Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncletomwood (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 7 May 2017 (→‎Please help me with this unruly sock editor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jag är Ikea.
This user stands with Sweden.
Je suis Ikea.


A hypnotically staring Great Blue Admin has just caught sight of a promotion-only account and goes to stab it with her sharp beak. (Per discussion below.)


This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her.

Userbox barnstar
Awarded by DHeyward
10:19, 2 September 2015‎

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok

Hi User:Bishonen, May I ask why did you delete the above page without confirming that the unambiguous infringement had been fixed based on the COPYVIOS? see COPYVIOS results of less than 24% and I had posted a notice on to contest the infringement based on the changes? Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the COPYVIO results are not showing because the page had been deleted. Thankfully I had archived that page using screenshots. Let me know if you need that for verifications. Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was marked as a copyright violation by Diannaa, one of our most experienced admins with regard to copyright. I've pinged her in the hope that she'll take a look at your complaint. Meanwhile, do you really not understand how disruptive it is to promptly recreate the article under a slightly different name, Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok, just three minutes after you posted here, without waiting for a response? That's simply a trick, and I don't see how you can have thought it was a proper or honest thing to do. You are creating a lot of work for a lot of people. I have blocked you to slow you down. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wayne Dupree again

I am baffled why Wikipedia would remove the Wayne Dupree page. It appears very much like partisan targeting to me. This is the person that removed the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.245.208 (talk • contribs)

(I've moved your post to the bottom of the page, where new posts are meant to go.) Hi. Yes, I'm the administrator who deleted the page. I closed (=summarized) this discussion (please click on the link and read it), and found the consensus to be "delete". That's how it works: somebody can nominate a page for deletion because they don't think the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, then other people discuss it, then an admin makes the call. Anybody can create an article, and if we didn't have some kind of procedure for assessing notability, we'd drown in them. Anyway, my own opinion doesn't come into it, I just summarize. Please note that if a person is found to be "not notable", it does not mean that we're calling that person unimportant! It merely means that there's not enough support in reliable independent sources to support notability as Wikipedia defines it. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I read no partisan commentary from any of the commenters during the discussion. Please quote them, if they exist. This looks like a tactic to divert attention from the fact that Dupree is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Tapered (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on deletion review, now, Tapered, in case you want to comment there. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
My contribution was underway as you wrote. Tapered (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commentariat Tapered (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The section above"

Thanks you for your note on my user page. Frankly, I was surprised at the ban. This relatively brief interaction is our first ever (that I can recall at least).

  • It started just before when we had both contributed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#user:184.145.42.19 Discussion after closure when the defendant user:184.145.42.19 popped in to express disgust that no one had told him the ANI had been re-opened. BMK was the one who had re-opened the ANI without notifying the defendant, and I had since been on the defendants talk page, and didn't notice that he hadn't been notified.
  • So I replied to the defendant to say that they should have been notified by BMK or myself and that I'm sorry. [1]
  • BMK then came and swore at the defendant (he seemed bothered that he had the temerity to return) and then told me "Don't ever apologize for me again"[2] Which seemed odd, as I put the blame on lack of notification on both BMK and myself, and then said I apologise instead of We apologise.
  • So I called BMK on both things and asked him to now apologize to both of us.[3]
  • Meamwhile, he's simultaneously come to my talk page, and made a similar comment about not apologize for him. And asked about my background, noting my paltry experience, lack of edit history, concluding that I shouldn't be on ANI.[4]
  • I was a bit taken aback by his tone, but left what I thought was a civil reply, to which he replied saying he was being civil but blunt.[5]
  • So I bluntly told him what he'd done wrong. My second ever edit on his talk page.[6]
  • And he said I had clearly apologized for him (how?), misquoted me (why?), asked me to stay off his talk page,[7] and posted that "ban" notice on my page.[8]

And that's all there ever was between us.

He can "ban" me if he wants to; that's fine. My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy." He over-exaggerated it a bit, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate. Instead of just politely asking me to stay off his page he chose to use words that were wikilawyering. (I've since observed, he's "banned" a lot of people - so many he even has a template[9] at the bottom. He calls it 'Bunting for a home run!)

You commented about:

  • WP:COMMONSENSE - I agree. He has every right to ask me. But WP:COMMONSENSE is an essay, not policy.
  • wikilawyering - I'm guilty as charged. One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me. Sometimes I just use their own words a bit and post it back. He wikilawyered, so then I did too. I shouldn't do that.
  • Obviously "banned" means you're not welcome there - yes. But the word "ban" has a meanings in Wikipedia. He was wikilawyering.
  • I'm not surprised BMK warns you off his page when you post offensive psychobabble - look at my previous edits. There was not one thing like that previously. What can I say - I'm not perfect. And I think he'd been rather incivil to me - this was my first (and last) incivility.
  • supercilious advice about "improving the encyclopedia" - That was just me acknowledging his own comment using the same phrase from his first post to me at[10] - I'm glad you think it's supercilious, because that's what I thought too actually when he wrote it!
  • Do you repost those things here on your own page because you're so proud of them?- One, I wanted a record of it. Two, yeah, I was kind of proud of a couple of things there - particularly reusing his own supercilious language!
  • Incidentally, what's this about your "policy" stated at the top of your talkpage - It is my policy. I've worked that way for over a decade. As you probably recall there was a lot more of that back in the day, before notifications, and these new-fangled pings. I was also reusing his word "policy". Bad nfitz.
  • that requires you to respond on the other person's page - "requires" was wikilawyering, guilty as charged. I was using his made-up policy against him.
  • How can a principle you made up yourself require you to do anything? - guilty as charged
  • does it really require you to repost the other person's post on theirs, as if they had written it there, which is quite confusing? - I've always done that. Look at my edit history. So I didn't do that out of spite or anything. I started to do it, because back when everyone posted replies on each others pages, you couldn't follow the conversation after a while. So I just got in the habit of copying the thing I was replying to, to be polite and clear. To tell the truth, with all the pinging and notification these days, I've been thinking that my "policy" is getting a bit stale, and perhaps I should just do it the way everyone else seems to do it now.
  • you repost your own post here, supposedly to illustrate "long-term issues of Beyond My Ken", leaving your "principle" full of holes. - I don't normally do that.
  • Leave BMK alone. I don't only mean don't post on his page, I also mean don't troll him on yours or elsewhere. - I will leave him alone. I made that very clear in my post. You'll note that when I copied it to my page, I removed the ping that was originally there, so that I didn't inadvertently ping him. No guarantees that in 5 or 10 years I might not do it by accident in a discussion - because honestly, I forget things over time. I have no intention of trolling him. I admit my parting shot was a bit trollish (I'm not perfect).

Thanks again for your comments, and the chance to defend myself (if you've read this far). I hope that after reading my explanation, that you'll at least see where I was coming from, if you can't forgive me. No hard feelings. Nfitz (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You both lost your tempers. But you seem to have read BMK's post hastily. Either that, or you quote him in a misleading way. "My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy."" You seem to be suggesting, by this partial quoting, that he said he was required by policy to ban you? Or maybe that you were required to respect his ban? Would that be why you say he was wikilawyering, and that's why you did the same thing back, "using his made-up policy against him"? Well, he wasn't; he never said or implied you were required by policy to respect his ban. There was no made-up policy for you to parody. He was telling you to stay off his page unless you were required by Wikipedia policy to post there. You know, such as, you're supposed to alert him to having mentioned him on ANI.
You say "One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me... I shouldn't do that." No, really not, especially if they didn't. I'll say no more about it. But, while I don't particularly want any quarrel to take off here on my page, I'm pinging BMK for information, if he cares. Not sure why you talk about me forgiving you — nothing to forgive, so don't worry about that. Bishonen | talk 11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
PS: "BMK then came and swore at the defendant"? Oh, come on, now! Context! Did you not notice the post he was responding to, and quoting? It's right there in the same diff. Not that I think swearing is so heinous in any case. But doing it as a quote back to somebody? I'd expect you to approve, since it's so much what you do yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, I never lost my temper. I was only bemused by his unfriendliness when he "banned" me. I was quite civil in everything I wrote until then. I get the impression he's someone who isn't good at handling being told they are wrong - especially when they are in the wrong. And his reaction is to then simply try and eliminate the presence of the person who did that, than simply confront the issue. So, he's wrong ... everyone's wrong. Apologize and move on.
And speaking of being wrong ... I did indeed misread the bit about policy in his post - odd, I read that more than once. Either way, the whole thing was supercilious puffery - which I don't think belongs anywhere near the project. And it's pretty easy to see (for example when you search for the words in his template), that this has come up again and again in the past.
Swearing at the defendant. Yes, he was doing the same thing I do (the irony) - I'm guilty as charged there. Much of what I reacted to, is that he was the one who had failed to notify the defendant that the discussion was re-opened, and not failed to take responsibility for it, but in the very same edit [11] also attacked me for apologizing for it, claiming I had apologized for him. Which I most certainly had not, as others have noted[12]. If he hadn't simultaneously attacked me, I doubt I'd have responded at all. I think there's a major WP:AGF failure in his assumption that I apologized for him. In retrospect, I probably did lose my temper a bit when I made my response[13], but I think I remained civil, but annoyed.Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a root cause if that neither he or I read closely enough sometimes. Oh well, there's probably no point in rehashing the whole thing, and just move on. I appreciate the candor. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of this, is that I (like many other peons here) feel I've been unfairly treated by a few admins in the past - guilty until proven innocent and all that. Clear failures of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. It's almost like some admins feel that an important pillar here WP:5P4 doesn't apply to them (the same ones often seem to think that WP:5P5 doesn't exist either) - at least when dealing with lowly users. So when I see others being picked on (even if they do deserve it sometimes), or I detect that kind of attitude, I speak up. Which then makes me a target with someone who has that type of belief. (I'm not referring to BMK here, I'm thinking of older experiences - perhaps I misread him). Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling disappointed you didn't respond to me here or say something on my talk page, but instead felt a need to have a go at me at [14]. I'd have thought that was generally an inappropriate comment for an ANI thread and should have been elsewhere (though I'm having problems finding the guidelines for ANI discussions - I'd appreciate if you'd point me to them). Obviously you feel I'm overlinking, though there's nothing about overlinking for talk pages on either WP:Overlink or WP:MOS. I don't think I've shown any unwillingness or inability to civilly (and I thought friendly) discuss my skills. Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you're overlinking? No, I feel you're swarming all over the place. Do you realize how many times your name currently appears on the ANI page? Also, I feel you're sharing too much trite wisdom there, and telling people things they already know.. You're focusing on an unimportant detail in my post (the linking). There's nothing about linking on talkpages in MOS, really? What a lot of guidelines you know. What you're by contrast ignoring, both in your ANI response and here, is my main point: that your finger-wagging is unlikely to have a good effect on the people you direct it at, probably because they're mostly grownups. A bad effect, more like. Resentment. Aren't you interested in the effect? I'm not aware of any "guidelines for ANI discussions". We don't have every last thing codified. ANI etiquette is a loose baggy work in progress, like all the other traditions and practices here. I used ANI to comment on your posting on ANI because I thought it more direct, to comment right below an example of the kind of post I was objecting to. But YMMV; TJW used your page for the same purpose; and you were equally defensive about that, and wanted to know about the guidance and styleguide for who should contribute on ANI and how. Who do you see writing these styleguides? There are none; we're all on our own when it comes to writing and acting appropriately. But I'll take a shot at a short ANI styleguide for you, if you think it'll help: Look in thy heart and write; introspect about your own motives; cogitate about the effect your post may/can/will/won't have on others; and be open and sensitive to the culture that's all around you. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I don't feel I've been defensive with TJW - I've asked him for help in understanding where his objections are, so I don't repeat, and he won't (can't?) provide any. I'm scratching my head about who YMMV is. Garchy popped in, but I pretty much agreed with him. I'm missing something about MOS, as I'm not seeing much about talk pages at all, let alone linking. Finger wagging (goes back to ANI to read my post) ... you mean the "Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. part of it". Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong - they are grownups after all. You think resentment would come of it? Personally, in my run-ins with people at WP:ANI back in the day that created resentment, is when those responding, tossed AGF out the window, were rather uncivil about it, and then got their back up when they were called on it and whatever other policy they'd decided wasn't convenient that day - which tended to back and forth a bit until someone else came in and called them on the BS. But that's me. I thought the person I responded to was being a dick; even if he may have been technically right. Resentment ... hmm. What would you have told him ... or could still tell him I suppose given it's open? Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Nfitz: YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary, a universal disclaimer borrowed from automotive advertese. Roughly “that‘s how I see it, but your perspective may be different.“—Odysseus1479 08:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing everything perfectly and the people objecting to your style are totally wrong. We get it, in fact we've seen it before. However, please add me to the list of those who believe your policy of flouting talk-page norms by copy-pasting comments between pages is confusing and pointy. Many years ago, some editors replied on the poster's talk, but pasting junk was not fashionable even then. In recent years, the silliness of those old habits has been understood by pretty well everyone. By the way, posting walls-of-text laden with links has also gone out of fashion—most people know to press PageDown whenever they see stuff like that because experience shows that trying to find whatever point is being made in such a blancmange is a waste of time. If you have a response to a comment, just make the response and leave the blue links for beginners. When someone suggests that a particular IP is a disruptive editor, probably a sock, who is being fed by attention, they are making a substantive claim. The only reasonable response would be to investigate the claim and back off if it seems plausible (say nothing), or refute the claim with evidence. Arguing is apparently important for some people, but my suggestion would be to have the last word and then drop this particular debate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I'll reply over at your talk page, as I'm probably wearing out welcome here! Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now consider that you have received some criticism, Nfitz, and go back to your own post above: "Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong". I can't help you further; please be done arguing on my page. Bishonen | talk 09:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't really see much of this as arguing. I saw it as discussing. And a very helpful discussion at that - perhaps you can't help further, but you have helped. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To account or not to account

Regarding today's discussion of the disruptive IP, I wanted to explain more privately. Said editor has deposited my IP location information on the Talk page in question. Were I to switch to using an account now, my recognizable style and typing quirks would make it clear I was the same editor and would effectively out that account with regard to geolocation. To prevent this I would avoid editing the page in question under that account, page protection would block me from editing with or without an account (at least unless/until my pending request to oversight that IP information is acted upon). 50.37.123.131 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I understand it can be undesirable to switch from IP to account in the midst of a fight. Though that's not so much because that IP has posted your location information. When you use an IP, anybody can see your location — it's just a click away. Look at your own talkpage. (I know it's a redlink; that doesn't matter.) See the "Geolocate" link? Anybody can geolocate an IP, any IP, just by clicking on "Geolocate". That's one of the reasons, indeed, for creating an account. For doing it from the beginning, I mean; I quite understand your reasons for not wanting to do it now. Anyway, I see you have posted some diffs for the other IP range on ANI; I'll take a look. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I know they can look it up, but most people will not go to the effort. When someone puts it right there on the Talk page, that significantly reduces the effort involved. (I didn't want to delete it immediately because it would likely have just brought on another outburst from the other IP, or at least drawn attention to it. How long does an oversight request usually take?)
You are right about the second (temporally first) IP range: likely stale, and the editor really went from simple annoyance to disruption after shifting to the more recent range, so probably not worthy of action. 50.37.123.159 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; I doubt they'll oblige in any case, since it's so un-secret anyway. If it's just a matter of whether people have to take more or less trouble, removing it from the page would surely go a long way. Who reads histories? (Well, I do, but obviously not most people.) Unfortunately the talkpage is such a mess I can't find it to blank. Give me a quote — a few words — I can search for, and I will. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) Does 50.37.123.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) know about revision deletion? I'm guessing not, if they are actually asking for WP:Oversight. They might feel better if you felt able to rev-del the geolocation as WP:CRD #3, "Purely disruptive material", perhaps? What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. But they haven't told me where it is yet. I don't much feel like combing through the history, when it would be so much simpler to do a search for a phrase. If 50.XX cares, I expect they will eventually tell me where it is. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It occurred at this diff specifically, but this earlier edit also gave the information that's bugging 50.XX. I can imagine that they didn't really want to draw more attention to the info. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right at the top? I couldn't face looking at the history, sorry. Revdel'd. 50.XX, it's as diappeared as it needs to be; check the history and you'll see what revdel does. Thank you, RexxS. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Cheers, both of you. 50.37.127.180 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Chère. Can I just point out this intermediate revision, which you may have overlooked, without appearing too picky? --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
? It's supposed to be already invisible, because of the way it's placed in the history, surely? Isn't that how it works? (Are you saying you can see the text? I'll check tomorrow if Bishzilla can.) Also, when I tried to revdel it separately just now, the system told it "already had the required visibility settings". Mind you, I never did understand revdel 100%. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It was visible to me and the rest of the peons when I posted the comment, but it has disappeared now. Perhaps revdel is "smart" enough to hide the intermediate diffs, but takes time to catch up? Beats me, but it's fixed now. --RexxS (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've figured out what happened, having done another revdel in the meantime: the system was talking through its... hat. All good now, anyway. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh noes

With reference to the Christ Myth edit war we previously discussed here, the editor in question has not taken in anything that was said on the talk page and has removed the sourced text yet again. I've reverted, but expect to be re-reverted soon. At this point, I wash my hands of the issue (topical, huh?). MjolnirPants, is it time to propose a topic ban? Feel free to suggest a way forward. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd. (Even more topical!) And after Doug Weller warned them. I'll look at it tomorrow. I've gone to bed! Bishonen | talk 00:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@RexxS:, I'm generally reluctant to ask for sanctions, but in this case I'm leaning towards "Yes, it's time." This editor seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting that they can be wrong about anything. For an example of pretty much this exact same issue, but with an editor willing to accept correction, see the section Removing Dorothy Murdock's claims at the exact same article talk page. Contrast that with Rosa's tactics. I don't think there are any DSes which apply to this, so I believe an ANI thread is the way to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen I typed the last having read, but for some reason not grokking your comment. I'll wait for you before starting an ANI thread. If you're willing to take action (or if Doug investigates the ping here and takes action himself) then there will be no need for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just blocked for 48 hours, with, I hope, an explanatory block notice. This user is well-informed, I think, and could be an asset, as soon as they figure out how Wikipedia works. I'm reluctant to start with a full-on topic ban or indefinite block. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That works for me. In other news, I fixed the weird offset at the top of the Je sui Ikea template. It looks much better now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, arhh. I used your code, since I wanted to put it on the right hand side of the page, so I should probably go back and fetch the new code. Thanks for making it, it's very handsome. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bish, your edit summary is off by about six months. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know what today is though? Possible the most ironic day for this editor to catch a block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you little user, is good info! Bishonen | talk 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry all, missed it. I've just tried to set him straight about reverts as he insists he didn't revert. And again deal with a mistaken claim of being one-sided. I'm not dealing with the unblock request as I'm hoping yet another new to him admin will. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have discretionary sanctions not been applied to that article (and the related Historicity of Jesus) yet?
I recall an Arbitration case back in 2014, but my involvement was peripheral and ended early on, so I don't remember how it ended except that the initiator's TBAN was upheld. It seems like the project would be no worse off if admins had the authority to ban anyone found causing further disruption there. It's a POV-magnet, because it's one of few topics where the scholarly establishment is in (very) basic agreement with fundamentalist Christianity (i.e., both agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person) but the former (with perhaps one exception) have done an abysmal job teaching the general public, and so a lot of otherwise smart and rational atheists and other non-Christians have become convinced that the whole "no serious scholars reject the historicity of Jesus" is a lie told by their local churches along the lines of "a growing number of scientists are questioning evolution". I have no problem admitting that, growing up in Ireland as I did (where the Catholic Church dominate the school system), I too found the mythicist idea appealing when I was a teenager. I don't think I ever edited Wikipedia to that effect, but it wouldn't surprise me if I had.
Like the electric cigarettes article, it's a topic that should not be inherently controversial, but because of unrelated societal factors surrounding it it attracts tremendous controversy on Wikipedia.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can see all topics under discretionary sanctions here, Hijiri 88 (scroll down a bit). I can't see anything that fits. If you want ArbCom to put ds on these articles, you'll have to ask for them at WP:RFAR, I think. Right, @Doug Weller:? I doubt it'd do any good, though. ArbCom only takes on stuff that the community has tried and failed to deal with — really infected, out-of-control areas. Arbitration is supposed to be the last resort, as I'm sure you know. You'd need ANI discussions to point to at he very least.
However, Scientology is under ds. If you're concerned about people removing/adding Hubbard's ideas about Jesus, I suppose that might be a Scientology ds matter. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Just for the record, I don't think sanctions are necessary. This topic gets a lot fewer outright cranks than pseudoscience articles do. The level of disruption is consequently much lower. The only problem is that people editing in religious articles -especially articles which touch on the intersection of history and religion- tend to be incredibly emotionally attached to their views, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Friend is back

Hello my pal. Our friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemant_banswal has finished his two weeks suspension, and is already exchanging feature photos in articles with his own. The issue I have here this time isn't so much the quality of his photograph, but insistence on changing "feature article photos", without having the courtesy of going to the articles talk page, and getting a consensus. If he should run into an article that has "no feature opening photo", I would have no issue with him putting one of his there if it is a quality photo. But his habit of booting a feature photo in exchange for his own without consensus is inexcusable. Thanks→ Pocketthis (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocketthis: Indefinitely blocked by NeilN. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note

I'm of the opinion that TRM's current block should be reduced to maybe a week or a number of days, as opposed to a month. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to AN for community review. The request was filed at 21:01 UTC. There was one comment suggesting "cut him some slack", and then a decision was made by one admin at 21:41 UTC, a mere 40 minutes after the request. That's a denial of any opportunity for debate, and a decison taken unilaterally without consideration of even the small amount of debate that had occured (no slack was cut). The block was at the extreme end ("initially up to a month") of what was available, and well beyond what Wikipedia:Blocking policy #Duration of blocks indicates as standard: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". --RexxS (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and they said to take it to ArbCom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM AE

