User talk:Coffee

This user is more awesome than you.

Request for your thoughts

Hello! I've noticed your rather prolific work with AfDs lately, and I wonder if you would be willing to look at an article controversy. The Landmark Worldwide article is a mess, and has been for some time. Various attempts at DR have failed (and probably only fueled the fire). Now the article is under Discretionary Sanctions (actually triply so - BLP for the Werner Erhard stuff, Scientology for the assertions that they are somehow involved, and Landmark Worldwide topics themselves are now under DS), yet the editor behaviour is still horrible. I went through the process of AE regarding one editor, and I'd be willing to keep doing that for each of them, but it would make things significantly better if I could get an opinion or two before moving forward.

So, will you please take a look at the editing history at Landmark Worldwide and give an opinion as to whether I am wasting my time trying to get behaviour reigned in (and if not, what path to take)? Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing; I'm about to head to lunch, but I'll take a look at it this afternoon. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks... I look forward to a fresh set of eyes! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Tgeairn: Sorry, I lied. Lunch turned into lunch followed by a military ceremony followed by a long wait at a pharmacy... But, I will take a look at it. It will have to wait till Monday Tuesday (holiday on Monday) though, since I don't have my personal system with me here at Lackland (long story). My apologies for the wait. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me... No worries, I'm sure there will be plenty to see on Tuesday :). I see someone has started an ANI thread related to the article too, so that might get some attention and eyes as well. Thanks again, have a great weekend. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Phew, there's definitely a lot of potential editing issues against the ArbCom's motions. I'd highly recommend continuing to take editing issues, as you see fit, to WP:AE. Otherwise, the editing of that page will become a headache for uninvolved editors. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I'll probably need to keep going to AE, as it's clearly not stopping and the article is just going sideways. I'm starting to feel like a pest :). Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Non closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators

Why did you relist it? It seemed to have consensus. The Dissident Aggressor 22:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DissidentAggressor: Clearly you do not understand the meaning of consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

List of British Bangladeshis

I'm getting some grief on my TP by an editor pressing the same argument which you overruled during a very recent AfD closure (result: delete). He recommended me to "ask any other editor about it"...so <tag> you're it. ;-) Pax 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Shane Diesel - Default to delete?

I've never once seen that justification used to delete an article. This leads me to wonder how much of the discussion you actually read. Several of the parties involved are confirmed Socks and Sockmasters plus two are avid anti-porn Editors editors at least one of which was recently Topic banned for marking articles for deletion and disruptively adding tags to porn articles. You might want to review this AfD again. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sage advice: when asking for a favor, don't be rude. (Also, your point is mute as there were SPAs on both sides of the argument, and good points made by uninvolved editors as well. If there was consensus I would have found it.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So when did the change in rule for a default delete for a non-consensus for a BLP happen? I don't see it in Wikipedia:Deletion process or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BLPDEL. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't apply in this case since it was not a summary deletion. Perhaps you mean WP:BIODEL? Also, you should probably look at [1],[2], and [3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and submitted three of your recent closes to deletion review to see if the BLP default deletes fell under WP:BLPDEL or WP:BIODEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee, there was no rudeness intended and my apology if you interpreted it that way, I was earnestly making an inquiry. It looks like you spend a considerable amount of time on AfD's, but Porn articles get some undue attention and I was trying to make you aware of that. As for a BLP article, I stand by my statement, I have never seen "it's a BLP, default to delete" as a reason to delete an article. In my experience, an Admin will usually close it as "no action" when there is no clear consensus without any other mitigating factors, but in this case there were plenty; Socks and known anti-porn editors. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Isle of Man

I note that you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man as "keep". Having, no doubt, weighed up the evidence presented, please can you explain how it meets WP:N? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/26th Milestone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you know (hopefully) how highly I think of you, and in fact how much I consider you a wiki-friend. But I have to agree with Coffee on these ones. I know that XfD is a !vote, and not a vote. Still, part of determining consensus is indeed factoring in the numbers. Even if Coffee would have agreed with you, had he closed those as "delete" - it would have been a case of "super-voting" himself. On each, there was your request for deletion - followed by at least 3 "keeps", and no "deletes" save your own nom. I'm sorry - but he was right on these. — Ched :  ?  20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not my position to state how consensus finds an article to meet WP:N, merely that they do. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Andy posted similar comments at Stifle and Mr. Guye's talk pages for their "keep" closures of closely-related AfDs, though not (yet?) at postdlf's talk page. I've referred the first two here in the hopes that any discussion is centralized. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheshire Senior Cup AfD

