User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo

Monsanto Cancer Case RfC - text has changed, please review

Hi there, please see amended proposed text here; this new version may be preferable to you, based on your remarks. Thanks for taking part in the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 06:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIGIMAGE

You may not use an image in your signature, so please change it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Droid small icon.tiff

Hi Ahrtoodeetoo. Unfortunately, I've had to delete File:Droid small icon.tiff, an image that you uploaded, because it seemed to be a clear copyright violation. The image depicted R2D2, which is a fictional characters whose design is copyrighted and cannot be used without permission. Wikipedia has a fairly strict copyright policy, and I apologize for the inconvenience. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Mz7 (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The image was in the public domain, but no matter, I recently removed if from my signature and so have no use for it now. Thanks for your diligence. R2 (bleep) 16:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The image was clearly a derivative work of R2D2, which is surely nonfree intellectual property owned, I believe, by Disney. For this reason, it was not in the public domain. Mz7 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, no matter. R2 (bleep) 17:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

talk:Same-sex marriage

Strange... Your addition here had vanished by the next edit. No history of its removal. Glitch or server-crash and restoration? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. R2 (bleep) 07:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

American Politics editing

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Whitaker

Hi, R2:

I do have a problem with your editing. You've repeatedly reverted the Comey material which I think is violative of a de facto consensus as other editors have disagreed with you by reverting your deletions. I have appreciated a lot of your editing, but not in the present case. I also have a problem with you being snarky, but thin skinned at the same time, when someone treats you the way you have treated others. I hope you don't mind my frankness, and feel free to take issue with me now or in the future, but I think you're wrong on this one. Activist (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here and explaining. Feel free to respond inline.

1. Can you please point to this de facto consensus? R2 (bleep) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

2. How and where was I being snarky? R2 (bleep) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

3. I can appreciate that you see my comments on your talk page as being thin-skinned. In fact, I have a thick skin, but I want to set the bar early and high for our discourse, as in my perception you came out swinging pretty hard and low for no apparent reason. You seem like a very capable and experienced editor and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to model good behavior for others. Better to make sure our relationship gets off to a good start than to let things fester unaddressed. It appears there are many longstanding, bitter rivalries on Wikipedia and that's something I'd like to avoid from the get-go. R2 (bleep) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

4. What is "Watkins" about? R2 (bleep) 16:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

4 Ah, that would be a brain fart, Sherlock.

3 Thanks. That works for me.

2 I can look it up, but it seems you were, and I'm so busy I'm liable to explode and disappear into the ether. If only my phone would stop ringing, though all the calls have been important.

1 I restored, as did one or two others, before we wound up on Talk. As above, I can look it up if you feel I should and would explain why I think so.

I've got to get back to actual work. I'm about two months behind. Activist (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I don't share your sense of humor. I will need diffs for #1. And I would appreciate you either tracking down an answer to #2, or agreeing to play a little nicer in general. I never disparaged you, I don't intend to in the future, and I hope you will extend me the same courtesy. R2 (bleep) 22:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to recently deceased or living people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings. If you are going to characterize the subject's tweets as "provocative" and lacking "substance", etc., then you should cite a published source, and these opinions should be properly attributed. Otherwise such comments may be removed per policy. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wired source we were discussing said that the subject acknowledged that the tweet was provocative. The "lacking substance" language was my own analysis. WP:BLPREMOVE isn't an excuse to censor good faith discussion of article content. R2 (bleep) 23:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are not discussion forums where anyone can publish their "analysis", apart from discussion of sources, article focus, and Wikipedia policy. That's especially so for a contentious BLP with three sets of discretionary sanctions applied. The "provocative" label still needs attribution to the source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatev. You're most definitely not going to get consensus for that "analysis" of our BLP policy. R2 (bleep) 00:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP policy is clear on this : Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly ... to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies [including] Neutral point of view (NPOV) ... This policy applies to ... material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. I've archived the thread accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discretionary sanctions notice: gender-related disputes or controversies

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You were kind enough to create the talk page here for my userspace FAQ page, but did you bother to read the page itself? You must not have, otherwise why would you have made this revert of material that had already been in and out of the article multiple times today before participating in the talkpage discussion that had a working consensus for its inclusion? ~Awilley (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I did read your FAQ. Perhaps I misunderstood it? I thought what was prohibited was reinstating my edit within 24 hours. I didn't do that. I also don't see a talk page consensus. R2 (bleep) 22:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What do the answers to Q4 and Q9 mean to you? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "tag team edit war"? ~Awilley (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't tag team edit war, nor does your new editing restriction prohibit that. It says so explicitly in the answer to Q4. Nor did I attempt to game the system. I came to the page, saw new, offending content that violated our core policies, removed it, and then explained my removal on the talk page. That's it. I believe that's called... exemplary behavior. R2 (bleep) 23:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether you were aware of it or not, you did in fact participate in a tag-team edit war, and your edit went against where the consensus was currently leaning on the talk page. Please be more careful in the future, because the next time this happens you will get a "consensus required" sanction all of your own (as stated in the answer to Q4). ~Awilley (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No I did not participate in a tag-team edit war, I did not attempt to game your system, and if you sanction me for similar conduct next time then I will contest it and complain about your heavy-handed behavior. I like your new DS restriction, but I detest your enforcement of it. R2 (bleep) 01:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that. Your conduct here is detrimental to the project. I'm going to sleep on going to AN straight off. R2 (bleep) 01:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's the tag-team edit war you say you didn't participate in:

• content added by Galobtter
• content removed by MrX
• content added by JFG
• content removed by you

Here's the talkpage consensus that you didn't see: Editors explicitly expressing support for the content were Politrukki, JFG, MONGO, and PackMecEng. Galobtter didn't express a strong opinion, but was working to resolve the concerns of others. MrX had initially expressed opposition, but was in the process of working out a compromise. The only person expressing strong opposition to the content was you. ~Awilley (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You really don't get it. I understand your logic. Truly I do. Now understand mine, Robocop. When you punish well-intentioned editors for trying to improve the encyclopedia and not breaking any explicit rules, it's time to put down the mop. Like, permanently. Here's how we analyze this:

• Ahrtoodeetoo was well-intentioned.
• Ahrtoodeetoo tried to improve the encyclopedia.
• Ahrtoodeetoo did not break any explicit rules.
• You harassed Ahrtoodeetoo for this and gave him a formal warning.
• You have abused your admin privileges.
• Go the fuck away for 24 hours, you stupid excuse of an admin.

R2 (bleep) 05:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think you had better give Muboshgu and Drmies warnings too. Because, you know, we're all tag teaming and trying to game your rules, right? R2 (bleep) 23:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cabinet nominees

Howdy. If you check over the edit history of the most recent previous cabinet members, you'll find that nominees were added into their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it should be done on the Whitaker article, and it's not a basis for edit-warring. Please self-revert and raise the issue on the talk page. R2 (bleep) 20:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I won't revert, as the Whitaker articles doesn't deserve special treatment. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Baked Alaska (entertainer) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, no edit war - I'm enforcing BLP and engaging on the talk page to find a BLP-compliant way to restore the content. R2 (bleep) 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on that exemption if I were you. There are some experienced editors who disagree with you. Your interpretation of BLP policy may be incorrect, in which case the exemption goes bye-bye. I strongly urge you to stop reverting at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand how I'm misinterpreting BLP. If there's a good faith, reasonable dispute over whether the content complies with BLP then WP:BLPREMOVE applies, correct? Especially when multiple editors agree with me, including some experienced ones. Also I didn't realize that one's experience was so important. Do you determine consensus by adding up the edit counts of the editors on each side of a dispute? R2 (bleep) 01:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

And, does this comment mean anything to you? Did you read it before you smacked me with your mop? R2 (bleep) 01:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what was this for? I have been trying to find out if you explained this to SusanLesch or had some other interaction with her, or some conversation about alt texts. SusanLesch is a pretty seasoned editor, so I assume she knew what she was doing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It was in error. I self-reverted. These comments about experienced editors are frankly pretty obnoxious. At least you didn't threaten me, I appreciate that. R2 (bleep) 22:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

At least you didn't ball me out for all the minor edits. Thanks, you guys. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

RSN

Thank you for the ping; yes, I posted in the wrong thread, mixing the SPLC and the AP ones. I fixed it now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Russian disinformation

To this. I guess this is covered by WP:COI, but speaking in general, I think about WP as an experiment in symbiosis. As long as someone behave reasonably, by the rules, and improves content, it does not really matter who he is. If not, there are noticeboards to receive a community input. But it is a difficult environment. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about suspecting individual editors of editing for the Russian government (which, btw, would violate our TOS). I'm talking more about systemic issues and evaluating how at risk the project is of being subverted by a coordinated and well-funded disinformation campaign. Another dimension of this is, how much time do non-COI editors "waste" arguing with disruptive and non-disruptive editors who are secretly working for such a campaign, instead of engaging in productive editing? In any case, like I said, I'm looking for prior discussions on this subject, so I can inform myself on various perspectives. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There were discussions about "wikiexperts" [1] and other similar cases, but they were mostly organizational/private company efforts. From what I know or can guess, the scenario of subverting English WP by a foreign power is highly unlikely. Rather, that foreign state will isolate their own internet from the rest of the world. (Russian WPis already mostly subverted, just as the entire Russian speaking "information space"; it does not mean all pages are bad, just a few). But a scenario of degrading content of English WP by various private advertisers and POV pushers is a lot more probable. That is actually happening. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a huge difference between, say, China's propaganda efforts, which as I understand it are directed at its own citizens, versus Russia's propaganda efforts, which are directed at citizens of other countries. I'm talking specifically about the latter. R2 (bleep) 21:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure, China does smarter politics abroad than Russia, including their politics in Siberia. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I like what you have written and your approach. Since there is apparently no central discussion on this (rather important) topic, it might warrant the creation of an essay for linking to other discussions and external links, and perhaps the beginning of some sort of POV or statement. It might be called WP:Disinformation - currently a redirect but it could be usurped with a top-hat to the current redirect. WP:Disinformation has almost no page traffic so no one should worry about putting it to use. -- GreenC 16:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what I'd want to write, and essay development isn't really my thing anyway, but I'd certainly be willing to provide feedback. R2 (bleep) 17:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Defending WP:NOTFORUM behavior at Talk:Russian interference....

Why are you edit warring that unproductive comment back into visibility? What purpose do you think it serves, to justify your going against two other editors? That's not very collaborative of you. Geogene (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I enforce WP:TPO because violations are bad for the encyclopedia and the community. Deleting or hatting other editor's good faith, non-WP:NOTFORUM comments, no matter how poorly written and stupid, is what's not collaborative. Better to respond and explain how their comments aren't helpful, than to silence them. In this case the IP made a specific constructive suggestion. No doubt their reasoning was OR and ranty, but that didn't make the comment trolling. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	"We don't post for friends, Chandler."[2] — JFG talk 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, that was totally inadvertent, but I'll take it! Thanks! R2 (bleep) 18:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That was indeed a good one. I laughed when I saw it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Preserve

Per WP:PRESERVE, you are welcome to improve the content you deleted. Those are important points made in that RS (and many others), and should be included somewhere in that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I did give it some thought. There's probably a way to use that source, but it wasn't apparent to me. R2 (bleep) 21:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reformatting talk page lists

I do think I should be reformatting lists properly. I originally cited WP:INDENTMIX, but since that shortcut is only an archived discussion on a talk page, I searched for more reliable guidelines. WP:TPO states, Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. It further explains, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels [...]. The #Layout section below specifically calls out accessibility problems created by improper list practices, described in detail at MOS:LISTGAP. I don't believe I've broken any rules or guidelines in merely fixing the list structure, and I believe that doing so is positive and not harmful. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 19:46, 04 May 2019 (UTC)

what’s the accessibility problem? R2 (bleep) 23:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LISTGAP: Excessive double line breaks also disrupt screen readers, which will announce multiple lists when only one was intended, and therefore may mislead or confuse users of these programs. Such improper formatting can also more than triple the length of time it takes them to read the list. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 23:22, 04 May 2019 (UTC)

How is this a problem for talk pages, as opposed to articles? R2 (bleep) 00:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I counter: How is fixing the formatting a problem at all? —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:56, 05 May 2019 (UTC)

You're changing another editor's talk page comments over their objection, citing only the Manual of Style, which doesn't apply to talk pages. The way that editors format their talk page comments is very personal. When an editor asks you not to stop editing their comments, stop editing their the comments. R2 (bleep) 20:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That is false. You are the only person who has objected, and I have not edited your comments since you did. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:49, 05 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. R2 (bleep) 20:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. I believe the guidelines I cited allow me to do this. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 23:06, 05 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we ask for clarification at WT:TPG? R2 (bleep) 23:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 Posted at WT:TPG#Reformatting talk page lists —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 05:10, 06 May 2019 (UTC)

Rant

You have failed to edit and retract slanderous statements placed on the "Breitbart News" page, while leaving it locked and unable to be corrected. Define "far right". Also, the article directly links the news agency to neo nazis; a blatant lie and slander. The term "Alt Right" had not yet been adopted by the white nationalist movement when the cited article was written. Steve Bannon has publicly repudiated and disavowed all white nationalism. Milo Yiannopolis is gay, Jewish, and married to a black man. The fact that the article cannot be edited is a blatant act of cowardice and is meant to push out any opportunity to correct the open bias that the article contains. Ulock the article and allow an unbiased description of the subject to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a761:4f0:d043:470a:3d65:744b (talk • contribs)

You act as if I made these decisions myself, when in fact I didn't. Those are all the result of extensive discussions and consensus building at Talk:Breitbart News. You can find the old discussions in the archive links there, and learn who argued what and why. R2 (bleep) 22:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleting whole section in Khashoggi Article

Hi my friend. I inserted a new subtitle in Jamal Khashoggi Article which titled "Saudi government have paid blood money to Khashoggi family" and you only deleted whole section. When I rod your reason which said I have to find reliable sources which say the Khashoggi family approved that they received this money?!!! It's very confusing for me. As you know I used two reliable sources for that section and the reliable sources quote is accepted in Wikipedia. Please won't delete again the section because it's obvious for everyone that section written as Wikipedia rules and should be stay in relevant Article. Thank you so much.Forest90 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but your addition was not neutral, and payments of blood money are speculative. I took a shot of replacing your addition at Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi[3]. I replaced the CNN cite with a WaPo cite that is better written. I don’t see a need for any addition to Jamal Khashoggi. O3000 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not in the edit history, so maybe you forgot to publish your changes? I'm going to revert for the time being because this is a BLP violation. R2 (bleep) 15:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I added it to Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, not Jamal Khashoggi. I see no need at the latter. O3000 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. R2 (bleep) 16:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Verification

I need some hint of exactly what wording isn't in the sources.[4]

Current content:

In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research.

Sources

Since this summarizes content from the body, it may not seem apparent in the lead. I think your suggestion to "add source language to ref using quote parameter" is an excellent idea and I'll be happy to improve this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing. Neither clause appears to be supported either by the cited sources, or to be an appropriate summary of the body. Maybe best to take this to article talk. R2 (bleep) 21:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll do that, but since the text is supported by the sources, I'll follow your suggestion. Guests are arriving, so it may take a few hours before I can get to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

I noticed you rolled back four edits for this article.[5] Could you please reverse this edit per Accidental use of rollback. TFD (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It was indeed an accidental rollback, but I was in the process of reorganizing the lead section anyway as part of a friendly discussion with HopsonRoad, so no harm, no foul I believe. R2 (bleep) 21:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

RSN

Not sure how to interpret that last comment about debate society. You've been around here longer than me. I would welcome your instruction on this matter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not going to answer 5 follow-up questions, but I will respond in due course. R2 (bleep) 01:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Edit warring on an article with 1RR. [6] [7] [8] [9] on the page Spygate (conspiracy theory), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours.. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. v/r - TP 19:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I was enforcing WP:BE and therefore my edits were exempt per WP:3RRNO. I made this clear in the first edit and also alerted Awilley to the block evasion. In addition, I believe this block may have been personally motivated. This block, which is only my second encounter with this editor, was this admin's first edit in 11 days. In the first encounter, they made their first edit in 3 days to swear at me without provocation and then treated me extremely rudely when I asked why. I do not understand why this admin has it out for me. In any case, I'm sure that Hidden Tempo's tickled pink that I was blocked for removing their disruptive comments! (FWIW, TParis logged in after 11 days and blocked me at 19:18, four minutes after Hidden Tempo accused me of violating 1RR and pinged TParis. The reviewing admin can make of that what they will.) R2 (bleep) 19:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As below. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What blocked editor or IP do you suspect 2600:1012:B012:26DF:680A:15FC:C0CA:52B1 of being? Because anons are not automatically block evading.--v/r - TP 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. Looking at Hidden Tempo's edits and Floq's block comment, combined with 2600 reference to several admins and "pinging" them, I'm convinced. Sorry.--v/r - TP 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TParis. Next time, please dig a little deeper before responding to a ping from an IP. R2 (bleep) 21:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You might want to put the exemption claim in the edit notice each time. But, I did make a mistake, one of the reverts was a self revert and shouldn't have been included. Bias against anon editors runs rampant on this project and claims of block evasion against anons are a dime a dozen. That's what I suspected this was. Again, I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 21:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, and no need to apologize a second time. If I had any doubts whether this was block evasion I would have hatted the comments and not edit warred over them. However I looked at those comments multiple times and compared them to previous recent comments and had no doubt. Even if I had been wrong and it wasn't HT, just by their content it was clear this was either BE or socking by someone. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I actually log in nearly every day just to keep up. I mostly focus on ensuring my bots/utrs are working.--v/r - TP 22:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Interesting. It has just been very odd timing I guess. R2 (bleep) 22:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful feedback on Irish Supreme Court cases

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for your helpful feedback on Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Re Awilley's page

Tony B has blocked the troll IP. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

I saw, and thanks for cleaning up my clean-up. R2 (bleep) 21:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks for thanking me. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Liberal hawk

Thanks for reverting. That was a mistake. Editor2020 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Would you please revert your edit [10] and go to the talk page to discuss, per WP:BRD? Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, maybe you missed the existing talk page discussion at Talk:RT (TV network)#Misleading wording about misleading content. I respectfully decline to self-revert. My edit is supported by consensus, albeit a small one, and I have repeatedly tried to get Galassi to participate in the talk page discussion, to no avail. R2 (bleep) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, it's also a little weird that you're using my diff that refers to the talk page ("See talk.") to suggest that I haven't gone to the talk page. R2 (bleep) 16:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus at the talk page, and I do see edit-warring in the edit history. If you do not self-revert, as policies mandate, the next stop will be ANI. I will not block you myself, since I was one of the users who reverted you, however, I am not involved in this dispute other than making this only edit, and I do not have any stance on the content.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

When someone continues to revert while ignoring open talk page discussions and invitations, that is indeed a problem. R2 and El komodos drago did nothing wrong that I can see: they opened a talk page discussion, explained their position, invited Galassi to participate. Galassi can choose not to participate, fine, but Galassi can not continue to revert and not participate in discussions, that is a problem. -- GreenC 17:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If this goes to ANI, I will name everyone. This is a question which was discussed many times previously (I believe the discussions should be in talk page archives); it is very naive to think it was not. A consensus of two users at a talk page, which was accompanied by concerted edit warring, and with the whole discussion lasting for two days - it is not really a consensus. It should have been an RfC and no edit-warring to impose own POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor and know better than this. You have come to my talk page demanding that I go to the article talk page, citing evidence showing that I already have, and when I pointed this out you double down with a threat to go to ANI. You haven't even weighed in on the talk page yourself, preferring threats instead. I don't know what you have against me, but that's harassment. If you really want the content changed back, then go to the talk page and state your position and reasoning. R2 (bleep) 17:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not drag me into this content dispute. My position is that the edit-warring is not acceptable, and that consensus must be sought. Are you going to self-revert?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I already answered that question. And you're in the content dispute, whether you like it or not, and I will request a boomerang if you report me for this "misconduct." R2 (bleep) 17:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I also looked through the talk page archives, and while I found a related discussion from 2017 I found nothing on this particular issue. R2 (bleep) 17:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring at RT (TV network)--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

R2, here’s my opinion: The admins saw you didn’t attempt dispute resolution (3O, DRN, RfC) and instead reverted. That’s why there is heat on you for edit warring, you didn’t take further measures other than going to the talk page. Your comments describing your own behaviour as exemplary are not helping your case. You need to take a step back and see how uninvolved participants are commenting on this case. starship.paint (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned, since so far no one has identified anything likely to be considered sanctionable. I highly doubt admins would block me for reverting 3 times over 5 days irrespective of the circumstances. However if admins start getting on my case then I'd have to take that seriously. R2 (bleep) 00:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

R2, in my opinion that’s not a very good attitude: it doesn’t have to be sanctionable for you to take it seriously. People have offered you a different, better path forward. The only way you can come out of this looking better, is for you to acknowledge a possible mistake (even if it was unknowing), and state that you are listening and will learn from this. starship.paint (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Most often in any dispute, everyone could have found an easier path. "The Taoist on the reef strives to see things from even the corals' point of view." Anyhoo, it is valuable to be viewed as he who is calm as one will always be summoned another time. But then, I'm on my fourth glass of wine.O3000 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I’m all for contrition, but I’m also for sticking to your guns when the situation warrants it. R2 (bleep) 02:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

THANKS!

Thanks for the help on the "Russian Interference" article re: quoted text with the fancy green color.

"Example text, or Example text for short. R2 (bleep) 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)"Tym Whittier (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Question on Reliability of CIA Report on Russian Interference 2016 Article

too long

Tym, the ODNI report was heavily covered by numerous reliable, independent news reports, a number of which are cited in our article. Rather than dissecting the report yourself, which to some extent is a violation of our policy prohibiting interpretation of primary sources, you will get more traction by examining how those independent sources have interpreted the ODNI report and either citing those sources or at least explaining what you think they got wrong. R2 (bleep) 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Willing to do that, but don't understand why. If the journalists are all quoting and characterizing the CIA report, then why not use that source. I know there's "primary" and "secondary" sources, but don't know what the difference is, etc... Learning here, and trying to stay out of trouble. Extract from the CIA Report. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. Russia's Goals, according to CIA: 1) undermine public faith in the US democratic process 2) denigrate Secretary Clinton 3) and harm her (Clinton's) electability and potential presidency 4) developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump The First Sentence of the Article: The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political or social discord in the United States. Russia's Goals, according to Wikipedia: 1) harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton 2) boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump 3) increasing political or social discord in the United States First, #3 according to Wikipedia sounds a lot like #1 according to the CIA. I see Wikipedia taking what's #3 according to the CIA, rephrasing it and making it #1. Second, Wikipedia takes what is #2 importance to the CIA, and makes it #1, and subtley rephrases it so that it's the "campaign" that is harmed, instead of Clinton herself being "denigrated". Finally, Wikipedia ignores a "developed preference" for Trump, and turns it into simply "boosting", while ignoring the secondary strategic intent of accepting a Clinton Presidency, and "harming" it. I don't believe any of this reprioritizing and rephrasing is accidental. It retains the format of the CIA report, while completely distorting the content. Pointing to the RS that supports the reprioritization and rephrasing seems like a sideshow, and delaying tactic. Which boils my question to this: What's more "reliable" according to Wikipedia: the report that came directly from the CIA, or all the journalists that seemed to have distorted it? I see a similarity between these two versions. It appears to me that Wikipedia has taken the fundamental report from the CIA, and through the RS, reprioritized and redefined the Russian's nuanced "goals", to create the idea that it was about harming Clinton, electing Trump, and increasing discord in the US. It also bothers me that the Article seems to ignore the idea that the Russian's influence campaign (and not "interference") "developed", because it makes me wonder if the Russians were not influencing the election before Trump became the Republican nominee. If true, that should be included in the 1st sentence in the Lede, IMO. It may have ended-up with Donald Trump, but if it started with the goals as detailed by the CIA, where Trump is not named in the 1st sentence, then that's a critical fact being left off, and then I have to wonder why it's being left off, given that it's so fundamental to the whole sequence of events. In short, did the "Russian Interference in 2016" start with Trump, or had it started before that when there were something like 16 different Republican candidates? If "B", then the article should start with that, and not gloss-over the "developing" nature of the story. This seems obvious to me, as a developing Editor, and I also wonder why it is not obvious to others. I read your catfight with the other Editor and recognize you have a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia policy and culture, and that is why I'm bring this to you here. Feel free to delete if it's annoying.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but I’m not interested in engaging on that level on my talk page. R2 (bleep) 03:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not offended. I knew it was "unusual" when I did it.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on Indigenous intellectual property

	The Guidance Barnstar
	Thanks for your input on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it might reach the notability for a standalone list. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. Buffs (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenn Kessler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about terminology or semantics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi R2. You said (in reference to applying strikethrough to a suspected sock's comments): I don't know why you're so hung up on my reference to WP:DENY. I didn't include that in my edit summary as the policy basis for striking Throwaway's comments. Yes, I have read it. Given this edit, can you explain how your claim is true and makes sense? I raised this question to you on my talk page and you just wished me luck and departed. So I am scratching my head over this, and giving you an opportunity to explain in what sense your statement was not a falsehood. Wookian (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you assumed (and continue to assume) that with that edit summary I was saying that WP:DENY was the policy basis for my edit. It wasn't. The policy basis of my edit was WP:BE, as I and others have already explained to you. A common way to deal with attention-loving block evaders and serial disruptors is to revert, block, and ignore. One of the benefits of this approach is that it denies recognition. Hence my very simple edit summary. Is there anything about this that is still unclear to you? Are you going to continue harping on me and demanding a "fix" for asserting "bogus" reasons? R2 (bleep) 22:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Meh, not satisfactory. If you actually had evidence of the suspected sock's alter ego then I would see your point. (And I think you would have gone to SPI if you possessed such evidence.) As it is, you are judge, jury, and executioner of an editor posting comments that I think could be regarded as of reasonably good quality, and arguably politically at variance with some of your own expressed views. As noted earlier, it's healthy not only to keep one's nose clean, but to make sure it looks clean to others. Wookian (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You're banned from this page for one week. When the week's over the ban will automatically expire. R2 (bleep) 00:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:POINTY

I'd like to note that if you object to the way RSN is handled as a whole you should really be creating an RFC and getting consensus instead of making pointy edits to every single request there as it's becoming disruptive. Parroting the same thing over and over benefits no one. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing pointy or disruptive about lodging the same good faith objection in multiple RfCs, if the objection applies equally to all of them. And I'm hardly alone in voicing these concerns. R2 (bleep) 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Toa Nidhiki05 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion request created for Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

I have requested a third opinion for this dispute. Toa Nidhiki05 17:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A 3O request is a waste of time. It will be summarily declined because other editors have already weighed in on this issue. Rklawton, FloridaArmy, and 173.66.57.46 (Sharyl Attkisson herself) have all weighed in and agree that a list of awards should be included in the article. R2 (bleep) 18:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Doanld Trump

Why did you revert my edit to the Trump article? It was relevant, cited properly, and written from a neutral point of view.JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't cited properly and it wasn't neutral. Best to take the discussion to Talk:Donald Trump. R2 (bleep) 18:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

The current section titled "One of the most consequential frauds" is not about discussing the quote, but about complaining about Attkisson's response on Twitter. Which, BTW, I had read, having done more than just "skim" the discussion. It makes sense to discuss the use of the quote in a section actually about the use of the quote, hence my section header, as personally I'd rather address that issue without the baggage of a different discussion. However, if you wish to edit war over it, so be it. I'll leave it in a section on a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my intention was not to edit war. I honestly thought you hadn’t noticed that discussion, which *is* about the same sentence, albeit a slightly different issue. R2 (bleep) 13:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Aspersions

Hi R2,

I have to push back as these aspersions you've cast at another user's page here. I have not pushed or spoken of any theory whatsoever. At the Sharyl Attkisson page and it's talk, as can be vetted by looking at my contributions, I have done nothing but try to apply policy. It is against policy to bash her work as a journalist for three paragraphs, and then to disallow her response. I have not promoted a theory, I have suggested we quote Attkisson and the scientists she's reporting on, just as Snopes and the Daily Beast did (two sources already in use at the page). If you do have a diff where I am promoting a theory, please present it. To say that I am pushing pseudoscience by suggesting these sources be added in compliance with policy does not make any sense to me. Best, petrarchan47คุก 17:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I didn’t suggest you pushed any pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. I was just trying to understand whether you were allowed to participate in the discussion. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Jimmy Wales

...as confirmed on my UTP, piles can be painful and unattractive so I try to avoid them, especially at noticeboards. I simply dropped by to share a brief discussion and comment by Jimbo Wales that I found quite helpful with regards to BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject. It's near the top of my page, 2nd para below the highlighted quip, Carrots may be good for your eyes, but booze will double your vision. Happy editing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you left this message for me, especially when, as far as I can tell, I’m still banned from your talk page. R2 (bleep) 18:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

To begin, I don't hold grudges. Secondly, you have for the most part modified your behavior toward me. Thirdly, I was simply trying to be helpful. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm straining to take this comment in good faith when it's paired with this. Did you have some sort of epiphany in the intervening 12 minutes? R2 (bleep) 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, I'll bid you good day. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I'm sorry R2, but I cannot return to editing American politics, or pretty much anything on Wiki at this time, because I need time for myself. Not sure when I'll be back, but take care! starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You too. Be well. R2 (bleep) 16:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit "War"

Hi R2 -- you recently left a comment on my talk page accusing me of edit warring -- I hardly think that applies. I asked the original reverter for clarification as to why they reverted, and I asked for that clarification in a way that was most likely to get their immediate attention. Please be more careful in the future when hurling accusations like that around, and have a great day <3 Waidawut (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but you should have made that request in a comment at Talk:Glenn Greenwald, not by reverting and embedding your request in your edit summary. A revert is a revert, regardless of your good intent. R2 (bleep) 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter Dalglish

Hi Ahrtoodeetoo, I guess the new refs for Peter Dalglish looked strong enough for you too? I'd never heard of this guy until I noticed this IP's edit summary on "recent changes" and decided to take a look (which is how I ran into u:P0G41oxepU). Are you planning to work on the article further? If not, I can do it when I have time to really read through those books. Schazjmd (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to. I think most of the non-crime content should be scratched--it appears to have been written by a handful of COI accounts--and re-written from scratch based on the sources you found. R2 (bleep) 23:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I'll add it to my to-do list then, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, and good working with you. By the way, I don't believe there's any benefit to pinging editors on their own talk pages. They'll get the notification either way. R2 (bleep) 23:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll try to be more considerate. Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha, there's nothing inconsiderate about it, as it has absolutely no effect on the recipient. (I don't get double-notified.) R2 (bleep) 00:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Involved"

You are welcome to air your concerns in a suitable place. That talk page is not one of them. As for their comments--anytime someone appears to come out of nowhere to show concerns about someone's Jewish ancestry, one cannot help but wonder why. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is that not an appropriate place? It was in direct response to your comment there, which was clearly in an admin capacity after I had assumed you had put down your mop. R2 (bleep) 03:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Plus, I would have thought you would have preferred I raise the issue there rather than on your user talk or somewhere more public. I have no interest in shaming you or supplying your enemies with ammo. R2 (bleep) 03:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You are in your third revert

Per WP:3rr you can revert more than 3 times in the article. You might get blocked for doing so.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)