User talk:Samsara

Archives

Threads		Dates	Archive
1 to	39	September 2003 to February 20 2006	0
40 to	82	February 20 2006 to March 19 2006	1
83 to	101	up to and all of May 2006	2
102 to	121	June 2006	3
122 to	169	July 2006	4
170 to	203	1 to August 19 2006	5
204 to	234	19 August to 30 September 2006	6
235 to	266	October 2006	7
267 to	305	November 2006	8
306 to	344	December 2006	9
345 to	384	January to April 2007	10
385 to	440	May to December 2007	11
441 to	471	December 2007 to February 2008	12
472 to	544	2008-2012	13
545 to	626	2013-September 2015	14
627 to	695	October 2015-2016	15
696 to	725	First half of 2017	16
			RfC invites 00

---

Protection request

Persistent vandalism just like Song Joong-ki's page due to recent engagement news Pain and Powed (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Song_Hye-kyo&action=history

14 years!

Happy 14th wiki-anniversary in advance.
—usernamekiran(talk) 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Usernamekiran, kind of you to notice and say so. :) Samsara 13:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Samsara. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:05, 13 July 2017 (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.

— fortunavelut luna 14:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sing (My Chemical Romance song)

I see that on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection you said that Sing will be semi-protected for a period of 10 weeks but on the page for Sing I noticed that the page is not protected yet. Bowling is life (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: The display of locks is not automatic, but done by a template. This is a long term known flaw/feature of mediawiki - there's a link on my userpage if you want to know more about it. Samsara 22:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added the template now - you can always check the history to see if something is protected. Samsara 23:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Dera Samsara,

Thank you for all you've done in supporting my work on the Sony E-mount lens articles and for talking with User:Usernamekiran. I've been absent as of late due to home life and multiple family emergencies occurring all at once, which has mad doing much difficult as of late. However, I am glad that the majority of the articles in jeopardy have been cleared.

- Raine

Chevy111 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Chevy111 - pleased to meet you! Of course, family must always go first - please take good care of them! I've sometimes thought it unfortunate that some of Wikipedia's processes DO work towards a deadline - I personally lean towards Wikipedia:There is no deadline#View two: Don't rush to delete articles, but that may not be reflected by the people typically attracted to AfD. I was happy to see that usernamekiran offered to help. I look forward to seeing that collaboration begin, and will try to continue to personally contribute as well. Thanks again, for now, for all the good work you've put in! Looking forward to more. Best, Samsara 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Samsara :)
Hi Raine I hope all is well with you, and your family. I wanted to let you know that it wasnt Samsara's words that changed my mind, but it was the passion of both of you that did the trick. :)
Although I respected Samsara before this AfD incident, his polite demeanour through this debacle, and his passion obviously, increased my respect for him further. Also, I am not at all attracted towrds deletion. I always think of deletion as a lost resort, it can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barel. But unfortunately I have been casting a lot of delete votes recently.

The reason I pinged you both, is an essay that I have been working on since almost a month a now. I would appriciate it very much if both you provide your opinions of the talk-page of that essay. Also, this very essay was a reason why I nominated these articles. User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices). There is no hurry at all regarding your comments. Just to be on the safe-side, I will add a DNAU notice for the bot. I hope Samsara wouldn't mind. :)
See you guys around. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Geological ranges in taxoboxes

As present isn't a geological epoch people might not want it used in statements of geological ranges. Recent is an epoch, but the Holocene article states that it is invalid under current rules. My opinion is that Holocene is the appropriate usage, but it might be worth raising the issue at WP:TOL (and other relevant major biological projects). (I changed Cycad to say Holocene, before discovering that you had made similar changes elsewhere.) Lavateraguy (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: I did not change any articles that already said "Holocene". I do think "Recent" is potentially confusing, and I observed that many of the more edited articles and many of the higher taxonomic levels (phylum, order, etc.) already used "present", presumably because of this reason. If you want to change all articles to "Holocene", I will not stand in your way, but it's also not a battle I will fight on your behalf. :) As a minor point of interest, I believe I discovered that if the template is given names of epochs as parameters, and if the most recent point is given as any string that isn't recognised as an epoch, the template will behave as though Holocene was specified, and display as though the taxon is extant or extant until "recently" (for some value of "recent" - not sure off-hand how much non-recency a pixel's width would imply). Best, Samsara 02:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

PS In some edit summaries, I referenced MOS:JARGON, which arguably bears on this case. Samsara 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation pages with potential has been nominated for discussion

Category:Disambiguation pages with potential, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pariah24 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2010 protection

Greeting, Samsara

I wonder if I could have a word with you about the Microsoft Office 2010 article, which you have protected on the grounds of content dispute. I am afraid this is a case of editor harassment, not content dispute.

The 2601:5c2:200:31ae:f15b:f5c2:8a8c:9212 belongs to a very well-known stalker who exclusively chases Codename Lisa around Wikipedia and reverts her. (This type of harassment is explained in WP:HOUND.) Although he contributes (=attacks) from different IP addresses, his IP ranges are known. Example of what he did in the past:

• [1]: Committed revert-vandalism in List of typefaces included with Microsoft Windows, brazenly claiming that PP (page protection) won't stop him. (He is unrelated to the IP that originally vandalized that page.)
  • This IP range is blocked by Materialscientist for harassment. Clearly, there has been many other instances of harassment from this range.
• [2]: The edit summary of this revert reads: "Another editor was asking for clarification which you did not provide." No. Not another editor. Codename Lisa herself had asked for clarification. Later changed her own mind. But any excuse for harassment, right?
  • This IP range is blocked by Mr. Stradivarius for harassment.
• [3], [4], [5], [6]: Tried bad-mouthing Codename Lisa in four admin's talk pages. Mr. Stradivarius blocked his IP range.
• [7]: Grossly insulted Mr. Stradivarius for blocking his other IP range.
  • This IP range is blocked by Materialscientist for harassment.
• [8]: Tried to do revert-harassment in ANI. Another admin dealt with it.
  • This IP range is blocked by Materialscientist for harassment.

This isn't a full list. (I am not in the habit of keeping a list of what a third-party does to another third-party.) But Codename Lisa keeps a full list along with IP geolocation information.

