User talk:City of Silver/Archive 6

Hasty tagging

Please note that however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Now I avoided templating the regulars. Thanks. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: I was wondering if I was being a bit hasty but I promise, I did more than see the page then immediately tag it. It was a combination of things:

• The single word in the article, "Bidhan," has nothing to do with the article's title, "Bermuda National Gallery." Bidhan is a given name in Bengali, a language in India, and as the crow flies, Bermuda and India are over eight thousand miles apart at their closest points.
• The unreasonably good job the person did naming that article (that gallery is a real place plus the proper capitalization from someone who obviously isn't a native English speaker or writer) struck me as extraordinarily suspicious. Has this page existed before in a different form?
• And I didn't tag until I reviewed the creator's two other edits, which read like failed efforts at pretending to be two different people.

And again, I didn't nominate on-sight although I can understand the belief that I should have waited a bit longer. I believe there's something fishy going on here. It's not something hugely inappropriate but it is a collection of little things that add up to something that makes no sense. But that was my judgment call that could certainly be proved wrong. If you're thinking removing the tag is a better step than leaving that stack of boxes there, I'm fine with that. CityOfSilver 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, even the creator was a newbie and you just simply bite them by hastily tagging new pages. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: This has been a problem on here for a long, long time: swaths of users from South Asia, despite less-than-perfect grasp of the English written word, become high-output editors who operate under a sort of competence ceiling. They learn enough to pass muster then stop bothering to improve. If a block is ever handed down, the previous identity is simply replaced with a sockpuppet that proceeds from there without even pretending to be someone who hasn't edited here before. This might not have been the case here but this person's behavior is, on several fronts, entirely unlike any genuine newbie I've ever encountered. CityOfSilver 17:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it is a sock of some banned user I think? KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: I strongly suspect that. Problem is, there are so many editors from India that there's no real way of knowing for sure. This person just showed a bit too much competence to be a new user. CityOfSilver 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, many editors and newbies I encountered are from India and most of them don't know certain policies. With all due respect, fair enough. :) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

David Walker

I am a professional sports writer who covers the SEC, and I am wondering why you, CityofSilver, have removed the edits to the page about David Walker, former quarterback at Texas A&M? Your comments in the section explaining the revision appear to be mean-spirited, pointed and personal. I will be investigating to whom I can speak with about your inappropriate behavior. If you would like to explain your "editing," I would be most interested in hearing them. SECGirl (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)SECGirl

@SECGirl: I don't necessarily disagree that my edit summaries were mean-spirited. My goal, though, wasn't to be nice; it was to cram in as much information as possible. Edit summaries have a 255-character limit so I have to be brusque. For that matter, did you click the link at the end of it that goes to our conflict of interest policy? Because you work either for or with the SEC and that's just about the definition of a conflict of interest, wouldn't you say? Heck, even your username, which based on "I am a professional sports writer" implies you're editing as part of your job, might give you issues since editors here are supposed to be volunteers.

I posted a question to the other editor, User talk:Nobrainer55, at their talk page and waited over an hour. When they didn't respond, I went through with the edit and a short while later, you show up here to instigate a confrontation with your very first edit. So far, you haven't responded to the actual content changes I've made. If you're going to choose to be insulted by the word "hagiography" to the point that you ignore everything else I said, I don't know exactly how to proceed. Because look: you made the article 15,789 bytes long. That's not extremely big but a vast majority of those bytes are 100% worshipful. There's nothing wrong with saying nice things about people but one standard we have is "it has to be encyclopedic" and to take one example of many, this

"The Aggies attempted only five passes in defeat as their best passer looked on from the bench"

is absolutely not encyclopedic. You would never, ever read prose like this in World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica because it flat-out insults someone (in this case, then-starting QB Mike Jay) while making a totally over-the-top defense of Walker that included a contentious claim, that Walker was the Aggies' "best passer," that absolutely must be sourced.

And while Wikipedia's rule against promoting things is broken constantly, we still try to enforce it. Towards the end of Walker's article there's a mention of how to buy his his book, even though with its Amazon sales rank of 3,081,404 it's not notable enough to be mentioned here. I appreciate that you chose not to reinstate the links I removed but still:

"available at his website and other online distributors"

is a complete and total violation of the rule against promotion. It is not allowed and it is not even close to the only issue here.

While it's not ideal, I'm still allowed to be mean-spirited because you know what they say: the truth hurts. I strongly dispute your claim that I engaged in personal insults because contrary to what you seem to think, I didn't go to that article to hurt people's feelings and do all kinds of damage. I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do. If you've got examples of mistakes I've made, policies I've violated, and improvements I should have done, I'm ready to work with you. If you're going to just threaten to report my "inappropriate behavior," then let me keep trying to cooperate by showing you the way: the people you ought to be talking to are the administrators and the best place to get their attention is at their incidents noticeboard. CityOfSilver 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely will address each and every one of the comments in your pedantic reply ; however, I am knee-deep in judging the current Associated Press Sports Editors (APSE) competition and don't have a lot of extra time right now. That being said, I still insist your tone is offensive and far too supercilious for my taste. (Isn't that a violation of the "good faith" portion of WP?) And, for what it's worth, my occupation matters not one iota in this discussion. I do not cover Texas A&M now, nor did I do so in Mr. Walker's playing days. If you'll notice, I said I cover the SEC--and, as you may know, Mr. Walker played in the now-defunct Southwest Conference. I cover a specific team in the SEC, and that team is NOT Texas A&M. I have NO conflict of interest, whatsoever, and your suggestion that I am somehow a paid operative who (for some unknown reason) would positively edit the biography of a player who was before my time -- just to somehow promote the SEC -- is ludicrous, at best. I look forward to discussing your reply to me; however, I would like to add that your snarky comments make it difficult to take you seriously. When you list the Amazon ranking of Mr. Walker's book in such a disparaging manner, it only serves to make you look as if you are the one with some bias against him. Perhaps you are the one with the conflict of interest? Since you are hidden behind a veil of anonymity, it is not possible for me to ascertain what your bias is. I can only infer from your knee-jerk reaction and your keyboard-commando attacks that you are someone with an axe to grind. SECGirl (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)SECGirl

CityofSliver, you actually stated in the edit history of Mr. Walker's article that I "admitted" having a WP COI problem. Where do you get off? Please do not EVER put words in my mouth. Rather, do a little investigating before you charge ME with any conflict of interest. Or (here's a novel idea), ask me, yourself, if I have a conflict of interest before you assault me with your demagoguery. I do not understand why your spitefulness continues to rear its ugly head in such a strange venue, and to this outsider it appears as if you have an axe to grind. In addition to your grossly discourteous repartee with me, your errors of fact are numerous. Rest assured, I will truly enjoy refuting each and every one of them at such point as I have time. SECGirl (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)SECGirl

@SECGirl:

This comment is a reply to your first, longer reply. You've promised more than once to react to the actual changes in content and you still haven't. I'll wait until you actually say literally anything about my edits to the article's text before I reply to the second message here.

