Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Welcome to the incident noticeboard
This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. Sections older than 36 hours archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion thread

Centralized discussion A proposal to clarify the definition of "United States" in articles and restructure United States. An announcement regarding a non-free content editing task. A request for comment is sought over whether to decommission the recurring items at In the news. A proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related Did you know? articles that were imposed in September 2012. Possibly taking over the WebCite service, or at least significantly supporting it. Discussion is on Meta, but is very important to what we do here. The second round in a request for comment on RfA to suggest and discuss solutions to problems identified in Round One. A request for comment about clarifying the Manual of Style's advice on use of BC/AD and BCE/CE dates, to reduce disputes and confusion. A request for comment about clarifying the meaning of "ambiguous" in WP:DISAMBIGUATION, particularly as it applies to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A request for comment on article feedback. A discussion regarding interwiki links and Wikidata A proposal to automatically place the Simple English Wikipedia at the top of the Languages sidebar. A proposal to include accessibility and equality in the "five pillars".

Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages Certified pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche - Concerns about application of WP:V to remove easily source-able content Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Morriswa - Concerns regarding rollback use, automated edits, and communication. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo - Issues regarding a long-standing edit war on single-payer health care-related articles Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2 - Concerns about civility, battlegrounding, and related conduct issues. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apostle12 - alleged WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:DE General

Noticeboard archives

User:Xerographica

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

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 (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 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)

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)^{[citation needed]} 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)

Topic ban on user SuzanneOlsson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Non-administrator observation)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)

Censorship by archiving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also deleted my comment: [[130]] and then accused me of vandalism. Yes, those who disagree with me, give a lot of "warnings." Warnings for responding to what they say to me. Humanpublic (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I gave it to you. My comment was deleted : [131]. My comment gave a source. Then he attacked me for a lack of sources and told me to go write a blog. He archived an active discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic at hand

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

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

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

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

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

Would this be considered a legal threat?

It looks like one to me, in the edit summary.[132] (For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership.) I warned the editor User talk:70.22.150.151. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please keep an eye on Upper Crust Pizzeria. The IP editor listed above removed about 5k from the article with the note: "For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership." Diff[133]. GabrielF (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm somewhat familiar with the situation from living in the area. The IP editor says: "The Upper Crust LLC filed for bankruptcy, but the brand did not. You continue to include libelous material that is factually incorrect. The brand never filed for Chapter 11, and is under new ownership"[134]. I am looking at a Boston Globe article from January 8 that says: "Upper Crust filed for bankruptcy protection in October with at least $3.4 million in debts, and about $1.6 million in claims have been filed by government agencies for unpaid meals taxes, along with back wages and damages owed to workers." I don't quite understand what the IP is saying. I'm not certain how a brand can file for bankruptcy. A new company, UC Acquisitions bought the leases to four restaurants. According to the Globe that company has some ties to founder Jordan Tobins but Tobins and UC Acquisitions claim it is not Tobins money that is being used. We should probably change the owner listed in the infobox. Even if there was some merit to what the IP is saying about bankruptcy, that does not explain the other deletions, related to labor issues, that are well-sourced. GabrielF (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

IP notified of this discussion.[135] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Also, could someone please check the source supporting this?

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

• Abelson, Jenn (June 19, 2012). "Upper Crust accused of scheming on pay". The Boston Globe. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/06/18/upper-crust-schemed-take-back-workers-overtime-former-chief-financial-officer-says/5eIvaPrXLVXYxyAloeauzN/story.html. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

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

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

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

User: Ysfan redux; rangeblock likely needed

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses.

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

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

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

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

• 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)

Addbot

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

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

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)

Voortle

There's a herd of absurd redirects. Is it reasonable to nuke all the untouched ones? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Timestamps from 20:38, February 10, 2013 through 05:12, February 13, 2013 with the exception of South American English, which was further redirected by another user. The other ones which don't show (top) were redirected by a bot, as he chose a redirect to redirect the page to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agreed ... and nuked for ya (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 17 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 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... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967

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."[136] 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 walk 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)

58.173.108.6

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log), it does seem likely that the IP is a sock of Ali Muratovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

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 [145] [146]. 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)

Thargor Orlando's wholesale removal of sources

User: Thargor Orlando has been systematically removing Media Matters of America [147] as a source from a wide variety of articles using the edit summary "updating ref". In some cases he/she has attempted to "replace" the Media Matters URL with the same news content such as this edit where he/she linked to a local newspaper's pay wall web page. In other cases the removal of the Media Matters content left a malformed and incomplete ref such as this edit. Looking at Thargor's contrib list I count 35+ removals of Media Matters as a source just over the past 3-4 days. I think that Thargor is a good editor and has undertaken this activity in a good faith effort to improve the project and he/she has shown a willingness to discuss their work on his/her talk page here and here. But I don't think the discussion is going anywhere despite three editors expressing their concerns about his/her edits in regard to Media Matters. For myself I know in the past that the wholesale removal of a controversial source can sometimes be seen by the community as disruptive and I'd like for the community to discuss this behavior here and give Thargor some guidance on how to proceed so that he/she does not inadvertently get themselves into trouble hundreds of edits later. So to summarize, this is discussion is not about the validity of Media Matters as a source (that would be RSN or the article talk page) but rather a behavior that results in the wholesale removal of a controversial source, without discussion, in a way that is covert and often degrades the current citation and hence the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not consider this a completely accurate positioning of what's happening, but there is no "wholesale removal of sources" in most cases, but a replacement of partisan sources with more neutral ones; the only exception has been in some instances where the MMfA link is a functional duplicate source (i.e., MMfA cites one article or program, and that article or program is already cited). With few exceptions, it has been very uncontroversial, and in the areas that it has been questioned discussion is ongoing and is, in fact, going somewhere. My intention has been to cover other partisan sources as well, my edits are admittedly bold with the knowledge that not every change needs to be discussed, after all. and well within content, sourcing, and verifability guidelines. My intention is to move to other sources as I finish with this one (WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Truthout, etc.), and I welcome any questions that come along at the relevant talk pages. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

the edits look a bit tame to me? the second edit is simply citing the show of the person the quote was attributed, thus removing an unnecessary layer. nothing from the media matters article was even in the edit cited, just the quote. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:35, 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 · edit 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 · edit 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)

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 [148]. I deleted that and he had a cow [149]. 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 [150], [151], [152], [153], [154] in addition to deleting comments on talk pages [155]. 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 [156], [157], [158]. When a fourth and a fifth editor suggest a topic ban [159] [160], 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) [161]. 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)

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 [162] 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)

Suggesting a topic ban for Humanpublic

In line with In ictu oculi [163] and ReformedArsenal [164], I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Jesus. As pointed out by Baseball Bugs [165], 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)

• 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)

• 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)

WP:GB guidance

I've been away for quite a while and am a little rusty with the tools. What are our current WP:GB guidelines? Does anyone think one might be warranted here? The global contributions are not encouraging at all. TIA, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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)