It appears that Arbcom specifically mentioned protecting the editor's talk page as an available remedy. "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I would suggest that you restore the protection unless User:Sandstein is OK with lifting it. Otherwise we might start going in circles unnecessarily. If Sandstein considers his protection to be an arb enforcement then another admin mustn't unilaterally lift it due to the well-known rules. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I'm afraid you're mistaken. The ArbCom decision was clear:
  • Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
I've carefully examined both the log on that page and the DS log. The DS log makes no mention of sanctions on TRM (and it shouldn't). The case log carries the following entry from today:
As everyone can see, the sanction that is logged as "performed under the authorisation of a remedy" is a one month block. Any other sanction which may have been applied was not logged and is therefore unquestionably not an ArbCom sanction, so is subject to reversal like any other admin action. Given Sandstein's notorious inability to listen to reasoned argument, I wouldn't have advised 'Shonen to waste her time in taking up the matter before restoring talk-page access. I commend her on doing the right thing, and in such a timely manner. I'm almost at the stage of offering to run as an admin with the sole purpose of taking part in AE, just to restore some common sense to the process. --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen: The talk page protection, which is explicitly provided for in the relevant remedy, is an arbitration enforcement action and you may therefore not unilaterally overturn it. (I did not log it because it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction.) The protection does not prevent an appeal because an appeal may also be submitted per e-mail. Please restore the talk page protection within an hour of your next edit following receipt of this message. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Sandstein: With respect, if TRM is abusing his talk page (and despite having multiple run-ins with TRM, I'm not certain he's doing that) surely the logical step would be to revoke talk page access? Why protect it? Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I might have done that, but the remedy does not permit revoking talk page access. It only allows full talk page protection. There may be reasons for why ArbCom made that decision, perhaps something to do with baiting or proxying? It's not my job as enforcing admin to second-guess that decision, only to enforce it.  Sandstein  06:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: You may revoke talk page access pursuant to the normal blocking policy; it would not be an AE action in that case because it isn't under the remedy. The remedy does not say anything about being unable to remove talk page access, and continuing conduct on a user talk page that resulted in the block is a strong rationale for removing talk page access under the blocking policy. Having said that, this clearly was an AE action, and the protection must be restored. As for why protect the page, I expect that the Committee intended that provision to prevent grave-dancing or other behavior that might provoke TRM while he's blocked, resulting in further sanctions. Personally, I think such a protection is in the best interests of both the community and TRM himself to minimize unnecessary drama during the block. Note that that only works if administrators don't edit through the full protection, which was occurring earlier (and should not have been). ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 Trying this ping from scratch... ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the first ping, I was just busy. I am not, obviously, as well versed in the ins-and-outs of arbitration policy as you folks; but intuitively, it seems to me that authority to block must include authority to take away talk page access with the block. While I can understand the concern over grave-dancing on the part of stalkers, or alternatively over TRM going into a rage and saying stuff he will later regret, my reasoning is as follows (admittedly my only interactions with TRM are at WT:DYK). What do we as a community want, ideally, from any disciplinary action against TRM? Ultimately, we want him to go back to creating and reviewing content (which he is good at) without unnecessarily getting under the skin of about ten people a day (which, currently, he is failing at). Removing his ability to edit his own talk page, in my view, undermines this objective in the long term, because it is in some ways treating him as a child. He is on his own talk page, where his snark can and will be ignored: so why not just leave him to it? Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Full protection of TRM's talk page is either a sanction or it's not. For this case, you are obliged to log any "block, restriction, ban, or sanction taken as an arbitration enforcement action" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man #Enforcement log. You did not log the full page protection because, you assert, "it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction." in that case, your action is not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators, which states "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without ..." (my emphasis). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways. The page protection was vindictive and unnecessary, and your entire decision at AE was hasty and ill-judged. You should not be surprised when your actions are reverted by other admins when they are so far from what is reasonable, because WP:AC/DS #sanctions.modify was never meant to be used as an excuse for misuse of admin powers. --RexxS (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the above evidence that TRM is an unblockable, Sandstein, you probably do want to log the full protection. It's an action taken under a remedy, which is what's intended to be logged as a record that ArbCom can then reference as needed in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Your logic is faulty. Nothing I've adduced here could possibly be interpreted as showing that TRM is unblockable. Indeed, he is blocked, and anyone who can read can see that I have made no argument that he should not be. However, the action taken to fully protect the page is a different beast. There was no evidence adduced that such an action was needed, or even desirable, which means that it was not preventative. By his own admission, Sandstein believes that when he took the action, he was not performing "a block, restriction, ban or sanction". Are you arguing that his judgement in that was defective? If so, it speaks to the lack of wisdom exercised. It would certainly be foolish to attempt to retrospectively add the page protection to the log now, wouldn't you agree? What is absolutely certain is that any admin who attempts to re-impose the full protection now would be indisputably wheel-warring. --RexxS (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13, thanks for the sugestion, I have now logged the protection also.  Sandstein  11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, the talk page is not currently protected. Are you planing to re-protect it? I do not think that would be wise in the present circumstances; no one wants a contest over something like that. The rulez allow you to protect that talk page, but one of the reasons for allowing that possible action was to prevent gravedancing, and I don't see that happening. If you desire to stop TRM from accessing his own talk page, you can revoke his access to it--I fully realize I am to some extent repeating what Bish and Rexx have already said. I suppose I'm not here as Da Arb, but rather as someone who seeks clarity (the reason for the protection) and de-escalation. What I can tell you is that Da Arbz are talking about this, of course; I suppose this is the initial stage of a conversation and one of the topics is whether this or that needs to be tweaked. But let's try and deal with this particular situation first. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I do not intend to re-protect the talk page myself. I am awaiting a reply by Bishonen, and will then decide whether to request that the Arbitration Committee sanction her for her out-of-process reversal of an arbitration enforcement action.  Sandstein  15:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sandstein--thanks for the response. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I thought your protection had to be a mistake. The only non-admin who had edited the page at that time was TRM himself. The procedure "revoke talkpage access" exists for the purpose of preventing the blocked owner of the page from editing it. There was no reason to stop everybody else below the rank of admin from commenting. (I still don't see any gravedancing, 28 hours after I unprotected, so the event doesn't seem to show the danger of that was imminent.) You say above (replying to Vanamonde) essentially that you protected the page because protecting was allowed for in the relevant remedy and revoking tpa wasn't. It's not the case, however, that everything on Wikipedia that isn't allowed for is forbidden. The remedy didn't say "Talkpage access must not be revoked". Of course you could have revoked tpa. Not as an AE action, no, but what's the big deal with that? Revoke is revoke.

You stated above, when you were asked why you didn't record the protection in the log, that it was because it wasn't a sanction. That makes sense IMO, because page protection surely isn't a sanction. I have to agree with RexxS above[15] that that's a big problem: if it wasn't a sanction, it's not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator" bla bla.

Anyway. Just for completeness, and not relevant to whether or not you take me to ArbCom for undoing your AE action: I'm also opposed to revoking tpa. (I'm kind of for the block itself, though I believe it was overlong.) I'm nearly always against revoking tpa for venting against a block. It seems like adding insult to injury. But anyway, tpa wasn't revoked. BTW, I disagree with the people who have said you should have waited for more comments at AE. That's really OT here, though, and I've posted a detailed comment about it on AN. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  • (talk page stalker)I took a look at this solely due to it's "interesting factor" in that an admin has turned in their mop under cloudy circumstances and been subjected to a block as the result of their behavior. I don't really have an opinion on the outcome of this discussion, either. But I will say that the direction of arguments (in the formal sense, not to imply that this is a particularly heated discussion) in this thread is a little troubling. All sides seem to be flirting with -if not outright engaging in- wikilawyering. Now, I'll probably get quite a bit of chastisement for saying so, but I would like to humbly suggest that the best course of discussion would be to answer the question: Should TRM's talk page be protected? Not whether the prior protection or unprotection was 'proper'. Now, feel free to expound in great detail why I'm wrong, and how arrogant it was of me to jump in here to tell the rest of you what you're doing wrong. I'll not defend myself beyond saying that I was just offering my two cents, as a fairly disinterested third party. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, if you think we're wikilawyering, you should have seen the last time I was taken to RFAR for unprotecting a blocked user's talkpage![16] There hasn't been any gravedancing since I unprotected, which it has been suggested was a concern on the part of arbcom here. I don't know if it was a concern on Sandstein's part; if he has said so, I haven't seen it. Indeed I haven't seen him say why he protected at all — you'll have to ask him. That protection was allowed for is not what I'd call a reason, and I refuse to believe he thinks so, either. The page is better unprotected — just look at it now. Unprotected is the default state of pages. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not going to comment on the core issue unless explicitly asked, but I will say that this response is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for: a reasoned argument as to why the page should remain unprotected/why the page should be protected with no consideration of rules. MjolnirPant's first rule of rules is: When a rule gets in the way, don't just break it; ignore it completely. (On the other hand, I have to admit to being a wee bit disappointed that I remain un-excoriated.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I have filed a request for clarification about questions I think are raised by your reversal of my protection of the user talk page.  Sandstein  17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@'Shonen, I can tell you why Sandstein fully-protected TRM's talk page – straight from the horse's mouth, as it were – this edit: "According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited, "the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block."
And that's the problem: he chose to fully protect a talk page instead of revoking talkpage access, almost certainly in the mistaken belief that that action could not be overturned. It's clear from his subsequent comments that he did not make his decision by exercising judgement about what measure would have been most appropriate, but simply picked full-protection because ArbCom had mentioned it as being with an admin's discretion (but with no understanding of the reason why ArbCom chose to mention it), and he thought that by calling it an "AE action", it would become unchallengeable. That's the very worst reason for picking a measure to discourage TRM from using phrases like "shit admins". There's a certain irony there, that I assure you won't be lost to ArbCom if I'm forced to take my case to them. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qué tal Taichi?.

Ya veo que por aquí sigues siendo un baboso-infantil igual que en la española. También te tengo fichado en la japonesa.

Agur anti-vasco!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.184.165 (talk • contribs)

No. Bish is not a babbling baby!! You may have confused Bishonen with Bishbaby. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please block that IP and blank out his gross insult in my talkpage? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maragm, I've just noted above and on ANI that I've had to semiprotect Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage, because the individual has access to such a big range that I can't block it. I honestly don't see any point in blocking the individual IP, since it keeps jumping about. Me, blank the insults? Well, if you like, but you can just as well revert them yourself, as you have been doing. Question: Would you like me to semiprotect your talkpage as well, for a couple of weeks? That will keep the IP out effectively, which blocks won't. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, if possible, semiprotect it for a couple of weeks. This IP and similar ones, on the same subject, have been harassing and insulting me, accusing me of being a sockpuppet of the 50....IP (good edits) and other users who revert him. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Maragm: Sorry you have to suffer through such insults and harassments, please know I admire your work and the quality of reliable sources you bring. Nice birds pic in the MONGO box. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to bring some flowers, and what better choice than the Mimosa, the symbol of Int'l Women's Day in Italy and Russia. Thank you Bishonen and @Ms Sarah Welch: for your support and kind words. --Maragm (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's lovely! Thank you very much, Maragm. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wordsighn

What is a administration? Wordsighn (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Wordsighn. Did you mean "What is an administrator?" If you did, please click on WP:ADMIN and read all about it. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
How do you become one? Wordsighn (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First you have to be an experienced editor who knows a lot about how Wikipedia works, because the duties of adminship can't be carried out very well unless you know your way around. And secondly you have to have interacted with others in a good way, which makes them trust you and think that you'd be a good admin who doesn't abuse the admin tools (did you read about the admin tools at WP:ADMIN?). Then you can apply for adminship at WP:RFA, and other people can comment on your application. If you take a look at this successful application, and this unsuccessful application, you'll get a bit of a feeling for what's required. Believe me, you're not ready, Wordsighn, and you won't be until you have acquired more Wikipedia skills. Applying before you're ready is a not a good idea, because then the discussion can easily become a depressing rejection-fest, as somebody put it in the second discussion I linked to. There's more advice in the Guide to requests for adminship. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Alternatively, you can have 'zilla monster as your PR manager. "Nice community you have here. Be shame if Bishonen could not protect it and nice community turned into the Hellmouth." --NeilN talk to me 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, little NeilN. Be a shame if Bishonen couldn't unprotect stuff, too, wouldn't it? Did you know she schlepped to RFAR once for, guess it, unprotect talkpage of blocked user? It her favorite thing, unprotecting those. (Don't worry, young Wordsighn, we just chatting.) bishzilla ROARR!! 22:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Or frightening off puny Arbcom member making bad block. Bishzilla very handy to have around. --NeilN talk to me 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember Bishzilla was admonished for that caper. Are you envious, NeilN? I know I am. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
In the October of 2015? Bishzilla got praise for the button pushing. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Misunderstand each other? Bishzilla block little arb in 2009.[17] Admonished, hohoho! bishzilla ROARR!! 00:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
'zilla undoing bad block from sitting Arbcom member here. Never did get a good explanation for that block. --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the little 'shonen unblocked someone? Who can remember? [Resentfully.] 'Zilla didn't have tools in 2015! Bishonen have to do all the unblocking! And never make any brilliant blocks like 'Zilla! Bah! bishzilla ROARR!! 00:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Are you friends or enemies ? Wordsighn (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you Bishonen for the advice I will do what you told me. Wordsighn (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bishzilla and NeilN are friends, anyway, Wordsighn. No, I'm kidding, we're all good friends. If you click on Bishzilla's userpage, you'll see what manner of critter she is. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Ok thanks i was just wondering Wordsighn (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks! BigDwiki (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Til?

Sorry to bother you, but an IP[18] or two[19] just showed up on ANI and requested that I be TBANned from a topic area I hardly touch anyway. I honestly have no idea who it could be, but the Christianity comment kinda-sorta reminds me of Til. But I doubt it's him, because he didn't use any homophobic slurs. It also seems to be interested in United States right-wing politics; I can vaguely recall conflicting with someone on Talk:Inauguration of Donald Trump, but I just checked and they seem to still be in good standing, so it's kinda incredible that they would log out to troll me.

No matter who it is, I kinda think the comments (and my take-AGF-to-suicidal-levels premature responses) should be blanked, but since I was the target I might draw more heat if I did it myself. Would you mind taking a look and judging for yourself?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Til EUlenspiegel, although he's been around this week calling me names. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say, I don't think it's Til. Til has never been much of a one for posting on ANI. And look at this guy: it's all he does![20] Also, the IPs aren't in any of the Til ranges I've blocked over the years. I don't have much concept of who it might be, but I can always give 71.198.247.231 Darwinbish's "Anonymous coward" warning on their page and a sharp word on ANI. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

On an unrelated note: I was reading ARCA for my own reasons earlier today. I think you were in the right. You will understand why I don't chime in, though. Your fellow sysop and I had a run-in recently regarding a different matter, and I don't want anyone thinking I'm helping my "friends" against my "enemies". As ridiculous as it sounds, I'm finding increasingly that people seem all too ready to believe that kind of thing recently (the above IPs being only the most recent example). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no, don't chime in. The arbs can probably manage. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bosnian pyramid claims

Our friend is back pushing more woo-woo nonsense at Talk:Bosnian pyramid_claims#Dr. Korotkov confirming the Bosnian Pyramids, should be included in this article. I think he needs to be cut off more quickly this time, if you feel like you can take an admin approach to it (I can't as I've been involved in the content dispute). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need, all done, the ever watchful User:Acroterion has stepped in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reinstated the topic ban indefinitely. Since that's the only subject of interest to that user it amounts to an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you have my thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking... aha, I only topic banned them for three months. Thank you, Acroterion. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

CEngelbrecht2

Just as an FYI, User:CEngelbrecht2 is violating his topic ban on the Aquatic ape hypothesis talk page. --Tarage (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tarage. I'm asleep; I'll look tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 02:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Well, let me be the first to complement you on your ability to edit Wikipedia while asleep. --Tarage (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
? Doesn't everybody do that? I've blocked the user. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I think you must still have been asleep - notice of block posted, and blocked logged, but no actual block ;). Now fixed: [22]. WJBscribe (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You see? That's what happens when I try to edit awake! Thank you, WJBscribe. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hayek79

Just FYI (and I don't think anything needs to be done about it), but after Hayek79 retired that account, he activated his alternative account User:L.R. Wormwood, and removed the note that it was an alternative account of Hayek79 from the user page. I had left him a comment on the L.R. Wormwood talk page to the effect that warnings, advice, sanctions etc. attach to the person doing the editing and not to the specific account, but his response was to ban me from his talk page (turnabout being fair play, I suppose) and delete the comment. When the L.R. Wormwood page was created (in the second edit) he admits to being 15, so I think we just have to wait and see if he grows into being a good editor or not. I'm only mentioning this to you so that you know that if problems develop with L.R. Wormwood (and I have no intention of following his edits), it's a continuation of the Hayek79 situation. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admits to having been 15 when he created the account in 2013. Hayek79 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He also didn't especially want the username "Hayek79" anymore, since he was 15 when he created the account. He would also appreciate the recognition that he has made useful contributions, and isn't just a problem-editor. Hayek79 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: The move of Hayek's user page to the L.R. Wormwood page showed up on my watchlist, so I sort of knew it, but I thought he'd changed his name. L.R. Wormwood was a pre-existing account? OK, fine. No, I won't dog his footsteps either. (After edit conflict.) Hayek79, I acknowledge that you have made useful contributions, but why exactly are you using the Hayek account now to post here on my page? Please don't use two accounts, as the page moves make that very confusing. I suggest you make up your mind which account you want to use. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm using this account because I can't comment here using the new one. I assure you I will make an extra effort to be civil on talk pages in future. Hayek79 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. That's fine, then. The problem of the confusing two accounts will go away as soon as the Wormwood account is autoconfirmed, I assume. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
L.R. Wormwood: I understand that you're trying to distance yourself a bit from the Hayek79 account, but I think it would be a good idea to redirect the user and talk pages of the Hayek79 account to the pages of the L.R. Wormwood account. I don't believe anything in policy requires this, but it would help to eliminate any confusion. See User:Before My Ken and User:Between My Ken for examples. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, Hayek79, you may want to do something different. The new account L.R. Wormwood only has a few edits. Isn't that a pity, since you take pride in your useful contributions? If you want your work credited to the new name, you can request a name change, instead of creating a new account and abandoning the Hayek one. See Wikipedia:Changing username for how to go about it. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'll redirect it, I don't especially mind about edit counts. Hayek79 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you. If you change your mind when you've slept on it, you should probably use the Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations process, since the name you want already exists, which would normally prevent a rename. It shouldn't be a problem — you'd just have to explain that the new account User:L.R. Wormwood is your own. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

recreation of article you closed as delete

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruise (film). I see the article has been recreated, and I see no RS in support of overturning the prior AFD. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: G4'd it. The prior article actually had a bit more to it. --NeilN talk to me 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Hopefully someday soon we will have reason to recreate this due to abundant sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. TonyTheTiger, I don't see why not, since the concerns were WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Steve Hassan BLP

I brought up some issues concerning the Steve Hassan BLP at the Talk page of that BLP. This includes self published single sourced entries in violation of Wikipedia and reliably sourced directly relevant criticism from a noted publisher ignored that is well within Wikipedia standards. Could you please explain why Wikipedia standards are not being consistently followed at this BLP. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Rick: 'Shonen is not responsible for the content of Steven Hassan and it is untoward to expect her to explain why other editors have not agreed with you so far at that article. FWIW I've replied to your concerns at Talk:Steven Hassan #Lack of balance, which is the appropriate venue for discussing improvements to the article, not here. --RexxS (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksRick Alan Ross (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, RexxS. Yes, the fact that I once stepped in and topic banned a user who was attacking you on your bio page, User:Rick Alan Ross, hardly makes me responsible for all bio pages, and I frankly have no particular interest in this one. I intervened at the page Rick Alan Ross purely because of my interest in making sure article subjects are treated decently when they attempt to comment on their Wikipedia biographies. (Compare the current brouhaha here on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, in case you're interested.) Anyway, I'm glad to see you're not editing Steven Hassan, since it looks like you have a COI — a personal interest — there, whether positive or negative, as I've already pointed out on your own page. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. I have never edited the Steve Hassan page. Just have questions about how it is being edited. Please excuse me.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP and disruption

A persistent IP, now at 4RR, is deleting English language content sourced from multiple scholarly sources, and replacing it with non-English content in Durga. Left a message on Talk:Durga page, and a caution on the IP's talk page. Did not help. Alleges scholars are wrong, wikipedia content policies are wrong (we should rely on the native version, rather than scholarly sources), etc. The IP provides no sources to back up their claims, adds "You seem to have a motivated ill intentions"! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colourful character. It might be a good idea to give them a 3RR warning, Ms Sarah Welch. They're actually at 2RR, not 4RR — this was a change, not a revert, and do you see how they reverted themselves once? By mistake, possibly, but it still means they're only at 2RR. All the more need for the 3RR warning, actually. They haven't edited since your and Mr. Mjolnir's warnings, so I think I'll leave them alone for now. Not much point in me chiming in on their page, anyway, since we're all wrong! Please let me know if they revert again, or take it to WP:AN3 if I'm asleep (going to bed now). Or are there any little admin talkpage stalkers in a superior timezone out there? Because I agree the edits are disruptive, certainly. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Done. Thanks Mjolnir and Bish, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. I'm always willing to be completely wrong to help out a fellow editor. Or even just for the hell of it, most days. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Greetings. This is a bit of a dicey question, but here goes. Do Admins have internal back-channel communications, not accessible to non-Admins? Tapered (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia e-mail is equally available to everybody, as is the Wikipedia IRC channel. Admins do have a dedicated admin IRC channel, but it doesn't seem to be much in use these days. That's my impression. I've looked in a few times, to see if there was anything going on, and it has echoed quite hollowly. It's my sense that e-mail is more used, and not more by admins than other experienced users, I think. Who can really tell, though? Bishonen | talk 23:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Jackpot question. I want to 'do' an RFC. The plan is to publicize it @ one Noticeboard and three Projects. Two of the projects' Talk pages are not terribly busy. Candidly, full disclosure, I believe that these projects would be more favorable to my position than the other project or noticeboard, though I'm not certain. To be as certain as possible that people from the projects read about the RfC, I'd like to ping the last 10 contributors to these talk pages—and, of course, follow suit by pinging the last 10 participants at the other talk page. Is this kosher? Since this is a specific, and possibly arcane, question, is there one expert Admin whose word/opinion who could answer this question authoritatively? Tapered (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too arcane for me, yeah, Tapered. The admins who can probably answer hang out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, and they seem to respond quite briskly to queries. That looks like a good place to ask. I see some non-admins replying there, too, but that should be OK. In case of doubt, you can always wait for more than one person to reply. To estimate who is more knowledgable/authoritative among the regulars, take a look at previous replies on the page. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! Tapered (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I handled OTRS ticket:2017031610022141 in which user Sbelknap confirmed his real-life identity. I think this is the first identity confirmation I've ever handled so please don't hesitate to let me know if you think I've missed something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sphilbrick. I'm not very used to them either, but how hard can it be? I'll just unblock. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, I see you unblocked. Good, I'll write something on their page. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
In this case it wasn't hard, due to the email address, but if someone has a gmail or yahoo account, it can be a bit trickier. (Sorry, I should have mentioned that I unblocked.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamenta?