Now, you are probably asking what is my interest this matter? Well, Microsoft Office 2010 is now showing wrong info because of the work of a malicious person who was smart enough to write an average edit summary.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand:

m:WRONG VERSION Samsara 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And here is his latest vandalism today: [9] Changing some dates to something random. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not have checkuser to confirm that. I'm also concerned that you may be misrepresenting the situation. What triggered my involvement was an edit by RecentEdits who has edited a variety of topics not known to me to have any particular connection with Codename Lisa, and who looks to be an editor in good standing. The edit was summarily reverted partly based on containing weasel words, but that is always poor reasoning as weasel words can simply be removed. Furthermore, no attempt was made to find a source that clearly states that XP is not affected - I would expect this to be easy to do, if only in the phrase "versions of Windows prior to [some version] are not affected". As the dispute seemed to be spreading to engulf other articles, I decided to pull the brakes. The reason for this spread may well be the harassment you describe. However, also note that protecting for disputes nearly ALWAYS generates the sort of complaint that you've just shown, which is why (1) (I suspect) most admins pick those "fights" quite carefully, and (2) the mere fact that you responded in this already-anticipated way holds no particular weight. The time would have been better spent on resolving the dispute.

The bottom line is that if you want to build a case page for this harrassment, I'm the wrong person to turn to as I don't have CU available, but it seems to me that a valid question was raised by RecentEdits. Based on your query, I just looked this up, and it turns out that Microsoft does remark on disabling the feature underlying Petya vulnerability in Windows XP.[10] That being true, it would be easy to see how an editor might be frustrated at having the entire material reverted, and suspect a conflict of interest on the part of the reverting editor. So I would encourage you to go to some more effort to convincingly clarify whether this is or isn't an issue that can affect XP and merits inclusion in the article. Petya was front page news, so I think the issue of notability is already sufficiently addressed. We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone! Focus on content, not the contributor!

I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals.

Regards, Samsara 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Samsara

How do you do?

I see that FleetCommand started this post about the Microsoft Office 2010 article but your response is exclusively about the Windows XP article. But there are few mistakes in your message that I feel I must address anyway:

• I do not have checkuser to confirm that. You cannot use CU to confirm that; you need the geolocation tool that you (and I) already have. (CU does something entirely different.) Other people who have attended this case were all admins, such as yourself. The question is: Assuming you could see the truth full and untarnish, would you have attended this case?
• We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone! Quite true. But the sordid fact is that vandalism, COI, spam, harassment, socking, hounding, lobbying and disruptive editing has been part of our effort to build this encyclopedia. The important fact is: You say this sentence when you know for sure that the accusation is false and non-constructive.
• Focus on content, not the contributor! If ask so, then so be it. This contribution is false: The source says so.
• I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals. This person had been hounding me for four years. There is no end and no resolution in view. Of course, I personally do not insist that you lift this protection; it is suboptimal but not a catastrophe at all. (If the situation was serious, I'd have presented my evidence in ANI and asked the admins who previously dealt with the person to reduce the protection.) While you and I are not here for a victory, this certain hound definitely is. And getting this certain poor edit to stick for 8 years is the biggest victory he has achieved to this day. Let's let him have that. After all, he wastes his numbered days in this world on a futile effort to disrupt Wikipedia and spends his afterlife getting punished for it. The way I see it, he is the true loser in this whole affair.

By the way, there is something I always wanted to ask you: How do you manage to become an admin with only 23715 edits? That's quite an accomplishment. (No, I am not being sarcastic; I have been to many RFAs.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for initially supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. I regret that the behavior of some immature editors led you to withdraw your support. I will remember your initial support and will do my best to regain your support as time goes by. Please do not hesitate to give me advice at any time, as I ease into my new role as administrator. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for this well thought out note. I should say clearly that withdrawing the !vote was done only for the stated reason - I think it important that we give admin candidates thorough consideration, and - which has been a problem over the last year or so, and is mentioned here as an aside - treat opposers with respect. I saw that some people expressed a belief that admins with particularly well-supported RfAs do not always live up to community expectations (which did not factor into my vote or subsequent withdrawal). I can think of many reasons why this might be so, but I am heartened by you taking criticism seriously, and am hopeful that you can avoid this pitfall.

While I've had active periods as an admin, now isn't one of them, so my "case knowledge" may be limited, but if you ever want to get a second opinion or some such, feel free to call on me. Best wishes, Samsara 07:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Sean Spicer

Hello. The original expiration date for semi-protection was February 2022. Can it be changed back, or can you extend time a little bit? --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for mentioning it. Samsara 04:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsara, having noticed this, I think you might want to look at related issues at White House Press Secretary; for the last two weeks, there has been a slow-moving edit war between a number of different contributors (extended confirmed, autoconfirmed and IP), some of whom are involved at Sean Spicer now. I took the matter to EdJohnston the other day (he had previously banned one of the parties for edit warring), suggesting page protection, but he didn't seem to agree it was warranted (though many of the reversions had not been made at that point). I became aware of the situation after being RfC'd to the talk page, where I found a pretty toxic situation. So after Ed declined my suggestion, I decided the leave the situation alone, rather than take it to RFPP. To be clear, it looks like the edit warring has died down, owing to the sourcing becoming clearer (which is what I was hoping would happen, so no more direct action was necesary), but you may want to review the last couple of pages of the revision history, because there were a couple dozen reverts and some of these editors seem to be edit warring unchecked across multiple pages under discretionary sanctions, relating to American national politics. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Per policy, White House Press Secretary and Sarah Huckabee Sanders would both need to go under full protection. However, the admin corps is no longer fully supportive of such actions. Regards, Samsara 08:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh. I hadn't realized such a strong aversion to full protection had developed. That explains Ed's hesitance. Well, I just hope the edit war ends when the current bone of contention (who is officially press secretary) shortly becomes moot. Unfortunately, having discovered that this contest of wills apparently spans several articles, I suspect that its more likely that this will end with someone falling afoul of discretionary sanctions on the wrong page. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Happening to notice my name in this thread, I looked at White House Press Secretary again. The prior discussion on my talk was at this link. Since problems are ongoing, I've gone ahead with two months of WP:ECP for the article. (User:Ad Orientem had previously applied two days of ECP in late July but this protection had expired). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That's just giving a leg up to one side in the dispute, and may stop them from taking much further interest in the discussion here. I'm half inclined to suggest to Ronen7668 to run an RfC, but not really sure that this makes things better in the big picture. Samsara 14:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Samsara. When Arbcom authorizes discretionary sanctions for a topic area it surely implies that restrictions on editing may be applied to stop abuse, even at the cost of some inconvenience to less-experienced editors. If you check Talk:White House Press Secretary you probably won't find any posts there by anyone with less than 500 edits since February, except for a single IP post on 22 July. So if there is any desire by new editors to participate in good-faith discussion we don't yet see evidence of it on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comments make me unsure of whether you realise that the same conflict spans both articles. Samsara 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For what my non-admin opinion is worth here, I'm somewhere between you two. I think any amount of protection may be for the better; even though, as Samsara points out, it actually gives one side an advantage and rewards disruptive behaviour, it will hopefully at least forestall the edit war some. That said, the vast majority of the edit warring took place between veteran editors with full permissions who should have known better. They edit warred for weeks (sometimes up the point of 3RR, sometimes slower) on a discretionary sanctions article, while a consensus discussion (which was only itself opened because they were admonished at ANI) was under way. And at least one of them seems to have abused rollback rights during the edit warring.

