in order to prove a point. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Saddhiyama. So it seems you are still having quirms about "mass delinking every instance", when I never claimed Twinkle unlinking of backlinks is copy-editing, and have already admitted to wrongdoing. What self-deprecatory remarks you made there. It's high time to close out this useless exercise. GotR ^Talk 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not "wrong" on count 2, let alone "again". I cannot be, since I never made any specific claims about what exactly is involved here or what might be motivating this recent run of your edits (I'd not be so stupid). What I said of course was that "this should possibly be seen in the context of ...". With my second observation, as with my first about WP:OVERLINK, I was simply providing some context for those at ANI who might not be aware of it. Once that wider background is a little clearer, they can make their own minds up about what it might all mean and what relevance it might or might not have, and you can clarify your position in respect of the issue; which you seem to have now done. N-HH talk/edits 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

One comment does not a dead horse beat. It's certainly well within my "rights", as you put it (although "privilege" is more accurate since I have no more "right" to edit here than anyone else) to make an objective view after parsing what you have written. I have no need to "get over" something that doesn't actually get in my way. Blackmane (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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.[9] 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.[10] 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)

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 [[11]] 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 [[12]]. 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 [[13]] and at least 5 confirmed sock puppets not including when he IP socks [[14]] and [[15]]. 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 [[16]] 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 [17], 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.
[18] – 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 [19] – "If you don't understand ... you have not shared a single concern...." In response to my remarks about editing behavior. 23 January [20] – "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. [21] – "Have you read through all the reliable sources on the benefit principle entry?" In response to User:Morphh's remarks about the Tax article. [22] – "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. [23] – "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. [24] – "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. [25] – "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: [26].) [27] – "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. [28] – "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 [29] – "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. [30] – "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. [31] – "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. [32] – "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 [33] – "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. [34] – "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 [35] – "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. [36] – "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. [37] – "[...] 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". [38] – "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). [39] – "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. [40] – "[...] 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 [41] – Removed {{verification failed}} template placed by Arthur Rubin, with edit summary of "[...] please stop wasting my time" [42] – "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. [43] – "Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article?" Comment to Rubin in AfD discussion. [44] – "[...] 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." [45] – "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. [46] – "Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics." Comment in AfD discussion. [47] – "[...] 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 [48] – "[...] ...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. [49] – "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. [50] – "[....] 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. [51] – "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. [52] – "[...] 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). [53] – "[...] 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. [54] –"[...] 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 [55] – "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. [56] – "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. [57] – "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. [58] – Quotation omitted. Bringing up his previous 2 week block, asked for clarification in NPA policy specifying that particular comments be considered disruptive or not. [59] – "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. [60] – "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. [61] – "Have you read the reliable sources?" In response to Rubin's comment about material not in the sources. [62] – "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. [63] – "Great, so contribute the reliably sourced content." In response to Rubin's comment about what certain material says or does not say. [64] – "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 [65] – "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. [66] – "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. [67] – "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. [68] – "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. [69] – "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. [70] - "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. [71] – "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. [72] – "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. [73] – "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). [74] – 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." [75] – 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." [76] – "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 [77] – "[...] 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. [78] – "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. [79] – (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 [80] – "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. [81] – (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. [82] – "No, that was sarcasm. Progress would be for you to stop being disruptive." In response to SECIFCO's remarks about OR. [83] – "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 [84] – "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. [85] – "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. [86] – "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). [87] – "[... 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?" [88] – "[...] 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. [89] – "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 [90] – "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. [91] – "[...] 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. [92] – "[...] 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 [93] – "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. [94] – "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. [95] – "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.) [96] – "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. [97] – "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 [98] – "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. [99] – "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. [100] – "Can you whittle it down a little more?" In response to my quoting the particular language referred to in the above message. [101] – "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. [102] – "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. [103] – "Is the purpose of Wikipedia to follow other editors around and undo their edits?" In reply to Bwilkins' remark about Xerographica's BATTLE mentality. [104] – "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. [105] – New section, not quoted, but contains remarks about Rubin, SPECIFCO and myself. 8 February [106] – Not quoted. Made in response to LGR's observations on his combative attitude. [107] – Not quoted. Further responses to LGR's observations. 9 February [108] – "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. [109] – "[...] ...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 [110] – "Also, are you aware that WP:NAD|Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" Comment to Rubin. [111] – "[...] 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. [112] – "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. [113] – "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. [114] – "[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 ([115]) 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.) [116] – "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. [117] – "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. [118] – Quote omitted. Paraphrase: 'You deleted quotes from an article I worked on, why didn't you remove quotes from this other article?' [119] – "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 [120] thanked Dino for not deleting sections and trying to help him understand how WP works. [121] – "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. [122] – "[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 [123] – "[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. [124] – 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. [...] " [125]. 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: [126].) 12 February [127] – "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. [128] – "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. [129] – "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. [130] – 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. [131] – 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 ([132]). [133] – "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. [134] – "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: [135]." 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 [136] [137] 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. [138]

