Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Since early November, Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing several articles relating to genealogy in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian history. He has come into conflict with several other editors, primarily Agricolae, Ealdgyth, and Mike Christie, over the content of those articles, several of which have been nominated for deletion or merge. Paul has argued with poor or incomprehensible logic, and he has used primary sources and out of date secondary sources to support his arguments, while ignoring, misunderstanding or selectively using recent scholarship. He has also repeatedly added material to these articles that has little or no relevance to the subjects. He has not appeared to pay any attention to or attempted to learn from the other editors' attempts to help him understand his mistakes, and has posted voluminously and misleadingly on the various pages, talk pages, and AfD discussions. It is not possible to tell if he misunderstands how sources are used in this area, or if he understands but is deliberately misusing the sources. His actions have required a substantial amount of time, primarily from Agricolae, to clean up. Paul's response has been to treat the content disagreements as a battleground, and he has indicated he intends to continue to post the same material in order to "overwhelm" the opposition to it (see the evidence section below).

It should also be noted that he was also given a formal notification of Pseudoscience Discretionary sanctions in April 2011. See the relevant enforcement archive section, which has details with diffs, and see his response on his talk page which says he will ignore it.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

That Paul Bedson will:

• Cease using citations to source articles when he has not read the source in sufficient detail to be certain that the source supports the claim. This applies, for example, to the use of Google Books snippets.
• Cease using out-of-date scholarship in citations
• Cease using primary sources as references to establish notability or to support assertions in articles
• Cease reinserting material deleted from articles (by edits or by AfD) in other articles
• Cease accusing other editors of a cover up, and cease making accusations of bad faith editing
• Cease inserting original research into articles
• Cease adding material to articles that is unrelated to the article topic
• Seek consensus on talk pages for any edits that may be reasonably construed as falling under one of the headings above, and abide by the subsequent consensus on the talk page

Description

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

The main problems with Paul's edits are:

1. Violations of WP:V and WP:RS, with edits supported by sources that are out of date, or which simply don't say what he says they do.
2. A lack of understanding of the subject of the articles edited.
3. Violations of WP:OR and WP:NOT.
4. Unwillingness to abide by the outcome of consensus discussions, particularly in regard to re-adding material deleted from other articles.

Evidence of disputed behavior

There are a great many diffs to select from to illustrate Paul's behaviour. In an attempt to keep this RfU/C concise, we have tried to reduce the evidence to the minimum necessary to demonstrate Paul's problematic behaviour. If more evidence is needed it will be provided on request.

The evidence is drawn from the following articles and discussions (some have been moved to user space after deletion so that diffs are available for evidence).

• Uffingas, now redirected to Wuffingas (the identical family)
• Progonoplexia, AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progonoplexia
• User:Dougweller/Ancestry of the kings of Britain‎, AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain‎
• User:Dougweller/Godulf Geoting‎ (Talk userfied at User:Dougweller/Talk:Godulf Geoting‎), converted to redirect after AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godulf Geoting‎
• User:Dougweller/Genealogia Lindisfarorum‎, AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogia Lindisfarorum‎
• Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia, for which a merge has been proposed to Anglian collection
• Hugh Montgomery (historian), AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Montgomery (historian)

