User talk:Rationalobserver/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

• Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access

• News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?

• In the media: Is there life on Mars?

• Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?

• Traffic report: Another week

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Respect and mediation

Your request at the technical village pump demonstrates that you have so little knowledge of the infobox war that you may be the perfect (innocent, objective, neutral) person to mediate towards peace or at least truce. Seriously! I asked others before who declined: Nikkimaria, Snow Rise and Yunshui. I also tried myself but am of course not neutral, and some participants would not come to our place ;) - My idea would be to ask the participants in the so-called war what they need to call it peace, and I believe that respect for the other's point of view, work and personality might end this 10-years war. - See also: "Looks like y'all came to an understanding here. Pleased to see it.": --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, Gerda, but I'm not sure I know enough about DR to be much help. All I would add is that, anytime an agreement can't be reached, editors should default to the collapsible IB, which seems an acceptable compromise between the two camps. What exactly are you suggesting? RO^(talk) 16:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is called "collapsed infobox", and reasons for not collapsing have been given in 2013 and now, at the village pump. Do you understand them? - I don't know "exactly" what could be done but would like to stop the waste of time it has been. Perhaps we could collect ideas for the future, such as: Every infobox I insert can be reverted and discussed. (Nothing new, btw, I never edit-warred in six years on Wikipedia.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what it is you think I could help with. I have no experience in DR and no clout to influence anything. RO^(talk) 17:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Before getting to something vague and potential, please the simple question: did you understand the reasons for better not collapsing an infobox? I believe that 99% of the socalled infobox war are misunderstandings. Perhaps it would help already a bit if you and I could calmly find out where we see things differently. Did you know that I translated Little Moreton Hall to German? Did I argue about that collapsed infobox? No. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's the language barrier or my own lack of understanding, but I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I have no interest in getting into the IB wars, and I'm not sure what you are asking me here to do. I think it's a waste of time to fight over such minutia, and that's where I'll leave it. RO^(talk) 17:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What made you think I am sarcastic? I said "seriously" to avoid that impression. If someone could tell me where I allegedly "fight" (and I must, my name is mentioned so often) I would learn something new. - Comparing the two articles linked, I prefer uncollapsed. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get dragged into this, and I basically have no clue what you're even talking about. I don't understand why or to what degree you are involved with this long-term time-sink, but I have copyediting to do that I'd much rather focus on. If you sincerely want a short answer, I'd say default to the style used by the first major contributor then defer to the current local consensus after it's challenged. Isn't that how WP:CONSENSUS works? RO^(talk) 22:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to be "dragged", please avoid offering a "solution" to a problem of which you touched only the surface. - Yes, that's how consensus works. It's not an answer to the question though, which was what do you prefer in your "own" articles, such as Mesa Verde National Park. Happy editing, you do great content work, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sinatra

RO, you up for helping me with the book research on Sinatra then? It would be a great help to me if you could get hold of any of those books and reduce the workload for me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help with the research. I'd like to start with James Kaplan's 2010 book Sinatra: The Voice, which covers his life up to 1954 with 800 pages. The sequel, Sinatra: The Chairman will be released on October 27, and it covers 1954 to 1998 with more than 950 pages. What do you think of that? I would be focusing on his early career until late October though, do you think that works with the timeline? RO^(talk) 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think any book which focuses on his music is the most ideal. The Voice sounds perfect. That and [1] ideally. Oct 27 would be too late. I think his music career peak 50s and 60s needs the most work. He was enormously productive in 1953-62 period in particular in film and music during his "rebirth". There should probably be some section on songwriting partnerships, Jimmy Van Heusen, Sammy Cahn, Harold Arlen, he sang many songs by them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I just ordered Sinatra! The Song is You: A Singer's Art by Will Friedwald and Frank: The Voice by James Kaplan. Amazon says I have Sunday shipping in my area, so I should have The Voice by then, and the Friedwald book should arrive by next Tuesday. I'll get right to work as soon as I get them! RO^(talk) 20:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Perovskia atriplicifolia

Yikes. My apologies for the sudden disappearance. Had some non-project crises to attend to. I've got the notes here for the rest of my revisions; let me try to get them settled today. Again, really sorry about that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, but I'd really love to re-nom it this week. Do you think that's a realistic goal? RO^(talk) 15:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Fiddling with the cultivation subsections now, then I'll propose a lead rewrite. After that, it's just copyediting and squaring out the details of any areas where we disagree about how to handle the text, and its on to FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good! RO^(talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You're up! I've restructured the article, cleaned up the text, pared back the cultivation section a little bit in light of the "how to" tone complaints it got at the first FAC, and have fiddled around with the image placement, captions, and alt text such that I think they're all good to go against the standard. The lead has been rewritten as a strict summary of the text, with no statements that require attribution (and no attribution separate from the article itself), per the current consensus standard on FA-level leads. At least right now, consecutive references are all in numerical order (my personal least-favorite FAC requirement), but I'll check that again once you're done copyediting. In what's probably my most contentious change, I've cut the Gallery because I don't think it meets the criteria for gallery inclusion at WP:IG; they're all available via the Commons media link in any case. As a contrasting note, what would be totally acceptable as a gallery would be contrast images of the various cultivars, but that's not a requirement for FAC, and not happening in short-order anyway. Regardless, my two cents there. I'm sure there are wording tweaks to be made; I'm not the best polished-prose writer on the project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's awesome, Squeamish. I'll get right to it, and maybe we can co-nom it later today! RO^(talk) 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me know how things go. My availability for the rest of this editing-day may be spotty, but worst-case, I think we can get this sucker to FAC2 tomorrow. I don't foresee much in the way of trouble there this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you see my post at your talk? I think we can nom today, but if you'd rather wait to tomorrow that's fine by me. RO^(talk) 21:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we've played passing-ships with some comments. In any case, feel free to launch the FAC2. This one should go more smoothly! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and well done

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work in getting Chetro Ketl to FA quality! As a fellow editor of archaeological topics it is much appreciated! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It was a labor of love that I worked on for the better part of five months. I was deeply moved by the magic that is Chaco many, many years ago, and I'm honored to have been able to put together a "report" on this very important great house. RO^(talk) 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No precious from Gerda, wonder why ;-) Congrats on the TFA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It just was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. B! RO^(talk) 15:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Congrats =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, KK87! I sure worked my but off on that one. Wow! RO^(talk) 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, RO. My heartiest congratulations on Chetro Ketl TFA! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What delay? It just came off the main page and hour ago. Thanks for stopping by! RO^(talk) 01:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The delay in me taking to congratulate you. Should have done so earlier. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Ssven. Thanks for stopping by! RO^(talk) 19:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Source request

Hi, regarding this request: I removed it, as we generally use this box for nominations that are nearing conclusion and where a source and/or image review is an impediment to the article being actioned further. I understand that you may be anxious to get the source review out of the way, but as every nomination needs a source review, I'm sure you can understand that we'd like to limit the scope of specific requests on WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but last time it took me another two weeks to get a source review completed after having something like 10 supports at the Chetro Ketl FAC (today's TFA, BTW). I don't mind waiting longer, but does it really have to add another week or more to each FAC? Can I ask someone at their talk page instead? RO^(talk) 20:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There are also source reviews and source reviews. Chetro Ketl, as I recall, was your first FAC, and common practice is to take first-run FA sourcing through an extra degree of scrutiny (sadly, sometimes that's proven necessary). However, those are slow, because... well, to be frank, because no one likes doing them. For Perovskia atriplicifolia, this is neither of our first rodeos. Besides, biology articles attract the attention of some of the FAC big guns. Basically: don't worry, the necessary bits will happen as they need to. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good, Squeamish! RO^(talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much echoing what Squeamish Ossifrage said. I wish it didn't have to be this way—I'd love it if regular reviewers would just bake a source review into their other stuff—but a lot of times we end up asking at the end and that's just how it is for the time being. You might ask one of your reviewers to add a source review directly. :) --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Life's too short

I loves me some Cassianto. A true gent ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

...no hard feelings. I come diff-less as I can't be bothered to drag it all up again. Nice work on Chetro Ketl by the way. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's so very big of you, Cassianto. Thank you so much for this! I want you to know that I also admire your work, and I think you're one of our very best talents. You made my day! RO^(talk) 19:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't tell them over at Wikipedocracy will you. I have a fucking reputation to uphold! ;) Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry! Your "secret" is safe with me and my 70+ talk page stalkers. And for the record, feel free to use profanity at my page anytime, providing it's not fucking directed at me of course! RO^(talk) 19:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You've got to watch out for potty language you know, look how much trouble Edmund Blackadder got into when he said "I mean milk, bloody milk" to the Witchsmeller Pursuivant. Anyway, yes I think things have got a bit giddy and out of hand and I'll happily admit I was involved in some of that, so sorry again, no hard feelings etc etc and well done with Chetro Ketl by the way - good to see some more architecture articles coming out of the woordwork. And I have been headhunted, if that's the right word, to join Wikipediocracy for about 2 years but I just can't be arsed with yet another forum registration so I'll just carry on chipping in with my occasional "attaboys" on the blog which is excellent, particularly the "too much porn on Commons" stuff and anything that reinforces my long-held view that Jimbo is only really interested in preserving and promoting one thing - himself .... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the public apology, Ritchie. There's no hard feelings on my end. We all make mistakes, but, sadly, having the maturity to own up to it is not as common as the mistakes themselves. RO^(talk) 19:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page comment

Hey, RO,
Are you responsible for this edit (and others) that were just put on my talk page? Even if they are not you, you should be aware of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah, that's not me, but it's probably related to the sexual harassment I've been receiving from IPs: ([2]); ([3]). RO^(talk) 21:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I should have checked its location first, then I could have seen it wasn't you as it located to Edinburgh, Great Britain. It had an odd mix of edits though, about you and an AfD that another editor had been complaining about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in the US. Sometimes Wikipedia is not what I expected it to be. RO^(talk) 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Misty Copeland/archive1

Can you please take a look at my responses at Wikipedia:Peer review/Misty Copeland/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TonyTheTiger. I'm traveling and the moment, but I'll be back editing early to mid-next week, and I'll stop by the PR first thing. RO^(talk) 17:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

• In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• Op-ed: Can we please stop bashing Wikipedia?

• Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library

• WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?

• Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2

Just to note, I tweaked the hook slightly (this isn't that uncommon, as I understand it) just to tighten it up slightly. Don't want people complaining about an excessively long DYK hook.

Since I did see you commenting on this, a couple helpful hints: Keep the hooks short, and if you're in a hurry, maybe don't request an image - there's about six hooks without images promoted for every one with an image. Of course, the one with the image gets more attention, so it's a compromise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep the hooks short, but to be honest the backlog there has discouraged me from making anymore DYKs. RO^(talk) 18:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mammillaria spinosissima

Gatoclass (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

...Well, that was fast. Congrats! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Adam! RO^(talk) 18:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Palomar, Denver

Hi. I don't know if this is anywhere in your neck of the woods but I've found mention of it burning down in the Sinatra book. Any chance you or SusunW could trace the place and start it? Sounds like a concert hall or hotel or something. One of those forgotten former buildings worth starting maybe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a Hotel Palomar in Beverly Hills, CA, but Google turns up empty for one in Denver. What year did it burn down? RO^(talk) 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm with, it wasn't in Denver. [4] burned 1939. SusunW (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's the one in Beverly Hills I think.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Echinocereus reichenbachii (2)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Echinocereus reichenbachii by RO.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 23:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of Chief Secretary, Singapore

Hello, I addressed all your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chief Secretary, Singapore/archive1. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to review this article! Mr Huang (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! RO^(talk) 16:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraising report, Montreal to host 2017 Wikimania

• In the media: Irish legislative editing; coffee quarrel; more sports vandalism

• Op-ed: Wikipedia needs more administrators

• Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Wikipedia's search function inferior?

