User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo

Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. R2 (bleep) 03:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

--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.

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.

—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't revert more than 3 times in the article. You might get blocked for doing so.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ahrtoodeetoo reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: ). Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Your recent editing history at 5G 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. SharabSalam (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 5G. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, I don't get it. Can you please tell me which edit warring rule I violated? If it was 3RR, are you sure I reverted 4 times? FWIW SharabSalam withdrew their ANEW report. I can only guess they did so because they realized their mistake...I hope you will too. R2 (bleep) 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The report lists four reverts by you, and they are all indeed reverts. I have no idea why SharabSalam removed the report, but it was disruptive, and I restored it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, this was not a revert. As indicated in the edit summary, it was new wording intended in good faith to reduce edit warring. It addressed the primary complaint raised by the drive-by deleters, which was the use of the word "propaganda," as well as the WP:SYNTH concern raised by SharabSalam. Also, FWIW, it seems to be supported by talk page consensus. R2 (bleep) 23:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't agree with you. That edit was precisely in the same area as all the rest. You were simply substituting one set of words for another, and I can't imagine how it was designed to "reduce edit warring"; it obviously didn't, did it? In any event, I blocked you for edit-warring, not for violating 3RR. Your battleground mentality in this is further demonstrated by your calling other editors "drive-by deleters". You might try to use a less self-righteous approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

So disagreement == battlegrounding. Great. R2 (bleep) 00:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a list of deletions that I suspect you would call drive-by deletions, and no one would accuse you of being self-righteous for it. All of these were by unconfirmed editors who have never participated on any talk page. [11][12][13][14][15] R2 (bleep) 00:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The material in question had been deleted at least 6 times [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] in the past 2 weeks by various IPs, and none of the IPs were participating in talkpage discussion. In that context "drive-by-deleters" seems like a fairly accurate description, and attempting to satisfy drive-by editors by finding a less jarring way of phrasing something is good behavior, in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Jinx, didn't realize I edit conflicted with R2, apparently saying the same thing. ~Awilley (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I AM jinxed! R2 (bleep) 00:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

5G is under 3RR and I did not break that rule (nor game it). I reverted 3 times and that's it. Shortly before Bbb23 blocked me, my fellow disputant SharabSalam filed an ANEW report against me inaccurately claiming I had reverted 4 times. Then they withdrew the report. As indicated above, Bbb23 saw the report and ran with it, ignoring the fact that it was withdrawn. I concede that reasonable minds can disagree on whether this edit should count as a revert, but I swear that, as similar as it was in substance to the 3 reverts, I really did intend it to reduce the low-level, disruptive edit warring that's been going on in that article, as it really did address the deleters' stated concerns. As for Bbb23's fallback that they actually blocked me for edit-warring, not for 3RR, that's actually not true, as they insisted that I violated 3RR, and then shifted the goalposts. I don't think I should be blocked for making 3 reverts when I've been more active than anyone else in trying to resolve this matter on the talk page in a civil and policy-compliant manner. If that's battlegrounding then I'll be a monkey's uncle. If you need diffs of anything I'll be happy to provide. R2 (bleep) 00:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:EW, especially the part that says you can be blocked even if you have not violated 3RR. Wikilawyering will not help you be unblocked early. It's trivially easy to talk your way out of your first edit warring block; all you need to do is read WP:GAB. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

R2, you were blocked for edit-warring not for breaking the 3 revert rule. Editors can be under 4 reverts and still be edit-warring. Plus, this is a brief 24 hour block while the editor who opposed you received a 48 hour block, so you were the fortunate one here. This is a very short block and an admin is unlikely to remove it when it is clear that you were edit-warring. I recommend you wait it out and avoid edit-warring (whether 2, 3 or 4 reverts) in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No Liz, I was blocked for breaking 3RR. The report was for breaking 3RR, Bbb23 responded to it, said I broke 3RR, and insisted I reverted four times, when in fact I did not. No one looked at my talk page behavior or any other context that would be appropriate before blocking for less than 4 reverts on a 3RR article. R2 (bleep) 00:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the block message and the template both say "Edit warring" without mentioning 3RR. I also realize that Bbb23 also said above, "The report lists four reverts by you, and they are all indeed reverts" and I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that one edit was a revert. (I don't think it's clear-cut but would lean on the side of it not being a revert.) ~Awilley (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the block message and the template both say "Edit warring" without mentioning 3RR. Yes of course, and it makes sense, because edit warring is the general policy. But that doesn't mean it should be used by admins to get two bites at the same apple. If it did then 3RR enforcement would get pretty ridiculous. R2 (bleep) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. Bureaucratic idiots half of you. Disagree with an admin? I’m battlegrounding. Make a reasonable point? I’m wikilawyering. Fuck Wikipedia and its stupid power trips. R2 (bleep) 03:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I logged in today for the first time in months, thinking, aw, maybe I was just worked up before, maybe it's not as bad as I remember. Nope. It's just as bad. Looking back over the discussions I was in, I remember just how nasty this place is. You think you're getting away from the assholes in the AP space, avoiding conflict, letting it all slide off, and then admins start harassing you because they can't see ass from elbow. No thanks. R2 (bleep) 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Important notice - please read before postng

Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. R2 (bleep) 03:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC) R2 (bleep) 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Working here requires collaboration with others and civility, not personal attacks. If you are unable to be civil with other users, and cannot find a way to allow others to communicate with you, you should find somewhere else to spend your time. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

A simple perusal of my contributions shows perfectly well I am here to build an encyclopedia and have made ample productive contributions to the project, both recently and in the past. The blocking admin's explanation underscores the weakness of this block. Their justification is not about WP:HERE, but is about incivility. I think I was quite civil, but even if I wasn't, that's no basis for an insta-indef without a civility warning--DS do not apply here. If their justification was that I've been refusing to let people post non-mandatory comments on my user talk, that's not a blockable offense, that's my right. In fact, the blocking admin's repeated posting on my user talk against my express, acknowledged requests is harassment-- see WP:HUSH. I understand this is a block appeal, but I believe in good faith this admin is harassing me and this should boomerang. Please at least open this up to ANI because I think this is a total misapplication of policy. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You write how you think the "pig," etc. insult was "reasonable in context"..."but [that you] understand how [it] might be taken to be disrespectful." No, not "reasonable," not even remotely. And really — might be? That alone reveals to me that there is a crucial problem here which you fail to be cognizant of. I am declining your request. El_C 00:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd also like to add that I am happy to re-pledge adherence to all policies and guidelines to the best of my ability in order to recover my editing privileges. That means that if policy requires me to open my user talk to non-mandatory comments, then I am willing to do so. I simply do not believe that to be the case. R2 (bleep) 18:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I've had no difficulty communicating with other editors since I started prohibiting them from commenting on my user talk. So the justification that I "cannot find a way to allow others to communicate with" me is simply untrue; the blocking admin apparently never even bothered to check my contributions before indef'ing me. What I have managed to do is to keep folks communicating fairly productively with me in article talk space rather than chasing me down on my user talk with petty issues that don't bear directly on article improvement. That is, until someone came along swinging their mop around. :-( R2 (bleep) 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the assertion that you are not here to build an encyclopedia - however, this is absolutely unacceptable on this project. Coupled with the above statement banning everyone from your talkpage, I can certainly see an argument for this block being in the best interests of the project. This is a collaborative project, and you will have to civilly engage with others in order to participate here. SQL^{Query me!} 19:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

SQL The reason seemed like the only one that fit at the time. I'm willing to change the reason if it is desired. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It can only be a valid reason, backed up by evidence, and if you want it to stick it will probably have to be for a policy violation you'd already warned me for. R2 (bleep) 19:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've continued this conversation with the blocking admin here: User_talk:331dot#Ahrtoodeetoo_Unblock_Request, as Ahrtoodeetoo has repeatedly asked 331dot to stop posting here. SQL^{Query me!} 19:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

SQL, what's absolutely unacceptable to you, the revert, the use of "pig," the accusation of harassment, or the reference to policy, or some combination of those? The only thing I'd expect might be objectionable would be my use of the word pig, but is that really "absolutely unacceptable?" Wouldn't that merit a civility warning at worst? In context, I actually think it was pretty appropriate. The admin in question had repeatedly posted non-mandatory, belligerent comments on my user talk in direct contravention of our policies and guidelines. I see that as perfectly akin to a police officer abusing their power. R2 (bleep) 19:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but I'm not capable of further clarifying how "GTFO my user talk, pig" is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. SQL^{Query me!} 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned if the community deems that single edit, in that particular context, as an appropriate basis for a warning-less NOTHERE indef. I mean does a single edit like that demonstrate that I'm unable to make productive contributions to the project, or that the harm I caused to an admin's ego outweighs my productive contributions? Really? R2 (bleep) 19:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And as I mention in my previous comment-- am I really unable to civilly engage with others? My contribution history suggests otherwise. R2 (bleep) 19:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hate to have to add additional noise, but I was complained about by an unrelated editor in a discussion linked to from here, so I assume the admin reviewing the appeal will end up seeing it. I have no idea what the complaining editor is talking about. I have had only the most glancing of contact with them, and I'm baffled by the "years of incivility" thing. If they ever had a problem with the civility my edits, they never raised it here or anywhere else. (And my one and only contact with them was before I started asking folks not to comment on this page.) I can only presume they're confusing me with someone else. R2 (bleep) 21:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing long explanation. R2 (bleep) 22:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I avoided commenting here because of your ridiculous finger-in-your-ears ban and I've seen you pop up in numerous places and refrained from commenting because I find your behavior unconstructive, obnoxious and a time sink, but since you seem confused, let me highlight R2's Best of Incivility and Attacks compilation: (Undid revision 999920238 by 331dot (talk) Stop wasting your time and GTFO my user talk, pig. This is harassment and editors are often blocked for your exact behavior... see WP:HUSH.) diff Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. R2 (bleep) 11:33 pm, 11 July 2019, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC−4) R2 (bleep) 11:34 pm, 11 July 2019, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC−4) diff 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: Bullshit. Bureaucratic idiots half of you. Disagree with an admin? I’m battlegrounding. Make a reasonable point? I’m wikilawyering. Fuck Wikipedia and its stupid power trips. R2 (bleep) 11:17 pm, 11 July 2019, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC−4) diff And about a dozen diffs of you screaming "I'm being beaten with the mop!" anytime an administrator dares question your edits or behavior and equally as many diffs showing some serious issues with WP:OWN on talk pages you edit. This wasn't a one-off "I'm stressed" flying off the handle, it seems to be default. So, yeah, I find your behavior highly problematic in most areas that require any modicum of collaboration. Your unwillingness to engage with people in a civil manner, your combativeness and your victim mentality (demonstrated below this thread) are exactly why I would oppose any unblock. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the years-long hit list of occasionally disgruntled but largely if not completely policy-compliant comments. No, this last one absolutely wasn't a one-off "I'm stressed" remark. It was a reflection of my ongoing disdain for people who make editing here a less pleasant experience by abusing their authority. And to be clear, I don't mean you. If my user talk has been annoying you you're always welcome to take it off your watchlist. R2 (bleep) 22:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally, I just found this discussion, which appears to be the beginning of this story. I don't understand why the blocking admin didn't bother to alert me to that discussion before blocking me. Too bad I never had a chance to participate in that discussion before I got indef'ed. R2 (bleep) 21:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context, but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful and inconsistent with the spirit of the project and I won't do that again. I do think the community needs to have further conversation about admins' use of their authority in user talk spaces, but that's a separate issue. I also think the indef block was grossly disproportionate to the offense, especially in context, and a deescalation with a simple warning combined with an invitation to join the Teahouse discussion would have done the trick. But that is not an excuse. I'm also willing to engage in further discussion with the community to understand what my obligations are with respect to my user talk, and to comply with those obligations. R2 (bleep) 23:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Musings about Wikipedia

FWIW, as a personal comment not specifically about this silly block, overzealous and oversensitive admins are literally the worst thing about Wikipedia in my view. Why can't well-meaning folks just edit in peace? Why??? R2 (bleep) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And BTW my "important notice" above still applies-- I do not want anyone replying to this or otherwise posting to my user talk for any reason except for admins directly addressing my block appeal. Respectfully. Please. I hate drama. I have enough of it IRL. R2 (bleep) 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