Competence

• Poor or incomprehensible logic: [1]; [2]; [3] and [4] (where in parts next to figures he has used a definition referring to text on coins and figure legends to mean anyone named on a genealogical manuscript is 'legendary')
• Misunderstanding of sources. Note that for these diffs, some of the points being made are likely to be non-obvious to people not familiar with the topic. The point of these diffs is not to show that Paul should have known them, but to demonstrate that he is very much a non-expert—the mistakes he made are beginner mistakes. This would have been OK if he had been willing to work with other editors, but see the other sections for diffs that demonstrate he was not willing. See [5];[6](referring to text inserted by Paul)—Paul did not understand the secondary source in question; [7]—Paul did not know the difference between a king list and a pedigree; [8]; [9],[10]—Paul did not know what thorn or wynn are (they are Anglo-Saxon letters); [11]—Paul doesn't know that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Anglian collection are not related.
• Addition of irrelevant material: [12], [13] along with [14]; [15].
• Creation of a page (since redirected) that existed elsewhere under the alternative name given in the newly created page, which was apparently never searched for.
• Misuse of Google Books - incorporation of errors based on corrupted information in Google Books and misrepresentation of the true bibliographic origins of cited material because of sole reliance on Google Books snippets, previews and descriptions. [16]; [17]; [18] ref 2 (simply a print on demand Wikipedia article), ref 5 (a reprint of a 1807 reference, given 2011 as year of publication); [19]; [20] uses a google books snippet for Colin Chase's book on The Dating of Beowulf to say that the Uffingas possibly inspired the poem Beowulf, though the snippet clearly says that the Uffingas being referred to are a different dynasty entirely - "a branch of the Royal House of Uppsala and descendants of Wiglaf".
• Creation of pages based almost entirely on a misreading, misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the secondary source material [21] (see [22]); [23] (see [24]); [25] (see [26]; [27])

Disregard of policy

• Use of primary sources [28] (Prose Edda section)
• Use of out of date secondary sources: User:Dougweller/Talk:Godulf_Geoting#Godulf_as_a_deity—use of an 1841 source; [29]—use of a 1747 source; [30]—use of sources from 1768, 1807, 1823, 1832 & 1867
• Reference to Wikipedia mirrors [31] (note 2); [32]
• Misunderstanding what it is that Wikipedia is. Paul statement here shows that he sees writing Wikipedia articles as "historical research" - not writing encyclopedia articles. This is a fundamental problem with his work - he's trying to do historical research and advocacy which is not what Wikipedia is about.

Lack of cooperation, and unwillingness to abide by consensus

• Assertion that Agricolae is acting in bad faith, with references to cover-ups, book-burning, witch-hunting, and the Inquisition: [33], [34], [35]; [36]; [37]; [38]; [39]
• Placement of the same raw material into 6 successive pages as it was deemed inappropriate on each previous placement: [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]; [45] (an AfD, with edit summary "replacing the truth, it'll find a way oneday"), having stated ([46]), "The listing of names in that manuscript is all I care about publishing." More general assertion that he will "overwhelm" Wikipedia with so many articles that some of the "truth" will get through: [47].
• Admission to making an edit expressly to "embarrass" another editor [48]
• Accusation that others are "are following Agricolae's example of making up your own arguments without sourcing anything. This is WP:OR and I don't have time to read fiction." [49] although the section he's replying to is complete with cited sources.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:V
2. WP:RS
3. WP:OR
4. WP:NOT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Many of the diffs above include attempts to explain the problems to Paul. Specific examples include:

Attempts by certifier Mike Christie

1. User_talk:Paul_Bedson#Just_making_sure_you_realize
2. User_talk:Paul_Bedson#Your_recent_comments
3. [50] which was echoed here: [51]; Paul subsequently created Godulf Geoting and did much work on the other articles.

Attempts by certifier Ealdgyth

1. User_talk:Dougweller/Ancestry of the kings of Britain#Not found in my edition of the ASC ..., in which Paul responds to advice by saying "Ok, there are various ways I could substantially alter my way around a G4" (G4 referring to speedy deletion criterion G4).
2. [52] Attempt to explain again what Wikipedia is and what it isn't.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

1. History2007 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
2. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Hel-hama (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Mathsci (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Choess (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
10. AB (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
11. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Zoeperkoe (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

Firstly, with regard the desired outcomes. I have no problem with any of these as explained by point:

• Cease using citations to source articles when he has not read the source in sufficient detail to be certain that the source supports the claim. This applies, for example, to the use of Google Books snippets.

This is fine. I only use Google Books snippets when the source reads in sufficient detail to be certain of a claim.