• Tech news: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For helping take Rod Steiger to FA level. -- Frankie talk 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Echinocereus reichenbachii

Gatoclass (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Galleries in WP articles mostly disfavored

Hello, RO. First off, thanks for your edits at Rocky Mountain National Park! I appreciate constructive editors.

I just wanted to point out that galleries within articles are mostly disfavored by the WP:IG guideline. The one exception is when "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject".

I don't think that a gallery of mountain peaks in Rocky Mountain National Park fulfill the requirement of providing information beyond individual images in the article. So, I'm going to remove the gallery (sorry).

Feel free, however, to swap images of equal or better quality in the article. Many articles have older images that are low-resolution or have poor photographic composition. There is often an opportunity to improve the visual attractiveness of articles by swapping better images in. —hike395 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Leaving

I don't know if you're leaving permanently or just for a few days. Your contributions to the project remain appreciated, as does your work on the early life of Sinatra and bothering to get the books. But I was shocked at your reaction the other night and you came across as downright spiteful. If you haven't the emotional capacity to deal with people editing your work on wikipedia without retaliating then perhaps this isn't for you. The Sinatra article was in the middle of being cut, perhaps if you'd started earlier it would have remained fully intact for longer and you wouldn't have reacted so strongly. It's sad because I've always thought you're a very good researcher and I saw that at a time when most people wanted you banned, but on a site like wikipedia you also have to be able to work with people and not treat people who edit your work badly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I made exactly one comment (with one minor addition), in response to your changing the game plan regarding adding versus trimming: ([5]), ([6]), before you said: ([7]) "If you're going to take it personally you can clear off RO. I'm sick of your whining and taking everything personally". But you had supposedly made the thread to seek my consent ([8]), then you changed your mind and split it before we discussed it, which is one thing, but then you insulted and ridiculed me when all I wanted to do was discuss your removal of what I think are two salient points. There was no temper tantrum or overreaction on my part. You got verbally abusive right off, and that was the last straw for me. This isn't about taking stuff too personal, this is about drawing a line on the near constant insults and accusations I've dealt with over the last 10 months. Everyone has their limit, and I just reached mine. Thanks for being nice to me when almost everybody else wasn't. I'll always be grateful for that. RO^(talk) 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As you've drawn attention to that reply again, you know very well what was said off wiki. I'm not going to repeat that here as emails are in confidence but you took my condensing of your work on it as a personal attack and avenged it by belittling my work on Kelley. You made me feel like I'd written a crap article, even though I'm just beginning the book research. You know I'm not going to leave the final version with 130 Kelley sources. It was the first book I got. I might occasionally call somebody an asshole if they're acting like one, but I am generally a calm, peace loving person and I do know when somebody is editing my work in good faith and know how to distinguish a constructive edit from a personal attack.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I told you via email, I only started the Kelley thread because you totally refused to listen to my concern that the Kelley book was not as good as it should/could be, especially if it's the basis of 30% of the article's citations. Yes. You planned to remove them, and that's what I objected to, and I stand by that objection. In other words, If a book needs replacing later it might be better to not use it so extensively in the first place. That's what I was trying to tell you, and you completely ignored me. Kelley would have been a good source to skip altogether, or at least use sparingly after the core of the narrative was already in place and sourced to much higher quality works, such as Kaplan. I'm really sorry you took that personally, but it wasn't an attack on you. It was a valid criticism of your process for the article. It was my honest and considered opinion, and I think it's a good one. Anyway, I think I've explained this at least three times now, so if you don't understand what I'm saying now there is little point in continuing to explain it. The diffs speak for themselves. What started as a thread to discuss the changes in an effort to seek my consent turned into a nasty attack on me, and this is after I made one frickin' comment there asking you to reconsider exactly two points. RO^(talk) 20:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how you research articles though. As Montanabw rightly said on the talk page you go through each book and extract anything which might be useful or encyclopedic. Go through each book and then trim later and keep what seems valuable. If I went through the Kelley book and ignored stuff in worry that RO might think I'm making a bad mistake I wouldn't be researching it properly. The Kelley book is impeccably researched and written with over 800 interviews. Of the highest quality. If it wasn't I wouldn't have used it. The problem is its neutrality, so yes, it will be used a lot more sparingly in the final cut.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't start with a book with questionable neutrality and use it for nearly 1/3 of the article's citations. I strongly disagree with that. There very well might be some stuff in Kelley that should be included, but I'd check the better quality sources first, and use Kelley as one of the last sources, not the very first. The mistake is in making the core source Kelley 1986, not in using Kelley sparingly. All I asked was for you to reconsider two points that I added and you removed. If that's too much to ask without getting verbally abused then I'm right to leave. Anyway, this is going nowhere. Good luck with the article and all your future editing. I've just hit my limit on arbitrary obstacles, verbal abuse from various sources, and insinuations and continued accusations from MBW: ([9]); ([10]). Goodbye! RO^(talk) 20:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your perception of the book is wrong though, it's a very high quality source and impeccably researched with over 800 interviews. I didn't know which were the best biographies on him to start with and that was one of the books which simply happened to come first. I've checked out many of the sources she used on things like reviews etc myself and they're all spot on. I had reason to believe that up until that point Sinatra had controlled what was written about him biographically and censored things and that the Kelley book actually might be more honest than many of the others. Also I take into account the fact that she knew she could be sued for writing false material about him for a heck of a lot of money and I think the reason Sinatra didn't win the case was because the material was largely accurate, even if compiled in a way to paint him as always a bully and violent man. That's why is should only be used in moderation because she's compiled facts in a way to paint him in a negative light and ignoring much of the good side of thing, not because it's a poor quality source. Many of the citations to it are on regular, uncontroversial things anyway which can easily be replaced with other sources, It was a good place to start and get some information written down, though if I'd known about the Kaplan book earlier I'd have probably started with that one. I'll get a copy myself next week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't explain myself very well, but what frustrated me the most was the fact that you were simultaneously adding lots of stuff from Kelley (which you planned to replace later, and you can say you only used Kelley for uncontroversial stuff, but the abortion stuff and Dolly's arrests came from Kelley, and that was in the first section), while complaining about the length and cutting other sections, including two important points that I added from Kaplan. Removing those points was totally fine in and of itself, but when I asked you to reconsider, in a thread you supposedly made to seek my consent for a split, you immediately started ridiculing me, and you made the split without any prior discussion with other people who were working on the article. That's as simple as I can explain it, and just so you know this is a cumulative burn-out. It wasn't this one issue. This place throws obstacles at you everywhere you turn, and they expect professional quality from amateur volunteers, all the while treating those volunteers like crap. I'm sick of being treated like crap, and nobody has the courage to make MBW stop accusing me of all kinds of impropriety. It's as though I'm excepted to suck it up and take all her attacks with a smile. That's an abusive and dysfunctional relationship, and there's only one thing left to do. RO^(talk) 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Rational, I saw this coming from a mile away if you see editors treating others badly what makes you think that you are immune? My advice is to edit some low key articles like you have been doing the last few months please don't go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I know you mean well, KK87, but one of the things that I dislike most about Wikipedia is the fact that you can never have a heart-to-heart discussion with someone without their friends piling into the thread and turning it into a large-scale, multi-person debate. This is between Blofeld and I, and it should stay that way. RO^(talk) 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is weird though because in the part of Wikipedia I edit, I dont see these things going on. Yes there are one to one discussions but it is about article improvement or friendly chat. In fact I almost never even heard of another editor cursing another editor out or putting them down until I saw the editors who are fed up with Wikipedia its-self. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant link