Hello Coffee, Cheshire Senior Cup AfD, you said redirect but I think you meant delete as the consensus suggests. Could you confirm? JMHamo (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo: It's a measure of being lazy with the script I use to close AFDs (which doesn't have a function to state delete and redirect, even though it has the ability to do that)... but I made sure to delete the article before it was redirected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected it for you :) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaand the script failed... again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Coffee, could you please delete this PROD when you have a moment - Johor Darul Ta'zim IV F.C.. Many thanks JMHamo (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Marcus Charles

Hello Coffee, thank you for helping to clean up Wikipedia. Coincidentally, just a moment before you were deleting the Marcus Charles article, I realized that I had given its creator the wrong advice. Last week, when they didn't reply to my notice on eir user page, I sent mail and got a prompt reply. We had a friendly conversation, in which I wrongly told em that there would be time to study up on the subject before the article might get deleted. I now felt bad about it and just considered whether it would be appropriate to change the timestamp to give em one more week. To be honest, I wouldn't bet on much improvement, but I don't want to mislead people. Also, the person described in the article has some notability; there are some articles in a local newspaper mentioning about him. (I haven't read the links yet, except for the NYT, which is really only a mention.) Would you be OK with me undeleting the article and changing the timestamp? Thanks, — Sebastian 04:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sebastian: No issues here... go right ahead. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Sebastian 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, good on you Sebastian. I removed the PROD and removed what appeared to be overly resume-ish. It still is not perfect but maybe a start. The kicker for me was the Business Journal. I'm not completely sold on anything if you want to do more clean up.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere topic ban

Hi Coffee. I saw that you formally placed a topic ban on Insertcleverphrase here. Obviously, I have no objection. From a 'paperwork' standpoint, I just want to be clear on exactly what type of ban is involved here. It's best to head off any confusion down the road, should there be appeals or enforcement actions.

I have to admit that the big Community Sanctions template you've used is a new thing to me. It's not entirely transparent whether the topic ban is intended to be a community-imposed restriction as a result of the AN/I discussion, or a formal discretionary sanction as allowed for by the pseudoscience Arbitration case. In particular, the former would tend to be both appealed and enforced through discussions at AN/I, and the latter through WP:AE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: It's a community topic ban, which is also not blind to the ArbCom decision made in relation to this topic area. If the user wishes to be unbanned they can go through ANI, (as a formal community proposal), or via ArbCom as an accepted alternative per WP:UNBAN. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Coffee. You have new messages at Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eastern Europe amended

The Arbitration Committee has amended the Eastern Europe by motion case as follows:

On 11 February 2015, Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked an editor relying on the discretionary sanctions provisions for Eastern Europe. As a discretionary sanctions block it was out of process as the editor had not been pre-notified of discretionary sanctions for the topic. Accordingly, the prohibitions on modification do not apply and the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee is advised to better familiarize themselves with the discretionary sanctions provisions before using this process again.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 1.42.15.25 block review. Thank you.. JodyB _talk 15:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Option Pool Shuffle

In accordance with the Deletion Review policies , I would like to discuss why you felt the article on Option Pool Shuffle should be considered as "non-notable neologism".

Firstly, non-notable: the Option Pool Shuffle impacts any startup or small company that is looking raise money from a VC. The Option Pool Shuffle can swing 10% of the value from one party to another (the VC to the Founders and vice-versa). Given that some $48 billion of VC investment was made in 2013, and this has grown in 2014. The Option Pool shuffle has a c.$5 billion impact every year.

Secondly, neologism: the term has been in the use in the VC industry for many years. And a quick search yields the following articles that describe this directly: (1) http://venturehacks.com/articles/option-pool-shuffle (2) http://avc.com/2009/11/valuation-and-option-pool/ (3) http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/07/22/want-to-know-how-vcs-calculate-valuation-differently-from-founders/ (4) http://www.slideshare.net/WilmerHale/option-poolshuffle (5) http://www.reportally.com/cap-table-university/share-option-pool-shuffle

Please can you reinstate this article.