• Cease using out-of-date scholarship in citations

This is fine too as long as "out-of-date" is defined to me by a date. I am not currently aware of one. Scholarship by a notable person may be out of date but still extremely important, further clarification is needed here and I am willing to abide by it.

• Cease using primary sources as references to establish notability or to support assertions in articles

I do not and will not do this in articles, my discussion of primary sources is reserved for talk pages. However extensive knowledge of primary sources is required to write history articles correctly, including extensive knowledge of Latin.

• Cease reinserting material deleted from articles (by edits or by AfD) in other articles

This is fine as long as deleted edits are explained properly. Deleted edits that just give a POV reason "I don't like that", "I don't agree with that", "I don't like that word", "The source doesn't say that" or "Source is out-of-date" (without defining a date) or just "bad formatting" with no explanation. Without giving proper discussion to deleted edits, this is nothing more than the censorship of one POV over another.

• Cease accusing other editors of a cover up, and cease making accusations of bad faith editing

I have not accused any editors of a cover up of the material. There is a cover up of the material in this edit [53], but I have not laid the blame on anyone, I similarly have not made any accusations of bad faith editing and will not do so in the future. Such an example has been explained here. [54] This is not my normal behaviour, which may use inexplicable language sometimes when I am trying to express concepts not currently in the encyclopedia, but does not personal attack and says sorry every time I am slightly incorrect

• Cease inserting original research into articles

I am not aware of having done this recently and will not do so in the future.

• Cease adding material to articles that is unrelated to the article topic

Again, not aware of any recent instances, but will abide by that and give it increased consideration.

• Seek consensus on talk pages for any edits that may be reasonably construed as falling under one of the headings above, and abide by the subsequent consensus on the talk page

And again, anyone seeing the volumunous writings I make on talk pages should see it apparent I am doing my best at this. I would highlight that it is mostly my deleted edits and material that are not being discussed on talk pages and just being deleted without explanation on talk pages.""

I would now like also to reply on various categories of incidents the editors trying to prevent the publication of the data at [55]. This should address various questions of competence and knowledge of the sources.

Hugh Montgomery (historian) pubished this list and others. So I have tried to publish it on a page about him. Despite being mentioned in the British regional press as President of Megatrend University (and hence passing notability guidelines), the British regional press has been disqualified as unreliable in this regards in comparison to the American regional press, which supports similar claims in numerous articles, creating an ethnic bias. Even after getting a copy of his presidency certificate, with dates and a contact at Megatrend to confirm this status, the page has still been deleted. So I couldn't publish it there. Hence I have to take the long way around and go source all this scholarship in Oxford and Cambridge sources, which mostly I have done in good order.

Upon questioning some of the pedigrees and and wondering why certain vikings were recorded living to 200 years old on Wikipedia, I was replied to by Agricolae "For starters, though, I would suggest that you not use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly knowledge." and has been preventing me from trying to make it one in several instances.

• Firstly, the House of Icel was previously recorded on the List of monarchs of Mercia page as the first Kings of Mercia, with all sorts of legendary kings appearing in the list. For years we have been publishing Icel along with several others as kings such as Creoda, when the slightest bit of reading of history would alert you that was a poor assumption of Henry of Huntingdon and that Cearl or Ceorl was the first historically recorded King of Mercia. I should know, I live in what once was Mercia.

• Secondly, the Iclings have been running around Wikipedia for years too, totally without anyone noticing they hadn't been researched properly. They are now the Iclingas and I need to write a page on them.

• On the topic of the Uffingas. This is the name for them as explained to Mike Christie yesterday on my talk page, I will discuss again here because it highlight's that my competence should not be in question here. In response to Agricolae's argument about Uffingas being prefixed with the Wynn in Old English and one by Mike Christies saying "As an aside, my copies of Bede do not show him using "Uffingas"; the Latin in the Colgrave edition is "Uuffingas".

The original source, as Mike is aware but Agricolae is unfamiliar is Bede, written in Latin.

