User talk:Bishonen

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

He's back -- the man behind the mask ...

... and no one cared who he was until he put on the mask.

(This is Hijiri88, by the way. Posting this logged out because I'm pretty sure he's monitoring my logged-in edits. I probably should have removed his comment while logged out as well, but what can you do.)

106.133.164.1 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sanction notification

Thank you for the notification. Sort of important for editors new to the area. I was informally informed about it, had to look it up, and was wondering why I didn't get a notification. Otr500 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Bishonen | talk 15:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC).

User page protection request

Bishonen, I seem to have annoyed an IP hopper. Would you please semi User:Jbhunley. If there is an easy way to do it for the whole User:Jbhunley/ tree that would be even better since they went after many pages. If you have to do it manually though, do not bother with it. Thank you! Jbh^Talk 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

PS that tilted TOC is cool - makes my eyes cross, but still cool. Jbh^Talk 01:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've semi'd your userpage indefinitely, Jbhunley — it hardly seems likely an IP would ever have any business editing it. But this is very annoying... I did mass protect my own pages about a year ago, when I had a determined personal harasser. But I can't remember how. Anybody? @Writ Keeper, MusikAnimal, and Materialscientist:? Hehe, I love the tilt, but it's getting a bit long — maybe I should archive. Some day, you know. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC).

There should be a 'semiprotect all' button at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jbhunley/ https://i.imgur.com/XwzDXNi.png - NQ (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I've already pushed it. I was gonna say, I distinctly remember writing that script. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, Writ Keeper - Thank you! Jbh^Talk 17:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You can also use Twinkle to mass-protect, on the same Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jbhunley/ use TW > P-Batch — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Must you suck the fun out of *everything*? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In seriousness, though, I don't actually see a TW tab on Special:PrefixIndex. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't either. Thought it was just for admin eyes only. - NQ (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And there we are. Thanks very much, all. Writty, I was pretty sure it was your script, I think you may actually have written it because I needed it. (You're such a good guy. Please run for ArbCom!) I just didn't remember how to use it. I wonder if this brilliant note I've made on my page will help next time. Unlikely, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC).

Arbcom. Yeah, that's what we need. Speaking of sucking the fun out of everything...Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a Twinkle tab on those pages either, MusikAnimal. Does it need to be, uh, activated somewhere in my prefs? Bishonen | talk 10:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC).

Really? I see "P-Batch" and "D-batch", both admin functions so yes, the tab would only be visible at all for admins. Special:PrefixIndex is the primary use-case for these features. If you don't see them, then this must be a bug... :( Could one of you, Writ Keeper perhaps since you are a developer, take a look at your JS console and see if there are any errors? See WP:JSERROR for those who need instructions — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I reckon the Zilla has desysopped Bishonen! Wow! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look later today. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked some other admins on IRC and they said they see the Twinkle menu at Special:PrefixIndex. I tried on both Vector and Monobook. Mass delete/protect are arguably the most powerful admin features, so I really want to figure this out :) Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No errors (only warnings), appears in Vector but not Monobook. Dunno what's different about our monobook vs. yours, though, if you've tried it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In Monobook, Twinkle options should show up as links along the top, not as a dropdown menu (sorry I thought maybe this was implied). So next to "special page" you should see "d-batch" and "p-batch" (screenshot). Do you not? — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I see your screenshot, but there's nothing there next to "special page" in my Monobook. (Vector? Who uses Vector?) Except "semiprotect all", which would be Writty's script. Bishonen | talk 03:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC). P.S. Could that possibly be the problem? That the Twinkle links are sort of masked by "semiprotect all"? Do you want to see a screenshot, MusikAnimal? I could e-mail it to you. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

Could you add the following code to your common.js and see if the tab shows up on Special:PrefixIndex/User:Bishonen? mw.loader.using(['ext.gadget.Twinkle'], function() { if (mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Prefixindex') {Twinkle.addPortletLink( Twinkle.batchprotect.callback, "P-batch", "tw-pbatch", "Protect pages linked from this page" );}}); - NQ (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Add that code? [Dubiously:] I suppose I could. OK, done. No, it doesn't make any difference. Thank you for trying, little NQ. Should I remove it again? Bishonen | talk 15:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

yes please, wouldn't want it to screw anything up. It worked for me though, so not sure what's wrong. 84 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(←) I am so lost... I set my personal JS to be the same as yours, Bishonen, and I still see the links (the P-batch link I see twice, because of NQ's script that you added). I'm going to guess there's a conflicting gadget or something. Let's take this to the next level, if you don't mind... I've temporarily given you sysop rights on testwiki. At your convenience, please go to testwiki:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and enable "Twinkle debug version", then browse to testwiki:Special:Prefixindex and let me know if you see the links. Thanks so much for your help! I worry this isn't working for a lot of people — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I got as far as enabling "Twinkle debug version", but then when I click on your testwiki:Special:Prefixindex link, I only get a generic page, without any pages listed on it. Unsurprisingly, I didn't see any Twinkle links, because there was nothing there for them to refer to (no pages to batch protect or similar). So I tried looking for pages with your name as the prefix — obviously, I myself don't have anything in my userspace on that wiki — and got a little list. With still no Twinkle links. I've e-mailed you a screenshot of what I see.