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. [139] – "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: [140] – 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: [141]. 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 [142] 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 [143] 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 [144] "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)

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 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)

Think I've played nice long enough

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

---

Despite my having warned him repeatedly, 3abos (talk · contribs) (whose name, incidentally, it's been suggested could be seen as racist) persists in accusing me of "heterophobia", a concept that is not only a fringe view, but a fringe view that he wrote an article on, which was subsequently deleted. (This deletion and its review have been the locus of our dispute.) While I won't pretend to be anything other than amused by all this, I think I've cut him as much slack as I can be expected to, and believe that it's now time to conclude that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to tendentiously soapbox his POV, and refuses to listen to my requests that he stop engaging in POV-pushing and/or ad hominem behavior. Most damning, I think, is that he responded to my "last warning" with the exact type of discourse I was warning him for. I think this all adds up to a fairly good case for an indefinite NOTHERE block. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't say he doesn't deserve an indef, but you probably shouldn't let people like that get your goat, Pink. Recently, he's been egregiously defending an article that shouldn't have been created in the first place (heterophobia had been deleted before for the same reason, and nominated twice before that with no consensus). However, he's also made quite a few (about 45) edits to Syriac Catholic Church which seem to be fairly constructive (though I'm not too good at spotting subtle POV). I wouldn't assume bad faith and invoke NOTHERE just yet, and I'm curious to see what he has to say for himself, other than making accusations of Heterophobia of course. If he tries that on AN/I, indef ignore immediately as a troll. —Rutebega (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC) slight refactor after TP's comment since, on reflection, user hasn't done anything really block worthy. Users have the right to be as annoying as they want within policy. —Rutebega (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the complaint? What policy is violated? That he created an article that got deleted? That he's pushing an anti-homosexual agenda? Is that the policy violation? You've clearly got a POV on this issue too. Perhaps you just shouldn't engage with this editor? That, or provide diffs of actual behavioral issues because what you've given is not enough to block.--v/r - TP 03:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I linked to all three pages at which we've come into conflict, but, diffwise: Here he comments at the AfD after its (SNOW) closure, calling the decision non-neutral, discriminatory, and a "suppression of freedom of speech". Here [145] [146] [147] [148] he calls me heterophobic, and attempts to push his POV. Here he calls the deletion persecutory and biased. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pointing him to WP:FREESPEECH might or might not be useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not personally offended or anything. In fact, I'd say I'm often a tad too quick to take the bait, but here I've really tried to keep my cool and take him as seriously as I could. If it's felt that he's a net positive, no need to worry about me ragequitting or something if he doesn't get indeffed. This report is purely in the line of duty of bettering the project, not settling any scores. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, the comments make my skin crawl just a bit, but I still don't think a block would be legitimate. I think bias is certainly a factor here, whether or not we recognize or acknowledge it. —Rutebega (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. PinkAmpersand, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you and chime in with Rutebega a bit. First of all, Heterophobia was a farce and is rightly nixed, as the DR confirms. That they'd be a troll is not impossible but, as Rutebega noted, your continued engagement with him (sorry, assuming gender here) can then be seen not only as giving in to baiting but as a kind of baiting in itself (I know you're not trying to get them riled up, you're trying the humane thing--conversation). Second, the edits they've made on Syriac Catholic Church do appear to be constructive and so I'm not ready to say this user is not up to any good. I suggest you leave them alone and keep WP:ROPE in mind. If they're a troll, they'll take care of that themselves.