Many thanks

--Swfindlay101 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• Swfindlay101: I merely deleted the article as it was an expired WP:PROD. If you would like it to be undeleted, please make a request at WP:REFUND. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Will do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swfindlay101 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Cult-proof kids close overlap

I closed just after you, and then rolled back what I did (you got there first), let me know if I've left anything glitched. Sorry for the trouble! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Joe Decker: No worries mate! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to restore entry on Steve Vining.

I have the proof you are looking for. Please let me recreate the page.What about a squirrel? (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sk'py Skwrrrl: As this was an article proposed for deletion, please make a request at WP:REFUND. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of UNIDSR Handbook Good Building Design and Construction

Hi Coffee, I have seen you have deleted the article I am creating regarding UNISDR as I am still editing it for additional citations and text. Besides this book is not for sale so it is not an advertisement as per your reason for deletion. Can you place it back? Schadow1 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your page protections

I don't know if you've been watching the DRVs about your AFD/BLP deletions, but a concern has been raised in the discussion that what seems to be your routine SALTing of AFD'd or CSD'd pages, on no other apparent basis than the article was about a living person, also isn't consistent with protection policy or BLP policy. I see from your log that you've continued doing this even after the issue was raised there, and I think it would be best if you at least refrained until the community has a chance to discuss the issue (even better would be to undo those protections yourself), which is likely once the DRVs are closed. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked WP:BLPDEL, specifically lays out the reasoning behind protecting deleted BLPs after their conclusion at AFD. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I haven't been paying any attention to DRV, there's a lot of backlogs on this site with our low admin numbers... so I think there are more important things for me to be doing than watching a process do its work. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You really should look at the DRV, because it's showing that your understanding of BLPDEL is not one supported by consensus, and should make you rethink how you're applying it to protections as well.

BLPDEL only discusses page protection in the context of summary deletions for problematic material, not routinely for any article about a living person. It certainly doesn't prescribe SALTing speedy deletions of A7 candidates, where there's nothing binding about the deletion to bar against another attempt at trying to post a valid article. Even with AFDs, it's possible the title may be a valid redirect or a shared title for another valid subject, and there's not an ironclad prohibition against an editor thinking he can overcome the reasons for deletion and reposting without going through DRV first.

Along the way, I also noticed your speedy deletion and protection of Austin John Caldwell and I don't think this was even a proper CSD candidate at all, but rather should have gone to AFD. We might ultimately determine that a participant in the Junior Olympics who was also an alternate for the U.S. Olympics team is not notable, but that's hardly lacking "any credible claim of significance or importance". postdlf (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok now, that was from over a year ago... I barely remember why I completed that action anymore than I know what I had for lunch that day. But I do seem to recall researching the name and finding out what was laid out wasn't true about the subject before I completed that action. But that's neither here nor there as, like I said... a year has passed since then. If you have an issue with my administrative actions, try to find something more recent. Otherwise it looks a bit like you're just fishing for something to back up your argument. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, actually I didn't notice that was from 2014 rather than 2015, I just saw the February date in the log. postdlf (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of bilateral relations

Hi. Since you deleted the Bangladesh-France relations article, please share what you think are criteria for notability of bilateral relations? --Soman (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the consensus has been wrongly interpreted for this AFD. There was definitely no consensus to delete all the articles. There were many participants who disagreed with the nominator and thought that the articles were notable according to the General notability guidelines which is also a policy-backed argument. Regards Nomian (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RGloucester — ☎ 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio deletions

Hi! Many thanks for your recent deletions of articles listed at WP:CP – anything that helps to reduce the backlog must be good. I have some questions, though: as I had noted on that page, there was (and indeed still is) a viable rewrite of Apples and Snakes at Talk:Apples and Snakes/Temp; did you intend to move that into the place of the deleted version? There's also a rewrite of Michael de Aozaraza at Talk:Michael de Aozaraza/Temp; I don't know what you think, but it looks to me like a close paraphrase of the original (as I remember it); in your view, should that be deleted, or moved into place? I've watchlisted this page, don't need a talkback. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the Apples and Snakes page, although I do have some notability concerns given the lack of independent sourcing. The other I've deleted as it is indeed a close paraphrase and uses some of the same wording in places. Thank you for bringing these to my attention. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bangladesh–Italy relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bangladesh–Italy relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nomian (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Userfy?