I have not insulted you once. Not one single time. In this message, it took you 14 words to attack me personally, mischaracterizing my message (which took a long time to write!) as "pedantic." That's a policy violation.

"That being said, I still insist your tone is offensive and far too supercilious for my taste. (Isn't that a violation of the "good faith" portion of WP?)"

No. Absolutely not. You were asked on your talk to "assume good faith" and even though you were linked to the relevant guideline, it doesn't seem to have gotten through. AGF means that unless you get really strong evidence proving otherwise, don't assume someone is out to hurt the encyclopedia. I have never, not once, said or thought you were out to hurt the encyclopedia. I strongly believe, even now after you've replied with personal insults, that you are editing in good faith. The relevant sentence is in that guideline's first paragraph:

"Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."

You seem to be saying that my "tone" passes the "specific evidence" standard. Am I reading that right? Because it absolutely, positively cannot be read like that, especially in light of what I just said about my belief that you're a good-faith editor.

"I do not cover Texas A&M now, nor did I do so in Mr. Walker's playing days. If you'll notice, I said I cover the SEC--and, as you may know, Mr. Walker played in the now-defunct Southwest Conference. I cover a specific team in the SEC, and that team is NOT Texas A&M. I have NO conflict of interest, whatsoever, and your suggestion that I am somehow a paid operative who (for some unknown reason) would positively edit the biography of a player who was before my time -- just to somehow promote the SEC -- is ludicrous, at best."

You called yourself a professional sports writer who covers a team in the SEC. David Walker played for a school that is in the SEC. And your proof that you're not a COI editor is, when Walker played, Texas A&M wasn't in the SEC. You also made the unsupported claim that you cover a different team. And since you think this settles the issue, this isn't the first time you've given me very strong evidence that you haven't read the conflict of interest policy. I absolutely believe you that you don't cover A&M. I know that A&M wasn't in the SEC until several decades after Walker left. Your claim that you aren't conflicted is wrong and your continued edits to that page constitute a policy violation.

"I look forward to discussing your reply to me; however, I would like to add that your snarky comments make it difficult to take you seriously. When you list the Amazon ranking of Mr. Walker's book in such a disparaging manner, it only serves to make you look as if you are the one with some bias against him. Perhaps you are the one with the conflict of interest?'"

I've never heard of him before today. I came across that article when Nobrainer55's last edit showed up on the "Recent Changes" page.

"Perhaps you are the one with the conflict of interest? Since you are hidden behind a veil of anonymity, it is not possible for me to ascertain what your bias is."

Um, every word of this also applies to you. What is your name and who do you work for?

"I can only infer from your knee-jerk reaction and your keyboard-commando attacks that you are someone with an axe to grind."

This is proof that you've never read the guideline about good faith. I've explained more than once that I'm not acting out of malice, and your refusal to accept that and move on is a guideline violation. And while this discussion is going on, your reverts constitute a policy violation. CityOfSilver 01:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion

As asked by CityOfSilver, I will look at the dispute and state my opinion. Football is not my area of expertise, so my opinion may not be of any use here, but I'll try my best. Before I do so, I will quickly make a few minor edits to the article, as it looks like it needs some cleanup. Linguist^talk|contribs 13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is the entire text added by SECGirl. I have highlighted the parts which I believe to be inappropriate for the article.

