Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

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.
[1] – 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 [2] – "If you don't understand ... you have not shared a single concern...." In response to my remarks about editing behavior. 23 January [3] – "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. [4] – "Have you read through all the reliable sources on the benefit principle entry?" In response to User:Morphh's remarks about the Tax article. [5] – "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. [6] – "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. [7] – "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. [8] – "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: [9].) [10] – "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. [11] – "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 [12] – "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. [13] – "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. [14] – "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. [15] – "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 [16] – "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. [17] – "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 [18] – "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. [19] – "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. [20] – "[...] 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". [21] – "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). [22] – "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. [23] – "[...] 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 [24] – Removed {{verification failed}} template placed by Arthur Rubin, with edit summary of "[...] please stop wasting my time" [25] – "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. [26] – "Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article?" Comment to Rubin in AfD discussion. [27] – "[...] 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." [28] – "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. [29] – "Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics." Comment in AfD discussion. [30] – "[...] 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 [31] – "[...] ...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. [32] – "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. [33] – "[....] 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. [34] – "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. [35] – "[...] 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). [36] – "[...] 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. [37] –"[...] 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 [38] – "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. [39] – "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. [40] – "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. [41] – Quotation omitted. Bringing up his previous 2 week block, asked for clarification in NPA policy specifying that particular comments be considered disruptive or not. [42] – "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. [43] – "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. [44] – "Have you read the reliable sources?" In response to Rubin's comment about material not in the sources. [45] – "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. [46] – "Great, so contribute the reliably sourced content." In response to Rubin's comment about what certain material says or does not say. [47] – "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 [48] – "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. [49] – "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. [50] – "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. [51] – "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. [52] – "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. [53] - "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. [54] – "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. [55] – "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. [56] – "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). [57] – 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." [58] – 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." [59] – "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 [60] – "[...] 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. [61] – "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. [62] – (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 [63] – "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. [64] – (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. [65] – "No, that was sarcasm. Progress would be for you to stop being disruptive." In response to SECIFCO's remarks about OR. [66] – "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 [67] – "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. [68] – "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. [69] – "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). [70] – "[... 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?" [71] – "[...] 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. [72] – "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 [73] – "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. [74] – "[...] 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. [75] – "[...] 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 [76] – "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. [77] – "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. [78] – "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.) [79] – "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. [80] – "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 [81] – "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. [82] – "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. [83] – "Can you whittle it down a little more?" In response to my quoting the particular language referred to in the above message. [84] – "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. [85] – "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. [86] – "Is the purpose of Wikipedia to follow other editors around and undo their edits?" In reply to Bwilkins' remark about Xerographica's BATTLE mentality. [87] – "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. [88] – New section, not quoted, but contains remarks about Rubin, SPECIFCO and myself. 8 February [89] – Not quoted. Made in response to LGR's observations on his combative attitude. [90] – Not quoted. Further responses to LGR's observations. 9 February [91] – "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. [92] – "[...] ...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 [93] – "Also, are you aware that WP:NAD|Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" Comment to Rubin. [94] – "[...] 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. [95] – "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. [96] – "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. [97] – "[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 ([98]) 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.) [99] – "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. [100] – "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. [101] – Quote omitted. Paraphrase: 'You deleted quotes from an article I worked on, why didn't you remove quotes from this other article?' [102] – "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 [103] thanked Dino for not deleting sections and trying to help him understand how WP works. [104] – "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. [105] – "[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 [106] – "[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. [107] – 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. [...] " [108]. 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: [109].) 12 February [110] – "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. [111] – "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. [112] – "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. [113] – 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. [114] – 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 ([115]). [116] – "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. [117] – "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: [118]."
• 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 [[File:|25px|link=]] (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 [119] [120] 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. [121]

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. [122] – "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: [123] – 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. i am convinced some action is needed. thx to srich for having the patience to explain the issue in such detail. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 18 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: [124]. 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 [125] 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 [126] 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 [127] "read more and edit less" in his edit summary. (Albeit not directly to Rubin who had answered yes. The ES was, perhaps, more directed to me.)
    • 4. Regardless, Xerographica purports to know so much about this stuff that no editor could overcome his superior knowledge and analysis. But he misses the point, repeatedly made, that his OR and SYN is unacceptable.
  • Xerographica had repeatedly said "Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up?" Patting myself on the back, I hope Carl Eytel will shutoff that spurious comment.
  • His "they don't read" comments are only part of the problem. He has engaged in POINTy behavior and other disruptive conduct.
  • Here's a suggestion. What if this ANI was a RFC/U? (In a sense the last few months with Xerographica have been an ongoing RFC/U on his user talk pages.) Would we get a different result? No. I submit that his comments above are simply burying the pony even deeper in the pile.
  • Last point, consider if Xerographica had made the above remarks in a block appeal. Would they survive scrutiny? Has he made a WP:NICETRY? Does he consider and comply with WP:NOTTHEM? Has he actually agreed that huge portions of his behavior are unacceptable? The answer, pre-block appeal and now, is no.

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

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

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

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

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

So, who is (creating the) bull?

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

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

• By OP – Suggested course of action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a better idea: you make a month worth of edits that are a) all within policy, b) all assume good faith, c) don't attack any editor directly or indirectly ... and I can guarantee that most editors will find no reason to have to follow your non-compliant editing behaviours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding:

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

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

By OP – Any comments on my proposed course of action? Or does Xerographica get to decide what the community has to do? – S. Rich (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I recommend as follows:

90-day topic ban on editing articles in categories economics, libertarianism, capitalism, and politics.

No restriction on any talk page interaction or on article editing in other categories.

Subject to WP rights of unblock request and appeal. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I fear it will not be sufficient (and I commend the patience of the editors who have not given up trying to explain the concept of WP:OR to X, who in my opinion simply feels that a superior intellect such as his is not bound by it, so tries to argue it out of existence); but nonetheless I support Specifico's recommendation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Jeez, I thought I was tough as I was looking a 30 day period of rehab. But my proposal was toughened up with the Editor Review, which I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors. Well, I'll sweeten the bargain on my end. One, if X will undergo the ER, I'll double my load on reviewing their backlog. Two now and two upon completion of X's 30 day ban. But X has gotta act soon if he's interested in doing the ER voluntarily. I may pull my offer off the table, which would not benefit the ER backlog. (And don't get me wrong, I've made some recent changes concerning ER which should improve it and its' role in the project.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am uneasy imposing a mandatory ER as a penalty. I prefer to give X the freedom of choice to elect such a review for himself. X can evaluate his opportunity cost for the Editor Review against its potential to improve his chances for successful editing career here. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding original research, I recently expanded the article on preference revelation. Where's the OR? Clearly there's plenty of research...but where have I added anything that's "original"? Regarding "rehab", I think it's unreasonable to expect me to be nicer to the three editors who are harassing me. It's also pretty unreasonable to block me when they are the ones who are clearly violating Wikipedia policy. --Xerographica (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Here's what Rich said above..."I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors". And here's what he just posted on his talk page...

Fuck you, Spinelli, there's no edit war going on.

Do you know what Orangemike blocked me for two weeks for saying? He blocked me because I said that other editors were "willfully ignoring reliable sources"...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. --Xerographica (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – And here is the discussion I had with Spinelli before he tagged by talk page with his edit war message: Talk:Brady_Haran#Future_Projects – S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Was my comment WP:VULGAR? Obviously so. Should I say WP:SORRY? I'm thinking about it. (I've said sorry in the past for my mistakes, including a sorry to X.) But (or should I say "Butt") the issue in this discussion is regarding Xerographica's many uncivil and non-AGF remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know whether you should apologize (actually don't care), but I know that invoking the name of Paul Harvey to justify telling someone to fuck off is exceedingly lame. Unfortunately we don't have a Wikipedia:Biographies of dead persons policy here, so there's not much I can about such a disrespectful use of a man's name. NE Ent 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I added a section on preference revelation to public goods, public finance and public economics. Rubin undid my contributions with the following explanation, "Somewhat relevent, but much too long". Rather than undo his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about the value of his contributions as an editor, rather than give him honest feedback, I simply posted my highly filtered thoughts on the talk pages. It's really not easy to hold back...especially when he is clearly harassing me and none of you admins are doing anything about it. But I did hold back. I'm not asking for an award here...I'm simply asking that you don't block me. --Xerographica (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so adding incredibly long and therefore knowingly inappropriate sections to an article, then whinging when it's removed is supposed to somehow absolve you from the fact that competence is required? Those edits were pointy, and you know it - you knew they would be removed before you even clicked "save", but you couldn't wait for your adversary to remove them so you could come here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's one possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation is that, based on a thorough review of the relevant literature, I identified where there's significant room for improvement and made the effort to contribute valuable and well cited content. Could it have been shorter? Sure, just like all the other preexisting sections could have been shorter. But I don't see Rubin removing all the other sections because they are "much too long". Nor do I see him removing all the sections that are poorly cited at best. And I certainly do not see him contributing any content to these articles or to any other economic articles. All I see is him following me around undoing my edits. But rather than do anything about it, you'd prefer to assume that I intentionally added that content for the sole purpose of entrapping Rubin. I'm certainly not surprised that one of these three editors undid my contributions, but I'd much much much prefer it if Rubin hadn't. Who wouldn't prefer not to have their considerable effort undone? --Xerographica (talk) 11:02, 18 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)

Seems to me User:SchroCat was looking for simple consistency. (He's not the one introducing concept of "justice" or "injustice" here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to point out the real problem here. Ghmyrtle has shown once again that he/she does not ever read the actual content of edits before reverting or judging them. Changed my mind? No. My first edit removed clear bias from a particular sentence. The current version also does not contain clear bias. My first edit made that particular sentence this:

Cleo Rocos (born 24 July 1962 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) is a UK-based comedy actress and television/theatre producer and presenter who appeared on The Kenny Everett Television Show.

Meanwhile after my most recent edit the sentence was this:

Cleo Rocos (born 24 July 1962 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) is a UK-based comedy actress and television/theatre producer and presenter, who starred alongside Kenny Everett on The Kenny Everett Television Show.

And so apparently the first one was "against talk page consensus" but the second one would "probably have been acceptable to most editors"? Given that they are almost identical it's not possible to believe that Ghmyrtle actually understood what was going on. In any case, talk page consensus is of no relevance when core policies are being violated. Just like you couldn't claim a "talk page consensus" to say that consensus was actually spelt concensus, you can't claim a "talk page consensus" that NPOV doesn't apply.

Ghmyrtle provides a convenient example of a problem editor, who explicitly stated that they reverted my edits without reading them, and who is continuing to make stuff up to imply that my edits were somehow problematic. This kind of casual anti-IP discrimination is endemic, and is a huge problem; as you see here, it led to usernames edit warring to keep the article in an obviously deficient state. 83.44.110.207 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I feel an appropriate post-script belongs here.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Topic ban on user SuzanneOlsson

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 issues

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

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

2013 issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support topic ban on anything related to Jesus. Nsk92 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support broad topic ban on Jesus of Nazareth, including the life of Jesus, the lost years of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, articles about people who study the topic, literature about the topic, and places linked to the fringe theories she relentlessly promotes, concurring with Binksternet that such a topic ban would probably amount to a ban of the editor from Wikipedia, as this topic is her only interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we could change behavior with education, role-modelling open-mindedness, instead of power-trips and bans. Whatever. Banning is so much easier. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Time for decision? Has been on the board for close to 4 days now, and no major new revelations in the past day or so. A decision may be in order before it just gets archived away. History2007 (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OVERKILL?*:::::::Ahhhh I see that History 2007 is here for the jugular. I think all you have proven is (1) Both myself and this topic have been here for years. (2) Especially since I got a domain with same name as the topic, this is now a clear COI,(and I agree) but does not prevent me from editing if I am not "self-promoting", nor is a ban on 'all things religious'-or-'jesus' or any of the recommended bans called for (see what Orange Mike recommended. Whew! How is all that relevant as I never edited any of those topics?) This is just plain over-reaction and over- kill, unjustified and uncalled for. (3.) Links to my web site and book were here for years- now suddenly removed whilst fictional books appear as Wiki reference(this has been another ongoing problem between editor DougWeller and myself for years) (4.) Conflicts are about content, not about self-promotion, and conflicts are always with the same Wiki editor.(just a reminder that the problem with accurate sourcing and my help updating the page arose during a death in family when I had to turn my attention away from sourcing for a few days. The Wiki editors knew that yet used that opportunity to delete everything valid and seek a ban) (5.)Note that since new editors have joined in helping improve and update the page, they are making contributions quite similar to what I suggested. (6) I am rarely here at Wiki, perhaps once a year or less. I do not go from page to page. Isn't a total ban on all topics a tad "overkill"? You have a nice day History2007. Please do not get over zealous about topics like rosary beads and fake relics, least not until you have all the facts. If you are unsure, please ask me. I'll be delighted to help you with history. You have a nice day, and please try to stay away from Craig's List. All the best, SueSuzanneOlsson (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban on articles related to Roza Bal and to Jesus. SuzanneOlsson seems to have a clear agenda that the she is pushing, that agenda has zero support under WP:RS and the user has been made aware of that on several occasions, but still continued.Jeppiz (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a "clear agenda". If that were true I would have been at Wiki on a regular basis pushing my views everywhere. I have never done that. My only concern has always been the lack of accuracy and true historical information on the Roza Bal page, which is an area I do claim some amount of expertise. To insinuate more is absolutely incorrect and misleading. Have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the personal attacks, or the comment about crushes. There should be a conflict of interest warning about adding links to your own Web site. Has that warning been given since 2008? Strangesad (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Strangesad, I did make a joke about DougWeller having a crush on me. I am guilty as charged. It shouldn't be taken out of context. Regarding the links to my web ages, they have been here since 2005. The problems (as I see it) is that I was under constant attack (by same editor for over 5 years) whilst at same time, that editor allowed self-published FICTION links. I strongly objected- and I feel that was within my rights since I was the one under attack, and since I repeatedly pointed out the double standard being used by "some" Wiki editors on that page. I dont think that editor and I will be exchanging Christmas cards this year. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Please. Do you all see yourselves? This piling on is a ghastly example of overkill when a simple COI admonishment would do just as well. Ignocrates (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Caught in the Act! I am very distressed. This was just posted at Wiki, and DougWeller-AKA-KillerChihuahua has been the one I have complained about for 5 years at Wiki, the one doing unfair and misleading edits here, the one who started the ban on me, and, as Killer Chihuahua enacted a week long ban on me. Based on this new information, I think this entire ban thing against me ought to be dropped. This is terribly significant and defines just what I've been up against. Click on this link for the page about this Administrator> [[128]] SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you have not provided any evidence for that accusation nor have I found any evidence for it elsewhere. Second, even if that were the case, it would not matter one bit. A great number of us have looked at your edits, and the answers here show that there is an almost unanimous consensus among many users that your edits have been disruptive. So far from the "this entire ban thing" being dropped, it should be closed and enforced, as that is the consensus view.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Making accusations of sockpuppetry on two admins is very serious business. It has since been revdel'd by another admin so it's not clear who raised it and in any event throwing it into this topic ban proposal is a total red herring that tries to throw the discussion off. This "new information" as you call it has absolutely no bearing on the topic ban discussion as it was neither of them that raised the proposal in the first place. I've been sitting on the fence on this one but I'm afraid I'd have to support a topic ban as well as it is obvious that your closeness to the field has blinded you to what everyone has been telling you. As I have only made 1 comment here above but have otherwise never interacted with you nor edited these articles before, so I don't think anyone here has any issue with me saying that I'm totally uninvolved. Blackmane (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Blackmane, First, I have no idea how the one (or two) Administrators got accused of sock puppetry. I think it is relevant. Very.If an Administrator is misrepresenting himself/herself. I emphasize that since others have stepped in to edit the Roza Bal page, there have been no more problems. I am not and never have been trying to "push my views" about a "fringe theory". I have always been objecting to deliberately misleading-misguiding Wiki readers. I would have no problem with a ban on DougWeller- no more editing the Roza Bal page. The newcomers have been doing an awesome job- which just goes to show you I must not have been so "Wrong" after all. I dont mind staying away from the page now. I feel vindicated by other Wiki editors. These proposed bans are overkill. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OH! I see that History 2007 is also now under fire. He is the "editor" who told me to go edit at Craig List and made other insinuations. Look guys, I have never been a problem at Wiki except on the one page, Roza bal, and always with the same editor, DougWeller. recently Killer Chihuahua and History 2007 made an appearance.. the same ones who are now under fire here at Wiki. This topic of a ban on me is so uncalled for, and such dramatic overkill. Now the very editors I complained about and had issues with are on the line. Not one, but THREE of them! History2007 was particularly off the wall when he made accusations about fake ancient relics and fake rosary beads. I stood up to him because I know how off the wall his remarks are/were. He was first to vote for a ban on me. Now he is under scrutiny by other WEiki editors for very same issues. I dont feel I am in the wrong here at all. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Suzanne Olsson, every edit you make here just reinforces my support for the topic ban. You seem to waste all your time complaining about other users, and that is hardly constructive. Neither DougWeller nor Killer Chihuahua is accused of anything, and your continuous repetition of that is not doing your case any good. The accusation against History2007 was thrown out as unfounded.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jeppiz, with all due respect sir, I just found it odd that the very issues that brought me here in the first place were also brought before Administrators. Whether Mr. DougWeller and History2007 were cleared of charges or not, I had not noticed. I was alarmed by the way the charges were worded because they reflected my own similar experiences. It seems inappropriate that you would turn those complaints around as though somehow they made me at fault. That is hardly the case! Anyways, I certainly don't want to annoy you nor other decent respectable editors here. That's not helpful. If I notice any more similar complaints against these two Administrator/Editors, , I promise I wont say another word about them here. You have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose What the hell is wrong with all you trigger happy editors nowadays? The proposer has failed to even provide a diff and you are all piling on?? I looked at the talk page and Suzanne did not seem to have recently falen out of line. I'm losing hope in wikipedians. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose How about a single diff showing a disruptive mainspace edit after SO's block expired? NE Ent 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question: No, no one can, given that there have been no mainspace edits at all. However, if that question is being asked rhetorically as an indication of some type of rehabilitation I must beg to differ. A quick look at the user's talk page shows that as of a couple of days ago, statements such as "I am standing up for the truth... I am hoping at some point DougWeller will leave the Wiki pages ... he has done a lot of damage" are still being made in parallel to this ANI discussion. That does not look like a sign of a form of rehabilitation. I must say that Chihuahua's reading of the "set the record straight" situation still persists. Now why do I post this? Frankly because I am tired of the huge amounts of time eaten up by these situations. And frankly I do not know how users such as DougWeller tolerate all of these, and why they should have to continue to tolerate them at all after all this. Let me end by saying that the fact that things have been quiet for a few days and the lack of mainspace edits are no indication of the possibly suggested form of rehabilitation, for unless something is done, the user may participate in consensus discussions (e.g. see the section on relics again) and provide consensus impact which would otherwise not be there. I am sorry, I see no sign that anything is changing; or that it is likely to change at all. History2007 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: A solution was proposed on Suzanne Olsson's talk page by Ed Johnston here as follows:

Hello SuzanneOlsson. It's my guess that the blocking admin would lift your sanction if you would agree *not* to make any more edits to articles in areas where you have a conflict of interest. You would not edit any Wikipedia articles on topics where you have written any books or articles yourself or posted anything on your own website, www.rozabal.com. That would include anything about the lost years of Jesus or the topic of Jesus in the East. You could not create any new articles on people who have written about these topics. In particular you would have to avoid the following articles:

1. Unknown years of Jesus 2. Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam 3. Jesus bloodline 4. Nicolas Notovitch 5. Fida Hassnain 6. Roza Bal

You would not be able to edit these articles directly, but you could still post on their talk pages. You would agree to edit Wikipedia under only one single account, and not recruit anyone from off Wikipedia to edit these articles. You would agree to leave any questions about the scope of this restriction to the judgment of other editors at WP:COIN or any admin noticeboard. Let me know if you will make this agreement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I encourage the consideration of this solution because 1) it is a voluntary recusal, 2) it is limited in scope to the 6 specific articles that constitute the COI problem, and 3) it is unlimited in duration. Problem solved without the imposition of a punitive topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I also raised the prospect of a voluntary agreement being more productive (above) and took to SO's talk page to encourage just such a resolution. I think SO understands that whether such restrictions are imposed or accepted voluntarily, they would constitute a ban on editing the only articles in which she has any real interest. Either option would effectively end her editing here. Stalwart111 03:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And to be clear, the original topic-ban proposal here simply called for EdJohnston's proposal to be formally imposed by the community. Stalwart111 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a ban on editing certain articles, but would allow her to continue using the talk pages. I note that, when I made the proposal of a voluntary ban on her talk page, she rejected it. If you read her comments above, do you get any hint she has changed her mind? She said, "I dont feel I am in the wrong here at all." She still thinks that the people who oppose her edits like History2007 are "off the wall". Does that sound to you like acceptance of a voluntary restriction? EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think she will accept a voluntary recusal, which is limited in scope, if it means avoiding the alternative of an even broader topic ban. It is the rational choice. Ignocrates (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same user? Have you looked at some of the commentary? And you think there would be some benefit to the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would object outright anything that either Dougweller or History 2007 say about a topic ban on me. In the comments section on several occasions, History2007 made erroneous statements and assumptions about Roza Bal. The implications for people in Kashmir and for Ahmaddis were/are dangerous and destructive. Among the comments Histroy200t made was his "assumption" that the Roza Bal story was a fiction in the minds of local shopkeepers, perpetuated to improve tourism, and the relics must be 12th-13th century fakes, with new fake relics to be expected soon. He ridiculed Professor Hassnain's mention of a crucifix type image craved in stone. I had to correct him about the historical use of crucifixes and prayer beads. Comments like this are a slap in the face not only to researchers but to millions of Ahmaddis who have bet their very souls on the accuracy of their research into Roza Bal tomb. We cannot have any Wiki editors going around inserting such kind of information into Wiki articles. It is misleading and outright dangerous. This past week in Kashmir have been hell. Riots, curfews, soldiers with guns outnumber civilians. Kashmiris access Wiki pages too, and such comments and deliberate obfuscation lead to trouble in their real world. I do stand up against this sort of thing at Wiki. I do stand up to editors like Dougweller and History2007. I dont need to be banned on this topic nor any other. (Others have never been the issue here anyway). Since other editors have taken notice and begun contributing to the Wiki 'RozaBal' page, most everything I was objecting to HAS now been changed by them. I feel vindicated and no need to continue editing here. I am grateful attention has been raised by others too. To extend a ban on me to such a wide range of topics in areas that I have clearly never even contributed to is neither fair nor right. Of course I will not agree to those. They have never even been an issue with me here. Some Wiki editors take on Wiki as though it was their "job" and they post themselves at the entry gates of certain pages they have affinity for, as Doug Weller did with the Roza Bal page since years ago, and "History2007" does same elsewhere. Such devotion and so many hours a day at Wiki is commendable. However, it does not make them smart, nor does it make them right. They err just like anyone else. History2007 scared me when he went on his rant about fake relics and crosses and fringe theories. That's not the kind of Wiki editing needed here. Further, it's outright dangerous for some who have to live with these relics and these ideas. It shows a true lack o sensitivity. To this day people are still fighting and dying over these issues. Discretion is best, but these editors have not exhibited any understanding outside their world as "Mall cops". I believe the edits at RozaBal have been deliberately slanted against certain people and their beliefs. I have pointed this out. Other Wiki editors have pointed this out. That's all this has been about. You cannot rehabilitate me nor other editors under such circumstances. The problem is not one of rehabilitation. This ruckus has attracted new people to edit the Roza Bal page, and they edited along the guidelines I recommended since years ago. Just think about it. What is the REAL issue? Editing? No, obviously not. Have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctant support What could have been solved with a light slap on a wrist clearly needs to be more formal - and that's based on screeds like directly above. SO simply cannot accept critique when it surrounds their pet topic(s). SO's attempts to denounce and attack her critics paints a very interesting picture. Clearly, the only way forward is a topic ban for now. It is my hope that it does not take more in the near future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried to insert this above but encountered difficulty. This is the Kashmir I know and lived in. This is Kashmir this past week. This is what I mean when I say people have to live with these topics every day as though they were life and death. Even a minor slant or predjudice in an article can be harmful. Kashmir Today

 Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses.

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

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

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

• Backstory is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeFacto. Garamond Lethet
  c 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Checkuser needed Interesting. Same address range being used in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound. We need a checkuser to make sure that we can implement rangeblocks without causing too much collateral damage.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately there is likely to be significant collateral damage. I made 10 random searches on the range in question, avoiding those that I know are associated with the editor in question. Every one of the hits showed editor activity. The one thing that I can think of is to declare that any edits to a range of IP addresses on articles of a specified category or categories are likely to be the work of a sockpuppet and may be deleted on sight. (In this case the categories would be "Category:SI units", "Category:Systems of units" and "Category:Motorways in England". Whoever undoes such work would paste a standard message on the user page. I know that this would be a new policy, but with increasing use of WiFi and I-phones, this is likely to become an increasing problem. Alternatively, this could be reported on the 3RR page and an administrator could give the agrieved editor permission to undo edits from the IP address range in a specified category as though they were sockpuppets. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If the IP range is relatively narrow (i.e. blocks of /16) and is hitting articles where there is likely to be some consistent categories, this could possibly be dealt with via an Edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@Martinvl: what exactly is the disruption that you allege here, because a cursory glance at recent edits made by some of the IPs you listed above doesn't reveal anything untoward, and using an ISP that randomly assigns IP addresses to customers from a whole range, even during one virtual session, cannot be described as such.

Also, can you show evidence that 212.183 accounts have been used to disrupt articles from each of the categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England" that you listed, because again, I see none.

I am interested because I too often edit from a 212.183 account, and I am surprised that your complaint has been accepted without any supporting evidence. 212.183.128.241 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe 'Hackneyhound block evasion' is the issue at hand. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or should that be Factocop? Joking aside, the Hackneyhound account is notorious for using Vodafone IPs as socks. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The choice of material suggests that this is User:DeFacto, who has a history of disruption, pushing his own anti-metric point of view regardless of consensus. Martinvl (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The other 212.183 editor asked for evidence of disruption at categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England". I take it that you do not have any, or you would have presented it. You are wasting everyone's time with your smokescreen accusations, and your agenda is very transparent. Now put up or shut up. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Block evasion is disruption. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• DeFacto and Factocop... those names are very, very coincidental... and I don't believe in coincidences. They're using the same IPs, it seems, and have very, very similar names... Lukeno94 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to game the anti-edit-warring rules

Editor User:Martinvl, an editor with a history of edit warring (see his talkpage!) and with 2 edit warring blocks under his belt, and who has been accused of gaming the system before to push metrication into articles, particularly articles related to the Falkland Islands, now seems to have decided for himself that the opinions of IP editors are worthless. See his edit summary on this edit where he says "Undid revision ... Reinstated text as per consensus of registered editors." That is totally unacceptable.

This seems to be part of an organised campaign to push pro-metrication POV into this and other articles too (see International System of Units where is is under a 3RR warning), despite there not being reliable sources which support it. In Metric system he is trying to apply fake dates to CIA data and then use a USENET Newsgroup post to support his POV that the CIA is wrong. Can someone please remind him that consensus includes IP users and that WP:OR and WP:VER apply in all cases, even if he and another registered user disagree. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• As you are on a variable IP, that comment makes sense - it's impossible to tell whether a whole load of Vodafone IPs are one person without technical data or similar things. If you're a legitimate user with nothing to hide, why not start an account to get rid of the variable IP issue? For what it's worth, I agree with 2007 being correct, having looked at the information - it's the original date. It most definitely does not fall under WP:OR. Also, questions such as "How long have you been editing Wikipedia Martinvl?" are totally irrelevant to a discussion, and if you checked out his contributions, you could answer that yourself. Martinvl is not the only editor to disagree with you, and I see no editors directly supporting you. As far as I can see, it's you that started the edit war, not him. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, in this case. But there are certainly issues in the way Martinvl deals with these situations and with the topic as a whole. I can think of several cases in my experience where his arguments and conduct have fallen very clearly the wrong side of WP:GAME, with the effect of inappropriately pushing articles to a more pro-metric position. An example would be a few months back when he insisted that geography is a science and therefore that we're not allowed to use miles (including in brackets) in any geographical context on any part of Wikipedia. Such an interpretation is only plausible based on a very selective reading of WP:UNITS, such as to override the clear intentions of that guideline. Kahastok talk 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some responses:

@Kahastok: This is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote and I demand a retraction. My text was I am surprised at User:Wee Curry Monster changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections. Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science (see definition in Wikipedia article)the should, in theory, be using SI only. I am not goung to push that, all that I ask is that we use the units of measure as per the sources. Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@General: This edit is indicative that the editor in question has something to hide. Why else would he blank out the advice to editors who find th4emselves being harrassed from this address?

Martinvl (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That edit was probably nothing more than a legitimate clearing of messages meant for previous users of that IP. Dynamic IPs are allocated randomly, so messages go out of date very quickly. Clearing them is good practice in my book. I fear mischievous motives or poor judgement led to those accusatory comments. 212.183.140.59 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if I accept everything you say, what you quote is a clear attempt to game the system. The statement:

Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science... the should, in theory, be using SI only

is false. And given quite how much time you've spent dealing with this topic, including in discussion at WT:MOSNUM it is inconceivable that you did not and do not know that it is false. It is a clear attempt to, in the words of WP:GAME, force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. And it is entirely typical of your editing style in the area of units of measure.

Note, incidentally, that when Martin refers to "changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections", this refers to a revert of Martin's original edit to metricate the article (which moved the article from a WP:UNITS-preferred style to a less favoured style). My view is that Martin should have long-since been topic banned from all units of measure related to the UK - or at least the Falklands - because his total inability to deal with the subject neutrally has caused enormous damage to our coverage of the topic. In the Falklands sphere, I think it's fair to suggest that the damage done has been worse than everything that we have seen from Anglo-Argentine disputes put together. Kahastok talk 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• This content battle belongs on WP:LAME. Just have both SI and imperial units there, that's a good compromise and should keep everyone happy. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, we have a consensus compromise that all editors (including Martin) signed up to. If Martin would leave it be there would be no problem.