Can you userfy the deleted American Indian horse for me? I'll recreate without copyvio, I just need the source material Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw: Apologies, but I cannot place copyrighted material anywhere on the site. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

d'oh. That makes sense, how about this? Can you at least shoot me the SOURCE that was the copyvio? URL to the page in question? Or at least the Copyvio report that says "hey, this article appears to be copied from URL foo.? Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw: Here you go. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to recreate the article, hopefully without copyvio issues, feel free to watchlist it and tweak as you see fit. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And it's bluelinked again. Can you put your eyes on it to see if we are OK in copyvio land? The problem is that there are virtually zilch sources, and they repeat each other. If you want to tweak any close paraphrasing, it is absolutely no skin off my nose! Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the work! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In re Lord AB the 4th

You may want to also semi-protect the userpage. The last two unblock requests there were posted by an IP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano: Good point, will do. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Backlogging

Are you looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs too? I think we're making some progress. I even had an interesting keep. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I was. Is it weird that I look forward to that backlog everyday? Haha... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I only just discovered it, and I see you left no crumbs for me tonight. That's alright--I need to get to work anyway. Hey, whenever I see your name I remember that you actually put in the work in the ChildofMidnight SPI, and I'm still grateful for that. Later, Drmies (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Durgadas S Kamat

Looks like when you closed the afd Durgadas S Kamat for deletion you didn't get rid of the article as it is still here! Just wanted to point this out really quick! Well thanks for closing the AFD at least though! Wgolf (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is under Durgadas Kamat is why! Wgolf (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like someone did a redirect for the page without having it be kept to the old one, so now we know how come the page is still up with the AFD is closed. Well either way good job! Wgolf (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

He's back

the contribs might want to be revdeled too (or oversighted like the last name)... Flinders Petrie the Self-Hater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The real Flinders Petrie would have been deeply offended by that name as he was a decided narcissist. Who is this fellow? It's not this guy is it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Adar 5775 17:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee - I'm watching the user creation log. Should I let you know if I see this individual again? It seems like you all are on top of it, but figured I should ask. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm watching it closely as well, as are some other admins. I wouldn't waste your time on it. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay! Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

It looks like you were kind enough to remove something unpleasant from my talk page with lightning speed. I missed whatever it was though. If it's not too much trouble, could you give me the gist of it? Also, your job > my job, and I don't say that very often, haha. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Adar 5775 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's just say it was very colorful. ;) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Delightful. Internet tough guys are always good fun. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Adar 5775 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wake Self

You accidentally deleted the page prematurely, I was in the middle of editing it, and I have reposted it with some more information. I'm currently expanding New Mexico culture articles, sorry about the sloppy article prior. Please contact me next time I mess up. Smile Lee (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've currently put up the article for deletion via PROD... not currently seeing how he's notable. But, will do. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Re WordPressSEOExpert

I don't participate in reviews of my admin actions (other than to give clarification when requested, of course). If you think the editor should be unblocked, then you don't need my ok to do so. —Cryptic 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger that, cheers. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For backlog clearance

Appoligies but I couldnt resist this particular thank you for clearing out those backlogs that were breaking all the templates they were linked to. Amortias (T)(C) 21:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, my pleasure. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Alex Kerr (Loyalist) Review

As per Wikipedia policy I am to try to resolve any issues directly with you before I request a deletion review as you closed the discussion and decided to keep the article about Alex Kerr (loyalist). My primary concerns are in relation to Wikipedia policies in relation to biographies about living persons not being adhered to. There is a fundamental lack of depth of coverage in any of the sources cited and used within the article (prime example: the categorical statement that Kerr 'co-founded the LVF' is entirely without merit, the source which this is 'supported' by mentions the subject twice and does not categorically make any firm allegations, the article is therefore libellous).