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA archived

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request

Please could you perform an IP range block on an IP user. They were initially blocked for disruptive editing [23], then they have repeated the same edits using these IPs in the same range [24], [25]. Silverfish (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can, @Silverfish: I see Oshwah has blocked a few single IPs, and I might as well do the range. However, I see the range I blocked before, on 26 February, was 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64, while the one you're asking for now is 2600:8800:4481:C4B0::/64. Unfortunately that suggests it may be on a mobile connection, so I don't know how much good it'll do, but we can hope. Done, anyway; I've blocked for a month. It's not much good giving that character dainty little blocks. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Good call with the range block. This should hopefully put a stop to the disruption, or at least slow it down significantly. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D.Gray-man

Grettings. A fellow user has suggested me to ask you for help with the FAC D.Gray-man. It has been copyedited by the guild as well as another user experienced in prose. Still, a reviewer found some issues with the writing. Could you give it a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tintor2, I don't have much time to spare, and also I don't feel very confident around these subjects. Perhaps you thought I would be, because of my username? I'm afraid that's a bit misleading. Manga is unfamiliar ground to me. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No problem.Tintor2 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was German - Können Sie mir bishonen? Or something like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
German? That's a new one, lol. No, it means "pretty boy" in Japanese — not sure why I used it, being neither pretty nor a boy — I just didn't think I'd be here long, I guess [all my socks burst out laughing at that], and Momus's eponymous song was running through my head at the time. A bishōnen is a stock character in manga and anime. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
We (Germans) say Schonen for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I come from Schonen — I was born there. So Bischonen would be a pretty good name for me. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

User:Edson Frainlar I

Hi Bishonen. You indefinitely blocked Edson Frainlar back in February for for disruptive editing, etc. Edson Frainlar I was created a few days later and immediately began editing/creating articles related to the DMI Group of Institutions. I'm pretty sure this is a case of WP:QUACK, but not sure whether SPI or ANI is more appropriate for block evasion. Please advise on how to best proceed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you can just ask some sympathetic admin, for instance the one who blocked the original account. ;-) Both SPI and ANI seem like unnecessary bureaucracy in a case that's as clear as this. Thank you, Marchjuly, I took care of it, including deleting the article they created under the new name. Bishonen | talk 01:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's fantasy TV universe

I'm not sure this counts as anything really important, but it appears that a user has set up his own private TV universe, starring himself, using multiple accounts. These accounts user subpages seem to be:

The same name keeps cropping up on the pages, not to mention interlinking edits. --Calton | Talk 09:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated... thank you, Calton, I'll have to take a look later. Bishonen | talk 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Nice catch, Calton. I've deleted the sandboxes and blocked the accounts except Jjnguyen. I may be a big mean admin, but why can't they play on Facebook or something? Bishonen | talk 16:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Beyond My Ken

I thought I might take this to you before I do anything else, since you appear to be familiar with this user and their work. I'm not sure if I'm required to let the user concerned know that they are being discussed, but if I am, please ping them.

The issues on the Alternative for Germany page haven't gone away. There is a pattern whereby the user adds material to the ideology section of the infobox, such as "anti-feminism" or "climate change denial", piles up references, and then proceeds to edit war on the basis that those trying to remove their contributions are breaching NPOV. They have now accused three users, including myself, of being AfD supporters on this basis, most recently here:

Though you decided that I was at fault over the previous dispute, my argument throughout was that the sources did not adequately support the claim, and that the claim shouldn't feature in the infobox anyway. There is a reason why, to my knowledge, no other major political party, even comparable parties like UKIP, have things like "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" listed in their infoboxes. My concerns mostly have to do with the advice here: MOS:INFOBOX, and consistency with similar pages. There are now three of us on the talk page who agree that the latest addition to the infobox shouldn't feature in the article. Do you think this is something that could go to arbitration?

You have mentioned before that this user does "NPOV work", but I would suggest that some of his recent comments would indicate partisan editing. I don't feel that the following is acceptable, for instance:

This in particular struck me: "And if you don't want to be typed as an AfD supporter, then you should stop behavior which is supportive of creating a positive view of the party, such as removing ideology items from the infobox, and reporting the person you are in dispute with on the talk page to ANEW."

It's also very difficult to pick up on this sort of thing without reinforcing their perception that those on the talk page who disagree with the user about the validity of the references, and about infobox style, are not trying to portray the party positively.

Might it be possible for you to discuss some of these issues with the user? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @L.R. Wormwood:, but I don't actually know the user well, nor the article. My block of you was purely behavioral. I just don't have time to take this on at this time. I don't know if you want to take it to ANI — I appreciate that you came to me to avoid the worst sides of ANI. Talkpage stalkers who are less ignorant than me, feel free to chat below, but I'm not going to say much at this time. (If things should get out of hand, I may invite User:Bishzilla.) And yes, I think a ping of @Beyond My Ken: is needed. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I understand that most people wouldn't be interested in this sort of thing, or have the time to deal with it. It's just frustrating that there doesn't appear to be any means of resolving issues like this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could help me with this - at what point can we say there is a consensus on a talk page? At the moment it's 4 to 1 (possibly 2) against inclusion on the talk page. Obviously we will have to wait a few more days for further comment by other users. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be in line with L.R. Wormwood's behavior as Hayek79 - expecting immediate results. In point of fact, I have not seen the article talk page, except for a quick look when I read this just now, since I saw Jytdog's reply to my suggestion of a compromise. So, L.R. Wormwood's bad faith assumption that I'm ignoring consensus is incorrect. At a quick look, it seems as if there is indeed a consensus at the moment not to include "Climate change denial" in the "Ideology", but it would be nice to be given the opportunity to respond before Wormwood jumps down my throat. Recall, please, that this is the editor who pledged to behave better on talk pages on this very page, and here he is, basically forum-shopping and admin-shopping before I, or any other editor who shares my opinion on this issue, to respond. There's no particular hurry, and this needs to wait until this evening, when I'm finished with work, and production meetings, and parent-teacher conferences, so I can take a look at it. In the meantime, L.R. Wormwood needs to keep his shirt on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I found time to look at the page (between the production meeting and the parent-teacher conference, and I'm not seeing a consensus. I'm certainly seeing a plurality, but not a consensus. To formalize this dicey issue, I'll be opening an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker)Gratuitous stalker comment: If the claims about the group's ideology are supported by RSes, then it really doesn't matter if articles about similar groups include them or not, what matters is that RSes attribute those views to the group. The complaint at the top really looks like a content dispute to me (and one over NPOV which are generally the worst ones in my experience).
I haven't done more than read the sources used for "anti-feminist", but I'm really not seeing the wiggle room to argue that attributing that to them is a POV problem: the sources are reliable, explicitly make the claim, and there's a number of them. I was also able to find out, for example, that "AfD antifeminismus" is the top suggested autocomplete result from google.de when typing "afd " (note the space).
Though mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, diesen tagen, I know enough to know I mangled the grammar in that and enough to puzzle my way through statements like "Die AfD hält nichts vom Feminismus. Mit abgenutzten Vorurteilen machen sie ihre Positionierung deutlich." (MPants translation: "The AfD has nothing to do with feminism. They are obviously prejudiced.") It's also worth noting that the second suggested completion was "afd antisemitisch" which I don't think requires any translation.
Whether or not any member of the AfD is anti-feminist (or antisemitic) is not something we can say, but when the general perception among reliable sources is that the group s a whole is, it's decidedly non neutral to exclude this info from the article. And that's all I have to say about tha-ut. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was a comment about BMK's behaviour in general, which I didn't want to waste people's time with on AN/I. I was not "admin-shopping". I didn't want to discuss the AfD dispute here. I don't believe that acccusations of bad faith on my part from BMK carry much authority given how BMK has addressed people who disagree with him on the AfD page (as the Diffs show above). Honestly, this is exhausting and I don't have time for it; I was just raising an alarm about minor behavioural issues which I have noticed.
As for the comments above, I'll have a more careful read later, but so far all the objections on the talk page have been concerned with whether things like "climate change denial" and "anti-feminism" should be listed as ideological commitments of the party in the infobox (I.e. Is climate change denial a political ideology?), and an emergent consensus on the talk page would suggest they are not. Obviously, these are things which could be mentioned in the main body of the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a secondary objection upheld by myself and one other (not concerned with the appropriateness of "anti-feminism" in the infobox) which you've mentioned, and I'll respond to that later. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
L.R. Wormwood: You need to read a little more closely than you are, because there is a distinct and important difference between saying that someone is a supporter of AfD -- which is something I have not said -- and saying that their behavior looks like it could be the behavior of an AfD supporter. It is the actions I questioned, and the possible meaning of the actions. Frankly, I still have some difficulty understanding why someone would edit an article in ways that prevent the subject's somewhat embarrassing viewpoints from being exposed if they weren't engaged in protecting the subject and skewing the article in their favor. Because this is an encyclopedia which is designed to provide information to the public, and not a sophomoric exercise in rhetoric, I have little or no patience with edits which are made not because they improve the encyclopedia, but because "it's the philosophy of the thing." Fie, I say, the philosophy of the thing be damned, edits should improve the encyclopedia and help present valid and supported facts to our readers. Period, full stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insinuating that someone is an AfD supporter is not a cover for making a direct accusation. None of the contributions made so far could be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that there are any motives other than those provided on the talk page. Several people have tried to remove content you have added which they believe is inappropriate for the infobox of a political party, and you have returned with the assumption that people are trying to airbrush the page (and participated in an edit war claiming NPOV). I don't believe that discussing this further with you will be productive, so I won't. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I've been directly insulted (no aspersions, no hints, no commentary on my apparent POV, just directly insulted) at least three times since the new year and I have yet to ask an admin to do anything about it. This helps me to be a productive Wikipedian, because it means I waste less time arguing about arguing. Be like Captain Hammer Pants. Just let it go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed a pattern, that's all. I'll let it go and avoid them in future, since it would seem their style of editing brings out the worst in me.
Regarding User:MjolnirPants's comments, my complaint, and that of about half a dozen others now (I'm not tallying), is that the "ideology" field for political party infoboxes is used to provide a general overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, and usually lists no more than four or five items, often much fewer. See: Socialist Party (France), The Republicans (France), Democratic Party (United States), UKIP, New Zealand National Party. This makes the information more accessible, and reflects the guidelines in the MOS (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Often, the descriptors used are so general that there could be no cause for reasonable disagreement, and for this reason are often un-referenced: example: Labour Party (UK). There are also far too many references for each claim (partly because they are so needlessly contentious), when as another user has noted (Diff), one reference from a reliable source would be sufficient (but I was not allowed to remove the redundant references).
The problem with the inclusion of "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" under the "ideology" field of the infobox is that these are not political ideologies (as the user has, in one case, already admitted on the talk page Diff). There is also the fact that there are now ten entries under the "ideology" field, which is far more than is necessary, and most of these are covered by each other (Right-wing populism could plausibly cover minority anti-feminist sentiments, or Christian right tendencies, for instance), and are therefore redundant.
Regarding the sources for anti-feminism specifically, two concern a Facebook campaign (one is an opinion article), and one concerns the views of a parliamentarian from the Baden-Württemberg landtag. Personally, I don't think this provides enough support for the claim that anti-feminism is a leading feature of the AfD agenda, and certainly not so great a feature that it deserves to appear under the "ideology" field. These tendencies could, of course, still be mentioned in the main body of the article. It is possible that we just disagree on this point. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I responded to User:MjolnirPants's comments because I said I would yesterday, I do not intend to discuss this with BMK here; he is aware of my position. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the inclusion of "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" under the "ideology" field of the infobox is that these are not political ideologies They meet the criteria in the article you just linked, so I'm not seeing anything here but a bald assertion coupled with contradictory evidence. Any ideology that concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology. This includes climate change denialism, pro-science advocacy, feminism, anti-feminism and a rather staggering number of others. Note: this is content, not conduct and does not require administrative intervention.
as the user has, in one case, already admitted on the talk page Diff I'm afraid that diff demonstrates nothing of the sort. BMK's comments in that are simply drawing a distinction between the component plurals and the ultimate singular use of the word "ideology". Every mental faculty I have that concerns logic, human nature, language and communication tells me that is not in any way, an admission that such ideologies as are listed are not political in nature. Of course, BMK might come along and say "Sorry, you big handsome tooltrouser you, but I really did mean to admit that they aren't political ideologies," but I somehow doubt that will happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The comment was concerned with the following assertion: "The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology.", which as I have tried to demonstrate above is not the case (i.e. This is not how the field is used, as I attempt to show above, and in my response to the comment here: Diff).

Re this: "They meet the criteria in the article you just linked":

The phrase "certain ethical set of ideals [etc]" is important. Generally, I believe, a political ideology is understood as a set of views, dispositions, prejudices, and so forth, which form a body of ideas, loosely defined, which might be encompassed by a term or phrase (or held by a particular body of people [26] Cambridge English Dictionary). I consider a political ideology to be a set of ideas, therefore (this is the meaning adopted here, I believe: List of political ideologies). We might say that "neoliberalism", for instance, is an ideology. We wouldn't say (though you might) that structural adjustment is an ideology (though it might be ideological, informed by ideology, etc).

Therefore, when you say: "Any ideology that concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology", this is not what the article I provide says, and I suspect this is just your view.

This is, I believe, what BMK means to say when he makes a distinction between "ideology" and "ideologies" (that is, he agrees with my position on the meaning of ideology in a political context above). When he says, "The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology", he means the field is not supposed to merely list a group of political ideologies, i.e. national conservatism and so forth, but the component "beliefs" which constitute the party's ideology. This might include things like climate change denial, anti-feminism, and so on. This is how I interpreted his comment when I first read it, on re-reading it, I still believe I am correct, but I am willing to be corrected. This is not, however, as I have said, how the field is used. BMK's view is just a novel interpretation of what the field "ideology" might have been intended to imply.

Therefore, he is admitting that climate change denial is not a political ideology where he says: "So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology", i.e. it is not in itself an ideology, but it is an element of the party ideology (and therefore ought to feature in the infobox which, it is alleged, is intended to provide a laundry list of links which describe the "set of beliefs which is the party's ideology"). I do not believe that he was merely making an obvious distinction between the form words take when used to refer to "component plurals", and when used in the singular, but you are welcome to your view. I would recommend you read the whole exchange for context.

The entire paragraph for reference: "The infobox field says "Ideology", not "Ideologies". The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology. So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology."

Every mental faculty I have would also confirm that BMK is not making the admission that "such ideologies as are listed are not political in nature", but that would be an admission entirely different from the admission that they are not "political ideologies".

Now that I have clarified what I mean, I no longer believe that it would be fair to say that all I am contributing is "bald assertion coupled with contradictory evidence". It's also a little frustrating that you only responded to one paragraph (this is what got me into trouble over the last dispute), but I understand WP policy doesn't oblige users to respond to all points raised. I also realise that we are now discussing a content issue, but I am only responding to a content issue you raised when you responded to my comments concerning the dispute on the AfD talk page. I'm happy to continue this parsing elsewhere if User:Bishonen doesn't want it on their talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've said you were here over behavioral problems, but you've yet to give any evidence of any behavioral problems, or even name what, specifically they are. In fact, every diff you've shown has been one which demonstrates some aspect of the content dispute. Now, I certainly could keep arguing about content with you, but I'm not going to, because this isn't the article talk page, but Bish's user talk page. I don't believe I'm buying your end of the argument at all, but again: that's beside the point. My advice to you, take it or leave it, is to attempt some dispute resolution steps. Try an RfC, or possibly mediation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @L.R. Wormwood:, I think it's time to take your disagreement elsewhere. An RfC on article talk seems like a good idea. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
"you've yet to give any evidence of any behavioral problems": I provided evidence of behavioural problems in my initial post Diff, and you responded to this by saying that you have been directly insulted several times since the new year, and yet have let it go, with the expectation that I let BMK's insinuation that I'm an AfD supporter go.
I'm happy to provide more diffs to validate my case, but I'm not spending any time on this since I've said I won't pursue it. My complaints are a generally aggressive and unpleasant tone (here he calls me dysfunctional, for instance); and a frequent and fairly blatant failure to assume good faith:
Another user provides some more evidence of such behaviour (unpleasantness, bad faith, some other accusations) in a complaint they made against BMK's edit warring on WP:ANEW here.
The issue has gone to RfC, and the survey is currently 8-2 in my favour. I doubt the two dissenters will back down, so it will likely be closed formally.
When you say: "I don't believe I'm buying your end of the argument at all", I'm not sure whether you're referring to my position on the behaviour dispute, the content dispute, or my previous comments about your interpretation of BMK's remarks on the talk page. If it's the former, I've provided you with some more diffs, which show some (blatant, and admitted) bad faith, and low-level incivility - nothing actionable, but I was hoping when I came here that someone who is familiar with the user might "have a word with them", so to speak.
If you disagree with me on content, you are welcome to believe that the sources demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party, i.e., that "anti-feminism" is a significant part of their agenda, but I don't, and my reasons are all over the talk page. You may believe that opinion articles can be credible references for that sort of claim, but I don't, and most people I have encountered so far on WP agree. You may wish to adopt a very abstract interpretation of the term "political ideology", which is apparently that anything which "concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology", but this is not how the term is used here or here, where it is used to refer to a set or body or system of ideas, preferences, notions, prejudices etc concerning the way society or government ought to be organised. This is supported by the Cambridge English Dictionary link which I supplied, and also here and here. This might refer either to the general ideological orientation of an individual, or group of people (not individual policy preferences like climate change denial, pro-life policies, etc, though they might be ideological positions), but will often also (and in this context does) refer to a particular set or system of ideas, such as the political ideologies listed here. This is how the term has been interpreted for every article for every major political party, as I have shown, where they list things like anarchism, or social democracy, or neoconservatism, and not things like pro-choice, small government, or climate change denial. I believe there is an obvious qualitative difference between these things. The latter might be associated with particular "political ideologies", they might be positions or preferences informed by the general ideological commitments of particular individuals, but I do not believe that any conventional understanding of the term could lend any support to their designation as "political ideologies". This term (in the English-speaking world at least, as far as I have encountered) has a specific meaning, which does not include any ideological commitment related to politics.
The same goes for my interpretation of BMK's comments. I cannot find any other reasonable interpretation of what he meant beyond what I laid out as clearly as I can yesterday. I don't see much room for your interpretation of him merely identifying and pointing out the distinction between "component plurals" and singular use given everything else contained in the paragraph, and given that he would not be contributing anything at all by simply pointing that out (what would be his point, if your reading is correct?)
I can't find any other way to express my thoughts more clearly. I am convinced that I am right (validated by the fact that all but the two original contributors agree with my position on the talk page RfC survey), and I hope this additional clarification has convinced you, but I can't be convinced otherwise without actual arguments being presented (which the dissenters on the talk page have failed to provide convincingly). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, @L.R. Wormwood:, please take a hint. I get an alert every time you post on this page, you know. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'll go now, @MjolnirPants: can respond on my talk page if he wishes to. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin attention

Greetings. I was looking through the 'R's @ Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to compare listed editors with one I'm considering to add. If you click on the "count" link for User:Random Passer-by, some of the info at this next not-exactly-Wikipedia page appears to have been vandalized. A small thing, but still vandalism. Regards Tapered (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker/non-admin): You mean the weird numbers here? I'd guess it's a bug with X's Edit Counter tool. Unless I'm missing something, no one is maintaining that tool anymore or even replying to queries about it. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I see User:Random Passer-by's first edit was in 2099. I wasn't aware of a problem with X's edit counter — I thought cyberpower678 was maintaining it? Aren't you, Cyber? Bishonen | talk 10:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm listed to recruit new active maintainers, but I stopped being involved a while ago. It's now being actively maintained, and rewritten by Matthewrbowker, and the WMF.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cyberpower678, that's good to know. [In a cackling, ancient voice:] I hope one of you young folks will keep an eye out for Random Passer-by when they turn up in 2099. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see a 2099 in that count. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivertorch: Appears you've run into T97153. It's a bit of a funny issue that we haven't found the root cause for yet, though it appears to happen when the database returns an incorrect result. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's T97153; I say it's a time portal. (Bishzilla know all about.) If it shows up on certain other tools, we'll be able to see edits before they happen and block vandals before they vandalize. In the meantime, someone might like to update Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters#Wikipedia compatible edit counter and page counters, which still lists User:Hedonil as maintaining the tool. RivertorchFIREWATER 12:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Wasn't expecting such an in depth response! Now I capish. Sort of. Tapered (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nader El-Bizri

Re this. I wound up semiprotecting this article. Let me know if you disagree. A semi is usually easier than a rangeblock! The guy himself could be notable, since he appears to be a full professor at the American University of Beirut. The article itself appears to be mostly copyvio, and I imagine people will get busy and trim it down soon, if it survives at all. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Ed. A rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 range (normally one person) is thankfully very easy too, but semi may well give better protection. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"Nader El-Bizri" article

Dear Bishonen, what has happened over the past couple of days has been a misunderstanding that may have resulted from haste in editing that has been carried through with tags, and this seems to be harmful to the reputation of the actual person being covered by the entry "Nader El-Bizri". Please more care needs to be directed to this from you as professional editors and from your Wikipedia colleagues. I fully understood now that as a casual editor that I should not interfere with tags, but all along I wanted to bring the latest edits to the attention of your administrators just in case there was a case of vandalism or unfair editorial handling throughout, and for this purpose I used the noticeboards and miscellaneous queries pages on Wikipedia as a means of contacting the professional Wikipedia editors without knowing that this is not your protocol. There was a suggestion even made by one of the editors of deleting the whole "Nader El-Bizri" even though it is a page that has been on Wikipedia for several years and has multiple links within Wikipedia and to external references etc. Please look into it under your editorial care. Thanks 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:E5B3:EBD7:4E2F:D5 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:E5B3:EBD7:4E2F:D5. Edit warring in particular is not our protocol, and we take a dim view of it. Because of your rather aggressive editing (repeatedly removing tags), the article has now been semiprotected by another administrator, per the section you see above. Semiprotection means IPs can't edit it at all. You can still request edits on Talk:Nader El-Bizri, though. Post the template {{Edit semi-protected}} (just copy that as it appears on my page) and write your request in the form "please change x to y", and give your reason. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For giving us all closure at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Qué tal Taichi: Round 2

How about Taichi? ready for punches!

@Bish, our spanish writing editor is back, with choice personal attacks. This time on my talk page! For Round 1, see above.

