User talk:Spartaz/Archive21

Canvassing?

Please show me the evidence of canvassing, I have never here of those editors before. Also I am allowing all evidence of canvassing to be publicly disclosed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I can't show it to you/publish it without outing other editors so it will have to remain with the arbitration committee/ I suggest you have a conversation with them, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I've never dealt with Arb Com except for DGG with relation to articles. Please show me which email is the best for contact to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. Also is it possible to know who is making the accusation? Is it that IP or is there an established editor behind this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments at AE

Spartaz, I am somewhat perplexed at your response at AE. I have been editing well, without edit warring. AlbinoFerret came back at suggesting an AE against me on your TALK above. That was concerning a sockpuppet that was banned afterwards by DeltaQuad. My edits were all in good faith and in general have been well received and for items that were reverted an ongoing discussion is taking place, its still in process. I am put in a situation where the same protagonist is creating AE's on me, and being judged not for my edits, but instead for my defense wihin the AE itself against being topic banned. I feel gamed by AlbinoFerret. Isn't the AE supposed to be about the 8 claims made in the AE itself, and my 8 explainations? Things were going well enough, prior to the AE, and if they can just open AE's against me ad nauseaum, it seems relentless. Nobody seems to be looking at the AE in the context of what was claimed. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid&offset=&limit=500&action=history What is expected that I am not doing? Is launching AE's without attempting to work in TALK to be rewarded? I am actually asking for an RFC for the questions, and the page exists as it was reverted to. Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have asked editors of the pages for their views on the AE. SPACKlick|Johnbod|Rjwilmsi|P_Walford|Doc James|No such user|Hunenmensch|Bluerasberry|Sizeofint|Jayaguru-Shishya|The Anome|Nomoskedasticity|CFCF. We shall see have the time to respond. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, [Doc James] indicated he would look at this, however he is traveling at the moment. He is a frequent editor of the pages, and engages in the ECIG TALK pages also. Doc James had previously reverted out an edit of mine, and then replaced it himself...having to do with MEDRS. MEDRS is the basis of the complaint. I think his input will be valuable regarding the actual editing and process. Also I know that DeltaQuad has reviewed the pages, and they were the one that banned the sockpuppet who had reverted my edit, that AlbinoFerret spoke to in his above remarks in your TALK, which predated his creation of the AE. DeltaQuad may have input on how they discovered the sockpuppet. If nothing else I hope it will bring the discussion about edits and talk pages and away from how I am attempting respond to the proposition of a dramatic ban. I don't know why you never responded to AlbinoFerret above, perhaps it was because the sockpuppet was used, discovered and banned??? Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request archived

The amendment request for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Toby 'TobiWan' Dawson

Can you provide further context to your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby 'TobiWan' Dawson before it goes to DRV? - hahnchen 11:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• From the GNG:
  • "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.'
• By definition an interview is not a secondary source as it is an account of what the subject said based on their knowledge. On this basis arguments to keep based on passing the GNG through published interviews are not policy based arguments and should be discounted. This is particularly relevant - The golden rule is that any statements made by the interviewee about himself, his activities, or anything he is connected to are primary-source and non-independent material. With the exception of comments by experts in the relevant field, Wikipedia cannot use comments made by an interviewee to cite claims that would normally require either secondary or third-party independent sources.
  • WP:PRIMARY has more detail on this.My job is to assess votes against policy and give more weight to policy based arguments than arguments that do not reflect a wider agreed position or incorrectly apply agreed policy. If your plan was to simply go through the step of pretending to discuss with me so you can go straight for DRV than I would be obliged if you would cut and past this entire section including the policy links into your nomination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry about the misunderstanding here. In any case it seems like the article also had reliable, secondary sources backing up its notability as well. We'd like to ask that you at least restore the article to a draft, thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • i havereviewed the article now. im not seeing the required level of secondary sources. Exactly what ones do you think pass the GNG? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Toby_.27TobiWan.27_Dawson. - hahnchen 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotcopper

Hi! You closed this debate as delete, and the article has been recreated. Would you be willing to take a look at the deleted version to see if the new article is sufficiently identical to merit at G4 deletion, or if it would need to be re-nominated? Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Its substantially written by the same user and there are similarities but more sources this time round. Given the passage of time I'd be reluctant to G4 this. If you doubt notability I would suggest you went for another AFD. I will undelete the history if that helps you see the differences yourself? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for undeleting the history; I appreciate the help! I'll take a look once I have a little more time to sit down and properly assess the new and old references before deciding on another AfD. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of topic ban appeal

I am notifying you that I am appealing my topic ban on longevity which was imposed by you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thanks. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Brian M Barnett

Hello Spartaz, I hope you are having a glorious day! On January 3, you had closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_M_Barnett as a delete. After review I see that there was an conversation/debate in regard to notability and reliable sources. Had I seen this, I could have put up a compelling argument. There are almost 30 sources that I personally found on a quick google search to support the article. Clearly this person had a noteworthy baseball,., and wrestling career. Additionally, my research had concluded there are only three people on record (Macho Man Randy Savage, Derrick Neikirk, and Brian Barnett) that have played professional baseball, and had a notable pro wrestling career. As a matter of fact I found an article particularly supporting this claim. Comparatively speaking, there is no difference between this pages sources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derick_Neikirk. Additionally, this person has earned recognition for his body of production work and is nominated by his peers for CAC wresting award. After seeing some of the comments, it seems to be the same old bias wrestling fan scenario. Typically wrestling fans tend to show favoritism tward their guys, and are quick to disregard others that don't resonate with them. I beg you to please reconsider looking into adding the article, or tell me what needs to be added in order for you to let me recreate the page.*Brian Barnett at IMDb Thank you for time and consideration. God bless!

WrestleNerd15 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• This kind of indiscriminate reference bombing is actually counterproductive and reinforces the case for deletion. You need to strip out the unreliable sources and bare mentions and focus on the top two or three sources. That's how we determine notability. Please see GNG. Once you have done that, I'd be delighted to review your top two or three recommendations. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. My apologies for not being well versed, and will get to work on this. I greatly appreciate your time! WrestleNerd15 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

World Boxing Federation

Hey sometime ago I think you were the won that deleted the World Boxing Federation Wiki Page With your permission I would Like to recreate it of course putting in more reliable resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Boxing_Federation --Bennyaha (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• What sources do you intend to rely on? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Mostly Media Articles but I will be using their website and boxrec as well I will try do some scholar articles as well as much as I can --Bennyaha (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

since this was deleted for lacking notability you need to show it is notble first by showing the specific sources you intend to use. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

...thanks?

Are you talking to DL, to me or to both of us? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• If he ignores you and you don't respond than the cap doesn't fit for either of you. DL was most at fault but you could have ignored him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter Shankman

January 1, you had closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_24#Peter_Shankman as delete.

Page had been substantially revised by Lamona on Dec 31, right before it was closed out on Jan 1, to eliminate many of the errors I had made in trying to respond to the original AfD. I was wondering if you could look at that version, and let me know your opinion on recreating it? Thanks for your consideration.

• I don't think the sources had improved and until that happens this is still going to fail the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

AN/MastCell

Hi Spartaz. I wanted to clarify following a comment you made here, on AN here. MastCell made between 30-35 edits on the Jeffrey Smith article not one as you said. I very deliberately did not take a position on whether this constitutes involvement and also noted with good faith MastCell's closure. This was in no way poisoning the well, but was a fair and accurate point. I thought about whether I should sit on the information or post it and very nearly didn't given MastCell's treatment of me in the past. I deliberately did not want to respond to him the way he has relentlessly responded to me. In the end, I feel that this was information that I had, and it was fair to all editors to post it and not hide it, and which should be posted in as neutral a way as I could post it letting other decide how and if to use it, and staying out of this discussion. I don't need or expect a reply.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

AN discussion

Hi, you recently participated in an AN discussion, then later closed it citing admin opinions. However, you should not close a discussion when involved, and there were two involved admin opinions you cited for your closure. There are still remaining questions, and no consensus about the topic at hand.prokaryotes (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, FYI: Prokaryotes reverted your close of his topic ban appeal so that he could continue arguing it. I'm sort of speechless, so I'll leave it to you to decide how to proceed. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Please stop posting on my talk page, Spartaz. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Prokaryotes