I thought it worth noting that a comment about your apparent lack of awareness of the subject under discussion was made and removed here. Under the circumstances, I believe the comments regarding the name you have chosen are still reasonable. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The thread was squelched and closed by Blofeld's buddies. If you can't see that you have no business calling someone else's awareness into question. RO^(talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What certainly is not surprising is your rather paranoid refusal to assume good faith on the part of anyone else involved, in a rather clear attempt to minimize the dramah the OP has apparently been seeking, even if to his own disadvantage, and honestly,your refusal to clearly acknowledge the obvious fact that you were, apparently, unaware of the edit warring, which is what I was commenting on. If you think that your own comments are justified under the circumstances, honestly, all you do is increase my amusement about your name. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're trying to insult me you're not likely to succeed, as I couldn't care less what you think. Now please stay off my talk page, as I don't think jokes about masturbating are funny or appropriate here([11]), and you are totally creeping me out with your continued defense of them. RO^(talk) 18:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What is surprising is that anyone could witness the events that unfolded before us and assume good faith. I can only assume that either I've gone mad or Wikipedia has. Brustopher (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree, Brustopher. That an An/I thread can be squelched and closed by the subject's buddies says everything about this place that's ruining it. They should be ashamed, but of course they're not. This is business as usual. What amazes me is how effective three or four people are at controlling everything, especially when two are admins. Scary, but that's life at Wikipedia. RO^(talk) 19:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not stalk my edits and do not remove my comments from article talk pages. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I was drawn to the ceremonial pipe article from a recent discussion at RfA, and I'm also a member of the Indigenous People Wikiproject, so I'm not stalking your edits, but you never explained why that was OR, or do you just revert people and cite bogus rules to bully them? RO^(talk) 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: Why don't you just request an WP:IBAN already? Hasn't this gone on long enough, I think @Montanabw: would agree that it would work out for the both of you. As I said there are plenty of areas on Wikipedia that I am sure interest you that you can work on. So please take my advice, and move on. You are a great editor but you have been bound by this chain for too long now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that 8 months of continuous hounding and accusing is too much, but nobody will ask her to stop so she keeps on with it. RO^(talk) 16:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That is how you feel, and I understand you are upset but I am talking about a plan going forward. These run ins aren't doing any good for anyone, and there is a solution to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I just need a break, but I'm not sure whether or not that will turn into a permanent retirement. At this point I think it probably will, but maybe in a few months I'll reconsider. She won't stop bullying and accusing me at every turn though, and the only way to make that stop is to leave. RO^(talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read what an WP:IBAN is? If two editors cant get along then editors can request an IBAN, if that isn't enough the community can impose one. It hasn't got to that point yet, but it isn't good now. You don't have to leave, an IBAN would benefit you both I feel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If I thought the community would support that I might consider it, but I don't need an IBAN, I need MBW to stop accusing me in inappropriate venues. RO^(talk) 16:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The community doesn't need to approve it, just the two parties involved. It is clear that neither side is going to give in so I urge this as a way to go forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If MBW agrees then I'll agree. RO^(talk) 16:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

She isn't on ATM but I have let her know, please for now give it time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk: Rationalobserver that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Warning is in regard to this edit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not helpful. JAGUAR  22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What's not helpful, Jaguar? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

reply

I never said anything about civility. I said "personal attack" - as in our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Yes, I do consider it a personal attack. Moreover, I've noticed quite a few instances over the last year or so where any form of the Narcissism terms seem to have fallen out of favor when referring to other editors. That said: I do thank you for removing it. — Ched :  ?  00:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious though Ched, how is it that you are always the "first responder" when it comes to MBW? I don't see any indication that she contacted you about this okwiki, so how is it that you come to her aide her? Does she email you when she needs some admin intervention? RO^(talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