But my point isn't so much to bring up that dispute - I could have pointed out numerous other instances - it's to flag up the fact that this is an editor who routinely violates WP:GAME and it's unsurprising that he might have done so in this case. Kahastok talk 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I quite often cannot edit because a range of IPs from my mobile ISP provider have been blocked. Reconnecting a few times usually gives me a fresh IP. Thus, it's weird that range blocks are used. They don't prevent vandals; they do prevent good faith editors. 31.126.220.151 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Addbot

Resolved

 – Being discussed on operator's talk page. Rockfang (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I agree, that if the bot hasn't made any more edits like the ones I mentioned on his talkpage, and will not do so till those issues are properly addresses, then a block is not necessary.

The collegiality of my message is definitely higher than the comments I have received upon occasion on this very noticeboard, so let's not go there. In any case, I just meant to make clear that I consider the issues serious ones, and expect them to be addressed before returning to the order of the day. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know if the space addition is in favour or in contrary to AWB bots? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge AWB doesn't do this in automated edits. I am an AWB user, but not the most experienced one. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the edits and questions you have raised on my talk page. I think bringing this to ANI may have been slightly excessive as the bot had indeed stopped editing after one issue was reported earlier today. I welcome everyone else to discuss all of the points raised on my talk page on my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose to close this thread at this time, since the editor indeed addresses the issue on his talkpage. Which is not to say I agree with him, but there is fair discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP at Ajativada

User:Aoclery has been blocked indef at 14 february 2013 for abuse of editing privileges ANI-report. Since then, three IP's have been used for personal attacks and vandalism:

• User:174.1.118.185 Personal attacks at NL Wikipedia: diff one day block
• User:32.60.67.185 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff
• User:64.66.16.87 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff

Action against these IP's, and protection of Ajativada would be welcome. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Ajativada continues... diff Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support a (semi-) protect, and I've filed an RPP. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have semi protected it for a week. I think the IP edits there constitute a content dispute rather than pure vandalism, but it's clear who they are from and the article will benefit from some time without further disruption. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967

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

---

I'm not at all happy about doing this, but I feel it's necessary to report more continuing uncivil behavior by Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who just came off a 48-hour block earlier today. Please see this thread on admin Madman's talk page and take note not only of Canoe's inappropriate thread title, but also his ongoing rude and threatening comments towards Madman, who was nothing but nice to him. I feel that Canoe's refusal, or inability, to understand why his behavior is so disruptive will only guarantee that it will continue to happen. Every time he is out of line with another editor, he claims to believe that his actions are justified because he's "right" about the particular content issue. He just doesn't seem to get it at all that the problems he's been having with other editors have absolutely nothing to do with content issues, and everything to do with his poor behavior. What makes this so sad is that I considered Canoe a wikifriend and I went out of my way yesterday to help him during his block. Please read this thread from his talk page and I think it'll give you a great idea of why I'm so concerned that he's just totally missing the point of why he's had so many problems with other editors. But though his anger, I saw the good that he's done for Wikipedia and, without him knowing it, I wrote to the admin that blocked him and had this discussion with him. In my last comment to Canoe on his talk page yesterday, I suggested that he consider taking a wikibreak or possibly even retiring because I'm so concerned that his bad temper would not be good for his health or well being, or for this project. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have stuck up for Canoe as he does do good work for the project and is helpful on BLPN, but frankly, if he wants the bot fixed he should roll up his sleeves and help fix it. Madman has gone beyond the call of duty, since he's volunteering to do this. I think most people, on receipt of an apology regarding a false positive, will take it in the intended spirit. Alternatively, we could shut off ClueBotNG until its false positive rate is thoroughly tested to be 0, while vandalism skyrockets. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. While I'm sure the bot issue is important (I know nothing about bots haha), I'm more concerned with the way Canoe treats others. Especially when it's completely unprovoked, as in this case. On the help desk thread that triggered this situation, Canoe said, "The bot operator is very lucky I just got off a block for civility BS or my comment on her talk page would be far harsher."[129] This really needs to stop. Thanks for your input. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous ANI discussion from 3 days ago which resulted in a 48 hour block can be found here. GiantSnowman 10:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The commentary by Canoe1967 at User talk:Madman#Your bot sucks the big one! is outrageouos. Also, at WP:Help desk#why has mad bot deleted my article, the commentary is extremely unhelpful ("The bot operator is very lucky I just got off a block for civility BS or my comment on her talk page would be far harsher" diff). Madman's replies are a model that all editors should strive to follow. It is beyond me how someone can handle difficult programming problems while dealing with such obviously misguided ranting (Canoe1967 failed to even provide a clue concerning the problem—that had to be added by another user). I don't know what it would take to prevent similar rants in the future, but assuming the recent discussions regarding the user revealed a substantial problem, my recommendation is an indefinite block. We either support people (like Madman) who are doing valuable work, or we promote disruption in the hope that collaborative behavior might magically awaken in Canoe1967. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• To come from a 48 hour civility block (very lenient in my opinion) and go straight into that shows that Canoe1967 clearly does not have the correct attitude to edit here constructively. There ia a long-established pattern of incivility here, and it does not make for a collaborative project. The irony of their "What part of being civil don't you understand?" comment made me chuckle. I'm edging towards supporting an indef, but if others can provide evidence to the contrary then I am willing to change my mind. GiantSnowman 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As is often parroted, blocks are preventative and since the previous block prevented nothing, there's no reason not to escalate the block duration. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• At first glance, I'm not impressed by the Canoe's actions. However, I would like to see their response either here OR on their talkpage (where I'm certain someone must have tried to resolve this issue before bringing it to ANI) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• I can't believe this crap. An editor loses a grandfather, wikipedia deletes the article on him, and then a bot comes along and accuses him of breaking copyright laws. Another editor then gives them a big lecture about COI on a deleted article?. At least re-word the bot message so it makes sense to new editors that may not understand a message the size of a small book on their talk page. "This is an automated message from software named "MadBot" that detects copyright errors. It has noticed that Article Y is very close to Website X. This bot has been known to use legal threats of plagiarism and copyright violation after making mistakes with an article on an editor's recently deceased relative. If this is the case then ignore or remove this message and either vent your frustrations at help desk or leave wikipedia forever."--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• As much sympathy as I have for your loss, it is not Wikipedia's fault, nor any of us editors' fault. Your grandfather, however great he may have been, was not notable enough for Wikipedia, and all we've seen are Wikipedia editors following rules correctly. You cannot blame a bot for doing what it was programmed - correctly - to do. Also, writing a personal attack against a bot is not going to help your cause. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• While I'm glad to see that Canoe has replied, it's sad to see that has reacted in the same way he did to the block he just came off of yesterday - completely refusing to acknowledge any of his bad behavior and instead blaming everyone else. It's the exact same pattern; he justifies his hostile, unprovoked treatment of other editors' by what he alleges are their content or other non-behavior-related mistakes. And just to be clear, we have no information whatsoever that says anyone's grandfather died. The help desk thread that preceded Canoe's angry comments was started by another editor, Thorp12, who said that he created an article for his great grandfather. Although irrelevant to this matter, Thorp never said a word about the man dying or, more to the point, recently dying as Canoe is falsely trying to imply. For all we know, the man could've died decades ago or perhaps is still alive. (I never saw the article, so I don't know.) This false "editor loses a grandfather" reference is simply a distraction from the real issue: Canoe's behavior. This has nothing to do with an editor's anger over his article being deleted, the editor being educated on COI guidelines (which was applicable and proper), or any alleged deficiencies with a bot. Through his entire block the past few days, and during this situation, we have yet to see Canoe even come close to acknowledging or even understanding what he's done wrong. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed. As I said to Canoe on his talk page during his block, "You'll never, ever be able to control the behavior of others. You can only control what you do." In his response, he said, "I beg to differ" and "Wikipedia is a battleground for far too many editors. If the just ones show weakness or walk away then ignorance and arrogance will win out." I said to him, "Civility ≠ weakness, my friend." --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The "grandfather" died in 1911 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! I assumed it was many years ago. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Considering he's just come off a two day block, I'd support a week long block for disruptive behavior/incivility. In my experience with him in the past, I've seen some behavior that irked me, but nothing I considered disruptive before. I've also seen good contributions from him, so I don't think escalating to an indef block, as supported by GiantSnowman and Johnuniq above, would be beneficial for the project. Continue with a normal level of escalation to see if we can modify his behavior rather than forcing him out. Ryan Vesey 18:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• BWilkins, I meant to address your comment initially. Sorry about that; I'll do it now. You inquired about whether there was an attempt to resolve this issue with Canoe before coming here. If you look at the discussion on Madman's talk page, you'll see that after Canoe posted the "Your bot sucks the big one!" heading and then his first comment, Madman said in his reply, "please feel free to keep your feedback more civil in the future". Canoe, even though he was always spoken to in a completely respectful manner, then had to be repeatedly addressed in the thread about his incivility, and was advised to apologize. He didn't stop and he didn't apologize. He even followed-up with this threatening and ironically rude comment to Madman: "Are you going to shut it down until you fix it?...Either shut it down until proven as fixed or I bring it up at ANI and the bureaucrat talk page that approved it. What part of being civil don't you understand?" And it's important to remember that all this happened only hours after Canoe returned from a two-day block for the same type of behavior. The frustrating part about this for me is that I know how passionate Canoe is about editing. But I also see how his bad temper negatively outweighs that passion. He irrationally believes that his mistreatment of others is not only justified, but necessary, in order to maintain the project's integrity, which is why he is unable to see his behavior as inappropriate or harmful. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• I do apologize if my actions seem uncivil. I think you are all failng to see my point. Our treatment of new editors and BLP requests is simply atrocious and they should be treated with far more civility than they have been. Recently with Jan Mak and Henry E. Emerson. Mr. Mak requested a correction to an unsourced birthdate in his article. I corrected it assuming that he as a source was better than no source. A friend of Gen. Emerson's was very upset that we falsely claimed that he had died while he is still very much alive. That editor was very upset at his treatment and the project will probably not recieve anymore input from him although he is very qualified to vastly improve articles. I was also accused of writing my own biography with Ed Miracle. This did not bother me in the least and left a message on the accuser's talk page to that effect. That new editor was treated badly in my opinion as well. These are just recent issues and I won't list the numerous others I have come accross in my short time here but I will if requested and put the list in my userspace with a link. I did not claim this one was a recent death but the bot could easily upset a grieving family that copy/pastes material that is copyrighted. I still feel the bot message could be better written and show a little more respect. I am also curious if it is normal procedure to have other editors comment in this section that are not involved with this issue. IMHO that is just vindictave wikistalking because they have lost discussions with me and others after being very rude, ignorant, and arrogant to push their POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all in favor of correcting birth dates. The IP should have been pointed to OTRS and if they can verify who they are the birth date should be changed (I think by policy currently the incorrect information would be removed, but correct information would not be added which is unintelligent). I could, as an IP, state that I'm the son of Johnny Olson and I want his birth date changed. I know nothing about Johnny Olson's birth date, and changing it on my word (I'm not his son) would cause damage to the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey

I agree that Mr. Mak's article was handled badly by myself and others. I decided to wal away from that dispute because it seems to be de-grading into a battle of whose source is best. In the meantime it was suggested that the date be left out until consensus is reached which doesn't seem to be the case. Mr. Mak probably doesn't mind that we are working on sourcing dates and at least the year he claims is in the article now as well as another. I assumed good faith that it is he because the IP only made the one edit to point out the error. I can't see a vandal or prankster having any reason to request such a trivial change. I had a similar issue with John Weaver (artist). A friend that was helping with the article through email notified me that he had passed. I phoned his local paper to see if they had an obit, they weren't aware that he had passed and were thankful that I had informed them. It still took more than a month before they had a source online to use in the article. That issue was handled correctly IMO without upsetting relatives, friends, and editors, etc. Some people do lose out on their requests as was the case when Mitch Gaylord wanted his article edited at the help desk. He was rather upset as well but I think he agrees that the version we have now is acceptable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yet again, Canoe is completely deflecting this issue about his own poor behavior on to other editors and issues. What happened with the Mak, Emerson, and other articles is completely irrelevant to why we are here. It's all a diversion. Canoe still apparently does not get it; that this is a behavior issue and not a content one. However, this admission from Canoe, as Ryan alluded to, is worrisome: "Mr. Mak requested a correction to an unsourced birthdate in his article. I corrected it assuming that he as a source was better than no source." Let's be clear, there was absolutely no evidence that the IP editor was in fact Mak; he simply claimed to be Mak. So Canoe needs to stop repeatedly referring to the anonymous editor as "Mr. Mak". And to the guy claiming to be Mitch Gaylord as Mitch Gaylord. Second, an editor should never change vital content like someone's date of birth in a BLP based solely on someone's word. We make edits based on reliable sources. And, no, an anonymous IP editor is not better than no source. They're equally inadequate. Making Canoe's edit even more perplexing is the fact that he did it shortly after the Emerson issue, in which terribly-sourced birth and death info was added, prompting Canoe to ream out several editors who were involved in the improper editing. In any case, yes, there were editing mistakes made in some articles, but Canoe is doing precisely what I stated previously in this discussion: justifying his mistreatment of others because he feels it is necessary to maintain's this project's integrity. I'm sorry, but his thinking on this is just plain wrong. We can, and must, solve content (and bot) problems without being hostile and threatening to other editors, especially when there's no provocation for it. For the record, both the Mak and Emerson article issues were subsequently resolved through proper discussion, and the editor who objected to the Emerson content actually returned to participate in the article and provide sourced information. Canoe said, "I do apologize if my actions seem uncivil". The reality is that they don't seem uncivil; they are uncivil. I find it surprisingly ironic that Canoe talks about how other editors "should be treated with far more civility than they have been", yet he has consistently done just the opposite. This ongoing "blame everyone else" strategy is a very good indication that this problem is not going to stop. I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this matter is, which is why I haven't made any specific recommendations. I'd rather leave that to editors who are far more experienced than me and can therefore best decide what's most appropriate. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that the bot message could be better written; it has a number of shortcomings that I think are systemic to templated messages on Wikipedia. When Coren was maintaining the code, a couple staffers at the WMF worked with him to A/B test different kinds of warnings (personalizing as much as possible, emphasizing actions, making sure to include a thank you, etc.). Unfortunately CorenSearchBot went offline halfway through the testing, making results inconclusive.

But MadmanBot's still using the same code, testing the different "tones" and adapting the warnings for inexperienced and more experienced contributors. This conversation has reminded me to talk to Maryana and Steven about pursuing further testing if possible and doing the data analysis that will hopefully result in improvements in communication and retention of contributors.

