User talk:Winkelvi

Request for advice on whether to report potential edit warring

I would like to ask your advice on whether or not I should report Ring Cinema for edit warring, since his editing may not explicitly violate the 3RR, but as I understand it you have noted he is a persist edit warrer (around September 19, 2014. The edits in question on his current edit warring revolve around two Michael Caine films, Deathtrap (film) and Sleuth (1972 film) Two days ago I added a sentence to the leads of both of these article noting the similarities of these films, and providing citations of reviews by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin that explicitly mention the similarities between these films, as well as three published books that mention the similarities. Yesterday Ring Cinema repeatedly reverted these changes on the Deathtrap article. At that point, I attempted to start a discussion with him. Since then, he has reverted the change again. This is his third revert. His first revert was 16:25, 4 August 2015‎, and his last revert was 16:51, 5 August 2015‎. At 16:51, 5 August 2015, he also reverted the almost exact same sentence in the Sleuth article. So while it's two different articles, it is the exact same issue with the exact same editors in the two articles, and he is at 4 reverts of it in barely over 24 hours. This feels like edit warring if not a cut-and-dried violation of 3RR. I have opened a discussion of the content dispute on WP:DRN, but do you think I should also go to ANI/3rr? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Report him if you think his actions are deserving of being reported, Mmyers1976. I have no opinion one way or the other. Yes, he and I have tangled previously, but I don't hold any animosity toward him and I'm certainly not looking for reasons to see him taken to a noticeboard. If you believe it's as cut and dried as you say, do what you think is appropriate. If you, however, have been edit warring as well, be prepared for a possible WP:BOOMERANG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked because I believe it's not cut and dried, it's more of those ambiguous situations like he was warned about before, and also because of the open DRN discussion, I don't want to look like I'm forum-shopping. I counted and have 3 reverts on the Deathtrap article, and then I stopped and discussed. Even though he has reverted me again on that article, I have let it stand pending the DRN. I have not reverted at all on the Sleuth article, and I have let his revert stand pending the DRN, so I believe I'm clear of an edit warring boomerang charge. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you have also asked Drmies for advice. I would go with whatever he says. I've found his advice wise and unbiased as well as trustworthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Too much praise, Winkelvi. I'm a bit mobile and the keyboard is sticky (it's in Alabama, as am I), and I haven't looked at diffs yet, so pardon the brevity. But y'all, realize that WP:AN3 is also WP:EWN, that is, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--in other words, while the template may suggest it's all about three reverts, it's a noticeboard for edit warring, and that's a broader thing than just 3R violations. You might say that's more liberal, but it's also intended, I believe, to bring to admin attention the more persistent edit warriors who tend to work long-term, outside of the clear bright line of 3R. So if you're suspecting someone of such edit warring, and if, of course, you're not the only one reverting them, you may well report it--just write up a good report in which you lay out the case.

It may be (but this is possibly not of any interest to you) that the "punishment" is different. Clear 3R violations are frequently met with a short block to prevent 4R, 5R, etc.; long-term edit warring violations sometimes call for different matters, and it may be that the matter ends up on ANI for POV editing or whatever. But don't be afraid to report edit warring: Bbb23 and EdJohnston know what they're doing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great info, helped my understanding a lot. replied in full on your talk. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just received your message. The reason I changed the information regarding Meredith's date of birth, which I'm assuming is the reason for your message, is because of a photo Josh Duggar just posted of his daughter. In the caption of the photo he says that Meredith is one month old today which would indicate that she had been born on July 16th and not July 19th. I think they simply announced the birth on July 19th in order to give Anna time to rest and the children a chance to bond with their new sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckym1983 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Duggar date

Hi, I just received your message. The reason I changed the information regarding Meredith's date of birth, which I'm assuming is the reason for your message, is because of a photo Josh Duggar just posted of his daughter. In the caption of the photo he says that Meredith is one month old today which would indicate that she had been born on July 16th and not July 19th. I think they simply announced the birth on July 19th in order to give Anna time to rest and the children a chance to bond with their new sister. (Beckym1983 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for responding, Beckym1983. It's important that when content is changed -- especially dates -- that you give a reason for the change in the edit summary and that a reliable source is provided to support the change. As far as I know (without looking first), I believe the 19th date is sourced. I will check to make sure that's the case. If not, then we can look into the 16th date for accuracy and change that content accordingly. Thanks for wanting to edit for accuracy! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz Edit

Thanks for your note regarding my recent edit to Ted Cruz. I saw that resource you flagged referenced on a page for another candidate and thought it was useful for establishing ideological context, do you have suggestions on how to be able to provide that type of information from resources like Crowdpac in a way that isn't promotional? Thank you. Dapcrescendo9 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dapcrescendo9, the addition of the content was problematic from three aspects: It's not from a reliable source, it's from a biased source, and the source is promotional/spam in nature. You may not have intended for it to be "spammy", but it would likely be seen as such, regardless. The biased nature of the source you provided is also not acceptable. If you are able to find an unbiased, reliable source that can support that content, you are welcome to add it to the article. As it is, however, we cannot accept the content. Please see WP:SPAM, WP:REF, and WP:NPOV for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, thanks very much for your response, very helpful. Can you help me understand how the source is biased? One of the things I found useful about them is that they appear to be very objective politically outside of the issue of money in politics. I found their scoring model to be useful in that it is based on objective analysis of campaign contributions, and have seen them cited a few different places. I've seen similar methodology to the one they used from sources like fivethirtyeight.com and have seen their data cited in a few major media outlets. I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and am just looking to better understand how bias is being defined. Would it be better to combine that data with other sources that have included that data or similar data? Thanks again. Dapcrescendo9 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's biased because it is a pro-Conservative political action group, even though they claim to be non-partisan, the group's founder is a strong Conservative and much of their reports are anti-Liberal. Beyond this, addition of the source you provided is promotional. At the top of the chart was a solicitation for funds to the Conservative candidates listed. The inclusion of such is inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Walker

Hi Winkelvi. FYI: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Scott_WalkerAnythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

George Takei

Could you please let me know what you were referring to as "relevant information" for the George Takei article I edited. Both sections I edited seemed to have nitpicking information that wasn't necessarily relevant to the page. Thanks! Mitchmasontim (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Mitchmasontim