First, I was not the "first responder" Second, I've neither taken, nor even mentioned taking any "administrative" action with you. (anyone is capable of removing a personal attack with the {{rpa}} template - which I did when you did not remove it yourself after the October 2015 warning that Winkelvi left you). But if you're asking how I am aware of the increasingly un-collaborative nature of your editing my answer is simple: I have both your talk, and the Sinatra article (along with the rest of the rat pack) on my watchlist. As to your claim of "coming to Montanabw's aid" - quite frankly it amazes me when people paint me as "friends" with people I've never met. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met any other wikipedian, but you are free to make any assumptions about me that you wish to. — Ched :  ?  16:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I seriously doubt I'm the only one whose noticed that you function as an admin body guard for a handful of people, but sure; this isn't partisan, and you're an uninvolved and neutral admin whose just concerned about personal attacks. Too funny! Didn't you try to stop my unblock 6 months ago? And are you denying that MBW emails you? RO^(talk) 16:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a policy based question about personal attacks. Are unsupported accusations considered personal attacks? RO^(talk) 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rational please, focus on one issue at a time okay? You are upset at Montana and you have made that clear. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a valid question, as Ched has come here to prevent personal attacks. Well, Ched, per policy, are "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" considered personal attacks? RO^(talk) 16:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If I had called any editor a "narcissist" though I would have been warned as it was a personal attack. As far as the admin is concerned, yeah one could argue that Ched has been friendly towards Montana, but isn't solving the interaction between you and Montana the central issue? Fix the central problem, and you wont have to worry about any of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A valid question. Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS is likely what you're looking for; however, consider that if links are provided, then it's a different story. And once again - I am not taking any admin. action here. Oh, email. Yes, I have exchanged email with Montanabw in the past (and frankly, it's as often a dis-agreement as anything)_ .. I've also exchanged email with likely over 100 other editors over the years. Admins admittedly can accumulate a number of emails, As can ANY editor. — Ched :  ?  16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So you never noticed MBW making unsupported accusations about me? Is it appropriate to accuse someone of socking for 8 months straight at various talk pages without ever filing an SPI? RO^(talk) 16:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say an SPI should have been filed - yes. One caveat - after a certain amount of time, checkuser data is considered stale, and not actionable. I would also say that if they are continuing to do so, it is against the "aspersions", but I'd be hard pressed to put it in the personal attack range. too many edit conflicts, I check back tonight — Ched :  ?  16:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The attacks and accusations are ongoing, here are two from a couple of days ago: ([12]); ([13]). RO^(talk) 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that I did read your diffs. I also read through the previous dialog which precipitated them(although I'd hardly consider them "attacks". I've also looked at the article history on Ceremonial pipe going back as far back as 2013. Montanabw's first edit there is at 15:44, October 9, 2015‎, whereupon you reverted in just under 8 hours at 23:35, October 9, 2015. The conclusion being that the evidence does indeed support the fact that you followed her{?) there. You appear to view this "as everyone else is wrong"; so I'll leave you to continue down whatever path you feel is best for you. — Ched :  ?  01:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Ched, I am totally shocked you've supported her position. What a surprise! I was following the Paine Ellsworth RfA, where the disputes at Ceremonial pipe came up. I'm also a member of the Indigenous People Wikiproject, where Corbie posted about the issues at the ceremonial pipe article. In 13 months of editing, I've edited exactly two articles that MBW had edited first, and you conclude I must have followed her to a topic within the purview of a Wikiproject where I am a member. This is such a surprise that you should come here so early in this issue and support MBW. I guess the next best thing to being an admin is to have admins at your beckon call. RO^(talk) 15:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed a post that Rationalobserver made to this page as there was the potential for users to find out someone's real name using the information in that post. Please don't re-post this material. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, will you please email me a more detailed explanation of why this is outing? RO^(talk) 00:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you can figure out how there was the potential for users to find out someone's real name using the information in that post, and will not be emailing you. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive time?

You should archive some of this stuff, and move on great advice you gave and im happy you are able to continue editing =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This is for all your contributions thank you for all your work and im sorry for your bad welcome. I think you said it best that when it comes to the bad time is a factor. Thank you for your words to avoid the bad, and to move forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your request

No. If you want to allege sockpuppetry - and I'm not saying you should - WP:SPI is thataway.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Knowing how much damage an SPI can do to an editor's reputation, I thought it was best to be more certain before filing. RO^(talk) 18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but as far as I'm concerned, there's not enough evidence to do what you asked. I can't justify it, particularly considering some of your history.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But did you at least see why that account is suspicious, or do you think I'm totally wrong? RO^(talk) 19:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Attack page?

Hi, RO,
I was wondering what your intentions were with User:Rationalobserver/sandbox/MBWRFA2Exhibit A. Users are allowed to have a user page with diffs and comments about conduct of other editors as long as they intend to use the information in a timely in settling disputes, such as dispute resolution, ANI cases or ArbCom case requests (see WP:POLEMIC). But you can't have this type of material posted indefinitely or it will likely be tagged for an MfD discussion.
My advice, if you are interested in keeping this information, is to keep it in the cloud or on your personal computer and off Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Liz:, although Montana never did get rid of her duckbox but simply moved the content after that MfD closed as no consensus. In short, even if justified it isn't a good idea. Rational if you do decide to do something make sure you have an answer to every possible argument that one can toss against you as you will be battered by people who support her point of view. In my opinion I would just let it go, be the bigger person and don't resort to gathering information like others did for you when it came to your sock accusations. Honestly, your edits here and your presence is valued by a lot of editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I need to gather so much info it's just much easier to keep it onwiki. And to be frank, the community allowed MBW to gather diffs on me and several others, so I don't see why I couldn't do the same. RO^(talk) 17:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RO, I agree that this should be deleted. There's nothing that would lead to sanctions against Montana, if true, so it seems to constitute an attack page, per WP:ATTACK. If it's intended for her next RFA, as the title suggests, that's likely to be next year. If you feel you need to gather diffs for that reason, you can keep them elsewhere. Sarah ^(talk) 18:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