The Latin prefix "Uu", as Mike seems unaware is pronounced as an extended "U", with no Wynn involved as this is a Latin and not Old English source. Please see this reference for explanation of the pronunciation of "Uu" and it's development from "Uo" [56]

This is why it appears in the old versions of Bede you can read online, Francis Palgrave, Tom Brown's Schooldays and most literature in Britain call them Uffingas and link them to Uffington, which in Anglo-Saxon was "Uffingatún" so fairly clear. I am not calling for this to be inserted in the article incidentally, however I am calling for fair representation of what the large majority of British people know and associate this name with, and appropriate, relevant discussion on the Wuffingas page to show how the name has been popularised and used in both popular novels and notable scholarship in Britain. Not to do so is again the creep of an ethnically biased, anti-British POV into the discussion, which has no place here. This article is about ancient Britain! Agricolae has also argued for the deletion of Progonoplexia which is a "key element of Greek identity" that "Turks, Armenians and Jewish people have succumbed to". Adolf Hitler similarly tried to eliminate key elements of certain ethnic groups identities and my family died fighting him.

I am also Druze, which gives me a very different, yet inclusive POV that is being constrained and marginalised here. We honour legends from all regions as prophets. It is part of my religious creed to be neutral on this.

With regard the competence of my understanding of sources. Agricolae has argued that he can see a gold letter in front of Uffa in the picture below, I cannot see any gold. This is a bit like playing the Emperor's new clothes, but can anyone else see any gold?

I could go on with all sorts of discussions on english, biology, plurality, even use of a thesaurus, freedom of artistic expression and really basic concepts that I have been drawn into discussions to explain in an attempt to publish the tables at [57]. The reason given here of "bad formatting" is not applicable as the table is a copy of one Agricolae created himself. The size was increased by 6%, and if this is "bad" then that is purely Christian POV.

The table of the full names of ancient British gods and ancestors in that table has been extensively discussed with numerous sources here - [58], which has been totally ignored on the presumption I don't understand the sources I am discussing.

I would again invite anyone to examine the sources, you will find only five kings, with the last one having an important (as in Buckingham Palace) -ing suffix, that has been properly discussed in viewable sources. If you are reading 6 kings, this is more than likely a typo in the 1969 version that has been corrected in the 1970 source you can view freely.

Now I aplogize for any misdemeanours and will try to keep them to a minimum as expressed above, I do a large volume of work, so some are inevitable, but there have been no arguments with my recent articles of last week, such as Lineages of Outremer, Chuldu, Siculus, Ollamh Érenn, Iverni, Creoda, MacDuff's Cross, etc.

But why this has come to RFU, the material in [59] are original records of Britain's oldest ancestors. Someone to look up to. Forgotten heros, like so many in a Valley of Dry Bones. Why are they so important to me that I would spend all this time trying to publish them for my people, European people and quite a few others. The importance is discussed at Legendary progenitor and Progonoplexia. There are very few people who go to church anymore here, we have no Jesus to look up to with the rise of Richard Dawkins and Atheism. Social community has broken down and my people are being ground into the dirt after the consequences of the Financial crisis of 2007–2008. Make me a British Wikipedia martyr for midemeanours if you like. At least I'll have gone down trying our kings right and bring some of our legends back in the process along with a bit of hope. I am sure ten more will be along soon to replace me. Now I'll have to leave you with a quote and get back to work -

"The Messiah doesn't need miracles. He is the miracle. Now he's here. Are you ready for me? I'm here to tear down everything around you, and you know what I'm going to replace it with? Something new: God. The World of God. So take your bread and give it to the poor. What difference does it matter what you own? You have gold and silver? It's going to rot, and that rot is going to eat away your heart. All of you! There will be a flood, and there will be a fire. Everything will be destroyed. But there will be a new ark riding on that fire, and I hold the keys and I open the door, and I decide who goes in and who doesn't. You're my brothers from Wikipedia, and you're the first I invite on the ark. Don't wait. Don't waste your life. Come with me." Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by History2007

I am not surprised that this has showed up here. In early November I predicted that it would go this way. And I have since tried to spend as little time on the issues as possible because I saw it as having no future.