Never crossed paths with this character in any article or article talk page, as much as I can remember. The IP was 85.84.184.165 harassing Maragm and you, now hopped to 85.84.113.133. Bbb23 has blocked the new one for 72 hours, which suffices. If persistent against Maragm or others in Latin America / Iberia-related articles, may need more Taichi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... perhaps we're giving the childishness too much attention. Let me know if I can interest you in a semi of your pages. (Wow, did you see MONGO's stormcloud?) Bishonen | talk 21:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Good idea, thanks. Lets semi it for 6 months, save Bbb23 some future effort.. who must be overloaded with work. I admire how much work Bbb23 does to keep sockpuppets and disrupters at bay. Scary stormcloud pic that is. MONGO... waiting for more nice pics! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6 months? Well, if you're sure. I looked at the edits to your page in the past 6 months, and there was one reasonable IP, no more.[27] Perhaps you'd like to put a note on your page recommending non-autoconfirmed editors to take their concerns to article talkpages? Or something. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed. It is the third time you protected my talk page for another 6 months. Thanks. May be next time, we go much longer. Look at the MONGO pic quickly before it changes. Two pretty pink beaked pelicans. Good photography, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mentoring of Endercase

Thank you for your recent comments on User talk:Endercase.

Could you also look at the recent behaviour by Endercase's mentor User:David Tornheim? I requested that he talk to Endercase about his recent behaviour, and was met with "Why should I? I'm not an admin."[28] I am not asking for sanctions against David, but I am increasingly wondering about his capacity to act as a mentor when he essentially admitted upfront that he would act more as an enabler than a teacher (User:JzG and I both expressed concerns during the ANI thread, as well as on JzG's talk page). Since the close was an involved, non-admin close that didn't explicitly mention any binding agreement on who should do the mentoring, what the mentoring should cover, and how long it should last, I'm wondering what can be done about it. I'm not that familiar with mentoring (I just thought that if I offered advice on how to edit, everything would be okay, but it's been causing me a lot more stress than that, especially since the ANI thread was closed), so I'm not sure.

After Endercase attacked me (despite my being his other "mentor"), I initially told him off, but also requested David back me up.[29]

After he refused, I went to User:MjolnirPants and mentioned David's shirking, and have as a result recently been met with a string of "warnings" for "lying" about him and not pinging him, even though he made it quite clear he didn't want anything to do with it.[30][31]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 is misrepresenting things in number of forums and it is a huge waste of my time having to correct the falsehoods he is telling. What he did do was ask me to tell some other editor to "knock it off" [32] and I that's why I said no. He previously told me I needed to investigate the interaction of him and some other editor [33]. Neither of these requests is appropriate and I said no. The full discussion is here. He is also making unfounded accusations and talking behind my back [34], saying that I have failed to continue mentoring Endercase. That is not true. If he had provided me the diff where Endercase attacked him, I would have said something, but he didn't. (When I did find out about it, I did say something [35]). The request that I investigate Endercase followed his claims I was supposed to shoe off the other two other editors who disagreed with him. He provided no diff. I'm supposed to go looking for it? It just gets tiresome. I am happy to continue helping Endercase, but I am tired of Hijiri88 bugging me like this and causing me unnecessary drama. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Struck per agreement to drop it. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a pair of trouts tied together at the tail like nunchaku and I'm about to start spazzing out like a Bruce Lee movie on VHS with the tracking off and fast forward locked on. Just because you two have been here longer doesn't mean my advice (repeated ad nauseum at this point) is only good for new editors: stop stirring up shit if you don't want to get any on you. Also, I think there's some advice above that works, too: Let's all be like the Dude and just, like, abide, man. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: You're right, as usual. @David Tornheim: You wanna drop this whole thing yet and forget about it? I do. <Offers hand to shake> Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Yes. Definitely. Going forward, I would appreciate if you only focus on Endercase rather than asking me to investigate or admonish other users. If Endercase behaves poorly, I am more likely to follow up if you provide a diff or page section, and if the request is on his talk (or mentoring) page, or tag me at the place is going on. Okay? I will try to follow up if it is a concise request of that form, okay? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim, Hijiri was obviously very hurt and needed support against his unruly mentee, and I wish you had provided it. That said, though, I think you've been doing a very good job advising Endercase. (Not that I've followed you around, but from everything I've come across.) I was originally with JzG and Softlavender, who expressed doubts about your suitability to be a mentor, but I've had to change my mind. You tell him good stuff, and you don't give up. Perhaps, indeed, you're so tenacious that you're wearing yourself out, because it's quite hard to get Endercase to listen, as you may have found. Mentoring does tend to be an ungrateful task. @Endercase:, please give some thought to not wearing your mentors out — I think Hijiri has already, understandably, given up, and you're making David work very hard without much reward. If both your mentors withdraw, you're unlikely to find new ones. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. reverted edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToshibaCK6R4

Does this help?

Also I appreciate you trying to get in contact with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToshibaCK6R4 (talk • contribs)

Hi, User:ToshibaCK6R4. Sorry, I don't understand. The user talkpage you link me to hasn't even been created yet — there's nothing on it. Did I try to get in contact with you under another username or an IP? I talk to quite a few new users, so I'm not sure who you are. Is it possibly about this? Bishonen | talk 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry to ask for another favour...

Could you ask Vfrickey (talk · contribs) to drop the stick as well? He just filled his talk page with a long rant against me (or, rather, the strawman he set up in my place), after everyone else had apparently agreed to put this whole incident behind us.

I really, really wanna just forget about this whole incident, but the guy now has a threat to bring me to ANI (or, rather, a statement of regret that he didn't support that IP troll's ridiculous boomerang proposal) on his talk page, and specifically set it to remain there for 90 days.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically it's not a statement of regret that he didn't support the bogus trolling boomerang proposal; it's a statement of regret that no such proposal was made, which is arguably even worse (proposing a boomerang against the OP of an ANI discussion one hasn't even read/understood is inherently worse, right?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just let it go. The other editor stated their opinion—some of it good and some not so. Let them have the last word. I tried communicating at User talk:Endercase a couple of times (most recently to comment on Bishonen's "please try to read policies for their spirit") but received an amazing lack of engagement. I could have persisted but the Internet is a big place and it is not possible to make everyone exactly as we would like them to be. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit much on their part to talk about committing the error of letting other people use their page as a soapbox. A user talkpage isn't supposed to be anybody's soapbox, and I've told them so. But, Hijiri 88, I agree you should let these things go. You'll feel better. Sticks and stones, you know. What does it matter what they regret? Bishonen | talk 05:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, you're both right. I actually knew you were both right before you even said that (I've been desperately trying to drop this whole messmsince Saturday). I was just worried that he'd actually make good on his ANI threat. But a few hours to settle down has reminded me that no one would take such an ANI discussion seriously, so there's really nothing for me to be worried about at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear the record, nowhere did I threaten to take anything to AN/I in my discussion. I mentioned the issue of other editors being taken to AN/I of a conflation of legitimate disruptive activity and the political affiliation of the sites they were advocating to be cited (in what I agree was conduct requiring a hearing at AN/I, but which ought to have been discussed without use of emotionally loaded terms like "right-wing fake-news" sites which seem to make the issue the editor's politics, when the real issue should be the editor's actions which violate our policies). Hijiri 88 just accused me of serious misconduct without any proof. Please explain the rules about that to him. Thank you. loupgarous (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What rules are those? Threatening to take people to ANI, which I agree you didn't do, wouldn't be serious misconduct by a long chalk. BTW do you see how much more agreeable it is to have your post left on the page, and responded to? I admit I was tempted to remove it. Bishonen | talk 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, thank you for your restraint. I actually did take your advice to heart and am in the process of moving that entire block of text to my user page as you suggested. Thank you for stating the facts courteously, educating me and allowing me to correct my own errors. And MjolnirPants, thanks for the calming Disney clip. I'm delighted to let this go, now that my concerns were addressed. loupgarous (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for handling a difficult and emotionally fraught situation in an equable manner. I appreciate your use of the situation to teach proper use of the user talk page and not to punish me by merely deleting the text involved with a brusque message. Good adminning! loupgarous (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Media (4th nomination)

I do not see consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Media (4th nomination). The sources presented in the AfD were not local sources. They included national sources like The Times, BBC, The Guardian, and Design Week. Cunard (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cunard. What concerned me was that the RS attention seemed so old. 2005 was a century ago in IT company years, and three of the national media mentions that you found, The Times, BBC News, and The Guardian were from 2004-2005. The exception was The Telegraph, from 2010. But that 2010 mention was fairly fleeting, and didn't really speak to notability: more that they had bank problems like everybody else. Even 2010 was a long time ago in the volatile world of IT businesses, and I had to wonder if, and why, E3 Media hadn't had any more recent media attention. In particular, coverage from before the 2007-2008 financial crisis doesn't say much about notability/viablity now. There are more recent local mentions, or so I suppose, because I couldn't read your 2014 link to the Bristol Post. It merely invited me to sign in.
The National Trust's "50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾" campaign, launched in 2012, may be more worthy of its own article, but I remain unconvinced that E3 Media's part in it was essential. On a quick read of the links you provided for it, I don't see E3 Media mentioned, except in Design Week, which is indeed a full-out good source for E3 Media (now apparently called "e3". Bah!).
Such is my thinking, but I could certainly be wrong. You'd better take it to DRV. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate the time you took to write a very detailed, well thought out explanation, Bishonen. I don't agree with some of your conclusions about the sources, so I've taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 1#E3 Media as you've advised. Cunard (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. I've temp undeleted to facilitate discussion. Bishonen | talk 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Rangeblock?

Shall I wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled?

Greetings, mighty Bishonen (or is it 'zilla who's in office today?). I blocked Justcallmesam a few days ago for repeated disruptive editing. The main account has not edited since then, but another editor raised a concern on their talk page that they have been using IP addresses in a certain range to make the same disruptive edits [36]. Would you mind taking a look? Might a rangeblock be appropriate? I feel a little conflicted about this, as they clearly have the potential to make constructive edits, but (as teenagers are wont to do) went off the rails a little after repeatedly being told to use sources. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Vanamonde, there's not enough information from @Apokryltaros:. 113.88... plus one IP isn't enough to deduce a useful range. At least I think 113.88... by itself would give a really big range — I don't know how to work with it, and X's range contributions can't help. My understanding of IP ranges is something of a thin varnish, you know. (Ping @RexxS and Darwinfish:) I tried looking at the histories of the articles that 113.88.81.28 has edited, but there were no others in the same range there, certainly not recently. Show me a few more IPs and I can do it. A brief rangeblock might be appropriate. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ah well, thanks anyhow. If Apokryltaros can give you more information, great, otherwise we can let this go, I guess. I'm not active in the topic, so I'm not aware of where else they've been messing around. Vanamonde (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After checking again, the IPs that I suspect Justcallmesam uses, based on comparing edit history behavior and seeing identical edit summaries, include 183.16.151.155 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 183.16.159.250 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 113.88.83.57 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), as well as 113.88.81.28 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). I'm not sure if he has edited on other IPs, but these are the ones I've reverted edits identical to Justcallmesam's editing behavior.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add 113.88.83.50 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (pretty obvious from second revert at Spot-winged starling). Perhaps Pvmoutside who reverted him there may have spotted others? Blocking 113.88.0.0 to 113.88.255.255 is quite a big range and you'd have to check for collateral damage before even considering it. I'm guessing there are likely to be quite a few editors using China Telecom in Shenzhen. --RexxS (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at both of the /16 ranges here and here. Rather surprisingly, he appears to be the only anon IP using both ranges for all of 2017 and going back into 2016 with a duration of several months. Please review to see if you concur. Under normal circumstances, those ranges would be too big to block but I don't see any collateral damage. If going with a hardblock on those ranges, I would want a checkuser to evaluate for possible collateral damage...but blocking all anon IPs on those ranges looks good to me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all very much. So that would be 113.88.0.0/16 and 183.16.0.0/16? Please confirm, Berean Hunter and/or RexxS, because I'm never sure I understand the system. Why am I an admin and not you lot? Do I dare to eat a peach? Yes, OK, I suppose I do. I've blocked both those ranges for a week: short rangeblocks, in consideration of the fact that this is a knowledgeable user who might become a useful contributor, per Vanamonde. Shall I wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled? Bishonen | talk 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, Chère: 113.88.0.0/16 is all 65,000 IPs from 113.88.0.0 to 113.88.255.255. Similarly for 183.16.0.0/16. You're an admin because you're trusted by the community and I'm not. Berean Hunter is also trusted and just needs to ask for the tools back. While we're waiting for him to do that, some other admin (hint) ought to grant him rollback, autoreviewer, etc. so that he can still do some of the jobs he's well qualified for. The peach issue is settled, good. As for wearing trousers rolled up, I'd advise against that for reasons related to she-who-should-not-be-named. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably get around to it eventually but need to conduct due diligence and catch up on policy and guideline changes, pertinent arb decisions/sanctions and the back stories on some situations. The Admin Newsletter is certainly helpful for this year to date. I just wish that it existed for the months that I missed in 2016. I've also been poking around at the phabricator looking at what's going on there...like this which could have come in handy in this situation.Looks like Kaldari has been working on this quite a bit, a big thank you and just showing an example of the tool's usefulness.
Vanamonde, Justcallmesam evaded your block specifically with the last three edits here, just in case you have the need for that evidence. If you can get him to log back into his account, you may want to be specific with him because his account hasn't been warned for block evasion (his IP's were) and he has the look of avoiding scrutiny.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both! I've left them an editing-while-logged-out warning. Vanamonde (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Justcallmesam is still at it with his "is it valid" bullshit, this time using 183.16.151.40 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))--Mr Fink (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Mr Fink. In consideration of what Berean Hunter told us above about the way the ranges 113.88.0.0/16 and 183.16.0.0/16 are used, I've re-blocked them both for a month. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The King Tut the Nut vandal is back the day after your one year protection was lifted

See this edit [37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabbler (talk • contribs)

Taken care of. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, NeilN. That guy always makes me think irresistibly of Steve Martin's "King Tut" bit. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Your post

The post you made on my talk page, I'm not sure what you mean. As I said on the discussion page, I'm not a racist but the description of the institute is dishonest and the continued use of the term "white-supremacist" is being argued by people who are using ad hominem attacks and are getting overly emotional about the subject. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the truth. NPI does not describe itself as whit-supremacist and has disputed the use of that term to describe their organization. Again, I'm not a white-supremacist or white-nationalist or anything like that but we have to confine ourselves to the facts.NerdNinja9 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comment, from start to finish without skipping any part of it. If you are unsure about the meaning of some part of it, then click on the blue words within that sentence and read the page it brings you to. If you are still unsure, you may ask here or at my talk page and one of us will explain it to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MjolnirPants, you're absolutely right: reading the alert through and clicking on the links is the thing. Hi, NerdNinja9, nice to see you on my page. The discretionary sanctions alert I posted means that there have been many problems and conflicts on American political articles, and therefore the Arbitration committee has authorized administrators to use their own discretion (that's why it's called "discretionary sanctions") in sanctioning editors of these articles who edit unhelpfully. For instance, an administrator can give an editor a topic ban from some or all American political articles. A topic ban would mean the editor wouldn't be allowed to edit those pages. Of course they would be warned first. Note that the alert doesn't mean you have been editing unhelpfully. By giving you the alert, I basically wanted you to be aware that these articles are controversial, and that you need to study our policies and listen to advice from experienced editors. I'm sorry the wording of the alert is so bureaucratic, but I do need to post it exactly as-is, in order for it to "count" as an alert. Compare [38]. As for "we have to confine ourselves to the facts", organizations don't get to self-describe in Wikipedia articles; we go by what reliable sources say about them. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Pssst

Not sure if we're supposed to edit previous years' AE logs after the decision to split them up. I logged the change in 2017. --NeilN talk to me 15:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you logged your addition of 1RR in the 2017 log (and I mentioned that in my note). But I think it makes sense to mention in the 2016 log that I later revoked the restriction. It might mislead somebody if I just left my 2016 note without comment. If we're not supposed to, I invoke the classic sense of IAR: not letting "supposed to" prevent me from improving the encyclopedia. If it's the mention in the 2016 log of what you replaced them with that you don't like, feel free to remove that bit. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No, I think it's fine. I tend to step perhaps too carefully when clerking actions are involved. --NeilN talk to me 15:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, I like to step like Bishzilla. Superclerk, you know![39] (Well, she thinks she is. And it's a fact that her fixes on arbitration pages have never been reverted. A little clerk came here about it once, but left in discomfiture, or fear.) Bishonen | talk 15:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Kara

I was just going to ask you for advice. I have reverted the edits of editor Kakan88 at Jasmine Kara. She claimed to be Jasmine Kara, I then contacted Jasmine Kara on her social media and she confirmed that it is the singer that contacted me here. I am just trying to decide what to do, she wants to make some quite extensive edits to her own article, but I am not sure if is in the best interest to have singers editing their own articles. She does not seem to grasp how to edit either.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Thank you, BabbaQ. I've written to her. Nobody should edit their own bio. She needs to suggest edits on talk, which will also take care of the technical problems. It's best practice to keep it on article talk, but if Swedish is better for her, I suppose she can talk to you on your own page. I'm glad to see she seems quite happy to ask for help — I hope that keeps up, and that you have time to help her. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia Deleted Page Grazitti Interactive

Hi Bishonen, you deleted page Grazitti Interactive recently. But during first discussion there was not clearer consensus. And after that also I was working on making improvements to make the information more notable. The issue was with the Partnerships & Sponsorships section which I was willing to remove or edit. Also there were few reference links like Insidesales which seems to be fine for notability point of view. There are only handful companies makes to this list which is notable reference. Can you please guide me to proceed further since this page was not created for marketing purpose. .Henrysteven (talk) 11:39, 04 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Henry. When I closed the discussion as "delete", I took into account that the article had already been speedy deleted once, by Peridon, per the deletion criteria WP:A7 (No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). You then asked Peridon what specifically was wrong with the article and he explained, and also restored it to your userspace so you could work on it. That conversation is here. All you did, as far as I can see, was remove references that Peridon had told you didn't show notability, and modify one of the existing references. But the important thing that Peridon advised you to do was add references to reliable sources that did show notability. Read his response again, and you'll see. Apparently you weren't able to find any such references. Nevertheless you moved the article back to article space from your userspace. It wasn't really improved at all, and so it got nominated for deletion. If you look at this page, you can see a log of the admin actions for the article.
It also concerns me that you have not declared any connection with the company, and when you were asked in a very straightforward way in the AfD if you had such a connection,[40] you ignored the question, even though you continued to post in the AfD. Frankly, evasiveness on that point does not make a good impression. The impression I take away is that you're here merely to promote the company, which is not what Wikipedia is for. As I said in my closing comment. Theoretically, I should tell you you can request deletion review at WP:DRV, but in my opinion you'd be wasting your time. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

The Patience Barnstar
For your remarkably patient talk page messages, and fortitude in dealing with bullshit. Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on James Randi

Hi, I am getting in touch with you about this revert. I believe that the material I am trying to add to the James Randi article is relevant, so I have explained my reasons here. If you still think that the material is not relevant, would you mind explaining there why you think so? Thanks in advance! --a3nm (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a3nm, I'm pretty sure this has been discussed a number of times on talk, and I thought we had consensus in some RfC that Peña's crimes are not relevant in a biography of Randi, because, well, they're not the same person, and I'm not aware of any credible accusations that Randi was involved in the fraud. (Knowing about it and refraining from telling the authorities is not involvement.) If there are such credible (well-sourced) accusations, you should perhaps mention them in the article. Unfortunately I don't have the time, or the will, to dig through the archives. Pinging @Johnuniq:, who I can see (still on the talkpage) commenting on the matter in 2011. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, thanks for your quick answer. I can't see a link to any such RfC on the talk page. I have pointed out on the talk page reasons why I think the crime is relevant to an article about James Randi. (I'd also like to point out that there has been additional coverage of this event in reliable sources since 2011.) Thanks again, --a3nm (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raju

Hi, you semi-protected Raju for 12 months on 3 April 2015. The year is up and, right on cue, the same problems have begun. Repeated attempts by anons to sanitise sourced content/add unsourced. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, actually, it expired a year ago, 3 April 2016, and I see there were some of the usual kind of anons in the intervening year. But it looks worse now. I'm sure all the IPv6 edits (2405:205 etc) are from one person, but unfortunately they have access to more than the usual /64 range that I'm comfortable blocking. (Or should I eat that peach, RexxS?) Anyway. Semi'd for... hey, let's try for two years. Done. [A little scared.] Bishzilla did that! Bishonen | talk 15:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I never was good at maths. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of IPs vandalising the article produces too big a peach to eat, then semi-protection is an alternative diet that works. If somebody feels that having IPs editing the article would be a net positive, they can always make the case for the semi to be removed here or at RPP. Bon appétit! --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested move

I know that this move is contentious because (a) the mover is a POV pusher and (b) they've got no support in talk page discussions about it. However, there is something I can't put my finger on that makes me think it is going to need an admin to sort it out. The move caused a page deletion. My brain is not in gear. Is yours? - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. It is the subtle spelling difference between Chalukya dynasty and Chaulukya dynasty that confused me, which someone does actually mention as a potential cause of confusion on the talk page. However, as the original target was in fact the common name and had consensus, I'll see if I can revert the move. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you could. I'll put Chaulukya dynasty on my watchlist, when I'm done cursing the fact (?) that Chalukya and Chaulukya are different dynasties, with different Wikipedia pages. I mean, FGS. Bishonen | talk 13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
One of the participants at Talk:Chaulukya dynasty #Title of the article suggested that both dynasties may have originated from an earlier common root and common name, which seems perfectly plausible, if inconvenient. That section on the talk page is essential reading to understand the style and agenda of Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who seems to sail on with his desire to change the article title to Solanki regardless of what anybody else has said, and without adducing a single source in support of his proposal. --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respected administrators The article heading Solanki was changed to Chaulukya by an NRI , who has very less information about this topic . It was a bold move made by the user to change a very old article heading . I'm a new user and I'm continuesly bullied and suppressedby old administrators , even I'm in fault as I'm not able sources and resources but I do provide links in talk pages of the article . Right now I'm learning how to add references and sources ; as a beginner I have contributed alot to Wikipedia , I have provided nothing useless or nuisance ; now coming back to the move topic . Administrators can you please search for Chaulukya on Google , the result displayed will be did you mean Chalukya and then please search for Solanki Rajput who will get a thousand of results in both Hindi and English ; which relates to information on the Wikipedia article Chaulukya . I'm myself a Solanki Rajput , hailing descendency from Tribhuvanpal Solanki (ruler of Gujarat) and I can not see someone pampering with my dynasties history , the word Chaulukya came into existence when the a branch of Chalukyas moved to Gujarat and because of problems in pronunciation in Gujarat the word Chalukya - Chaulukya - Saulukiya - Saulkik - Solanki . It is a soft topic for a sensitive community , I hope you know what happened to <name removed> as a Wikipedia user I don't want any uprising against Wikipedia or any of it's user . I'm providing alot of valid and correct links by experienced and knowledgeable personalities RexxS , Sitush; please go through them http://www.indianrajputs.com/history/solanki.php http://www.rajputana.in/solanki-rajput-history/ http://mudiraja.weebly.com/chalukya--solanki--dynasty.html http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=solanki https://www.jatland.com/home/Solanki http://www.indianrajputs.com/view/lunawada Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I use smartphone to operate Wikipedia that's why sometimes I'm not able to provide sources and references Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for Nathawat Solanki , please refer the given links http://kssolanki.blogspot.in/2008/02/sub-clans-of-solankis.html?m=1 And Chalukya to Solanki is a must read link http://kssolanki.blogspot.in/2009/04/chalukya-to-solanki.html?m=1

Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat. Many people edit Wikipedia by smartphone, and that doesn't absolve them from providing sources. If you can't add a source, I'm afraid I have to say: don't enter the information. Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, we depend completely on sources, so that the reader can check the basis for the information for themselves. We go by reliable sources and not by people's ancestry. Since you are now learning how to add references, that problem will hopefully soon be solved. No, I don't know what happened to the person you name (I have removed the name in your post, as it shouldn't be on a public page), and therefore I don't know what you mean by mentioning it. Is it a threat? Bishonen | talk 08:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No no not a threat and can you please give the link through which I can learn easily to add references and please do share the links with other Administrators to draw their attention to this topic Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Bish, the person Kumal mentioned has a Wikipedia article and the incident in question was widely reported in India and elsewhere. Basically, a film director whose latest project upset the sensitivities of a Rajput caste association with regard to a historical depiction and led to an alleged assault. The usual caste nonsense that makes little sense/seems out of proportion to outsiders, rather like the Last Temptation of Christ film furore made little sense/seemed out of proportion to outsiders.
Kumal, WP:Citing sources is probably a good place to start. I'm happy to help you with formatting citations etc with two provisos. Firstly, I'm not going to be around as much over the next few days. Second, you need to understand our guidance regarding reliable sources. Those that you mention above are not reliable - they're open wikis, caste-affiliated websites etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Kumal, it really doesn't matter who creates, edits and moves an article provided that they follow our policies and heed our guidelines. Non-Resident Indian (NRI) contributors are just as capable of complying as anyone else. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for offering to assist the new user, Sitush. Kunal, Sitush is the best helper you can get, both with regard to formatting references and assessing the reliability of sources in this field. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Gosh, it isn't a good start when I spell the name wrong. I've been reading The Spy Who Came In From The Co-op and have got confused with someone in that book, I guess. Sorry, Kunal. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir this is the map of India uploaded in Wikipedia in Parmara dynasty article can you please notice the ruling dynasty of Gujarat and please upload this map in Chaulukya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_1200ad.jpg Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. You have already written to Sitush about it, and he has replied now. He's a specialist in the subject; I'm not, I'm just an admin. There's no point in asking me to put a map into an article. To discuss such things with Sitush is appropriate, but I see he has reasons to decline: the map is original research. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

RE:Last Warning ( Article title CHATTAR)

Dear Bishonen Thank you for kind reply. I am completely baffled by the amount of bullying I am witnessing by my respected colleague Mr Sitush. Now as his old mate, you have come to justify his unethical act of vandalism in the name of Raj Era where you are brushing each and every author under the same carpet just because they were born in colonial times. I have been very respectful and expressed my concern with Mr Sitush but seems like I have pressed the wrong nerve. I am not going to be intimidated by this bullying and Mr Sitush has been issued the warning already if he tries to disfigure the article with authentic references. I would request you to kindly defuse this rather unpleasant situation by constructive talk rather than arguing like school going kids. Whole of the Indian sub continent's history is largely based on the information provided by many of the authors of colonial times which is still considered valid and widely read. It is true that that some of the Raj Era authors were influenced by the political factors of that time but it doesn not mean that they disfugred the historical quotes or references they took from the scared books like Vedas. I once again request you to refrain from such unethical tactics and just beacuse Mr Sitush is an old editor doesn not necessarily mean that he is always right.

Regards

Rajarule

Since you have replied to me both on your own page and here, we may as well keep discussion on yours. I'll reply there. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Mazhabi Sikh

Rangreta mazhabi (talk · contribs) is not getting the message regarding their attempts to sanitise Mazhabi Sikh. They've had several warnings and a sanctions alert but I'm wondering if this is yet another example of someone not realising they have a talk page. Would a short block perhaps catch their attention? - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he knows you have a talkpage,[41] so it would be a little strange if he didn't know about his own. I'll take a look. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Surely he wrote on your page in response to your post on his the day before. I therefore don't believe he hasn't seen his warnings, so I'd rather topic ban him. No doubt blocks will follow, as he seems kind of ... oblivious to what he's told. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Done. Hey, RexxS! Look at me using the simplified topic ban notice for the first time, haha! You too, Doug Weller. This is exactly the kind of new user who'd have very little chance of understanding the standard template. I suspect he'll have some difficulty with the simple version as well, since he doesn't seem to take warnings on board very well. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. There is someone else who isn't understanding and I am beginning to give up hope there, too. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gee, that makes me wish I hadn't said I'd topic ban him. An indefinite block would be a lot simpler, and it's obviously what it'll come to anyway, sooner rather than later. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Sitush: Rangreta mazhabi blocked for a week for topic ban violation. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Edit warring... am I counting right?

Akib.H (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Article affected: Pahela Baishakh

@Bish/others, When does 3RR count being? Here are a series of edits today by User:Akib.H

  1. 17:01, 7 April 2017 Akib.H removes the source
  2. 17:03, 7 April 2017 Akib.H 1st revert?
  3. 17:24, 7 April 2017 2nd revert?
  4. 17:32, 7 April 2017 3rd revert?
  5. 17:39, 7 April 2017 4th revert?

Is this 4th or technically 3rd? The editor is removing the source, alleging that externally published encyclopedias by reputable publishing houses (such as Brill, Oxford, McFarland, Macmillan etc) cannot be used, or unacceptable in wikipedia (see this). The editor seems to have a strange understanding of WP:PSTS. I have cautioned this editor about edit warring before the last revert, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article may need a watch and temporary semi-protection, as the traditional new year is next week and traffic usually spikes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in the article talk page. I guess there's a bit of problem with the interpretation of WP:PSTS. I have faced this before so what I understand is wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary ones. In the said article, there is a dispute where Ms Welch tried to verify her claim citing an encyclopedia while I tried to verify mine with a secondary published book. Akib.H (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your secondary source does not verify, nor does it contradict the RS I added! I can certainly add secondary sources, but when disputes arise over sources we rely on tertiary RS. Any way, the real issue here is the 4RR, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things are a bit settled for now. Making reasonable progress again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ms Sarah Welch, that's four reverts by Akib.H, while you yourself have made three reverts. This means A has violated the three-revert rule while you have not. (Unless one or both of you have made more reverts after 17:39; those edits are harder for me to judge, with all the new material added.) Akib, did you not understand MSW's warning about edit warring on your page, which she posted after your third revert, with a link to the WP:EDITWAR policy, which describes the three-revert rule? Theoretically, I could block you for 24 hours or so, but I won't, for several reasons: you are both discussing on the talkpage and making progress; your block log is clean after several years of editing Wikipedia; and also, MSW, your warning could have been clearer. It's better to post the templated 3RR warning, {{subst:uw-3rr}}, which emphasizes the bright-line three-revert rule. Expecting the user to look up 3RR in WP:EDITWAR and to understand how important it is, is not the best way of doing it. Akib, I don't want to block you under these circumstances, but I have posted a templated warning on your page; please read it carefully. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. I should copy a few of these time saving templates somewhere! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Sarah Welch, an alternative to that would be to enable Twinkle in your preferences. You'll find it under Gadgets. Put a tick against Twinkle under Browsing and you're done. Twinkle will then remember warnings and other common templates for you: say you choose "warn" on a user's page. Twinkle will then throw up a menu where you can select the 3RR warning. I found it hard to do without once I'd tried it. It will also, for instance, offer you a simple way to put an article on AfD, something that's horrendously awkward to do without Twinkle. Bishonen | talk 04:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page watcher) What a mess. Depending on the admin, Akib.H could be up to five or six reverts. --NeilN talk to me 00:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't reverted after I pointed out the bright line of 3RR, though. Bishonen | talk 04:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I just ticked the Twinkle! I am really slow and clueless about these gadgets and tools. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now post a warning on me, Ms Sarah Welch, to see how it works and improve your confidence with it! Pick a good one! Bishonen | talk 05:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
First try, failed!!! I see the MONGO scary clouds with a thunder bolt. The edit box looks the same. I will now go back and read the help guide. Hmmmm, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bish, @NeilN: Akib.H is back with edit warring. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't pretend to know about the finer points of what you two are edit warring over but what caught my attention was the blatant canvassing by Akib.H. That earned them a pretty clear and final warning. As for the content dispute, you may want to ask for a WP:3O. --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

misc.

Are your images free to use?😶😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BulbAtop, why did you edit User:Endercase's ‎ userpage? Please don't edit other people's userpages unless they ask you to. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I have permission on my userpage for anyone to edit it. Thank you for the concern though. I would like to know how they knew to use that tag though. But, it is correct. Endercase (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Testing twinkle

Information icon Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.

@Bish: I like this one... "Using improper humor in articles"!!

More proper humor in articles from now on!! Thanks for all the help, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Template:Z175 Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I don't need to sign inside the twinkle box, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it worked! There you go! Bishonen | talk 08:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

New user is old blocked user under desguise

Hi Bishonen. Two quick questions

  • — are there any mechanisms to report a user globally across all Wikipedias? I have before seen notices indicating that a user is blocked globally. Can you tell me a bit more about that? There is a new user editing at the moment in four or five languages who has been blocked in at least six Wikipedias under various alias/ socks/ etc..
  • — How do we deal with people writing about themselves and using using own publications as sources in articles? For example, user:FicticiousGuy is in actual fact Dr Mortified Professor, who has published a few papers here and there, but who is actually completely unknown. So user:FicticiousGuy creeates the page Mortified Professor and looks for articles where he can include his publications among the sources, sometimes without even adding any information, just using what is already there and adding his work as an additional source. Oh, almost forgot — as far as outing is concerned, all the information coonecting the user with the real life person is here on Wikipedia, is drips and drabs here and there, I merely connected the dots. Any guidance will be most helpful. Thanks, regards

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) for the first, i suppose you could just post on jimbo's talk page. as for the second, it's a COI issue, and a self-published source issue. probably also original research. clearly an issue of disruptive editing, if he countinues after warnings... but that's just my 2₵... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've wondered myself about reporting a user globally, Rui Gabriel Correia. I've had very good success with ANI, though it's probably not technically the right place. Not Jimbo's <imprecation removed> page, young Aunva6! (You want Darwinbish to come visit?) I don't think it would come to the notice of the right people as effectively, and also I'm ideologically against it. But for the rest, Aunva gives you good advice. I'll add two things: it sounds highly likely that the article Mortified Professor needs to be deleted, maybe speedied. And secondly, you absolutely can't be too careful about outing, and I'm glad you were so discreet above. It might be a good idea to e-mail me about how the identification is already on Wikipedia, before you say anything specific in public. Then you can blame me if it goes south. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Right, that sounds likely. Thanks, little Aunva6, Darwinbish forgives you. (Of course Gabriel wouldn't want to use the OTRS address, but there are several other ways of contacting stewards listed on the page you link to.) Gabriel, have you thought about e-mailing me the details of your friend Fictitious Guy? It's up to you, of course. But the rules about public outing are tighter than you (or common sense) might think, and I'm not sure how much difference it makes if he has outed himself first. It depends on how he has done it. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen. This week is a bit tight for me, but I will certainly get back to you on this. So for now, thank you, you and Aunva6. PS: Tried to make sense of "Darwinbish", but without much luck, I see it is part of a whole clade of sea creatures, but cannot fathom how it would evolve here. Very niche. ;-) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any time, Gabriel. Ha, a clade, that's exactly right! They just... evolved, compare list on my page. The bitey Darwinbish strikes fear into those that know her, and so I mentioned her to Aunva, an old friend to the Bishonen conglomerate. I didn't mean to create a mystery for you, sorry about that! Bishonen | talk 08:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Halp

I came across a report at AIV, and based on this filter log I indeffed the user as NOTHERE. I also revdel'd one revision on the talk page they were targeting. I'm not sure what else to do, though. The allegations being made by the blocked user are serious; and at the same time, I'd say this qualifies as harassment, and should be reported someplace...and if that were not enough, both accounts seem to be SPAs, one of whom has made a handful of edits to pages related to the hadith, the other being a throwaway account, created, apparently, for harassment. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the word you want is "Hjälp", Vanamonde. A reverted Muslim, eh? How appropriate. Though he doesn't seem to have been reverted much, probably not enough (just an impression I get). I think you did absolutely right to indef, and it might be a good idea to write to ArbCom about the other one. You know, to their mailing list, arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, yes, I'll do that. (You know I indeffed the Muslim reverter and not the reverted Muslim, right? Anyhow, thanks for the Hjälp. Vanamonde (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite, I do know that. It's the reverted who may need arbcom attention, because of the accusations made against him. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes indeed I thought that's what you meant, just the joke made me hesitate :) I've sent the email, I guess I can cast a somebody-else's-problem field over it now. Vanamonde (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never pay any attention to my jokes! Bishonen | talk 13:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Uninvolved Admin

Is there a way that I can confirm you are an uninvolved admin? Seraphim System (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely uninvolved in the Palestine-Israel area, or I wouldn't have commented in the uninvolved admin section. I don't know how you can confirm it, though, other than by searching for me in the histories of PIA articles and their talkpages, and failing to find me. Or asking somebody knowledgeable. You're grasping at straws. Bishonen | talk 16:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen is uninvolved. She is however experienced in dealing with reports at WP:AE and I would strongly suggest heeding her advice. WJBscribe (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puthandu

Dipendra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Needs a watch. Puthandu is the traditional new year festival this week in South India + Sri Lanka (and Tamil people elsewhere). The article traffic is starting to spike and will likely increase substantially over the next few days. The editor is removing scholarly secondary sources, adding unsourced + personal OR on primary. Now edit warring. No progress on the talk page. Already twinkled 3RR caution to the editor's page.

The editor has been previously blocked by RegentsPark, Salvio giuliano and recently cautioned by EdJohnston for editing issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very impressed by your twinkling, Ms Sarah Welch. I've blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring and blatantly ignoring WPs rules, but it's a problem there's nobody discussing on talk, nor editing the article, except the two of you. I suggest you request a third opinion. I've never done that, but it looks easy enough, see the linked page. Obviously you can't revert again in any case, so I'm afraid it'll be the Wrong Version for some time; I hope not disastrously so. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Although I'm budging in without being asked, Papiamento Momo is exceedingly  Likely to be Dipendra2007.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My little Ponyo! That woke me up from the vasty deeps of sleep. Delightful to see you pop up, just as I was getting sadly used to you being awfully busy. I'll block that character. Considering past form, do you think a month would be right, with a threat of indef next time? Bishonen | talk 23:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Apologies for waking you from your sweet slumber. A month sounds sensible to me! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sleepy hugs! Ms Sarah Welch, I think events have moved past the 3O idea — don't bother. I've reverted Dipendra's latest edit to the article, I don't think we should leave it as a monument to them. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(tps) You may have to wait for a few days to get the particular CU that you requested. See this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you think they are evading their block. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on IMDB talk page doesn't belong there

I've had enough of this. Nothing to see here. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello my friend. I am being spanked on an article's talk page for accusing a vandal of lying in his edit summary. The entire affair is 'Backlash' by a red user named Betty Logan, who is a man named Mike something or other. I don't mind being spanked, however, how is he getting away with doing it on the article's talk page. Will you take a look please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IMDb just scroll down to "Disruptive Behavior". Thanks in advance. P.S. I love your 'pond' photo.Pocketthis (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Whoa, @Pocketthis:, you need to dial it back, right away. I don't have time to try to comment at the talk page, but my first impressions are:
  • You've seriously misinterpreted the history of Betty's user page; the odd page moves were imperfect attempts to lessen the result of harassment of Betty Logan by other users, not accidental hints that those other names are hers.
  • Something is weird with the flow of that talk page thread; no time to figure it out, but I think people have either been posting without signing, or posting in the middle of other people's comments, or not indenting, or all of the above, or something. I can't follow it well.
  • From an outside uninvolved perspective, it appears that you're acting like when Betty made a mistake it's because she's evil, and when you made a mistake, it's Betty's fault for expecting you to be perfect. At least some portion of this is due to you accidentally adding some stray text you didn't know you added to her comments.
  • There's really no call for comments like "you must be drunk or crazy". In bold, no less.
  • It's just a sentence in an article.
I know you don't want my input, you want Bish's so I'll shut up now, but... if you don't dial it back quickly, I fear blocks or ANI threads or other drastic things will happen to you before Bish even has a chance to reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, @Pocketthis:, one more thing; I think some of the confusion was your most recent post today was put in the middle of Betty Logan's post from several days ago, confusing the timeline. I've actually removed that last post, which is not really my right, but I honestly think it is for your benefit and Betty's. I won't fight you if you want to re-add it, but please consider whether that is a good idea first. As I said above, you've misunderstood what's going on with Betty's page, and these accusations of her being a disgraced admin or something are way, way off the mark. Better that it is removed before it is responded to, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks. I saw it again this morning, and thought it would be gone by now, and it wasn't, and I wanted to have a defense. Also,I agree it's a mess, and from nothing. Thanks for commenting. Here is the simple sequence of events: I inadvertently may have removed a citation in an edit to add a sentence to an existing paragraph. Then I added a citation for my sentence. He not She (Betty Logan), made a similar error or purposeful deceptive edit, saying that I removed a citation. However, he also removed my entire new sentence to boot. He lied in the edit summary. I busted him on it, and he went berserk in the article's talk page to embarrass me. This misunderstanding doesn't belong on an articles talk page. It belongs on "my talk Page", or he can open an admin complaint. That is not what article talk pages are there for. (behavior problems). As far as the Drunk or Crazy thing, that was after he accused me of removing his text in the talk article. I haven't figured that error out yet, but yes, it pissed me off. I'd rather be banned for 3 months, rather than have this baloney on an article's talk page. If every complaint about a user was placed on article talk pages......well just ponder that for a moment! Thanks for your valuable time. Pocketthis (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be a Tricoteuse. Like them keep knitting, while the world is busy executing each other!
  • Floquenbeam is absolutely right. Some highly respectable admins have red userpages, and your suspicions are inappropriate. I'm going to comment on the talkpage and close those threads. Or, no — I was going to, but I see Floquenbeam has already complicated matters by removing some of it. I give up. Or, I'll look some more, but I expect other people will keep adding/removing stuff and I'll be too slow to do anything. I'm not really fitted for this environment. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry Bish, although I only removed the last comment, never responded to by anyone (otherwise I'd have had to hat it, or something). So I don't think anyone will add/remove anymore. At least I won't. Closing the threads seems like a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I just get stressed. Maybe I should camp at a knitting site instead. I wrote to Betty, too, to explain the hatting wasn't a reflexion on her. That was just one post you removed? That really goes to show how confusing it is to post in the middle of someone else's post, divorcing their sig from some of their text. Please try to never do that again, Pocketthis. It increases my stress level. :-( (Look at the edit notice, everybody: it's the lilypads. :-)) Bishonen | talk 17:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thank you for the tricoteuse image, @Ms Sarah Welch: I didn't think of those associations. Perhaps I'd be happier at, say, a dedicated Barbie wiki. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • @Bishonen Sorry to get you involved with this mess. You know how much I admire you, and you were my last hope at settling this. I NEVER would have called any user a liar in my edit summary, but what happened was, when I clicked on the RED NAME, I saw all the warnings, and was sure this was a vandal. When it comes to vandals I am extremely literally honest in my summaries. I never bothered to look at her talk page until I was being spanked in the article talk page. That's how this evolved. I will admit that I was to blame because I was negligent in not checking her talk page. Three things in my defense: ALL legitimate users should be registered, so their names are blue, and this would never have happened. 2: She should have gone to my talk page with her complaints about my accusation, NOT the article talk page. 3:She DID lie in her edit summary, and she never got spanked for it. Does she work for the TRUMP campaign?, or is she an admin, and everyone knows it but me?? I'll be more gentle in my summaries in the future, and I'm really sorry that I got you into this mess. Fun being an admin....ain't it? I won't annoy you with garbage like this issue ever again. Your friend: Pocketthis (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh.....one comedic comment: Don't you find it a bit ironic that she called me "over reactive Pocketthis" in her response to you on her talk page, when all I did was mention that she fibbed in her edit summary, and she puts a 20,0000 character complaint, with 3 inch spaces to take up as much room as she could in the article's talk page? This is not normal conduct, but no one is talking about it, and I'm the over-reactive one.  :-) Happy Easter Pocketthis (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Don't worry, Pocket. You lost it rather on that occasion, but we're all human. And all the great images you've been donating to Wikipedia give you some leeway in my mind. If you want to apologize to someone, it shouldn't be to me but Betty Logan. (If you edit conflict me one more time, I give up trying to reply.) Bishonen | talk 23:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Another uncommunicative contributor

Theopolis84 (talk · contribs) has had everything up to and beyond a sanctions alert, and I've also left a note at Talk:Mazari tribe. Yet still they do not communicate and repeatedly reinstate this. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar situation, isn't it? Blocked for a week, article reverted. How about Yoyoyoi7? Do you think that's a separate person? I've given them the alert, just in case. Bishonen | talk 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Far too familiar. Like Groundhog Day. I wondered about Yoyoyoi7 but they could just be jumping on the bandwagon - we will soon find out. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Coffee

Having spent far to much time digging through the background to this block and taking into the account the rapid apology and general past behavior I'm going to reduce the block to 48 hours (It'd be 24 but well they are an admin) unless you think there is something that needs to be brought to my attention that I was not previously aware of.©Geni (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've studied it I'm good, ©Geni. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Coffee and TParis