Wikipedia policy: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." I would suggest that none of the editors in favour of keeping the article addressed any of my issues in relation to Wikipedia policy. I provided evidence that this article did not meet Wikipedia policy, I was instead criticised and censored (edits made by me were removed) for 'repeated comments' despite the fact I did not repeat myself and was merely providing factual evidence to support my position. The only arguments for keeping the article were along the lines of 'the subject is notable because of reliable sources.' This again is fundamentally wrong. The sources do not provide an adequate depth of coverage, as per Wikipedia policy (I did mention this in the discussion but it was deleted before you closed it). The grounds for notability have not been satisfied, the premise for notability rests on the subjects membership of a legal organisation (up until 1992) which tens of thousands of other people were also members of. Not all Mayors meet the notability criteria, what is the difference here? No criminal convictions or links to any major event have been attributable to the subject. Zoidberg262 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not my position to close AFDs against a clear consensus. The clear policy backed consensus was for the article to be kept, so it was. Feel free to take it to DRV if you wish. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sagar_Rana_Computer_Programmer

User:Patrick938 recreated an article you have deleted (Sagar_Rana) under a different name: Sagar_Rana_Computer_Programmer ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved; user indef blocked by another admin. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Imposter account

Hi Coffee, re: this reversion, the user is an obvious imposter of K6ka. I've reported to UAA, but if you're on duty, maybe you could handle it? Thx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Got 'em. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. I'm late to the game! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Emmay Entertainment & Motion Pictures LLP

I cannot see why you removed the speedy tag from this article and replaced it with a PROD. It's a classic db-corp, created by a SPA who is probably associated with this thoroughly insignificant company. Are you surprised that the PROD was removed without explanation? I thought not. I've replaced the speedy.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, but next time try to be less condescending. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but I'm still mystified. And you left no explanation or note on my talk page. I'd accept a judgement that the article should be taken to AfD, but PRODing an article like this is pointless since a dollar to a donut the page creator will remove it. Or an IP will.TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because there's no requirement that I do so. (referring to a talk page notice) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I call that condescending.TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just factual. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kaptinavenger

Since this user is blocked, would it be okay if I removed the LONG cut and pasted talk page conversations which they placed on their user page? I'd leave the userboxes and anything that is not a content discussion and, of course, the action can be reverted. I don't often edit user pages so I wanted to check it out with you first. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Liz: Please feel free to do so. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Coffee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Om Swami

Hi Coffee, Many thanks for declining the speedy deletion of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Swami. Can you please direct me as to what I can do to improve this page further so that the other tags currently on the article can be removed. Srihariom (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Road to Korogwe, with the Usambara Mountains. Tanzania.jpg

Hi Coffee. The file that you deleted locally was tagged on Commons. Please have a look. --Leyo 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Leyo: I've transferred the deleted source information to Commons. Thanks for the heads up! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But it wasn't visible at all, that the file had originally been uploaded to en.wikipedia. I thus added the original upload log. --Leyo 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leyo: Touché. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:ANI

Disagreeing with you is not a crime. I'm entitled to my opinion. Caden ^cool 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Caden: I would certainly hope not; quite the dystopian state that would be. And, yes you are, but it just so happens that your opinion doesn't mean jack shit if it's in conflict with our policies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion was not in conflict with our policies. He was involved. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that. Caden ^cool 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and have an absolutely pointless debate with you. You asked for a block review, and you got one. The end. Now quit harassing me, or you'll soon be joining thewolfchild. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Corbett at AE