I saw your comment here on Prokaryotes' talk page before it was deleted. Although I agree with you that it was not his/her place to unclose the discussion, I wanted to address one comment you made: "Your flashmob had the desired effect of driving away uninvolved comment." If it is true that uninvolved administrators (or anyone else) are too afraid to comment on discussion regarding GMO issues (or anything else controversial), that is a very serious problem for Wikipedia, and will nearly assure that our articles are not NPOV, since the side of a disagreement with more editors would always win--even if they are wrong and biased--if all univolved editors steer clear. There is constant abuse of basic WP:PAG and if one of us who notices it raises an issue, walls of text are created by the violators and their buddies, confusing the matter and as you say, "driving away uninvolved comment." As an experienced Wiki-editor, I cannot stand reading walls-of-text and distracting and irrelevant side discussions, and so I am not surprised that this is, in fact, what is probably going on.

I have seen this so many times and I find it utterly disgusting. If an issue is raised at a noticeboard of a clear violation of PAG, those violating the PAG will indeed drive away comment by creating walls-of-text and confusion. And if the side breaking the rules does that, what do you expect those who see the violation to do? Say nothing? They will all participate as well--which is exactly what you saw happening.

The noticeboards have become a joke on this issue because typically only involved parties comment. When I see a violation of PAG, I consider bringing it to a noticeboard, but always ask: Why bother? It's going to be the same old drama between two sides of an argument just moved from the talk page to the noticeboard. That is not how the noticeboards should should work. But that is how they DO work. There is no distinction between involved and uninvolved editors, and I consider that a very very serious problem. Uninvolved parties should be making the final decisions, not the involved parties. Just like a court. Instead, it is a free for all where gangs are permitted to rule and decent editors are punished or banned when they see the problem and try to stand up to the gangs. Not acceptable IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis is spot on. At least there is one thing we can agree on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And, in case you don't already know about it, there is now Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Because your closure is being discussed there, I figure someone should have let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth

Can you also make sure you frame your sanctions in a way that is less ambiguous? For example, if you mean a tban say tban and not page ban. Its hard enough at AE without needing telepathy to understand what the committee intended.

You read my gosh darn mind.Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Convenient template for issuing bans

Thanks for closing those AE matters, including the Semitransgenic complaint. If you are not aware, you might look at Template:AE sanction. Though nobody is required to use this for bans, it allows you to issue an AE ban and it has all the boilerplate advice for how the user can file appeals. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Came here to thank you for closing the Realskeptic appeal and learned something new. Thanks Ed! NW (Talk) 20:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

about article "Devsena Mishra"

Respected Mr. Spartaz,

I have improved my article "Devsena Mishra", sharing the link of article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vishalgauravjh1/Devsena_Mishra

And sharing this link for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Devsena_Mishra

Kindly guide, I want to republish it.

Best Regards, Vishalgauravjh1 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)vishalgauravjh1

This is simply nowhere near the required standard of sourcing. Please read WP:GNG and WP:RS. You need at least two decent, detailed, indepth & Independant articles/sources that discuss Devsana Mishra. Your sources 7-11 didn't even mention her. Being on an on-line directory as a company director is not a reliable source and articles and self-published books are neither independant nor contributing to notability. Go read an article or 3 about genuinely notable people to see the level of required sourcing. Sorry but this isn't coming back until the sourcing is much much better than this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Respected Mr. Spartaz, Thanks for your guidance, I'll try to further improve it. Best Regards, Vishalgauravjh1 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)vishalgauravjh1

QuackGuru

In light of your recent 3RR closure, I hope you're keeping an eye on this editor, at least in the short term, so he doesn't continue to do things like this. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 22:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

GHcool AE request

Hi Spartaz. In a fit of pique after seeing an editor, Sepsis II, throwing stones whilst living in a glass house at AE, I dug through all his edits relating to his own diffs and found plenty of evidence to provide a counter complaint there. It has been suggested to me that I file a formal counter AE report. Do you think this is an appropriate action or is the existing report adequate for a potential boomerang? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I personally dont like boomerangs at AE so I would favour a new report. however, there would be legitimate concerns that this was a retaliatory report so the evidence better be utterly cut and dried or its just revnge and not worth it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi

Perhaps you should clarify if his topic ban from anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is still in effect, or if the new one replaces that one, since there was talk about amending his existing TBAN at AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Its still in effect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, or EdJohnston (since you're not that active_, can you please comment if Chesdovi's recent edits violate his TBAN? You wrote that he can't add Palestinian, etc. But what about editing or adding stuff to pages that already contain it, or arguing for Palestinian to remain in the article. One example is Palestinian minhag or Balady citron. To me that does seem to be in violation of the TBAN. The citron one is the most egregious and I just want to make sure he is aware that what he is doing is in violation of his TBAN. I don't want to bring an AE action, but someone should tell him to cease.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not a vio. They are not being disruptive and the restriction refers to adding it to articles where it is not already present. You next step is an RM if you do not obtain agreement. No crine also in using redirects from alternative names to the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Close formatting errors...

...located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digit9o0/Force the Movie. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your little pyramid picture

So you have your little pyramid picture to show people who fantastically mature and sensible you are on Wikipedia, yet you delete a perfectly referenced section out of the Jenna Coleman article, without explaining your reasoning. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, as you'd never win but it'd be messy. People like yourself with your fancy diagrams think you own this place. Pathetic really. Cls14 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have mastered the lowest level of Graeme's Hierarchy of Disagreement. I'm sure whole new vistas of achievement will open for you when you move up from name calling to ad hom attacks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What is considered personal attack?

I read the page Wikipedia:No personal attacks once again. I couldn't find that, using the word "POV pusher" without naming any particular editor is a "personal attack" (I am accused of personal attack in that ANi for those words).

You hatted my comment at ANI, I am not complaining against that.

But if you check the uncivil comments made by FreeatlastChitchat in the replies in that ANI post. Inserting words like "burning bottom" and "beaten to the punch", and yet no administrator warned or took any action against him. His block was for edit warring not uncivil comments. If I would have used such words like FreeatlastChitchat, then what would have the administrators done? As, according to the page WP:CIVIL, I consider FreeatlastChitchat's comments very uncivil. Thanks--Greek Legend (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you call someone a C**t or tell them to F**k off directly it is highly unlikely to lead to a block so no need to stress about getting blocked for civility violations. Do I wish we enforced it more stringently? Yes. Does the community agree with me? No. Personal attacks can still get you blocked but that's easy to avoid by always discussing the edit and not the editor or their motivations. Hope that helps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you reconsider my topic ban in light of this comment I made?

In light of this comment I made, is it appropriate to suggest a correction of the current bias at Electronic harassment and a general rewrite as I was suggesting before you topic-banned me? Thanks for your interest. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not, no. Banned means banned. Your grace period is up. Your next edit that touches on the subject even slightly will result in your being blocked. I have removed your faux RFCs and edit on Liz's page. You should stop this now and go find another subject to write about or step away from the site if you cannot do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well my sandbox I created well before the topic ban. Thus I thought there was no violation of the topic ban in RfCing against its deletion. Anyway, what's the reason you gave for the deletion (which I guess turned into a speedy deletion)? I read "U1: User request to delete page in own userspace" - I did not obviously request to delete my own sandbox. Are you gonna change that? Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

YOu were editing it after the ban and your actual words were "in the meantime feel free to consider me a topic banned disruptive editor, a conspiracy theorist, and feel free to delete my sandbox." That's a U1 request. I'll ignore the personal attack in the edit summary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh now I get you. Well.. "feel free to.." doesn't equal to "User request to delete page in own userspace". That's not a U1 request you dumb asshole. "Personal attack in the edit summary"? AI think you're little too touchy for an administrator. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you blanked Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox: in view of your edit summary, and the thread above, I have deleted it under WP:CSD#G5. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you're wrong somewhere. I did not "blank" anything.. whatever that means according to you.. and in whatever context you're referring to "your edit summary". Nor I know what "thread above" you are talking about. But anyway, it doesn't matter anymore at this point.. keep having fun with keyboard and mouse. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

In my post, "you" is Spartaz, and "your edit summary" means the edit summary that Spartaz left in blanking the page. The "thread above" refers to everything from the post by Beautifulpeoplelikeyou at 03:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC) to that made by Beautifulpeoplelikeyou at 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

Now, as a direct reply to Beautifulpeoplelikeyou, be advised that calling people a "dumb asshole" is no way to get them on your side. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Spartaz: A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping!

Hello, Spartaz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi

So you say this is not a violation of his edit restrictions? And you think it shouldn't be? Debresser (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

AE

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Do you have a preference on how to close Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#FreeatlastChitchat? Since you imposed a one-week AE block, maybe you want to just mark the AE request as closed and then negotiate further with the user after his block expires. The AE might be pulled back from the archive later if you want more discussion, or you could go ahead with whatever sanction you think is justified and not bother with the AE. The user retains their right of appeal no matter what sequence is used. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Query

Please can you advise if this edit violates my ban: [1]. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi, your ban covers adding Palestine to articles, why would this not be covered by your TBAN? As I wrote on your talk page, I don't want to report you, I am giving you the opportunity to self-revert. If you do get reported, you run the risk of getting blocked. I suggest you self-revert and not run the risk of having your edits ruled in violation of your TBAN. (And for the record, I have Spartaz's talk page on my watch list.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chesdovi: Your Topic ban says, "adding references to Palestine or Palestinians in articles that do not contain them." and there you add Palestine to it. You changing Teperberg_1870 link to Palestinian wine is puzzling, if this Winery is associated. To me it looks to be the same type of thing that lead to the ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: You will note that this revert was carried out citing a conjectured, baseless allegation spurred by a relentless battleground mentality and was clearly a disruptive edit. {{Yishuv haYashan}} is not an article as far as I can tell. There was no response to my proposed re-addition of Palestinian wine and Jewish textile industry in 16th-century Safed at talk. Nevertheless, I have reverted my latest edit as a goodwill gesture. Thanks for your concern. Chesdovi (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh you are correct, I didn't go back further enough to see that this was already in the article. Which due to wording of your Topic ban I would say that it is exempt. Though I'm not personally an administrator. However none the less I urge you caution and to not edit war at all. You are familiar with dispute resolution and it seems you have taken the matter to the talk page. What I would suggest is that you take no further action until Spartaz responds to your query. They will certainly be able to advise you better.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

While not strictly in the letter of your TBAN, this certainly skates the edges - even if you did seek consensus and has, predicatably, led to further dispute. I'm glad you heeded the advice to revert. I think you need to pull back a bit here and go find something else to edit about for a while, but I'm also mindful that your problems all seem related to the same two editors objecting strenuously. I think this is unhealthy. Frankly, if you are unable to edit without even straightforward edits leading to dispute than I will have to consider further sanctions. Whether that be blocks, IBANs or further TBANs depends on who is at fault. For the moment, please don't add the word palestinian to anything while we see whether this cools down on its own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)

Hello! As there is already an only proposed Wikipedia guideline on naming conventions (Cyrillic). The proposal is still in development, under discussion and needs of gathering consensus for adoption. Since I am well experienced on this subject, I would like to criticize the official transliteration of Bulgarian as it gives too many errors, which also causes some losses of sounds “ǎ (a hacek”), decentralise itself from other slavic languages (“c” and “š” voices), which is also conflicting in itself (see street signs 1 and 2). By this revision, it is away from being accurate and not able to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedia which claims to be scientifical. These are the reasons I invite you to read Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic and involve the discussion in order to contribute a possible concensus. Wish to see you here thanks Manaviko (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI

I hate the bearer of bad faith, but it appears that you didn't read that ANI before closing. I know it was long and somewhat convoluted, but the OP said it all. This wasn't just about "commas", but the user's disruptive behaviour in the persistent removal of those commas. A user that just came of a page-move ban and an indef block by way of standard agreement, that included avoiding controversial mass page moves. One editor commented that this user, during the time of the ANI, moved 50+ pages, just to remove a comma that doesn't need to be removed. This user's talk page has numerous complaints in regards to these page-moves and edits. I first encountered the user when he page-move-warred a stub 3 times in just a matter of minutes to remove the comma. An admin had to lock the page. At the ANI, several editors commented on this user's behaviour, including statements that he violated he indef block return and should be again banned from page-moving. Yet you closed the report without addressing any of that. This user's behaviour continues, essentially enabled, if not encouraged, by your actions. This editor has partnered with another, and the two are basically tag-teaming (seen at the end of the ANI), and deliberately adding endless nonsense to extend the report past the point coherence in hope that some admin, like yourself, would come along, take one glance at the length, and close it with no action. No wonder they call ANI a cess-pool.

As for your AE notice... I read it. But I shouldn't have to file an AE case. I already did my part by filing the ANI. Plenty of admins are aware of this mess and it is about time some of you step up and deal with it. Drmies was involved with the RfC and this ANI. Since he had a part in creating the mess, I'd like to see him have a part in cleaning it up. Since you closed the ANI, the onus is on you as well to do... something... - ^theWOLFchild 08:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, its not my onus to do anything. The onus is on the person bringing a case to prove their point. ANI is a shit place to decide anything as its so easy to disrupt a discussion away from the point - especially when the discussion can be derailed into a discussion of the OPs own behaviour. That's why we have AE for areas under DS and why I left you a helpful note about how to use AE effectively with clues on what the reviewing admins will be looking for. Whether or not you use it is down to you, but don't expect sympathy if you ignore it (reverting my message without comment wasn't very classy) and then don't get your way. Starting your message with an assumption of bad faith - well I think you need to work on your collaborative skills. In the end, its easy to blame other people because your ANI didn't gain traction, but plenty of other complaints do and its the most visible place on the project and most, if not all, admins have it on watchlist and review regularly. Is it really the case that everyone who reviewed the thread misunderstood? Really? Really? Perhaps some internal reflection and self awareness would help you understand how to work in a way that will gain traction when it doesn't go your way? The first step would be to listen (well carefully read) the feedback you get and try to see how you might address the issue following the other editor's advice. That could be a really powerful way to improve your progress in persuading people to support your views. Down to you really, but, and I'm saying this as an admin, you seem to find yourself embroiled in a lot of disputes. Are you really a completely innocent party in this or could you perhaps improve your own interactions so the disputes happen to someone else? Food for thought? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't "ignore and revert your message" on my talk page "without a comment", (talk about bad faith), I read it and then removed it, as I do with everything posted to my talk page (read the disclaimer). I then commented here. That said, while I appreciate the note about AE, (I really do), it's not really of much use to me. If I were to try and file a report there. I would immediately have a couple or so of these de-railers show up and scream "forum shopping!" and "canvassing" as soon as I link to anything as part of the report, and a bunch of other nonsense. The fact is there was actionable substance in the ANI-OP and some of the comments (with diffs) that supportive contributors posted. All I asked for was to have Dicklyon stop with all the page moves until comma-gate could be sorted out. By sorted out I mean, confirm if in fact this co-called consensus he claims really exists, and if so, what exactly did the consensus determine? Does it really support this project-wide comma eradication program? (Including dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds, of page-moves?) Did it really support all the changes written into MOS? Beyond a time-out on page moves, it seemed prudent to determine if Dicklyon violated his very recent standard offer, that allowed him to rejoin the community after an indef block. Did he violate the terms under which he was let off his recent page-move ban? Several editors claimed his pages moves were both outside of guidelines and without consensus, and therefore were controversial. There were calls for him to receive another page-move ban and even another block. These are the things an admin should be considering before closing an ANI. Like I said, it wasn't just about the commas. As for the last of your comments, well... like you said, it's ANI. center of the wiki-universe and all that. If the problem was really something about me as opposed to anyone else, I would've had plenty of boomerangs flung at me. I even expected a few, but strangely enough, there weren't any. There was however, enough editors complaining of Dicklyons disruptive page-moves that some kind of admin action was warranted, even if it was a informal request to lay off the page moves until the comma debate was worked out. Like I asked for in the first place... - ^theWOLFchild 13:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Both of you--I wish the MOS said something about too-long paragraphs--maybe it does. I am having a hard time reading this. Wolfchild, I did not create that mess. If you wanted a different outcome, you should have canvassed some different editors, maybe. I think my close reflected what the discussion brought up. If you don't like, start a new RfC or whatever, or get it overturned. The ANI discussion is much less equivocal than you think, and every time there's a thread where two or three editors keep repeating the same thing and it's not gaining momentum, it's likely that nothing is going to happen. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: First, I would appreciate it if you would strike or otherwise rewrite your "canvassing" comment. I did not "canvass" anyone. I named you above because it was you that closed that RfC. That close did not lead to any improvement, if anything it's just fueling the current instability. There is nothing I alone can do about this mess, and it is a mess. The complaints and debates taking place at all these various forums show that there is not a clear consensus supporting the behaviour of a few editors pushing an agenda. Between all the ANIs, RfCs, MOS re-writes, RM-debates, and the countless page-moves, plenty of admins are already aware of this situation. It's been dragging on for a year and affecting dozens if not hundreds of articles project-wide. I shouldn't have to file an ArbCom request, or start yet another RfC (or "whatever"), some admins, or even arbs, should have already stepped in and addressed this. Why hasn't anyone that happened? - ^theWOLFchild 09:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning?

I've read your warning, and I'll try to 'cool it' as you say. TBH, I don't know if I'm even going to bother with this issue much more. The many, many complaints from all the other editors about this whole disruptive war on commas seems to be falling on deaf ears. If the very people selected to watch out for and safeguard the project don't care, why should I? But, that said, I'm not clear on what it is exactly you're threatening to punish me for. What is it about this comment of mine that merits such a threatening warning? Especially when I was responding to this? (and the same editor has since posted this, and yet you have still chosen to only warn me). This doesn't seem to make sense. - ^theWOLFchild 09:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Dickipedia" and "your mucky paws" are just gratuitous insults and added nothing to the conversation except to upset people. I have no idea what benefit you hoped to gain from that but in an area subject to DS it wasn't a wise move. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

But the reasons why I made the comments aren't going to be addressed? Nevermind. Anyways... I can refrain from making future comments of a similar nature, but what are you going to do about the comments being made about and towards me, and others, on that page and elsewhere, by the very same people? Will there be any more warnings issued? - ^theWOLFchild 09:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If I see anything equally unpleasant than I will challenge it. But I'm not hunting for violations. I'm not on wikipedia enough, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I just pointed out 2 comments, that you should've seen as they're on the same page as the comment you 'warned' me over. Had you acted fairly and warned everyone involved instead of just singling me out, then I wouldn't have snippy accusations like this, that was just posted in response to me. If you're going to involve yourself as an admin, (and you have) then how about reining everyone in? Otherwise, cherry-picking only leads to enabling. - ^theWOLFchild 10:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

And now this. - ^theWOLFchild 10:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not including the diffs I have, directly in that comment (I thought a link to the discussion itself should be enough rather than diffs of posts in it). The difference, obviously, is you're calling people names, and accusing them of weird conspiracies and nefarious agendas, all with nothing to back it up, and I'm describing actual edits I have diffs of. People keep pointing you to WP:ASPERSIONS, and you don't read it, you just thumb your nose at them and mock them for linking to it. If you won't read it, here's the gist: If you don't have the proof, don't accuse people of anything. I ascribe your venting to frustration not ill will, and it's why I asked admins who'd recently blocked you for incivility to just warn you to tone it down, rather than firing up some noticeboard drama. Given that the MOS:JR wording loophole is now closed, I consider it a moot point, and needn't bring it up at WT:MOSBIO again.

As to the other points you raise above, and since you won't tolerate any discussion on your own talk page (something you should have figured out by now makes you more likely to be sanctioned for incivility and uncollaborative behavior), I'll address those on my own talk page, and you can respond or not. I'm going to take a just-the-facts approach to it, as I have no interest in further discord with you (as I told you the first time you "banned" me from your talk page for agreeing with you about an ANI case but suggesting that your approach to it was self-defeatingly vitriolic).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR - don't follow me around. It's creepy. - ^theWOLFchild 12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, when you get a moment, please review theWOLFchild's contributions to the discussion page you warned him about. It seems to me that he's still being overly disruptive there, unhiding the disruptive comments, adding new disruptive comments [2], putting things into weird nonsequitur order, etc. I confess that I removed one of his posts here, thinking it would be for his own good not to have it there, and that was probably not wise. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I came here to report the same behavior. Twc is posting pointless, antagonistic, straw-man nonsense at WT:MOSBIO in an attempt to disrupt ongoing source validity discussion and personalize the matter in a juvenile Dicklyon-is-stoopid way, twisting DL's words. He's also ignoring requests to stop on his talk page (as usual), and revertwarring against attempts to refactor his nonsense (he did this with me yesterday as well, after he bludgeoned an RM discussion by dumping big bullet lists of his special reasons why everyone is wrong, outdenting them to look independent RM responses). Editwarring against refactoring is something Twc's been specifically blocked for before. It is disruptive, in an ongoing way, at WT:MOSBIO; it took me a long time to post (on-topic!) at all in that thread due to Twc's fighting causing so many edit conflicts. He just will not stop trying to WP:WIN, and what he's trying to win at isn't even a content dispute at this point, but a character assassination and his "right" to say anything he wants and never have anyone move it. It's beyond unconstructive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Update: The locus of this dispute has moved to User talk:Good Olfactory.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