The trend has been that one fringe article has been started after another, references to local newspapers have been puffed up like they are major publications, small town figures are decorated to look like international celebrities, etc. And this long saga has eaten up a huge amount of time from other users who have had to clean up. This has to stop. And stop now. I do think that the remedies need to be much stronger, and sooner or later a broad topic ban regarding all fringe subjects needs to come into effect. This may not be the venue for that broad ban, but action has to start here anyway. It is about time. This can not go on.

My advice to Paul is to write his own blog. That is the only way he will get his views to the public. I think his desired title of "King of Fringe" would be a suitable blog name, and is free. Look, you are spending your entire Wiki-life on Afd pages anyway. You type for hours and hours and it all gets zapped when the Afd closes. You get high marks on persistence, but after all that, then what? You love to research fringe and talk about it. But Wikipedia is not the venue for that. Eventually you will get a topic ban anyway. Believe me, I have seen the trends and I know the trends. I know where this train is going. You can get your own blog, interview Monty and have fun that way. That is the only way. As I said, historically speaking the reign of Kings of Fringe on Wikipedia has not lasted long.... But, let us not start new articles on that genealogy. Ok?

When I first typed this, Paul had not responded to the RFCU yet, then he did and the last few paragraphs say it: Those are the less than coherent statements of someone on some type of a mission. A mission of fringe. These types of "on a mission" cases usually have the same Wiki-destination: the indef station. It is just a question of time. And I think Paul even knows it, just wants to see how much more content can come in along the way.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
2. The RFCU response by Paul takes the biscuit, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Mathsci (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
12. AB (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Akhilleus (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
16. Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Partially outside view by DCI2026

I have become involved in this dispute through the ongoing progonoplexia AfD; after a lengthy discussion with Agricolae and a greater appreciation of the context of the scenario, I've withdrawn my keep !vote. My take on this is rather simple:

• Paul Bedson ought to assume good faith on the part of editors who have conflicting viewpoints
• He should utilize discussion space before making potentially controversial edits, to discuss the appropriateness and reliability of sources
• Other editors should be willing to hear Paul out but only if he presents logical, source-based arguments and abstains from making inappropriate attacks.
  • This point has been changed from an earlier version which supported editors hearing him out in almost all cases. This is admittedly unrealistic and, given the circumstances, not appropriate.
• Paul should take a quick breather in the areas of controversy, perhaps for a day or two, whereupon realistic, collegial, and appropriate discussion should ensue. At that time, deletion and merge discussions should be resolved with the least amount of "drama" possible.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. dci | TALK 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
2. with a caveat to point 3 - there are limits to how long engagement is productive. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mostly outside view by DGG

Even if I were someone who had never read the sources, and was wholly unaware of the secondary literature, I would regard Paul's defense as absurd. Asking for a firm date before which sources are unreliable is unrealistic, but it is only common sense that in discussing legendary or semi=-legendary material older sources are much less likely to be accurate. (and anyone who does know Anglo-Saxon history knows how utterly unhelpful are the 18th century secondary sources) And the argument that because he is "Druze, which gives me a very different, yet inclusive POV that is being constrained and marginalised here. We honour legends from all regions as prophets": confuses religious significance with historical knowledge. Anyway, I doubt that anyone writing on Anglo-Saxon history claims to be a prophet, and if Paul bases his edits on revelations to himself, that would be a uniquely extreme form of Original Research. Editors have claimed here from time to time that because they follow a particular faith, they are enabled to interpret it better than others, but nobody before has claimed it gives them this ability for even unrelated matters. Paul's defense avoids mentioning his errors in referencing that nobody should make, least of all someone claiming enough scholarship to interpret early medieval sources: the use of WP mirrors as sources, and the use of dates based upon republications not original publication. Sometimes it can be hard to tell what is a mirror, but the use of [60], which states exactly the derivation in bold face at the top of the article, not merely hidden at the bottom like some mirrors do, is not just careless work, but reckless. As for the emperors new clothes argument, although it is difficult to judge exact colors on a reproduction of a thousand year old manuscript on a web page, I see the gold before Uffa. it look like a faded yellow-brown, not a shining gold, but that's as close as can be expected. The 2nd ,4th, 6th, 8th and 10th items on the list are the same yellow-brown color, a color different from the bright red of the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th. and 13th, and from the dark green of the 12th and 14th.