These are not my musings. Please let me muse in peace. R2 (bleep) 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does it cause drama to communicate with you about your edits? Instead of saying "everyone is banned" and "GTFO"(that's not civil) you could simply say "I prefer to discuss issues on article talk pages. I've turned off pings" and remove posts from here that you don't wish to deal with. I'm not harassing anyone; communication with you is not harassment. I didn't know you existed until I became aware of the "ban". 331dot (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Please leave me alone. Capiche? R2 (bleep) 19:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I will do so after this, but I'm here civilly communicating with you and I don't understand why you don't want to do the same, or why it "causes drama" to do so. I have no intentions of causing drama, just to civilly collaborate with others on this project. Good day. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Does it matter why? The more non-mandatory comments you make on my user talk against my express wishes, the more I and many others will see your pattern of behavior as harassment, and the more you risk this boomeranging. Find better things to do with your time, please... such as dealing with actual disruption, instead of pestering editors who are just trying to improve the encyclopedia in peace. Like, seriously. You made your block, now move on. Your presence here does literally nothing to advance the project's goals, and it frankly it seems intended just to annoy me and make me slip up so you can justify your block post hoc. That's harassment. R2 (bleep) 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I am only posting to inform you I changed the block log to be more accurate as to my reasoning. I will respect your wishes and again state I had no intention of harassment, just communication. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC) And if you cannot see how you caused drama here today, then I personally, respectfully think you should hang up your mop purely on CIR grounds. Our little dispute here was initiated by you and completely unnecessary. R2 (bleep) 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC) And thanks for preventing me from making the small contributions I was hoping to make today. I was actually beginning to enjoy myself here again. Oh what a fool I was. Smh. R2 (bleep) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think when this mess is over I'll take a good long wikibreak to reevaluate my commitment to the project. I thought this place was about building a great encyclopedia, but I'm having serious doubts. It seems like tribalism and consolidation of power are the prevailing goals. Huh. Kind of like the public sphere IRL. Maybe I had unrealistic expectations. R2 (bleep) 17:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If people were really committed to building a better encyclopedia then we'd be having a completely different conversation right now. One involving questions such as, where did we screw up, and how can we encourage a diversity of approaches and help everyone edit together productively? Instead of, how can I further defend my preconceptions of how people ought to contribute here? R2 (bleep) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request at ANI

I have copied your original unblock request and your last appeal (I'm sorry for...) to ANI per your request above. Politrukki (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Politrukki! I have two responses to the ANI discussion so far. First, when I said I believed my uncivil comment was reasonable, I didn't mean it was appropriate or right, merely that I believe that perhaps some sympathy might be in order in light of the fact that I believed in good faith that I was being harassed by an admin who was posting non-mandatory comments on my user talk against my express wishes? Nevertheless my choice of language was wrong, and like I said, I shouldn't have done it and won't do it again. Moreover, if you look at my contributions you'll see that I have a track record of making productive contributions to the project and collaborating productively with my fellow editors. It is true that on a few occasions over the years I have taken issue with admins coming to my user talk demanding that I do stuff in violation of our policies and guidelines. But the last time that happened was years ago. On net, have my contributions to the project merited an indef block? Really? R2 (bleep) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, did you see this, as well as this follow-up clarification, specifically the part where I wrote, "Nevertheless my choice of language was wrong, and like I said, I shouldn't have done it and won't do it again."? R2 (bleep) 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In case it was unclear from my previous string of comments, I believe my choice of language was wrong, I shouldn't have used that language, and I won't do it again. I apologize again to 331dot. Full stop. R2 (bleep) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

SQL, did you see this? And I didn't mean the "Really?" with any sarcasm or snark. R2 (bleep) 16:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, would you be so kind as to withdraw your (reasonable) proposal so as not to sidetrack the unblock request? While I respectfully disagree with it, I've said repeatedly I'm open to discussing what my obligations are in that respect, and to complying with them. I never intended to flout any of our policies or guidelines. The problem is that it's hard to participate in that discussion while I'm blocked. I also don't think it's appropriate for such a requirement to be imposed on me as a condition of my unblock, when, as multiple editors have noted [22][23], there is no policy or guideline expressly forbidding my user talk restriction. It doesn't seem appropriate to make up a new rule for one editor and only one editor (namely, me), when I haven't even had a fair opportunity to weigh in. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The_Bushranger, is it unreasonable for me to presume that you missed this? Also, I have repeatedly said here that I am totally willing to abide by whatever the existing obligations are regarding user talk restrictions. I believed in good faith that my blanket prohibition was allowed. It was some time ago that I imposed it, but IIRC I had not only seen it only other users' talk pages, but I'd seen it challenged on one of the boards (ANI?) and it had been deemed acceptable. Maybe I misremembered, or maybe that prohibition differed from mine. But I assure you I never meant to violate any community standards. R2 (bleep) 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I may have misunderstood you but the edit summary you pointed to was the basis for the block. I have since apologized for it. R2 (bleep) 23:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, did you see this? R2 (bleep) 00:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, R2, but that comes across as rather weak. "In case it was unclear"? In what universe would that "string of comments" make such a stance clear (as in unequivocal)? El_C 00:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A pattern of biased editing and inappropriate behavior

Having looked through some archives, I can see this user interfering with other people's comments and changing what they themselves say, particularly to reflect his own political bias. Thank you to wikipedia for removing him. 2600:4040:A35B:EE00:DD4A:9757:AE35:4F05 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)