But there's nothing disparaging or threatening about it, so I'm not convinced that policy applies. MBW keeps diffs so she can later demonstrate that people are socking, so why can't I keep diffs to later demonstrate her unsuitability for adminship? Also, WP:ATTACK "is not usually meant to apply" to pages like this, so I'm not even sure this policy is relevant. RO^(talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

An attack page is "a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject." The policy says: "keeping a ... 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." The page will almost certainly be deleted if it goes to MfD, so I hope you'll agree to let it be speedy deleted. Sarah ^(talk) 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about it is threatening, and if diffs that demonstrate negative behavior are disparaging and inappropriate, why is MBW allowed to collect them on others? RO^(talk) 18:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My recollection of Montana's page is that she was collecting diffs that might indicate sockpuppetry, and the page was moved to become an LTA page. Your page is just a list of diffs of things you don't like. It's threatening because it's left hanging over that editor's head that anything she says now might end up on your public list. Sarah ^(talk) 19:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Montanabw/Duck box was never deleted, so if you want to refresh your memory it's all there in the editing history for anyone to see. To my knowledge, she's never actually used any of the diffs she collected there at SPI or any other venue. RO^(talk) 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I don't know though, Montana threw editors into her duck box whom she thought were connected to ILT and was forced to use the evidence only when the MfD came around. She ended up moving the page to User:Montanabw/LTA sandbox, and is still gathering evidence against random editors [14]. Most recently she added @Una Smith: to the fray who is currently not blocked and likely unaware they are on a sock list. Even if the account is inactive, it is random finger pointing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The more im digging up the more I find the connections disturbing, Curb-chain was directly involved with Montanabw but there is no evidence that Una Smith is connected. She mentioned this editor along with other sock puppets that were discredited as lack of evidence during the ANI discussion.[15][16]. My point is that this finger pointing of people with little or no evidence to go on is a bad pattern - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely a pattern, and a long-term one, and that's why I need to collect diffs for RfA2, so my argument is supported by thorough research. RO^(talk) 19:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: For the record I am okay with people gathering information on sock puppet cases this should be done offline though, I am not okay with people throwing random editors on a list that can be viewed by anyone here on Wikipedia with little or no evidence. I still think you should keep your list offline too though Rational, it wont hurt to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the blatant hypocrisy of, "MBW has more than one of these pages, but yours should go" is a bit too much for me to stomach. RO^(talk) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Montana has kept diffs suggestive of sockpuppetry. Your page isn't alleging policy violations. It's just a list of things you don't like.

We seem to have three options: (a) you give permission for me (or Liz or someone else) to delete it; (b) we place {{db-attack}} on it; or (c) we take it to MfD. What do you suggest? Sarah ^(talk) 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of the diffs I collected are indeed indications of policy violations, such as WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:BOLD to name a few. So, if I put up some diffs that alleged MBW was socking you'd be supportive of that? RO^(talk) 20:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll organize them better so that each diff pertains to a specific issue with policy. RO^(talk)

SlimVirgin, can you offer a policy-based explanation for why your friendship with MBW and history accusing me of impropriety does not make you WP:INVOLVED here? RO^(talk) 20:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty with what is happening here is that it appears to be harassment. If we ignore your page, Montana is left to feel that everything she says is being examined and documented in public. If we ask to delete it, we draw attention to it. You've behaved in similar ways to others. At some point, people are going to say enough. Sarah ^(talk) 20:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Then please explain why MBW can do this to others without drawing similar criticism? There's no doubt she's harassed me, and you're an accomplice. Tell me why I can't keep policy-based diffs? You're moving the goalposts with each reply. RO^(talk) 20:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, fine. I give you permission to speedy delete it, but you're acting like a personal admin bodyguard for MBW. RO^(talk) 20:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving permission. You're quite welcome to keep this kind of thing on your computer or some other non-public space, but I hope instead that you'll focus on work and put the disagreement with Montana behind you. Sarah ^(talk) 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I'd love nothing more than to do exactly that, but she insults and accuses and makes insinuations about me every chance she gets. Every time we cross paths she starts in with the same empty and false accusations and insults that she first made against me more than 8 months ago. Why isn't anyone asking her to stay away and leave me alone? Why not? In 13+ months of editing, I've only ever edited two article that she has edited before me. Just two! How could I do more to avoid her? RO^(talk) 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Watching

I am going to watch the arbcom case for this one. The thing that upsets me the most is the ones who go after the admin making the block as if enforcing the rules is a grave mistake. The right thing has been done, a case has been requested hopefully it will result in some closure of all of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That's the standard procedure. Raise hell and make noise, while doing everything possible to frighten and discredit the blocking admin into never doing it again. The tactics of bullies. What I find ironic is they put EC in the position of simultaneously being a gifted and brilliant writer and someone who is so not emotionally intelligent enough to keep himself out of trouble. Which is it? RO^(talk) 20:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

On a brighter note, do you have any articles that you want to get up to GA or FA? I notice you like to work on the parks articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything planned, as this place is increasingly not worth it to me. RO^(talk) 20:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia because there are things that interest me out there. I want readers to take in the truth of things, and not just see Wikipedia as a ball of untruthful mess. I could care less about the edit wars here, I have for a long time been better at helping others online when they needed it most, I wish you could find a purpose to stay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, but more than anything it's a terrible mix of arbitrary obstacles and regular verbal abuse. The Wikijoy is all but gone for me, but maybe I'll recover after a long break. RO^(talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