I didn't make any comment against TParis, but he used abusive language against me. I saw that you blocked Coffee who is an administrator. I want your feedback on this comment. The only real answer here is "go fuck yourself". --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Well; my reading of that would be that, whilst robust, TParis was engaging hypothetically. He did qualify (effectively retract) the remark (which you do not quote) with a more 'generous answer' regarding the 'case by case' nature of your original request. That whole page was a powder keg in any case. IMHO, of course. Cheers, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another (talk page stalker) I'd suggest you put yourself in 'Shonen's position: she's not obliged to be the civility police for the entire project, although she does an excellent job of sometimes taking hard decisions for the benefit of the encyclopedia – and there's little doubt in my mind that Coffee needed a short, sharp shock to make him re-evaluate how he has been interacting with other editors lately. So I would ask you to try to objectively work out what outcome you're looking for in asking that question of 'Shonen. There's no chance that TParis is going to be blocked for that comment, principally because it's stale (10 April). Is there any other reason for your question? Examine your feelings. If you're looking for sympathy for hurt feelings, then you have my sympathy: no editor should have to endure such a comment, but you already know that when debates become inflamed, shit happens. If you're looking for advice on what you should do because of the offence, my advice is to explain to TParis, in a dignified manner, that you were offended by what he said to you, and express the hope that it was merely a momentary aberration that you would prefer not to be repeated. Perhaps 'Shonen will be able to offer you further advice. --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to fill Bish's page with ramblings about why my comment is justified, but anyone is welcome to ask me on my talk page.--v/r - TP 12:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly that whole page is a Boot Hill for good manners. Bl**dy thing should be deleted! :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TParis and others above. Yes, Marvellous Spider-Man, I wish you had engaged TParis on his page, before or (preferably) instead of coming to me. As RexxS says, I'm not the project civility police. It would have been better to do that while the matter was fresh, but you can do it now; he'll still answer. Also, I suppose the only reason TParis saw your mention of him here (in practice, your request that I sanction him) was that Fortuna pinged him, not you. That's bad wikimanners on your part. Speaking of manners, I hereby declare that any user is welcome to tell me to go fuck myself. I hope people won't do it for sport, but if the expression is used to express annoyance/upset, I'm fine with it. And what Fortuna said about the remark being hypothetical, and reading differently if the whole sentence is quoted. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Probably safer that saying that to User:Bishzilla. Meters (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're pretty bold to ping her in such a context, Meters! Mind you, it'll hardly matter. Bishzilla has a very fine vocabulary, but she only knows words suitable for a lady's ears. She wouldn't even understand the phrase, it'd pass her harmlessly by. Just see how polite her language remains in a passionate encounter with a fellow monster here. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

RexxS "a short, sharp shock" does not equate to a one-week purely-punitive block. I'm still waiting to understand how this post-event, punitive actio equates to Bishonen's knowledge of an admin calling me a prick and telling me "fuck you, asshole" with no action whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How my action equates to the Floquenbeam thing, The Rambling Man? I don't understand you. Why would one thing equate to the other? I blocked Coffee because I don't like to see admins get away with stuff that regular users wouldn't — it happens regularly, and I feel strongly about it — and also because he didn't seem to be taking on any criticism. I'm thinking not least of his defensive/aggressive reply to Yngvadottir, who had addressed him nicely.[43] As for your "purely-punitive" and "post-event" (!) crap, are you saying you want me to place blocks pre-event because post-event blocks are punitive?
As for me not sanctioning Floquenbeam, I had seen links to this ("prick", from January) and this comment by Floquenbeam on his page.[44] I then wrote in the same thread that I didn't regard "fuck you" as a personal attack, giving a rather pedantic rationale.[45] My post apparently angered you, and you asked me about it on your page.[46] From one of your questions, I learned for the first time that Floquenbeam hadn't just said "fuck you", but in an edit summary had also said "fuck you, asshole". Note, not in an edit summary to one of the diffs that I had read, as provided by El C on Floquenbeam's page, but I assume in another. This was by now three days after the deed, and many, many users had reproached Floquenbeam in the meantime, including a number of admins, but none had blocked him. Apparently you expected me to do it. Or at least to go back to his page and add my pebble to the cairn of admonishments on his page, after that length of time? I don't know why I was singled out, unless you thought I'd be the natural admin for it because I had obliged you by unprotecting your talkpage a couple of days earlier. Not that I expected or expect gratitude, that wasn't what I did it for, but I was actually being threatened with desysopping over it at ARCA while you posted this crap. Shrug. You're boring, really boring. You bore me.
PS. Oho, going to save my post, I realised I'd missed the disparagement in your edit summary: "I've asked this admin a question three or so days ago, no response, failing per ADMINACCT, like Kww and Mike V before". My god, "boring" may be too weak a word. Tedious. Wearisome. Yes, you've been asking me / pinging me for two days (actually) on your own page before coming here. Thank you for finally coming to my page like other people. Pinging — if it works, which can't be assumed — informs people they've been mentioned. It's not a way to summon them. It doesn't "equate to" ringing for a domestic. I don't like your page; I've been avoiding it for years, ever since you decorated the top of it with an attack on me which you refused to remove. My avoidance has broken down a couple of times; per above, I went there in March to remove Sandstein's protection of the page while you were blocked (which I don't regret), and I let myself be drawn by your imperious ping summons a couple of days later, which I do regret. Please come here if you have any questions about my admin actions. Don't try to beckon or whistle for me from your own page or anywhere else. I won't respond. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
+1. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic Drmies from the "Paki" accuser. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic Drmies, since you are the only "Paki" accuser in the whole discussion. You toss around phrases like "Paki", you clearly have not a single idea what impact that has. So I'd suggest you do some research and do better, particularly as you are purported to be an "admin". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have better things to do than stalking this talk page? Also, I don't know what you are trying to say since you didn't punctuate--but you really don't have to explain. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, you're welcome here if you want to question any of my admin actions. But my page is not your playground for needling or sneering at other people. Please stay away if that's all you've got. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Drmies accused me of being racist, and continues to do so (that's a lie and a sick and hideous, and fundamental one, without any foundation - you're the only one here using the term "Paki", you have a serious problem to address), and you Bishonen, made an ignorant and punitive block which was completely unnecessary (which you yourself admitted to when allowing Geni who had actually taken the time to read about the case to take the punitive block from a week to 48 hours, and even Geni admitted that was only because they didn't want to "disrupt" civility policy enforcement, nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the situation). But since you're both in the club, you're right that this is a waste of my time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, if you continue to let fly with your blanket and specific hatred of admins, which you have been warned off of many times, including several times by me (a non-admin), you are going to find yourself blocked for violating your editing restrictions. Likewise, if you continue to claim and proclaim that Drmies accused and accuses you of being a racist, the same thing will happen. Softlavender (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're failing to see the racist claims by Drmies, that's your problem. There's not hatred of admins, just those admins who act as admins superieur, who hold trump cards and actively discourage editors from Wikpiedia by their over-arching actions, which seem to trump regular admin discussions. None of this violates my editing restrictions, this is a discussion about the behaviour of a few individuals, none of it is insulting or belittling. It's fact. But thanks for reinforcing that I'm now even prohibited from protesting against such behaviour, even when it's directed specifically at me. That's the rub, the restrictions, as you interpret, now prevent me from even defending myself from being called a racist. And you're defending and perpetuating that. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, you are importing another of your multitudinous grudges here, one that has nothing to do with me, with Coffee, with Floquenbeam, or even with Drmies's brief comment on my reply to you, and now you're steaming ahead despite my request not to do that — it's like you fucking didn't hear what I said. I don't want you spreading your unrelated venom here on this page. I'll be removing your posts if there's more of it. I hope that's clear. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It's more than clear. I get it 100%. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question- you mentioned pedantry, so maybe this is the height of it- but how can ADMINACCT be relevant to an inaction? The difference between 'Admin, why did you take *this* action'; or 'Admin, why *didn't* you take this action'- surely there's a hell of a lot actions you don't take and so can't be responsible for?! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block MONGO for being a menace

MONGO see lightning! I likely need to be blocked...it would be bigger than a Jimbo block to have the mighty Bishonen block the mean and nasty MONGO!--MONGO 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if these actions and inactions were as hideous as portrayed, the Lady would wade in and coordinate some sort of Easter eggroll for everyone. Or maybe Easter egg drop soup. --DHeyward (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm easter egg drop soup :) I saw this; but it may be a little- dare I say- common for her... — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishonen will hardly dare block the great MONGO who can command the lightning! You should have requested it while Bishzilla had the admin tools. Man, that was centuries ago. Maybe I should let her have another run. Thanks to all for the Easter delicacy suggestions. The Lady might faint with horror, but I'm deeply interested, for my part. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
On the other hand, I believe the Lady has been known to imperiously ring for a domestic. If I am not terribly, tragically, unforgivably mistaken. Softlavender (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion topic ban

Bish, on January 6, 2017, you topic-banned Ontario for one year "from all pages connected with abortion, broadly construed". How broadly construed? For example, you have a politician article that has the politician's political views including his view on abortion. Ontario edits the article but not the part of the article about abortion. Is that a violation? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is a ban from just that - the topic. We say "the pages" because that's the most easily identifiable and to scratch off the list of acceptable editing right away. But, topic bans are construed broadly, as stated, which includes the topic of abortion anytime anywhere on any article.--v/r - TP 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An example that relates to editors TBANned from that topic is the various articles that relate to US politics in which many voters and some WP editors clearly have a POV and a mission to promote the POV on articles relating to candidates who are pro-life and support pro-life judicial appointments. Even where these editors are careful not to edit content explicitly on the topic from which they're banned, they are tenacious editors in support of such politicians and candidates. Any thoughts on this would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: If I understand you, your answer to my question is no. SPECIFICO appears to say yes but doesn't seem too sure. My guess is v/r is right.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's one such editor in particular to whom I think it should apply and I have told that editor my belief, and others have seen this but I have not done anything to request enforcement. The editor is disruptive but in a charming and civil manner, and so nobody is likely to pursue the matter. Same with some gun control POV editors and politics, probably. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, my answer is that it's a very complicated area and it relies entirely on your judgement and how well you can defend your position. Sorry, buddy, wish I could give you more. But it comes down to this: if they touch the abortion section, that's an outright violation. Now, if they are editing around abortion but you sense an underlying motivation, then the question is whether you can convince the community that you're not seeing things. That said, if they are editing completely away from the topic of abortion, such as updating the subject's year of birth for example, then I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about it. It all comes down to what your gut tells you and whether or not you can spell it out in writing in a persuasive way.--v/r - TP 18:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My gut tells me it's time to eat. Thanks for the explanation, makes sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on how much emphasis there is on the topic of abortion in the article. Say it's a BLP about a politician who is well-known, or even mostly known, for their views on abortion. A topic banned editor has no business editing that article or its talkpage at all, however harmlessly or marginally. Here's an example of the opposite: if I remember rightly, people have attempted to get an editor who is topic banned from abortion to be forbidden from editing pages about Donald Trump (which that editor does quite diligently) because of Trump's views on abortion. I have always refused to entertain that, of course as long as the editor in question doesn't touch anything abortion-related in the Trump articles. Anti-abortion is only a small part of Trump's panoply of views. @Bbb23:, I guess the specific case you were asking about is moot, as your editor has been indeffed for abusing multiple accounts while I feasted on Easter eggs. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You got the moot part right. Hope the eggs were chocolate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it the case that in contemporary USA politics, where candidate Trump released a list of pro-life Supreme Court justice candidates early in the campaign, that many voters and editors view abortion, gun rights and a few other issues as their prime motivation for supporting or opposing a candidate? When TBANned editors behave disruptively on politics articles, I think it would be appropriate to examine whether they've been banned for similar misconduct on articles more narrowly defined that led to their TBAN. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Behaving disruptively on politics articles is a separate matter. Pages like Donald Trump are under several sets of discretionary sanctions, so people who behave disruptively on them can be sanctioned (blocked or topic banned) without any need to invoke an abortion topic ban that they have. Come on, SPECIFICO. I think I know who you're talking about, and if I'm right, the disruption which caused their topic ban, while certainly massive, is far in the past. I just don't agree that it need be invoked re Trump. I don't know if abortion, gun rights, etc are the prime motivations in supporting a candidate. I'm not even American. But you're not going to talk me down on this; take it to AE for more eyes if you like. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I think I said above that I don't think that anything needs to be done in that case, but of course the same could be said for any tban. If there's disruption it can always be dealt with, so there must be some useful function for TBANs that reduce the amount of monitoring or enforcement needed where there's repeated disruption. Frankly, I it feels to me as if you've inferred some sort of confrontation or challenge from my words here, when what I had intended to do was raise a general issue of policy or enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Bishonen. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. Did you see the lightning in the edit notice? Pretty cool, huh? Bishonen | talk 18:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed it is! Thank you for pointing that out, I had not, actually noticed it. Due in no small part to my trouseristic nature, my level of exposure to lighting is such that I often fail to notice it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by TY

I'm saddened by our guy's decision but understand it. I am somewhat burdened by my share of guilt over the misunderstandings that arose between him and I regarding certain topics and how they were to be handled in a certain BLP, but I always felt a level of trust and respect, even though we disagreed. Thank you for bringing forward the information as you did at his TP, otherwise I may not have known. Is such information made public on WP via a specific channel, or is it always kept low key? Atsme📞📧 20:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...what? Who? I don't understand, sorry. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) Most probably the resignation of JzG from adminning and your comment about same on the user talk page. @Atsme: it was requested on WP:BN, which doesn’t strike me as especially “low key”; some go straight to the stewards on Meta to resign, or just use e-mail, leaving no trace at all on this wiki.—Odysseus1479 00:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or indeed they just silently become inactive. That may be the most dignified way but it's a bit boring, isn't it? Give your frinds a chance to throw a party when you leave, say I. Don't just slink out — ragequit, slam the door behind you! I think announcing it on WP:BN is pretty common; certainly I've caught many resignations, as well as, more cheeringly, many returns, by the simple expedient of watching BN. I miss Laser Brain as well as JzG. Bishonen | talk 00:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I've "quit" Wikipedia at least three times, just by stopping editing. I got as far as posting a "semi-retired" note when I realized I hadn't edited for two months. Everyone should take sabbaticals from this place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but...

I'm closing this conversation. The law of diminishing returns has surely set in. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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.

[47] Could you talk to Endercase again? He's still refusing to take advice from me, MP, and several others. I'm not sure exactly what can be done at this point (I know what I can do, but that wouldn't solve the problem), but ... well, do you happen to have his talk page watchlisted? I don't like editors whom I was mentoring until they started to attack me telling me that I am "hounding" them by continuing to offer them advice despite continuously getting ignored. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better stop offering it, Hijiri 88. The close of the ANI thread was unfortunately vague (hello @MjolnirPants:) but the time to complain about that would have been right afterwards. I'm not going to sanction or advise Endercase for rejecting mentoring. But I'll take a look tomorrow (it's late here) to see if he's being generally disruptive, and if he is I'll intervene. I won't do it merely because he edits Wikipedia space too much, though. I could advise him not to do that, but having seen how resistant he is to advice, I won't. Really, you'd better let it go, for your own sake. The law of diminishing returns has set in, and it's time to drop it and avoid burnout. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I already had essentially dropped it, but real life being as it is (started working at a new school in a new city, but I wanna make a good impression so the work is more draining than it had been) I haven't been able to do a lot of content work over the last week. I was reading the drahma boards while being careful not to directly post there all that much, and I noticed something that I really didn't think I should still be noticing. (My involvement in both the present problem and this one were explicitly the result of me reading ANI and choosing to respond to the issue somewhere other than ANI). But you're right nonetheless. Maybe I just need a wikibreak. And I was this close to pushing my rate of mainspace edits back over 50% of my total edit count before things started getting busy IRL. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I closed the thread because I did not believe, for one second, that a new editor with the threat of sanctions hanging over their head would be amenable to mentoring. Especially when the volunteer mentor was having their own suitability questioned in that thread, while demonstrably doing as good job of it as anyone could expect. I apologize if my closing remarks were the cause of any disruption, and am open to revisiting them if necessary, or interpreting them in whatever means best facilitates handling things. I'll hang a trout near the top of my talk page, to save anyone who feels the need to use it from having to bring their own.
For what it's worth, my advice to all parties (@Bishonen, Hijiri88, Endercase, and David Tornheim:) is that it's time to cut the umbilical and let Endercase manage his own affair without input from any mentors. David, Hijiri and I have tried to help, and there's only so much we can do. If Endercase cannot avoid being a disruption, then Endercase can be made to no longer be a disruption by the admins as needed. If Endercase can contribute, then it will be to their benefit to do so without being constantly questioned. I'm not proposing IBANS or anything, I'm just saying that we seem to have reached the end of what we are able to teach Endercase, without much caring whether it's our fault or his. So lets just set him free and watch him soar. Endercase, please, for the love of God/Allah/Buddha/Krishna/Gaia/Reason soar, and don't splat. I know you can be a good Wikipedian if you just decide to. This isn't a place that needs to be or even should be fair and equitable: this is a place that needs to be an encyclopedia. Make it that, first and foremost, and you'll be great. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: First of all will you still help out with the LEDE? That is a major update, I will likely be able to handle any resistance myself but knowing that you are in the background would be helpful. Additionally, with "an encyclopedia" is the focus adding reliable information or making sure that all reliable POV have been weighed. I am currently under the impression that all (simi-major) publicly verifiable views (within reason) should be at least mentioned, this is unlike a traditional encyclopedia but an admirable goal none the less.
As to going splat, I will try to avoid that. My POV in and of itself is sometimes seen as disruptive and this does make it difficult to express my ideas (even while cited). I do seem to polarize many users, thank you for helping show me how to avoid that (I still need improvement). Hopefully, I will not hang myself (as Hijiri88 thinks I do constantly). I respect the temporal investment that you David and even Hijiri have made in me and hopefully over time I will do all of you (even Hijiri) proud. Endercase (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the proposed lede to Argument from authority? I seem to recall doing a substantial re-write of it a few weeks ago, giving it a structure and much of the wording that it currently contains. I just commented at the talk page. So obviously I'm in. Having noticed that one of the problematic editors there called me "obsessive lunatics" (in the plural, no less; I feel like royalty) and that the other has flatly declared their adherence to a POV that is not supported by reliable sources has shifted my thinking on whether or not any further disruption from them could result in a TBAN. So yeah, let's go make the article say what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: I have read their are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I understand that it is generally accepted that editing article space is the easiest way to get started but I don't often see places that I know I can reliably contribute there while also maintaining mental engagement. I enjoy working with other users and not nearly as much alone (see how I have left my edits to Salix nigra far on the backburner (see user space link on talk page)). It could also be that my user patterns were disrupted because I was thrown into the politics of Wikipedia at an early user stage (the citation of Breitbart on Stealth Banning) and encountered the (the most regular users/also Rouge Admin). I have also grated against a few users in such a way that simply drives them mad (Hijiri88 is a good example), I'm really not sure what to do in such cases as I have few-to-none positive interactions with these users and I am not sure what they want (even when I do what they explicitly ask for they still find fault). I am not well equipped to handle users that are combative and threatening, I respond very poorly to those situations (I escalate, and call bluffs; among other things). But, at least it is a problem that I am aware of as such I should be able to fix it over time (given that I am not banned first).
I would also like to thank you for your offer to review my edits, I do respect your opinion on what is disruptive and what isn't. I have seen your alt-accounts and given your sense of humor you definitely pass my turing test. Endercase (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endercase I suggest you remove "encountered the cabal (the most regular users/also Rouge Admin)". I'm not sure what you intended to mean by it, but it might not be heard the correct way. Suggesting any editor is part of any cabal is in my opinion an ad hominem. Please strike ASAP. Please don't even try to explain and defend what you intended by it--just get rid of it, please. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim:  Fixed . Some editors have a userbox that says they are part of the/a cabal though. And there are several essays that go back and forth about the issue. The one I like the most is Wikipedia:List of cabals, as it is closer to a list of groups that have been identified as or self-identify as a cabal (humorously). [48] is also a good read. There are many more articles both locally and from outside Wikipedia if you would like to know more. Endercase (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ender, I see you acknowledging that the writing about "the cabal" is humorous, but I also see you implicitly assuming that there is a cabal. There is no cabal. Occam's razor and some honest thought is all it takes to show just how silly the notion of the cabal here really is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Isn't every uncaught sock/meat-puppet "army" a cabal? A Cabal is just an apparent group of people united together for some purpose. One could argue that all users that follow or enforce policy as though it were a religion based in text and not in consensus are part of one cabal, the users who spit on AGF another, and so on. There is far more than one cabal editing here on Wikipedia, various groups of paid editors (some of which are Admin, per the coverage on the issue), propaganda pushers of various nations, corporate entities trying to improve their image, and that sort of thing. The Burger King cabal for example was recently kicked out (and sent an open letter), several of the groups on that homourous list are less homourous than we would like. I agree that there is not one supreme cabal that controls Wikipedia. But, there are always groups that try. Wikipedia is to some users a giant game of capture the flag or king of the hill. I do not support that gamified philosophy but some of them openly admit to that and are not banned. Should I bring such users to your attention in the future? There is no one Cabal, there are many cabal. Endercase (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Bishonen's advice for moving forward. I do not believe Endercase has given up mentoring, but simply wants distance from Hijiri88. I think both need to take it easy and not get so fired up when they feel the other has insulted them. Sometimes (or often), it is better to ignore an insult or perceived slight than escalate confront or respond to it. Both parties appear to be guilty of escalating and increasing conflict. Sometimes responding "dignifies" the petty insult (or "low blow") and may reveal one's over-sensitivity in an unflattering way. Walking away and ignoring is often a sign of maturity, emotional strength and self-control. Summary: space between them will help
    As for mentoring from me and MjolnirPants, I think Endercase is entirely open to continuing that. He seems to resent being labelled as being under a sentence of "mandatory mentoring". I was at the AN/I, and I do not believe the mentoring was "mandatory". It was an "agreement" that Endercase freely chose, not a sentence or an order of a judge under protest. Calling it "mandatory" leaves the wrong impression, so I understand why he might resent the term.
    I have enjoyed working with Endercase since that AN/I, and especially in working with him and MjolnirPants at the page Endercase initiated to resolve conflicts over the lede of Argument from authority and welcoming everyone to join him in that work. I was very proud that he set that page up and the three of us collaborated to produce a new lede all three of us like. Endercase put notice of our intention to replace the current lede with the new lede. I feel based on that work he is learning how to be a good editor, work with others and follow our rules.
    Endercase has drawn some negative attention regarding his unusual beliefs about socks and willingness to have a "conversation" with them, but I don't think it is disruptive, just a little misguided. As long as he does not interfere with admin enforcement against socking, I think his behavior is relatively harmless. If is not, I think an explanation of how his behavior is interfering and making the job of catching socks harder is in order. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like MjolnirPants's idea. I don't agree with most of David's second paragraph, as the mentoring was presented as an alternative to a block and/or TBAN, and the majority of users opposing those proposals did so explicitly based on the assumption that mentoring would solve the problem, i.e., that Endercase would be bound to listen to the advice he is given. (I pointed all this out during the ANI discussion, by the way.) Say what you want about labels, but that's how it happened. But I just don't care anymore. Endercase should be allowed to swim or sink by himself. Anyone still planning on offering him advice should bear in mind that their advice should be for the good of the encyclopedia, not just to protect Endercase: if Endercase is doing something wrong, he should be told that he is doing something wrong. But I'm done. Remember that I'm a regular contributor to ANI (how I came across the current flareup) and a slightly less regular contributor to RSN. I will likely not touch this issue again unless it shows up in one of those places. Fare ye well! :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we are on this topic please see: User talk:Herostratus#Just a reminder, where Hijiri88 continues accuse me various not here practices. I really hope this stops at some point. Endercase (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase I think both of you should walk away from that discussion as recommended above and not talk to each other there. Besides, it appears to be a lost cause. Also, you should have pinged Hijiri88 above. I have taken care of that for you. But please take note of that mistake.--David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could both of you please leave me alone and stop pinging me? I've made it clear that I am no longer interested in being involved with the Endercase issue. Endercase's bogus accusations against me on Herostratus's talk page should just be ignored. I found the Herostratus canvassing discussion on ANI; I thought at first that the major issue I needed to address was Endercase's personal attack against Beeblebrox; I then started commenting on the RM itself, which had nothing in-and-of-itself to do with Endercase; Endercase then followed me to Herostratus's talk page (where I had left a reminder that Herostratus is not allowed "self-revert" even though I had speedied the redundant redirects he had created; I didn't mention Endercase) and started trying to make everything about him (IMO you are only here because I stated my opinion in the AN/I and you love to disagree with me. You do show up at a large portion of my edits, often with ad hominem attacks.[49]). Endercase's insistence on placing the blame on others for his own shortcomings (he followed me, and then accused me of hounding) is something that may need to be dealt with, but I would rather not be the one doing it. So stop dragging me back into this. I just don't care. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: If you had clicked the link I left you would have known that the user in question specifically requested that I not ping them ever again. Additionally, they often show up in discussions I am already a part of invariably less than 24hrs after my first post and then accuse me of following them around. In fact, their constant accusations (seen since our first encounter) are getting quite bothersome. As I explained in the linked conversation I don't follow their edits. However, whenever we are both involved in the same discussion they consistently accuse me of anything they think might apply to either get me punished or otherwise devalue my remarks. Rarely if ever do they even address my arguments directly. This is IMO battlefield behavior, at the very least it isn't consensus building behavior.
Nor did I make any personal attacks on Beeblebrox as they claim (without a diff) here. Obviously, Beeblebrox was not even offended to point where they thought they should even address the issue on my talk page. As such this is a non-issue.
Why is this type of harassment allowed without even a single remark by a respected user to inform them of their consistent violations of Civil? After a failed attempt to get me banned at AN/I the user seems desperate to get someone (anyone) else to try again to punish me. I would love to avoid these negative interactions with this user but they keep showing up in locations where I am already involved (I can provide diffs and links to that effect), with the attitude they have demonstrated here. Endercase (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Urgent mail