If it happened and is written in a manner consistent with policy on Wikipedia biographies of living persons (BLPs), notablity, and citing reliable references, then it's inclusion-worthy. We don't keep negative content out of BLPs just because it's negative (which was the reasoning for removal you cited in the edit summary). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Jared Fogle

Hasn't Jared publicly admitted to having sex below the age of consent (which is 16, 17 or 18 depending on what state you're in). Well, I still find the pedophilia category inaccurate. Pedophilia is a medical diagnosis and while it has been said he has a medical condition and will be receiving treatment for sexual disorders, they haven't specifically said he has pedophilia. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 22:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has had sex with minors and that is one of the things he was charged with. He was not charged with rape. He has also been charged with being in possession of and distributing child pornography. You could be right about the pedophilia category, however, you are incorrect to add a category for rape. Categories, of course, have to be supported by article content as well as reliable sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't sex with people under 16 considered rape? I am probably right about the pedophilia category. In order to be diagnosed with pedophilia you must be primarily attracted to people under 11 (something that doesn't appear to be true with him). He has a sexual disorder but until he has a diagnosis he shouldn't be in the pedophilia category. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 23:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Rape has different definitions. That said, if the sources don't support that he raped anyone, and the charges don't say he raped anyone, then we don't say he raped anyone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 23:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, I just read your post on WP:RSN. Informing noticeboards of RFC's that have questions are normally dealt with on those boards is not canvassing. You can read here for other appropriate places to publicise a RFC that are not canvassing. AlbinoFerret 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, AlbinoFerret. With the other comments left in conjunction with the RfC notification, there was an intent for something else. Trust me on this. As always, it's good to hear from you - I hope you are well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the statement was not neutral, but I wanted you to know what is acceptable so that you dont make unintentional false statements. I'm doing good, hope you are also. AlbinoFerret 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Glad you are doing well -- I am, also! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Duggar

Hello,

"In 1984, Duggar Michelle Ruark." doesn't sound grammatical to me. Is there a quirk of the English language that makes it correct to omit the word "married"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bob_Duggar&diff=679158632&oldid=679156228 15.211.201.85 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That was an error on my part, thought I corrected it, but didn't. My apologies for any confusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On Denali

Come on, you know it's true. 24.255.44.92 (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Which is completely beside the point. Follow the link he helpfully provided to you and learn how to use article talk pages correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:24.255.44.92, you're being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive. Talk pages are not a forum. If that's what you're looking for, do it outside Wikipedia, not here. And if you didn't come to my talk page to truly discuss, rather, to just stir the pot some more, please stay off this page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(Notifications - any kind of ping, reverts, etc - don't work for IPs. However, as I understand it, they do get the yellow "you have new messages" bar if you post on their talk page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Undid

I made a recent edit to Jesse Ventura's page changing his unit affiliation and using a website address that had 3 pages of factual interviews from various Vietnam era SEALs that was copyrighted by Bill Salsibury yet you deleted the footnote citing it wasnt a credible website, yet several other attached footnotes from other websites were left alone and thus were deemed credible. What is your criteria for credibility on a website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.75.69 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not my criteria, it's Wikipedia's criteria for verification of references and referencing. The The reference you provided is a self-published source and that's not acceptable for referencing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Arrest

I think you are misreading the press release. There's a possible distinction with juveniles regarding custody but the reasons for taking him to a juvenile detention center for processing is functionally equivalent to an arrest. "Taking him into custody" = "Arrested." They cited the law he was arrested and that would have been the probable cause for taking into custody. For adults, they would not have been able to take a person into custody like that without an arrest. A Terry stop is a detention. People are making more out of handcuffing, though. It's generally policy in police departments that anyone arrested is handcuffed with hands behind their back while being transported unless a medical condition prevents it. After arrest and further investigation, they chose not to charge him but it doesn't negate the arrest. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And I stand corrected that in Texas, for juveniles they explicitly state that "taken into custody" is not considered an "arrest" under the law. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think his detention does constitute "arrest". The law in question (as I understand it) says that when someone has been arrested but is free not to disclose it, they can say "no" and be considered to have answered truthfully. I think that's because requiring them to say "yes but I'm not required to disclose this fact" would be incoherent: it would require them to disclose the fact in the course of saying that they're not required to. As I understand it, there is instead an implicit clause, in effect: it says only "Have you ever been arrested?", but it means "Have you ever been arrested, that isn't privileged from disclosure?" Furthermore, if I read it correctly, the Texas statute on kidnapping and unlawful restraint makes exception "when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested" -- not when it's either arrest or the substitute-for-arrest applicable a juvenile. (There are a bunch of clauses saying it's lawful to restrain a child, or for a child to restrain another child without force, intimidation, or deception. So I might have missed a pseudo-arrest clause in there. But I don't think so.) Nor do I think that this detention constitutes a Terry Stop. Here's how Terry describes arrest: An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. That's what they were doing. At that point, they suspected that he had perpetrated a bomb hoax, and were acting toward a possible prosecution for that offense. Finally, there's video of the police chief being asked about the "arrest", and not objecting to that description of what happened. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. There is so much about this incident the media has gotten wrong (for instance, saying charges were dropped - there were never any charges filed) that I'm sick of reading the distortions of the truth in the news. Nothing personal, but I'm also sick of talking about whether he was arrested or not arrested, to be honest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You really templated me ?

Nice going, but no. I'm enforcing WP:POLEMIC, consensus exists that his writing is polemic and per the policy, it needs to be removed, full stop. KoshVorlon 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Twice now. Cut the bullshit. You were told to move on. Do it before you get taken to a noticeboard and will surely be blocked. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, cool story bro, but I have both consensus and policy on my side, you don't have anything except WP:ILIKEIT. Take it there, if you dare! KoshVorlon 16:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) PS: You reverted me with Twinkle and you referred to me edit as vandalism, which it wasn't. That's a mis-use of Twinkle, better read the manual again sport! KoshVorlon 17:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is this alleged consensus to be found and viewed? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary | here . KoshVorlon 17:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said: Blocked for disruptive behavior. You should have seen it coming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Outing Attempt

I've warned the IP once more and sent a message to get this stuff suppressed. Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks for your vigilance.