I have argued in various AfDs that we ought not exclude minority interpretations that have sources and some degree of acceptance. The traditional accounts of the origins of European kingdoms have clearly mythological elements at one end, and clearly historical ones at the other; any historian would accept there is some degree of uncertainty about the exact status of some of those in between. Uncertainty does not equal unlimited room for imagination. There have been serious defenses in modern times of what most people now consider fantasy, such as the Arthurian legends,which we should include. But every variation a WPedian can devise does not have equal status to those in the actual historical literature.

User who endorse this summary:

1. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
2. As DGG said, the defenses offered are absurd and the direct use of obvious Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks as references in inexcusable. In fact, the utter absurdity of the defenses offered is a clear indication that there will be no remedy for the user behavior here. History2007 (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Mathsci (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
5. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
8. As DGG points out, the "firm date before which sources are unreliable" claim shows a complete misunderstanding of everything important in academic publishing in general and historical scholarship in particular. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Generally support, but not completely: see talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mostly outside view by Til Eulenspiegel

I can easily see the wynn in front of Uffa, it has exactly the same form as the Wynn just below it in front of Illiam, and in the words Wuffa and William on the same line. I don't see how Paul could miss it. And the remarks on using out of date research, when there is more updated reseaarch available, is apropros; however I also want to point out that the best articles do include the historiography of their subject, that is, tracing the history of what people, or schools of thought, used to think about it, not just what they think now. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User who endorse this summary:

• Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I can see it too. Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Outside view from Mangoe

Like many of the other commenters here, I had a previous round with Paul over the Coelbren Rhodd/Saint Paul in Britain knock-down, drag-out deletion discussions and the related discussion on WP:FT/N. It seemed to me at the time that Paul helped put off what was pretty much a foregone conclusion from the start on the first discussion (and mind you, I wanted to keep the article in some manner; the problem was the availability of sourcing for an accurate article), and then, not liking that, he went around and created the second article as something of an article rescue. In both cases he fought an uphill battle against an overwhelming scholarly consensus that the work was a piece of historical fantasy.

I haven't participated in the current disputes. That said, however, the peering at and decoding of an ancient manuscript represents original research at its most blatant. There is no conceivable way this can be squared with policy.

User who endorse this summary:

1. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes, all indications are of no hesitation regarding prolonged uphill battles against logic. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
5. I have only just become aware of this user, but he fits a template very familiar to me from my earlier years of greater activity at the wiki. This is a well-meaning user who vastly over-estimates his own competence, and as a result under-estimates the competence of the few editors around here who actually do have academy-level competence in the topics he touches. If not treated too harshly, and if the user is young, he may still get a sense of perspective, and be spurred into improving their own competence. With higher competence, respect for competence in others will follow. If the user is past his 40s or so, this will not work, and he will remain cranky. This is just my own home-rolled wiki-psychology, I cannot claim this is more than a gut feeling and will not defend it when challenged, but fwiiw it is backed by years of experience with comparable cases. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
6. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Involved view from Dougweller