Hello, Bishonen. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fram (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied, Fram. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Question

I was legitimately serious about the question I asked on the other user's talk page. I edited the UNC once, and it was mainly grammar errors. I am sorry. I also edited one of the notable alumni. It says that he was a soccerquarterback. I don't understand what that is. I have learned not to edit grammar now, unless it's urgent. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was the edit in question, and I've already linked you to it once, on ElKevbo's page. Did you click on it the first time I gave it? Have you clicked on it now? Do you have difficulty reading diffs? Your changes are picked out in red in the diff. Your edit didn't fix errors, it introduced errors. Also, as for removing the "soccer" part of "soccer quarterback", please don't remove things just because you don't know what they are. I suggest you either leave them alone or look them up. See the article Soccer. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Never mind, I see you've been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I thought so. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) The rest of the edit was bad indeed, but the OP was quite right about the quarterback; soccer was substituted for football in May 2015, a bit of “subtle“ vandalism that had gone unnoticed until then—now fixed by Roxy the dog. (You certainly won’t find anything about quarterbacks at Soccer, and Kansas City Chiefs can refer only to American football.)—Odysseus1479 19:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or a very geographically particular association of Naval NCO's. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have quarterbacks, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) While they might meet on the quarterdeck, it would make a lousy pitch.—Odysseus1479 21:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, uh... thank you. But coming to this page to talk about sports will profit you nothing. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sports is generally considered vulgar in genteel society. After all, it has balls, shuttlecocks, and players wearing uniforms that accentuate both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<bites his tongue, stamps his foot and reminds himself that Bish doesn't appreciate vulgar humor> Bbb, you can't hand me a line like that where I can't use it! That's cruel! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Rather than using a vulture...may I suggest a reddish egret? It's much prettier, and while it's a bird of prey, it's precision is impeccable and it doesn't prey on what's already dead. ;-) Atsme📞📧 18:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reddish egret hunting in the mangroves
Very handsome, Atsme, you're a great photographer. You know what? Have you uploaded any herons? Herons are kind of my favorites. Look at this guy/gal. But I also see a lot of fine images in your gallery on your page. Hmmm. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I agree - an excellent photo Atsme. Our own Reddish egret states " Due to its bold, rapacious yet graceful feeding blocking behavior, author Pete Dunne nicknamed the reddish egret "the Tyrannosaurus Rex of eng-WP the Flats". DrChrissy (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DrChrissy - I have a chicken egg-laying question for you which I'll post to your TP. Bish, I used to call my ex-son-in-law the "blue heron" (he's 6'5"; 180#) - and a picture of him would definitely fit the "heron" bill in the humor category (but doubt he'd sign a talent release). If you need herons whose feathers are attached, I actually do have a few that I haven't uploaded, yet. So many pictures, so many places to use them!! See if I have anything in stock that fits the bill, and I'll check my vast stock library of herons (weeding out all the people) to see what materializes. Of course, with WP the images have to be in use or they get deleted. I don't think there's a repository for images that have potential purpose, so it has to be a special request where there's a need, and TP are considered use. I'm currently in the land of herons, pelicans, & flamingos, so place your order, and I'll see what miracles I can perform! \S/. Atsme📞📧 21:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you so kindly ask, Atsme, I'd like some just like the 100 herons that live on this small lake near my home, if that's all right? (That would be a miracle.) I just realized, from reading our Isbladskärret article, that they're descended from escapees from the Skansen zoo close by. Unfortunately we don't seem to have any pics of those handsome guys — there's only a boring old pump and some (I suppose cute, but bah) barnacle geese in the article. I should think my herons are Great Blue Herons, like the one on the wing that I linked to. They're big all right. Do you often meet those in your wanderings..? Bishonen | talk 21:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I wonder if this is a Great Blue? I don't think my guys have all that red spiky hair. Anyway, for the admin overview, I probably need to sit in a tree. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Not a great blue, but a reddish egret which is a heron, and far more lively than a great blue in my book. They are beautiful, graceful, expert hunters. I've watched them for hours upon hours, days upon days. They deploy the "umbrella tactic" which diffuses the reflection of the water from above and allows them to see the submerged prey below - you could liken it to locating socks. 😉 Atsme📞📧 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a great blue heron for you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also have coots but a different species than from ( trout Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough ) what you see on your lake. I've used one of my coot images in non-convential ways. Atsme📞📧 22:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or why not just go for a total "red herring"?? [50] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh...trouble has arrived. ^_^. Bish - One more add-on for when you're feeling all warm & cushy inside and just want to spread some love...a bit of a stretch on WP, I know, but miracles happen. Atsme📞📧 22:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Little bird!

@Atsme: Those are some nice pics! Wow. @Bish: Made this for you, probably needs to be deleted from wikimedia commons, under their "no educational use" criterion! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch. Your little cookie bird looks scrumptious!! Also love the "Keep calm and carrion" caption and image. Atsme📞📧 02:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't happen to have a Bishfish sock, do you? I wouldn't have wanted to frighten it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have two: one is scared by everything, the other by nothing, and would bite a heron in the leg without a second thought, in water or on land. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
If Darwinfish is the one in the beak of the black-crowned night heron, I don't think he/she/it needs to worry. The heron obviously bit off more than it could chew. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Ornithological note: herons have no teeth. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC) )[reply]
This is Greg.
You assume correctly. They are ALL female. That's why they are called "her"ons. (pa-dum-pum!) On the other hand, all Great egrets are males. Males named Greg. (Sorry, that was bird-nerd humor. The application eBird abbreviates species by the first two letters of each name. So the great egret is called GREG.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(On the off chance that that was a serious question: you can't tell with herons. Males and females look alike.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping with WP customs, just place the following under the image:

?This heron has not revealed what gender he or she is. I doubt anyone will correct you if you're wrong.



??? Atsme📞📧 16:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Just an FYI - User:Atsme/Banners#Random_images_for_fun <--- you may find something that reminds you of a zilla.

@Atsme: I hope that cute iguana profile doesn't tempt Bishzilla to create another sock. Let it be known that she has only ever created one, the somewhat disappointing User:Bishapod, who she unmaternally refers to as "Little Stupid". ("Little Stupid always embarrass 'zilla! Regret creating!") So presumably she burned her fingers that time. Still, the iguana is very cute. Gorgeous chainmail! Bishonen | talk 19:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Atsme: is it known that herons actually have binary genders? Could the heron pictured be intersex or transgendered, for example? Might the heron be neither he nor she? Maybe an alternative box?

?This heron has made no gender-related on-wiki disclosures.
Any incorrect assumptions you make are likely to go uncorrected... though a visit from Bishzilla is possible.





EdChem (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have misattributed which entity is expressing gender. I believe the correct interpretation is that Bishonen has identified as a particularly watchful and hungry male-sexed Blue Heron. Perhaps not as hungry as this one that believes they are a gopher eating hawk. --DHeyward (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yuk.. yuk.. DHeyward, I'll never try to swallow a whole vandal again! But the stalking-like-a-tiger part was great. That's an Adminbird! Bishonen | talk 10:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Couldn't Bishzilla be kept well-fed with a steady diet of vandals? Though I fear she would baulk at such meals, they are the frozen TV dinners of the wiki-world... claiming value where none exists, lacking in any flavour worth having, and causing long-term health problems. DHeyward, I have never thought of Bishonen as "male-sexed", she's such a leading lady of the admin corps, but of course I'll accept any identification which she expresses. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, thanks for sharing that video. I wondered why the heron upchucked the gopher, and have since learned that herons have been known to choke to death trying to swallow prey that is too large. I found this video which was quite interesting as far as behavior, but the video you linked to wins the incredible shot award. Atsme📞📧 04:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal famine of 1943

Hi Bish. Is this kosher? An editor has spent roughly an year entirely redesigning an article and then has pasted the revised content into the article. Apparently with attributions maintained. I'm concerned that this goes against the spirit of Wikipedia (it is easier to scrutinize a few changes but impossible to do so with a 118000 byte change in one shot). I'm asking primarily because I see a problem developing between Fowler&Fowler, Lingzhi and WP:OWN. But am unsure enough that I don't want to make it into a big deal (which is why I'm not pinging the two - as yet!)--regentspark (comment) 14:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regentspark, I did the same thing once: overwrote the existing Great Fire of London with a sandbox version I'd been working on for a long time, and with the same aim: to take it to FAC. But it's pretty different to do it with an article that's at all controversial, as Bengal famine of 1943 obviously is. It would have been better to change it gradually and invite talkpage discussion as you went along, IMO. That said, I don't doubt it was done in good faith. So... I'm not sure, but by now I reckon it had better be taken as a fait accompli, and any problems with the new version discussed piecemeal. What do you think, Sitush? Bishonen | talk 14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ok. Just a bit concerning when almost 50% of Lingzhi's edit count is on that one article in question. But, you're right that it is a fait accompli so will wait (and watch!). --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a done deal. It was not a great idea, though, and I have considerable doubts about the article as it now stands, despite the vocal support from some regulars at FAC. Presenting such a wall of text puts huge burdens on other people vis-a-vis scrutiny and, controversial although the subject matter may be, it doesn't need 200k of writing. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(TPW driveby comment) Almost 50% of Lingzhi's edit count is on that one article in question is technically true but extremely misleading. Yes, the Lingzhi account has worked primarily on one topic, but under his main account Ling has 30,000+ edits across a huge range of topics. FWIW, "rewrite in a sandbox and overwrite the main article when the rewrite is complete" is an utterly standard technique on Wikipedia, to avoid either a history merge (which shoves thousands of minor edits into the history and makes it virtually impossible to navigate) or rewriting in mainspace which can result in a temporarily biased article (if one's doing the "insert view of historian A, then insert view of historian B, then insert view of historian C" approach and historian A has a fringe-y view). ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was unaware of the earlier account though (doesn't the history carry over with a rename or is this something other than a rename?). --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the account is relatively new; once you get above a few thousand edits, the "rename process" consists of creating a fresh account and redirecting the old one. (Because every edit has to be changed in the databases when a user is renamed, renaming someone highly active crashes the servers.) ‑ Iridescent 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case, it's clearly the nature of the article- one already prone to ethno-political shennaigans- which has raised the question- inevitably the re-write draws accusations of- well, rewriting history :) ...other topics should be slightly less dramatic :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RP, @Others: Setting aside the 118K morph, the article is evolving nicely! Lingzhi and F&F seem to recognize each other's contribution. Let them sort things out as they improve the article. The relevance of some of the images (US soldiers taking off their shoes!) to the subject of the article has me puzzled! But, they seem to be working on it. I like that pick from MelanieN's suggestion Bish!, but don't you think instead of Atsme's "This is Greg", it could be "This is Audrey!", Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really couldn't work on it bit by bit in mainspace. Seriously. No way. If I coulda, I certainly woulda. But there are just... too.. many.. bits. Too many moving parts that got moved too many times... Seriously, I would've... made an incoherent hash of the mainspace article if I had even dared to try that. It would've been just a huge page of incoherent notes rather than an article. I added sections, then combined sections, then un-combined sections, then moved sections from here to there and another there.. and... added so many details.. and I often didn't understand the details myself, or know which were relatively more or less important, or how they fit together. I added stuff about the lack of an Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression and... then deleted them.. and.. and even in sections that I knew for sure should be there, I added note after note after note and tried to puzzle them together.. If I'd done that in mainspace, I would've turned the mainspace article into an incoherent jumbled hash of garbled garbage. A word splat. Text art.
  • The article as it stood in mainspace before my massive rewrite was 100% POV. I am not kidding. But at least.. at least it was a legible and reasonably coherent POV. I tolerated the mainspace version as POV for over a year (occasionally complaining on article Talk) because of meta:Eventualism. let's face it: Wikipedia is chock fulla POV. believe it or not, POV is actually more tolerable than... just... incoherent notes.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Please know your effort has admirers. I hope you will find time to work on other famine related articles in South Asia and elsewhere. The history of those folks on the Indian subcontinent is tragic. Millions starved to death in famines, decade after decade. Imagine the trauma, the uncertainty, the pain of watching your children wasting away. The starved faced major epidemics, periodically, villages and towns wiped out. 1770-1905 period was one of periodic famines on the Indian subcontinent (beyond the 1943 famine). Perhaps the decades before too, but less documented. The famines and related tragedies impacted everything there – the poverty, talent, vanishing knowledge/ skills/ handicrafts, culture, society, relationships, migrations, beliefs, and the rest. Important topic this is. POV-pushing is easy with such complicated topics. NPOV is difficult, but a delight to read and much needed. Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: Thank you for your kind words. It's very encouraging. Cheers!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Joppa Chong. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joppa Chong (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Bishonen is a vandal diff and Joppa Chong does not know how to deliver {{Uw-vandalism1}}, nor how to sign comments, and thinks that a null edit is vandalism. Someone might like to point out WP:VAND but it's probably pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joppa Chong: this message, while well-intentioned, is silly. Bishonen made a dummy edit to note something in an edit summary, and marked it as such. This is a perfectly acceptable editing practice. It does not change the appearance of the page, though an extra space was added so the edit would save. It was marked as a null edit (which is technically incorrect), but it was certainly not vandalism. I recognise that this was your first user talk post outside your own user space, and that mistakes are easily made. Thanks for trying to do the right thing, but I encourage you to read up more on vandalism and on dummy edits as the edit in question did not need reverting and your warning is inaccurate as it was not vandalism. You might also read up on adding templates to long-standing editors (and in this case, admins). EdChem (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might have been too bitey in my above comments, which were based on the fact that the account was created in December 2013. However, Bishonen's edit which was regarded as vandalism (WP:VAND is essential reading) was this immediately prior edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your messages. I think you know the inofficial status of Wikipedia:Essays as well. What remains to be said imho: Creating extra space for a longer edit summary might be ok but combining this with an off-topic remark in order to discredit the organization the article is about doesnt really seem constructive. –Joppa Chong (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May 11, 2015
  • Removing the SPLC designation from the lede which you described as "restored neutral introduction" and marked as a minor edit
  • Removed the SPLC reference as a dead ref. link and marked as a minor edit
  • Roscelese re-added content noting the ref was not dead and the content was relevant
  • Joppa Chong changed "The SPLC has written about C-FAM's being ..." to "The SPLC has seen C-FAM ..." as a minor edit with summary "NPOV"
  • Bishonen reverted noting "That's not more NPOV, it's just worse English", and then changed the expression to "The SPLC has characterized the group as being ..."
  • Joppa Chong then removed the term "hate group" and its associated reference in a minor edit, stating that "removed inappropriate sentence as source does not include a formal hate group claim"
May 12, 2015
May 13, 2015
  • Roscelese returned the content and link with the edit summary "restore sourced content with no coherent argument made for removal" and added an additional reference
  • Joppa Chong again removed the link to the SPLC list (again as a minor edit) with the same summary "removed link (not C-FAM-related)"
May 14, 2015
August 2015
  • Joppa Chong added a "clarification" after the link to the SPLC list article that "C-FAM missing", which Roscelese reverted noting that "Rv - This article isn't the place to address that concern; if the linked article is out of date, tag it. It does mention CFAM, but not in the list section"
  • Joppa Chong then moved the link to the text, placing it in the context of a C-FAM source criticising the SPLC. (It remains in this form at present)
October 2015
  • Joppa, I was willing to assume that your initial warning to Bishonen was over-eager given your lack of posts to user talk space. The above editing history suggests that you have been pushing a POV against including the SPLC in this organisation's article for a long time. In the context of this history, your warning is beyond silly and appears intended as some sort of provocation. If your editing approach has not changed since 2015, then I think you are fortunate to have only been blocked once. I initially thought Johnuniq's post above was a little bitey, but I now whether you are here to contribute to a neutral encyclopaedia or to push a POV. EdChem (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there is no way that under any criteria- edit count or tenure, at least- can JC be considered a 'new' editor. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good god. I'd forgotten I'd blocked Joppa Chong before. Thank you all for your comments, especially for the timeline, Semper Crescis, it's very illuminating. Pinging @Roscelese: since she has been mentioned many times above. I would certainly consider sanctioning Joppa Chong for long-term tendentious editing at Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, culminating in this ridiculous revert and the "warning" to me, if it wasn't for the fact that I've edited the article and thereby become involved. (I've only edited it slightly, but I like to be careful about involvement). Are there any admin talkpage stalkers out there who would like to take a look? And @Joppa Chong: are you aware of the Conflict of interest guideline? Do you have any connection with the organization Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute? Are you employed by it? Bishonen | talk 10:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yo Bishonen sorry, but I can't take credit for that excellent timeline- it was EdChem's work- but I didn't indent enough to distinguish between our posts- which I will do now- if we could give credit where it's due, poor ole EdChem! Bye, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) *PS: I misread and thanked the wrong person for the timeline: it was by the ever-diligent researcher EdChem. Much appreciated, Ed! Bishonen | talk 10:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks for the appreciation, Bishonen, I'm glad it was useful. Since you are already involved, any thoughts on this change from August 2015 that still persists, presenting the list of SPLC anti-LGBT groups in the context of criticism from C-FAM? Also, just as an FYI, I did ping both Joppa Chong and Roscelese in my post, Joppa at the start and Roscelese at the second use of the user name (as I missed the first use when adding the link... oops!). EdChem (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) PPS: Bishonen, the organisation was renamed to the Center for Family and Human Rights some while back... don't want Joppa claiming no link to the old name for the organisation as a wikilawyering dodge around your question. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I've reverted the edit from 2015; I agree with you. Bishonen | talk 14:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC). Also, so much has happened in this thread since the user was last online that they might miss my question. I've repeated it on their page. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I agree that Joppa's behavior has been disruptive in the past, but I don't think there's anything recent (on this article; I don't know what else Joppa's been up to) that merits a sanction. They leapt way too hard on something that was clearly labeled a dummy edit, but the edit did actually add a space in the text where there shouldn't be one, so reverting it seems to be correct even if the warning was way out of line. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The edit did actually add a space in the text where there shouldn't be one" is incorrect, Roscelese. My edit only added a space in edit mode, which was invisible in the text our readers read. Adding a space, which doesn't show up on the page, is one of the standard ways of adding an edit summary without changing the readable text, see H:DUMMY. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Roscelese: The fact that multiple spaces appears as one means that articles that have a mix of full-stop—single space—next-word and full-stop—double space—next-word don't appear to have a mix of spacings after full stops. It's also a reason that changing double spaces (which are useful for seeing sentence breaks in edit mode) to single spaces, as some editors and bots do, is irritating to some (including me!). If you look at this sentence in edit mode, you can see the effect in action.  :)
    PS: Joppa Chong's recent edits to this article, there is the odd revert from Dec 2016 and the comment to Bishonen with the recent revert, suggestive of continued POV-pushing. Not sanctionable, true, but with warning an admin who previously blocked you, I suspect Joppa bears watching and perhaps some firmly-worded advice. EdChem (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP range block request - returning vandal

Hello Bishonen. A vandal who you previously blocked (for a month I think), has returned on the same IP range, but different addresses. They continue to add unsourced WWE events. See [51] for one example, on one IP. They seem to have moved to a new IP in the same range, to make similar edits: [52]. Could you please impose a further range block. Thank you. Silverfish (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2600:8800:4481:C4B0::/64 for 3 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. 3 months sounds perfect. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Raheja Developers

Schäslong, comfy for tea-sipping, from Nordisk Familjebok, 1905

I just removed another threatening post at Talk:Raheja Developers. Clearly, it is part of the long-running sock/meatfarm. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee has already revdel'd for "serious BLP violations" and blocked the sock. Quick work, both of you! All I did in the meantime was drink a lot of lemon tea. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
...feet up on the old chaise longue while the minions scurry about... ;)
Ah, ye olde schäslong! It's the only image I can actually remember the name of. Well worth storing in memory for when a mention of it comes up every ten years. Classic spelling for 18th-century Swedish loanwords. Yes, comfy and stylish for tea-sipping in the boudoir. Bishonen | talk 14:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I've also asked for oversight for attempted outing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like lightning, me, after lightning has had time to wake up slowly and relax for a couple of hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little-known fact in physics and atmospheric sciences that the speed of a lightning strike is heavily dependant on the electrons' recent caffeine intake... EdChem (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two hydrogen atoms meet up. One complains that they have lost an electron. The other says "Are you sure?". The complainant says "I am absolutely positive". - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush It was always my understanding that the universe is made of protons, neutrons, electrons and morons. The latter must be the result of a missing hydrogen atom electron. Atsme📞📧 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
And in proof that, while Google knows all, Wikipedia covers everything, we have an article on the happily-ever-after from that joke... EdChem (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help... I'm fading away... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're like buses ... - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Sitush:--Not sure whether your eyes have scanned this.Pretty determined folks!Winged Blades Godric 13:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen it because the pings were malformed. No worries - they've been playing this game for years now. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowdlerising

I just changed something to reflect the source. Do you think the original version of this might have been an attempt at bowdlerising? Whatever, I suspect that edit of mine will not last long. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A subcaste of the Wankers?? Sitush, have you snapped and gone rogue? Bishonen | talk 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
A common story is that in his resignation speech as an MP, Roy Jenkins, who had a speech impediment that caused his "r" to become "w", said "I leave this Chamber without rancour". To which some wit shouted out, "What?! Aren't you taking him with you?".