Best, GAB^Hello! 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Have no idea what the mission here is, but the IP does seem determined. Annoyingly so. Their quoting of policy and use of Wiki-speak tells me they are not new here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Suppress, indef, rinse and repeat. GAB^Hello! 21:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of others' talk page comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Stephkollm. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 32.218.35.60 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It's WP:OUTING, and that's strictly prohibited. GAB^Hello! 21:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hello,

I'm confused about the "lack of citation" on my post about Ronald Reagan. I attempted to cite the Economics/Finance blog Calculated Risk. Does the citation not come up? If so, what are the steps necessary to properly include the citation?

Thanks,

Waltersjoe86 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. The cite was there. The problem, Waltersjoe86, is a blog is not a reliable source. This was stated in the edit summary where I reverted your addition. There needs to be a reliable source accompanying such content -- especially a change in statistical content. Please see WP:CITE for a better understanding on what is acceptable reference-wise in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification! I'll find a different source to cite.

Waltersjoe86 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warning?

You placed a stern edit warning on my Talk page. Care to elaborate? Checkingfax (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me. What's confusing you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

AfDs of blocked editor's articles

Please comment here, if you like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No desire to comment there and dive headfirst into the drama. Especially since the user has previously told me to stay off his talk page. But thanks for the thoughtful notifcation/invitation, Anna. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. What are your thoughts on holding off for a couple of days until it is sorted out? I have yet to start checking to see if his claim of innocence may be true. Are you planning on nominating more? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm finished with that work for now, Anna. As far as his claims to not be the banned user, I find it highly doubtful MikeV would have blocked JTV without an SPI and by using CU only if it were not certain they are one and the same. CU is about more than IP addresses for clues. There had to be very solid evidence against JTV for him to block in the manner he did. Regardless, even with simple steps of investigation regarding the usual signs of sockpuppetry taken, this could have easily been a good case for a Duck Block. I have faith in MikeV's determination, I imagine ArbCom will as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I trust Mike V's judgement, of course. I first posted at JTV to start a dialogue with the view that the block is right. DENY is for trolls and vandals. Socks who sock because they think it is the right thing to do should be engaged. Nobody wants to hurt other people, especially volunteers. We spend time here that could be spent with puppies in the park. When someone socks, it hurts us, personally. It steals our time. And it hurts the project they are trying to help. I want socks to make a choice: Own up, make a deal, and come in from the cold ...or... understand that they are really causing harm even though they think they are helping, and stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

G5 category

According to WP:G5, "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging." (emphasis added).

You nominated Category:Papakating Creek watershed, presumably because it was created by JackTheVicar. It looks to me like it might be a useful category. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted Category:Wildlife Management Areas in New Jersey before realizing the exception to G5, so let's discuss that one as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a useful category, Sphilbrick. I don't, however, agree that it should be kept and should be deleted per G5 but also the spirit behind WP:DENY. It appears that JTV/ColonelHenry is a long-time sockmaster who should really go into the WP:LTA category. Take a look at everything (several sections worth of discussion) at AN/I last year regarding this individual [1]. His antics (and they are quite extensive and messy) go back over a decade. After you take a look there, and you still think the category should stay with JTV as the category creator, I won't protest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really need to review the history. I'm comfortable with the concept of DENY (while recognizing that editors have good faith disagreements with the policy.) It is my understanding that G5 exists specifically for the purpose of DENY. I think the transclusian exception exists because we don't want sensible policies generating unreasonable amounts of headache, and deleting trancluded templates would be cutting off our nose to spite your face. However, G5 specifically has an exception for useful categories. I don't know the history of the inclusion of that exception. It may simply be that while no particular article is critical to the encyclopedia and therefore the exclusion won't cause major harm and will achieve our goal of denying recognition, if a category was created that turns out to be useful, it may create more problems than it is worth to delete it. I don't want to belabor this too much but I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed light on the rationale for this exception in case I'm missing something important.

One other possibility is that I delete it and then someone perhaps you are I immediately then re-creates it. Does no copyright infringement for a single word or two, and perhaps that would achieve the goal of DENY while not depriving the encyclopedia of the useful category. Any thoughts?

I may post this at ANI to get broader input.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal to recreate it is one I have recommended to other editors when they balk at deleting an article or category due to G5/DENY, Sphilbrick. I see it as a win-win for Wikipedia as it keeps the legitimate category but removes the banned/blocked sock from the equation and any history in the creation of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a bigger challenge in the case of an article. If you save the text and then simply re-create it you've violated copyright. If you don't say the tax credit from scratch good for you but that's a lot of work. At least with a three word category you don't have to worry about either.

This isn't a rush.

I want to emphasize, because sometimes text doesn't convey the right connotation, that I'm not criticizing your nomination. I'm genuinely puzzled that an apparently clear-cut CSD category has two exceptions, one I understand (I think) while the other isn't quite so clear to me.

There are also some additional complications. The editor in question denies being the originally blocked editor. I think that's being discussed behind the scenes and we shall hear at some time what they conclude. In addition to the two categories there is a good article in the mix.

In terms of timing, I'm signing off for the evening, have a meeting in the morning, then have to rush off to another family meeting in another state. Expect to be back in the afternoon and will look to see if there's any update on the functionary review. Depending on the results of that, I may post something at ANI to see if the possibility of deleting and re-creating is a good idea or not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the article, considering what you have pointed out, it would be impractical and unwise, Sphilbrick. I'm not quite sure what the solution is, however, I have seen articles deleted but re-drafted later and then recreated. I do want to make it clear: my actions in regard to the articles and such created and edited by the editor in question, have been nothing less than honorable and never for the purpose of anything other than what is right and for the good of the encyclopedia. Certainly not a personal vendetta. I state this only because I am being accused by some of having nefarious motives with the reverts and AfDs and speedy deletion noms I have made today. As far as that editor now blocked, this will all be clear in time. As I have said elsewhere in the last several hours, I have faith in MikeV's decision to block and why. I am confident that the CU he performed was correct and that he wouldn't have blocked in the manner he did unless the results were without question. And yes, no rush. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw, without looking closely, that there were other aspersions cast at you. That was part of the reason I made the comment I did. Without comment on any of the other issues, I fully support the action you took in this case and we are, as editors are supposed to do, talking it through, to make sure that conflicting priorities are handled correctly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice

I'm looking for a more experienced editor to help me with a potential BLP issue. I made this edit [2] to remove a claim implying (if not directly claiming) criminal fraud. The source for the claim is a single buzzfeed article, which I understood as insufficient for negative BLP claims. My removal was reverted [3]. Is my understanding of sourcing requirements wrong? If not, can you advise me on how to proceed? I don't intend to edit war. Thank you. 107.150.94.5 (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As the reverting editor pointed out in his edit summary, previous discussion on the article talk page is in regard to Buzzfeed being a reliable source. I don't think you can do anything more, considering such. And be careful not to violate WP:3RR should you continue editing there over the next 24 hours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please just do not answer the undue etc stuff. It only encourages them and the thread is already almost swamped in back and forth. Thank you! Cheers. Jbh^Talk 19:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I had no intention of answering. It's obvious (especially considering his history) that he's looking to stir the pot and derail the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes give in to the temptation to respond to that type. ANI - Wikipedia's gladiator pit - "fun for the whole family"

Also thank you for bringing up the issue at ANI yesterday, I didn't have the time to pay attention to anything beyond gnomish stuff between random spurts of RL activity. Jbh^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant) bio

I want you to know that I have spent some time reading the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. In fact I printed them out and studied them carefully, noting them as I have gone along. This included disruptive editing, tendentious editing, civility, personal attacks, bullying, conflict of interest, other stuff exists, single purpose account, manual of style words to watch, neutral point of view, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, dispute resolution, weasel word and identifying reliable sources. These are all areas that at one time or another you and others have somehow touched upon in comments at the Talk page of my bio or a Wikipedia noticeboard. After reading this material I have a much more informed understanding of the Wikipedia editing process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Rocky Dennis edit

Hi, just got your message on my talk page. I'm relatively new to this so I'm not sure how to link to the relevant rule pages, but my edits that you undid fall perfectly within the guidelines.

1. The un-boldening of the quote marks around the name "Rocky" is in line with all other articles that follow this rule (see Tom Hardy or Caitlin Moran).

2. Unlinking 'American' is correct, as it's unnecessary linking.

3. His parents should not be mentioned in the infobox unless they have Wiki pages of their own which can be linked to.

4. Large geographical areas should also not be linked, specifically countries; this is why I unlinked the US.

5. I added the US to the end of his birth and death places because I'm yet to see an article on a person (non-sportsperson) where this wasn't the case.

Let me know if we need to discuss this further; I realise I would have a much stronger case if I could find the relevant rule pages to link to, so sorry about that. All I know is that my edits fall within the lines of advice given to me by senior editors. -- HughMorris15 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

HughMorris15: Regarding the above:

• 3 - His parents most certainly should be named in the infobox. It's the names of any non-notable children you don't add.

• 4 - There's no harm in linking large geographical areas.

• Other changes made: Your size push of the image was totally unnecessary. The year you put in the caption was impossible since Dennis went to junior high in the 1970s and died in 1978. And yes, you really need to be quoting specific policy if policy is what you say you are going by. No one is perfect, and I think you were trying to improve the article, however, the changes you made didn't seem like improvements. To be honest, they seemed a bit like intentional disruptive editing (especially with the year change being completely incorrect). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi:

The year change was a complete mistake on my part (mobile editing; I should've paid more attention), and I appreciate you pointing that out, though it's a bit paranoid to assume that it's intentional disruptive editing when you can blatantly see from my history that I don't go around trying to do that stuff. The size change of the image was, again, something I was told was the norm for biographies. I guess I was given dud info. Could you link me to the pages about linking geographical areas and including parents in the infobox? I'm pretty sure you're incorrect on both counts, as I've been scolded by senior editors before ("large geographical areas shouldn't be linked because there's too much blue in one space for it to be easily readable", "non-notable relatives of any kind have no point in being in the infobox"), but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you could help me out with a link to some help pages. HughMorris15 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not "paranoid" at all. If you had any clue how much vandalism and disruptive editing takes place in Wikipedia during a 24-hour period, and how much many of us have been dealing with for a while, you wouldn't call it paranoid at all. And it doesn't always come from anonymous IP editors. Yes, it does come from those with accounts. Especially new accounts such as yours.

Pretty much everything you need to know policy-wise can be found from this starting point: WP:PG. If you don't get your answers there, keep looking. As far as having been "scolded" in the past, sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just needs to be applied along with WP:IAR. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RE Ben Carson edit warring

Hi Winkelvi, Not sure if you're aware but Calibrador is Gage Skidmore, There's a huge report here, Long story short he prefers his name on every single image in every single article and there's nothing we can do, If you edit war and go to 3RRNO his buddies will probably turn up and defend him so to be absolutely honest it's not worth it in the long run,
Anyway just thought I should make you aware :),
Thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I know who he is and really don't care if he's a professional photographer or if his buddies show up. The photo he's edit warring over was too dark - the one I replaced it with is a better rendition. Don't know if you are aware, but he was blocked by Bbb23 back in June for the same kind of edit warring behavior over one of the photos he contributed. This is an ongoing issue for him, and his ownership issues are obvious. If he doesn't want to have the photos he takes and contributes changed, he shouldn't submit them to Wikipedia where they are fair game for being edited or removed. That's my feeling about it, anyway. Thanks for the heads up - always good to hear from you, Davey. Hope you are well and, if you celebrate, have a Happy Thanksgiving! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah right sorry , Ah I didn't realize you amended the photo - I thought you just reuploaded it under a new name , To be honest it'll always be an issue, Anyway it's nice to hear from you too! :), I don't think we celebrate Thanksgiving in the UK but thanks and I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving too :) –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot you are not on this side of the pond. We Americans in en.wikipedia tend to think of ourselves as the only ones here. Have a good upcoming weekend, then! :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha well most people on here are american so it's easy to think that , Thanks and You have a great weekend too :) .. Infact have a very Merry Christmas too haha . –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi and DRN question

Hi Winkelvi, I don't believe we've been formally introduced before, but I've seen you around on the wiki. I'm wia; nice to meet you! I'm wondering whether you're interested in continuing the DRN moderated discussion over at the Talk:Shah Rukh Khan dispute. I don't mind jumping in and helping out there if you're not able to or have other things on the go. Let me know if that's okay with you! Thanks, /wia /tlk 21:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to jump in. I looked at it yesterday, and didn't see any real progress. I will head over there now, but you are welcome to help out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

DR/N Khan etc.

