User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Consensus on AN/I

Fifteen Seventeen people, one admin included, supported a warning and/or additional restrictions, six eight opposed, and you don't see a consensus? Furry-friend (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC) [I can't count 23:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)]

Consensus is not a vote count. Like I said, I think you'd be better off using DRN. --regentspark (comment) 21:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. Perhaps you are overlooking the persistent conduct disputes brought up in "previous issues." Furry-friend (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see anything actionable here. Sorry. Meanwhile, if your interest is in getting your version of the edits into the article, I suggest you focus on DRN. If your interest is in action against BMK, then I'm sure there are other venues available for that. --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The content dispute has already been settled. I know this sounds confrontational, but I'm wondering what the bar for actionable personal attacks is. Furry-friend (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Restrictions should not be imposed lightly and not without clear and strong consensus that the restrictions are necessary which is not what we see here. Look, I know you're upset but there is insufficient support for a 1RR and there is no point in a warning when BMK has already said he's going to stay away from furry stuff. The bar for imposing behavioral restrictions is and should be quite high and this discussion comes nowhere near that. --regentspark (comment) 22:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

First, I have never asked for 1RR and I'm getting tired of being accused of saying things I haven't said and doing things I haven't done. Perhaps you only gave the discussion a cursory glance before you closed it, because you attribute to me things I haven't said.

Second, "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views", "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", both brought up in the AN/I, quoted and diffed. Those two were personally against me in this latest incident. There is also a pattern of gaming BRD where the discuss stage is "brick wall"ed as you put it, as a veto mechanism.

"This is a content dispute" is a strange consensus in light of that. Why not make it clear to BMK in no uncertain terms that he does make personal attacks, he does "brick wall" discussions in order to veto content disputes, and both of these behaviors are disruptive and detrimental to Wikipedia? There is certainly community support for that, and it is certainly in line with Wikipedia policy. Furry-friend (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Furry friend, I haven't said anything about what you have or have not said. The 1RR came up in the discussion and that's about the only restriction that was actionable. Bottom line. No consensus to implement it. If you read NeilN's statement before the survey, it is confined to statements about consensus and reverts. You can't ask for strong behavioral restrictions when the discussion is set up on those parameters. --regentspark (comment) 22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right, you didn't directly attribute the 1RR request to me, it only appears to be the case because you put it close together. I never supported 1RR, I opposed it. What upsets me is the following.

NeilN's statement is about BMK "shut[ting] off discussion". You came to the conclusion that BMK is "brick wall[ing]" discussion. A large plurality (could be a majority, I can't count that high) of discussion participants supports a warning, indicating community support. There are diffs of personal attacks. Consensus is "content dispute", nothing to be done? Puzzling. Furry-friend (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't say I would have closed it that way and I think you've made a mistake, though it was yours to make. Based on [1], BMK has no intention of "get[ing] the gist of what people are saying", as he still thinks he's done nothing wrong, now or before. I hope you recognize, and are comfortable with, the fact that your close will be taken as an endorsement of BMK's behavior. If that wasn't your intention then you should reverse yourself. If it was, then I guess we'll just have to live with the consequences, pernicious though they are. I am curious, however, as to why you discounted all the people who thought BMK deserved a warning. Consensus is not a vote count, but if you're closing two-to-one against you need a solid reason to do so. I do however admire dismissing eight years of documented behavioral problems as a "bit of cant." I haven't seen chutzpah like that in years. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

More: I am bewildered that you would dismiss an editor being deliberately misleading, if not outright lying, about consensus as a "bit of cant". To me, that's little better than falsifying sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• 17 out of the 24 people who responded favored at the very least a warning to BMK. How could you fail to see that and how is that not a "strong consensus"? This appears to me to be the most inaccurate admin closing I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I think it should receive a close review if not reverted. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I cannot handle going through a close review of this. If RegentsPark remains convinced this is a content dispute and there's nothing to be done, I'll simply be glad that I have learned much about Wikipedia policy during this discussion, and hope the next discussion is more orderly and succinct. Furry-friend (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about you. Please stop making it about you. You do not have to participate in anything you don't want to participate in. And a close review is just a yea or nay poll to sustain or re-open; it doesn't re-hash the issue itself. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh, but it is about F-f. And vengeance. RegentsPark: excellent close. Doc talk 08:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

NOTVOTE

NOTVOTE, but...
NOWARN/AMBIGUOUS 68.48.241.158	there's no such thing as a formal warning on Wikipedia anyway, as far as I've been able to discover..what is the mechanism for a formal warning? a warning by a closing admin that he should adhere to WP policy? well, we all have that implied warning anyway...he's either blocked or restricted or he's not...Idk..this thread is obviously warning enough to him...if he does something obviously goofy again real soon and is back here he'll obviously be blocked...and any admin can unilaterally block him for disruptive editing...they don't even need this board/process...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
NOWARN/AMBIGUOUS KrakatoaKatie	Support close I don't have a lot of interaction with BMK. I have, however, seen thread after thread about his aggression toward other editors, and his response above does not inspire confidence that he has heard the concerns of everyone who has raised their voices. BMK, this entire section serves as your warning. Carrite is correct – you're going to end up at ArbCom if you don't come to the realization that there are editors here who have real problems with your behavior. This is not about the content of that article. It is about how you interact with editors. We have tried to solve this over and over again with you, and since you've been here so long and have so many edits, you know what the next step is going to be. Katietalk 15:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
NOWARN Cassianto	Support close with no warning and no 1rr restriction - per MarnetteD and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. This has gone on long enough. CassiantoTalk 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
NOWARN Doc9871	Oppose close until harsher penalties are put on the table. A warning?! This needs to be open for exactly as long as we need to meticulously determine how to prevent this egregious behavior from this editor. BMK must face the full penalty of law. Doc talk 04:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
NOWARN Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi	Support close with no warning it would not, after all, be preventative. And it would be rather poor to give the impression we punish editors... We don't. Muffled Pocketed 19:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
NOWARN Jusdafax	I appreciate your intro, thanks! I think Katie's suggestion is for the best because it gives an exit strategy effective immediately, rather than continue to haggle over definitions and parse wording. If, as asserted, BMK has been the subject of numerous ANI threads, then a warning, deserved or not, isn't going to change much. Katie and previous commenter Carrite are correct in that the next step would have to be ArbCom, assuming they would take the case. As for this, let's move on. Jusdafax 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
NOWARN MarnetteD	Support close with no warning and no 1rr restriction Could we please stop the hyperbole. BMK has read this thread and acknowledged its content. Thus, this situation is over. We don't hand out (or tolerate) final warnings after the fact. MarnetteD|Talk 20:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
NOWARN Roxy the dog	Support close with thank you for improving the project barnstar awarded to BMK. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Amaury	Support: I guess I'm okay with this now that there's been not a threat per se, but an official warning about a block, something that I don't think has been raised officially before. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN (+CIVIL?) Softlavender	Support. There's a pattern here of unilaterally shutting down discussion/collaboration while using bullying language. It's come up again and again. I think if it keeps recurring, stronger warnings or measures may be required. ArbCom is more effective for reports by multiple persons, and at making fair and reasoned statements of fact and reasonable sanctions. I don't personally think this ANI is the correct venue to impose a 1RR or 2RR, but rather that ArbCom, if that becomes necessary, could make such or other decisions after weighing reports by various persons. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC); edited 03:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN + 1RR Mandruss	Support close with warning and 1RR restriction per Mackensen. Warnings and other sanctions can be preventive as to future behavior, when there is a past pattern that makes such behavior predictable. This went well beyond "a bit of brusqueness and grumpiness", as has been elucidated above, and was compounded by BMK's non-response here. Finally, if Montanabw is going to cite Clean hands, they may wish to read its first sentence. It explains that clean hands means that a complaint was not brought unethically or in bad faith—not that the plaintiff was without their own behavior issues. They are not the same thing. I note that Montanabw minimizes and excuses BMK's misbehavior while asserting that the plaintiff's misbehavior disqualifies the complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN + CIVILITY Furry-friend	The warning should be worded in such a way that both BMK and a future administrator looking into any future issues would know that any major civility issues may be met with gradually increasing blocks—basically a civility restriction that's not called a civility restriction but a warning. This discussion is much too long (and spiralled off-topic... again...) for any future administrator to read through. A warning is short and concise. Furry-friend (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Ajraddatz	Support warning for BMK - as yet another recipient of his in civility, I think it is high time that the community stands up and starts to put a stop to these patterns of abusive interactions. This is yet another case of what has clearly been going on for a long time. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Amaury#top	Support: I guess I'm okay with this now that there's been not a threat per se, but an official warning about a block, something that I don't think has been raised officially before. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN BETTER THAN NOTHING DrChrissy	Thanks for that. I agree a warning is better than absolutely nothing. Doing nothing here would not appear to be in agreement with the consensus. DrChrissy (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Callmemirela	Support close with warning and neutral about 1RR restriction. BMK is at fault here. To resort to that kind of behavior after all this time is childish. You'd think he'd behave better after of his time on Wikipedia. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Carrite	Support close with warning. - BMK, you seriously need to give the aggressive editing a miss or you may find yourself gone from Wikipedia long before you are planning. You would not fare well if a case involving you ever lands at Arbcom and you are playing with fire doing the same basic thing one place or another or another. I say this not as a threat but as some stern advice: turn over a new leaf and dodge conflict. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Isaidnoway	Support close with warning proposed by NeilN, the language proposed is specific to the incident that was initially raised (non-existent talk page consensus). Patterns of disruptive behavior can be addressed, if anyone is brave enough, at ArbCom.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Mackensen	Support close with warning and 1RR restriction. I've commented (far too much) above, but I'll make it formal here. I'll take a warning over nothing at all, but I think a 1RR restriction has a chance to improve everyone's editing experience, including BMK's. I think Softlavender has a good, concise summary of the problem; I hope they're wrong about arbitration. In another wiki-life I was an arbitrator; it's an ugly process which breaks the sanity of everyone involved. If it comes to that we've all failed. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Montanabw	Close with warnings to all about civility but no restriction. BMK has said he will not engage on that article again so drama over, but he was brusque. OTOH, FurryFriend was POV-pushing, and so no one has clean hands here. Unlike some of the other commenters here, I am not particularly troubled by BMK's tone, as where there is clear POV-pushing, it is perfectly understandable that a person dealing with such issues gets a little short-tempered. BMK is a grump, but he's entitled to be, and a bit of brusqueness and grumpiness is not the same as incivility. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Mr rnddude	Support close with warning - So, I'll try to address a couple points. The utter refusal to discuss your reverts with another editor is unfair, if not unacceptable. When the editor comes to you on your talk page, you respond with a rather vicious comment which I can summarize as; You're an SPA, who doesn't know policy, and doesn't know better than me, continue with this and you'll be at AN/I. It seems odd then, that you are here, and Furry-friend is there. The incivility, needs to stop BMK. In that comment using the same number of words that you did, you could have pointed to the use of weasel words or reliable research or whatever gripe you had and not been uncivil about it. You don't have to like the editor, but, you have to be civil towards them. Get a grip. There is no action I want taken, not this time, but a final warning should at least suggest that sanctions will follow should it continue. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN NeilN	Now that BMK has responded, and has indicated that it will be his last response, closing this thread is probably the next step. I think a clear warning would suffice. Something like: "While BMK may choose to disengage from discussion, referring to a non-existent consensus to shut off discussion and/or to make further reverts is disruptive. Further occurrences of this behavior may result in blocks." --NeilN talk to me 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN Ricky81682	Support close with warning and IRR restriction. Sorry, in the entire response, I don't see the critical answer to whether or not BMK thought the topic had been discussed before and thus whether the entire interaction was appropriate. Is there agreement that there was no prior discussion supporting those edits? Otherwise, why is there a discussion now? As such, either, (1) BMK was mistaken in thinking that it had been discussed before and when Furry rightfully said "I don't know what you are talking about," BMK's proper response would have been to look for the consensus that BMK believed existed. Instead BMK refused to admit that BMK was mistaken and out of hubris went into a "there's a consensus above, I'm not telling you where but don't revert me and don't ask me to discuss it any further" routine, which is disruptive and uncivil editing to me. Or the alternative is that (2) BMK knew that there was no prior discussion on this issue and the threats to bring in admins for the pings and the "there is a consensus above" would wilful and deliberate disruptive editing to gain WP:OWNership of the article. I mean, seriously, if someone reverted anything I did, I went to the talk page and they repeatedly insisted there was a consensus for their view, one that I could not find and then demanded that I not ping them, communicate with them or otherwise do anything other than just accept being reverted repeatedly and attacked for violating the non-existent consensus and threatened with being blocked, how in the world is anyone supposed to accomplish anything? The only result will be that everyone else will leave those articles alone absent the way BMK wants them to be, which is precisely the problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN SNUGGUMS	Definitely warn at the very least if closing. I concur with Amaury that Ken absolutely shouldn't be able to get off scot free for his frequent hostility. There's no excuse for it. Not sure about 1RR restrictions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
WARN ThePlatypusofDoom	Support close with no 1RR and weaker warningWe don't need a very strong warning here, and 1RR is just a terrible idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This proves I can't count. 17 support warn, 6 oppose warn, 2 are ambiguous; I choose to err on the side of oppose, for a total of 8.

1. There is apparent community support for a warning, which is actionable.
2. Both you and NeilN stated that BMK "brick wall[s]" or "shut[s] off" discussion. NeilN specifically names it as disruptive.
3. Personal attacks.

Conclusion: content dispute, nothing to be done. Furry-friend (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC) and 00:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Katie supported a warning -- she said "Support close", which would entail all that NeilN proposed; plus her entire post was a warning. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here as figured there would be complaints...and BMK is already getting into it with somebody again at Otto Bismarck (nothing improper yet I don't think)...but what I don't understand is why someone like NeilN doesn't just block BMK for "disruptive editing" if/when you think it's warranted...it's perfectly allowable for you to do so as an admin...blocks are the only thing that will affect him..the ANI process is pointless and nothing an admin even needs to justify such an action...68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, any user may issue a warning in good faith. There does not need to be a consensus at ANI for a warning. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It means next to nothing for a "regular" editor to leave a warning to a long term editor. You know that. --Majora (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the close of the AN/I thread about me. If I would make some comments. however, they would be these:

• The consensus discussion I referred to exists. True, I could not, and cannot, find it, but it was had, and exists somewhere - and Furry-friend certainly must know this to be the case. I thought it was just above on the talk page, but that was obviously incorrect, and in dealing with POV SPAs I don't spend a lot of time doing new investigating - too much else to do. As mentioned here I do not lie on Wikipedia. I can, of course, be mistaken, but I would never make something up in order to gain the upper hand in a discussion.

• The point which seems to have been completely missed by most editors, is that as the author of a reverted Bold edit, it was Furry-friend's responsibility to build a consensus for his edit, and not mine to build one for the long-standing status-quo. He took absolutely no steps towards doing so. He did not go to WP:3O, nor did he post neutral comments on relevant WikiProjects. All he did was to go to AN/I and file a vindictive report about me, despite the fact that a third editor had also reverted his edits.

• When I feel considerably better than I do now, I hope to work up an essay on just exactly what "civility" means. To me, it doesn't mean everyone going around say "And how are you today, Madame? Did you realize you just ascribed a quote by Mark Twain to Einstein? If you should have the available time, it would be most gratifying for you to correct that error." And yes, my remark to Furry-friend about "My Little Pony" was uncivil and deserving of a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, digging back 10+ years for an RfC (which was never closed, incidentally), or an editor with 2 topic bans coming to a discussion about my with only retribution in mind are way, or an "IP" (sure) with multiple blocks for disruptive and harassing behavior showing up to uphold Wiki-morality are also way beyond the bounds of "civility" as well.

At this point, that's all water under the bridge. Furry-friend and Furry fandom are now someone else's problem, not mine. I only hope that you do not receive too much negative response because of your actions. Thanks again, and best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"The consensus discussion I referred to exists." Where?

"I would never make something up in order to gain the upper hand in a discussion." I have never accused you of such. I accused you of relying on a consensus without providing it in order to keep your preferred version of an article. This is an accurate description of the incident.

"[Furry-friend] took absolutely no steps towards [building consensus]" - I refer you to your talk page, two months ago, effort to build consensus. Following, effort to discuss on article talk page. Following, even further attempts to discuss. Following, complaint on AN/EW, after which you finally responded to the discussion. How? "This is POV editing", "clear talk page consensus", "subject has been discussed and dismissed", and personal attacks.

"[some of the discussion that transpired on AN/I is] also way beyond the bounds of "civility" as well." Please note that none of the incidents you described were done by me. I would have preferred a 100% pertinent discussion that only includes diffs that show disruptive behavior.

The following statement you made, "there was, and is, no impetus for me to verify what I'm certain exists", means that your own certainty is enough to assert a consensus exists. This is a behavior that must stop. Your certainty (1) is not a reason to make personal attacks and (2) is not a reason not to verify a consensus exists before you assert it exists. Furry-friend (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You do not exist for me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

As long as you're here read up on WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Furry-friend (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Furry friend, like I said in my close, I understand where your frustration is coming from. We all get stonewalled when editing on wikipedia. When we do, we have two choices. Back off and go somewhere else or resort look for some dispute resolution mechanism to get help. Since furry fandom seems to be your main interest on wikipedia, I assume the first one is off the table. But you could, and should, learn to resolve disputes by appealing to the larger community on content issues. This is well meant advice and you're welcome to take it or leave it. --regentspark (comment) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I accept your advice and still find your close puzzling and self-contradictory. You mention BMK's conduct of stonewalling, and still you call it a content dispute instead of a conduct issue.

BMK's prolific edits make it very difficult for me to "go somewhere else". For example, I want to edit the article Asshole (sandbox) but doing so will seem like I'm hounding BMK. With the large number of articles BMK is currently editing, that's a lot of "go somewhere else." Then there's all the other editors who have to go somewhere else. Furry-friend (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If someone stonewalls then you can take it to dispute resolution. They will either participate in that process or not, and if they do not then their opinion will not be heard and thus will not count. Simples. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That's excellent and as mentioned the content dispute has already been resolved. The issue is a conduct issue. Personal attacks, stonewalling as the usual discussion method. Furry-friend (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Stonewalling is a non-issue for the reason I have given, although I acknowledge that it is frustrating. Any conduct issue has been resolved by the close. You're just going to have to accept that. Continuing to argue about it is just going to bring a ton of trouble. The ANI thread exists as a matter of record and can be used in the future should someone deem it necessary.

There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. There is no way BMK is editing even 5 per cent of them. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right, most of his edits are related to New York City. Woe unto Wikipedian New Yorkers, I suppose. And assholes and topless people and strippers. And David Gordon, poor guy. Furry-friend (talk)

Furry-friend, at this point you should probably ignore BMK and move on to editing articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Or they can continue to refer to a non-existent consensus, followed by reams of text attacking the other editor and lamenting the fact a veteran editor is being persecuted, thereby totally disrupting the dispute resolution process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree but they would "lose". I am no fan of BMK and I am surprised at the close. But it is done. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamic expansion or invasion?

Hi RP, Can you watch the Muhammad bin Qasim page [2]? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

k. --regentspark (comment) 21:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Channel 2 - India.webm

Hi there,
You have deleted that file from the article India with the edit summary "Not appropriate here". I wonder if you meant the file was not appropriate to the specific place where I put it, or if you think it shouldn't be anywhere in the article. I have to add I sort of felt that file would fit better to the subsection of demography or geography, but I wasn't sure, and hoped the next editor would place it where best (and not delete ). Please let me know what you think. Amitayzl (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amitayz. I don't see the video being useful anywhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps it makes sense on a travel site but wikipedia is a compendium of reliably sourced information and a tv documentary is not that. --regentspark (comment) 11:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

BSO and Kashmir

Hi RP, there is too much traffic by socks and ducks at Baloch Students Organization. Can you semi-protect it for a long period? It is a difficult subject as it is.

Secondly, 2016 Kashmir unrest is essentially a subpage of Kashmir conflict. Please consider whether to extend your Kashmir conflict edit-restrictions to it. Pakistan is not directly involved (yet), but at least one IP has pushed for a Pakistan POV there [3]. At least, you might keep it under you watch in case problems develop.

The Burhan Wani and Hizbul Mujahideen pages are also up in flames. But I think NeilN has been watching them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks to start with on Baloch Students Organization. I can't see how the latest IP edit summary was accurate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the recent unrest in Indian controlled Kashmir should be censored into subpage at all it requires a separate page to detail such a major event. Azad-Khalistani (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Watching the unrest page. I think it is ok for now. --regentspark (comment) 16:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi RP and NeilN, I think it is time to semi-protect it now [4]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected, temporarily. --regentspark (comment) 02:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

DinoBambinoNFS has proposed this idea. We can add an editnotice on Burhan Muzaffar Wani and 2016 Kashmir unrest pages along the lines of:

Wikipedia policies prohibit using contentious labels like "terrorist" to describe individuals.

That might obviate the need for semi-protection. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't do that Kautilya3. These labels are contentious and should be used with care, but they are not prohibited. --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist, militant, separatist, miscreant etc, which one are you exactly talking about? The articles that you have referred already describe the subject as a militant, which itself is a WP:LABEL. We should not prefer over the other if we would like to implemnet this policy, which otherwise states that "Avoid myth in its informal sense", and such 'adjectives' may be used provided they are used by RS to describe the subject. Also, will this suggestion be applicable to other related/unrelated but similar articles too? @DinoBambinoNFS: for his/her input.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

We should never give labels to anyone especially not by ourselves. It represents a negative connotation no matter how much "evil" acts that person might have done. This negative connotation be considered with term "Negro", although in reality the term is neutral, it has come to be viewed as offensive by most. No article on Wikipedia ever uses "Negro" while referring to Black africans. Not only that, there is the question of "What is a terrorist"? The dictionary definition is someone who uses terrorism/violence for political means, but nearly everyone uses it for someone who fights against a government. Also consider, that someone who might be considered a terrorist by one government might not be considered so by another government or even some people. All the well-written articles about militants I've seen never label anyone as a terrorist, keeping in line with the rule of WP:TERRORIST. Separatist can't be considered a negative term, it simply describes political beliefs of somebody. Miscreant simply applies to somebody doing unlawful activity. However, I agree partly with TripWire. Even words like "militant" today have acquired quite an amount of negative connotation despite in origin being negative. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

All that is good, philosophically speaking. But we should use whatever reliable sources use. If reliable sources label someone a terrorist, then we should do the same. If they are mixed, then we should be more circumspect and indicate that opinions are mixed. I'm not sure what the sources say in this particular case but I suggest just going by whatever that is. --regentspark (comment) 12:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Attention required

Hy there. Sir, can you please see to edits like these and these? They arent quite inclined to discuss the issue either. Uploading copyvio images, removing sourced content and editing a single topic area-seems like an SPA. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 11:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi TripWire. I don't have time to look at this in detail but am watching the page and will take action if the editor crosses the line. On this particular edit, they're not there yet. --regentspark (comment) 12:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ref this Sir, this is getting out of hand. Please see to it, I dont want to waste my and admin's time on ANI over this,—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

2005 Jaunpur train bombing

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/up-bangladeshi-citizen-convicted-in-shramjeevi-express-blast-case/story-yrclhW16tIBSABpdYsBX7H.html

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/death-sentence-to-bangladeshi-national-in-shramjeevi-blast-case/article9055417.ece

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/shramjeevi-blast-case-bangladeshi-national-gets-death-sentence/

Why are you posting this on my talk page?--regentspark (comment) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks DPL bot. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I will create a new page

Hi --regentspark ,
As my articles Senorita India was deleted for having lack of references, what should I do if I want to create it again. I promise that this time I will create the article with many reliable references. Please can you help me.
CyberBrinda (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it User:CyberBrinda/Senorita India 2016. Best to build it here and then use the WP:AFC process to submit it for verification and recreation. Do note that it should be substantially different from the deleted version otherwise it will just get deleted again. --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Bishnois

Hi, Bishnois needs to be moved back to Bishnoi because we use the singular for communities. I can't do it, so please could you? - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Done --regentspark (comment) 21:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yay. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan By James Tod

Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan By James Tod is not an accepted source? (2600:1002:B01C:BCE4:E93A:E3B4:890A:E0C7 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC))

Not for history. You need to use modern academic sources for articles on history. @Sitush: is probably the person to contact on this. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

AAP

Virtually nothing useful is coming from anons at Aam Aadmi Party. It has, of course, been semi-protected in the past. Do you think another dose of that would work or should I consider something different - pending changes, 500/30 etc? - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the disruption has gone on long enough, an admin would probably consider indefinite pending changes or semi, which should do the job. You need community consensus for 500/30, I believe, which might not be worth the trouble. Vanamonde (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for now but will take a closer look later today. --regentspark (comment) 12:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict editing restriction

How to go about a simple revert per NPOV like reverting this with this 1RR restriction? Specially when edits are done by multiple anon editors ([5], [6], [7], [8]). --SMS ^Talk 16:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try WP:RFPP; there is certainly disruptive editing going on there. Vanamonde (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging NeilN, who once had an idea of using the ARBPIA version of 1RR, which allows 3RR for anonymous edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

SMS, the general idea is that you don't have to revert it yourself. Someone else will do it sooner or later since this is a highly trafficked article. I wouldn't block you for this but that doesn't mean that some other admin wouldn't so better to play it safe. --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, you should warn the IP that this is disruptive editing. If they continue, then that would be a good case for a block (or protection if the IP hops around). --regentspark (comment) 19:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Uri attack

Is it possible that you may have left the message at the wrong user's page? You left a message here, even thought that user merely moved the content around. The deletion of the content happened in this reversion. I'm sorry if I come across as rude. I'm not trying to tell you how what to do. Just giving you a heads up.VR _talk 22:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ravana

Ravana page is constantly being vandalized by user User:K.shayanthan, who keeps removing various source contents. I have already told him that Ravana appears in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism (Jain version of Ramnaya) but he keeps removing the sources. On top of that, he seems to be pushing some pesodo-history of eelam nationalism.

He also seems to have vandalisted, removed various source contents from other wikipedia pages, where Buddhist stupa is being pushed as "tomb" of some Chola rule, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakkhina_Stupa&diff=prev&oldid=496451968. 59.93.78.137 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ravana is not mentioned in any of the cited sources. Look for a source that relates the two (e.g., [9]) and then tailor the sentence so that it reflects what the source says. --regentspark (comment) 12:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, RegentsPark. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have good hopes ....

Come above Nationality, Ethnicity, Creed ....

This message is written in good faith .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.44.53 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Naming issue

Hi RP, I have been wanting for a while to create a section in 2016 Uri attack titled something likek "Indo-Pakistani diplomatic war". But I didn't feel like using the term "war". Can you think of an alternative? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I can help. 'War of words'? 'Conflict'? Diplomatic war is a fairly standard phrase, I think. --regentspark (comment) 12:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

IP

Hi RegentsPark. We have a fellow IP [10] [11] who is going around making unsourced edits to articles, including possible BLP violations. I left a note on their talk stressing the importance of reliable sources, but they do not seem to pay heed. They've also just reverted back their edits and I've no incentive to edit war. Could you look into this, including a possible protection of the pages concerned? Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly is the WP:BPL violation on Seema Mustafa? Please point it out. On the contrary, the BPL violation is clearly evident in this edit made REPEATEDLY by Mar4d, where he insists on naming a certain Indian organization / person as the "perpetrator" of a mass murder when that allegation has not been proven in court or anywhere else -- in fact, a Paki terror outfit is the latest suspect, and probably that is what your Paki friend is intent upon covering up. I do not ask that the terror outfit should be named as perpetrator, only that no party should be named until there is some confirmation. That is the definition and essence of BPL / defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.186.110 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected by Airplaneman. 59.182, please note that any unsourced edit in a blp is subject to immediate deletion and repeatedly adding them back to an article is considered disruptive and will lead to blocks (and/or protection). --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict 1RR restrictions

Kautilya3 has violated this restriction by reverting twice (1, 2) in 24 hours on 2016 Uri attack. Although, I was not in favor of these restrictions when they were applied first but once they are applied then they should be either enforced on everyone or they should be enforced on none otherwise they would be just meaningless. If you are not willing to enforce it on Kautilya3 then I suggest lifting these restrictions from everyone so there is a level playing field. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sherriff. I see that this was taken care of at AN3 but I'll take a look at the restrictions and see if they need modification. Unfortunately not till tomorrow evening or Thursday afternoon because of RL issues. --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic claim

This is a pretty obvious violation of the ethnic claim.VR _talk 23:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

Requested. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've activated your account, thank you for volunteering.--v/r - TP 06:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheema article

Can you explain why you deleted a credibly cited article the Cheema article, I think you should reinstate it as it meets the WP community guidelines. If you can't I'll be filing and arbitration process. Rowland938 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheema (2nd nomination)--regentspark (comment) 22:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you feel for Sitush mischief again has he been trying to get these articles deleted or making them sound in more poor light which was pointed out to him on the Jatt article talk page. Where Balays sources used to create mischief Sitush us a Rajasthani the same can be applied to Rajistani articles - he has some personal issue with Jatts in general which is bizarre which has led to wikipedia being mocked as a source as members form clans with admins and side with each other and vote for each other it has become tribal as a matter of fact at the university I go to wikipedia is entirely blocked bar some science articles because everyone knows what is going on wiki is increasing becoming irrelevant is a graveyard hence the constant asking for donations, even Jimmy knows the problem it started off with good intentions but im afraid this is going to die out encyclopedia dramatica would be more reliable. Some interesting links to read: on Sitush and the problems he caused for one academic on here who shut him completely down and made him run away from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people/Archive_8#Bayly.27s_description_of_Jats_is_misquoted_and_out_of_context, Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people/Archive_7#Dubious_WP:OR_violation I wonder if Sutish has finished reading the book he poromised he would read to sanyee and then conviently disspeared from there while she there in the end she realized even on other article it is a lost cause and she left. If you want an echo chamber then this can carry on. Just read the reviews: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Society-Politics-Eighteenth-Century-Cambridge/dp/0521798426/ref=cm_aya_orig_subj not to mention Sitush has been accused of being Susan Bayly it's only a matter of time before this person gets exposed and i'm not suggesting Sitush is Susan Bayly but it has been known to happen in the past authers of books have cited their own books on wiki to get sales. Rowland938 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't know what you expect from me. There was an AfD with clear consensus to delete and it got deleted. You probably need to take this elsewhere because it is meaningless to me. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Another ethnic claim - this time by an admin

Check out this closing statement of an AfD. Isn't that also a violation of Arbitration rules imposed on the India-Pakistan namespace. The same rules that you said, if violated, would result in a block. I mean no disrespect to @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, but I would like an explanation. If a rule is routinely violated by everyone, is it still a rule?VR _talk 03:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't apply here since FPAS is not editing in the area but, rather, is stating an administrative opinion. (One that is, imo, at least partially borne out by the !votes in the close). Restrictions and sanctions are designed to manage the editing process and not the administrative process. If you believe that the close is not proper then you could ask for a deletion review or if you feel that FPAS is biased in some way then that would go on ANI. About the restrictions, anyone who is aware of them and violates violates them will be blocked but it is unfair to block editors who are not aware of the restrictions. --regentspark (comment) 12:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the editing process and administrative process. I thought an AfD would relate to the editing process, since it is about an article that may or may not be viewed by readers.VR _talk 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD's are closed by uninvolved editors. In other words, they are not involved in the editing process. --regentspark (comment) 10:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki language

Saraiki is language, so the page Saraiki dialect be moved to Saraiki language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.53.254 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mughal-Maratha Wars

Hi RP, somebody moved the page Mughal-Maratha Wars without discussion and apparently based on WP:OR. Can you please move it back and protect it from further moves? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like that got done. --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock again

Hi RP, here is that sock again (Nangparbat). Perhaps semi-protect the pages he is attacking? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-d. --regentspark (comment) 23:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Problamistic User Uanfala

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] .

• Despite nearly 10 Wikipedians not agreeing with his views on talk pages of effected Talk pages.
• He cherry picks and tries to define dialects in to Language.
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
• Wikipedians can not cherry pick.
• Wikipedians can not impose a point a view.
• Wikipedians move with consensus.
• Wikipedia is an informational project. It can not misguide about language hierarchy.
• Only standardisation of few dialects can not make them language. However few follow this rule for defining Hindko Saraiki Potwari as language. He cherry pick those.
• Even those "few" along with "opposite others" have details whether "Explicit" or "Implicit" which demonstrate a common hierarchy Language Family: Indo European, Branch: Indo Iranian, Sub branch: Indo Aryan, Macro Language: Punjabi, Language: Western Punjabi, Dialects: Potwari Hindko Saraiki and many others, Sub dialects: North Hindko South Hindko.
• All such linguistic sources are mentioned / added by many wikipedians.
• If we accept Uanfala version of "cherry pick" and "Defining" then we will end up with a dilemma mentioned by User Flipro on this move request for 30 odd Punjabi dialects [17].

Time to report User Uanfala for topic ban for Cherry picking, Forum shoping, Edit warring, ignoring talk page consensus on western punjabi diffrent dialect talk pages. Please you being a registered senior editor start the proceeding for Topic Ban and violation of 3Rs. 39.60.232.41 (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)₯€₠€₯

The above message was also posted on the talk pages of several other users, and it has already received responses on Andy Wang's and on Paine Ellsworth's. – Uanfala (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)