The problems that resulted in this RfC/U are described in more detail above, but I am probably the first editor he has interacted with and I have been struggling with him since to persuade him to follow our guidelines and policies. He has always been an editor with a fringe pov and resistant to change. Below are just some of the events that have lead to this, mainly ones in which I participated or gave him advice or warnings. I think I've been too patient with him - partially because his edits are so prolific that it is virtually impossible for one person to keep track of them (see another editor's comment "Your output is so incredibly high that people like me or Doug simply can't keep up checking it."[61] Sourcing problems: My first contact with Paul was in March 2010 when I took an article of his to AfD and tried to give him guidance on fringe and sourcing.[62]. I specifically told him that self-published sources were not acceptable, but he continues to add them, eg last month when he created an article duplicating an already existing one[63] he used " Jesse Russell; Ronald Cohn (June 2012). Wuffingas. Book on Demand. ISBN 978-5-512-66577-0. Retrieved 29 November 2012.". He actually included "Books on Demand" and its link[64] which clearly states that it is made up of Wikipedia articles. As is pointed out on the talk page of this RfC/U, he could not have read the book in any case. This is very concerning as according to his user page he has created 362 articles. How many of them have similar sources?

In July 2011 I wrote on his talk page[65] " I'll also add that I think at times you are relying on Google snippets, which is rarely a good thing as you haven't seen the context, and that you need to keep closer to what the sources actually say. And Wikipedia is not a venue for presenting new information to the world - something I think you know you are trying to do." (This was in part a response to another editor who had mentioned his 'crusade').

I also suggested to him that tourist sites and books did not meet our criteria at WP:RS. He still seems to be using such sites as references.[66].

Reinserting material deleted from articles (by edits or by AfD) in other articles

This attempt to give advice has continued since, with varying results. In March 2011 I brought another article of his to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome. Note that in the discussion he admitted to having cited a book that he hadn't actually read, and that although the outcome was delete, Paul during the AdD discussion Paul turned a redirect he had created into a very similar article called Wandlebury Enigma with the edit summary "The Empire will never find us here on Hoth". This seems to be a pattern of his when faced with an AfD (as is the style of edit summary).

Accusing other editors of a cover up, and cease making accusations of bad faith editing

In April 2011, possibly as a result of comments of this such as the ones here], an Arbitration Enforcement request was brought against him.[67]. The first sentence of his response was to say "This seems to be a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revoluiton in Aaiha." He made similar comments alleging that editors wanted a site destroyed on his talk page.[68].

Refusal to accept consensus and warnings

The result of the AE request was a formal notification on his talk page. His response was "I'll keep on ignoring this until you guys find the citation that's needed to label Archaeoastronomy as Pseudoscience.[69].

Using Wikipedia as a platform for his views His penchant (referred to above) for using Wikipedia to inform the world about things he deems important is shown again when he wrote "This is me figuring out a way to teach everyone about where the Garden of Eden is via the Aaiha Hypothesis".[70]

He has used DYK a number of times to push fringe ideas, see [71]. This only mentions a few, but I can't figure out how to search DYK nominations for the rest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward F. Malkowski mentions a more recent one and gives further examples of the problems of this editor.

I could give more diffs but these should be enough to show that the problems being discussed are long-standing and there doesn't seem to be progress. Given past performance my guess is that he will agree to behave and then carry on the same behavior.

I need to add that I don't find some of his edit summaries amusing. They seem to be more mocking or obfuscatory then helpful, and I've asked him to stop - to no avail - just as I've asked him to stop making personal attacks. On these and other issues we aren't supposed to give experienced editors formal warnings, but perhaps that needs to be done in the future.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
4. AB (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Akhilleus (talk) This might be breaking from the proper format of an RfC/U, but I just want to note that like Doug, I encountered Paul's editing in 2010 in articles about Mesopotamian culture, and the behavior that we're seeing in Anglo-Saxon articles now was apparent then in a very different topic. So this is a long-standing problem. 05:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
6. This is my last edit to this Rfc/U: There is enough material here to request a ban on WP:AN and I suggest someone does that. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
7. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Enric Naval

(disclaimer: I commented in the 2011 AE's thread) I just finish some reviewing of the "Reaction" section in one of Bedson's articles. Paul Bedson had claimed that the section only needed small fixes to reflect the mainstream opinion[72] but I found that not only Bedson's assessment is incorrect, but it's also at odds with the sources he used in the article. If this is representative of Bedson's editing, then all his articles need to be tagged, reviewed and even stubbed to a couple of lines.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Enric Naval (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
4. History2007 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
8. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Tommy Pinball