Hi, please note the following edit. Based on the input at DR/N it seems pretty clear the content should not be in the lead. Best, Semitransgenic _talk. 17:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Semitransgenic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

can you advise? it appears another editor believes the dispute is unresolved 1,2. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

for the record, second attempt to address objectivity matter. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

over there at CS talk

after at least 8 edit conflicts - I'm going to watch some NFL for a bit. :-) — Ched :  ?  19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh - for future reference, what I was trying to post:
• (edit conflict)x? In response to "sources say": Most of the sources at this time are news articles. Wikipedia in not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. (or at least that's what I've been led to believe). — Ched :  ?  19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

NFL sounds good to me, too, Ched. The POV pushers are about to have a stroke, I think. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Alsee

Hello, I'm Alsee. I noticed that you've Templated The Regulars, and pointlessly did so while you were already engaged in an article talk discussion with the user. These templates serve to explain the various policies to new editors. When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible (if we assume good faith, which we must) that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.

Professional staff operating under professional editorial control are not commonly classified as "bloggers", and they do not fall under Self-published sources portion of policy. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message at Reliable Sources Noticeboard#Salon.com. Alsee (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it could be construed that way -- if someone is overly sensitive and defensive. Or someone could see it as a reminder and a chance to stop and think about what they are doing or have done. In which case, leaving such a template is a helpful thing to do.

Professional staff at online publications most certainly can -- and are -- classified as bloggers. You've heard of the Huffington Post, have you not? There are also other online news-blogs where their writers are referred to as "bloggers". If you aren't aware of this, you should take the time to familiarize yourself with it. As far as referencing goes, no, I don't need a refresher, nor am I in any way a "beginner". Nice attempt at condescension and being patronizing/uncivil. Something you are chastising me for. Ironic, isn't it, Alsee? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll concede I was a bit pointy tossing your tutorial back at you, but there's no high ground for you to claim here. I can just echo back every comment about the templates. They sound just as (un)reasonable to me, as they would sound to you, if I copy-pasted them back.

I thought about what I had done. I had posted a Due Weight Reliable Source, accurately informing the reader how sources generally cover the subject. I understand you may not fully agree with my policy interpretations on that. I understand you were trying to protect a BLP. But there was an on-going article talk and we could have constructively and respectfully discussed any policy disagreements. It was very bad form to template my talk page, especially in the middle of discussions on article talk. I don't need a tutorial any more than you do. I fluently cited a pile of Policies and Policy subsections backing up many of your reverts. And did you notice that you posted a beginner tutorial directly below Wikipedia Tech Newsletter??

Hopefully things aren't too tense to make this comment, I'll try to be as constructive and collaborative as possible: We're on the same team trying to improve the encyclopedia. When someone makes an edit with several changes - and you have cause to revert one aspect - please don't jump to the revert button. Please keep the good parts and manually revert the objectionable piece. Alsee (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Winkelvi. You have new messages at Talk:Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.
Message added 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this?

FYI, a really wonderful article by Eric Garcia on being a journalist with autism from a somewhat unexpected media outlet, the National Journal. Hope the link works for you. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a great article. Thanks for sharing it, Vesuvius Dogg. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

• Op-ed: Whither Wikidata?

• News and notes: Online harassment consultation; High voter turnout at ArbCom elections

• In the media: Is Wikidata as transparent as it seems?; Wikimedia Fund-raising drive launches

• Traffic report: Jonesing for episodes

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of G5

Hello Winkelvi, last month I came across an image that had been created by a banned user, which you had correctly tagged as G5. That led me to question the reason behind that policy through posting at WT:CSD#Why use G5 for useful pictures?. Now that we're further discussing this at WT:CSD#G5 reversal, I realize that it would have been good if I had left a courtesy note on your talk page about that. Well, better late than never! — Sebastian 22:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry ithat you felt that I was pestering you

Again, please understand that I am on the spectrum too. That can make communication tough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.147 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry that I got so hot tempered last night

About editing and citing. I was frustrated (technology is not my forte, and it can be quite confusing to me,) and it got the better of me. Please forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.93 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Next time, don't go from editor to editor looking for the answer you want rather than the one that's right. And please don't edit war. When an editor with more than a few edits tells you to stop editing because you are causing disruption and screwing up an article, please pay attention. You didn't know what you were doing, and while there's always a learning curve and everyone understands that, articles shouldn't stay messed up while you get your ducks in a row. You were right to ask for help but not to ask other editors to clean up your mess. Next time, ask before you leap. You can come here to do that, by the way. I'll try to help as much as possible if you want it, but if you're given some sound advice, don't turn your nose up at it, listen and take a moment before doing more damage. Edit warring is taken seriously, especially by new editors who seem to have a tin ear. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. In other words, there's no rush to make edits. Especially if they are malformed or unreliably sourced. And one more thing, make sure when you make comments on talk pages that you sign your comments with four tildes (~). Onward and upward, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

MacFarlane

Hello Winkelvi,

Just looking for feedback as to why you reverted my edit for Seth MacFarlane as I removed the ambiguity and misinformation about his ancestry and provided a reference.

The original statement was: He is of English, Scottish, and Irish descent,

My edit was: He is of Canadian and English descent

In my research, I found no evidence he is of either Scottish or Irish ancestry. His genealogy, the reference I used, which is the same reference used in the page for William Brewster goes back to 1620 and does not show any Scottish or Irish ancestry. One cannot make the assumption of ancestry based on his last name. Besides, in the last 400 years he has no Scottish or Irish ancestors.

Perhaps you would agree with this edit: He is of English descent since this is the only known fact of his ancestry.

Take Care Rapprochement (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We can't add content derived from original research, which is what your edit added up to absent of a reliable source. I agree that a last name doesn't always equate a certain ancestry, however, in MacFarlane's case, I think his ancestry is a given (unless his father or another MacFarlane ancestor of his father's was adopted). At this time, I'm going to put a cite needed tag on the content about his ancestry being Scottish. As of yet, I can't find anything that is a reliable source which supports his ancestry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There is not going to be a next time

I am leaving Wikipedia. The red flags went up when I learned that primary sources (which are most reliable) are discouraged, and that original research is not allowed. That is probably why so many colleges forbid their students to use it in research assignments.