AE discussion

Sorry, I did not know that I should not be participating in that discussion. I saw Kautilya3's comment so I thought anyone can comment. Is there a policy governing who should or should not participate? I would be happy to comply with that, just direct me towards that please! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment to the AE was simply a nationality based slur. AE doesn't need that. After that, I'd like to know why I shouldn't topic ban you from the area if your initial reaction is to simply blame Indians targetting Pakistanis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thats a rubbish reason to topic ban someone. Sheriff this admin is clueless just appeal against his ban his argument holds no water. Just because you pointed out the truth on one comment he wants to topic ban you? dont make me laugh. 2.125.124.55 (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I did not mean to be nationalist and just wanted to point out how the sock (MBL) has been rampaging articles based on his nationalist POV and it is irritating to see that other editors are now upholding those edits without getting concensus. Maybe I just look too much under the surface, things other people don't try to look for or ignore, I will try to avoid that in future. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That sock had nothing to do with TripWire and was irrelevant to the discussion. Frankly, I'm not impressed with your explanation. I will be watching your edits very closely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sheriff I told you the admins will be siding with the socks you must find a neutral admin. This one has already chosen a side. Furthermore Mblaze has everything to do with Tripwire so stop lying. 2.125.124.55 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Hey, you are welcome to watch my edits. That would be a blessing in disguise as it might improve my editing further knowing that an experienced admin is watching my edits. As i explained earlier, i just wanted to put things into perspective by looking under the surface but it came out wrong which i did not intend. There are active RFCs going on to which TripWire is participating. Also you can see there are sleeper accounts all of a sudden waking up to open AE and then to vote in support of the AE. People who occasionally edit, all of a sudden are showing up to edit and their focus is that AE. Would it be okay for you if i comment on that discussion avoiding any nationalistic slur. I have somethings to say which can put that case into right perspective? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Post it here and I'll move it across if its not going to get you into trouble.Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Below is what i want to add, also advise me whether using that logic, can i open AE discussions against editors who are reinstating sock's edits which were mosly POV and against consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

By looking at WP:ARBIPA, there were five decisions made in it. The number 2 decision was specifically about sock-puppetry which reads as below:

"2) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden."

By reverting the edits of the sock, TripWire was actually upholding WP:ARBIPA's decision number 2 and i don't think he should be held accountable for that and when we look at this the other way around, people who are reinstating the sock's edits are actually violating WP:ARBIPA and instead they should be t-banned for doing that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

AE

Do you really think AE is the appropriate venue for your discussion? Can you please take whatever problems you have with me out of that forum and bring them here? Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Comeback?

Can you come back to Wikipedia and also WP:AE now? What may have led you to quit WP:AE, matter has been already sorted out by other uninvolved admins and in support of your views. That MarkBernstein has been topic banned.[3]

Things seems to be getting out of control soon on WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TripWire. You had told SheriffIsInTown not to contribute to AE, and he just posted there,[4] in order to make all of us look like sock puppet or whoever TripWire has reverted. Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spartaz, when you come back, you can just delete my statement but it seemed to me that you struck your comment about me not commenting there so I thought its fine for me to do that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk about notability

Hi Spartaz, I'm a journalist writing about notability guidelines on Wikipedia, and I've heard you might be a good person to talk to. I was hoping to get some insight from you about your editing approach. I know you're on a break from Wikipedia, but your expertise would be most welcome. Let me know on my talk page if you have a few minutes to spare. Thanks.Genemode (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)