As a 16-year-old senior, Walker was voted Louisiana's 1972 All-State Quarterback and the state's Outstanding Offensive Player after completing 106 of 183 passes with only 3 interceptions. He played QB and safety for Sulphur High School's legendary Hall of Fame coach Shannon Suarez during three consecutive 10-win seasons, district championships and playoff appearances. Over the course of his college career Walker led Texas A&M to a 37-14 Sun Bowl victory over Florida, capping off the 10-win 1976 season with a No. 7 A.P. ranking. He also had the Aggies ranked No. 5 after an impressive 33-17 win over No. 7 Texas Tech and defensive coordinator Bill Parcells in 1977, and his Aggies were also No. 5 prior to a disastrous loss to SMU in 1974, the game in which he suffered an extremely rare, potentionally career-ending shoulder injury that was never revealed to the media. Making the transition from high school drop-back passer to coach Emory Bellard's wishbone offense in 1973, Walker was a 17-year-old freshman phenom who became the youngest college quarterback ever, and the first true freshman starter at quarterback in the modern era. Walker's first start of his freshman season was a 35-16 win against TCU. The victory broke a four game losing streak against the Frogs and was the first of 24 straight the Aggies have won in the series. The Aggies finished the season as the 3rd-highest scoring team in A&M history and Walker was voted U.P.I. All-Southwest Conference Freshman of the Year by SWC coaches. In Walker's sophomore season in 1974 he led A&M to an 8-3 campaign, A&M's first winning season since 1967. Texas A&M had won only 53 games over the previous 17 years, and 1974 marked the beginning of the Aggies' winning tradition in the sport of football. Their 21-14 win over the 5th-ranked LSU Tigers, only the Aggies' second in 15 tries at LSU's deafening Tiger Stadium, catapulted the previously unranked squad to No. 9 in the country. In the game the Aggies had three ball carriers break the century mark in rushing; Skip Walker with 130, Bubba Bean with 127, and fullback Bucky Sams who finished with 107 yards and scored the winning touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Walker suffered an undiagnosed sternoclavicular dislocation in the team's ninth game, a devastating upset loss at SMU after his team had climbed into the A.P. Top 5. Under the advisement of team doctors and trainers who claimed the S/C dislocation was only a bruise, and without consultation with his parents, pain-killing shots were injected into the 18-year-old's sternum, collarbone, and shoulder prior to, and at halftime, of the team's final two games against Rice and Texas. Three lost fumbles on their first three plays led to the season-shattering defeat at Texas that kept the '74 Aggies out of the Cotton Bowl and the SWC championship, thus allowing Grant Teaff's Baylor team, a 20-0 victim of the Aggies earlier in the season, to claim the crown. An offer to play in one of the seven non-New Year's Day bowl games was turned down by Bellard prior to the Texas game, and as a result the Aggies stayed home during the 1974 bowl season. The Aggies' Top 15 ranking, however, marked the first time since 1957 the Aggies had been ranked at season's end, and was only the sixth time they'd been ranked in the final poll since their 1939 National Championship. After the disappointing year-ending losses to SMU and Texas, Bellard chose to single out his starting quarterback and demoted Walker to 4th team, replacing him with former Texas high school all-state QB David Shipman during spring training in 1975. Prior to the 1975 season, a season expected to be Texas A&M's greatest in history, Walker was relegated to scout team duties after being instructed he would not be suiting up for the team. Carried by the country's top-ranked defense, the '75 team rose to No. 2 behind Ohio State before ending the season with embarrassing lopsided losses to Arkansas in Little Rock and to Southern California in the Liberty Bowl. The Aggies scored only 6 points against the Razorbacks and Arkansas' defensive coordinator Jimmy Johnson, and were shut out by the Trojans after mysteriously ditching the wishbone for the "I" formation. To add insult to injury, No. 1 Ohio State fell to UCLA in the Rose Bowl, leaving the Aggies with a bad case of the "what might have beens" that haunt the Aggies still today and may never be erased. Regardless, a total of ten players, all of them seniors from the greatest recruiting class Texas A&M has ever had, would be drafted into the NFL off this team. It's the most NFL draftees out of one class in Texas A&M history, including consensus All-American linebacker Ed Simonini, All-American linebacker Garth Ten Napel, All-American cornerback Pat Thomas, All-SWC offensive lineman Glenn Bujnoch, All-SWC Tight End Richard Osborne, and All-SWC running back Bubba Bean. As an intended redshirt and no longer a participant on the varsity squad, Walker suited up only for the Arkansas game in 1975, an occurrence very similar to that of the original 12th Man at Texas A&M — E. King Gill. And, like Gill in 1922, Walker was not called upon to play by the A&M coach, even though his team lost 31-6 in the nationally televised debacle. He stood on the sidelines throughout, watching his team absorb this terrible defeat, its worst in modern school history. The 17-game starter only made the trip to Little Rock because of an injury to backup quarterback Mike Jay, and would only be sent into the game if both of the healthy Aggie quarterbacks went down to injury. The Aggies attempted only five passes in defeat as their best passer looked on from the bench. The following spring training, after running the scout team offense against the first-team defense and taking no snaps whatsoever with the Aggie offense, Walker {{red|dejectedly} relinquished his scholarship at Texas A&M and signed on to play at USL, now Louisiana-Lafayette. He'd been effectively run off the team that he'd once led by coach Emory Bellard. But now, looking at yet another year as a "redshirt" and only one year left of eligibility because of NCAA transfer rules, Walker reconsidered after a surprise home visit from then-defensive end coach R.C. Slocum. During the meeting with Slocum Walker and his parents made the decision to return to Texas A&M with their primary focus being on getting his degree. After a struggling David Shipman and the Aggies suffered two opening conference losses running Bellard's new "triple option" wishbone offense, Walker's performance in relief appearances earned him a promotion from third-string on the depth chart back into his starting role. Under the direction of new play-caller Tom Wilson and the strong arm and execution skills of their new quarterback, the Aggies took off on one of the greatest, most impressive closing streaks in Aggie football history. Walker's seven starts were all blowout, run-away victories, including the first win in 20 years on the University of Texas campus. The victory was, and remains, historical. It was the second win ever in Austin for the Aggies against their most-hated rivals — a decisive 27-3 victory in Darryl Royal's final A&M game as UT's head coach. It was watched in prime time on regional TV on a cold and rainy Thanksgiving night. With the win the 1976 Aggies became the second team in A&M history to beat the Longhorns in back-to-back years, with the only other instance occurring 66 years earlier. The '76 Aggies avenged the 1975 loss to Arkansas by a score of 31-10 in a nationally-televised game, once again playing in Little Rock due to schedule changes as the University of Houston joined the conference. It would be legendary Razorbacks coach Frank Broyles' final game of his career against the Aggies. Walker capped off the 1976 bowl season on January 2, 1977 by leading the Aggies to a 37-14 victory over Florida in the Sun Bowl, applying the finishing touches to A&M's second consecutive 10-win season. Winning 10 games in back-to-back seasons was a first at A&M — a feat that's been accomplished only 3 times since by A&M football teams. Walker was 11 for 18 for 122 yards throwing out of the wishbone set, including a touchdown pass to fullback George Woodard. Walker also scored in the 2nd quarter on a 9-yard keeper out of their prolific, ever-dangerous triple option attack. The Sporting News ranked Texas A&M No. 3 (still the highest end-of-season ranking by A&M since 1939 by a major publication) and the A.P. had them ranked 7th in the country. It would be 1985 before the Aggies would be ranked again in a final poll. With a record of 4-0, the '76 Aggies are the only undefeated team in televised games (minimum of 2 games) in school history. The '76 team was the only Aggie team over 46 years (1939-1985) to beat Texas, win its bowl game, and earn an A.P. Top 10 ranking. Only three other teams in Aggie football history own this accomplishment; 1939, 1985, and 1987. Between 1940 and 1985 the '76 team was the only A&M team that won its bowl game and finished in the A.P. Top 10, a span of 45 seasons. The 1976 team remains the only Aggie football team that ever beat Texas AT Texas, won its bowl game, and finished in the final A.P. Top 10 poll. Walker's 1976 team is one of only six teams in Aggie football history that have won their bowl game and were voted into the final A.P. Top 10. The others were in 1939, 1940, 1985, 1987, and 2012, respectively. Its nationally-ranked No. 3 defense was led by the school's fourth-ever consensus All-American, middle linebacker Robert Jackson, and All-American defensive safety Lester Hayes. Known as "Mr. Stickem" during his NFL years with the Oakland Raiders, Hayes still ranks No. 2 in career interceptions in Aggie football history. All three All-SWC seniors on the Aggies' front four were drafted in the first four rounds of the NFL draft: Jimmy Dean, Edgar Fields, and Charles "Tank" Marshall. Offensive lineman Dennis Swilley was taken in the second round. The 16 players drafted by the NFL off the 1975 and 1976 teams represent the all-time standard for Texas A&M over a two-year period. No A&M defense since 1976 has approached the statistical proficiency of the 1974, '75, and '76 defenses. Combined they are the top three in school history. All-American kicker Tony Franklin handled the kicking duties, setting NCAA records with 64 and 65-yard field goals in a big win over Baylor that started the winning streak, and also set an all-time bowl record with a boot of 62 yards against Florida. Walker's wishbone triple option backfield of George Woodard, Curtis Dickey, Adger Armstrong and David Brothers still owns the single-game rushing records at Kyle Field, rushing for 526 yards on 79 carries vs Tommy Kramer's Rice Owls. Kramer threw 60 times in the 57-34 Aggie victory, the highest-scoring SWC game in history. After fighting through a dreadful injury, being stripped of his starting position before the fateful 1975 season that broke the hearts of every Texas Aggie, and being forced off the A&M roster prior to the momentous 1976 season, Walker was voted team captain by his Aggie teammates. This show of respect and confidence in their die-hard quarterback completed what is considered the greatest individual comeback in NCAA history. As a fifth-year senior Texas Football Magazine named Walker the Southwest Conference's top passer prior to the 1977 season, yet he set Texas A&M and SWC records for single-game carries and rushing yards by a quarterback when he carried 27 times for 182 yards in a come-from-behind 38-21 win against SMU. The school record for carries stood for 30 years until it was broken by Stephen McGee in a 2007 game against Nebraska. Walker's school record for QB rushing yardage stood until Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel ran for 229 yards on 17 carries against Oklahoma in a 41-13 victory in the 2013 Cotton Bowl 35 years later. His Southwest Conference record of course still stands. Injuries took their toll on Walker's 1977 season, however, as he suffered a fractured rib in the opening game and a fractured pinky on his passing hand in the third game. With the conference championship on the line, Walker sat out the 9th game of the season against TCU as another Aggie freshman quarterback sensation, Mike Mosley, was inserted and had a spectacular game in a 52-23 thrashing of the Horned Frogs. Walker returned for the final regular season games against Earl Campbell's top-ranked Texas Longhorns and the Houston Cougars to complete the 8-3 regular season. He then sat out the 47-28 Bluebonnet Bowl loss to USC until the final minutes when he led the team on an 80-yard touchdown drive in his final appearance as a Texas Aggie quarterback. Although Walker did not accumulate gaudy statistics in Emory Bellard's wishbone offense, once he mastered its nuances he operated the Aggies' triple option attack fearlessly and with flawless precision. He quarterbacked the Aggies to a 25-9 record as a starter, at the time making him the winningest quarterback in A&M history. During his sophomore, junior and senior seasons the "12th Man Quarterback" led his teams to 12 consecutive victories inside the Home of the 12th Man, Kyle Field. To this day he ranks second only to Corey Pullig for Aggie career wins. Walker completed his career as the No. 2 all-time Total Offense leader at A&M behind Edd Hargett and ranked 5th in the Southwest Conference for career wins. He was twice voted Aggie Team Captain (1976 & 1977) and was head football coach for three Texas high schools during a 10-year coaching career before entering private business. David "Moon" Walker was one of twelve graduates Inducted into the Inaugural Sulphur High School Centennial Hall of Fame on April 20, 2013. Graduating from Sulphur in 1973, Walker was the lone inductee from the school's previous 50 years of existence. He recently released a book titled, "I'll Tell You When You're Good ~ America's 12th Man Quarterback" available at his website and other online distributors, detailing his life growing up in Sulphur and his difficult football career at A&M.

Words such as "impressive", "disastrous", "catapulted", "devastating", "disappointing", "greatest", "embarrassing", "mysteriously", "terrible", "best", "historical", "legendary", "prolific", "dreadful", "fateful", "die-hard", "sensation", "spectacular", "fearlessly", "flawless" and "difficult" should generally not be included in an encyclopedia, as (in the context they are used in here) they reflect points of view, or promote a subject without imparting real information. Words such as "recently" also don't indicate a clear time frame (for more details, see WP:WTW). Also, it's best to avoid saying where something is available, as Wikipedia is not a directory. I understand that many of the terms used here are football jargon, so I may have made some mistakes with my highlighting. The rest of the text is reasonably well-written, but a lot of it is about the teams and games etc., rather than just about Walker himself, and those parts may be more suitable for inclusion in those teams' and games' pages (if pages for them exist). I could be wrong though. Linguist^talk|contribs 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Linguist111 and SECGirl: Thank you very much for doing this and I see nothing of any real importance that I disagree with at all. I don't see any major issues with jargon either. My issue is and always was that the article seemed to be a massive effort at promoting Walker and his college career and while it still isn't perfect, it's so much better than anything I would have been able to do. I think I'm still pretty close to a WP:3RR violation so for now, I'll just watchlist it to see if anything gets undone. CityOfSilver 00:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nobrainer55: Just adding, I somehow just noticed that User talk:Nobrainer55 has returned to make several iffy changes to the lede so here's a notification for them in case they'd like to contribute anything here. CityOfSilver 00:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision draft

Hi! You removed the image of a circumcision from my draft which is currently in the article Circumcison surgical procedure. If you don't like it, please remove it from that article as well. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Petersmillard: Whether or not I like it isn't the issue. My problem was that it's a profoundly shocking image and we try to avoid including those unless they're necessary to one's understanding of the subject. For example, there are several disturbing images on Auschwitz concentration camp and they're not going anywhere because they're vital to a reader's understanding. Would you agree that readers don't need that image to understand that article? CityOfSilver 20:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't mind either way. I am a doctor and I don't find it shocking at all. If you find it shocking, please be sure to remove it from Circumcision surgical procedure.Petersmillard (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind as to address my question? If an image is acceptable in a live Wikipedia article, why is it deleted from a draft? ThanksPetersmillard (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Petersmillard:I apologize for the delay. There are times I can be on here and times I can't. The standard I'm trying to meet isn't "get rid of it if it's shocking." It's "get rid of it if it's shocking and doesn't contribute to a reader's understanding of the article's subject." Regarding the other article, I believe the same thing: the article is harmed by the presence of a shocking image that doesn't add anything. I'm going to remove it there too with an explanation in the edit summary but if someone restores it, I won't be fighting it. CityOfSilver 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Petersmillard (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fictitious infobox edits

I've been battling this editor for close to a year now. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish but they've been doing it across dozens of IPs. See the edit history of Eddie LeBaron, a relatively obscure player but a favorite target for these kinds of edits. Hornung and other Packers players of that era are also frequent targets. Lizard (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: When I first found that they'd added total bull to Glen Edwards's article, it was no big deal. Then I noticed they'd gone on a 30-minute spree, showing way more editing ability than the typical child, and I kind of figured this wasn't the first time they'd been here. This confirms it, so thank you. I'm going to add a few likely targets to my watchlist. CityOfSilver 00:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's the IP they're currently wreaking havoc with. Notice, some of the edits are legitimate, which I suspect is to cover up the ~80% of edits that are bogus. Lizard (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I zapped them on Nat Moore. People are weird. CityOfSilver 01:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my contribution arbitrarily?