Not to mention that I am in the process of having my book about Clara Blandick published. The more I think about it, the more it seems that I should leave the best parts of her life a surprise! (~)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.93 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Colleges don't allow Wikipedia as a source not because it doesn't allow original research (think about it: does Encyclopedia Britannica have original research?) but because anyone can edit it and that means errors. If you don't want to contribute because of the policy against original research, I have to admit that's one of the strangest reasons for an editor leaving I've seen yet. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it does seem odd

But, when you have found loads of information from hours upon hours of painstakingly searching through archives, documents, articles, etc., but may not use it because it is original research, there is no point in staying. (~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.93 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration for reverts to Racial segregation

This Noticeboard report against me, and related to Racial segregation may be of interest you. The ever-reverting IP whose musing you removed also herein is involved. Zezen (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

• News and notes: ArbCom election results announced

• Op-ed: Wikidata: Knowledge from different points of view

• In the media: Political editing in the context of the US presidential primaries

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners

• Traffic report: So do you laugh, or does it cry?

• Featured content: Sports, ships, arts... and some other things

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

• In focus: Drone photography: New possibilities and new challenges

• In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015

• Arbitration report: GMO case decided

• Featured content: An unusually slow week

• WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations

• Traffic report: A feast of Spam

• Gallery: WikiConference USA 2015: images, slide decks, and videos

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Too many MfDs

Why so many MfDs all on the same topic with the same rationale? At the very least do them all as a single group MfD. Pretty much any TimedText that's on enwiki will be for something that is copyrighted (if not it would be on Commons instead). You're not going to MfD every single TimedText page on enwiki are you? Why not just wait and see what happens with the MfD nom user:only made, before trying to apply it to all the other TimedText pages? It would be a lot easier to coordinate discussion over one page instead of lots of pages. Brustopher (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware they could be done as a single group MfD, Brustopher. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, there's a guide, on how to do a single group nomination. Brustopher (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I started the first one as a "test balloon" to see what consensus is regarding these type pages. Let's establish that consensus before assuming that all should be deleted. There's no clear policy on how to treat them so far as I see so it's important we figure that out. only (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Winkelvi: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks, Northamerica1000 - same to you and yours! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Timed text mfds

Thank you for creating your timed text MfDs. I notice, however, that in one case you nominated the ogg file rather than the related timed text; I assume that was a mistake. One other note: Due to technical limitations an mfd tag at the top of a timed text page seems to disable the file; it needs to go at the bottom. —teb728 t c 23:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

teb728, I used Twinkle and it's automated process, so if it went at the top, I had nothing to do with it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you need to move it to the bottom as a separate step. I will make a request for a change in Twinkle. —teb728 t c 23:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've aborted the nominations of actual files, where your rationale was about timed text. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Timed Text MFD's

Please stop nominating these with the same rationale - I agree this is a cloudy area and needs to be fleshed out, but MFD is not the best venue for this. I am going to abort all of these and refer to a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. If these ARE copyvios, they don't need to go through MFD, as they would be speedy candidates. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Could you be any more rude about this, Xaosflux? Being an admin and having the tools to delete with a click of the mouse doesn't give you carte blanche to be so abrupt and bring this to me in such a brusque, harsh manner. The way you've communicated here seems to be designed to shame me, as if I broke something or committed some huge policy vio. I didn't and you could have been much more kind. 'Tis the season to be jolly, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry this came across in such a negative way. In rereading my statement above, you are correct and this was very poorly communicated by me. I think you have brought up a VERY important point and these do need to be dealt with. I hope you will continue in the discussion and not be put off by this. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for walking it back a bit, xaosflux. I never meant to do anything inappropriate - obviously, because I did do it, I thought it was the right thing to do. No longer put off and I will take part in the discussion. Thanks again, and best of the holiday season to you! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on the images with Drake Bell's article + Setzer

Thank you for that. I've been looking for a better and/or more recent image, but couldn't find anything of the sort. Also, the Brian Setzer picture deletion - is that really not relevant? Because Bell does state Setzer's pretty much the reason he plays guitar, so he's obviously a major influence. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The photo didn't have anything directly to do with Bell. If it was a photo with Setzer and Bell, that would be relevant. Just a picture of Setzer is nothing more than decoration, which means it's unencyclopedic in relation to the encyclopedia article on Bell. Regardless, I have no idea why you are asking me anything -- yesterday you stated: "You can't "suggest" anything to me once again. You don't make the rules for me or anyone else." Yesterday my opinion meant nothing to you, today that has all suddenly changed? This flip-flopping is precisely why Wikipedians have a hard time believing or trusting anything you have to say. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Understandable on that point. I get why Setzer's picture isn't relevant now. And on the matter of "flip-flopping" - if you must know, I do have Bipolar disorder, so I can have that "flip-flopping" behaviour from time to time, plus I wasn't exactly in the best mood yesterday and wasn't making good editorial judgement and I'm sorry for that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

I'm becoming convinced that you had better not be editing Rick Alan Ross nor its talkpage, from the harsh, confrontational way you treat the article subject and from your edit warring. "It's not being removed likely because (1) No one else thinks it's misleading, (2) No one else thinks it's out of context. You can take it to BLPN, but doing so will likely be seen (once again) as forum shopping and will be (once again) frowned upon."[4] Please don't try to frighten article subjects away from using the BLP noticeboard, which they have a right to do. Talking about "forum shopping" that will be "frowned on" is quite inappropriate. (As you have now been told at BLPN.) And when first one editor and then another did remove the quote from the article, you promptly restored it both times. If you restore that quote one more time, or otherwise insist on including potentially WP:UNDUE material, without having actual clear consensus, I will topic ban you indefinitely from Rick Alan Ross and related pages. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