And you have replied — I didn't realize I was using Vector on the testwiki, so I looked for the links to the right of "Special page"... sigh... OK, hang on while I just change the skin. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

• Yes, it works in Monobook too on the test wiki, I see the links where I expect them. But I can't do the same in my usual prefs, can I? There's no Twinkle debug version there. So, are you going to fix it for all of us? I'm really glad this came up, you know. There's some more Twinkle links I've never been able to find, that I know other people rejoice in — perhaps those will miraculously turn up, too, once this is fixed ("debugged"). Bishonen | talk 20:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

Oh no, you've already desysopped me! Bad MusikAnimal! Bishonen | talk 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

Hehe, I love to break rules but the testwiki folks insist sysop powers are for development purposes only. Anyway, yay! We know the issue is not Twinkle by itself :) I'm convinced it must be a conflicting gadget. Could you email me your list of gadgets (take a screenshot, I guess)? What other Twinkle options are missing for you?

Also, I did some SQL queries about skin usage, and of all the users who have modified some sort of setting (so probably most users who were active at some point, and not throwaway accounts/socks), around 2.1 million use Monobook, ~86,000 use Cologne Blue, ~79,000 use Modern, and 8.9 million use Vector :) Vector is the default these days, so it makes sense it's the most popular — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

little NQ has cracked it ! @Bish @MusikAnimal: @Writ Keeper: Have a looksy at User:Writ Keeper/monobook.css and User:Bishonen/monobook.css. Spot what's hidden! ;) 84 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha!! Well that explains it! The Twinkle settings you mysteriously are missing you explicitly have hidden! Wow. Thanks NQ! I'm going to guess Writ Keeper told you to do this, Bishonen? Writ I've just about had enough of you :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The CSS should have been one of the first places I checked. So angry at myself >:( — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was Writ, even though there's some overlap with his choices... I think I did it on my own, because I'm pretty clever, you know.. full of technical initiative! Can I be a developer, please? Peering into the past, I think the line of links got too long and the ones I really wanted disappeared to the right on my tablet, and there was no using them. I'll just unhide the lot, because I can't be arsed to use the damn tablet these days anyway. I like to use Bishzilla's ten-acre desktop monitor, which has lots of room for little links. Sorry I'm so forgetful, Musik. Thank you little NQ! Bishonen | talk 22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

Calling a living person/scholar a nut on wikipedia pages, BLP issues?

Hi @Bish: See this. Isn't calling a living person "a nut"/etc, making personal attacks on a living human being, or other defamation of living person(s) on wikipedia pages inappropriate and unacceptable? That is a few weeks old comment, in an article I did not follow nor read in the past. The comment is still live, so just a note of admin clarification / caution may suffice. If inappropriate should it be deleted or stricken off? Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends. Some times you feel like a nut (Almond Joy), some times you don't (Mounds (candy)). Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL. @Bish's talk page is the place to be: Horses, flowers, starry nights, Almond joy and :-)s. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Ms Sarah. I've removed the opprobrious remark and had a word with the user. Jehochman is a right nutter, btw. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	What a fine idea...to have an image appear to those who edit your talk page. Such a fine first picture too...quite contemplative! MONGO 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for bright bulb little user. Illumination in murky autumnal home most timely! (Thickest cloudcover ever today.) Hmm. Has another bright idea: how about I add this to carousel too, for a surprise item? I see it's currently being used on the Russian Wiktionary, besides your award. Trying to figure out what the illustrated word can be... no luck. Anybody? Does человекообразность mean Bigfoot? Or Hairy Shakespeare? Bishonen | talk 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

Google translate says it means "people imagery". Huh. Like, folk art? Bishonen | talk 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

Acording to my dictionary the root word (человекообраз-) means anthropomorphous. With a gendered suffix it is anthropoid. -ност collectivizes a noun so I would say things like Furries would be a good fit. Jbh^Talk 12:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So the image is supposed to be Shakespeare roleplaying in in furry fandom..? Sure, why not, and I'm glad to see it travel, though it's hardly what User:Penyulap had in mind when he kindly created it on request from Bishzilla. Originally, it represents MONGO as the Hairy Shakespeare of the Woods, warbling his native woodnotes in all those featured and hairy and leafy National Park articles.[1]. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