Hi

First of all, if my contribution to "Blood" had grammatical errors, you could assertively help to make that right as it is well referenced and useful information. Second, If I reverted it was because i wanted to correct grammatical problems Third, It is not your personal page and you can't logically refer to my response as "Personal Attack".

@Keyvanmas: First, the grammatical errors were small-fry. The larger issue is that, without more explicit sourcing, it isn't clearly relevant or helpful to a reader's understanding of the topic. I don't see how it's "useful" and your sourcing doesn't help since it's not online.

Second, that's what the edit summary box is for. There's no rule that says you have to use summaries but it's interactions like this that should show you why it's a very good idea anyway.

I never said anything was my personal page so I'm not sure what you're arguing against with this. No matter what, I am always owed an explanation when my edits are undone. Dismissing my efforts without explaining what you believe I did wrong is absolutely a personal attack. CityOfSilver 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: Well, I don't see undoing somebody else's contribution as being such an "effort". If you get deeper into physiological sciences you will immediately know that offline/premium literature is far more informative than online content. Finally, I'm not an native english speaker anyway. I think editors should be more open to offline references in order to open the way for deeper, more informative content for the wikipedia. And also more tolerative to grammatical errors as wikipedia is subjected to non-english speakers' contributions, anyhow.

@Keyvanmas: As you know, I didn't revert you solely because of grammar. You're again pushing back on things I'm not saying.

As for sourcing, you need to change your attitude or you're going to have a hell of a time on Wikipedia. The elitist attitude notwithstanding, you're wrong. Are you seriously disputing that there are countless reams of academic expertise available on the internet? Are you seriously saying expertise gets devalued once it makes the transfer from a book to a website? We prefer online sourcing so it can be easily accessed and verified. Wikipedia permits non-internet sourcing but if it were up to me, it wouldn't. That's a very easy system for hoaxers and vandals to exploit. CityOfSilver 20:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: No, I'm not saying that. I'm actually a big fan of online content. If I wasn't I wouldn't contribute to wikipedia. What I am talking about is that prior to contribution, the information should be obtained from somewhere... and for most people the source is offline scientific literature. So you may not be hard on these type of referencing. In addition, I don't like to be labeled by you as "elitist" or whatever. Labeling people is actually a hell of a bad attitude.

@Keyvanmas: To reiterate: I believe absolutely every source on here should be available for anyone online to freely access. If that means a reliable online source is itself relying on literature that isn't on the internet, fine. (Especially because lots and lots of online sources, especially ones about historical events preceding the internet, have no choice but to rely on hard-copy literature.) And if I'm wrong for calling your attitude "elitist," I guess I misread "If you get deeper into physiological sciences you will immediately know that offline/premium literature is far more informative than online content". I read that before and thought it might have been the most stuck-up thing I'd read in awhile. I'm re-reading it and I still think that. It's very clear what it means so I don't know how I'm misinterpreting it. CityOfSilver 20:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Kevin O'Leary WP page

Hi CityofSilver. I noticed you have recently become involved on the Kevin O'Leary WP page. I fear you may have been misled in the description Korny tagged in his recent edit. Korny's has implied that Ontario wrote the original version, however if you check the edit history, this is untrue. The truth is Korny's has been trying to add a lengthy paragraph about Donald Trump for the past 2 months. I, and many other editors (Ontario, Bellpepper, Vaseline and IPs from different cities) have pointed out specific problems with Korny's new content on the talk page. However, Korny keeps reinserting pretty much the same text every single day against consensus. Care to weigh in? MohammedMohammed (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@MohammedMohammed: The other day, I instigated a conversation at Talk:Cleveland Cavaliers where I rounded up four issues into a neat little list and asked for consensus. Before I did this, things had gotten a little heated between myself and another user. After I did this, it seriously took less than a day for a bunch of people to form consensus on all four issues and for every single editor, including the one who was sort of overruled, to walk away happy.

The problem with the discussion on O'Leary is that, while User:Korny O'Near might be in the minority, might be wrong, etc., there's been no effort to collaborate with them. Most replies to them in that gigantic, nasty discussion have just been, in a nutshell, "You're wrong and even if you're right, we outnumber you so you don't get anything per consensus." This isn't to excuse Korny; they've been edit warring, misbehaving, ignoring people, and refusing to drop the stick.

So far, I haven't said a word about the article's content here or anywhere else. I did that on purpose. I am absolutely not going to dive into this ugly dispute until I think that everybody is willing to calm down, reach out to the other side, see if there's a compromise that can happen anywhere, and actually get things done instead of just fight nonstop. That includes you. It includes Ontario Teacher. And don't worry: it damn sure includes Korny.

So if there's any input from me regarding the content, it'll be like this. I'll go through the issues regarding what you want to put in there, what Ontario Teacher wants to put in there, what Korny wants to put in there, etc. I'll make a neat little list. For each issue, I'll say, "MohammedMohammed wants to put this in. Is this appropriate per policy? Can someone show me a policy that says we can't add this?" Then I'll go, "Korny O'Near wants to add this. They've cited this policy. Is is fair to add that content per that policy, or is there a policy that overrules it? If it's not neutral, can anybody else try to re-word it in a fair way?"

And to be perfectly clear, I don't care about consensus. I will focus on content only. We will compromise. We will work towards a solution that everybody is okay with. The second someone says, "Well, yeah, that edit might be okay except the four of us don't want to see it so we're not going to compromise per WP:CONSENSUS," I'll walk away. I'll ask an admin to put a one-revert restriction on the article and if past behavior is any indication, that'll be the pathetic way this whole thing ends. CityOfSilver 22:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That all sounds good. For the record, here's what Vaseline had to say. And while we're at it, here's what Neutrality had to say. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I tried to make it clear that, if I actually go to work at that talk page, it'll be only to try to mitigate the widespread bad behavior that everybody, including you, has engaged in. I said, to quote myself: "I don't care about consensus." Your response to that was "sounds good" immediately followed by a bunch of consensus getting thrown at me. Did I waste my time trying to help? CityOfSilver 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to correct MohammedMohammed's statement. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Oh. You see, I read "That all sounds good," and I thought the word "all" meant you agreed with all of that message when it meant one single thing and none of the rest. So do you have any plans to collaborate, compromise, and improve that article? Or are you good to just keep up the weeks-long pissing contest that, if it doesn't stop before the page unlocks, is probably going to get you and every other involved party blocked? CityOfSilver 19:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny seems to be implying that Vaseline fully supports this user's edits. If you check the talk page, Vaseline has mentioned a few problems with NearKorny's edit. Specifically, the "smart as a fox" and "TV catch phrase" sentences should be dropped. Yet, in NearKorny's most recent revert, the "smart as a fox" sentence was still there.

What we have asked NearKorny to do, is try a smaller edit. In this was, we can build consensus one sentence at a time. Also, we have asked NearKorny to only re-add the content which has consensus. I think these are reasonable expectations. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: You have repeatedly violated policy on that talk page, in your edit summaries, and in your edits to that page. While Korny obviously doesn't have clean hands, it was your behavior that motivated me to go to WP:RFPP and request full protection. What have you been doing over the past few weeks that, in order to stay away from a block, you're going to change? CityOfSilver 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Guys, ping me if you're going to mention what I say elsewhere. Now that I found this, it's okay. Anyway, I think some of Korny's edits were fine, but other parts of it, not. Saying phrases like "smart as a fox" and using O'Leary's catchphrase "you're dead to me" and Trump's "you're fired" as a comparison are not needed at all. Then Mohammed pointed out other issues with it, how he's used weasel words and other terms that are not suitable for a Wiki, which I agreed with, as further improvements needed to be made. If you read my next comment I said that Mohammed's points were fair, but Ontario Teacher didn't need to keep reverting Korny's addition every time. The sentence about the "wall" doesn't make sense on it's own as Korny pointed out, which is why I proposed to add to the quote saying "in reference of Trump's Executive Order to build a wall along the U.S. Mexico border" (which got support from Ont Teach and Mohammed). Korny made a valid point that the Ex Order wasn't made yet at the time, so I changed Ex Order to "intention to build a wall"...but that was removed back to Ex Order by someone else for some reason. I also agreed with Korny in the fact that some further comparisons on traits would be useful to make sense of what comparisons are being made. But I also agree in that Ont Teacher has brought up that O'Leary's and Trump's views can actually be drastically different in some regards. This is why the comparisons must be made briefly, but without mention of "similar right wing platform" etc. that's been used as comparison in the past, when this is simply not the case. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: This is one of many, many problems with trying to edit an article according to consensus: this clearly isn't a this-or-that problem. I won't speak for everyone who's edited that article or messaged at its talk but it's possible that not one single person's ideal version of the article matches anybody else's.

But let me also reiterate something. I've taken great pains not to discuss the content because I'd just be another teammate for one side or the other as they attempt to settle the discussion via consensus rather than what's right for the article. I was hoping to mitigate the confrontations and try to convince people to hash things out. I have no response to your content-related concerns here and I think you should just find an appropriate place to add them at O'Leary's talk.

That said, it might be pointless. Since I jumped into this, the behavior from Ontario Teacher and Korny O'Near, who seem to be the hardest fighters in this whole mess, strongly indicates nothing constructive is going to happen while the article's fully protected. I wouldn't be surprised if the edit warring resumes as soon as the article unlocks and only stops once blocks are handed down. Thus, any truly good faith editor who wants to collaborate and compromise will stay away from all of this until then. CityOfSilver 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Vaseline hit the nail right on the head here. I agree with everything Vaseline just wrote on both content and conduct.

Vaseline, sorry for not pinging you. I don't know how to "ping" people, how do you do that? I'm semi-new to Wikipedia. While I've read through the rules, I have a hard time with the coding other than just copying and pasting sources, indenting conversation, signing posts, and adding wikilinks. Also, on an related note, how do you make your name colourful? This is a question for both Vaseline and City of Silver. I just think it looks cool. MohammedMohammed (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@MohammedMohammed: To ping, you can look at my text when you press edit. Basically you just need to do this: {{ping|MohammedMohammed}} Also, pinging only works when you remember to sign your post with four tildes, but you seem to be doing that anyway. To make your signature unique, you go to the "Preferences" tab in the ribbon on the top of your page (beside your user name, watchlist, contributions etc.) where you will see a section to customize your signature with "wiki markup". You can go to Help:Using colours to see what the codes are for various colours. You can see the code to make our usernames like the way they are, also if you press edit here, and look at the code of our post. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thanks for the wiki tips about coding. MohammedMohammed^محمد 07:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Korny has inserted a placed a "Request for Comment" section on the Talk:Kevin O'Leary page. Can you perhaps copy and paste your well worded comment you made here on March 3rd to the Kevin O'Leary talk page under the "Request for Comment" section?MohammedMohammed^محمد 01:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Contribution to the page of Uday Shankar

My contribution to the page regarding Mamata Shankar and her institution Udayan is a valid one. It is not for the purpose of promotion or advertisement but for information. You perspective seems to be a little biased about Tanushree Shankar as you have added the name of her institution. Abhijitdas1289 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Abhijitdas1289: Whether or not you mean to promote, you are promoting and that's not allowed. If you're here to accuse me of bias because I'm undoing your policy-violating edits, don't bother. CityOfSilver 21:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@cityofsilver Then what about adding the name of Tanushree Shankar's institution ? Is it not a promotion or advertisement ? Abhijitdas1289 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Abhijitdas1289: The text regarding Tanushree's dance company just talks about how she's working to teach his dance techniques. The text you're adding reads:

"Trail of Uday Shankar's legacy is also being carried forward by his daughter Mamata Shankar through her institution 'Udayan'."

You're using incorrect English, you aren't explaining what work Udayan does, and you're using language like "Trail," "legacy," and "carried forward," which are are all promotional terms. CityOfSilver 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Abhijitdas1289: Now that you know what mistakes you've made and how to fix them, what are you planning? You reinstated what you are aware is a bad edit. Are you going to fix it? CityOfSilver 01:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:129.21.159.59

Please stop reverting the IP to retain the warning, as it is only aggravating the blocked user. No need to escalate this further. El_C 03:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