  One more thing, or two. "Abo" is perhaps a slur, but it depends on context whether we can be sure they meant it like that. Second, their comments are certainly not friendly, but I wouldn't block over it. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Abo is not a slur. My name is 3abos. 3 stands for an arabic character with no english equivilant. Please see Arabic_chat_alphabet#Comparison_table 3abos (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

While I've no idea if it's within existing policy to do so, if this user was simply topic-banned from homosexuality related articles now it would save a lot of time and hassle down the line (one could also preemptively topic ban them from race-related articles). Not all POVs are equal and it's inane to treat them as such. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For what? Not conforming to a pro-homosexual point of view?--v/r - TP 03:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:CRYSTAL. I don't care whether their point of view conforms with mine or not; rather, I'd advocate a topic ban based on a cursory assessment of the probability of whether they're likely to make productive edits in that area given their POV and, from the limited evidence, their likely ability to both edit and create articles neutrally despite their POV. It's not something I'd push but I bet it would really reduce the time-sink of editor-behavioural control (although personally I'd probably ban/topic ban hundreds of activist editors for POV pushing given half the chance). FiachraByrne (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Rutebega below. And that's where I have a problem. It doesn't matter whether it's en-dashes, eastern Europe, or homosexuality. I am tired of seeing folks seeking topic bans for "disruptive behavior" simply because it opposes their own point of view. If this guy should receive sanctions, it's for behavioral issues that deserve a block and not a topic ban.--v/r - TP 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, the likelihood of that particular point of view - regardless of its merits - having good support from scholarly, reliable sources is low. That's just the way things are culturally and socially at the moment. Based on their (limited) previous editing in this area it doesn't look likely that they can edit neutrally. If they continue editing in that or related areas it's likely that they'll be back here sooner rather than later and its highly unlikely that their additions will be encyclopedic in any case.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban would also have the virtue of keeping them productive in areas where they can contribute encyclopedic content.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL? What? You have thoroughly lost everyone. —Rutebega (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A joke. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• also, i have asked this specific user too leave me alone, yet he/she continuous to edit my page. Heterophobia is not a farce, i had made a page with about 8 references, the references got deleted. Then the page got deleted on the fact that there was no references. Where is the neutrality here? this is persecution? 3abos (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I hate to break it to you, but I just looked again at your version of that article and it's really a farce, worse than I thought after the first look. Don't continue to fight over that; it's not a battle you can win. Those who said "delete" and later "endorse deletion" were entirely correct. I have no problem accepting your "abo" explanation, by the way. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, the article was pretty terrible. The term itself does appear in sources though and an article should exist. As far as the deletion, I doubt any content from the article is useable. I'm pretty sure at this point that this user is simply trolling per this and I've just giving it a little while longer to confirm this before I indef the user. Not for opposing homosexuality, opposing a predominant POV is not a blockable offense, but for general trolling.--v/r - TP 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't block over that. We're dealing with a person who has some growing up to do, who thinks that every contradiction of their paradigm is a personal attack and the result of bias/persecution. I say we leave him alone. If they seek out Pink or anyone else, one way or another, then they're not here to hunt bears. Pink, if we can go by first names, don't think I wouldn't run to your defense in a heartbeat; I just don't think that this as yet warrants a block. Again, let's disengage, here and on their talk page, and keep ROPE in mind. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't agree with the preposition that i "have some growing up to do" but i do agree that Pink should just leave my talk page alone. 3abos (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • We'll agree to disagree on that first point then. I'm sure Pink will indeed leave your talk page alone to prevent temptation of any kind. Let's all move on. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Haha Pink's fine, Doc. Or &. Yes, I agree with you. I'll disengage talkpage-wise, and if this line of rhetoric becomes a habit for 3abos, it'll be dealt with through the usual means. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • please do not threaten. 3abos (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • That's not a threat; it's a statement of fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict × 3) I think TP has it about right. I'd definitely never report a user who was open about a generally anti-gay point of view, but was respectful of other editors and whose edits didn't skew too far toward their biases (since, let's be honest, everyone's edits in some way, however small, reflect their POVs). My concern was the troll-like behavior. I agree with the general consensus here that 3abos probably hasn't done anything blockable yet, but is rather close. And now there are several uninvolved admins keeping an eye on this, so any one of them can block should that become necessary, without my having to perpetuate the dispute any longer. Oh, as to the "abo" point, that was originally referenced (also mostly in passing) by Delicious carbuncle; 3abos's explanation makes perfect sense, and I apologize for any unnecessary drama caused by bringing it up. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I was the person who pointed out that "abo" is a racial slur. Since this user appears to be posting from Australia, I am sure they are aware of the context. It looks like just another blunder on my part, like the time that I thought PinkAmpersand was somebody's sockpuppet. I'm just glad we can laugh about it now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I only realised this when you pointed it out. Is there anyway to change my username? 3abos (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • There is; you can usually request a change in username at WP:CHU/S. If your desired username has been taken by someone else, it may be able to be reclaimed for you under certain narrow circumstances: the place to request that is WP:CHU/U. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• The version of Heterophobia edit-warred back into existence by 3abos was clearly not okay. It was full of obvious original research supported by tenuously-connected sources, some of which didn't even mention the subject but simply served as "examples" (in 3abos's opinion) of the alleged persecution in question. Simply not okay. That's not how WP works. 3abos either gets that, or a topic-ban should be instituted to ensure that sort of damaging material is not recreated again (and again). No one is suggesting that 3abos should not be entitled to his point of view. It is possible to edit in a neutral way in a topic area you feel strongly about and 3abos should be encouraged to do so. Broadly, 3abos needs some assistance providing sources for his edits. His most recent to various Syriac Catholic Church-related articles include long sections of personal opinion or original research with few sources. That's only going to create problems later on. I don't think the problems are insurmountable but I think 3abos needs to accept that some editing-style changes need to be made. A good case for mentoring perhaps? Stalwart111 12:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see the deleted article, but I would generally disagree with TParis, that if some editor actually writes an article as a polemic in a topic, than it would make sense to ban them for a time from that topic area. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The article written would compare to Reverse discrimination if it were written by a completely new and highly POV user. The content was entirely worthless but the article subject merits an article.--v/r - TP 14:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't know, not having done the due diligence needed (reading broadly in the area from high quality sources) whether we should have such an article, nonetheless your comment seems to conclude that this is not the editor to do it, regardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This user is clearly not here for constructive purposes, especially given this response during the DRV. I called him out for the continued "but gay just means happy" rhetoric, and the response was an "it's all the media's fault!" talking point. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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.[149] 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[150][151][152], 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)