As is not uncommon, woodland realm has few opportunities for MONGO to edit. Hoping problem rectified soon. Nevertheless those Rooskies need be wary of the potential costs to both limb and eyeball (vodka martini with eyeball garnish my favorite) should they misuse my likeness in a nefarious manner.--MONGO 16:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

RexxS is quite the fine technical user person. Thank goodness he's on our side and not that of those dastardly Rooskies.--MONGO 16:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Now lightning! MONGO excited!--MONGO 03:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

So...pictures must do auto update. MONGO unable to understand such fine complexity...--MONGO 03:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Every twelve hours, little MONGO. That's the cleverness of young RexxS. But I only gave him nine pics to alternate between. I wonder if I could put in a few more here? I can see where the image names are, so probably wouldn't need to understand the complexity. What say, RexxS? Would you rather I not mess ignorantly with module? Bishonen | talk 10:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC).

Of course, please add more. I tried to write it so that it could be easily updated. You just need to put a comma after each filename except the last one, just like any list. Enjoy --RexxS (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Now more images! Look at me, I'm programming in Lua! \o/ Bishonen | talk 17:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC).

A creek...most idyllic spot of woodland realm.--MONGO 20:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ha! MONGO You been in woods? Beer coming for MONGO. Usual shipment. You been quiet. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

MONGO trying to behave...but it very very hard.--MONGO 04:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong spirits for MONGO on way. Beer chasers too. Will keep MONGO in picture. Mescal will be sent. Only 24 bottles though. MONGO be warm through winter. Drambuie too. All depends on U Boat activity in Atlantic. Keep MONGO up to date on this. Irondome (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Pelicans!--MONGO 02:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Wecarlisle AE

Pinging Mandruss too.

For future reference, would ANI be a better venue for matters like this? Since it was related to ARBAP2, I thought AE was the only venue I could take that.

And I agree, the warning to report time gap was not ideal. But the disruption was blatant and repeated so I thought it needed addressing. Between the edit notices and the edit summaries by reverters and the user themself, it seemed that they knew about the DS and ignored them.

Just wondering what the ideal way to handle such things would be for the future (esp. as we get closer to the election in the USA). Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, EvergreenFir. Yes, IMO either ANI or AN3 would have been better in this case. There was ongoing disruption, so it was urgent. Discretionary sanctions are more for persistent problems, and they only start to "count", so to speak, after a user has been alerted to them. The user had been persistent enough, but mainly before your alert, so s/he wasn't ready to be sanctioned per DS. Giving the user a DS alert was a good idea, but there was nothing preventing you from then using other venues. DS are meant to make it easier, not harder, to stem disruption in sensitive areas. (The cumbersome way they're sometimes used can make one wonder, I know.) They should never prevent anybody from using other venues, or approaching an admin individually, or whatever. As for the ideal way for the future: well, considering these interesting times, why not hand out a few DS alerts for American politics preemptively, where you think they may do some good? (Not a whole shower, as that might be frowned on.) They make it easier for admins to act down the line. The alerts are not accusations — you see where it says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date", bolding in original — and people don't really have any reason to take umbrage at them. Especially not if you make a point of templating folk on different sides of the, uh, great divide. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC).

That makes sense. I was always a bit unclear if you had to go to AE to get an active sanction addressed or not. I'll go to ANI or AN3 (the latter of which can be a bit slow too) in the future. I appreciate you explaining too. That does help. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

— and people don't really have any reason to take umbrage at them, which is not to say that they won't. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, Mandruss, but I had originally written a parenthetic "(though they do)" to EF, but I thought "too many parentheses, you talk too much, Bishonen" and zapped it. Indeed they will. I nearly fainted when a new user actually thanked me for his DS alert, in the section "Sanction notification" above: "I was wondering why I didn't get a notification". Very nice. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC).

In my experience a majority will see it as a confrontation, if not attack, regardless of the fine print. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Remember that time- can't find it off the top of my head- where, for a particularly tendentious editor, it said "This does imply misconduct regarding your own conduct." Classic! _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hehe. That must have been Darwinbish. I don't remember where it was either. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC).

A cookie for you!

Good block there. GABgab 00:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• [Immediately chewing. Bishonen has no self-control.]. Mmm, pretty nice! Bishonen | talk 02:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC).