None of these editors know the real you though or the real me for that matter, focus on the smiles of the readers who enjoy what you write. It comes down to people trying to throw stones at you in a metal cage, how can they judge you? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's very true, and a good point. I think I've just put in too much effort lately and for an extended period. I can't take all the red tape and procedure though, and MBW will obviously never stop accusing and insulting me no mater how long I've been here. So logging in these days feels like going out with an abusive boyfriend who has lots of potential but also treats me like crap all the time. RO^(talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My last edit for a bit but I feel that you could avoid MBW okay. Eventually she will either give up trying to insult you or dig her-self into a hole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion on my talk-page regarding EC, at this point I consider Sitush's actions as being some kind of a grudge. I hadn't talked to him in almost a month and he came out of nowhere, anyways best of luck RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review for Bharat Ratna

Hi. I have listed Bharat Ratna for peer review. Its currently a GA and I would like to take it FAC in the near future. I would really appreciate if you could find some time and provide your comments here. Thanks in advance. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vivvt, I'll make a review over there tomorrow. Okay? RO^(talk) 22:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration statement Suggestion

Hi Rationalobserver,

Could we ask you to review your second and forth paragraphs of your statement as there are statements that could be considered as personal attacks or aspersions.

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 17:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've copyedited it to soften that aspect, but no. I won't remove them altogether. RO^(talk) 17:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

GD's lament.

I sure do envy EC's supporters, though. I could've used that kinda support, a few years ago ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We could all use that kind of support! Did you get banned or something? RO^(talk) 22:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I served a full year, followed by another year on probation. But, I survived it all. My experiences inspired me to become a member of WP:RETENTION. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What on earth did you get a one year sentence for? RO^(talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Very complicated. You'd have to read my Arb-case :) GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, it's probably better I don't! I'd rather take you at face value and without prejudice. RO^(talk) 22:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No probs ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Hai, kindly consider giving a peer review to the film article Drishyam. Already made a request for review. --Charles Turing (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I left some comments there. RO^(talk) 21:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Charles Turing (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sad to see you go

You will be missed, I wish you would come back soon, and just do what you do best which is working on articles that need it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain what brought on this decision by you. But as a member of WP:RETENTION, I sincerly wish you'd reconsider. PS- I've went through a 1-year ban & survived. I won't retire ever. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Of course you would be welcomed back...and...you might be surprised at how many editors share you views. Having been involved with WikiProject WER from the beginning I have seen too many editors forced to leave. Forced in order to keep peace with yourself, to not feel hounded and put upon, to maintain your sense of self worth. If you are anything like me, what happens and what is said on WP rattles around in my brain throughout the day. I stay away from contentious articles and situations because they take over my thoughts and cause imbalance and stress in my RL...and that's not good! Any artist will tell you, "We give our critics too much of our time and mind. We should just nod at them and move on". We editors pay too much attention to the UN-Love and it gains power over us and we abandon the thing we love. Please re-consider. Buster Seven Talk 20:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nom

Upon further investigation, we have found that your DYK nom met all of the requirements for an ordinary DYK and you will be credited for those points. For the judges,--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowing I am not supposed to post here, if the matter above is one of the factors which caused you to retire, I hope that it will make you reconsider. If it has anything to do with the possibility of BLP applying to editors with known identities, then it might be best to wait to see if I am right in my assertion about that, because even when I am convinced of some things ArbCom doesn't always agree with me. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your flower

Precious again, your Perovskia atriplicifolia, "one of the all time great gardening plants"

Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Finalist

Awarded to Rational Observer, who finished in 6th place in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Newcomer Trophy

Awarded to Rational Observer, who was the highest placed newcomer in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 20:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Nice to see you back on Wikipedia. I hope you find some interesting articles in dire need of your help! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz! I hope I'm not too hooked, but it was breaking my heart to walk away like that. RO^(talk) 22:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I knew you'd be back :) GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I enjoy this place too much to quit just yet! RO^(talk) 17:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, KK87! RO^(talk) 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, happy editing =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

In reviewing your posts, I have decided to block your for disruptive editing. You can appeal this through WP:GAB — Ched :  ?  06:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

For one, you are quite obviously too involved to block me ([17]), and two, the length is utterly absurd for something that happened two days ago and ended swiftly. RO^(talk) 17:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ched, per ADMINACCOUNT, what diffs establish that I was being disruptive to the point of deserving an indef? RO^(talk) 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm especially interested in what diff/s you thought were so bad, because you've directed sexual innuendo towards me without sanction ([18]). RO^(talk) 17:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• her very insensitive linking of one group of anonymous works with your real name. Have I got that right. Anthonyhcole, I did no such thing. Godot submitted files for Wikicup points that contain his username and real name. There was no linking of anonymous works. I didn't connect two groups, they are in the same group of Godot's Wikicup submissions, which can be seen here: ([19]). RO^(talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rationalobserver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ched is too involved to block me ([20]), and an indef is way too punitive for that exchange. I admit I was wrong to assume, and I should have asked Godot in a more polite manner at his talk page. I regret that I didn't assume good faith, and pledge to be more careful about this is the future. RO^(talk) 17:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC) * As far as the charges of outing, after this thread I got the distinct impression that using posted info is not outing. I know better now, and won't repeat the error. RO^(talk) 18:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) *I redacted the assumptions ([21]) and apologized at Godot's talk page immediately after it happened, and admitted I was wrong to assume ([22]). RO^(talk) 18:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural close; the user was unblocked by 28bytes. Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Ched: - you just indeffed a user with 12k edits in the middle of an ANI thread about her behavior without consensus that doing so was a good idea and where you were certainly not the best admin to perform the block. Please undo your block before someone else needs to, and let another admin implement a block of appropriate length if and only if that thread reaches consensus that such is appropriate. Indeffing anyone who isn't an outright troll while there's an ongoing ANI thread about their behavior is barely ever a good idea, since it means they can't defend themselves. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kevin. My block has nothing to do with "consensus" My block was for behavior both on and off wiki. I feel there is enough "ON" wiki evidence to show WP:DE, and even if "wp:nothere" isn't a "policy" - ...

When multiple people have problems with one account, then the problem becomes obvious. — Ched :  ?  19:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ched, as has been repeatedly established in recent weeks, blocking (let alone indeffing someone) when a matter is at ANI without consensus is a questionable decision. On top of that unless it's already hit an OS queue I can't view, you're claiming you blocked partly based on revdeled stuff, and as far as I can tell those revdels don't exist. Please provide evidence that blocking a user in the middle of an ANI thread about that user's behavior is preventative or unblock. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You made sexual innuendo against me ([23]), which I shared a few days ago at WPO, so you are too involved to have blocked me. RO^(talk) 20:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. Anyone can visit that diff and read the comment in its full context. When they do, they will discover that it was not directed to you at all, but to Drmies, and refers directly and unambiguously to a famous film quote that is about the military. So you're either lying or incapable of telling the difference between fact and fantasy. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Drmies was talking about me when he said he liked to "kiss before he gets fucked", then Ched added the bit about a reach-around hand-job, but they were mocking me. Here's the whole thread ([24]). RO^(talk) 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither of them were taking about you and neither of them were mocking you. The "reach around" quote is famous, and Ched was playing with the banter.[25] I think you should remain blocked because you continue to persist in promoting fantasies. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But I'm the user Drmies is talking about in the comment where he says he likes to "kiss before he gets fucked" ([26]), so he was referring to me. If you think that's appropriate language for a male user to direct at a female user that's your problem, but then Ched mentions handjobs ([27]) and an IP mentions anal sex ([28]), in a thread I started at Drimes talk page to ask Drmies about his approach to Corbett. These comments were not removed, BTW, but left for all to see. RO^(talk) 21:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the word "fucked" refers to "fucking around", hence the word play. You're just wrong. Anyone who unblocks you should be blocked as well. Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Those comments would never be allowed in a proper workplace. RO^(talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Those comments were jokes not directed at you, made by the user and his friends on his talk page, not in article space. Enough already. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

They were talking about me, and they were harassing me. That's the last I'll say here to you on the subject. RO^(talk) 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarah's proposal

It appears that editors have moved away from calling for and indef-block or a trip to arbcom :) GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if I can't participate in GAN or FAC, what's the point? RO^(talk) 16:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's better then the alternative. PS - You could do some gnoming editing :) GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, not for 6 months. I think I've reached my limit here, and Sarah and Co. won't ever stop, so the best thing is probably to retire. RO^(talk) 16:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been through a topic ban, currently under an Arb restriction & been through a 1 year-siteban. But, I'm still on Wikipedia. You'll survive. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. If I can't participate in GAN or FAC there's no point in my being here. I also don't want to carry this bullshit through the holiday season. I think it would be best to just quit. They won. I don't want anymore of this, and Godot was fucking lying! RO^(talk) 16:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, but you'll always be outnumbered by this clique, who'll never stop until they get what they want. RO^(talk) 16:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sage advice

From Wikipedian to Wikipedian: I don't know what the outcome will be, at ANI. But, should you remain unblocked? It would be best that in future, you quickly walk away from anything that appears to be heating up, drama wise. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and all I can say is that discussion with Godot turned faster than I could react. It was an honest and simple question. RO^(talk) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party but have you noticed that you are being targeted by this same group of editors? Im happy you are unblocked but have no idea why you were ever blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Rational it isn't over, an editor has accused you of bullying through emails. You should at the very least present your side of the story. I know you want to walk away from this, but idk what to think regarding this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, I did something I said I wouldn't do, and got into an ANI discussion, things regarding WP:OUTING should be taken up with WP:ARBCOM. I wish you luck, and hope you can continue to focus on the articles here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody agreed with my An/I report when Montanabw tried to out me last April: ([29]). So the double standards are too confusing. RO^(talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say that I definitely see some involved editors responding to your ANI thread. Some editors however I see are totally uninvolved, and don't have any association or contact with other editors there. This tells me, and I want to be blunt that there is something editors are seeing that they don't like. Can you be critical about yourself, and think of what it might be? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not my best when on the defensive, and I feel like I've been on the defensive too much lately, so it's not too surprising that my flaws are overshadowing my strengths. It's really difficult when I feel people have tag-teamed me in efforts to get rid of me. RO^(talk) 20:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read over many posts of those who seem to prefer that you be indef-blocked. In situations like these, I've learned to have a practical approach. I recommend that you apologies to all editors who feel they deserve such an apology. Furthermore, I recommend that you make a 'vow' never to repeat the behaviour/conduct, that they're claiming. I know this would be swallowing a tone of pride & painting oneself as being the 'bad editor'. It's no longer a matter of who's to blame or who's innocent/guilty. It's a fact that you've got alot of editors ticked off at you. If you don't go this way, I fear the indef-block might well be re-instated or worst, your situation may go to Arbcom. Believe me, RO, you don't want it to go to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Remember, I've been through this kinda situation, years ago. You feel like the whole world is against you. I dug in too deep & for too long, back then & ended up with a 13-month forced vacation. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Too many editors are being screwed over by a select few who for whatever reason make something small into something huge. I have seen the discussion over at ANI, the original poster had resolved things with RO. Without the usual gang this would have been closed awhile ago, but some had to chime in to keep the ball rolling. The right thing to do would be to ask for a motion to close, and have everyone go on their way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking closure is certaintly an option. But, this is no longer a matter of who's right & who's wrong. I've been through this kinda situation & it can get quite ugly. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You should be the one to go in there, and just seek closure. At this point RO has been unblocked, so what are people arguing for? It is now boiling down to something off-topic. Hopefully an admin with the brass balls will have it in them to shut the thread down, and remind RO that this is a wake up call. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)