If you had taken time to note my response to two editors in regard to WP:FORUMSHOP, you would have seen that I walked it back. Further, I have no intention of restoring the content because I'm not interested in disrupting at the article. Such threats and harsh, disciplinary/punitive tone are not necessary. I just love admins who immediately assume the worst about editors and talk punitive solutions rather than asking what an editor is thinking/doing. Oh, and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you, too, Bishonen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen Rick Allan Ross has been playing games on BLPN for ages, if anything Rick Allan Ross needs to be T'Banned "broadly construed" from anything to do with Rick Allan Ross on Wikipedia. KoshVorlon 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion. I wanted to add that my analysis of the discussion is that Winkelvi was expressing annoyance with the subject as editor not as subject per se. The two should not be conflated. I have no opinion on the Tbann however. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Like all subjects, Ross should confine himself to the talk page. However, I would not favor removing him from the talk page as I notice that at least one inaccuracy appears in this article. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter I think it is imperative that the subject be granted all latitude. However, I also do not agree with the Tbann of Winkelvi. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick Allan Ross / BLP

I read your note on my page about Rick Allan Ross. I'm aware he plays games in BLP, I've seen quite a few of his requests and was tempted to archive his request, however, I'm under an informal agreement not to, so , I checked the page and saw nothing wrong with what he was complaining about. I think he needs to be TBAN'ed "broadly construed" from any discussion of Rick Allan Ross due to his history. KoshVorlon 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, I totally agree about a TBAN and actually brought this up a while back at ANI here. Nothing came of it. Those who also thought it should happen pretty much left me and my report to twist in the wind without any help or real support. It was even suggested that I should get a boomerang because of the report. Because of that, I'm not willing to file another report about him, however, I would be fine strongly supporting one filed by someone else. One thing is for sure, though, the article will be just fine without his input. Hell, thousands upon thousands of BLPs on Wikipedia have been fine without the article subject's input and "help" from the article subject for as long as Wikipedia has existed. And it will continue to be so. This article is no exception. I have a feeling, though, that getting other editors to see this and actually have the spine to do something about RAR will not be a simple task. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have your page watchlisted and noticed this discussion, as well as the deleted comments. Winkelvi and I have had our differences in the past but in this instance I tend to agree with him. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Given how this discussion on my talk is related, I'll add: I've not looked at his history, but Rick Alan Ross' current behavior seems well within BLP and COI, and his current concerns about content are valid.

Has anyone concisely summarized his past problems, including diffs?

I think WP:ARBPS applies to the article in addition to WP:ARBSCI. We should expect the article talk page to be a frequent battleground, and should work to de-escalate any such disruption. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history of his previous accounts along with the current one, the behavior is right there. If you look at the article talk page history, it's all there, as well. Depending on how deeply you want to dig, the whole picture is there. I recently took my concerns about him to AN/I (in November) and I included some diffs there. His current behavior wouldn't pique a veteran editor's interest if his past history and behavior were not taken into account. What I see happening now is a shift in how he is communicating with editors: using Wiki-language and name-dropping various policies. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to some degree, however, if he continues with the demands to fix the article to fit the agenda he's had for years, then I can't help but see the change as a new way to "schmooze" and get the results he wants. Keep in mind that his work for so long was deprogramming. Deprogrammers are very, very good at manipulation and getting the results they want any way they can. I'm not interested in doing anything about his account so soon after the last AN/I. There discussion, but it didn't seem a lot of editors cared to grasp what's really going on with his Wikipedia activity and nothing came of it. It is an ongoing problem, and the consensus last time was along the lines of not giving him too much attention in regard to his editing demands. And let me be clear: I am NOT the only editor who has concerns about his behavior and agenda, nor am I the only one who has voiced same. I can't help others see what we see, but I will say that in my opinion, the very nature of this SPA account is detrimental to the 'pedia overall. After all, any SPA who edits or orchestrates edits to an article with the intent of resume building and whitewashing is disrupting, not contributing. Being the article subject doesn't exempt them from the usual policy-based scrutiny. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

<You are indefinitely topic banned from Rick Alan Ross and related pages>

You have been sanctioned persistently attacking Rick Alan Ross on the article talkpage and elsewhere. The way you got in a big scolding here about how Rick Ross doesn't "own" Wikipedia's article about him — an article he has never edited! — simply because he referred to it as "my bio" is the last straw for me. (Assuming good faith, as well as common sense, would be to assume he meant "the biography about me" by that phrase.) I believe you when you say your intentions are good and you have nothing against Ross; but it really doesn't make any difference at this stage. I will not put up with the way you persistently sour the Wikipedia experience of the subject of one of our bios, no matter what your intentions are, and I have warned you about that several times, as have other people. As for your claim just above that you merely perform "policy-based scrutiny", I have exemplified in several warnings how you have made up "policy" out of whole cloth and bashed Rick Alan Ross over the head with it. This has gone far enough.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, I responded on your talk page. The response is posted below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Your unilateral decision to topic ban me

First of all, you are incorrect that RAR has never edited the article. He has edited in the past with different accounts. I ask that you perform due diligence and look into the editing history of the article going back to when it was created. He has edited with both a named account as and IPs. This has been established in previous discussions at the article talk page.

Secondly, the only so-called "attacks" were made prior to your warning to me at my talk page. My follow-up comments on other talk pages and BLPN as well as my own talk page since your warning were clear to state that I was trying to apply AGF with him. The comments I made to him and about him as an editor after your warning were observations and never ever designed or intended to be attacks. I'm sorry you were so offended by my comments to him about "my bio", but I honestly don't see how those particular comments - when read totally in context and with objective eyes - can be seen as an attack when they were offered as AGF advice.

Lastly, discretionary sanctions of any kind are always a black mark on an editor going forth. I request that you allow me the opportunity to self-monitor rather than having such sanctions imposed. Further, how I have edited the article has never been an issue other than the slight back and forth between me and two other editors a couple of days ago. If you take notice, I have not engaged in anything that could be considered disruptive at the article since your warning at my talk page. I continue to have no intention of editing there in a manner that could be considered disruptive and will keep that resolve from here on out.

