User talk:Xerographica

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Legal plunder, Xerographica!

Wikipedia editor Kumioko just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Since this has been here for 2 years I am going to mark this as reviewed but it needs a lot of cleanup work.

To reply, leave a comment on Kumioko's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ANI notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Opt Out of Iraq War Act for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act for deletion

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

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

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

Subpage userspace draft templates

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

No edits lately? Recommendations

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

Forced rider

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

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

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

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

March 2013

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You must address your own conduct, not that of others.  Sandstein  11:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True, I nominated Club theory for deletion (see section below). Also true that I took the material Xerographica had supplied (including Buchanan) and posted it [1] in Club goods before posting the AfD. But Xerographica takes this normal collaborative process and distorts it into an attack on me.

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

PS: I submit that Xerographica is complaining too much about the supposed hounding. In fact, I suspect he enjoys it and actually seeks to provoke contentious discussions. Evidence: His comment on the ANI he lodged. "Xerographica's had enough of an ANI beating ... can we close the thread now? NE Ent 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC) [...] No way, I'm a sucker for abuse. It's why I thrived in the infantry.[...] --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [Emphasis added to distinguish Xerographica's comment.] See: [2] – S. Rich (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Club theory for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Opt_Out_of_Iraq_War_Act
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act

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

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

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

• Benefit principle
• Forced rider problem
• Preference revelation
• Civic crowdfunding
• Government waste
• The Other Invisible Hand
• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
• Scroogenomics
• Tax choice
• Pars pro toto principle

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

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

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

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