True, the user insulted you, calling your warning vandalism, but reverting and taunting him back is unproductive and is unlikely to gain you a positive reception at ANI. El_C 04:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Ah ha! I think I figured out what you missed. In the midst of several attempts by me to reason with that user, they reverted me and accompanied it with this edit summary. That's a massive, blatant violation of NPA while the user was blocked on the only page they're allowed to edit, and no, I have every right and responsibility to put an end to this. If I'm wrong, tell me: if that's not enough to get you to remove talk page access, what is? CityOfSilver 04:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've warned the user about personal attacks—but you shouldn't have been edit warring over that 3RR/EW warning. S/he knows, s/he's been blocked over it.. El_C 04:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you still doing it?(!) You are to cease immediately. I'm on a bit of a delay right this instance, please don't take advantage and leave the page alone. El_C 04:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: The block absolutely did not get anything across, and neither did your order to stop personally attacking me. Because after the block, they called me an "angry virgin" and after you told them to stop attacking, they repeatedly lied, claiming I have a conflict of interest. (And don't claim the false COI accusations, coming from an IP that was vandalizing its own school's article, aren't attacks.) You've given this user reason to think that no matter how much they ignore your orders, no more sanctions are forthcoming. Because you ordered it, I won't revert their inappropriate edits any more. So since I've complied with your order, please bring down the hammer on them for their repeated, insistent refusal to do the same. CityOfSilver 04:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is already blocked, the little autonomy they have on left Wikipedia is on their talk page. I've already warned them for the personal attack. They left my block notice and warning unmodified, and that should suffice. Frankly, you should not need for me to protect the page in order to leave it alone for the duration of the block. El_C 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree, please leave this report to a different admin

"The block must be at least a week and it cannot allow talk page access during that time. If you disagree, please leave this report to a different admin." You don't get to shop for the result you want by disqualifying admins that might disagree—you know it doesn't work that way, right? Also, you've failed to notify the IP about the AN3 report. El_C 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I asked you to extend the block and remove talk page access and you decided not to. I said several times that the IP is a policy-violating edit warrior whose rights need to be restricted further than a 24-hour block. By not applying further restrictions, you concluded differently. The IP expressed appreciation for your patience by attacking Computer Science House with this inexcusable trash a few hours after the block expired.

That text was, as you seem to have guessed, an accusation that your decision to lightly sanction that person was an error in judgment, one that would keep perpetuating itself until an admin less patient than you handled business. You're saying that this tolerance was appropriate and that it was wrong of me to request an admin with a better sense of who's here to do damage and who isn't. Every single conclusion I made and every single thing I said was based on that person's behavior. What did you see in those actions that I missed? CityOfSilver 16:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Proudboys wiki

Not sure why you undid the edits to the proudboys page. These edits are real and official, edits were done by an actual proudboy member. We have over 4000 members, with chapter on every continent on the globe. It isn't an editing war. I'm providing accurate information and members who asked to be identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.57.112 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see here.

"These edits are real and official"

I don't know that this is true. Even if you were able to verify it, the edits would thus probably violate WP:PRIMARY.

"edits were done by an actual proudboy member"

You're admitting that these edits violate the conflict of interest policy. This website isn't for advertising.

"We have over 4000 members, with chapter on every continent on the globe."

Does the Antarctica chapter have a Facebook page?

"It isn't an editing war."

Says you. I say it absolutely is an editing war, and that's because I've read the relevant policy.

"I'm providing accurate information"

That's not the standard for inclusion. Something has to be true, of course, but it also has to be notable.

"and members who asked to be identified."

That's a violation of our policy on promoting people and causes. I hope this clears things up! CityOfSilver 19:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Help me!

The information is not promotional nor do you want to be, they are only biographical information about the artist Frany Dejota MariaLisa (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@MariaLisa: I could be wrong but I don't see how. Please explain why you should be able to include non-notable interviews, Twitter follower counts, and stuff like "With his relentless enthusiasm for creating electronic music, his latest digital album was released in 2016, revolutionizing all techno lovers internationally". I think all of that is promotional. CityOfSilver 19:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please We accept that delete what seems promotional, but do not erase half biography ... I tried to contribute to the page and not vandalize it. MariaLisa (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@MariaLisa: I didn't say you vandalized it. Do you work for Frany Dejota or his record company? CityOfSilver 20:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No MariaLisa (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@MariaLisa: You said, "We accept that delete what seems promotional". Who is "We?" CityOfSilver 20:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually....

...your remark was correct, and of course you are allowed to comment. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Apparently, several of Ill-esha's social media outlets have just encountered coordinated attempts at doxxing and there's a concern that Wikipedia is next. I knew the report was going to get declined but a non-veteran user filing a good-faith request for a preemptive block probably shouldn't get a comment as disdainful as mine. CityOfSilver 20:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Apart from that, Wikipedia is not a social media outlet; I have watchlisted the page. Lectonar (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: I know but a doxxer could come here. And we're already kinda/sorta preemptively acting on that report's concerns since now we've both got it watchlisted. CityOfSilver 20:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments at edit warring noticeboard

Your comments here are wrong. An editor removing a warning from their user talk page is not ever vandalism. Any user may remove those types of warnings from their talk page. The edit summary was not appropriate but your actions were not appropriate either. You can push back with a warning about that. Putting other warnings back is not the way to do it, especially 14 times in two hours. ~ GB fan 01:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: If I were you, I'd be pretty offended if someone asked me to read WP:NPA. You're an admin, you don't need people to tell you to take another look at a policy you've probably already read a million times. (For all I know, you wrote half of it.) So if you find this insulting to your intelligence, I apologize. I'm trying not to do that but I sincerely don't know how else to cordially respond to what you're saying here. Because the first six words here:

"The edit summary was not appropriate but your actions were not appropriate either."

are wrong. Characterizing that as "not appropriate" doesn't show proper awareness of policy. The first sentence in NPA, in bold letters, is:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia."

See the word "anywhere?" If you make a good-faith, harmless edit accompanied by an edit summary calling someone else's work "bullshit," you are violating policy. I admit I'm still having a hard time getting across how I never, not once, violated policy. I'll keep trying. Later in that same paragraph, it says:

"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor."

I can't remove edit summaries that contain derogatory comments. User:El C just concluded, even in light of that user lying about me having a COI, being a bullshitter, being racist against white people, etc., that nothing had happened to get talk page access removed. This was a terrible judgment call and it needed to be corrected quickly since that person was on an absolute tear. You probably don't want to question another admin's judgment but come on. According to El C, the person whose edit summaries to their own page are this gigantic garbage fire didn't misbehave to the point of losing talk access. And according to you, that's someone whose fury might have been neutralized had I, in your words, "push[ed] back with another warning." Wikipedia policy allows me to interpret that "may be removed by any editor" thing to mean I have carte blanche to react like I did. (And while rolling your eyes at my invocation of IAR is a pretty fair reaction, I'm standing by it. Unfortunately for anyone who wants to sanction me for my behavior, it's policy cover for me handing myself a lot of leeway because again, I was editing with absolutely no motivation but to help the encyclopedia.)