Block

Can you please take a look at the user page which you deleted, User: Musiclov, then go to the page that user was editing a lot, and check the edit history. The page was meant to be a redirect, where an admin User: Seraphimblade found this article, put it back to a redirect, then the two users, Musiclov and it's sock puppeteer, put it back to the promotional page it was. this happeed about 3 times, so i just marked it for deletion for promotion. Please block Musiclov and it's sock-puppeteer, Wikiartiste. Adotchar (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I replied to you on User talk:Musiclov before I saw this, Adotchar. I'll take a look at the socking issue. Bishonen | talk 16:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC).

Also, I sent in a request for rollback about a week ago, which was denied, and it was before I really started being entirely active. So, if I were to apply again now, do you think I'd make it? I really need it for STiki. I'm currently using Snuggle and it isn't working really well. Adotchar (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts indefinitely. They're pretty obviously one person, but I don't think that's worth making an SPI song and dance about. Thanks for your good work, Adotchar. Hmmm, I don't know much about why or when rollback is or isn't granted. Could you link me to your request and the denial, please? Bishonen | talk 17:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC).

I need some help, please. I used to do NPP, until an admin, Kudpung, told me to stop. So I moved to working on Snuggle for recent changes patrol. And since recent changes are changes to pages, he is now really angry at me for some reason, and I haven't been doing anything wrong. Please help, link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adotchar#NPP_3

(talk page stalker) The user page User:Wikiartiste is a near-copy of an old version of Saptaparna Chakraborty, the page in question (now redirected). It's probably ok to work on a draft of your favourite garage band in your user-space, but it would be more usual in a sub-page, rather than the users's landing page. As Wikiartiste is now blocked, perhaps it could be moved without redirect to User:Wikiartiste/Saptaparna Chakraborty, or maybe just deleted (as its in the page history of Saptaparna Chakraborty)? --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Adotchar, that's above my paygrade, sorry. I don't understand it. Again, where did you request rollback and what was the reason given for denying it? And RexxS, yeah, I deleted it. It would surprise me if the individual doesn't have a copy, since it's been on both the userpages and is as you say in the history of Saptaparna Chakraborty. Not sure how you mean they could work on it, though. You know both the accounts have been indeffed? Bishonen | talk 11:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

It was denied for a lack of anti-vandalism, but it was before I went fully anti-vandal. I'll put a link here this afternoon. _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yer, I saw they were indeffed. I just hoped that their next sock could quietly work on the article in user space without disturbing anybody else :D

@Adotchar: I have great respect for Kudpung, and his expertise includes the fields of New Page and Recent Changes patrol, so I'd take his advice seriously. My advice to you is not to be in a hurry. Take your time to learn what folks like Kudpung are explaining to you. Expect to spend a month or more using the simple tools or making manual edits to combat vandalism. You have made a good start, spotting Wikiartiste et al, and bringing your evidence to a sympathetic admin like 'Shonen for action. Keep up the good work and you'll be able to show the admins at WP:PERM a history of good judgement. That's what they are looking for in granting permissions. I hope it turns out well for you the next time you ask. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

BOOOOOOO! Happy Halloween!!!

Happiest of Halloweens (and more candy) to all the Bishes, 'Zillas, 'Pods, Darwinesques, Little Stupids, and the entire beloved Bisheria! ---little key in old creepy spoooky disguise

Thank you little Sluzzelin! [Peers closely.] Delicious! Multicoloured Beluga caviar very festive! bishzilla _ROARR!! 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

Some remodeling may be in order

Hi-tech solution

Hey there, it's probably from Bishzilla stomping around, but your table of contents isn't hanging on all of its nails anymore. Do you need me to give you some? :p—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Offline} 01:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the remaining nail for the moment. That's much better, don't you think? --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So what's it hanging on now?—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Offline} 02:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried to straighten it out again, but something looks off. I can't quite put my finger on it.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Limited Access} 05:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Here, use some neodymium magnets to hang table of contents on wall. Extra strength; can withstand 'Zilla stomp! Altamel (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey! 180° is all very well, let 'em stand on their heads, but it's covering up my "blocked by Jimbo" barnstar! Please fix! (Oh, the edit notice has a bison now. Well majestic!) Bishonen | talk 09:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

Never fear, with magnets table of contents can hang anywhere. No need to cover up other decorations. Altamel (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

[Dubiously.] Well... thank you very much, all. Maybe I turn it round in a while, before there's a riot. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

Like—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 17:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darwinfish: You forget to use a leveling tool? It's crooked again. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. [Darwinfish checks for this item in his native tongue.] Ah, vattenpass. Sorry, Cyberpower678, I haven't developed one of those yet, still evolving. (You should be grateful I've got feet!) darwin^fish 15:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

@RexxS: re your last edit,[2] wobbling would be nice, but I don't see any. Do you? Bishonen | talk 17:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

• OK, I see wobbling now, but it's discreet in the extreme. Faster! Faster! Bishonen | talk 17:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

It only wobbles when you're not looking. (Hint: preview the page to bypass Wikipedia's cache.) --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Madden

I've gotten a lot less tolerant of "minor spelling fixes" that aren't, particularly in a silly season-related article. You're obviously a kinder, more forgiving person, probably because Bishzilla takes care of the mean stuff. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That's it. Though I have my moments of intolerance, too. I just this minute blocked Jewwy Seinfeld, reported at AIV, that the other admin had rejected for being at the wrong noticeboard. Fuck that, just block, you know? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

We should make Arnaud Amalric O.Cist the patron saint of blockers. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh? You don't think I was sorting it out properly myself, RexxS, without any need to involve the Christian god or crusaders? IMO the user "Jewwy Seinfeldt" needed blocking indefinitely on the name alone, regardless of what noticeboard they had been taken to. Nothing to worry god with. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

Trump

Thank you for this. Donald Trump could use some active policing in the run-up to the election, not least to avoid unnecessary drama and finger-pointing at WP:AE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

—Yeah.. I'm not American, though, nor much of a masochist. I find a good deal of it so strange as to be incomprehensible. Mainly, I can only manage the low-hanging fruit, such as this. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

N sahi

@Bish: Have a look at this and this, plus this edit history. Such incivility against @Joshua Jonathan. The disruption by @N sahi is high. Already identified to be a sock, @N sahi account blocked for 2 weeks and other named @Nrityam indef. @N sahi account needs a watch if the user returns. Sorry @JJ, but know you are valued and admired despite the generous dose of abusive words and nonsense thrown at you, every now and then. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Only two weeks for that character? I've asked Bbb23 about it, and also about the SPI page against you which one of their page moves created. It should be deleted IMO. Bishonen | talk 05:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

@Bish: Prolly @Bbb23 was just looking at the SPI case, and not the behavioral/PA/disruption/etc. I am clueless about the relevant guidelines on this, but 2 week block for 1st time SPI offenders may be the proportionate/appropriate thing to do. @Bbb23 did the right thing. Indeed, @N sahi is not just an SPI character. Incivility aside, that user disrupted the due SPI process by attempting to delete evidence and move the SPI case file name. Someone has deleted all that now. @JJ, others and I have a similar mess to wade through, recheck and clean up in Buddhism, Hinduism space articles that '@N sahi' socks edited over the last few months. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Loved that "It only wobbles when you're not looking." thingy. LOL. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's true. The nature photo in the edit notice — I hope you've noticed them — only changes when nobody's looking, too. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

Thank You

 Buster Seven Talk 13:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin

At the thread WP:ANI#Tendentious IP. JzG's there, but he's involved. I've asked more than one admin, so no pressure. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month. Bishonen | talk 05:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

• I'm just going to leave this here in case you want to keep an eye on it. It could just be a coincidence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll watchlist them, MjolnirPants. But it could indeed. I'd think many, many people might register an account to make that edit. Have you thought of welcoming them? Bishonen | talk 10:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, that was why I logged on right now, actually. Already done, and talk page watched for any questions they might have. I've got my fingers crossed this is just a coinkydink. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Need an interaction ban