No hard feelings about anything on my talk page last night. These are the sorts of conversations that, regardless of how you got involved as a third party and whatever the tack you may have initially taken, can change the project when pursued constructively. I hope if we do pursue further testing that we will have the benefit of your feedback. Thanks, — madman 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Madman, I was thoroughly impressed by your calm, friendly professionalism in light of how you were being treated last night. The discussion on your talk page was merely the conduit through which the behavior problem (our reason for being here) occurred. Thanks for your hard work on that bot. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you as well Madman. I would also like to apologize for my un-civil actions. I will be more civil from now on. This has reminded me of a talk we had from our General once. I won't repeat it here, but I did quote him to another editor on my talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really happy to see Canoe's apology and his commitment to being more civil. He also expressed it in a more entertaining way in this discussion on his talk page. Obviously, Wikipedia will always have users who are disruptive in their behavior and editing - intentionally or not - but I think it's important that we never "cross the line" when dealing with them. Even if they clearly deserve it :P I know it's possible because I see so many editors who've been here for many years, without any blocks and relatively few or no warnings. There's almost always a productive way to resolve a content dispute, but if it's not possible then I think it's better to just walk away, at least for awhile. Most importantly, no one can win all their battles. Sometimes, as hard as it may be, you just have to wave the white flag. As I've already stated, I believe that Canoe loves editing, has done a lot of good for Wikipedia, and can be a really fun guy with whom to collaborate. I truly hope he won't allow his short temper to ultimately prevent him from continuing to do these things, to the detriment of his health, happiness, and this project. As I said, I'll leave the resolution of this matter to the veteran editors. I'm fully confident that whatever is decided will be the best course of action. By the way, I have one suggestion: that Canoe stop or significantly reduce his involvement on the help desk. That is where a lot of of the problems have orignated, including most or perhaps all of the ones mentioned above. Have a great week, everyone. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

All anon IP's should be treated with suspicion. State your motives upfront, buster. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Alanon IP's should be treated to dessert. State your motives upfront, Buster. Yworo (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be anything else here, I'm boldly closing this. However, if anyone feels that there is more to be gained from a discussion please feel free to revert. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Echigo mole trolling about Dougweller acting as a "meatpuppet" being enabled by a disruptive IP hopper

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

---

• 111.161.30.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• IP range: 101.0.71.0/24 [130]

Echigo mole has used what appears to be an open proxy IP from China to troll on a user talk page.[131] The first IP 111 was reported at SPI by ArtifexMayhem, who at first had guessed it might be Mikemikev and then by me at WikiProject Open Proxies. I left a commentary at ArtifexMayhem's SPI report, tagging User:111.161.30.218 as recommended by CU Deskana. Please could the ipsock be blocked, regardless of the delay in completing the proxy check?

Johnuniq left a message that the edit by 111 should be removed as an obvious posting by a banned editor, the type of edit precisely covered by a motion of arbcom relating to WP:ARBR&I. [132] In the meantime the IP hopper in the range above responded to Echigo mole's post, despite the advice offered by Johnuniq. They are the only person making use of that narrow range 101.0.71.0/24 at the moment.[133] The IP hopper repeated Echigo mole's trolling suggestion that Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was engaged in meatpuppetry.[134] Some time later, I redacted 111's comment and in addition further clarified the arbcom motion concerning such posts, in particular requesting that the post should not be restored or the disruptive trolling acted upon. The tag I placed on User:111.161.30.218 was then removed by the IP hopper 101.[135] He then restored the redacted edit of Echigo mole[136] ignoring the advice he had been offered by Johnuniq and me. Finally he posted a comment on User talk:Dougweller, directly addressing the trolling questions of Echigo mole to Dougweller.[137]

The IP hopper has been asked by multiple users to register an account, but so far has not done so. In this case their IP hopping is a way of evading scrutiny, in particular with regard to the arbcom motion. The user of the range is gaming the system to avoid being sanctioned for their obvious disruption. Accusing Dougweller in this manner is just an unsubstantiated personal attack. Perhaps the narrow range could be blocked until the unique person behind it makes a commitment to edit in a less disruptive way. Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've informed Johnuniq and Dougweller of this report. I have no easy way of informing the IP hopper. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all a bit odd. At User talk:BlackHades the IP says "One cannot help but wonder, given Dougweller's ideas are not founded in an arbitration ruling, where did they originate? Perhaps the answer lies with his little Freudian slip in the edit summary here." Besides the fact that my comments, right or wrong, on proxy editing were an afterthought after my post on sock puppets, I am definitely not a sock or the puppetmaster of User:Guettarda who actually made the edit. I'd better go tell him about this now. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The suspicion (well, my suspicion, I don't know about the other IP's) is that your and/or Guettarda's involvement in the article talk page was canvassed privately by Mathsci, and this was the reason for your repeating of Mathsci's interpretation of the arbitration ruling, and perhaps also for Guettarda's accidental mention of Mathsci in his edit summary. I must say, Mathsci's immediately showing up and posting this thread to defend you seems supportive of the same idea. It would be a very strange coincidence if this weren't the case. If it's the case it would not necessarily be meatpuppetry, but it would be stealth canvassing. I don't claim that's the only possible explanation, but it would be helpful if you were to answer my question from BlackHades' user talk. If your familiarity with this article's history is only from watching it as you said, I would like to know how that resulted in your posting one editor's interpretation of an arbitration ruling which did not receive much support from arbitrators, rather than the actual ruling. 101.0.71.20 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose in addition to the question above, I should ask you directly: was your participation in the article or talk page privately solicited by Mathsci? You haven't given me any reason to believe you're dishonest, so I should give you the opportunity to tell the truth before trying to argue with you. 101.0.71.12 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• FPaS has blocked the Echigo mole ipsock after he edited for a second time. The IP hopper's "suspicions", repetitons of the trolling suggestions of this community banned user, are wholly false. At this stage the IP hopper should stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks on registered editors in good standing, like Dougweller or me; he should stop enabling the distorted rantings of a community banned troll; and he should register an account instead of IP hopping to evade scrutiny. Should the IP hopper continue to make unsubstantiated personal attacks to further Echigo mole's trolling, he could be reported at WP:AE for violating the arbcom motion and it might be appropriate for the narrow range from which he edits, 101.0.71.0/24, to be blocked. An article under strict arbcom sanctions, constantly plagued by sockpuppetry and proxy-editing, is watched by multiple editors, including administrators like KillerChihuahua and Dougweller and checkusers like Elockid, who blocked RockKnocker as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev before any report had been made. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, you are not an editor in good standing. I've now looked at enough of the arbitration archives to see that you have been sanctioned under the race intelligence case, including a restriction you currently are under with respect to posting AE reports, which I assume is why you instead raise the matter here. When NE Ent closed this thread, I hoped that meant the matter was resolved, and your reverting an admin's closure of your own AN/I thread was disruptive. I am confident that I've done nothing wrong here, so you're welcome to continue pursuing the matter if you choose. But I do not recommend that, as it will bring you nothing but embarrassment. 101.0.71.12 (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

NE ent is not an administrator. Dougweller is. He was also an arbcom clerk from 2009 until 2012. You are currently harassing him on his talk page. You have repeated the malicious comments placed on wikipedia by a community banned user, casting aspersions on a series of editors in good standing, including me. You continue to malign various editors here. You have been told about the arbcom motion that prohibits restoring comments by Echigo mole, but nevertheless have chosen to do so, even freely quoting the redacted text. This is not the first time your editing has been problematic. A year ago, IP hopping in the range 110.32.0.0/16, you edit warred on Race and intelligence blanking a paragraph of the lede three times.[138][139][140] Please register an account if you wish to be taken seriously. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You should stop calling yourself an "editor in good standing", as an editor in good sanction is defined as one not under any sanctions. The sanction you currently are under is logged here: "Mathsci is instructed to refrain from posting further enforcement requests regarding the interaction bans listed here on-wiki without prior private consultation and agreement from an uninvolved adminstrator familiar with the case. In the case of complaints arising from edits on Arbcom pages, he is instructed to seek enforcement only from Arbcom itself or the Arbcom clerks." What do you intend to mean by calling yourself a user in good standing? By calling yourself that you are either lying, or using a definition of that term that no else uses. 101.0.71.7 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your editing is problematic because you have been making false claims about various users (Dougweller, KillerChihuahua, Guettarda and me, perhaps others) and violated the arbcom motion by restoring a diff of a banned editor. You should reread the arbcom motion again, because what you have done is precisely what that motion tells editors not to do. If you don't retract the claims, then you—or your narrow IP range—will probably be reported at WP:AE. Your editing seems to be a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. Harassing Dougweller on his own talk page: what on earth were you thinking of? Incidentally calling me a "liar" as you have done is likely to get you blocked fairly rapidly: you should probably redact that statement. And yes, I am in good standing. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will not redact anything, as I have done nothing wrong. When I restored the other IP's post, the IP had not been blocked or identified as Echigo mole by anyone except you. Whatever the motion says, it cannot possibly demand editors to correctly predict which IPs are and are not banned editors before they are blocked, or give the authority of making that determination to an editor sanctioned in the case instead of to admins. If you think you must report me at AE then go ahead, but as you are already under a sanction for making frivolous AE reports, doing so would probably be a bad idea. 101.0.71.9 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You said that I was "lying". Please see WP:NPA and redact that comment. There were warnings from two users, first Johnuniq and then me, that the posting was by a banned editor. I posted an explicit message about the motion and how it applied to the posting of Echigo mole. It was an obvious sock (as stated by FPaS in the block summary) and my identification was correct. You acted disruptively by ignoring both warnings, using a time-window disruptively to restore the message and act upon it as if it had been made by a good faith editor. A responsible editor would have heeded the warnings. You edited entirely against the spirit of the motion, continuing the banned user's trolling on User talk:BlackHades, User talk:Dougweller and here. Your distorted misreading of the advice of Future Perfect at Sunrise is just more of the same disruption. Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's very hard to see how these templated warnings from the administrators Dougweller[141] and EdJohnston[142] could be the result of meatpuppetry. And why would a frequent editor of the article like Guettarda be a meatpuppet? The IP hopper (and his friend Echigo mole) would doubtless disagree. On the other hand, since the IP hopper appears to know what a watchlist is, at some stage he must have had a registered account. Could he then please use it? Mathsci (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

58.173.108.6

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

---

This IP address is being used by a user who some of us believe to be a long-known editor called Ali Muratovic per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Muratovic/Archive. He's apparently some sort of a Bosnian nationalist who also has a distinct hate for red links (!) and tends to be generally deletionionist. We've had him blocked him several times in the past, and every time he just comes back and continues unabated. No discussion, no nothing. He makes some amount of useful copyedits, and generally the edits are small and in largely obscure Balkan topics, so it's easy for them to stay under the typical watcher's radar. But the content of the edits is largely useless and should often be reverted as WP:ARBMAC violations, particularly on BLPs. Overall, it makes for a lot of work for everyone else, and there's no particularly obvious reason to expect them to reform. As I asked at SPI in September last year, should we employ harsher measures? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the SPI archive and the contributions of 58.173.108.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it does seem likely that the IP is a sock of Ali Muratovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), That, and the pattern of partially dubious edits (including random removals of potentially useful red links) with no edit summary and no attempt of engaging in any discussion, makes me think that a longterm block or ban might be appropriate, at least until the user begins talking to us. I've at any rate issued an ARBMAC warning.  Sandstein  13:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Obvious block evasion needs to be dealt with. RashersTierney (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppet category for Ali Muratovic already includes several IPs from 58.173.*, and the behavior is similar. This IP is just returning after a three-month block that ended February 16, and has already made more than 100 edits, none of them to talk pages. There is no sign of any reform. I'd support a further block of one year. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, regarding that SPI - my rationale there is the same as I explained in the case of "Velebit". In that case, splitting contribution history over a bunch of IP addresses over a long period was ultimately shown to be intentionally malicious. In this case I'm not sure if it's being done on purpose, but the end result is still a clear pattern of utter disregard for the normal editorial process. Heck, in this case I'm not even sure the editor has mastered the basic techniques of sockpuppetry. Their confirmed sockpuppets were really low hanging fruit for anyone who speaks the slightest bit of Bosnian - the names follow a trivial pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a year pursuant to this discussion.  Sandstein  09:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

2013 meat adulteration scandal

Could somebody please have a look here? It is starting to look very close to edit warring. And the Talk Page has become quite muddled. Maybe some kind of temporary article protection is called for ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Talk Page is now beginning to resemble a war of slogans. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for now protecting. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactored from close statement The page has now been semi-protected for a couple of weeks by Ruslik0. -- Dianna (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The typical useless measure ANI produces. The actual problems were caused by a registered editor. The edit war between that guy and Martinevans123 continues in fact [143] [144]. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

True that. Recommend an admin full protect wrong version. NE Ent 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So, my one revert at that page is now "the edit war", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your oblique points above seem to describe his editing e.g., this gem: "In Britain, if you put meat in a pan, maybe with a little oil or fat, it gives off lots of water when heated, and cannot be fried." That people like that are allowed to make tons of edits on Wikipedia only speaks to the value of registered editors... 5.12.84.153 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

At last, we have found a use for ANI. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Compromised user account used for vandalism?

I've just encountered this subtle piece of vandalism (since reverted) by a user called If5tatement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, that user name shouldn't be active; it's the former name of Glorioski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Glorioski has also been inactive since last August. Could this be a compromised account? I'm not sure how to proceed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that Glorioski has been inactive since August, I would venture to guess that the user probably forgot his login info for that account and logged into his old account instead. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be blocked, but I'm not convinced the account's compromised. Rutebega (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the funniest vandalism that I've ever seen. But obviously it was wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong. I'd warn the user and ignore it unless he repeats the offense. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Internet is serious business!  ;-) TCO (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

Hello,

I recently added two sections to the article Nabih Berri. User:Samar Layoun, who may also be User:MariaFrangieh, just deleted that information using two accounts. From what I understand, the same user is not allowed to use two accounts on one article, as if to make it look as two different people, and they're certainly not allowed to delete referenced information.

Thanks, Argo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argo333 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's called a sock-puppet. There's a separate place to file those concerns and have them investigated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPI Strangesad (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Resurrected (Unfortunately)

I am again being accused of vandalism for no good reason, and having edits reverted. I am curious about something. Is it likely impossible to have an objective, secular version of the Jesus article, because the article is closely watched by Christian editors whose passion (zealotry?) and number are high? At the moment, text has been added with 7 sources, and the editor who added seems to be admitting that he hasn't actually read the sources (not clear on that). The text consists of classifying certain arguments as argument from silence, although none of the sources seem to actually do that. Rather the editor in question (History2007) has researched the arguments (presumably, although it also seems he hasn't read the sources) and decided they are that type of argument. Isn't that OR?

Anyway, I am getting tired of this. History2007 also added a modern translation of a text from the year 1103, and tried to pass it off as a modern source [145]. I deleted that and he had a cow [146]. He doesn't seem to realize that Yifa is a translator, not an author, and the text in question is not about historical method and is almost 1000 years old. He is constantly adding sources he hasn't read.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction Humanpublic (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the editor from my previous complaint (with the impossible-to-remember name), Seb-something, stalked me to another Jesus related article and reverted me there as well. Humanpublic (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Talk does appear to be mildly tendentious. Either way, 'the' Church is shown itself to be perfectly capable of self-advertising over the last 2,000 years and needs no help from Editors... Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a prime case of where the accuser should be the accused. Several users have already suggested that Humanpublic should be topic banned from articles related to Jesus. A look at the talk page (and the archives) shows Humanpublic's record. In the last 24 hours, Humanpublic has repeatedly deleted sourced content he doesn't like [147], [148], [149], [150], [151] in addition to deleting comments on talk pages [152]. Given all those deletions of sourced content, and with no consensus whatsoever, I'd say that there is "good reason" to accuse Humanpublic of vandalism, as three different editors have already done in the last hour [153], [154], [155]. When a fourth and a fifth editor suggest a topic ban [156] [157], I find it quite relevant as the edit history of Humanpublic shows that this is a WP:SPA for the purpose of imposing a POV at Jesus (and the related articles Christ myth theory and Argument from silence) [158]. Last but not least, the favorite accusation Humanpublic makes, that he is a secular editor facing "zealous Christians" is quite simply wrong. I do not believe in the Jesus of the gospels myself. Two of the best known critics of the "Christian Jesus" is the atheist professor Bart Ehrman and the Jewish professor Geza Vermes. We use both of them in the article; both of them state categorically that Jesus existed, as does all other scholars in the field regardless of their religion.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting your comment was an accident: big fingers, laptop keys. I restored it. It's actually the comment I was responding to. Humanpublic (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because content carries a citation doesn't mean it's appropriate to put in an encyclopedia article. In at least one of the edits you list, Humanpublic is removing a "sourced" claim because he alleges that the source doesn't actually support the claim. In another he removes the claim because he argues that it's a non sequitur in the context of the article. In yet another he argues that the text is being used to support some synthesis. Provided his allegations are correct, these are all perfectly valid reasons for removing sourced text and are certainly not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a source is not automatically a reliable one. Basket _Feudalist 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Have either of these editors discussed these arguments on the respective article talk pages? The "source doesn't support the claim" one in particular should be very easy to test, and the onus for doing so is on whoever added the content. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And congratulations on Psychonaut for hitting the nub there: Talk:Argument from silence was last edited... 7th April 2011...!!! Basket _Feudalist 18:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP here looks like a single-purpose account with an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pscyhonaut and Basket, a source is not automatically suited. Then Humanpublic could perhaps assume good faith and discuss the issue at the talk page instead of edit warring over it? As for discussing, I already referred both to Humanpublics edit record [159] and to the talk page (including the archives, far too many diffs to make a list) where several users have pointed out for months that Humanpublic does not WP:HEAR arguments. As Basebnall Bugs states above, Humanpublic is a single-purpose account with an agenda, the agenda being to advance the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. There is not one professor in any relevant field, no matter if they are Christians, atheists or Jews, who support that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE. I agree when Humanpublic says the article Jesus should be a secular article, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs (most scholars agree Jesus did not claim to be God or think he was God; most scholars think a number of accounts in the New Testament were forged; many scholars think Jesus was a religious Jew all his life; many scholars think Christianity was the invention of Paul decades after Jesus's death). We should take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be.Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop saying I think Jesus never existed. I don't think I've ever said that, and I am agnostic on it. Humanpublic (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it time for administrators to earn their paycheck? This is an admin forum. If I'd thought being a minority critic of a dominant religion was a road to progress, I would've stay on the Talk page. I thought administrators were going to carefully research the issues and provide neutral guidance and/or intervention. Isn't that what this page is for?

• • For example. What is the point of the labor of providing the diffs and links to the dispute, if nobody researches the dispute. I did not merely assume History2007 didn't read the sources. He admitted he copied the sources and text wholesale from another article. This is the text in Christ myth theory:

Some arguments from silence go back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[87] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[88] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[89] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[89] .... In general, an argument from silence cannot be definitive, however it is not a fallacy and generally is the correct inference. [93][94][95] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[96] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[97] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[98][99]

And this is what he inserted into Jesus:

The argument from silence that that lack of sources indicates that Jesus did not exist goes back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[258] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[259] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[260] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[260] In general, an argument from silence can not be definitive and may be questionable, given the circumstances in which it is made.[261][262] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[263] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[264] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[99][249]

It is this, AND that he added 7 book-length academic sources in less than 20 minutes, AND that he refuses to answer a simple question about whether he read the sources AND that he (patronizingly) announces he has no obigation to quote what in the sources actually supports his edits that make me think he hasn't read the sources and is generally disruptive. What the Hell is my AGF violation? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor if he read a source? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor to provide the source text that supports his edits? I didn't quote all this text initially, because I assumed this forum is for careful research of disputes and diffs would suffice to inform people, not just popularity contests. Obviously I was wrong.

If you're going to tell me this is the wrong place for content disputes, maybe you could tell me the right place. As far as I can tell, minority opinions can lose popularity contests on Talk pages, or they can lose them here, and that's how "dispute resolution" works. Who actually enforces the rules with some care and research and integrity???? Humanpublic (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Admins earn every dime they make.

I hope you're not suggesting that Admins are worth every dime they make Basket _Feudalist 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• This forum is not for content disputes, you can try WP:DRN or WP:RFC.
• Wikipedia operates by consensus, so in some sense it is a popularity contest, but it's not a simple one. More like a weighted by ineffable coefficients popularity contest. NE Ent 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look at the links you gave, but if everything is a popularity contest, how is the encyclopedia going to be objective about Jesus?

History2007 is now deleting the U. Mass history department as a source, saying the history dept. isn't reliable on historical methods. And, he is replacing it with a dictionary of foreign terms, which he admits he hasn't read (I am assuming nothing here--he stated he hasn't read it). [160], [161]. Humanpublic (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Humanpublic, you're vendetta against History2007 is starting to look silly. You suggested a topic ban on History2007 for no reason other than your personal suspicion he had not read a couple of books [162]. You started this thread to accuse History2007 of being a Christian zealot for not agreeing to implement your POV [163]. After History2007 mentioned his interest in Argument from silence, you went straight there to edit war with him [164]. These are all highly disruptive edits, and unfortunately very characteristic of your behavior here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting a topic ban for Humanpublic

In line with In ictu oculi [165] and ReformedArsenal [166], I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Jesus. As pointed out by Baseball Bugs [167], Humanpublic is "a single-purpose account with an agenda".
Since September, Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed. That was perfectly valid as first, but it has long since passed into disruptive behavior. As has been pointed out to Humanpublic time and time again by countless users, there is not one professor in any relevant field supporting that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE.Of course the article should be secular, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs and we take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be. When a user just continues to challenge other users, refusing to WP:HEAR counter-arguments, never once bothering with a source but only to present his own opinions, it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. After five months of this, it certainly disrupts the article quite severly. A quick look at the talk page of Jesus is enough to see that most of the discussions are about Humanpublic, not about how to improve Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) UPDATE In response to a surprising number of comments on the matter, I want to state right away that this nomination is based on Humanpublic being a disruptive user. I'm forced to add this since some people comment on completely irrelevant aspects. I did not nominate Humanpublic for doubting Jesus's existence, nor did I nominate him for mainly editing article related to Jesus. The nomination rests exclusively on the disruptive behavior by Humanpublic and nothing else.END OF UPDATE.

• Update Since I posted the request for a topic-ban for Humanpublic, he some user with an interest in the page appears to have launched a sockpuppet [168] with several highly disruptive edits [169], [170], [171], [172].Jeppiz (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

" Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed." Hmm, I don't think I have ever denied Jesus existed. Not sure. Humanpublic (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We do not ban users just because they come to Wikipedia for a single purpose. We do ban them for being persistently uncooperative to the point of disruption, but I don't see that there have been sufficient prior attempts at dispute resolution. There was one 3RR report which seemingly didn't go anywhere, and for at least one of the issues Jeppiz is complaining about there was no attempt whatsoever to engage with the user on the article talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I certainly did not suggest topic-banning Humanpublic for being here for a single purpose; I (like two other users today) suggested topic-banning him because he goes about that purpose in a highly disruptive way. He has singlehandedly turned the talk page about Jesus into a WP:FORUM where he refuses to WP:HEAR any counter arguments and continues to push a fringe-theory despite not having presented a single source for it. For five months. That is disruptive and detrimental to the article, and that is the reason a topic-ban is suggested.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How am I misrepresenting what you wrote? You said that he should be topic banned, and started off by noting that he was "a single-purpose account with an agenda". If this claim is not relevant to your proposal, then why did you mention it? Your argument also rests on the disruption he's caused, and my !vote addressed that issue as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I guess the question is what we mean by disruption. Can a user by disruptive just on talk pages, or does it have to take edit warring over articles? Looking at the talk page of Jesus, I would say it's clear that the actions of Humanpublic disrupts work on the whole article. Anyone can at time pose irrelevant questions, but when the same user does it for five months, is informed about it by countless users, and still goes on and on in the same track, I think it's a disruption of WP:NOTAFORUM. I think it's clear to anyone having a look at Talk:Jesus that Humanpublic has succeeded in turning the page into a forum. If he had a valid point backed up by sources, it would be a content dispute and not a problem. When he spends months pushing a fringe theory without bothering with presenting even one source but only his personal opinions (and the same opinions over and over again), I do think it's disruptive and I have seen first-hand how he has stalled any work on the actual article. If you don't agree that such behavior is disruptive, I fully respect that view.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, but Psychonaut never said they were disputing the behaviour could be disruptive, simply they felt insufficient attempts were made to at dispute resolution first. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Naw, we can handle the user w/o that. If it gets any worse, then yeah... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - There are some problems here, as I see it. On first glance (this is the first time I have looked at this article and talk page) I see why the issue has been brought here by parties on both sides of the fence. One thing I can't help notice on the talk page is the confrontational polemics of HiLo48, the subject of several correctional sanctions. But here's where it get complicated. Humanpublic and HiLo48 raise an interesting point in that the editing of the article appears to be POV material from those of the Christian faith, and call into question the sourcing of Jesus' existence. Highly controversial! But, is that a "disruption?" While I am unfamiliar with Humanpublic, HiLo48 often uses rhetoric that usually "stirs the pot." Yet, here again, there are some larger NPOV issues now on the line for this flagship Wikipedia article. I am unwilling to take a stand without further study of exactly what the stakes are. And I suggest others here do the same. Jusdafax 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A good and balanced post. I am sure we all agree that the article should not be edited with a Christian POV. When Humanpublic and HiLo48 first made that point, I don't think anyone objected - nor do I object to it now. Quite the contrary, I welcome it. However, there is nothing "Christian" in stating that Jesus existed. It is an uncontroversial fact, supported by all scholars in the field who have published on the matter. Not by most scholar, but by all scholars. That makes that issue a fairly simple one, if we want to adhere to WP:RS. That is why people have asked Humanpublic and HiLo48 for sources, and have asked for sources for months. And that's why Humanpublic and HiLo48 have failed to produce any sources. In my view, that pretty much settles it. If all professors on the matter (including those who aren't Christian at all, even those who have been called anti-Christians) believe that Jesus existed, then the article should state so. And I do think that when somebone continues beating the same horse for five months, it is at least tedious, and if done excessively, also disruptive. So once again, there is nothing disruptive in challenging a Christian POV, there is nothing disruptive in presenting alternative theories if backed up with sources, and there's nothing disruptive in discussing any point of the article in good fait. But surely repeating the same fringe theory for five months when not able to find a single source can look disruptive?Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a fine spirit of collaboration: "get over yourself; I can revert whatever I want as long as there's good reason to do so. Further posts by you to my talkpage will be considered harassment and reverted as vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556"

I would love to not be an "spa". I registered on Wikipedia intending to edit literature articles. My interest in the Bible comes from a Bible as Literature class I took. I have added two sentences to the article Jesus. It is a purely factual edit, reliably sourced. It has nothing to do with any theory, fringe or otherwise. It is: "There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him. [256]" THat's it. It is reliably sourced, and only makes factual claims. In Talk, I've pointed out that there are no secular historians as sources, that sources mostly have a Christian background and/or write popular books, and that Christian popular books aren't objective about Jesus. That is not a fringe theory either. To me, it's just a concern about conflict of interest.

The result has been that my comments have been edit-warred off the Talk page, my attempts to preserve my comments have been called vandalism, I've been reported for "3RR" for not wanting active discussions archived, accused of disruption, been followed to another article by Seb for the sole purpose f reverting my edit, and been nominated to be banned from the articles.

If my edits to The House of Mirth [173] had the same response, I would appear to be a Edith Wharton "spa." This is not my only interest. It is my only controversial interest. People should quit attacking and belittling by the dozens at the mere suggestion that there could conflicts of interest, or the mere addition two sentences that are not pro-Jesus. If I didn't get bombarded by dozens of attacks and personal comments with every edit, I would be spending more time on other subjects. Humanpublic (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't pay detailed attention to this page, mainly since it's generalist and had a relatively stable equilibrium, but the Talk has been beeping like crazy on my watchlist recently, and so looked at the beeping. The Talk comment "support topic ban" was predictive - that's where this is going to end. One edit to an Edith Wharton page does not a non-SPA make, the much trumpeted edit to the Jesus article lead here changing reliable scholar Bart Ehrman's interview on Jesus-mythicists "There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true. Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources. Those are their negative arguments. I deal with all of those arguments. I lay them out as fairly as I can and then show why they’re not very good arguments, even though they sound really good. When you actually investigate them they’re actually not that strong." to User:Humanpublic "There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him." (period) wouldn't of itself be a problem if acres of Talk page bytes hadn't been trying to explain to User:Humanpublic why that isn't good processing from source to high-profile article lead copy. Too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on Talk, too much of being an evangelist for the WP:TRUTH. The rest of the editors on that article (of whom I'm not one) deserve a couple of weeks' rest. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

He's a single-purpose account here to get The Truth out. His chosen topic doesn't really make a difference. It may not quite be time for a topic ban, but that's what will happen if he keeps on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support His editing in the area is disruptive. I would have opposed per the comments above; however, his back at you ban proposal below doesn't leave me confident that he intends to edit productively in the area. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless somebody can produce DNA evidence of Jesus's existence. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

sigh The comment above is completely besides the point. Humanpublic is not reported for doubting Jesus's existence, he is reported for being disruptive. One can be right and be disruptive, and one can be wrong and still civil.Jeppiz (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Baseball Bugs, Humanpublic is an obvious WP: SPA who uses polemical tactics (example would be the purely retaliatory topic ban proposal below) to push his specific WP: POV. Given that incidents have arisen in the past, I think a bit of fresh air would do Humanpublic good, and would prevent further escalation of this controversial topic. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a lot of manure flying around here. It's not just History2007's last 500 edits that are mostly Christian (and 100% Biblical). I went back 2000 edits. They are 99% Biblical. Then I went back to his first 500 on Wikipedia, 6 years ago. They are 99% Biblical. Who's the SPA??
• Kudos for the thought that "Whoever proposes a topic ban first, wins!!!!!" Banning the one who proposed second--he loses!!--is classy. Gee, I have a proposal. Let's have a level of intelligence that goes beyond 4th grade.
• I am shocked, shocked, that those who were absolutely certain about sock puppetry are the same as those who are absolutely certain about the SPA and absolutely certain that being 2nd with a ban proposal means "you lose" and absolutely certain nothing critical of Jesus belongs on Wikipedia. Nothing fishy there. Gotta love it. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• In response, I would like to say taht I have known History2007 for some time, and I have found that his own motives and behavior are more or less the same as mine. There are a number of other topics he would be possibly more interested in developing the content we have on, but he is very knowledgable of the topic of early Christianity, and is finding himself almost exclusively editing material on that basis for the purposes of ensuring that the content meets wikipedia guidelines and policies. And, yeah, I myself started with WikiProject Biography, and would personally prefer to be spending time on content regarding the smaller and less "glamorous" nations and regions of the world. If the IP is accusing History of putting wikipedia's good before his personal interests, I agree with that. If he is saying that is to be held against him, he is drawing conclusions based on no real knowledge of the subject whatsoever. We praise and thank people for working for the good of the project, we don't criticize them, or worse, seek to sanction them. Honestly, I tend to think that the IP's comment does not itself necessarily indicate an intelligence that goes even as high as the 4th grade level. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as much for the WP:POINTy topic ban proposal below as for his poor behaviour on the Jesus article. I don't think Jesus existed; I'm certainly not going to try and insert that sort of POV (or anything similar) to the Jesus article: in fact, it's why I stay away from religious articles, apart from when attempt to sort out a content dispute. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If the idea is that being an SPA justifies banning, then apply the principle equally. Based on the links above History2007 is more of an SPA than Humanpublic. I also had a similar experience with History2007: deleting my references, inserting his own, not really understanding the purpose of my references, and then not explaining what text in the book he cited he was actually using. I wouldn't support banning him either, but he did come off as condescending.Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: Any atheist trying to win a popularity contest must be young. Strangesad (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support at least a firm warning Humanpublic is disruptive; the arguments have been gone over time & again, and Jesus myth theory covers the material well. Time for him to edit on something else, if he is interested in doing so. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Update a couple of violations of WP:NPA by Humanpublic, further underlining his disruptive behavior [174].Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, this request has very thin legs, the diffs provided does not justify a topic ban, at least not now, even if now Humanpublic will surely have extra-eyes on him. It would be obviously different if the sockpupping accusations did not resulted in a hole in the water. Cavarrone (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Strangesad. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Humanpublic is continuing personal attacks - calling one user "dishonest"[175] and another "a turd" [176]. I do not like to campaign to get people blocked or banned, but something needs to be done to stop Humanpublic's battleground behaviour, which appears to be escalating.Smeat75 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on habit of disruptive editing, although I would have reservations about making the ban indefinite. I would tend to support one of up to a year. If Humanpublic would rather be working on other content, as he said above, I think it is probably time that he does so. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban now. A few days ago I specifically came against a topic ban for this user, given no proper warning, and suggested a warning instead. But now, I see no other way. He continues to hold that policy is silly and he can insult other editors at will. And that is after multiple warnings. Think of it this way: this user has done 180 edits in 6 months and has been involved in more brouhahas than many users get involved in after 18,000 edits. This is not a good start and will just get worse if he is encouraged to go rampant and walk over policy at will. I think user:Der Kommisar's characterization of the situation as WP: NOTHERE (just below here) is valid. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere, I thought I read that only uninvolved editors voted on bans. That would exclude you, if I remember right. Strangesad (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I also notice that Hmanpublic made the "turd" comment linked to above on in his user talk page after having been given a final warning regrding personal attacks in that same section of his talk page. I believe that there is probably sufficient cause for a short term block regarding that as well, and I do not see that such a block at this point would inhibit him from providing information regarding this proposed topic ban of him. John Carter (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Sadly, as with many complaints brought here, this is really a content dispute. Humanpublic is a firm defier of the massive majority of conservative editors who tend to "own" the articles where he has upset people. He's a nuisance. He challenges mainstream thinking (like Jesus did). They want him silenced. It would be interesting to see what was left if every content related post was removed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Sadly, the above comment seems to completely ignore much of the material presented here, by someone who himself has a rather obvious and longstanding record of engaging in disruptive edits and personal attacks, neither of which can even remotely be considered acceptable conduct even if there is a content dispute involved. I cannot see how calling someone a "turd" falls in the field "content dispute," for instance. The evidence is rather clear that Humanpuclic cannot abide by conduct guidelines regarding this subject, and we in general do not allow those who have difficulties adhering to guidelines to determine when and where they are applicable. John Carter (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree Exactly. The fact that Humanpublic often challenges people does not excuse his disruptive behavior. In fact, it rather reinforces reasons for a block, being that most of these "challenges" are actually personal attacks and WP: TE behavior. Such !votes made by Humanpublic's supporters require a grain of salt when being read. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that calling someone a turd isn't nice. If that was tackled on its own, all would be well, but again, just as with most threads begun against people with non-mainstream views, this has become a dumping ground for all the shit anyone has ever wanted to pour on the target. While there is any crap in this thread that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail. The behaviour of ALL those wanting to censure someone for poor behaviour MUST be better than the person they want to silence. Many posts here fail that test. The attack should fail. You need to show a better choice of friend. Being on the same side of a debate as you must never excuse bad behaviour. Condemn the bad behaviour of those on your side of the debate, and I will respect your position more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, with all due respect, your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval. You appear to be making a statement that if a person makes a single mistake, then the person who makes a thousand or more mistakes cannot be sanctioned unless the person making a single mistake is also sanctioned. That premise is illogical on the face of it. No one is perfect, and we do not expect them to be. But Humanpublic's behavior is not only imperfect, it seems to rarely if ever recently rise to acceptable level, and that refusal to engage in conduct of an acceptable nature is in and of itself grounds for sanctions. And, unfortunately, I think even the facts themselves disagree with you on this point. Around here, tbe mainstream view regarding Christianity, and Jesus in general, is more generally seen as being your own lack of belief, not the contrary. Also, there are policies and guidelines, like WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT which all should adhere to. And, honestly, if anyone were to hold you personally to your own position "if there is any crap .l.. that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail," I tend to think that "fail" is exactly what your own comments would do. John Carter (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

John Carter's Talk page: "Around here I try to help out some of the religion based projects, particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, where I am one of the coordinators...." John Carter, please give diffs of Humanpublic's disruption on Talk:Jesus. I see a single addition he has made to Jesus, which is factual, not a fringe theory, and sourced (and currently deleted). The "turd" comment is juvenile. It was made on his Talk page, in response to juvenile taunting by another editor. I see a lot people shooting themselves in the foot. Humanpublic isn't helping his cause. Your distorted drama-queening isn't helping yours. Strangesad (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

e/c And therein lies the difference between HiLo and Humanpubic. HiLo has also discussed many similar content issues, and presented arguments against myself in many cases, but he has been logical as far as I have seen, despite our wide differences in content. I have personally defended HiLo against attempts to even warn him, let alone block him, and I have made it clear to him on his talk page that in my view he is a good editor. These two editors have very similar views on content but dramatically different approaches to editing. Therein lies the difference between them. This is not a content issue. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it; I'd often defend HiLo, but not Humanpublic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks guys (the last two of you), but did you notice the completely off-topic, inflammatory bullshit thrown at me by John Carter three posts up? To make sure it gets seen, he said, about me, "your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval". It's precisely that sort of tangential, unverified crap that gets posted in these attack threads. So, where's the thread now to censure John Carter. And I'm not joking. So long as these threads are seen by so many, often the self proclaimed "good" Christians, to abuse and bad mouth others, with a seeming complete immunity from any consequences, the Wikipedia discipline process is an absolute disaster. And don't come back to me telling me to stay on topic. I will edit here to the best of my ability, totally objectively. Prejudiced editors like Carter above abuse and damage Wikipedia continuously, all with the goal of pushing their conservative religious POV, and never seem to get into trouble. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to start another thread, go ahead. I am ultimately here because Humanpublic dragged me here, not the other way around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, please calm down. There is no evil anti-Christian or anti-Atheist (whichever you belong to) cabal that John Carter leads. If there was such a group, rest assured they would be disbanded by the admins here. Making borderline WP: PAs and denouncing policy is a fast road to a block. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 05:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's a silly comment too. You're the first person to use the word cabal here. I know that because I just searched for it to find this stuff in the Edit window. I am a member of no cabal, and you suggesting I am is surely unacceptable. I obviously made no suggestion that John Carter is a member of any cabal (since you're the only one to have used that word). So I don't know what nonsensical background there is to your post. I came here today to point out that this is a content dispute (IMHO). John Carter has smeared me with references to alleged sins elsewhere. I responded (maybe I shouldn't have) by pointing out that he was way out of line. Now I'm being told I'm the one making personal attacks! Don't you get it? It's the awfully nice Christian, John Carter, who just can't behave in a Christian way, who you should be criticising here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably I should not make a comment like this here, but cannot restrain myself - the repeated insinuations on this thread that anyone who supports the accuracy of a statement such as "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" must be a fundamentalist conservative Christian are ab-so-lute-ly ri-dic-u-lous.Smeat75 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A criticism of an alleged insinuation, with no names and no indication of where and when. What a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Although i agree Humanpublic should be blocked for personal attacks, i have rarely seen a topic ban for an insult. Pass a Method talk 05:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the personal attacks he has made after warnings call for a short term block, as stated below. But the larger picture goes far beyond that issue: Here is a user with 180 edits, 20% to articles, i.e. 36 article edits. And there may be over 3,600 edits here dealing with the consequential turbulence. For every article edit made, there are 100 consequential edits that could have been put to better use. This is no way to develop an encyclopedia. Look at this user. She has written more DYK articles than anyone remembers (over 200 DYKs I think) and how much mayhem has she brought about? None at all. That is the kind of user who builds the encyclopedia, not one who starts this type of lengthy drama in 3 acts. Not to mention the counter-productive atmosphere created by the personal attacks. This is not a good start and can not continue in this way. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User conduct, not content

I feel that this discussion has gotten sidetracked numerous times, and I just wanted to reiterate that AN/I is meant to focus on user conduct. Content disputes like the ones that has riddled this thread should go to WP: DRN. Frankly, the OP's conduct so far has been appalling: the extremely WP: POINTy topic ban proposal, WP: EDITWARring over his additions ([177], [178], [179]), WP: FORUMSHOPping ([180]), and not to mention WP: PAs made by User: Humanpublic ([181], [182], [183]) to top it off. This thread is starting smell strongly of WP: BOOMERANGs. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was about to post here regarding continued personal attacks, but you have already stated it. As I stated at the end of this page, the continued personal attacks by this user after multiple warnings by various editors (and his clear declaration on his talk page that he does not intend to stop insults because policy is silly) makes it impossible to continue interacting with him without suffering insults. This is enough. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Since a significant number of people here approves of it, you will either have to put up or leave. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not have to put up with it. I will not. WP:NPA is policy, and I expect it to be respected. Any administrator can issue a short term block here to stop these continued insults given the multiple warnings, else the WP:NPA policy will be declared invalid as a defacto standard. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang is right.... you complained I brought a content dispute here, and now that I've moved it to a dispute-resolution page, you complain that I am [FORUMSHOP] (is there anything anybody can do that can't criticized with an acronym?). I was repeatedly called a vandal for non-vandalism, and called extremely dishonest twice, and now that I've once said History2007 was "being dishonest" suddenly my behavior is "appalling" and I should be blocked. Seb snidely suggested I am self-important and told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then repeatedly antagonized me on my Talk page. History2007 copy and pasted a big pile of sources from one article to another without quoting any of them, and when I asked if he had read all of them and if he could quote them, I was attacked for violating another acronym (AGF). I have never reverted an edit to Jesus more than once, but now I am edit-warring.... I have about 500 edits, and have been editing 6 months, while History2007 has been editing 6 years with thousands of edits and almost all of them are about the Bible, but I'm an SPA (how many damn acronyms are there?). If you actually brought some integrity to your presence and criticised all sides equally, I might listen and learn to what you have to say. We seem to all agree this thread is going nowhere. Personally, I don't see how its content-dispute to expect editors to document that thier sources support what is claimed, but apparently I'm in the minority. Humanpublic (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am just very tired of the he is all Bible repetitious statement. I must have been looking for Heaven here, was super exhausted here and developed fatigue here. Again, you must stop focusing on editors and discuss content on talk pages and stop personal attacks. That is policy, as you have been told, many, many times now; yet continued to disregard it. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Per Smeat above, Humanpublic's WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality suggests he is WP: NOTHERE. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the worst thing that's been said here "You're being dishonest"? By many involved parties? I work in a middle-school. This has reminded me of work. Strangesad (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry it does not work that way. User A says X, user B can then say Y = X+delta and it can quickly escalate to deep insults if any personal attacks are allowed. That is why there is a policy. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Baron Master", probable sockpuppet of Humanpublic

Checked. Unrelated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I hope it's not bad faith, but I fear this edit may be related to the discussion of a topic ban for Humanpublic [184]. Humanpublic has spent days complaining about a Christian POV on Jesus and Christ myth theory, so when his disruptive actions are discussed here at ANI and a new user turns up to make his very first edit on Talk:Jesus to make a sarcastic complaint about Christian POV and follows up with Christ myth theory well, it's hard to be in good faith. Could I suggest a sock-puppet test on 'Baron Master'?Jeppiz (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Obvious WP: QUACK. I'm not sure if CheckUser would even be needed at this point. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Comment Obvious disruptive sock.--JOJ Hutton 01:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I took a look since I thought it was a bit odd that Baron would show up like that, but they are almost certainly  Unrelated. J.delanoygabsadds 02:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) If Baron Master wasn't enough, now they have moved on to trolling using an IP. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban for History2007

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

---

This editor is adding sources that he hasn't read:

"History2007: Have you read the sources you added? Please provide the specific text you are citing, so other editors can assess it. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Have you read the sources you added here, or not? I see the material I removed from Argument from silence was added by you. You used a 2007 translation of a text from the year 1103 as a source. You misquoted another book that was not reliable anyway--a book on trade in ancient Greece not a source on the general validity of a type of argument, and it didn't say what you said anyway. You don't seem to bother to actually research the sources you use.Humanpublic (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

" Again, please tell us: 1) which of the sources you added have you actually read, if any, 2) what they actually say. Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Have you actually read the sources you cited?? Humanpublic (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Please quote the texts you are citing. You made your edit less than 20 minutes after mine, and added seven sources. I find it hard to believe you carefully examined seven scholarly books in less than 20 minutes. Humanpublic (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response

He is adding sources from books, and mocking editors (me) who ask him to provide the text being used to support the claim. "Trust me that after writing 600 articles I know how to source. Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it. Trust me on that, and read WP:RS about books being the best sources. ... History2007 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (See also: ""What nonsense. It is verifiable; if you want to verify it, get the books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction

He adds sources without reading them--he admits he copied them from another article. He refuses to work cooperatively when asked to document that the source backs the claim. He is disruptive. Humanpublic (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Question What offence do you feel History2007 has made, which policies do you think he has broken that you want to see him topic-banned? Is this a WP:POINT in reply to the discussion about you above?Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"He adds sources without reading them." — you better prove that or retract the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Judging from Talk before after edits it looks that History2007 was badgered into providing some copy to present a topic that Humanpublic demanded, and then Humanpublic didn't like it, could be wrong but that's what it looks like. In any case the above "Topic Ban for History2007" is a misdirected case of tit-for-tat. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this is mostly a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - We do not issue topic bans based on content disputes. If History2007 has violated a specific policy or guideline, you haven't made it clear. I won't be validating this one with an oppose. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not based on the link "POINT" that you gave. I'm not frustrated with how a policy is being applied. I really think that anybody who persists in adding sources he hasn't read, and adding sources and refusing to document that they support the claims made, should be sanctioned in some way. I assume that breaks a rule, but can't point you to the "statute." As I said, this is the only controversy I've been involved in, so I don't know the ropes. Frankly, History2007 seems like an "spa" to me as well.His last 500 edits are all about Christianity [185]. Not true of me.... Humanpublic (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he's made some Islam-related edits. But, 90% of his edits for the last 6 years are Bible-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban and support warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban. Incidentally, there were many nasty remarks made to HumanPublic that I have personally witnessed Nashhinton (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And were those "nasty remarks" made by History2007? If so, please provide diffs of History2007 making nasty remarks about Humanpublic. If not, what's the relevance?Jeppiz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The rule violation is OR, as I said initially. Analysing or researching an argument, and then classifying it as an argument from silence (or any other argument type), is OR. I assume there is a rule against adding sources you haven't actually read. I assume that there is a rule requiring editors to document that the sources support their claims. If those rules exist, then he is violating those rules.[186] Anyway, I'm off to other destinations for the rest of the day. Humanpublic (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT might be pertinent here, in particular the sentence which says, "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." I am unconvinced that violation of this minor guideline is enough to warrant a topic ban (and a topic ban from which articles, exactly?), and this is still a pointless discussion. The SPA accusation should be supported with evidence or redacted, per WP:NPA. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, and also support a warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF and for not working out content disputes on the article talkpages instead of here. Heiro 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban for History2007, a highly knowledgeable user who not only scrupulously observes wikipedia policy but patiently spells them out to every POV fringe theory pusher who appears on the pages under discussion. For this he gets called a "zealot" by Humanpublic [187], which in my opinion borders on a personal attack.Smeat75 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and warn Per LGR, Heiro and above discussions, topic ban has no merit and is purely proposed out of bad faith. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. Humanpublic, you're actually talking yourself deeper into your hole, as you can now see the first support-!votes for your topic ban; if you continue down this road, there will be more people willing to ban you. You've been told before that it is policy that "verifiable" does not mean that people need to quote passages of text to you and present them to you as the gatekeeper. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Go get the books in question, open them at the indicated page, and read for yourself. Assuming that others haven't read them is about as offensive as assuming your request is based your own illiteracy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose History2007 is a good and alert editor, who's really keen at using reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal violates either WP:POINT or WP:AGF or both, and inclines me to strike my !vote opposing the proposed topic ban of User:Humanpublic above. Both of you need to start resolving your content disputes, prefereably one at a time, and preferably without resort to blocks or topic bans. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Err... one of those "both" hasn't even commented here... just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • "You" means the two users proposing topic bans in this section. They most certainly have commented here. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • 'k. nevermind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty funny. The funniest part was the multiple no response conclusions (in bold), just above. We have been telling this guy not to use arguments from silence, and then he just does that. Anyway, I went back and added some exact quotes. But this is a very simple concept, even pointed out to Gregory in Silver Blaze. I will add some more direct quotes to the other pages later. I will not be making any further comments here. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POINT and being one of the least thought-out topic ban proposals in the history of anything. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Purpose

Can somebody tell me what the purpose of this whole thing still is? Can we just close this or what's to be done? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

History merge request

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

---

This is a simple request for an admin to merge the history of two articles, a new one in mainspace and an old one that was userfied: Jerry Harvey (inventor) and User:Binksternet/Harvey.

Afterward, please delete User:Binksternet/Harvey.

Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from User:Juniorjackjlc

Most recent in a long series of obvious single-purpose accounts which immediately (and only) edit Susan L. Burke has made an apparent legal threat:

• "I will be asking Wikipedia's brick-and-mortar legal department if they approve of the way you've slandered and harassed your fellow editors." diff.

I had opened SPI (somehow missing the previous report due to a typo I guess) just before this comment was made but didn't have a chance to inform them about it. Yworo (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a clear intent to cause a chilling effect and a NLT violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Blatant legal threat. He says it's his last edit here. Suggest he be held to that promise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I came across the edits at the Burke article, and though suspicious, wasn't fully aware of the quacking history. Thanks for following up. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated removal of maintenance templates

I hesitate to bring this to AN/I since I am fairly confident that the editor in question, User:Kingminister, is editing in good faith. However, three times over the past few days Kingminister removed what I would think would be fairly non-controversial maintenance tags ('unreferenced section' and 'no footnotes') from the article Rajamanthri Walauwa. I have re-added the maintenance tags and noted the problem using standard information templates at User talk:Kingminister. Kingminister has not commented on the article talk page or either of our user talk pages, nor included edit summaries when editing. I think that attention from an outside party is warranted to ensure that what has become a slow-motion edit war between Kingminister and me does not escalate.

Diffs:

• 14 Feb I added 'unreferenced section'.
• 14 Feb Kingminister removed the tag.
• 15 Feb I undid the removal & left a comment at Kingminister's user talk.
• 15 Feb Kingminister again removed 'unreferenced section'.
• 15 Feb Kingminister removed an older 'no footnotes' tag.
• 17 Feb I restored both maintenance tags & left a 'caution' on user talk.
• 17 Feb Kingminister again removed both maintenance tags. Kingminister re-added the tags, and then again removed them in a series of edits that day.
• 18 Feb I re-added both tags & left a 'warning' on user talk.

In the spirit of 3RR, I will stop editing Rajamanthri Walauwa. Cnilep (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think I see a silent WP: OWN problem with this user. With only 4 edits to user talk space (none of them responses to the numerous notifications they have received) and almost all of their edits to Rajamanthri, Walauwa, or a combination of the names: Rajamanthri Walauwa, and reading some of those articles, it is clear to me that this WP: SPA really needs to talk to their fellow editors. If they refuse to contact, I think some kind of administrator action would definitely be warranted. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP: SPADE rant by troll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have no edits anywhere except this page. It is clear to me that this WP: SPA really needs to talk to their fellow editors. The sum of your edits under the above account and your alternate account is about 50. Yet, you display quite the wiki-erudition. Are you sock-peacock? I think some kind of administrator action would definitely be warranted! 67.189.38.119 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC) WP: SPADE. Could somebody please block this troll? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And it continues: diff.--Auric talk 11:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP on talk page

Can someone comment on this diff[188] and see if it rises to the level of BLP? Calling the actions of a person "morally corrupt" is a serious accusation. I apologize in advance for not posting this to BLPN, but I don't know how to do that for a talk page violation that has no associated article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is generally best to ask a ArbCom clerk to remove BLP violations from ArbCom pages, especially when you are regularly involved in disputes with the other party and when your own edits have been labelled BLP violations as well.[189] -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any of my edits that have been labeled as BLP, but I will take your advice and ask a clerk to look. Thank you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done [190]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Return of the Wikihounding Sock

I suspect that GeezerB is a sock of Plant's Strider, a troll who habitually followed I and another editor around the project, making inconsequential edits wherever we went. It has not yet escalated to that level with this account, but if you compare the edit summaries and the area of interest, I think it's pretty clear they're the same person. There are other things that led me to post here, but I won't be posting those per WP:BEANS. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway. And please provide some evidence. Not saying he is or isn't a sock, but the 'evidence' GabeMc sent to me was singularly unconvincing. Please bear in mind that just because someone is not a new editor, a sock is not the only other option. Also that having the effrontery to propose addding Miles Davis to WP:VITAL two weeks after GabeMc proposed adding Jimi Hendrix is not harrassment ans not evidence of socking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

While there seem to be similar topics editing in, the edit summaries look similar, and he seems keen to get a few articles up to GA status, I'm loathe to comment any further without shutting up and showing you all a bunch of relevant diffs that I don't have. I do note that Plant's Strider's block has expired, as it was only a cool down from edit warring, and GeezerB doesn't seem to show actual evidence of edit warring. I'd discuss first before escalating it up to ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Gabe's email has to do with anything. I came here of my own volition, and specifically mentioned edit summaries, which Ritchie seems to have had no problem finding. I've had no trouble getting far less obvious socks blocked at ANI before, but if you prefer I contribute to the how-to-sock-and-get-away-with-it manual that SPI has become, that's done now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Elen, I thought e-mails between users should be kept private. Per Wikipedia:Emailing users: "The contents of emails between users are private" and "Note that emails sent this way are private – they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails." (emphasis added) According to merriam-webster.com: "Private: 'intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class.'" Also, from Wikipedia:Personal security practices: "If you become stalked or harassed on Wikipedia via any information posted about you on-site, whether by you or anyone else, it is recommended that you report this discreetly via off-site means, such as email, to a trusted administrator ... which maintains a confidential email service." (emphasis added) I have never discussed this user on-wiki with anyone, so your revelation here of the confidential information exchanged during our private correspondence seems inappropriate at best. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." NE Ent 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like a bit of a cherry-pick. WP:POSTEMAIL goes on to say: "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki". (emphasis added) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly consider citing a diff as quoting a private email. The diff is, after all, public information. I asked you for some diffs, and one of the ones you gave that made you certain that GeezerB was (a) harassing you and (b) was a sock of Plant's Strider (who was also harassing you, and was a sock of Chowkat... except that he wasnt, see [[191]]), was that he had added Miles Davis to the list of Vital Articles a mere two weeks after you had added Jimi Hendrix. Not one of the diffs you provided appeared to me to be evidence of either harassment or socking. You regularly accuse other editors - not even other editors that you are in an active dispute with, just ones that make edits you don't like - of all being socks of each other. If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I never said GeezerB was harassing me, ever, you must have misunderstood something else I said. 2) Chowkat is now a proven sock/sockmaster, so what's your point about my accusing him of being such? Per: "just ones that make edits you don't like", wow, have you ever got this all wrong, and you also seem to be quite biased against me at this point, so you seem too WP:INVOLVED to be dealing with me. 3) No evidence is realistic to you, IMO. Why are you even a CU, why not let someone else do it who doesn't seem to resent it so much? 4) I wrongly thought our e-mails were confidential (see the above definition of private), if they weren't intended as such, I would have posted them to your talk page. 5) Per your comment: "If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence", 1) I never accused GeezerB on-wiki of anything, nor did I suggest or encourage Evan to open this AN/I thread (I actually wish he hadn't, IMO, we should have waited for more evidence, then went to SPI). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Contents" means the actual email, not a reference to the email. Although not directly applicable to this case, the concept behind "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows)." elucidates this. NE Ent 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another cherry-pick. You're quote is from WP:EMAILABUSE, which does not apply at all to good-faith e-mails. As far as the definition of "content": "the topics or matter treated in a written work ... the principal substance", which you seem to be using interchangeably here with "verbatim", or similar; I repeat: "the contents (subjects or topics) of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki." So, it would seem that in order for you to be correct, we would need to redefine "private" and "content". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding email If you don't want the content of your email shared, don't send it to people you don't trust not to share it. They are under no obligation to keep your missives private.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I did trust Elen, before she made my private statements public. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• SPI is now open. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Matej1234

I am reporting User:Matej1234 for continued and persistent removal of the template:no footnotes against consensus and policy beyond repeated requests made to him via his talk page for him not to do so. Requests for him to cease this type of anti-encylopaedia building behaviour have been made by various editors:

• 11 Dec
• 29 Dec
• 23 Jan
• 17 Feb (first)
• 17 Feb (second)
• 17 Feb (third)

But he continues to remove templates, for example with this recent edit, as well as unilaterally changing mdy formats to dmy, which he has also been asked to desist from doing on at least two occasions: first, second, as we can see by an edit he performed today. He does not provide edit summaries and rarely communicates on user talk pages, so I feel administrator intervention is a suitable next step in this case. Thanks, C679 11:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Keithstanton at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo

G'day all, could I get some attention to the subject new user/SPA currently doing wholesale deletions regardless of consensus and after gentle advice not to continue? Probably a sock, but unfortunately I am mobile and don't have the access I need to provide the evidence for that. The editwarring alone should be enough for an ARBMAC warning. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The comments are just so ridiculously over the top, it might just be my old community banned sockmaster buddy User:Oldhouse2012, or the other sockmaster that has been active on that page, User:Sinbad Barron. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Hilarious. Almost certainly a sock, and most definitely an exceptionally disruptive user. A checkuser and a ban would be in place.Jeppiz (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, Keithstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today and is already surprisingly knowledgeable about our policies. Comments such as [192] (severe personal attack) and [193] (WP:BLP violation), as well as the general editing pattern of one-sided advocacy in the WP:ARBMAC area, leads me to believe that an indefinite block might be in order.  Sandstein  13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User refuses to NOINDEX their collection of WP:FAKEARTICLEs kept in their userspace

Portolanero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ran across a collection of articles on medieval portolan charts being kept in this user's userspace here: User:Portolanero. At first I thought they were the users 'work in progress' destined to be mainspace contributions. However after closer examination I see they largely ignore Wikipedia core policies such as WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX etc. and appear to fall under WP:FAKEARTICLE. At least one off-wiki site refers to the Portolanero user pages as a "personal research site"[194] .

My attempts to discuss the issue of NOINDEXING on their Talk page were not successful. The user has declared they "will not accept a NOINDEX". [195]

They have also reverted attempts to NOINDEX their userpages [196], [197]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they are using Wikipedia as a free webhost. --ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And being deliberately evasive when informed that the material they post here is intended to be modified by anyone. If any of their userspace articles are of any value to the project, in whole or in part, they should be moved to article space and cleaned up to remove the original research and editorializing. Those that aren't should be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience: list of subpages. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they are indeed fake articles, I'd suggest taking them to WP:MFD. - SudoGhost 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do that for some time - this attitude convinces me it's the best option. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I readded the noindex to one article and wish you good luck with this editor. --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like a classic example of fake articles. Contrary to policies, and the user does not appear willing to discuss. The "articles" should be deleted.Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to know by user LuckyLouie Where is the group that can decide to enforce "noindex"? and take the discussion there. I considered my talkpage not appropriate. He suggested "miscellany for deletion" but now opened here. Is this here the formal place to discuss "noindex" or deletion of my pages? -- Portolanero (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead.Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say your talk page would have been the place to notify you of the NOINDEX issue. This is a place to notify admins of problems that might require intervention, such as a user who apparently takes Wikipedia as his personal webhost in violation of WP:NOT and insists that his fake articles be indexed by search engines - to what purpose? The admins have the tools necessary to implement whatever the community decides is appropriate. The place to discuss deletion of your pages is WP:MFD, and it seems likely that your pages will end up there soon. Huon (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup .. by the time it's come here, it's because you have failed to act as requested when it comes to policy-compliance ... in this case, NOINDEX. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Is there ever a reason why userspace pages should be searchable outside WP? It seems to me that the whole namespace should automatically/unchangeably be __NOINDEX__. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And talk pages - BLP alone should mandate that userspace and talkpages of articles and users should not be indexed. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We just gonna yak about this all day or what? Here ya go: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Portolanero/subpages‎ NE Ent 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I explained in 2011 at the "Portolan chart" talk page here the purpose of my pages:

I'm a specialist on early portolan charts. "One of the world's greatest and most enduring mysteries" like the Washington Post wrote May 22, 2010. On my user page I created several subpages that explain and discuss a lot of issues around portolans. Unique rare images and graphics are presented. Some published for the first time. I came from the German language tradition of portolan research. That is more focused on the scientific or engineering aspects, on mathematic and cartometric analysis. It traditionally suggests a Roman or Greek time origin. The present English language tradition is less mathematical and suggests a sole medieval origin. My pages offer most English speakers for the first time the cartometric arguments about the portolans. Beginners should first read "What is unsolved about portolans? The Problem of the Portolan Charts". The pages are with lot of explanations and therefore not intended to be direct copied in the article space. Rather someone with interest on the subject and Wikipedia experience should decide what may be appropriate here. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to give interested WP and Google users a way to get information on the more science based Swiss/German school of portolan research. I did it on WP because I had the experience only here to find highly capable people who can handle such stuff and even may have new information. I wanted to support some WP articles and help to further advance the knowledge on this rarely known topic.

There are now not enough WP users aware of portolans that this could start yet. But I hope by Google to get people to work on the WP articles and my pages shall support it. I have good relations to people of English language school on portolans. They would rightly see it as an affront if a proponent of the Swiss/German school took over the English WP article. So I have to abstain on edits there.