And in the end, as awful as my behavior was, it worked. My block log remains clean, at least for now, and my shootout with that IP editor convinced El C to finally lock that page, at least for an hour. And since I'm not done pushing when I should probably just drop things, I have one more question. You probably shouldn't answer it but I'd appreciate it if you'd think about it. If I'd shown you that "bullshit" edit summary, pointed out that the user in question did that while blocked for edit warring, and asked you to restrict talk page access, would you have? CityOfSilver 02:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You can ask for the edit summary to be revdel—I'd be happy to do it. I'm happy to do it right now. But the point is when I tell you to stop reverting anywhere you do it, no matter how convinced you are 3RRNO applies. There's not much beyond that to say, except to reiterate how very narrowly you escaped being blocked over this. El_C 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

CityofSilver, I am not offended when someone points me to a policy they think I do not understand. It helps me learn about disagreements and different interpretations. You and I disagree on the interpretation of that policy though when it comes to this. They didn't attack you, they attacked the warning you left. I wouldn't have removed talk page access either, it didn't rise to that level but depending on when I became aware of it, you might have been blocked. You caused this to happen by your aggressive attitude. Someone with a conflict of interest can edit an article if they want to and that is not a reason to remove any edits.

El C, I disagree on the applicability of revdel for that edit summary. I do not believe it rises to the level required to be deleted. ~ GB fan 13:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that insult can be revdel, why not? But it's not too pressing, either. El_C 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The criteria for revdel are at WP:CRD. The only one that comes close is #2. That one though says it does not apply to "ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." Calling a warning "bullshit is not even a personal attack, much less something that rises to the level of needing to be removed. ~ GB fan 13:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C and GB fan: "They didn't attack you, they attacked the warning you left." Parsing it like this is a scary amount of permissiveness for people to behave like that, especially coming from an admin who seems to have very little patience when it comes to handling, for lack of a better term, bullshit. As long as you call someone's work bullshit, you're not personally attacking them? I had no grounds to be offended because they said my edit was bullshit but didn't say I was bullshit or a bullshitter or whatever? Not one single edit summary on that talk page was enough to convince you that this blocked user was using Wikipedia's server space inappropriately and they needed to be stopped?

At this point, there's really no way for anybody to convince anybody else of anything. This sort of ticky-tack explaining away another admin's bad judgment regarding a blatant policy violation makes no sense unless it's couched in tribalism. If I ask an administrator to do something and they decline, I will never get a different administrator to say, "Yeah, maybe this should have gone differently." As soon as I hit "save changes" on that message, I thought, "These two are seriously going to try to explain to me that this wasn't an NPA violation. They're going to try to explain that a revert by a blocked user with an edit summary calling my work 'bullshit' constitutes appropriate use of Wikipedia's server space." This response was like clockwork, and it's sad. I honestly believe that deep down, you both agree with me that the edit summary was enough to cost them talk page access. You've both said differently, but just like I haven't convinced either you two that you made mistakes, neither of you has convinced me I did anything wrong.

Please do not revdel that summary. CityOfSilver 17:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your honest belief is incorrect. I do not believe the edit summary was enough to cost talk page access. I also do not believe the edit summary constitutes appropriate use of Wikipedia server space. Revdel does not remove it from the server it just uses more server space. The only part of this whole thing that I agree with El C on is that the ip should have been blocked and talk page access should not have been removed. Like you said, i can't convince you and you can't convince me. Hopefully in the future you will be more careful about edit warring. ~ GB fan 17:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: Per WP:IAR, I had the right to do as I did. In the future, if a user I got blocked is using their talk to call me an angry virgin or a bullshitter or whatever, please bear in mind that according to policy, I am not permitted to let that behavior stand. In that case, adhering to El C's order would have been a violation since I sincerely believed continuing to revert until sanctions came down for that user was in the site's best interests. Thanks to me, further restrictions on that user's ability to edit were put in place. I asked what mistakes I made, you responded that calling my edit "bullshit" wasn't an NPA vio because it was in the edit summary, I explained that NPA doesn't make that distinction, and you responded by telling me that "talk page access should not have been removed". My approach is policy-based. Yours isn't. So I'll be careful in the future because I wouldn't want to actually edit war, which I've never done, and I hope you'll be careful and not respond to policy-based actions with statements that are apparently based in how you feel about things. CityOfSilver 04:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I was actually referring to that "angry virgin" insult, which the user was warned for. I meant that I can revdel it for you. What you did wrong was edit war when I told you to stop, narrowly escaping a block due to that. If you still can't reconcile that, then no lesson was learned from this entire dispute. El_C 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone could have thought you were talking about any edit summary other than the only one discussed throughout this thread. You're last post is the only time that phrase is used on this talk page. ~ GB fan 17:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And yet I thought it... Count it to the (mostly unnecessary) textwall. You really had to have been more involved in the dispute from the outset to understand why I thought that, being the main NPA violation CityOfSilver complained about, as still a source of contention. El_C 17:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: In light of "mostly unnecessary," itself arguably a personal attack, I wonder when your participation here changed from you trying to help me to you just not knowing when to walk away. I tried to explain to you that, since I didn't do anything wrong, there wasn't anything you could do to show me the error of my ways. I ironclad verified literally every single thing I did with policy. NPA means I was allowed to revert that user 13 times, and after that, another 13,000 times because per IAR, my belief that your demand that I stop was not in compliance meant I would be breaking the rules if I did as you ordered. Your insistence on allowing that user to edit war and attack me was not allowed. Feel free to blame my refusal to back down on how stubborn I am, but considering the fact that you kept at it here for so long, make sure you look up irony first.

A blocked user who take advantage of talk page access to violate policy has to be stopped. NPA does not make any of the distinctions you two have trotted out here at various points, and it does not leave enforcement up to a judgment call on anybody's part. The first time a blocked user does that, NPA says you have to escalate. The only way to do that with that kamikaze IP editor was to remove talk access. I might have missed something but I looked through this quagmire and except for the irrelevant revdel thing, I don't see where either of you two quoted any policy. I did that a bunch of times and it was just, "Nah, wasn't a vio." Where that conclusion came from, I don't know; do I seriously have to say "I'm offended by that" for you to consider it an attack? And after all this contentiousness, here I still am. You could have blocked me. Instead, you ended up complying with my request to further restrain that user. And you two are still explaining how that IP user didn't violate policy but I did. Again, nobody's convincing anybody of anything. If you were me, what happened since my 13 reverts that would have you doing anything differently in the future? CityOfSilver 04:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

UTC+02:30

From your AIV report, Sethdecastro1 has a short block. I leave it to you to repair damage, as I'm not 100% sure with the repeated moves where things should be. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thank you. I'll try to get everything back in order. CityOfSilver 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)