Hi, I'm not particularly familiar with AE. Was there really consensus for this close? And should an admin who commented in the discussion be permitted to close it also? - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No consensus at AE is required to enforce the WP:ARBGGTF remedy, as any uninvolved administrator is able to do such enforcement at his own discretion. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. No point in AE then, really. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Sitush, given that the entire rationale for ArbCom is "sometimes consensus leads to no useful outcome because you have angry people on both sides", that is entirely the point in AE. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The same thing actually happened the last time he was blocked for AE. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No probs. I'm disappearing for 72 also. And Ironholds' barnstar below is sick. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	heh. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Ironholds:, if this barnstar is for the AE closing and blocking of Eric Corbett, then you should be ashamed of yourself. This sort of grave-dancing is juvenile in the extreme, and if you had left a diff showing proof of such, then you would now be sitting on the outside of a block right now. If I am mistaken in my assumptions, then I apologize; but I think it unlikely that I need to. — Ched :  ?  19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate to fail to hit the bar of maturity reached by a user who waxes lyrical on an editor's association with firearms and conspiracy-theorises. To be more clear, however; this is indeed for the blocking of Eric. And it's not because wooo, grave dancing - it's because I can count on one hand the number of administrators actually willing to block Eric, and having any editor who is block-proof, regardless of who that editor is, swiftly becomes tiresome. I think Coffee demonstrated a lot of courage by making the block; this barnstar is for that courage, whatever it was demonstrated through. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Unblock clarification requested

I'm very surprised to see that you unblocked Rationalobserver. Have you notified Ddstretch? I'm about to request a review at AN, so consider this a notification. I've been offline for a few days and only now working my way through diffs but there has been a lot of disruption that began with me a week ago. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle: Blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive. As the editor made a statement that seemed to show they understood why they were blocked and would not repeat the behavior, it was perfectly rational for me to unblock them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of disruption, I have to question that. In the least I'd request that you notify Ddstretch who seems to have been following the sequence. I won't bother to bore you with it here since you've made up your mind and opening another drama board thread will be just that, so I'll leave it with your opinion that your action was rational and I'll disengage again. Thanks for the reply. Victoria (tk) 19:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle: If the user continues any form of disruption, believe me, I'll be the first to block them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Set your calendar, then. She appears to last approximately six or seven days until she falls back into bad habits again. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, Viriditas: Roger that. If I miss her starting to be disruptive again, please feel free to notify me immediately and I'll take care of it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that an Ddstretch (who will be overwhelmed with pings) already made that decision based on following the evidence closely. The AE thread was less than 24 hours old, I would have added relevant evidence had I been around and was just reading through it, and it looks as though you've undone a good block under the pretense of political correctness - unblocking a woman and blocking Eric Corbett. It only perpetuates unnecessary drama. Victoria (tk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, The unblock had nothing to do with her being a woman, or political correctness. I was simply going through WP:RFUB as usual, and happened across her unblock request which I treated as I do all unblock requests. This was in no way a judgment against Ddstretch's administrative judgment, merely an accepted unblock request based purely on its own merits. Like I said, if the behavior that got her blocked happens again I'll be the first to re-block. Re-blocks are cheap, as they say. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am slightly surprised that you did not discuss this with me, since section 8.1 of WP:BP states "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." As far as I can tell, the editor in question has edited out the protests she made that she had done nothing wrong less than a day previously (and the subsequent "egging on" by Knowledgekid87), and had, in fact, gone on to make insulting comments on another user's talk page for which she had also been warned (not by me). My block was preventative and done in full knowledge of a continued pattern of bad behaviour that had been pointed out to her previously, and which had resulted in an admission of her bad behaviour and an undertaking to not do it again. Furthermore, she has a history of problems with Eric Corbett, and in the opinion of many had gone to an article to edit it and ask Eric for help in full knowledge that she had tried to get him blocked previously. When he, unsurprisingly, politely declined, she launched the attacks that I quoted. Given her inability to put down the stick, I would have preferred to see more than, at most, one day in between her protestations of having done nothing wrong, and her admission of guilt, etc. The two weeks were preventative because of the cycle of repentance and re-emergence of problems that happens. However, what is done is done, and we just have to wait and see if yet more disruption now happens, even for a small amount of time, until action is taken next. I just think you accepted the unblock request a little too quickly, given my knowledge of what has happened in the past with her. But, as I said, time will tell now.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DDStretch: I truly hope there's no hard feelings here, I just moved forward in the same motion that I'm used to when I made this judgment. As she promised to not continue her disruptive behavior, I'd say a 6 month block would be in order if the same type of behavior comes back. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. By the way, you may see the beginnings of more stirring up problems on Knowledgekid87's talk page. And I would not be at all surprised if some "revenge" action began. Ok. It is too late here in China, and I should have been asleep many hours ago.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)