I suppose I understand the hesitance to go full protection on such high traffic articles, but maybe some warnings / pointed reminders that these articles are under DS would suffice? They would have to come from a mop though; the parties doing the edit warring have not shown a high degree of responsiveness to the rank and file. I had considered mentioning the edit war myself at AE or AN3, but after getting a first-hand impression of some of the parties involved at the RfC, I decided I did not care to get that deeply involved. At this point, I think only an admin could restrain the behaviour without being sucked into the dispute. Of course, the worst of the edit warring seems to have passed (at least at White House Press Secretary), so maybe warnings would be stale and superfluous at this point. But I'd not be surprised to find these editors edit warring on the same pages again before long. I don't know, you two are better qualified to determine how to handle it at this stage as the disruption is dying down. But I'm glad the two of your are aware of what has been going on, in case the edit warring resumes. Sorry for the very long-winded post on your TP, Samsara; I wanted to provide all of the context I could so that I can walk away from the matter altogether this time, satisfied that I've done what I could, short of an AE filing I really didn't want to make. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

List of European countreis by average wage

Have a look to User talk : Galgah and hungarian IPs in this page to prevent vandalism and original researches.I already stopped him once.Thanks.Benniejets (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Benniejets: Your problem is with all the 84.* IPs and with Galgah? Thanks for clarifying. Samsara 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

They are the same person.84.* is from Budapest area and Galgah writes about hungarian subjects.He also wrote the same things of 84* in the article.User talk:Csalinka is another username of this guy.He uses also this one to write always the same things in the article in the last days.There's evidence and they should be blocked.Thanks again for your attention.Benniejets (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if a rangeblock might be a good solution. Samsara 17:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You realized the not correct position of this guy and the risks for the article to be vandalized with original numbers. Thanks Samsara.

Hi again, Benniejets. Given that there are two logged-in users involved, I would suggest that you report the issue to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Regards, Samsara 17:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I followed your suggest.What about locking article?ThanksBenniejets (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

With up to thirty edits a day, and only one or two coming from those IPs or accounts, I think any protection would be more disruptive than the problematic edits themselves. But once you have a checkuser result, things will be much more straightforward in terms of getting blocks and rangeblocks. Hope this helps, Samsara 19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

I didn't know there was a policy specifically regarding the protection of Latin letters. Can you point me to it? Thanks, Enigma^msg 15:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: If you look at my RfPP contribs, you'll see that I classify all my actions by subject area, for possible future statistics purposes. Regards, Samsara 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for volunteering to do page protection review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Samsara. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

pbp 14:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Replied. Samsara 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And replied pbp 18:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi for two related articles please?

Morning! You recently semi-protected Linkage disequilibrium after it came off its previous pp and immediately got hit with the same refspam again. Could you please do the same thing for Supergene and Co-adaptation, which are subject to the same treatment? (came off semi and got spammed again right away) Thank you! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Samsara 15:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jess Glynne discography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What did you mean by "the effect of [pending changes] is not expected to kick in until after the IP first encounters it"? Their pending revision was accepted before I even knew it had happened, by an editor who somehow didn't know it was blatantly false information. This IP will just keep changing the page and having their revision accepted by editors who don't know it's vandalism, then it will need to keep being reverted, so it just feels like there is no protection status on the page at all (or at least, it's not having the intended effect). Ss112 02:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that an IP will not reduce editing frequency until after the first time they realise their changes aren't displayed live. @Snow Rise: Your pending change reviewing is being discussed. Samsara 02:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Samsara, I appreciate the ping. :) Ss112, I studied that edit for a long moment trying to figure out if it was a good faith improvement. Since I was uncertain about it, I should have reviewed the edit history in more detail than I apparently did. I will say this in my defense: looking at it, it seems you didn't leave an edit summary for you revert (which you always should for any reversion, regardless of context), which might have made the back and forth stand out more. That said, Samsara's edit protection notice was just a few items down in the log, so I should have seen the dispute regardless and it was clearly a lapse in my own process. I wouldn't panic about pending changes not being up to the task; it mostly suffices and you're unlikely to get two reviewers in a row missing the context. Since I now know there is a controversy on the sourcing for this content, I will watch the page and reject any identical proposed edit that may be forthcoming from the IP in the next couple of days, with a note that they should take the issue to the talk page (also something your edit summaries should suggest, if you are going to be edit warring with the IP, even if you are on the right side of WP:V). Will that address your concerns? Snow ^{let's rap} 03:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Why are you treating this like a content dispute? They're making up song titles, and adding peaks and certifications that don't even exist. That is blatant vandalism in my eyes. There's nothing to explain in the reverts and if I were not reverting vandalism, I would leave an edit summary. I'm well aware of the etiquette. Anybody can do a simple Google search (if they don't know who Jess Glynne is) and find out that all the songs this IP is insisting on adding don't even exist (at least, they're not hers). It's not a "controversy over sourcing". They are outright inventing information: please look at this diff again. Release dates for albums in 2021, 2027 and beyond? I don't think reverting that needs to be explained and I don't mean to be rude, but I'm stumped as to how you studied that for very long and didn't work out it's not constructive—chart positions and certifications for albums that haven't even been released? Albums coming out in 2035? Same here and here. Obviously the IP is having fun making up things, because what they're adding isn't even consistent between edits. There's nothing for them to discuss, and they won't anyway as I'm sure they're well aware what they're adding is made up. Ss112 04:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're certainly not required to explain reversion of vandalism in an edit summary, but it's still advisable, precisely because it can prevent any ambiguity about the edit in a situation like this (though I am sorry to have missed the dates that would have flagged that as vandalism, regardless). I'm sorry to have gone out on AGF here where it wasn't warranted, but I'm not sure what more I can do for you but to keep an eye on the page and revert any further repetition of the edit. I can appreciate your being a little frustrated here, but just give the protection scheme a little time; the IP will get tired of this game soon enough, assuming no one repeats my mistake, and my next revert will include an edit summary that flags the issue for any reviewer that comes after me, to reduce the likelihood of that happening. Pending changes protection isn't perfect, but with a little patience, it usually quiets trolling before long. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you would revert any repetitions of clearly made up albums and singles, that would be appreciated, yes. Thanks. Ss112 04:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Surely: I just wish there was more to be done about the vandal but to freeze them out; they seem to be doing this to other discographies ([11]), but are jumping too rapidly between IPs (which are not, unfortunately, within a blockable range). We'll just have to wait the juvenile behaviour out. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Burn