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)

(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~~.
• 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)

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.

Canoe1967‎

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

---

A few days ago an IP made the claim at the help desk that "Date of birth incorrect. 21.06.1945 is OK. Jan Mak." Canoe1967‎ (talk · contribs) took this to refer to the Jan Mak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, removed the previous DOB, added in this new (unsourced) DOB, and that was that. The help desk thread is brief, but to me indicates that there is general agreement that we should not accept this new, unsourced DOB - I agree fully, and would go further by stating we have no idea that this IP is the subject himself, or somebody else called Jan Mak, or neither, and whether or not they were even referring to the article in question. Discussions continued between myself and Canoe1967 at our respective talk pages; I found plenty of sources which confirm he 1948 birth date, and so re-added it with a direct reference. Canoe1967 appears to have taken exception to this, stating that "I don't really care if the wrong date is entered in the article. I just hope I am not around when the crap hits the fan on it. I will take it off my watch list and let others deal with it. Bye" and that "I no longer give a shit! Go ahead and fuck up the article! I will have a good laugh when egg hits face after shit hits fan." He now appears to be refusing to engage - he has removed my comments from his article talk page using the mis-leading edit sumamry of "Copyedit (minor))" (1, 2, 3) and he has refactored my comments at the article talk page to try and support his position. We also have a disturbing pattern of personal attacks & uncivil behaviour against a number of editors - see 1, 2 3, 4, 5...he has been warned many times for this (check history of user talk, he likes to remove warnings & comments from other editors), and I'd like a wider opinion on the matter please. GiantSnowman 11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Notified. GiantSnowman 11:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

...and then removed. GiantSnowman 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He's certainly not one to beat around the bush and say what he thinks, but I don't really have enough experience to say if the sources for the DOB are reliable. It's certainly possible that the other sites have copied our article, and (pre-wiki) experience with Keith Moon#Birth date demonstrate it's sometime quite hard to actually prove a date of birth and get it right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The DOB is a minor issue, it is more Canoe1967's reaction to the situation, as well as his track-record of personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 11:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by the editor's user page which says at the very top, in large & bold letters, "vandalize deletionist user pages." GiantSnowman 11:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Enough. Whatever about the substantive content issues here, Canoe1967's persistent incivility and personal attacks are unacceptable. This is not a matter of an editor occasionally blowing off steam when they have had a bad day or have gotten unusually frustrated with something on Wikipedia; it's a longer pattern, and the call for vandalism on Canoe's userpage suggests that there is a persistent battleground mentality. I think that what we have seen already merits a block, but before rushing to do that I want to hear Canoe's response to the damning evidence set out above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that Canoe1967 has deleted the ANI notification from hir talkpage with the usual misleading edit summary of "Copyedit (minor))". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Also edits like this show a complete disrespect for the project and other users. Checking through a few of his edits and comments, they are definitely not here for the betterment of all. While they do make good edits, the edit warring and personal attacks are worrying. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring or deleting other user's talk page comments is a definite no-no, particularly the one on the BLP noticeboard. I just laugh when people tell me to fuck off, but appreciate other editor's don't see the funny side. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Given 48 hours off, and that's generous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted his POINTy refactoring of the block message. GiantSnowman 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• If he does it again, somebody turn his talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 14 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: [153]/[154].Volunteer Marek 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