I need an interaction ban. Another editor has proposed a split for the Garage rock article and there is a discussion on the talk page there, and TheGracefulSlick has injected comments there that I do not take to be in good faith. He has also made borderline deletionist comments and gotton into unnecessary circumlocutions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back from the Grave, Volumes 1 and 2 (CD). I feel that his comments in both threads should be redacted. While normally he would be entitled to say whatever he wants, I feel that, based on the situation with ALongStay, he should recuse himself of any negative commentary of my work in such forums. I'm sorry it has come to this, but things have gotten a lot worse between use in the last two weeks. I have given him a chance, and he keeps trying to undermine me. This is difficult because I acknowledge some kind things in the past. I don't know why he is doing this. I am asking for an interaction ban. I do not want him to be involved in any of the discussions around my work, whether it be Afd's, splits, etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Garagepunk66. I'm very sorry to see you're upset. I get that impression not only from the message above in itself, but also from the fact that you had to edit my page 13 times to leave it here. Please stay cool. My suggestion would be for you to walk away, at least for a while. I can't say that I see any obvious signs that TheGracefulSlick is posting in bad faith in those discussions. In any case, an interaction ban is not something that a single admin can place; you'd have to ask for it on AN or ANI. But please take a breath before you do, and think about it. I don't myself think you'd have much chance of getting what you ask for, especially as you and TGS have very similar editing interests, and can't realistically be expected to avoid each other. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen in light of this, I must ask, would it be a good idea to ask for an article ban on Garagepunk until the split we are forming is complete? I want this transition to be smooth and he has shown some concerning signs that will muddy the process. Normally, I would consider him a great asset; however, this is more of a formatting and policy issue, something he hardly concerns himself with. He has already said he does not trust four capable users to handle the situation and that we will tear it to pieces [3] [4]. Another user at the discussion also pointed out Garagepunk's language of apparent ownership and total lack of faith in Ilovetopaint, an editor who practically specializes in genre articles [5]. Garagepunk obviously denied ownership, but was still against any of the solutions (which used clear rationale) and still used comments that hinted at ownership because of his "hard work"[6]. His attempt at an interaction ban is another sign he is showing no faith in other users. Now, I associate with him more than any other user, so this is difficult to consider, but I may need to do the article can be split appropriately. What is your opinion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Article ban? Are you out of your mind? We had only heard from a few people at that point, some of whose prescriptions are not in the best interests of the article--and I have a right to defend the article against mindless truncation. You of all people who watched me sweat and labor to build that article--how dare you say that. I don't own the article, but I've earned the right to sit at the decision making and crafting table you want to expel me from. Ilovetopaint goes around putting silly templates on all the GA articles accusing them of "synthesis" and the like--his methods are more often disruptive than helpful (but I admit he did a great job on the Good Vibrations article). He is over-obsessed with certain rules and guidelines to the point of fanatic fundamentalism, but misses the whole principle of why they are there. He often misunderstands the topics at hand and believes in copying from the source (never more than one source) ad verbatim, which is problematic. He does not often see the necessity of viewing things in context. I'll have to admit that his harsh methods have challenged me to be a better editor--and I do always consider his point of view when he brings it up. He has a right to his opinions, but after I pushed hard to help get the whole big article to GA, I have a right to speak and contribute too. I will be a team player and work with everyone including him. No one has a monopoly on truth. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) There's no way an editor who wrote more than 80% of a GA article is going to be banned from the article unless they repeatedly violate all kinds of policies over a very long period of time. There's also no way that someone who wrote more than 80% of a GA article is going to be excluded from the process of deciding, trimming, altering, or splitting it by editors who have contributed nothing whatsoever to the article. And I agree with Garagepunk66 that someone who slaps a giant handful of driveby tagbombs on an article does not really sound like someone who should be in charge of tearing that article apart. In terms of the AfD, I suggest to Garagepunk66 that he retain copies of those articles on user subpages so that if they get deleted but he has a worthwhile idea for the text he can implement his plans from the copies. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I just learned a new Wiki-term, Tag Boming. Interesting. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• TheGracefulSlick and Garagepunk66, there will be no article bans nor interaction bans, and I hope you can both remind yourselves of your good relationship before this happened and reach out to each other. Please meditate a little on that before you post again. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC).

There is no one I would more want to reach out to. But, I have understandable concerns right now. I am battling to keep an article I worked hard to help bring up to GA from getting torn to pieces. Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Friendly heads up

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevin. (And thank you for recusing from clerking the request.) I probably won't comment, as the circumstances are pretty simple and the arbs ought to be able to sort them out without me. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

We are number one.

That was not an A7, as it was about a song. Moreover, there was a credible assertion of significance. Either one of those would have invalidated A7, let alone both. Adam9007 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I should have said A9, sorry. I don't think much of the credible assertion of significance — are you referring to the song having "gone viral", or being created for LazyTown? The second is the best, IMO, but not really good. But I'll think about it, I have to go to bed now. Thanks for getting in touch. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC).

Gone viral. Adam9007 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's a legitimate claim of significance, and I don't recall seeing it accepted as such, because it's far to easy to say, about anything. Sorry, you'd better take it to Deletion review. Bishonen | talk 03:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

The discussion on my talk page

Maybe the complaint could have been more diplomatically worded. The word "justiciable" has been in the news recently. I would say that ANI is the appropriate venue to deal with this:

• AstroLynx, who is an Islamic scholar, claimed that there were no contemporary records of where the Farewell Pilgrimage took place, thus ensuring that the commenters at the RfC would come to the wrong conclusion.[7]

• Knowing the caption was incorrect he argued that it was "concise and to the point".[8]

• He made a personal attack while misrepresenting the source, which said the picture could remotely be what he claimed if the author were making an abstruse point about Sunni theology but emphasised that this was simply an illiterate artist trying to make money by painting an illustration which would be pleasing to a shi'ite ruler.[9]

• Pushing his POV after being informed that scholars rejected the idea that the picture is of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.[10]

• He made another personal attack with no diffs to support the allegations.[11]

• Pushing a source which he says does not say the picture is not of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation while omitting to mention that it does not say that it is Muhammad prohibiting intercalation either.[12]

• Deliberately misrepresenting the argument. The picture was painted 400 years after al - Biruni wrote his book and nobody had argued that the book was sectarian.[13]

• Deliberately misrepresenting the source.[14]

• Made the accusation that a participant had been falsifying other editors' comments, is dishonest, and accuses "editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate". There are no diffs - I read the discussion and the words are not there.[15]

For nine years there has been a consensus that the picture is irrelevant. AstroLynx and NeilN tag team to add it back every time other editors implement the consensus. In a final act of cynicism they have protected the article so that only they can make changes. Here are their reverts:

AstroLynx

2008 April 17, June 9. 2009 July 20, Dec. 7. 2010 April 14, 24, June 14, Aug.14, Nov. 16, Dec. 13. 2011 Jan. 25, June 30 (x2), July 27, 28, Aug. 25, Sept. 5, 9 (x3), Oct. 11, 14 (x2), 17, 18 (x2), 31, Dec. 9. 2012 Jan. 9, 23, Mar. 12, July 24, Aug. 20, Sept. 12, Oct. 19, 30, Nov. 12, 30, Dec. 17. 2013 Jan. 22. 2014 July 28, Oct. 15. 2015 Mar. 22, 23, April 13, July 16 (x2), Oct. 14.

NeilN

2009 Oct. 30, Dec. 18. 2010 March 22, April 4, 14, 21, 24, May 21. 2011 April 24, May 1, 13, 27. 2012 July 9, 10. 2013 Nov. 9 (x2). 2014 Jan. 11, March 17, Aug. 20, Sept. 26, Oct. 15 (x2), 24, Nov. 19. 2015 Jan. 21, March 23 (x2), April 9, Sept. 16 (with the patronising edit summary "This again?"), Oct. 6.

NeilN is clearly WP:INVOLVED in this content dispute but every time somebody raises the matter at talk he removes the comment and blocks them. This is abuse of tools.

Would you agree that ANI is the appropriate venue for the complaint? 78.146.222.77 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on your talkpage..? You don't have a talkpage. Do you see the redlink for "talk" in your signature above? If you expect to discuss with others, and if you have any regard for their convenience, you'll create an account, so as to avoid, for instance now, me having to research my own contribs back in time to find what IP talkpage is in question.

After digging out your original IP, 78.146.221.36, I have realized it's still blocked — a block that you're evading by posting here on my page. Apparently you don't understand a block is for the person, not for a particular account or IP. I must say I'm surprised; surely there wouldn't be much point in blocks if the person could freely jump to another IP and keep on editing? — also you could just as well have posted this message to me on User talk:78.146.221.36 — which is a page you're actually allowed to post on while blocked. Since your block evasion is so pointless, I'll AGF that you did it innocently, and answer your question: yes, take it to ANI if you think there's any chance your complaint will get traction. Whatever account or IP you use to post an ANI complaint, please have the courtesy to provide links in it to this edit, that I blocked you for, and to User talk:78.146.221.36, to give readers a chance to evaluate the situation and your prehistory. They won't appreciate a game of "guess who I am", like the one I had to play to find you. And of course don't take it to ANI, or post anywhere else, until your block has expired! If you do, I'll block your entire IP range.

As for "Maybe the complaint could have been more diplomatically worded" (this complaint), no — it could have been less nonsensically and misleadingly worded — nothing to do with diplomacy. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC).

Hey Bish. This person is actually banned: User:Vote (X) for Change. I would strongly recommend against extending any AGF. I don't say this often about editors, but this one frequently flat out lies. More info: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And a quick look at the LTA shows that out of the IP-addresses known to be frequently used by Vote X a whopping 16 IPs are currently blocked, making the post here block evasion many times over. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That list is probably a fraction of the IPs used. I know I've blocked VxfC at least 50-60 times but haven't added to the list. There's a reason why this editor caused Arbcom to contact the WMF and ask them to look into legal options for these types of cases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me, NeilN and Thomas.W; I didn't know much about that LTA. I don't suppose there's much point, but I've blocked the small range that 78.146.221.36 and 78.146.222.77 have been posting from. Doesn't look like it would do any harm anyway, see [16]. Then, we've all got more than Wikipedia to worry about this morning, even without being Americans (as neither you nor I are). Sigh. I think I'm going to just go back to edit mode and meditate on the cranes. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

Oh, the cranes just turned into a fish. Oh well. That's the nature of my edit notice. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

And this is why... ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A Crane becoming a fish while another looks on

A crane that has crashed, just like the world economy is crashing around us today. The only one who is happy about the election outcome is probably George Bush, Jr., since he will now no longer be the least popular president ever in the US....