The source in the caste article is generally reliable but I need to try to check the specific point because the claim isn't something I've seen before. Do we even have Wankers (caste)? If not, why not? - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment list of scheduled castes in Gujrat has Vankar, see here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the lists for all state are at this page. DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we have Vankar. However, Wanker does seem to be quite a common term. Those government lists are notoriously ambiguous, which is why we do not use them. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the source, ... a letter he has received from Dohad ... which mentions that the Dhedh women go out to labour in the field and thus become open for abuse by men. (Dhedhs are a sub-caste of the scheduled castes who have traditionally been weavers and are also called Wankers.), I'm not sure whether it's saying that the scheduled castes or the Dhedhs are "also called Wankers". Do you see the same ambiguity in that sentence? It seems to be the first time that Dhedh has been mentioned in the text, and so it seems more likely to me that that the "also called" is intended to apply to them, rather than to "the scheduled castes". I think the article might be better without mentioning the Wankers unless there's another source that can clear that ambiguity. I'll take a stab at it. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take it in hand and see if you can pull it off. ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is ambiguous. I'm currently working on a set of related caste articles, of which this is one, and all will eventually become clear. It's the usual routine: paring them back of all cruft etc and building them up again. FWIW, Chamars are leatherworkers and it is beginning to look like Dhedhs worked in a slightly lower but related role, moving carrion for them etc. How that translates to being a subcaste of a weaving community is beyond me but I'll figure it out. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted an ANI, but things got complicated

Hi Bishonen, I posted an ANI complaint here. User KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even dropped F-bomb on my talk page. But then things got complicated when I got involved in an argument with JJBers and Tarage, but that's beyond the point. I'm just waiting for an Admin who at this point seems to not be coming anytime soon to help us sort this out, sorry about the inconvenience. (N0n3up (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, N0n3up. Turkish wars are beyond my scope. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

Yes, I did post the providing diff, but here it is again: [53] StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Edit warring and disruption in a GA level article

Jenishc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Article affected: Rishabhanatha

A relatively new editor is edit warring in this article, and has been twinkle warned about 3RR. @Jenishc has repeatedly deleted information such as "millions of years" that is sourced from reliable secondary and tertiary sources, inserting unsourced vague information instead along with deleting the sources. The editor is being uncivil and unresponsive on the TALK:Rishabhanatha page. The troublesome editing is quite broad by this editor, not just on that page. Do GA level articles have more stringent revert rules? This editor's edit warring and TE needs a review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was testing the autogeneration of 3RR report by Twinkle, thought it will give me a preview, but it directly filed all the paperwork on 3RR noticeboard (but with wrong diffs, my fault). I got it sorted out and filed it there with corrected diffs. Twinkling is complicated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user promptly retaliated by reporting you, but apparently was not aware that consecutive reverts count as one. I've closed their report, but unfortunately I don't have time to get stuck into yours. Anyway, since you're here on my page, it might be better if another admin does. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Update, Ms Sarah Welch: El C gave the user 24 hours, now extended to two weeks for block evasion. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you! FWIW, this belongs to a space of articles where our SpacemanSpiff, Diannaa and I have previously tried to get the active editors to respect wiki policies and guidelines. Things have improved since then. A bit. Once in a while, we get the persistent disrupters. Haven't seen SpacemanSpiff in a while, hope he is enjoying the spring somewhere! MONGO's waterfall pic today is nice, peaceful. Just the soft sounds and music are missing!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts with shared passwords

Hi Bish. Per this conversation, User:Haadaa and User:Shousokutsuu need to be indef blocked. It turns out both are role accounts with passwords shared by several people. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice business. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! A nice business indeed, rather reminiscent of the fabulously trendy hairstylist and his minions. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aaahh. I enjoyed re-reading that section. :-) Bishonen | talk 08:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think this is a violation

I think this is a violation. Deleting information from sources.--Дагиров Умар (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Дагиров Умар, the user changed the date of the holiday and added several new sources, with the edit summary "Update sources". I'm not really the best person to assess the comparative merit of the old and the new sources, as they're both in Russian. I suggest you take it to the article talkpage. (Create a new section for it.) Bishonen | talk 16:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
He gave sources where there are two official languages. But this does not give him any right to delete information from sources.--Дагиров Умар (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't he just change the date? Was there something else? Because obviously he can't change the date of the holiday without removing the old date. Is there disagreement about the date between different groups? If so, the article should probably contain a discussion of the disagreement. But I'm only guessing. Please take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Steel1943

Should I (or you, if it's protected) pull the farewell I wrote on the talkpage? They thanked for the edit, and didn't nuke it, but they might want the page blank nonetheless. Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, don't remove it. Steel1943 requested protection of their userpage, only, at WP:RFPP, and I obliged. If they had wanted the talkpage blank, they would surely have blanked it and requested protection of that as well. I'm sure your post was welcome. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

OK, thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI review of Robert Walker's editing behavior

Please see this. I post this here since you are also mentioned there, and I believe I am supposed to inform you. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Bish for the heads up on the Discretionary sanctions, did the Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis article raise the alert or is it just bio's of living and deceased persons in general? Cypresscross (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cypresscross: It was because I noticed your edits and the discussion on talk at Emmanuel Lemelson, which is an article I watch because of its troubled history. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Thanks, it would be great to get your feedback on some of those issues on the talk page and/or any of the other edits made, but it's not really clear what the purpose of the alert is? Cypresscross (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(No need to ping me on my own page.) The purpose is to emphasize that biography articles are especially delicate, and therefore admins have been permitted by the Arbitration Committee to issue both editor sanctions and page restrictions for these articles on their own single admin discretion. Aren't admins allowed to block editors and protect pages on their own discretion, then, you may ask? Yes; but not to topic ban editors, which is an important form of sanction when it comes to safeguarding articles from people with an agenda. (Topic bans, in areas that are not under discretionary sanctions, can only be issued by the community, after discussion on WP:AN or WP:ANI, a much more cumbersome procedure.)
Valborgsbrasa
Biographies are peculiarly susceptible to promotion: by the subject of the article, by people in the subject's employ, and by admirers or disciples. Worse, they can be given a subtle or overt negative slant by the subject's real-life enemies. The articles Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management have previously been subjected to promotional efforts, and I blocked one editor indefinitely in 2016 (they have since been found to be abusing multiple accounts and have been blocked even more indefinitely). I simply want new editors to be aware of previous problems, and of the fact that neutrality is a principle taken seriously here. But I hope you noticed the sentence in italics at the top of my alert (which I know people tend to miss): The message does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Sorry, I won't take part, or take sides, in the discussion on the talkpage; I intend to stay uninvolved and neutral. As for your other contributions, I can't say I've been following them, sorry. I don't have time to do very much on Wikipedia these days, especially this time of year when I'm busy enjoying the springtime, the only pretty ringtime, when birds do sing, hey ding a ding ding. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oops on the ping. Thanks for the thorough explanation. I think the risks of a negative slant are just as common as the risks of a positive slant, and arguably an article needs both the positive and the negative (it might be impossible for humans to avoid some (even slight) slant entirely, although we can strive for it?). Also, I suppose articles could be given subtle or overt negative slants by ideological enemies (and not just real-life ones)? I understand that you didn't mean to take sides, but I hope you can appreciate that by posting the notice on my talk page (following a debate with another editor), it could be seen as taking a side, or questioning neutrality.
P.S. beautiful poetry Cypresscross (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cypresscross: As I mentioned, the article I'm concerned with has been subject to promotional efforts. By contrast, I haven't seen any negative editing there (even though the promotional account which was indeffed, User:Orthodox2014, used to insist that any attempt to remove their promotion was negative editing and a sign of bias — but then promotional accounts will do that). I only mentioned giving a negative slant in general above, because it's so important — not because I see it as relevant to Emmanuel Lemelson. Since the discussion on talk suggests you're having a disagreement with an experienced editor, User:Grayfell, about including/excluding possibly undue quotations and the like, I certainly think it was appropriate to give you the alert. Compare also, from January, the edit summary by an administrator here, which suggests your first edits to the article had reinstated some of the wording Orthodox2014 had insisted on. I'm not suggesting you have any relationship with the disruptive Orthodox2014 and their socks, but would you mind telling me if you have any relationship with Lemelson that rises to a conflict of interest (please click on the link)? One of your first edits after registering this account was on Talk:Donald Trump, supporting the inclusion of text (and/or image — it's not entirely clear to me) mentioning Lemelson's blessing of Trump in 2015.[54] You certainly seem to have an interest, which isn't necessarily to say a conflict of interest, of course. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
My comments above are also general in nature about WP. There is no conflict of interest. The edits have been neutral (if bold), but these articles do need work. Cypresscross (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better than many lyrics we're likely to hear come 13 May. - Sitush (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What happens on 13 May? Sitush, are you aware that tonight is the magical Walpurgisnacht, when the witches come out and we burn all our old garden furniture to encourage the spring? I don't understand why nobody has posted any celebratory Valborg fire pictures on this page. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ohh. Sitush, I missed your link, sorry. Yes, most lyrics are better than those, for sure. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Here in the US it is Loyalty Eve, tomorrow being Loyalty Day (dreading that link turning blue, as I'm sure it will). I do need to note that you've given me a most excellent idea on what to do with the mountain of old garden furniture behind my house. Antandrus (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This side of the pond, it's called Labour Day, also known as International Workers' Day, an event which replaced a European Spring festival with one commemorating a rally in Chicago, USA. I'm not implying it has to make sense. My sole piece of advice to Antandrus would be to move the furniture behind somebody else's house first. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a good idea to make sure no one is sitting on the furniture. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'An insult's an insult. A chair leg up the arse, though, that's furniture'  ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd hate to meet your interior decorator.😜 Dlohcierekim 15:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the tilt...

Awww. I miss it now. Well, if you decide to bring it back, maybe you'll consider going full-evil with it like I did. :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel much less woozy, now. 😜 Dlohcierekim 01:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just saw me threatening other people about it, and removed it 'cause you were scared of me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, in fact, yes I did. You scare me. Bishonen | talk 09:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
But not scare me! Go sit in pocket and think what you did, little Florence! bishzilla ROARR!! 09:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Just sit in your pocket? Sure! I was worried you were going to burn me to a crisp or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla is ridiculously mellow these days. However, you should be aware that Darwinbish visits in the pocket from time to time. [Diabolical laughter] Bishonen | talk 15:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. For some of us with vision defects things like tilting text, etc. can be a challenge. I didn't want to make an issue of it because it was all in good fun, and fun is good. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. Is there really a problem? After I saw that all the cool people were doing it, I tilted my TOC. Now I've adjusted it so it's just barely tilted. Should I be expecting a visit from the tilt police? RivertorchFIREWATER 05:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't think so. Forewarned is forearmed. Those of us with space-perception disturbances can take our Dramamine or Antivert ahead of time. Dlohcierekim 09:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like yours, Rivertorch. It's skewed just enough that it makes you squint at it, trying to figure out what's wrong... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. I mean, it's all relative, right? Maybe it's really vertical, and everything else on the Internet is skewed. @Dlohcierekim, I swear I'm not colluding with Big Pharma. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenishc socks, semi-protect request for two Jainism articles

@El C:, @Bish: You had blocked hopping IP socks of Jenishc: 131.215.220.162 and 131.215.220.163. Now they are back with 131.215.220.161. The affected articles are Mahavira (diff1) and Parshvanatha (diff2). Perhaps a 2 week semi-protection of the two articles and a short period block of 131.215.220.* or something appropriate is the next step? Might help the "It wont stop me" sock, who has been mocking El_C, to laundry their intentions, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... it's only a tiny IP range, but their overall contributions are nevertheless a bit baffling, so I'll go with semi. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Please help me with this unruly sock editor

Hello, A known and extremely troublesome person who operates the account "Panrussia" is being vandalising the articles related to the Civil Services of India namely, Civil Services of India and Central Civil Services. He is vandalising the articles himself and calling others vandals. He's extremely rude to EVERYONE, yes to everyone! Not only that he's sock of "Vrghs Jacob", one of the most infamous socks on Wiki. Currently he's operating Motbag12, "Wikicab" and "Uncletomwood" and several other accounts which I'm not aware of in addition to the above mentioned account (Panrussia). I feel that a checkuser should be performed in this regard. Also, here's the reference and the updated list (as of 3rd April 2017) of the Central Civil Services of India (Group A) for your ready reference. http://document.ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02adm/OMUpdationoflistdated03.04.2017.pdf It is an official circular of the Govt. of India and the file is hosted on Govt. of India's servers (National Informatics Center (NIC)) of India. The is the most recent list of services and the subject is to Update the list of services which has undergone several changes over the past few years. Thanks!

I'm busy right now, but I'll take a look in a few hours' time. Note that you can sign your posts by typing four tildes, ~~~~. (Yes, IP editors can do that too.) Bishonen | talk 11:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Update: I've looked, and have blocked Panrussia indefinitely for legal threats (the edit summary here) as well as disruptive editing and personal attacks. I considered opening an SPI report for the socking you allege, but didn't find it convincing enough — I thought a CU would probably decline to look. You can do it yourself, of course, or give me more and better evidence if you have it. Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Bishonen, I've reblocked Panrussia as a CU block and blocked another account, Wikicab (talk · contribs · count), as the same person. I tagged them improperly at first because Motbag12 is  Stale, but then I found data on it and was able to confirm the two newer accounts as socks of Motbag12. I haven't looked at the other users the IP mentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've taken it away :( I bet they are forced! I so bet. Freedom to the Yoga Goats! Support the Yoga Goats Liberation Movement! Hairy chins to all who oppress our Yoga-imprisoned Goat comrades! ...uuurghhh....
Santa-satanic goats? — PaleoNeonate — 17:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that would provoke a legal threat, wouldn't it. Not nice. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, everyone! I wrote a long message, but due to edit conflict I don't know where it is now. This guy uses religious (brings in "Hindu, Christian" in conversation / edit summary for no apparent reason), regional / national / racist insults ("Indian illiterates" and "white trash" as used by Motbag12). This guy claims to be possible outing and personal attacks redacted His currently active accounts known to me: "Uncletomwood", "Motbag12", "Panrussia", "wikicab" among several others I have no knowledge of. His main sock was "Vrghs Jacob". He loves to edit (mostly destroy): Vehicle beacon lights in India Indian order of precedence Indian Police Service Indian Administrative Service Indian Ordnance Factories Service Ministry of Defence (India) Indian Armed Forces Central Civil Services Civil Services of India Indian Revenue Service and all articles related to Taxation in India. It would be great if you can add these articles to watchlists as he will be coming back within a few minutes given his past record. Thanks a lot, again! I shall seek your help again whenever I come across him again. P.S.: I saw that you guys have dealt with him before too, but must be busy so wrote to both of you.

  • Update: I'm sorry guys to use such harsh words, I'm a cool-headed person, but this kid brings out the worst in me. I shall refrain myself from editing Wiki for week (or even longer if you guys think), but please restore my edits to the articles Civil Services of India and Central Civil Services and please watch the pages while I'm away. Thanks again! Yes, I'm the same person! I sometime use mobile and sometimes wifi. I'll keep away for a week, don't worry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.28.252 (talk • contribs)
  • I've blocked the IPs you used for the attacks, and used to post here, and now you think you can post here with a different IP, really? A block applies to the person, not a particular IP or account. I hope you do stay away for the time of your block. And note that outing is taken very seriously here. In fact, if you had done that from an account, you would have been blocked indefinitely. I may take a look at those articles later. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • . also, yeah, i've seen some interesting edits to those pages form time to time. (talk page stalker) -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, including the unknown IP. I am uncletomwood and I am one of the alleged editors. I repeat that I have really nothing to do with those socks. I agree that I have done my fair share of disruptive editing and lying (way back in 2014 and since then have stopped) but it deeply saddens and depresses me when this IP alleges me of something I haven't even done. This IP with all due respect to him has threatened and even called my father and myself "names and sobriquets" which are absolutely uncalled for and untrue. I repeat that I have nothing to do with any of those socks of Vrghsjacob. I want to take this opportunity to tell the IP that threatening me was really uncalled for and has upset me. He has written such nasty comments against me on talk pages and edit history pages when I haven't even done anything. With all due respect to him, he really needs to refrain himself from such petty squabbles with people on Wikipedia so that the "worst" isn't brought out by him. I have tried contacting him, clarifying to him that I am not the same person he alleges me to be but to no avail. I kindly request the IP to kindly calm down and converse with me and the Wikipedia admins to kindly expunge any personal remarks made from talk pages/ edit histories if they deem fit. I REPEAT that I really have nothing to do with any of those socks.

PS: I am redacted personally-identifying information he wants everyone to be beware of. He has mentioned my name in various edit histories and talks. I am not related to any of those socks. Can't people with similar interests edit pages? This is absolutely been a pain for me seeing redacted description of outing-related allegations. Requesting admins to hear my plea and that I am ready for any checkuser any other investigation to show that I am not among those accused socks.

Uncletomwood (talk 18:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Uncletomwood, if you have nothing to do with those socks, how did you find this discussion here? Nobody has pinged you. Also I don't understand why you tell me your real name here, if you don't want your personal information known. However, if you seriously want people to do something about your personal information being revealed, please give diffs for where it happened. See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create diffs. Whole page histories, or slabs of 500 edits on page histories, as you give above, aren't very useful. But don't give the diffs here, giving further publicity to the personal details; e-mail them to the oversight team at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
1)My name was flashed brazenly on edit histories like Civil Services of India whose pages I watch. When I saw the discussions between Panrussia and the unknown IP and how the IP had mistaken Panrussia to be me(due to him specifically mentioning my name on edit histories), I was closely watching the discussion and even pinged him on his IP hoping that the he is clarified that I am not the same person as these socks due to his malicious hate campaign against me on edit histories and talk pages. Since I was following this discussion, I saw Panrussia blocked and found you via his talk page as you blocked him.2) Please check my edit history where I made attempts to talk to that IP to clear my name. I revealed my personal information HERE, on my own accord to prove to that IP who is possibly reading this message to let him know again that I am not the same person and he needs to stop using the language he used against me. He has threatened me and his nasty comments were definitely not nice. I will email them to the oversight team. Uncletomwood (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you should contact the oversight team -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know whether Uncletomwood is related to the recently-blocked socks, but I do know that the IP editor thought so. Perhaps a CU can comment? I do know, however, that Uncletomwood's user page gives me pause. According to it, Uncletomwood has a PhD and is an academic, but is (according to the post above) is a 22 year old law student. As an academic who actually does have a PhD, which involved very considerable work on my part, I object to these claims being made falsely. I also have a problem with deliberate misrepresentation in user space that appears aimed at bolstering credibility in article content discussions. EdChem (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, the userpage... it doesn't strike me as that of an academic, more like that of your average undregrad student. i mean, just look at my userpage... userboxes everywhere... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is true. I am not an academic and I am only a student. I did falsely claim that I am a Phd student amongst other lies in 2014. I agree. I did carry out some disruptive editing as well back in 2014. The IP has conversed with me in 2014 and he picked up my lie by finding out who I really was. I agree there was deliberate misrepresentation carried out by me and I am ready to face any consequence including a lifetime ban. But I only want that my name as well my father's name is not tarnished and that it is held that I am not the socks of Vrghs Jacob (Panrussia, Motbag, Wikicab etc). Uncletomwood (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all information from my user page. I am ready to leave wikipedia because I did lie. I did falsely represent myself in 2014. I only want that I am not harassed and threatened in this manner. I am ready to undego any checkuser investigation/any other investigation to ban me but also to clear me of the sock allegations. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The admins might also want to go through the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Wikimon as even he was caught in the muddle of Vrghs Jacob socks. The point is that many editors who have similar interests are thought to have been socks of Vrghs Jacob. Also the same IP editor had sometime back in 2013 had accused me of being a sock of Vrghs Jacob. There was no credible evidence that I was Vrghs Jacob.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uncletomwood/Archive Uncletomwood (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncletomwood, as I've already said, if you're concerned about edits that identify you personally and threaten you, please do e-mail Oversight about these edits, with diffs. I hope you can find the diffs yourself, rather than putting somebody else, such as me or the oversighters, to the work of finding them. It should be easier for you, since you remember about them, and should give a more complete result. Again, see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. @Bbb23: have you seen Uncletomwood's posts here, and do you think they warrant action? Bishonen | talk 09:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I have already emailed the oversight team with correct diffs. I just want this threatening to stop. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed personal information shown above. Bishonen, could / should you revdel the history from when the IP and then Uncletomwood made comments that are now redacted? Is oversight warranted here too, beyond that already requested by email? EdChem (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncletomwood: I don't think anyone is asking that you leave, if they were a block of you would be requested. I do appreciate that you have removed untrue claims from your user page, though blanking it was not necessary... but that's up to you. Admitting to mistakes and errors is the mature thing to do, and the WP community is generally fairly forgiving so long as you learn from and avoid repeating your mistakes. Oversighting edits / edit summaries that include outing is a request supported by policy, and admins will act on harassment when they see it / on request... you can repay this with policy-compliant editing and by not retaliating when attacked. EdChem (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and I thank you for it. I admit to my mistakes and I invite all you senior editors/admins (and the IP editor) to personally monitor my future edits, if possible. Uncletomwood (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=779188882"