TfD reverts

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

---

Please review my edits at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 14 and recent reverts:

• this
• this also
• and then this.

I enjoined the editor who made the first two to desist:

• in this edit

and here is:

• his response

This appears to result from a content dispute unrelated to the template nominated for deletion. The two editors involved will be notified once I post this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith and trollng nomination for deletion because Pigonthewing was losing a debate here [155]; the then began trolling at Montacute House and was reverted by another uninvolved editor [156], so he began a parallel trolling debate here [157] when that failed too, he lost the plot and made the bad faith nomination for deletion. I suggest he's warned and/or blocked for disruption.  Giano  17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but if a TfD is raised, you shouldn't just blank the tag. Just wait for consensus to resolve it one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What Ritchie said. I've restored the TfD. Comment on its validity there. Ryan Vesey 17:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(2 c/es reponse to the original poster) This is untrue. I was preparing a report against User:Pigsonthewing myself about this. Basically, he has broken advice in WP:5P and WP:Reckless, then acted as if to pre-empt any attempt to reach a consensus opinion by proposing for deletion templates that were being considered in an attempt to reach a compromise solution which would give User:Pigsonthewing a means of emiting geodata unless it conforms exactly to what he wants (placing a visible infobox on a page that is at Featured Status, and has been without a visible one for many years.). The template he has now proposed for deletion and used on Montacute House forms an active part of the discussion to reach a consensus, and its proposal for deletion was another act that effectively, if successful, would have made any agreed upon compromise impossible unless it was entirely to User:Pigsonthewing's initial desires. see Talk:Little Moreton Hall#Infobox where there is clear evidence that the template used in Montacute House formed part of the ongoing discussion. Additionally, User:Pigsonthewing has never answered a question that is fundamental to this dispute and which myself and others wish to have answered: is using an infobox the only way geodata can be emitted from an article? Until that is answered, we cannot easily progress, but the proposals of deletion of templates of infoboxes and his refusal to answer this basic question mean that we are continually being haampered in using the normal collaborative means of resolving disagreements here. I admit I did remove his proposal for deletion because I thought it was extremely uncollaborative to do this when we were activelt discussing it and when it could have formed an alternative solution to the one he favoured.I apologize unreservedly for this, but I was doing it in an attempt to prevent the drama increasing even more. I will not do any such thing again, but I feel unwise actions provoking drama have been at the root of this, and User:Pigsonthewing seems to have initiated it all.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I also just point out that ddstretch and I do not know each other, have never worked together or emailed each other.Pigson the wing is a Wikipedia ambassador and 'Wikipedian in Residenc'e at a museum - is this the sort of behaviour we should be witnessing from an eminent Wikipedian? Now, i shall go and revert the troll again as Vesey is obviously making this an issue to support Pion the wing.  Giano  18:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