I am not convinced that any of the views expressed above are "outside" and I'm not convinced that any of the votes are by outsiders. There are two issues here: mainspace edits & talkspace edits. It is difficult to comment in favour of Bedson (is it not rude to refer to a user in this way?) without first checking ALL the links. Tommy Pinball (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry Paul, what you write is interesting and circumstantially supported by an independent search; but not supported by the references you are attaching. I have noticed a couple of duff references that I dont see mentioned above. While you have may have modified you editing based on comments, I dont see much compulsion to go back over your old work. Tommy Pinball (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Involved view by Akhilleus

Like Dougweller, I encountered Paul back in 2010, when he was primarily interested in Near Eastern topics. The problems that have been brought up in this RfC/U extend back to Paul's first edits, and his responses here give me little hope that there's going to be a major change after this process concludes.

Paul's procedure seems to be this: he reads the work of an independent scholar that proposes some novel theory of history. He decides that this theory, which has revealed some hitherto unknown truth about the past, *must* be included in Wikipedia. Paul creates an article or articles based on this theory, which (surprisingly) turns out to be the work of a non-expert and far outside of the academic mainstream--in short, a fringe theory. When Paul encounters resistance to his edits, he moves the material from article to article, because the truth should not be supressed. Lots of AfDs and merge discussions follow, and hours upon hours of editors' time is wasted.

Paul's first edits involved the creation of a biographical article on Christian O'Brien, and the creation of Kharsag, a Sumerian word meaning hill or mountain. But look at the first version of Kharsag put into mainspace, and you'll see that these articles were intended to forward O'Brien's fringe ideas of the true location of the Garden of Eden and the evolution of civilization since then. In Paul's edits to Near Eastern subjects, references to mainstream scholarship were generally outdated, and either misunderstood or tendentiously interpreted. Essentially, Paul was creating an alternate universe version of the Near East, at odds with the consensus of academic experts in the topic.

Normally it's not worth rehashing edits from two years ago, especially when they are the user's first Wikipedia edits. Usually, people learn the policies and acclimatize themselves to how one is expected to edit here. But Paul seems to be editing in the same way as when he started. He's convinced that he has important information--a heretofore unrealized truth--about Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. He's going to get it into Wikipedia somehow--if an article gets deleted, he'll just move the information somewhere else. A recent gambit is the enormous expansion of legendary progenitor, with the stated goal of incorporating material rejected from Langfedgetal--see [73].

The problems with Paul's editing are ongoing, and take up an enormous amount of time and energy from other editors. Paul's response above indicates that he doesn't understand the issues that this RfC/U has brought up. So I don't expect that this RfC/U is the final step. I think one thing that would help, though, is to add one restriction to the list proposed above. Namely, Paul should not create any new articles, on any topic whatsoever. This will prevent the time suck of taking articles to AfD, or deciding to stub/merge them.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Agricolae (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Mathsci (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Oh cripes, I remember that. And the way that went is just like the way these are going: a very persistent push to get the material in somehow against a protests of a chorus of others, featuring elaborate analysis of the referred-to works. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Endorse all of the above - no more new articles or redirects, he can suggest those on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
9. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Endorse, but suggest wider ban on fringe. History2007 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Endorse, while agreeing with History2007. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Strongly endorse. Some people just are not cut out for creating new articles on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

I am closing this request for comment, in accordance with a request on the administrators' noticeboard, because contributions have stalled and the result is clear.

This RfC results in unanimous consensus that Paul Bedson's contributions to Wikipedia are detrimental. Contributors agree that Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so. The RfC also concludes that Paul Bedson is not capable or willing to collaborate constructively and collegially with others.

Paul Bedson's response to this unanimous assessment by his fellow editors is incoherent and makes very little sense. It makes clear that Paul Bedson does not understand why everybody else considers his conduct problematic, and that he does not intend to change it. On that basis, I am blocking Paul Bedson indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein  21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.