Please take a look what unique material I spent for WP. All map images on my portolan pages are uploaded by me. There were never published elsewhere yet. This or this are just two images that cost a lot of money to create. So far the argument that I misused WP as cheap web hoster. -- Portolanero (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that these pages took a lot of time and effort to create, but right away you come to the core of the issue - an editor's userpages are emphatically not the place "...to give WP and Google users a way to get information" on anything. If you intend to publish this material, great - good luck to you. But it can't be published on Wikipedia first. Look at it from the other side of things - if we accepted for publication whatever a user put onto his or her userpages, then anyone could post anything and then rely on it for articles or the like. Your material may well be accurate and informative, but other editors' may not be. That's why we require material published on Wikipedia to be backed by reliable sources - and that it be verifiable. We also require pages in the userspace to either be compliant with most policies or in forms and on subjects that could, with editing, be reasonably expected to comply at some point. However intricate and detailed, your original work is just that - original research - and it cannot be used on Wikipedia. I know that's not the answer you're looking for, but it is what it is. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

About 80% is from reliable book sources in English and German language and well referenced, so verifiable. The remainder is my "OR" and that by policy is allowed on userpages. The pages shall help to improve the WP article and that they can do. -- Portolanero (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If the idea is to improve existing or future pages, then why would you not noindex the pages? We don't publish Original Research here, and not noindexing these pages does precisely that - which is why this came forward to ANI in the first place. If you want this material to be seen on Google and Bing and so forth, you need to find another website. If you intend it for our use in improving articles here, then you need to noindex the pages. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't all of this be ported over to Wikia? You could create your own site there, portolan.wikia.com or whatever you want to name it. Same or similar mediawiki, the conversion effort should be minimal. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Was just going to suggest that, or Wikkii. NE Ent 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Seems Portolanero has some WP:OWN which is weighing on his judgment about the appropriateness of the subpages. If he had been more cooperative about posting {{userdraft}} or {{noindex}} templates, especially after the need for them had been explained, he would not be in this discussion. (Such a simple solution was available, but he spurned it.) 2. This discussion may be moot in that a consensus seems to be developing that the subpages be deleted. 3. With these thoughts in mind, I suggest we close this discussion. IMO, there is no need to take administrative action as to Portolanero himself and the MfD will resolve the subpage issue. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I should add that Portolanero's idea of reliable sources is not one I share, and that at least some of his material is fringe. For instance, User:Portolanero/The Maps of King Arthur which is something that we'd never allow as an article. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages on Google

A quick Google search[198] found [199] and [200] and [201]. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Section changed from Lv2 to Lv3 heading, relates to previous section.

It would be helpful if you could explain why this is an issue requiring administrator attention, as it's not obvious to me. Thanks. —Rutebega (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Probably meant an an amendment to the section above.--Auric talk 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I might politely suggest a level 3 heading then. I read noticeboards from the bottom up, and no context was given in OP. Anyway, there's no consensus that user talk pages need to be noindexed, so Dougweller's rationale still isn't quite clear. Not to be patronizing, but ANI threads are typically accompanied by some kind of request for input or action, or an obvious grievance to be addressed, and I'm not seeing one. Rutebega (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)  Done. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I somehow thought talk pages (but not userpages) weren't indexed by default? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, user talk pages aren't meant to be indexed, but search engines work in mysterious ways. Graham87 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

24.57.110.189

One of the members of the "Serbian Youth League" is apparently back (for history cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive) in the form of 24.57.110.189 (talk · contribs), which I just noticed has made some classic changes: [202] and the even more transparent [203]. Indeed it looks like the history of the article List of Serbs indicates their previous IPs: 24.57.117.246 (talk · contribs) - conspiciously the last message on that talk page is my WP:ARBMAC warning. Before that, it was 24.57.115.42 (talk · contribs). Not all of the contributions of this user are abusive, but they're another one of those who don't really communicate and just keep plowing away. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

Resolved

 – Stand down from mop alert. -- Dianna (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP and it's a big one, some 50 or so requests in need of attention. Mops to the ready, folks. tutterMouse (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh snap, here I was working on requested edits on semi-protected, of which there were 54 when I started. Things always get backed up at RFPP on the weekends. I will do some after I get back from the gym. -- Dianna (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Me and Mark are on it. The backlog is complicated however, because many is requests for unprotection, or turning unprotection to recent changes, something that a user needs to look why the page was protected in the first place. Secret ^account 21:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute with JHunterJ

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

---

I'm on an ongoing dispute with JHunterJ (talk · contribs) in the past because I still think of him as fanatic and arbitratry on everyone. Look at his past arguments with others in Talk:Big (film) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. This time, in Talk:The Boys in the Band#Requested move (2013), I'm trying to convince JHunterJ to re-consider his arguments on move proposal that I made. However, he thinks that I went too far because I mentioned his past activities, and I believe that he went too far on everybody, including one editor, especially in the past. He called my arguments poor and uses guidelines as a reason, and I found him too arbitrary. Also, I believe that he is mocking me because his comments imitate mine in that discussion. I don't know how things should have been settled earlier, but I can no longer handle issues with him alone anymore. I need assistance on helping dispute between two of us. I tried other pages, but I think this is the best way to go. --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked him to apologize, but he wants me to apologize to him (not sure if it's also). Actually, he said, "Hysterical". Since I don't know what he meant, I feel that he is not going to apologize if I apologize to him first. Therefore, I'm reporting this here. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost forgot: I wanted him to leave the discussion if he does not apologize. He struck me back by doing the same thing on me. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with JHunterJ in dozens of different disputes over many years, and I've never once found him to be a "fanatic" and/or "arbitrary on everyone". The first step to ending your dispute is to recognize your personal attacks and apologize to him. The second step is to grow up and to stop acting like a child. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What about similar dispute in Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation)? What if he doesn't want to apologize to me? --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also in Talk:All That Jazz (film)? Is apology too late? --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

George, after looking at all of this, I'm wondering if you shouldn't be banned from move discussions. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy requiring anybody to apologize, so don't demand one. You're free to apologize yourself though, when appropriate. It facilitates forgiveness. —Rutebega (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What about Hunter's interpersonal relationships in Talk:Lovin' You and Talk:Season 2? Would they hurt my credibility? --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Talk:Firestarter (novel)? --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I can find no personal attacks in any of the talk pages that you have linked to George. I would suggest that you drop the WP:STICK. On the other hand it is not to late for you to apologize to JHunterJ for your unfounded accusations. MarnetteD | Talk 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I did apologize to JHunterJ for accusing him of conflicting with another editor (if there is no such thing) and of lacking common sense. I did not apologize to him yet for accusing him of mocking people and stooping low, but I told him I will try. Hope it's not non-apology, is it? --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there is nothing actionable here (and it looks like you are using this noticeboard to continue a dispute) I move to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Defining someone's arguments as poor is not a personal attack of any sort. It holds to "comment on content not the editor". He made good points in the discussion, your points weren't so good. Saying your argument is poor is calling a spade, a spade. You can't demand someone leave a discussion just because your feathers are ruffled. There's nothing more to be done here. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

MezzoMezzo's continuous disruptive editing and highly biased editing behavior with a certain agenda

The case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Wikipedia:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Wikipedia:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

He is editing a numbers of Articles with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.

• He uses Wiki:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
• See here [204] he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
• See here[205] and
• here [206]
• here [207]
• Inserted a biased source here [208] and
• veiled criticism in the name of history section here [209] again
• here [210].

• This POV pushing based on single source [211] continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
• Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive [212], *[213],[214]
• Blatant accusations [215],
• Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here [216]
• Again accusations [217]
• Blatant POV and lies [218]
• Editing to prove a Point [219]
• Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.[220]
• Inserting his POV [221]
• Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source [222]
• Again tampering [223]
• Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV [224]

• Salafi-Removing a very Genuine template from the Article see here[225] and Protecting *blatant lies and POV here [226].
• Unsourced POV here [[227]]
• Nazim Al-Haqqani -He removed a lot of content here[[228]]

• Tawassul-Removing total neutral valid content according to his personal views here [229]inserting his POV here [230]
• Ibn Arabi He removed half of content in bad faith here
• Ya Muhammad here[231]

• He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
• for speedy deletion [232],
• [233],
• [234],
• [235],
• [236]
• Mohra shareef here
• Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [237]

• This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
• He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here [238]

• Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day[239].
• He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.

• He is doing this since long-[240]
• See a small example here [241] and here
• reverted by other editors [242].
• Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors [243]

• Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi [244]

• This editing pattern has harassed many editors in the past and has forced them to leave editing specially from Barelvi Page.For Ex-User:Hassanfarooqi,User:MatthewVanitas with his efforts to improve the Article [245],User:Nkv and User:Coercorash. Many fears to edit a single line or wording on these Pages due to this monopoly.

• One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
• If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Wikipedia as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Wikipedia a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: [246]. I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Frietjes going rogue?

Frietjes (talk · contribs) has changed {{sms}} into {{hs}} for a whole list [247]. When I noted on his talkpage he was being premature [248], I was deleted quickly [249]. But of course, there are alternatives and one should be open to talks [250]. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

see WP:BLANKING and I am not a he, but I'm used to the assumption. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Notified: [251] -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

[252] weird, Frietjes. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

it's weird that I am used to people assuming that I am male? okay, would you rather I said it was sexist to refer to me as male? or how about if I said that calling me stupid was an attack? let's try be civil here. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

AGF, DePiep. —Rutebega (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is weird you [Frietjes] edited backward. In time. You could have written below.

The point is you edited by premature conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Best to use singular they if referring to another editor.
• Best to set gender in Special:Preferences if one wants to other editors to know -- {{gender|Frietjes}} says 'she". NE Ent 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Other issues notwithstanding, I agree it is generally not a good idea to do these kinds of edits before the discussion is closed properly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Based on this thread and a few other randomly selected diffs from Special:Contributions/DePiep, he may not be competent enough in the English language to contribute to an English language encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

John Laing plc

An IP keeps blanking the page of the John Laing plc article and inserting a cut and paste job from the company brochure. I have reverted it a couple of times but fear it is coming from the company marketing department. Dormskirk (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added 9.38 kb of level 1 or equivalent warning templates to the user's talk page to cover the extent of policy violations. Now we wait for a response. —Rutebega (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't use that many warnings. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if that doesn't get a response, what will? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, that was warning overkill. GiantSnowman 09:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive POV-pushing by UsmanullahPK

A new user, UsmanullahPK, is on a very active campaign in which he moves pages and deletes content without even discussing these controversial changes first [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258]. I first informed him in good faith, encouraging him to discuss changes of this kind before making them.[259] As he ignored the comment, I then warned him about this behavior. [260]. No reaction then either, several of the diffs above were made after both the information and the warning. Several of the page moves are controversial, and as seen in the diffs, he twice deleted all the content at the disambiguation page Musa.Jeppiz (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You should have notified the user that you have opened this thread. I have done so for you just now. -- Dianna (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz did notify them almost an hour ago. Right now both Kww and I have given UsmanullahPK final warnings about copy and paste and regular moves. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As said above, I did notify him right away [261].Jeppiz (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he continues in exactly the same way, despite the information (first= and the warning (second) by myself, and the final warnings by CambridgeBayWeather andKww.[262], [263], [264].Jeppiz (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Jeppiz. I must have been looking at a cached version or something :/ -- Dianna (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that UsmanullahPK has never made a talk page edit? He's been here since mid-December. -- Dianna (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology and don't worry about it, happens to us all sometimes. And yes, I noticed that he never comments. Unfortunately, he doesn't WP:HEAR either.Jeppiz (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict)Disruptively pushing a pro-Islamic POV is not acceptable, and is definitely a blockable offense. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I had to block him, the disruption was ongoing; he is doing damage. 48 hours to start; if we can't get him working with us instead of against us it will have to escalate. -- Dianna (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Their unblock request is in broken English. The photo on their user page shows they're quite young. In fact that userpage probly needs oversighting. Seb is over there right now trying to communicate with them. -- Dianna (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems the kid doesn't even understand what's happened to him just now, and with the limited language-skills, we might not even get to the point. That's probably why he never used talkpages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There is no indication that he speaks English apart from the most basic phrases. I'm quite sure his intentions weren't bad, but I cannot see him contributing to Wikipedia in the near future, at least not in English. That is not an accusation in any way, just a statement of facts. For the record, I could not have contributed in English at age 13 either, so he can of course become a very good contributor in the future if he learns English and is able to read the guidelines. For now, though, he will not be able to contribute.Jeppiz (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right. I have sent an email to Oversight to get the private info off his user page. I've posted something at his talk page to try to help him get started on framing a better unblock request. If he doesn't show in the next 48 hours that he is able to edit / learn to edit, the block will have to go to indefinite. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We should find somebody to get this in Pashto. This could happen more often with Afghanistan getting wider internet-access. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We normally draw the line at 13. I would put it higher, myself, but generally we delete user pages with identifying information for children under 13, but not for 13 and up.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Kevin. I thought it best to apply for oversight given their apparent naïvety, and the person who was on duty agreed with me and hid it all. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't object. We'll all be back here in 48 hours, and we'll see what more needs to be done then.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy-paste tracking

I investigated an new article, Short and long-term effects of alcohol, which included old tags. It is a copy-paste merge of Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol, along with some unidentified material. The details are probably moot since I nominated the article for deletion. Further investigation of edits by David Hedlund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reveals some troubling patterns. The combination of articles had been attempted before(Warning: many diffs are large pages). The new article was created after the same editing had been undone in another article by another editor for excessive size of the pasted-together material. Part of the bulk was 65K from Alcoholic beverage (diff). Sometimes the same material has been pasted into multiple articles (e.g. look for "477,200" in [265] & [266] & [267]. The repetition makes finding the originals difficult since text searches find the repetitions and the original text may have been removed from the article in which it was created.

A warning against copy-paste moves had been placed on the user talk page in the past, and since I warned against unattributed copy-paste, it has been done again, copying material from Long-term effects of alcohol. As some material has been moved multiple times, I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes and lack the tools to sort out this mess. I'll try to figure out where to drop some {{CWW}} tags, but there is a lot of history to sort through, and I'm hoping that some admins or editors who might have experience with similar situations will be able to offer assistance or guidance.Novangelis (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles Short-term effects of alcohol and Short-term effects of alcohol have apparently been restored so the article Short and long-term effects of alcohol that I created by merging to two can now be deleted. The unidentified material were from the article Alcoholic beverage now moved to Alcohol and health and structured into Template:Psychoactive substance use. Thank you.David Hedlund 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has made good and reversed the residual copy-pastes. I can't be sure until the search engines have caught up. Under what conditions will attribution remarks be required (for example, articles where the material was not reversed promptly)? I'd like to finish clearing up this mess.Novangelis (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify for those who might be puzzled about what happened here. (And I writes as someone who is mostly puzzled about most everything.)

Short and long-term effects of alcohol was speedily deleted under WP:G12 as as a copyright violation of Short-term effects of alcohol and other things.

What the... ? How can copying Wikipedia's free content possibly be a copyright violation?

Yep, that's somewhat counter-intuitive. But Wikipedia's content is subject to copyright.

To cut a long story short, copying info from an existing article into another one requires attribution of the copied content. It can be as simple as writing "copied content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution" in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Hope this helps. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Errata: WP:G12 not WP:G11. Moreover, to confirm my account has not been compromised, "O for a Muse of fire", etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)