off topic joke NE Ent 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Could I also just point out that ddstretch and I do not know each other, have never worked together or emailed each other." - spoken like a true sock.--v/r - TP 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Who on earth is this plonker?  Giano  20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) TP, please don't. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You and ddstretch are both taking a behavioral issue and making it a content dispute. The content aspect of this can/should be discussed at dispute resolution. You're blanking of the TfD discussion is disruptive and if you continue to do so, you should be blocked. Ryan Vesey 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody block this guy already. Ryan Vesey 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Settle down please, Ryan. It is entirely possible that the restoration of the TfD discussion is what's disruptive. A bad-faith nomination should be undone. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That was what motivated my action in removing it: I considered it to be a bad-faith nomination that acted to prevent any resolution of the issue in a way that User:Pigsonthewing disapporved of. Of course, I will not comment on that TfD and I think I ought to now withdraw, since all I wanted to say about the process, and the actions have been said.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I apologize, but as far as I'm concerned the reason a template is put up for deletion is irrelevant if that template should be deleted, which I believe it should. If Giano and ddstretch believe it shouldn't, they should make their case at the TfD. Removing it should not be an option. And as I mentioned below (and above) dispute resolution is the proper venue for the content dispute. Is there any sanction in place disallowing Pigsonthewings from commenting on infoboxes for featured articles that aren't "Today's featured article"? If not, bringing up the infoboxes issue here is an unnecessary sideshow distracting us from the focus on the TfD. Ryan Vesey 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm loathe to wade into what looks to be a full-on ANI nuclear war, but I do know that telling Andy to "piss off" is not going to win you any friends. Is it not worth just sitting this TfD out? I've had the odd thing of mine sent to xfD, and I can assure you it's far better just to state your position on why the template's okay, and leave it at that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a battleground issue more than anything else. A dispute occurred on a page Giano wrote. Giano appears to be upset. A redundant template is nominated for deletion, Giano removes it three times calling it a "bad faith trolling nomination" and saying Pigsonthewings should be blocked for disruption. (reverts are listed above). On his talk page, Giano has stated "I am more than happy to be blocked if it stands up to bullies like you." [158] and called Pigsonthewings "a bully, a troll, and a sore loser" [159]. I have no idea if Giano has a history of battleground behavior, but he needs to not remove the TfD again. If he cannot leave the TfD in place, he should be blocked for the remainder of the discussion. The issue about the infobox should probably go to dispute resolution. Ryan Vesey 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No, this should be discussed. Giano won't be able to argue that it's a bad-faith nomination if he's blocked. If leaving the TfD up isn't supposed to be a big deal, then the same probably applies to the reverse. Andy can always renominate it, or whatever. We have two long-term, experienced editors here, one of them an admin, and both of them responsible for quality content. We don't go around blocking them immediately without establishing what's going on and what the merits are. FWIW, I can't determine that--this template stuff goes well over my head, but I do know that when Giano says something it is wise to try and listen. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I left Giano a note, and Floq, who's much cleverer than me, has done the same. Fingers off the block buttons, please, on all sides. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, you're wrong about my cleverness, but you're right about maybe just this once not turning this into a big thing. Andy and Giano are Wikipedia's versions of an irresistible force and an immovable object; let's not have a 17 day melee. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not confused beyond belief. {{Hidden content dispute}} isn't used on any of the pages in question. I can't for the life of me see why it was a)considered trolling and b)reverted. There are statements that deleting it would force a compromise not to occur, and I just can't imagine how that is the case. As far as I can tell, the template isn't related to Giano in any way. Ryan Vesey 18:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: ( and EC) The template nominated for deletion is {{Hidden content dispute}}; nominated as "redundant to {{Collapse top}}". It is used on only two archived talk pages, Talk:Abortion/Archive 31 and Talk:Evolution/Archive 49. How is that nomination bad faith? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I can't remember ever seeing an XFD un-opened before, except when vandals blank the page. We don't even do this when a banned editor creates a nomination; instead, we have an uninvolved admin do a procedural close without prejudice to renomination. Why mustn't this TFD be permitted to appear on the log? Leave it alone or ask for its closure, but don't remove it entirely from the log. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Tfd restored per Giano's comment on his talk page. NE Ent 18:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Can this be closed then as one big misunderstanding? Per Drmies, blocks are unnecessary. Per me, if the content needs to be discussed outside of the talk page it should go to dispute resolution. Ryan Vesey 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Are we just going to ignore the blatant personal attacks made above and elsewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to trust Drmies' judgement above. I said I saw a battleground issue; however, I don't know if there's a history of it. If battleground behavior persists, it can certainly be addressed. For now, I believe that closing this discussion is the best thing for the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 18:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165]. 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 [[166]]. Not sure this raises to the level of a blocking concern so I'm bringing it here for advice and opinions.

• [[167]] 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)[[168]]
• I did this to make it a more neutral tone as well [[169]]
• Youtube is not a [[ reliable source and when it's a statement by the person invovled can not be used [[170]]
• And this was a purely grammatical edit [[171]] while also removing what appears to be a WP:SYNTHESIS.

The claim has been made is that these are defamatory and libelous changes[[172]]. 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)