IP editor is back. May need a year of protection since they are using multiple IPs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: What are the earliest edits you assign to this editor? Samsara 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

These ones anyway [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

On that basis, I've given it three months, and if that doesn't stop it, I'd think going for at least a year would be called for. Cheers, Samsara 00:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Chris Pratt

Thanks for the protection that page was clogging up my watch list. Whispering 03:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, Samsara 04:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello S. I understand why you removed your protection on Basic income (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but you should be aware that the blanking has started again. I had requested the RFPP based on the fact that it is so easy for those IPv6 IPs to change. If the blanking is still going on when you have a chance to see this would please consider restoring the protection. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

As you know, we don't protect pre-emptively, so until we see that the IP is changing and disruption continues, a block can be the appropriate resolution of an RfPP request. Seeing that the disruption has continued with a new IP, I've now semi-protected. Samsara 04:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk

Yikes "IPv6 IPs" is a Dept of Redundancy Dept violation. I usually try and avoid those :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again S. I wanted to let you know that another IP has shown up blanking huge sections of the article since the last protection expired. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 13:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent Page Protection - August 2017: My Pillow

Hey there. Just a quick concern:

I noticed you put the article in question into temporary protection, but where's the protection icon on the article? Usually, when a page is protected, the history log shows two edits in regards to that, of which one includes the padlock icon that appears in the top right of the article. GUtt01 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Usually bots or helpful editors will insert the lock within a few hours. There may be rare cases where the lock is deliberately left off, but you can usually apply it yourself. (Note though, that bots will also remove it if it is applied to pages that are not protected.) I'm not aware of any sanctions ever being enacted against anyone for simply placing the lock, although you probably shouldn't edit-war with any of the bots. ;)

I've now applied it manually for you. Samsara 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Norton LiveUpdate

Hi, I saw that on RFPP you were discussing the protection of Norton LiveUpdate. I think 24 hours of full would be the best way of going about this because it's obviously a content dispute and semi protection would be basically saying that we're siding with the logged in users. What do you think? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thanks for the message. I don't see how it can hurt. In the long run, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to work towards a consensus that paraphrases the source more closely, which seems to be the issue behind this. If you look at the timestamps, it now seems likely that the IP won't return to the article, but I could be wrong. I think dropping an entire section because a part of one sentence wasn't covered by the reference violates the "what if everybody did that" test for maintaining Wikipedia in good shape. Samsara 12:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Right. I've given it 24 hours in the hopes that some people will discuss the issue of the section, even if the IP doesn't contribute. The section had been there for years before, so a discussion would be nice. I'll copy this over to RFPP in just a sec. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Did you invite the parties? Samsara 11:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I left a message on the RFPP page asking people to discuss the issue on the talk, but no, I didn't contact anyone directly. I'm hoping that by the lack of enthusiasm it's all passed now anyway. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: It started up again. So can we go and fix this with close paraphrasing, or are you not motivated? Samsara 10:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion going on at Talk:Norton LiveUpdate, but only people supporting the removal have commented so far. I'm going to leave a comment over at the talk page of the most recent IP in hopes that they come and discuss it to. I've got no interest in the topic and I know very little about it. Do you think we should hit it with 3 days of full to stop the war from continuing? Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I don't think this will be resolved without resolving it, if you see what I mean. Further PP at this point will just drag out the conflict. Samsara 11:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but it can't be resolved if people keep warring over the article and the only ways to stop this is to get them to discuss, or to protect it. There's a discussion open but there has been no contributions from any opposing sides (inclusion of the para). The most recent IP has been blocked again for 3RR (which is why I didn't leave them any comments), and if others continue to revert the IPs then they might tread into 3RR too. Up to you as to what we do. I'm fine with leaving it all alone and letting it play out on the talk page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: My experience is that if one makes an edit that neither side can reasonably argue with, conflict will often stop. Samsara 11:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Grey-headed woodpecker

On 14 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grey-headed woodpecker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the grey-headed woodpecker (pictured) was split into three separate species in 2014? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grey-headed woodpecker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grey-headed woodpecker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 01:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

not you, the other guy

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Algerian War

Hello, can you tell me please why you did put the page under protection but don't really protect it from the stupid things that some are adding there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.24 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You should present your concerns at the article talk page, Talk:Algerian War. Best, Samsara 14:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Unite the Right rally

Good work with trying to maintain that page and locking it... I would have liked to put clearer info in it, but allot of members seem to not want that. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Usually, making a good argument for the notability of a detail on the talk page is your best shot. Regards, Samsara 04:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I gotta Tell You Something

Change The Loud House protection level to 6 months because I want to edit it, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B029:942B:145D:87F0:B3D2:B364 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have something important to add, you can make an edit request. Regards. Samsara 04:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

edit request? You know maybe block users who are disruptive because anonymous users love disruptive edits because they're funny to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B003:A4EB:2D97:F227:9AA8:BBA5 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Christiaan Barnard

You questioned my contribution on the Dr's page stating that perhaps his views on race had no place in the wiki.Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Yet you allow a section on his public life to stand, which; a) paints his views on race positively. Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) b) was completely not cited (the only citation was to a url which does not exist).Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But, now all of a sudden, you have a problem with his negative views on the topic being on the wiki. What level of hypocrisy is that?Zamorin1851 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it is only his brother that sought political office, but apparently he is not notable enough to have an article. So if even his brother, who DID go into politics, doesn't have an article, and the lede does not mention politics at all, then I think doubt is in order as to whether there should be such a section in the article. With the first version of your insertion, you demonstrated that such a section is likely to attract some rather novel claims. The fact that you've now come to my talk page to make further accusations casts additional doubt over your motivations for contributing. Samsara 04:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well,the very first paragraph of the public life section talks about his own views on race relations. Why let that stand without citation? Is that paragraph not POV? I am do this because I see this sort of thing all too often. Zamorin1851 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) My motivation is simple, to add information about him which was not on the page. Is that not the idea anyway. I am also forthright in stating why I see objections such as the one you yourself raised. To me it is the height of hypocrisy to object to my info based on a cited interview while letting stand the previous entry which carried no citations and is arguably POV. I also note you sidestepped the essence of my question to you. If you want to attribute my motives to something else, have at it. Be my guestZamorin1851 (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it not interesting that even now, after all this back and forth, you and the others of similar persuasion have no problem to the sentence presenting his views on race as being progressive, though still not cited! If your goal was to improve Wikipedia and do it with fairness, what explains that? After all you clearly must have read that very first line and decided, "well, this one stays"Zamorin1851 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Next time, just read my comment more carefully, please. My doubts apply to the entire section, as stated clearly above. Samsara 08:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Google memo article protection

[13] The request was for semi-protection not full protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RfPP is not McDrive. Samsara 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What does that even mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It probably means that you don't always get what you ordered. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you brand-new-single-purpose-account-with-six-edits-created-just-to-push-POV-on-articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: could you kindly cease the personal attacks against me. Please stop making spurious accusations and go read WP:CIV, WP:HAR and WP:NPA. A long time user like you should know better. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think protection until we reach consensus was a good idea, thanks. VM's removed the content 3 or 4 times so I don't see how we get consensus without him but this (1, 2, 3) isn't getting us any closer. I try to steer the focus back to content and get nothing of substance to respond to: 4. I'd appreciate some guidance. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Creating an essay?

Hi. We got off on sort of wrong foot. For people who are not familiar with cameras, there can certainly be a confusion about notability of them. Would you like to write an essay about it? I have been writing a counter essay for mobiles since ages lol. Maybe we can request Chevvy to contribute to camera essay. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89/PeopleWhoVandMe

I've been told that this page may be doing more harm than good. So just kill it. I have other ways to track the socks. And SALT it, too, please. pbp 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Please re protect "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals". 63.96.90.212 is trying to put back "undocumented" again, despite consensus in the talk page to the contrary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That silver padlock...

Hi, you semi-protected the Shooting of Kian delos Santos article, but I don't see the silver padlock atop it. Has this really been semi-protected? Thanks, SLIGHTLY^mad 04:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: The padlock is (currently, see my userpage for links to more details) decorative and on a technical level has nothing to do with protection. A bot will usually place it, but this seems to have become intermittent lately. I've done it manually for you. Regards, Samsara 08:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Topal Osman

Samsara, I am new to this and do not know if this is the right forum for the following.

On 30 jan 2017 you made an entry regarding freezing some information regarding armenian massacres. What does this mean? Was the 4200 character information added back? If not ,can we now add it back?

I am currently having a problem with a user who appears to be biased and continually removes one of my entries.

Could you please look at talk page for topal osman. I would appreciate your advice on what should be done.

Veritylookingfortruth

Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Veritylookingfortruth: These issues are usually decided on the strength of sources. It looks like you haven't indicated what sources (books etc.) you are working from. Samsara 19:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I can live with that.However if this is the case then shouldnt the ergenekon sentencw be removed as well as it has no citation?

Also,what about the armenian information removed and added many times? What does freeze mean? If not added back already when can we do so?

Regards, Veritylookingfortruth Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Can you give any commentary on this? Sources you have available, perhaps? Thanks. Samsara 20:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RPP query

Hi there! Page has been protected but just to answer your question, the section is Talk:Mansplaining#Mention_at_the_lead. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Samsara 07:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (2)

You have protected this article upon request on August 24. Please re-consider whether in view of the articles's history a mere semi-protection could be sufficient, given that the edit warring was performed only by IP's or very recent "new users" and that the article's talk page presently shows that further editing by WP authors would make sense. Thanks --Chris Howard (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Answered on article talk. Samsara 07:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent Difficulties

I am commenting here to avoid disrupting your thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard.

I have had persistent difficulties with VM who insists there are roving bands of IPs (and sock-puppet editors) conspiring against him, across several topics, as a means to justify edit-warring and aggressiveness. This justification is easily testable, as he exhibits the same behavior with established editors. The behavior is most prominent in political articles.

I should mention I have been on the receiving end of this behavior. He has responded to several of my comments on article talk pages solely to accuse me of stalking and harassment, without addressing content or policy [1] [2] [3] - there are many more examples. This persists even in articles which I was the first to edit [1]. This is arguably the worst of his behavior but by no means the extent of it.

If the behavior were limited to our interactions it would prompt serious self-reflection, but I haven't experienced such hostile interactions with other editors, and VM has them with many. He has escaped several dozen complaints against him without sanction by obfuscating and deflecting until administrators lose interest. His apparent immunity to sanction seems only to have emboldened him. I have recently limited my article editing partly to avoid confrontation but there is a longterm problem that needs to be addressed. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Saiz

Hi. You have protected the Samuel Saiz page so I can not correct the seasonal appearance tables ... it is missing a Leeds United Totals row. And does it really need to be protected for as long as you have done so, attacks on Leeds players tend to die down a week or so after they sign/leave Exeter White (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

DREAM Act

Volunteer Marek has now started the same type of actions on the DREAM Act page as he has been doing on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals page. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Samsara, I have just done what I believe should have been done earlier: I blocked this editor for disruption, including POV pushing, edit warring, and bad-faith reports. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, which edits did you consider to be calling for this block? Samsara 12:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mostly all of them, except for two other article edits. I outlined them at the AN thread. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Time to Quit Protecting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals page

The program is done and covering up the facts is unacceptable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Despite the rude tone of the above, there is actually a good reason to lower protection at this point, and a request to do so has been made at RFPP. I have gotten WP:INVOLVED at that article (I edited through the protection to add today's important news) but I endorse the idea of lowering protection, possibly to Extended Confirmed, possibly even to semi, with the proviso that people must refrain from edit warring over "illegal" vs. "undocumented" while the protection is lowered. I have proposed, on the article talk page and at the RfPP request, that if even one person makes an edit on that subject then full protection would be restored. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Samsara! The full protection has now expired so these requests are moot. I have put on semi-protection for now since there was IP vandalism. Any additional protection will be your call. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to lower protection of DACA article

Hi, could you please lower the protection for the DACA article? It contains some inaccurate statements and is poorly formated but confirmed users like myself can't edit it. Article views just increased x20 within the last three days. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation for all you do...

	The Herculean Award
	Neutralizing an advocacy is like decapitating the Lernaean Hydra
	Heracles cried out, and the Hydra "quacked" back. Where there was once one head, two more appeared. And then a giant crab came to assist the Hydra.
	Atsme📞📧 13:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [14]

South Park (season 21)

Hello. It's continued! Can you unlock the page? 31.223.133.218 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Move Request

Question, I wonder if it's possible for you to close this move reqiest: Talk:Celebrity_Big_Brother#Requested_move_10_September_2017? From what I can tell the majority of move requests usually sit around in the backlog. If you can close it thanks! If not do you have any other suggestions? (I can't close it myself as I'm involved.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you tried to close it but those instructions on the template can be confusing try: Wikipedia:Simple_RM_closing_instructions that really helped me my first time. Basically it's just adding the template to the beginning and end then replacing "result" with "moved" or "not moved". (Then actually moving the page if that's the result.) And again I'm sorry if I'm being a bother I just don't want it sitting around in the backlog. TheDoctorWho (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

When I looked at this in detail, it looked like a split result between "Celebrity Big Brother (UK)" and "Celebrity Big Brother (UK TV series)". I'm not familiar with the specific conflict(s) that spawned the cited guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)), so it's unclear to me if the guideline was intended for this particular scenario, and hence it may or may not apply. My current thinking therefore would be to wait for input from more editors. Samsara 13:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that Amakuru has just done it now. Samsara 13:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Samsara, thanks for protecting anything Arab-Israeli related but you forgot to add the blue lock icon and create this one here for example for the protected pages in the bottom:

{{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}

Can you make one for Template:Editnotices/Page/Dome of the Rock, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Lebanon relations, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Syria relations, vice versa? Thanks. Wrestlingring (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I will look into this as soon as I have (free) time to breathe from clearing backlogs. Regards, Samsara 15:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mitchell Report (Arab–Israeli conflict)

I requested that ECP be placed on the page, which you reluctantly protected. However, at RfPP, you and Enigmaman had noted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that if they need to be protected, there should be disruption by non-extended confirmed editors, and not just because it relates to WP:ARBPIA3. I still made the request despite the fact there was not much disruption on the page. Do you think it really needs to be protected? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Hi, I protected based on this incident of disruption in 2009, which strictly speaking qualifies under the ArbCom order, so no admin could have declined the request. The other aspect is that once attention is drawn to articles by bringing them to RfPP, additional disruption may occur, so it may not now be a good idea to unprotect the article. The question of whether the article might be likely to be significantly developed by a new user does merit asking, especially since it's changed rather little compared to 2009. My general recommendation would be to first check if one is dealing with a sleeping dragon, and if confirmed, let that dragon sleep. Samsara 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao

The IP (possible sock) who had reinserted the same BLP problematic edit again should not be rewarded. I suggest you go back to last short version, as one editor seems unwilling to even start an RfC on the claims made. Thank you. Collect (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope my reply here addresses your concern. Samsara 15:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions

I removed a section from an article (that is under DS which states: 1 revert/24 hrs - must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article) because an RfC a few months ago determined (nonadmin close) that consensus was to retain the POV tag and that a rough consensus showed the section was noncompliant with one or more PAGs. As you know, NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, so removal of that section was justified. I am not aware of ever retaining noncompliant sections in a BLP for such a long period of time, so I simply removed it and a disruptive editor reverted my edit, the NPOV tag with it, and provided an incorrect edit summary. On the 9/24 another discussion began about a possible TNT of that section and based on what I read, a quick consensus indicated delete & rewrite, [15], [16]. Will you please look into this because we're looking at a BLP violation, a violation of consensus, and a possible violation of DS? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Samsara, if you could also look at this I'd appreciate it, thx. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Especially in view of VM's further reverting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Um... Anythingyouwant, you just added the phrase "Especially in view of VM's further reverting" and linked to a diff which shows me... restoring the tag. Are you honestly saying that's a revert? Are you honestly complaining about the fact I restored the tag, seeing as how you were actually complaining I removed it???????

You are: 1) pretending that my partial self-revert is another revert. This is dishonest.

and 2) you are pretending that there's something wrong with me undoing exactly what you wanted me to undo.

Do you not see that what you are doing is providing explicit evidence that you are not acting in good faith? I mean, if there was any doubt before, now it's pretty clear. Volunteer Marek  03:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The tag was removed by an editor other than yourself, and you restored it, which was a revert, and not a self-revert. Anyway, you violated 1RR even without that last revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You wanted the tag in there. You complained about the removal of the tag. But when I restore the tag - to satisfy you - you immediately call that a revert and try to turn that into a reason for block shopping? How low can you go? And no, I did not violate 1RR. Feel free to bring it up to 3RR or another proper venue rather than try to block-shop admins-you-think-hold-a-grudge-against-me (not saying Samsara does, just saying you and Atsme think they do) for a block. That's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GAME. (and of course if you wish to remove the NPOV tag, be my guest)  Volunteer Marek  13:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I did not complain about the removal of the tag, and have no opinion about it (not sure why that's relevant anyway). Nor did I "block shop", and am glad to go to AE if this is not resolved here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to undo my edit which restored the tag. As in remove it. Neither I nor anyone else will count that as a revert on your part. I would do it myself but I'm pretty certain that were I to do that someone would accuse me of reverting. So please, remove the tag since you're obviously complaining about my edit which restored it (sort of hard to deny that). Volunteer Marek  16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not once in the history of Wikipedia has any revert that is self-reverted been subsequently counted toward 1RR or 3RR. Moreover, I have no opinion about whether the tag should be in place, and even if my opinion were that it should be in place, I wouldn't feel like spending my one daily revert on that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Patently untrue since that is exactly what you're trying to do here. Feel free to undo my edit which restored the tag. I'm not gonna do it because I know someone - maybe not you, but someone - will try to use it against me. So please, since you think that's a revert, undo it. Show us you're serious and not just WP:WIKILAWYERing. Volunteer Marek  16:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am tired of responding to you here VM. Let's see what Samsara says. AFAIK, Samsara is an uninvolved admin, and "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So wait, is Samsara now like your go-to-he'll-ban-Marek-admin-guy or something? There's literally a couple dozen of administrators you could've brought this up with Atsme, including the ones already active on the talk page, but you come running to this one? Sort of obvious why. This is extremely bad faithed WP:GAME, WP:BATTLEGROUND and block-shopping. If you're gonna pull stunts like these you might as well try being a little less transparent (you might also look into what happened last time).

Anyway, Atsme, as you well know since you've been active in this topic area:

1) That whole "must not reinstate" thing has generally been deprecated by admins at WP:AE, but, if you insist, to the extent it applies...

2) ... you got it backwards. This text has been in the article a long time. There was even an RfC on it and the closure stated it should remain allowed it to remain. Hence by removing the section from the article YOU are the one violating DS by not obtaining consensus on talk first. YOU should have started a discussion rather than trying to sneak through unilaterally.

The idea that it's "noncompliant" is just your own idiosyncratic opinion.

Now, if you really think this was a DS violation (as opposed to pretending it was one as part of your disruptive battleground behavior) and you were to do this honestly, you would go to WP:AE with it, rather than running over here to Samsara in particular. But you know what happens at WP:AE... they like to throw around certain curved weapons when they find that complaints have no merit, are spurious and are indicative of battleground mentality on part of the filer. Which is why you're here.  Volunteer Marek  02:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(EC) oh and I see Anythingyouwant has come rushing over here as well. Can you guys please stop it with the tag-team block shopping?  Volunteer Marek  02:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What is "block shopping"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Running around to admins you think will be amicable to dishing out a block you like, rather than using appropriate venues such as WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, WP:AE or other forms of dispute resolution. Usually done when the person seeking a block knows that if they were to actually use one of the proper venues they wouldn't get what they want and might very well get WP:BOOMERANG, cuz of "dirty hands". Alternatively bringing up the same thing in multiple venues and agitating for somebody to get blocked. But you know this, no?  Volunteer Marek  02:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah Atsme, I don't appreciate being called a "disruptive editor". That is a straight up WP:NPA. If you want to say I made a "disruptive edit" or something that's fine, but calling somebody a "disruptive editor", without solid evidence, is way over the line. Volunteer Marek  02:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the slightest thing about Samsara. I was not even aware that he is an admin until today. I noticed that his scrutiny had been requested, so instead of going to AE, I simply came here instead to keep things consolidated. Would you prefer AE? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For what you're calling the 1RR violation? Sure, we can go there. Just let me make it perfectly clear: you are free to reinstate the tax section if you wish. I'm not going to do it myself unless you explicitly insist on it because that would constitute making a really stupid edit - restoring redundant text. If you really want to argue that removing redundant text and then saying "feel free to put it back if you want to" constitutes a "revert", and you want to do this at WP:AE where all our unsavoury mutual history's gonna make an appearance, be my guest Anything, be my guest. Volunteer Marek  02:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, how did you notice "his scrutiny was requested"? You posted before I managed to reply to Atsme. Volunteer Marek  02:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You ought to revert your entire 1RR violation, not merely the taxation stuff; rephrasing is just as much of a revert as deletion. I'd be glad to take this to AE if Samsara so advises. But if he feels he can properly deal with it, then that's fine with me too. P.S. Atsme said at your talk page that he requested admin assistance so I looked at his contributions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a 1RR violation. The first diff was NOT a revert. One more time - feel free to restore redundant text to the article if you really think that would "improve the article", otherwise stop making excuses for the block-shopping. And actually if you do want to do the block shopping song and dance, you really should go to WP:AN3 rather than WP:AE where you can of course claim that this was a DS violation. I mean... if I was you, that's what I'd do, because at WP:AE, since this doesn't really rise to any kind of serious level even IF true, you could get boomeranged much easily. So WP:AN3 is a safer bet. On the other hand, if you're the risk-loving type, then yeah, WP:AE might have higher payoff. But more risk... what to do, what to do? Maybe just admit that this isn't a 1RR violation, you're unlikely to squeeze anything out of it, whatever action is taken the drama won't be worth it, it's a waste of time and instead discuss this on talk page? Of course, I imagine it might be sort of hard to start a discussion about how redundant text should be restored to the article without being laughed at... hmmm, no good options, ey?  Volunteer Marek  03:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

VM, you very clearly made three separate reverts within 24 hours at a BLP that's subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR. Argue about it all you want. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No I didn't. You either a) don't know what a revert is or b) are lying. Provide the diffs of the three reverts. Right here. There was an edit by me which removed redundant language and reworded a sentence. There was my revert (the only one) of Atsme's unilateral removal of text, which was a DS violation on their part. And there was my partial self-revert which restored the NPOV tag. Only the second one of these was a revert. Now, I can sort of see how you might wish to pretend the first one was a revert too (it wasn't but if you throw enough bad faith at it and squint really hard I guess you could see it that way). But there's no excuse for you accusing me of making the third revert when it's a partial self-revert. I'm trying really hard to AGF here and assume you just don't know what you're talking about. Although... didn't this issue come up before, of you falsely accusing others of reverts when they weren't reverting? Anyway, you've been around long enough and have edit warred enough in the past to know the difference between a revert and a self-revert. Volunteer Marek  04:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I already provided diffs of the three reverts, see my first two comments above, and I'm going to sleep now. Please please please stay out of my dreams!  :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

VM, ATYW's issue with you is not the same as mine although your behavior is the same. I don't know what you think you're doing with all the crazy allegations, or are you just being your normal disruptive self? I've provided diffs for the July consensus as well as for the discussion that began on the 24th which also supports what I've stated. It's always the same ole blah, blah dramah most expect from you, VM. It appears you may be TB shopping the way you're acting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you did not provide diffs to July consensus, or at least not to what you claim. That RfC 1) was badly phrased which led to 2) non-admin closure which said "this requires further discussion" 3) compromised by sock puppets voting (this freakin' always happens). Then the section remained in the article for two months+ making it part of the status quo. That means that your removal of it, without discussion, unilaterally was a DS violation.