One more lastly: Please note and realize that my comments to the article subject were not in regard to the article subject but in regard to what I (and several others) have seen as disruptive behavior by the article subject as a registered editor. He continues to be a single purpose account with no indication that he ever intends to be an actual editor contributing to Wikipedia beyond his continual requests and demands for changes at the article about him. It would seem to me, that because my comments have been to and about Rick Alan Ross the editor, these sanctions are not in line with policy. I have not, and never will, disparage RAR the article subject. That in mind, don't editors have a right as well as a responsibility to bring up issues with an editor who is and always has been a SPA trying to keep the article on them as complimentary as possible? Indeed, there are discussions at the article talk page now (and have been continually in the past) about RAR's repeated and continual requests for this and that to be taken out of the article. One look at the article talk page in its current state as well as its history and it's easy to see that several editors have felt exactly as I do. My concerns are not just well-founded, they are and have been shared by other editors.

Adding to my concerns over your unilateral topic ban decision is this statement from you: "I have exemplified in several warnings how you have made up "policy" out of whole cloth and bashed Rick Alan Ross over the head with it. This has gone far enough." I have NEVER made up policy. I may have misunderstood policy and/or misstated policy according to my understanding of it, but making it up? No way. I would never do such a thing. You really need to think about walking this back as it is a very serious charge in my eyes. Being called an intentional liar is something I don't appreciate. I challenge you to find one instance in the 3+ years I've been here where deception has ever been something lodged against me, proven, and made to stick. I, madam, am simply not one who deals in dishonesty.

Another concern is this: "I believe you when you say your intentions are good and you have nothing against Ross; but it really doesn't make any difference at this stage". And why doesn't it matter? You are telling me I must exercise good faith toward Ross at any cost, regardless of any evidence indicating good faith may not be appropriate. But even when you admit I have good intentions, in the next breath you then say my good intentions don't matter and I am still to be disbelieved and distrusted as well as sanctioned. The discrepancy and lack of logic in this reasoning is not only blinding, it's tells me you have made this a personal thing based on emotions you have against me because of my vocal objections to Ross' behavior as an editor and the single purpose of his account here.

"This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator" Because of what seems to be your emotional and personal response and subsequent topic ban based on same, I don't see how you qualify as an uninvolved administrator. From WP:INVOLVED, I quote: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." While you have stayed away from the RAR article and editor talk pages, your strong feelings as expressed in the sanction notification you left on my talk page shows you have VERY strong feelings about me and my comments regarding RAR the editor. Indeed, comments from you such as " the last straw for me", "I will not put up with..." prove this is personal for you. That personalizing is not only inappropriate language for a sanction, it's inappropriate for an administrator making any kind of long-standing/indefinite block or banning decision.

Regardless, I want you to know that I acknowledge and will take to heart your concerns about my comments regarding RAR the editor. As stated above, however, I don't believe you are looking at things objectively and probably need to extend some AGF my direction. Not once have you asked me where I'm coming from, you've only read what I wrote, made accusations, and then this sanction was handed down in a very personal manner.

At any rate, thanks for considering my appeal here - it is offered with the utmost sincerity and honesty. I have no hard feelings toward you because of it, but I am confused and concerned at how it all went down. If I don't hear from you on this in a day or so, I will take this elsewhere. Not because I want to make waves or do any damage to your reputation as an admin, but because I think this needs more eyes and opinions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems to me I have given you plenty of opportunity to self-monitor, with my two warnings on November 24 (both removed by you as "b.s.") and a third warning on December 22,[5] where I let you know that recent comments by you made me think you had better not be editing or commenting on Rick Alan Ross at all. I think that's a pretty strong warning, which didn't seem to have any effect. You have since then made remarks like this and this (that's the one about WP:OWN, that I referred to in my topic ban notice).

In your first post after my warning on December 22, you said to Kosh Vorlon "I still believe it is best to ignore [Rick Alan Ross]".[6] That struck me oddly, since ignoring him was the last thing you had been doing, and also the last thing you did going forward. Indeed in that very "best to ignore" post, you wrote that RAR is "very good at manipulating others (look at his profession as the best reason why this is true)" — something you've said in several other places too. People who come to Wikipedia because they're concerned about their bio simply shouldn't have to put up with being told that they're good at manipulating and that what they do in real life proves it. From my last warning up to now I make it 19 posts that you have made about RAR in three days (I'm not counting little corrections or additions), plus also a little editing of Waco siege (concerning Rick Alan Ross's Cult awareness Network). It looks nothing like ignoring him. All of it is critical and negative, some in a reasonable way, some not. It forms the majority of your editing over Christmas (!) and the cumulative effect is hostile to put it mildly.

Other people have told you the same thing in the past few days, and you have responded in a combative way. Here, you remove User:Cullen's post with the edit summary "I couldn't care less what you think because I never asked your opinion". Here, when User:Ronz has called your WP:OWN "advice" to RAR "inappropriate", you respond "If anything is inappropriate here, it is you chastising me over this." User:Paradoctor wrote to you on Ronz's page that "I suggest you either provide evidence or drop it, anything else only serves to antagonize a contributor who prima facie acts well within the spirit of our policies" and you responded, a little unexpectedly, "I'm not interested in making a case here that I have to prove. I was only stating what I've observed from a behavioral standpoint. Besides, if another editor doesn't have an education in behavioral sciences or an intuition for it, providing such evidence is typically fruitless. I'm not going to take the time to dig things up for for someone who doesn't have the tools necessary to understand why I'm presenting certain evidence, only to have it completely misunderstood, not understood at all, and summarily dismissed. In other words, it would be a total waste of my time."[7] Setting yourself up as an authority on RAR's "behavior" because of your education is as inappropriate as referring to RAR's job to explain why he's "good at manipulating people". User:Cullen told you "You should recuse yourself from anything having to do with Ross, since your belligerence toward him is so glaringly obvious," and you blew him off with "I'm sorry you can't see the difference between objecting to disruptive, SPA behavior and belligerence toward someone none of us has ever met".[8] That attitude worries me, you know. Don't you think people none of us has ever met have feelings? I'm not going to let you carry on as if they have not, and I will not lift the ban. Please feel free to appeal at WP:AE, WP:AN or WP:ARCA, per the advice here for more eyes on this ban. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

P.S. My point that RAR hadn't, as I thought, edited his bio was not central to your ban. I didn't know he had edited it years ago under another account name and IP's; for as long as I have been watching, he has followed Wikipedia's advice to article subjects, i.e he has posted on the talkpage only. It would really be rather strange if people did that from the start — they come to Wikipedia, they're not experienced, they don't know what to do. Editors need to drop old grudges in this respect. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC).