User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Your submission at Articles for creation: Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law has been accepted

Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

SwisterTwister Credit really belongs to User:2602:306:C4EA:CEA0:8C18:C012:44D3:D40 who started the article. I already informed them as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Decision for climate change deniers cat

Are you absolutely confident that you had sufficient consensus to close as delete rather than no consensus? I do not think consensus favoured the decision you took. AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion? You'll need to give me something more than just say "you should have gone with no consensus". It's not a pure vote situation. When I look at the timeline during which the discussion was added to the BLP/N board and the views there, I think it does. You can't give great weight to the procedural opposers or the early opposers if there's no later discussion by them or even a later rebuttal to the points expressed. It's no different than an AFD with a lot of delete votes at the top and then someone comes in with new evidence or a new point and then a bunch of keeps at the bottom (or in the opposite, a bunch of keeps but someone finds out the sources are inaccurate and so it changes to a bunch of deletes). Closing those as no consensus is inaccurate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask, which is the specific BLP/N discussion that you refer to that figures so prominently in your decision to support category deletion? Was the BLP/N discussion formally closed? If not, and it if it is archived, may I respectfully ask that you un-archive it and attempt to formally close it, so that we as a community may assess the consensus on your take-away from that discussion? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"You can't give great weight to the procedural opposers or the early opposers if there's no later discussion by them or even a later rebuttal to the points expressed." Respectfully disagree. On a good day, yes, new evidence and new points of view are shared and views evolve; on the other hand another pattern in online discussions is unloading the bus. You are giving undue weight to the last word. Maybe early commenters see little substance in later comments. The arena of climate change being under discretionary sanctions, it may be that early commenters are reluctant to rebut each and every later comment because they fear being topic banned for tendentious editing. Delete is clearly a minority view in the category discussion. Your close is difficult to understand. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at that time was cross-posted to now-Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive231#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Thank you for engaging in discussion of your action. I see the request for closure WP:ANRFC of the BLPN discussion you linked to was declined, yet your interpretation of the consensus at the BLPN discussion figured prominently in your rationale for your closure of the category discussion. May I respectfully suggest we un-archive the BLPN discussion, and again request a formal, uninvolved closure, so that we may as a community assess the consensus of the BLPN discussion, if any? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You can bring that up at WT:BLP. I had no involvement with the BLP discussion but I think it is a moot point at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"moot point" I don't understand your comment, "moot point." What do you mean by "moot point," do you mean to say done is done? You invoked your interpretation of the BLPN discussion in your closure of the category discussion. Can we please find out if here is community consensus on your interpretation of the BLPN discussion? It sure seems like you used a BLPN discussion with no consensus and a category discussion with no consensus to justify a category deletion. I'm confused, please explain. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and argue it if you want. I don't care. The issue was whether those BLPs should be in the category or not. I just close the CFD as I did for the others that day. I didn't close the BLP discussion, I had nothing to do with that, I didn't even do more than scan it. I closed the CFD discussion. The BLP discussion brought up a new point, which came into the CFD discussion. I didn't see a lot of rebuttals or responses to the BLP discussion issues (there were some but not a lot) and a lot of newer voices from outside the general topic concerned about the BLP implications of the category itself. My advice was to formulate an RFC or some other discussion, but that's just advice. If you want to reinstate the BLP discussion, bring it up, if you want to take this to DRV, go do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Where can I review the CSD discussion you mention? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion? That is what we are talking about, aren't we? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Above you mentioned you closed both a CFD discussion and a CSD discussion; I would like to please review the latter. Can you please help? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That was a typo. It was just a CFD discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Quviahugvik

From high in the Canadian Arctic CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Adapted from User:WereSpielChequers greetings

Request

Hi there! You kindly offered your help at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Help with BAFTA articles. I installed AWB and had a go (after being verified for use), but it just would not work for me. Even trying to do the simple things like "apply general fixes" wouldn't work, let alone my efforts to replace the BAFTA text that I wanted. I don't know if there's something wrong with my download. Anyway, at first I was determined to work it out for myself but now I've been gone from WP for a week and I'm not fussed about that anymore, heh. Any chance you could have a go at fixing those links? I'd be very grateful. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Loeba, it is a complicated task. I did some work a while back. First, where is the problem? Are you able to load the pages at all to review them? You would need to use the down down menu to "what links here" and type in "BAFTA Award for Best Film" but I imagine there may be similar redirects there too. It should load all pages that reference it. From there, you need to go to the "Disambiguation" tag and (a) enable disambiguation; (b) put "BAFTA Award for Best Film" in the disambiguation top box and (c) put in the pages that it could be in the main box (I have "BAFTA Award for Best Film", "BAFTA Award for Best British Film" and "BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language"). Start that it should load the page, pull up a separate box and ask you what to do. There's still quite a number to do though so contact me once the holidays are over if you're still having trouble. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh I didn't realise you'd already done some of this back when I first mentioned it - that's great, thanks. Yeah I was able to load a list of films but whenever I pressed "start", even trying to do simple changes, it wouldn't do anything. Anyway, I reinstalled it and logged in again and it seems like it may work now (using "what links here" is a good method as well, I was doing a text search before). It's found 473 pages still linking there - ouch, this will take a while! I'll carry on a bit anyway. Thanks again, and merry Christmas --Loeba (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone needs to be changed. There's a lot where the Best Film is actually to the Best Film overall. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, but it still seems to mean clicking through all of them. Anyway, I'm down to 274 already so it's not too bad. --Loeba (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Just an FYI but I'd change the default edit summary to something more descriptive like "fixing BAFTA Award for Best Film link" so that's more obvious to people what you're doing. It seems like you got it though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Great minds think alike.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2012 Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As with all these, we shall see what happens. With all the prods and AFDs, WP:AE will necessarily get uglier first before it gets better all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Formally request reconsideration of expansion of topic ban

I apologize. Recently we engaged in discussion here on your talk page exchanging frank feedback, in the course of which, I may have offended by neglecting to explicitly, formally request reconsideration of your recent administrative action in your expansion of your topic ban. I apologize for my oversight, and at this time wish to correct my mistake by formally respectfully requesting your kind reconsideration of your expansion of your topic ban. Sorry, and thank you for generous time in your engagement in talk regarding your administrative actions, I know you are busy. Hugh (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that there's currently a request at WP:AE regarding the expansion from two weeks ago, it seems like an request at AE is the best approach (possibly within the current one or a separate request) especially given that no one there seems to be support any further sanctions (whether or not the comments should or are stricken). Nevertheless, do you have an alternative proposal? I've tried different formulations of a possible topic scope but those have not worked out for anyone it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and thank you for soliciting my thoughts regarding an alternative proposal. Thank you for your openness to alternatives. I would be happy to collaborate with you on an alternative. I understand AE is available to me, but as you know my preference and easiest for everyone here is if we can work out this together. Your recent action was an expansion of a topic ban, which as I understand it generally results from persistent problematic editor behavior; therefore, I would please like to begin our collaboration by examining together one or more diffs of edits which you believe demonstrate disruptive editing warranting an expansion of a topic ban. Thank you again for your engagement at talk regarding your administrative action, I know you are busy. Hugh (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It was in large part because it seems that no one (neither you nor others) were particularly clear what was the intended scope of the ban other than me it seems. That's a poorly thought out topic then. I tried conservative politics with the year 2009 which is when Tea party alleges it began I believe since it seems as though "Tea party politics" is still not a clearly defined term. I'd be fine with retracting it if you have an alternative in mind but it seems that identifying individuals is not ideal especially people like the Koch brothers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We agree the previous topic ban was less than ideal, though for different reasons. Regarding your recent administrative action, your recent notice to me was entitled "Expansion of topic ban" and I hope we can agree that since the Tea Party + Kochs is a strict subset of American conservative politics, your recent administrative action was an expansion. I am not an administrator of our project like yourself, just a humble editor and writer, forgive me, but as I understand it one of the explicit considerations in discretionary sanctions enforcement is proportionality of the remedy to the disruption. I believe I could be a better collaborator in formulating an alternative enforcement action if I could better understand the disruption it is intended to prevent. Therefore I respectfully request again, could you please help set the context for our collaboration by offering up one or more diffs of problematic edits by myself that convinced you of the need for an expansion of the topic ban? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The actual edits were discussed extensively at User talk:Callanecc/Archive 22. If you are asking me to retract it back, it first depends on whether or not you consider Watchdog.org in the scope of the prior topic ban as stated or not. I don't think we need to rehash this all over again. I don't think you found it a violation, I did. User:Callanecc proposed one remedy (and at least saw it as problematic editing), I proposed another and enforced it. I found a broader topic ban more prudent that a block or other violation for two reasons: (1) while somewhat at an issue, this was at a talk page with little evidence of actual edit warring so a block seemed excessive; and (2) even a block would not solve the real issue, which was that the topic ban that I described was not clear enough that others understood what was and what was not in the scope of the topic ban. The broader "all conservative politics 2009 and going forward" hopefully provides a little more clarity. If there's something in particular you think that you can edit productively that doesn't seem to have all the trappings of the articles where there's currently problems (as I noted at AE, I'm aware it's not all you) I'm open to re-wording it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your openness to alternatives. Thank you for your observation that this ongoing drama is not all me, that means a lot to me. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"I don't think we need to rehash this all over again." I don't either. But one open question, that was not answered at AE or here on your talk page or on our good colleague Callanecc's, was what specific diffs led to the expansion? Though just a humble editor and writer, not an admin, my understanding of discretionary sanction enforcement actions is that the enforcing administrator must have a reasonable belief that the enforcement action was necessary to preserving the smooth running of our project, and that the enforcement action is proportional to the threat to the smooth running of our project. Though asked many times, diffs available upon request, you never answered me which diffs of my behavior exhibited a threat to the smooth running of our project. Respectfully, I ask again for such diffs. You mentioned that AE is available to me; your refusal to get specific on this reasonable question is frustrating my ability to file; I think you can understand I am reluctant to file stating that "My behavior threatening the smooth running of our project is discussed extensively elsewhere and need not be rehashed here." I believe that part of your responsibility in choosing to take an administrative action is that you be clear with your justification. In the context of this thread, I am frustrating in collaborating with you on alternatives without the context necessary for assessing proportionality. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"I don't think you found it a violation, I did." Do I understand the threat to the smooth running of our project, which in your view justified the expansion of the topic ban, was a violation of the previous topic ban, which you now say was unclear? If so, could you please provide one or more diffs of edits of mine which in your view constitute a topic ban violation? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"the topic ban that I described was not clear enough that others understood what was and what was not in the scope of the topic ban" Respectfully, I don't think your previous topic ban TPM + Kochs was as unclear as you think it was. Logging enforcement actions is not just paper work; an enforcing admin is asked to provide a clear statement of each enforcement action in order to facilitate other members of our community participating in patrolling the enforcement so that you don't have to shoulder the burden of patrolling every enforcement action you take by yourself. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"it first depends on whether or not you consider Watchdog.org in the scope of the prior topic ban as stated or not" Instead of asking me whether Watchdog.org was in scope, why don't we both listen to a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators? This is not all about you and me. A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at WP:AE said Watchdog.org was out of scope. The uninvolved admins read the log, comprehended WP:TBAN, and stated their assessment; none complained the statement of the topic ban was unclear. That's how it is supposed to work, on a good day. May I respectfully summarize, in my view, the problem was not that the initial topic ban was so unclear as to be unworkable; respectfully, the problem was that you considered the topic ban was your intention, not what you wrote. In the months following your initial topic ban, you steadily expanded the scope, to include Donors Trust, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, Watchdog.org, and eventually to "American conservative politics," logging only the last. From my point of view, and this is just us guys talking here on user talk, you tried to slap a topic ban that was exempt from interpretation by WP:TBAN, exempt from community consensus, and that you reserved the right to redefine the scope of as desired. Now I am somewhat surprised to recently learn, with the patient help of our good colleague Callanecc, that, apparently, the cultural conventions surrounding the implementation of our discretionary sanctions regime, referred to affectionately as the "leeway" extended enforcing administrators, support your point of view that you may expand the scope at will, that the intention in your head overrides consensus and policy, and that logging of enforcement actions is merely a place-holder claiming the target as an ongoing personal project. Still, some of our colleagues were on the verge of helping out with dealing with the 30 November AE filing regarding an alleged topic ban violation, but you couldn't let it go, you had to make sure the close was your close: an expansion; that's how it looked to me anyway. What do you think? Thank you again for your time and consideration of these ideas. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so this is going nowhere yet again. If you wish to have the ban reverted to the prior one, then bring this up at WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you once again shut down dialog. Progress is slow, but I see progress; I recognize I am challenging your beliefs and I am trying to be patient. I believe you have unfairly been targeted in filings for your ongoing work on non-notable old people and stale drafts and I am loathe to pile on. I hope you will reconsider your decision to stop discussing your enforcement action. I would very much appreciate your thoughts on my comments above, maybe tomorrow. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If your goal is to ignore all the prior discussions about how consensus isn't required for discretionary sanctions and then to argue for reversion of discretionary sanctions based on your belief that there wasn't consensus for it, it's clear you're not taking this seriously and this is just another round of the same arguments. The fact that you could even think that editing the Citizens United article wouldn't at least raise some red flags is concerning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I did not edit or think about editing our project's article Citizens United. I said above that it appears you seem to be within your rights to dispense and expand discretionary sanctions enforcement actions at will, exempt from our community's pillar of consensus, and exempt from policy; your intention rules, so we are making progress. I understand you are apparently within your rights to ignore consensus in dispensing and expanding discretionary sanctions, so we are making progress. Still, I wonder, most of us here, in the face of a clear consensus that disagrees with our actions, regardless of whether or not we were required to do so, might pause and reflect. May I ask, what did you take away from the close at AE regarding Watchdog.org? Nothing? Are those admins confused? Did they misinterpret your log entry or WP:TBAN or both? How do you reconcile your close with theirs? Thank you again very much for your continued engagement, I know you are busy with your important work on non-notable old people and stale drafts. Hugh (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing via WP:Votestack

[1] and [2]. Both users sided against HughD on the Watchdog.org talk page RFC[3] and no one else was alerted by that editor to the ARE discussion, though there are two other editors that shared HughD's viewpoint. So clearly people supporting a particular side of the previous debate were chosen to be notified. My question for you is if Arbitration decision pages are exempt from WP canvassing policies?Scoobydunk (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to be alerted to the ARE discussion and no they are not exempt from canvassing policies. The comments have been identified and explained, nothing more is needed than possibly to respond to what others state or more importantly to what the uninvolved admins comments. Canvassing other people to pile on is not going to add anything new to the situation and will not help the situation at all. I suggest Springee immediately stop notifying others about the ARE discussion immediately. I will remark about this as well there as it is causing some concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Scoobydunk, all these names are starting to blur together for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies and I will strike out, undo or take what ever other steps Ricky thinks are warranted here. Springee (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What's done is done but I think it's best for you to stop the stick with respect to HughD. If he asks you not to comment on his talk page and if there actually isn't a need to, I'd suggest you do that. Similarly, I don't think you need to inform others about a ARE report. Put the shoe on the other foot, if you were being reported to ARE and others will passing that around, do you think the discussion there would be helped? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Before reading the 08:52 edit I undid the notices. I was hesitant to post on HughD's talk page at all and only posted to ask him to revert a 4RR post. I assumed it was better to ask on his talk page vs the article talk page simple because it was less public. I see your point about the ARE. With regards to HughD, I will drop it. Please note that my interactions with him over the last two months are basically all limited to only one topic which I mentioned on the ARE in response to Fiddlestix. Springee (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed something that slipped by when I first replied to the canvassing accusation (late at night, trouble sleeping). Scoobydunk is absolutely incorrect to imply I was doing this as a bad faith effort to impact an RFC. That is not at all correct. The editors who were notified were the ones involved with the previous TBAN discussion related to Watchdog.org HughD TBAN discussion [4]. The notified editors were the only two editors other than Callanecc who were involved in the discussion that lead to the expanded topic ban and reinforced the view that Watchdog.org was an off limits topic. Springee (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any implication from Scoopydunk that you were trying to impact the RFC, I see the implication being to impact the ARE discussion against HughD. My view is that there is no need to notify them directly regardless of their prior involvement either in the topic ban discussion or the editing. The only people who need to be involved in a report are the reporter, the person being reported on and possibly notifications to the admins involved in the sanctions. Any else should just be outsiders or wandering in but should not be directed there. Of course, that's just my views, others may find it useful to have all the relevant editors involved but as you can see from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#930310, that isn't always helpful either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Those who participated in previous TBAN discussions in regard a specific editor probably should be informed when that editor violates the TBAN (or another TBAN). But it's a close call. Certainly, if an editor requests a modification of a TBAN at AE, those who participated in previous discussions about that TBAN should be informed. I'll leave the matter to your judgement, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree then. I'm not really an uninvolved admin on this case at the moment and as I said, it's just my view but I think it would have be preferable if done via pings at AE in the context of a comment rather than direct requests but either way, I don't think it's worthy of penalizing or anything more and it doesn't look like anyone else particularly objects. However, doing that almost encourages the other side to do the same and both sides pile in to comment at which point you get something closer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#930310 which is what it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Populated places by year of establishment subcats

Several categories, including at least one which you created, have been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac

Why raise a dead issue? Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac what are you talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

ANi - defense made, let it be. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's issues, there's issues. I'm not agreeing with you 100% either. It's not like DerbyCountyinNZ is some wild pro-GRG editor here so give him a little respect; there are going to be disagreements once the low-hanging fruit is cleared away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Asking for help

Ricky, I'm asking for help in trying to figure out the best way to deal with HughD on a recent talk page and asking for advice. Hugh has twice deleted my comments in an RfC he started [5], [6] and moved them 3 times [7], [8], [9](note: second move was after another editor restored the location). The edit comments attracted the attention of another editor[10]. Since the ANI when I offered to not interact with Hugh for at least 30 days I have avoided interactions on new topics. This RfC revisits an old topic (see the RSN and NPOVN comments). No interest in new topics with Hugh. Before placing my comments I reviewed the RfC guidelines and saw nothing regarding a specific format or comment placement requirements. The RSN and NPONV discussion links were placed under the header since they were recent and covered the exact topic. The replies to specific editor comments were nested under their comments. Anyway, I'm very frustrated with having my comments move or deleted. I would normally file an ANI but I fear blow back. Do you have any suggestions? Would it be too much to ask you to simply ask Hugh to cool it and AGF (no formal action taken)? Thanks and sorry to trouble you (again) Springee (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

William Connolley has noted his concerns about the RFC at the ARE discussion. I've commented as well about the similarities with this and the prior RFCs involving HughD. I say take the holiday off and see what happens there afterwards. If the refactoring of edits continue, then tell me and I may have to make a request at ANI or something because that behavior is not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will stay out of it. It looks like the edit without discussing and reversing other's changes is happening without my help. [11] Springee (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky, would you please step in. The talk page discussions are still questionable. The article quality was changed without discussion and the unproductive edit tags continue. [12] There are accusations of bad faith in a request for help here [13] and [14].

BTW, since I'm clearly not up to speed on what is and isn't canvasing, is that canvasing? If so, and I think it is reasonable to ask for interested outside eyes, what is the best way to do it in a case like this? I've been on the side of the fence that HughD is currently on and I would like to know the best way to deal with it since I was accused of canvasing. Thanks. Springee (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And just to dump on you a bit more, I'm sorry to say your trollish friend is back and wants us to have a Koch and a smile. [15],[16]. Springee (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ricky, I wanted to ask if you felt this was now reason to file an ANI based on tendentious editing. I think HughD's behavior with respect to the ExxonMobil RfC resulted in a skewed result as well as being generally disruptive. The tendentious editing continued over the course of the ANI. In addition to the older comments above:

Moving a comment placed at the top of the RfC stating that the material in question was moved to a split off article after the RfC was started [[17]]. The edit justification was also inflammatory.
Bludgeoning the talk page when the comments were moved back [18], [19], [20].

Suppressing the expired RfC bot edits [21].

Based on the closing editor's comments, HughD's efforts to suppress information likely did impact the result of the RfC [22].
The climate change section of the ExxonMobile article was split off and the Mother Jones reference in question went with it to the new article. While the RfC was still active HughD changed the disputed content. [23]
Upon completion of the RfC HughD added the disputed content to both the parent and child article even though the original content was moved to the child [[24]], [[25]]. In both cases he cited the RfC as justification.

Beyond the RfC specific examples he has also used the split as a way to ignore group consensus as well as WP:OVERCITE guidelines. We had a discussion about removing some excess citations before the article split [26]. Once the article was split HughD, who participated in the original discussion added the references back against consensus [27]. Note that the edit was made 2 days after the parent article dispute.
HughD, unilaterally renamed the split article without discussion on the talk page. Moved: [[28]]. Discussion: [[29]]
Do you feel this is sufficient justification to move forward with an ANI for tendentious editing? Also, do you feel that I am right to think that HughD's RfC was not neutral and that his efforts may have skewed the results?

Thanks again Springee (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The RFC was closed. While this is very familiar to me, I think it's best to move on. There are a number of other editors who are keeping watch on that page so I don't think outside involvement is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Springee (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

New Years

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I commend you on your decision and the rationale with the deletion of the Donald Trump article. It was a very hot issue, and you made a level-headed decision in a very tough setting. For this, you deserve my stamp of approval, a beer, and a fist bump. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Wasted enough time with this.

I'm not the banned user, so my recreations of the page should not meet G5. Please advise. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are the banned user. How did you stumble across this article for your first ever edit? Preposterous. Even if you weren't a sock (which you are) the page was created by a banned user. And it therefore must be deleted per G5. Get it? Doc talk 06:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's an attack page as well. And did you manage to save a copy of its content just before it was deleted? Impressive. I'm not engaging in this further. We dealt with Donald Trump and White Nationalist Groups and other variations a few days ago. I'd suggest suggesting that content at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 but I wouldn't have high hopes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc, as others have noted, it was showing up on Google News. That's where I found it. Ricky, as I said elsewhere, I had a copy in another tab due to an edit conflict. Anyway, the way to deal with the page is via AFD, which is why it's there. Doc, read the G5 tag. It does not need to be deleted if another user is willing to work on it to make it not simply the creation of the banned user.

G10 is another issue. The AFD was pretty much going to be a delete eventually anyways. I've re-created it as a redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 so you can ask there about it. I also asked to reduce protection at SPI so you can comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The AFD may have ended in deletion, but there was supposed to be more time to work on it before that decision was made. I think I could have given it a good chance, with inclusion of other sources so that it could have met NPOV. Please, restore the page and take out any lines that you think are genuine BLP problems. Discussing a person's relations to fascism is not a BLP problem in and of itself, but if there are specific lines in there that shouldn't be there, take them out and I will not restore them. Then please, let me work on the article until its procedural AFD deadline arrives. If it fails then, then process has been followed and everyone can be happy. There's much to be said for procedural fairness. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Go convince people to incorporate it in the campaign article. It already has a number of mentions of Trump's policies as fascist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That whole article? It would inevitably be spun off as a separate article anyway. The AFD, which was and should remain in process, could end in a merge recommendation. I don't see the point of jumping to that conclusion beforehand. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not one person even suggested that. The only people who supported it were a series of socks, you (who is acting like another one of them) and one other individual. You have one last chance to prove you aren't screwing around and can either try to convince a soul that any of that content matters or move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to the meaning of your last sentence. Surely you are not threatening to ban me for commenting on your talk page? HoorayForAmerica (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Kingshowman

Ricky, I've reverted your post to the archives. It's okay to post a comment to a closed SPI, but not to an archived SPI. Given that the comment was directed to me, you could have simply posted the same thing on my Talk page.

I have now run a sleeper check, though, as you requested, even though I still think it was unnecessary. Other than being able to confirm a few socks that had already been blocked by non-CheckUsers as suspected, nothing else turned up.

Given the fallout from your block of HoorayForAmerica, I also checked that account. It is Unrelated. I will leave a note to that effect on the user's Talk page. (I understand perfectly why you suspected the user, though.)

I hope all of this makes sense. If not, just ping me here, although I have your page on my watchlist.

Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was in the archives already. Not totally paying attention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, sometimes I'm so tired that I nod off at the computer. I need to be on-wiki less and get more sleep. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Attacks at ARE

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Attacks at ARE. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Good close on Meat

Fancy having a go at Men Going Their Own Way? Both controversial in their own way. Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Already voted there (and struck out a comment calling out the WP:OWNership issues that haven't settled). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Amazing how controversial some things can be when there is a claque involved. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi, Ricky81682 - I think I owe you one of these! I wanted to leave this to let you know that I enjoy seeing you on IRC, and that I appreciate your contributions to the project. Enjoy the beer! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you :)

Uamaol has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

This is for helping find what I need. Happy New Year :) Uamaol (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to rename Category:17th-century British politicians to Category:17th-century English politicians Hugo999 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality assessment for Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Hey there -- I noticed that earlier today you assessed the quality of Reed v. Town of Gilbert as stub class. Did you do this because you think the article requires improvement? I am trying to bring the article to GA status, so please let me know if you think anything can be improved. Thanks in advance for your feedback! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a brief check of the page and noticed that the US project classified it as a stub. It's probably better off as a start or maybe even B. It's seems like good article material. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about the article. The stub rating at the US project is probably left over from a stub-tag that existed back when the article was first created. In any event, thanks for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a brief check on my Westlaw account. It's already been cited in almost a dozen law review articles (which is normal). You may want to contact the people at Category:Wikipedians who have access to HeinOnline about checking to see if there's any secondary sources that can beef up the analysis section. It's heavily based entirely on the slip opinion, which isn't bad, but I don't know what GA requires on Supreme Court cases. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My law school just recently began providing access to Heinonline's library of law journals to graduates, so I'll be sure to run a search and update the section to include commentary from recent scholarship. As for the citations to the slip opinion, I have always followed the convention of citing the summary of the Court's ruling to the opinion itself, though it will definitely be a pain to go back later and change the citations from the slip opinion to the official version in the U.S. Reports. The GA criteria don't say anything about citing to slip opinions, but I think it is the most accurate and useful citation to provide when making statements about the Court's rulings. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will care about that. The secondary sources may be more relevant. I added a bunch of details from the District Court case. The wording was not clear regarding the original preliminary injunctions and that the later litigation was entirely due to the summary judgment rulings. Hint: the trial court (District Court), being the party that actually made the decision on the facts and not on the legal background the way the appellate courts do, has the better factual background. I haven't had a chance but I'll look up the original district court decision's on the preliminary injunction later tonight probably. That may give some more details on the citations and the sanctions. Funny how no one had explained why it was named Reed before lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

GRG verified

If not verified by GRG, name can't be added. [30] Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And after all that, who's fault is that? lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't plan on reporting this but FYI

It seems very brazen to make an edit like this [[31]] just days after getting off a TBAN block. You had questioned the article as possibly a TBAN in general [[32]]. The material added linked to the John_Birch_Society which is both a conservative organization and a group founded by, according to the article, the Koch family. Anyway, I'm not going to actually file a report but I do think this is violation should have been clear to him after the last time he added Koch based material to an article and got a block. Springee (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the consensus is more like climate change requires a different, separate sanction than American politics 2. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case it's not the climate change part, it's that JBS is a conservative political group founded by the Koch family. Both are covered by the current TBAN. Adding that type of reference to any article by an editor who is told no edits related to the Koch family or contemporary conservative politics is basically violating the ban just days after he got back from the last block. Springee (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding AFC submission templates to drafts that you did not create

Please stop moving userspace drafts to Draftspace and then adding AFC submission templates to them. You do not have the right to move a draft from another user's sandbox into Draftspace, and then put it under the purview of AFC by placing an AFC submission template on it. Only the original author should make that decision. The AFC project's procedure is to do such moves only after the draft author has actually submitted the draft to AFC review. Your action has the effect of starting the six month G13 deletion "clock", without notifying the actual author about it. I noticed your actions only when I received a G13 warning for a draft which I have never had any intention to submit to AFC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Did I tag a draft of an active user or something? I'm following the procedures at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Assuming I didn't screw up, if it's an inactive user's draft, rather than taking a decent draft to MFD and then having MFD vote to move it to draftspace and then doing that, I'm "adopting" it and then by my choice moving it to draftspace with an immediate notification on the editor's talk page. If the editor then (who hasn't been active for at least a year, I use that metric) after another six months doesn't actively edit the page nor does anyone else, it goes into the G13 queue to possibly be deleted. Even then, the editor can request a WP:REFUND of the draft. Otherwise, we have draft sitting around two, three years now at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report. Is this really a problem here? The editor is given tons of chances at their draft and even then they can request it to be restore at any time. Category:Stale userspace drafts is down to only 42k pages now after months of work, is this another round of people who say do nothing no matter what in the minute possibility that someone will return after five, six, seven years? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Afrikaner identity politics then? Fine, I'll take to MFD then. Draftspace isn't for indefinitely hosting of drafts either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Hasteur has mentioned you on the AfC Talk page, referring to you as a "Rogue Admin" and insinuating that you could be de-sysopped. JMHamo (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Joy. I'll respond there but I imagine this will not end well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see item #33. Amaury (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

AN Notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_must_be_blocked_and_desysopped_immediately. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: What happened to it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed for the trolling it was[33]. HighInBC 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Was just altering you to the AN as a courtesy as the IP editor had failed to do so. Floq closed it though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. At least I caught this one before it went away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your work here and commitment to the project. — Earwig ^talk 04:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you come back - you were willing to stick your nose in tough places, do what you thought was right and go from there. Even when it wasn't always welcome, you learned from it and were better from the experience. Hate to see something like this end here (and see a certain idiotic troll get any joy from it). Ravensfire (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I just needed to remind myself I could do that. Even when I barely edited here, I never really thought I'd retire. These old drafts are quite fun, it's like looking into the past, and finding old gems and old cranks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Rename category

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:20th-century Georgian painters to Category:20th-century painters from Georgia (country) Hugo999 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work in keeping the longevity articles clean and civil. clpo13_(talk) 18:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:MfD Nomination for Draft:2012 in Jordan

May I please see the nomination page? Jackninja5 (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jackninja5:, you need to purge your talk page. It's blue now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2012 in Jordan. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)

Can you relist a long closed AFD as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)? Shouldn't you just start a new AFD? Apologies if I'm missing something here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: No, that wasn't what I was doing. It was already closed. I was getting rid of an old category that's in the template but not substituted out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks pretty odd on the page, but as long as nothing is actually happening I'm happy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Before the page was still in Category:Relisted AfD debates which is supposed to be for active relisted debates so people have an idea of where comments are most needed and which is irrelevant for old closed debates. That's due to the template so I have to substitute it out and remove the category manually. I'm not arguing the discussion at all especially given how long it is, I'm practically asking for a block for disruption then lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:French Community has been nominated for discussion

Category:French Community, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kshama Sawant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist Alternative. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Stale Draft Question

Article was created in 2013 @ Abake but draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imperfectdan/%C3%85b%C3%A4ke was created in 2010. No obvious connection. Propose merge and if so how? What is the best course here? Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a different issue. WP:UP#COPIES is the relevant policy. The draft's age is irrelevant, it's the fact that something already covers the topic, we shouldn't The draft should be merged and redirected (reference the page when copying content) or could be brought to MFD if there's nothing worth merging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Couple of MFD's

Hi Ricky81682, for some reason I didn't recognize you in 2 of the MFD's I just closed (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Volde1234/Sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Todd7575/Sandbox); please see my closing notes, let me know if I somehow missed part of your argument for why these should be maintained. (please ping me if replying here). — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: No, they're fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Userpages

What are the rules for user essays? There are a lot of editors wasting my time on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're putting it in Wikipedia space, other people have a right to respond and re-write it. If you want more control, then I suggest userification. Honestly, I would first suggest splitting it into more separate actionable items. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are going to userfy the essay I created. I want to know what are the specific rules. I don't want nonsense in the essay or uncivil comments on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If userified, then you can freely tell me if there are people who are being disruptive to your essay. I will tell them to knock it off because it is disruptive to your userspace work and will block if necsesary. Other admins in my view should treat it the same but I can't speak for others. If anyone disagrees,, they are free to fork it and create their own personal essay with the proper attribution and write it however they wish. From there, it's a matter of getting the proposal supported and you may be able to do that if you focus on the work without the repeated arguing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to delete all the comments right now and start over. Most of the disruption right now is on the talk page. I can revert the editors who are being disruptive. If that does not work then I can contact you. Is that okay? QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Right now, it's not userified so it's still within everyone's rights to comment. I'd suggest we create an archive page and dump all of that there. Even the worst discussions you can at least point to having done just to say it was done. Would you like me to close the MFD and userify it right now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I will blank the talk page when it is userified and I will not create an archive with verbal vomit. If anyone tries to create an archive I will delete it. You can userfy it now. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This has bubbled over to AN/I. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_edits_my_post_to_deliberately_change_the_meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. As for the redirects, I'll note that Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects are generally disfavored and that a number of the redirects already tried have been brought to RFD in the past. Just a note though, so don't be surprised if it's again brought to RFD. I think there's a userbox that you guys created (or just made by hand) that still links to the old page so that needs to be adjusted as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was DrChrissy's edit that was changed. I fixed the userbox and checked what links to the page. What is left is to revert the disruption on the talk if they decide to return. QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to so I think we're done for now. Feel free to contact or ping me if there's issues but I think it's all resolved for the most part. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unhelpful discussion