And you really got some chutzpah of accusing me of TB-shopping, after YOU came running HERE - and I mean HERE to Samsara's talk page specifically, rather than going to WP:AE - asking for sanctions. Why do you do this? This, this... making up stuff that's just blatantly and transparently false? Like do you really think a reasonable person would look at this discussion and say "obviously VM came to Samsara's talk page to try and get Atsme topic banned"? What kind of a dummy do you think would believe that after reading this? You're sort of insulting other people's intelligence here with such attempts.

And one more time - calling people "disruptive editors" is a WP:NPA unless you can really back it up. You've been warned about this before. You've also used and abused this insult in multiple discussions in the past and you've been asked to stop. Volunteer Marek  03:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here and now is exactly why I said what I said and why I am here now in hopes of getting something done about it without having to take you to the dramah boards. It appears you've had one too many cups of coffee. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My behavior is fine (though I can always use more cups of coffee). Your behavior on the other hand... hey Atsme! Can you explain why you came to this particular administrator to agitate? I mean, there's literally dozens of admins you could've asked about this, some of them even active on the relevant article, and some of them, from what I can tell, are ones you regularly, um, "converse", with. So why this one? Wanna provide an explanation? Here, I'll start it for you, think of it as a fill-in-a-blank type of question on an exam:

"I, Atsme, came to Samsara's talk page specifically to bring this up because ______________________-"

Thanks. Volunteer Marek  03:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm sounds like a case for a more primary noticeboard--Samsara, did you apply for ANI 3.0 status? I gotta tell you, it's less of an honor than you might think. Anythingyouwant, did I understand this correctly? You wanted a tag restored and when it was, you said "gotcha!" and counted it as a violation? Nice! Marek, lay off the coffee, will you--or is 2017 NCAA Division I men's basketball corruption scandal getting to you? Drmies (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, I don't know where you got the idea that I wanted a tag restored, or that when it was, I said "gotcha!" That is all fiction. I never said that any tag should be restored. Those who say so are either lying or repeating lies, or (in your case) doing something else perhaps. Anyway, there was a 1RR violation even ignoring the reversion of the tag. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, User:Drmies, since you haven’t acknowledged your misunderstanding, I will assume that the present controversy has been resolved in Volunteer Marek’s favor. Nice! Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear well I am so sorry I'm not on 24/7 I sure hope I haven't caused you too much grief and emotional anguish did you really miss me that much? next time just hit me up on Snapchat and I'll be right there Drmies (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No more grief than usual. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• • I did not apply for anything, but I'm starting to be amused that the same characters seem to keep appearing. It seems like there is an unresolved issue here. Samsara 22:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

First, you complained on my talk page alleging that I made a 1RR violation. This wasn't true but whatever. Then I partially self-reverted by restoring the tag. Then you came here and alleged that this was a third revert. While you may not have explicitly demanded for the tag to be restored you most certainly were trying to play "gotcha games". Volunteer Marek  20:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Utter and complete bullshit hooey. The 1RR violation that I kindly invited you to self-revert (when I initially commented at your talk page) had absolutely nothing to do with any tag. And your subsequent revert of the tag was not a self-revert. I have nothing more to add to this farcical discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty then, next time I need an admin, I'll just position my cursor on the TP of EEng, close my eyes, scroll 3 window-lengths, and wherever it lands is the admin I'll ask. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

List of states with limited recogntion

Hello,

I was surprised to see List of states with limited recognition being given an indef 30/500 protection, and a big warning imposing 1RR on the entire page, based on an Arbcom judgement that seems pretty tangentially related. This appears to be in response to a single reverted edit of arguable benefit. Note that other recent edits by IPs there have had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict (they're mostly discussing North Korea). Indeed, the vast majority of edits to List of states with limited recognition could not conceivably be considered related to the Arab-Israeli dispute and most discussions involving the Arab-Israeli conflict at that talk page have been resolved without need for admin intervention.

Would you mind reconsidering whether this sort of protection is appropriate on this particular article? If you believe this is warranted, would you mind clarifying whether e.g. the 1RR you have imposed applies only to Arab-Israeli related edits, or to all edits whether or not they are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Kahastok talk 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to lift ArbCom sanctions. The way I interpret the rules, if someone takes it to RfPP and it's had Arab-Israel related disruption, then no admin can turn down the protection request without risk of being desysopped. I agree with you that there is a problem with applying arbitration sanctions to articles that are only tangentially related, but I'm not sure that I single-handedly have the power to change that. However, if you can find another admin willing to take a reversal on their log, I won't contend it. There are two discussions that I started at WT:RFPP where your views might be valuable. I'll mention your dissent at RfPP and then we'll see what happens. Samsara 17:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:KobraRus

Hi, thanks for blocking this troll. He has been bugging me all day. Here are some other accounts that he has created today: [17]. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: I got that other one for you, too. I checked a few of the others, but they were already blocked. I'm going to be AFK for a while, good luck with the rest! Samsara 13:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting footnote - he seems to know about W on Wheels. [18] Samsara 13:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hay, can you undo the protection at Time?

There were two recent edits to Time by User:Pkbwcgs that are not good and I would like to fix them. I can't see why it was protected in the first place. Thank you. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Indef. IP address blocks

• 213.205.194.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 81.152.230.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Was it your intention to block these IPs indefinitely? Regards. 121.94.137.73 (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)