I would go even further and say that B9 exhibits ownership -- one recent example is Talk:Seventeen_tantras, another is Talk:Ground_of_Being_(Dzogchen). To be fair I didn't handle myself as well as I might have in either interaction, but I think the problem remains. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, those are very clear cases of attempting to own a page, I have added that to the list. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added myself to the list of certifying users, and indicated that my previous interaction with B9 was as an IP and put a link to a page detailing some of those edits. I do want to say here for the record that in some of the interactions I've had with B9 I was less than civil, but I don't think (hope) this should detract from this RFC's merits or obscure what is clearly a long-term problem that this editor has had with many, many other wikipedians other than me. PlainJain (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, a voluntary process like this can't work unless the subject participates. B9 has blanked his user and talk pages and seems to be hinting that he will retire [1] but he has made edits to Avadhuta since doing the blanking, so I'm not sure what to make of it. RFCs usually last thirty days from date of certification, so there is time to take a "wait and see" approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was easily predictable that B9 hummingbird hovering would not be able to engage in this RfC. Perhaps the message has been received. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I hope you're right, Abductive, I think it's important that we go through the motions so to speak in any case; Pretty much everyone who has weighed in so far agrees [if I may say] that this problem has been going on for a long time. Even if the RFC closes w/o any remedy (due possibly to refusal of B9 to participate) then at least when/if the problem recurs, there will be a single place we can point to to show that it was brought up, and evidence that there *is* a problem. PlainJain (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yea, I didn't mean to imply that I'm the least bit surprised that he's ignoring it. When a user RFC occurs, there are usually only three outcomes: the user realizes they have been creating a problem and agrees to work on it, or they throw a fit and ague up and down and end up at ArbCom, or they ignore it. We can't make him participate, but if he returns to his previous behavior after this is closed, then the need for any sort of attempt at a voluntary agreement has gone by the wayside and it will be time to discuss topic bans or outright blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is in fact still editing, and I have left a note on his talk page encouraging him to participate. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is his reply: [2]. As was to be expected, he again denies there is even a problem, and he pretty much rejects every concept that Wikipedia is based on, but he also says he is done because he has accomplished his goals here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think your reply to that reply was pretty much perfect - if he won't listen to that, then I think we have to accept he's a lost cause -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This second retirement was another fake-out: [3] as you can see nothing has changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this RFC has failed to produce the desired result. It's impossible to reach a voluntary agreement with someone who won't discuss the matter or even acknowledge the problem. B9 has now repeatedly claimed to retire only to return a few days later. Therefore I have initiated a proposal at WP:ANI that he be banned from further editing here. I have asked on WP:AN for this RFC to be closed, and that should be happening in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the use of Wikisource, the fact that B9 has placed the source onto Wikisource is only relevant if it is an original translation. If the Wikisource page is an transcription or transliteration of the actual source, it makes no difference who put it onto Wikisource - whoever it is should be thanked for making the source more widely available. Provenance information about the source should be provided on the Wikisource page, or its talk page, such as oldwikisource:Talk:Rdzogs pa rang byung chen po'i rgyud; if there isn't sufficient information to verify the authenticity of the transcription or transliteration, ask for more information on the talk page.

Wikisource does allow original research to create translations. If there are concerns about the accuracy of the translation, they should be raised on the Wikisource talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]