This editor is not here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't prefer to consider people as "banned" from there but I did ask them not to engage further. It's a not useful talk page discussion there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor can return if they focus on the reforms. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, the discussion wasn't productive at that point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to single out an editor that was not the source of the original problems. I think for next time it would be better to give an editor a week off from the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... I know we give editors a lot of latitude in their user space but this is starting to sound a lot like pseudo-admin play-acting. Requesting someone stay away is not a WP:BAN and now talk of week long pseudo-blocks. This is starting to sound kind of power-trippy to me and far from collegial. If someone is disruptive ask them to not to post and be done. Posting "banning" statements on third party pages or, as I suspect will soon be the case, posting banned editor lists in userspace is getting into WP:POLEMIC territory. Jbh ^Talk 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever been a resolution on the "these people can't post on my talk page" discussions so I'm not sure where the line is. I do agree and reiterate that there is no banning of individuals, just requests that they not engage in what is unhelpful discussions. Even then WP:UP is clear that no one owns a userpage, just that as a courtesy it's considered disruptive to bother them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My guess is if a disruptive/trolling editor posts more disruption/trolling after being asked to leave ANI would look poorly on them. Likely the same for people editing the essay if QG asked them not to. Asking people to leave the talk page just for voicing differing opinions, particularly if they are contructivly engaging with the reform proposals, is probably a different matter. My guess is unless they were being objectivly disruptive there would be no sanction. Just my guess but maybe QG can consider it while manageing the collaboration of his essay. The usual caveats apply, not-an-admin and my opinion is often valued at preciecly what it costs. Jbh ^Talk 00:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said, I would ask politely first although I think QuackGuru can do that as well. It's not different than anyone else editing a userspace draft I have: there is both an objectively "helpful" component and a subjective "is it disrupting the editor's workspace" component. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Two editors are making unhelpful comments. I want them to leave me alone. They are not proposing anything to improve the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. What I added to the talk page was directly helpful to furthering his goal of reforming the project. These are realities he will have to contend with if he wants to put in place the reforms he seeks. QG, let's be clear here; if you don't address these serious shortcomings in your proposals, they will not succeed. On the more abstract issue of posting on that talk page, you needed to only ask me not to post to it and I would have respected it, as any civil editor would do. This in fact is one of the very basic first steps in dispute resolution; "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution". You made no attempt to do so. Instead, you've come here seeking resolution to a 'problem' that wouldn't exist if you hadn't decided to 'contact' an administrator about me <sigh>. Totally unnecessary. I will leave you, QG, with one more note on this; what you propose in the edit summary here was already tried. See Citizendium, and note that it is all but dead. Goodbye, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree with Hammersoft. At the same time, you're perfectly fine with removing the comment and ignoring it so I think as long as there's nothing more, I'd inclined to let everyone move on. These are one-offs and this isn't required but you could added a FAQ like Talk:Hillary Clinton/FAQ if you find it a common occurrence (it's overkill now but I'm suggesting it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless QuackGuru indicates otherwise, I will take the above as a request to stay off his talk pages. QuackGuru, please be advised of the consequences of this; I am in the habit of talking things over with other editors on their talk page before reporting them at ANI or EW. If they ban me I have to go straight to reporting. You might want to consider asking me to stay off the essay talk page without banning me from your main talk page. Whatever you decide, I will of course comply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No editor is banned from any talk pages as before. I do not own this website. It belongs to the WMF. I noticed you mentioned the essay on an article talk page. Why? Are you threatening to report me if I ban you? QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, when you delete the comments of two editors from your talk page and then go to the talk page of an administrator and write the words "I want them to leave me alone", that means that you don't want them to post to your talk page. Also, I don't report people for doing things that they are allowed to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why exactly did you say "I contacted an admin" and was your intention with this request? I don't have any special extra powers or rights when it comes to actual content, just a bit more experience on policy issues and a right to stop disruptive conduct. And while unwanted, it's not disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

My intention was to move the discussion. They can have discussions here that do not improve the essay. The talk page for the essay is to improve the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment the fact that Hammersoft's comment was clearly a good-faith attempt to improve the essay, I find it very difficult to believe that [A] "I contacted an admin" is an invitation to move the discussion, or [B] that you seriously thought that User talk:Ricky81682 was an appropriate place to move it to. Both Hammersoft and I are veteran editors who are unlikely to take your implied threat of administrative action against our supposed misbehavior seriously, but if you ever pull a stunt like that on a newbie, you should be blocked for disruptive editing. I am now going to unwatch this page with a recommendation of "no actual harm done, so no administrative action required". You can respond if you wish, but I won't see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft, if you have specific proposals for improving the essay rather than criticising it I want to hear it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I already gave you an expansive list of obstacles you will need to overcome for your reforms to move forward. Improvement suggestions do not always come in the form of glowing reports that suggest just minor little tweaks to make it perfect. I recommend you read what was written and consider it carefully. If you ignore what was said and proceed anyway, you will fail. I guarantee it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Hammersoft, it is not up to me to proceed. It is up to the board members. I think you are missing the point of the essay. For example, the community has no input on creating a new organisation to enforce the rules. QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Clean up of Reform MfD

There are two cross namespace redirects remaining WP:REFORMWIKIPEDIA and WP:REFORMWIKI. Do they need their own RfD or can they be deleted as part of the clean up? Jbh ^Talk 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have seen many user essays with redirects. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They weren't taken to RFD before. If I had G8 deleted them as part of cleanup, they would still be created and redirected by QuackGuru. I told him above that they are disfavored so I suggest a new one. Have a discussion on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the community made it very clear that they did not want the essay associated with the project space. HighInBC 04:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that comment. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are involved on the talk page and editing the essay. You should not of closed the thread.[34] User:Ricky81682, I think the close should be done by an uninvolved admin. Can you look into that? Another uncivil comment.[35] This is what happens when admins do not do anything. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a discussion to keep one of the redirects. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23#Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No consensus isn't the same as keep and the page has been moved. Nevertheless, I won't speedy delete it as I stated before. If someone has a concern about it, they can take it to RFD but I note that since there is no project or other "Reforms" essays, it's not so crazy a redirect but I'm neutral on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of Criticism section on "Existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence" page with a weak excuse

I just reopened that as I feel that Exa~enwiki has made legal threats and I have blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruption at Paleolithic diet

Sources and text were delete.[36] The word fad is mentioned twice in the lede. After I fixed the problem it was restored to the lede again. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Here_we_go_again. OR was restored again. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Original_research_in_the_lede. A high-quality review was deleted from the lede. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#A_2015_systematic_review_summarised_the_body. I added a review to the article. The text was "A 2015 review suggested that the paleolithic diet could be a useful alternative to the unhealthy Western diet.[9]" That was deleted too. Things like this have been happening for many years. I don't know what to do to fix the problems such as when another editor restores the OR even after I explain it on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DRR is the proper remedy. And it would be more helpful if you don't just call everything that is disagreed upon OR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I read the sources and asked for verification on the talk page. Not sure what else to call it when I can't verify the claim and no other editors so far can verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this. If you can't verify the claim, how can you have read the sources? Start an RFC, take it to a board, do whatever but complaining to me isn't going to resolve it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

After reading the sources none of the sources verify the claim. The text in the article is not supported by the sources. The claim in the article "failed verification". QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not collaboration. WP:DRR cannot help when editors ignore the issues. QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

QG, trying to jam through your version is disruptive. And admin-pleading on the side, is one of the ugliest behaviors of editors acting tendentiously. I don't understand what has come over you lately. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I discussed the problems with the text on the talk page. Restoring text not supported by the sources is not productive. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DRR again. If you are looking for an outside opinion, then WP:3O is a better option than me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

Currently Category:Establishments by country and year consists of two very distinct parts, the first ~1050 child categories are of very different format than the last ~160 child categories. Ideally, I'd say, we should split the category by creating a new Category:Establishments by year and country to which we should move the first bigger part of the original category. Do you agree with this and if yes, do you know if there's any relatively quick way to accomplish this? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 on that but Category:Establishments by decade and country is distinct from Category:Establishments by country and decade so I'd support it (oddly enough, Category:Establishments by millennium and country doesn't have the other side here). The easiest way is to suggest a split at CFD (it is categories for discussion). It can then easily by split by bot (I could even do it by AWB) since you're just moving the first set and replacing the category so it's not that hard to figure out. We may as well do the same with century and millennium categories once that's suggested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor is following me to different articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vani_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=702689991

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APaleolithic_diet&type=revision&diff=703718434&oldid=703689858

The comment "An opinion article published in the guardian is FAR from a reliable source. Please stop your disruptive editing behaviour." is unhelpful. The other source in the lede is also an opinion article.

This is the same editor who was making many unhelpful comments at the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't care. Go report it to ANI if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It is happening again.[37][38] QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Those were already reverted and the AFD discussion is not going well. You're fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jagat Darpan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujarati. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Salting

A few weeks back, you salted 1974 Cupa României Final and 1975 Cupa României Final. Could I get you to reduce the protection level so that autoconfirmed users can create the pages? On one hand, both subjects are notable and should probably have articles at some point. On the other, Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs), the sockmaster who made the protection necessary, is anything but subtle, and the likelihood of them getting a new account to autoconfirmed status undetected is slim to none. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It was protected for only a month so it expires on the 19th of February. Are you ok if it expires or do you want it reduced for a longer period of time? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I missed that. In that case, letting it expire is probably fine. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Certification Table Entry usages categories

Hi, Ricky. You created a lot of empty categories in the parent Category:Certification Table Entry usages and I wondered if you expected them to be filled with articles. If not, you should probably put an {{empty category}} tag on them so they do not get deleted as CSD C1s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Liz I caught those off WantedCategories so I guess someone changed something to not need them. I'll db-author them myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of a nominated page

Hey, a message was left on my talk page to say one of my subpages - which I'd frankly forgotten existed - was nominated for deletion. I'm more than happy for this to be done, so would I be able to add {{db-userreq}} to the page in order to move the process further along, or should I just wait for its deletion? Jack talk 19:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I took care of it myself. I had just check the edits under that username, it didn't occur to me that you had changed names and continued editing. I'll close the MFD as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletionism

Hi Ricky.

I see you removed the userbox.[39] However, I don't think it was a "dumb joke". Your AfD !voting history[40] reveals you to be a deletionist. It matters, because I think you act with a clear deletionist bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It was added here by someone else. Do you have a point? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I assumed, by mistake, that you were proud to be so labelled. Sorry.

If I have a point, it is: Can you please not relist without good reason, or help me find a way to review the MfD list by original listing time and date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

~~Why do you need the original date and time?~~ I'd suggest WP:BOTREQUESTS or WP:VPT and see if someone can create a bot to create a page that does that. I have no idea, I'm not that technical. It took a while to figure out how to stop the bot from doing that in the first place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Handling XfD nominations made in the wrong venue

Please note that the proper procedure for handling XfD nominatrions made in the wrong venue is to transfer them to the riught venue, with a closing comment at the original which explicitly links to the new discussion. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability, right after the numbered list, for the explicit policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. In the future, I'll handle it that way. Thanks. I'm surprised, first time I've seen the wrong venue at MFD in a long time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 200 Central Park South (February 17)

KSFT, I moved to this to User talk:AdamRossR who actually created the draft. I was just fixing the reference error. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion requests

That's absolutely brilliant,thanks very much. Not only for doing the actual deletions, but for the advice - I had no idea! Cheers DBaK (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Template for "RUTGERS UNDER CONSTRUCTION"

Dear Ricky81682, I am a student at Rutgers University currently taking a class called "Languages in Peril." The major project for that class is to edit stubs of endangered languages with information from accademic sources. I assure you that this project will be done with care by the students of the class and that we will improve the pages. This all should be done by Mid-May/June. I ask you to please reconsider your request for the deletion of the template. Thank you. 02:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdm260 (talk • contribs)

@Mdm260: There is an entire Wikipedia:Education noticeboard with lists of projects across the country. No class has ever proposed posting 'under construction' signs across the class project pages nor has anyone ever proposed created a new set of categories to distinguish those students' projects. Please see Wikipedia:Training/For students and I ask that you ask your instructor to review Wikipedia:Training/For educators and give us more information about what's going on. This is a live project with thousands of volunteers and while we don't want to disrupt the work of hundreds of students, we also ask that hundreds of students don't just start work on a series of articles without anyone here having an idea what is going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beaupedia/Project XX (2nd nomination)

Your close was not valid. While I agree that this draft needed to be deleted, it was not a valid candidate for speedy deletion as a hoax, as I have informed the deleter. The links showing that this was a real series were in the discussion hours before you closed the discussion with "someone has to provide sources to show that this is not a hoax before restoration will be considered." [41]. Delete it, but properly. Let's not give anyone grounds to prolong this waste of time. Meters (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Meters:. Read my close again. Speedy deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard as a hoax so this discussion is moot. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It was an invalid speedy nomination, and an invalid deletion. I'm happy to see it gone, but closing the MFD with the comment "someone has to provide sources to show that this is not a hoax before restoration will be considered" when the links were already in the discussion is asking for trouble. I'm sure someone left unnamed would be all too happy to point to this as more evidence of deletionism. The correct thing to do is to restore the farce of an article, reopen the MFD, and get rid of it properly. I'm not going to ask for this article to be restored, but I'm not impressed that the admins involved have not reversed their mistakes themselves. Meters (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Restored, sources added to the draft and then MFD closed with it deleted again. I think that also covers the small chance that if restored later, someone won't miss your links from the MFD. I think we're done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said. I was happy to see it go. I just didn't want it to provide any more ammunition. Meters (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts to do things properly, thank you Ricky. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Any time. Although I would prefer the deleting admin do it to avoid the wheel warring charge but IAR is more important. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)