ARCA

The amendment request in which you were a listed party was withdrawn by the filer and is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request (November 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hi, Am I supposed to post a response to your post on my talk page here? Please delete and let me know if not. Thanks.

Thanks for getting back to me so soon. I believe that the book may in fact have plagiarized the article, and not the other way around. I thought I might have jumped the gun. Frankly, despite a modest run at the copyright/plagiarism guidelines I was not certain whether or not it was. The book is entitled: The Esoteric Codex: Demigods of Classical Mythology by Brian Reineking. The portions in question are: The legend as a whole encapsulates Rome's ideas of itself, its origins and moral values. For modern scholarship, it remains one of the most complex and problematic of all foundation myths, particularly in the manner of Remus's death. Ancient historians had no doubt that Romulus gave his name to the city. Most modern historians believe his name a back-formation from the name Rome; the basis for Remus's name and role remain subjects of ancient and modern speculation. The myth was fully developed into something like an "official", chronological version in the Late Republican and early Imperial era; Roman historians dated the city's foundation to between 758 and 728 BC, and Plutarch reckoned the twins' birth year as 771 BC. A tradition that gave Romulus a distant ancestor in the semi-divine Trojan prince Aeneas was further embellished, and Romulus was made the direct ancestor of Rome's first Imperial dynasty. Possible historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed.[3] The image of the she-wolf suckling the divinely fathered twins became an iconic representation of the city and its founding legend, making Romulus and Remus preeminent among the feral children of ancient mythography.--From the article's lead section. And the entire "Legend in ancient sources" section. Let me know how I can help.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC) CORRECTION: The entire lead of the "Legend in ancient sources.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The book, The Esoteric Codex Demigods Of Classical Mythology is published by Lulu - an immediate "red flag" (see Lulu (company) for background), so it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Its publication date is 13 Mar 2016, and it's plagiarised from our article since the text beginning "The legend as a whole encapsulates Rome's ideas of itself ..." from page 219 of the book appears identically word-for-word as the third paragraph of the lead of our article as it was on 7 March 2016. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Still confused. I'm sorry to be so seemingly dense, but should I delete the passages? I'm sorry, I've never dealt with plagiarism before and the wiki help was of no real... well, help.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Per User:Haploidavey's post on your page, and RexxS above, the "book" copied Wikipedia, not the other way around, so no, don't delete the passages, Informata ob Iniquitatum. And thanks very much for drawing attention to it. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

Just curious

Hi Bish. I was just wondering what is that creature on the top left of the anime girl in your userpage? Btw, is your contents box intentionally tilted cuz I'm kind of worried it's just me. :| (N0n3up (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC))

Creature? Do you mind? That's User:Bishapod, a very ancient creature. Compare my sockfarm section. Oh, no, don't tell me the table of contents fell over again? No idea why that keeps happening. Could be something to do with User:RexxS. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

(talk page watcher) You know perfectly well :p it's because the ToC managed to help itself to the mini-bar last night. Who left the door open?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Biased Language

Hello Bishonen,

User:Calliopejen1 has made a subsequent edit since my last one. Therefore, it is impossible to self-revert at this point, and consensus has been reached between us. In addition, I did not violate the 1 revert per day rule, as my last revert was over 1 day ago.

In any event, the article now reads "pro-life" and "pro-choice", and therefore no longer has a biased tinge to it. Prior to my (and Calliopenjen's) edits, it read "anti-abortion" and "abortion-rights", which was extremely biased! If you were going to use the term "abortion-rights", then you would need to use "fetal rights" rather than "anti-abortion".

Please discuss issues on the talk page prior to posting warnings on user's WP pages. Also, please review content and provide a compromise edit (like Calliopenjen did) in order to reach consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way I don't have a preference between pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/abortion-rights. I only think that "pro-abortion" is highly objectionable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that's resolved. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, you made this change and then partially reverted to it three times in some 18 hours, resoundingly violating the 1RR rule. I don't understand your argument that you didn't do that because it's now more than a day since you perpetrated those edits (which incidentally isn't true). I'm quite baffled by it. Also you shouldn't have reverted at all, even once, as that already violated the other restriction "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Italics in original. Ignoring both the restrictions gave you a strong advantage in attempting to edit war your change into the article, since the other editors felt constrained by 1RR. Admins aren't allowed to both edit an article and act on it in an admin capacity. I don't edit it (as Calliopejen1 and several other admins do) and thus I don't provide any compromise edits. If I did, I wouldn't be able to warn people about violations such as yours in an admin capacity, or sanction them, but now I can. Now that you're aware of the restrictions, please abide by them. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen,

Just to be clear, I made 1 revert on November 9th, and 1 revert a day later on November 10th. I'm not sure where you're getting 3 reverts on the same day from. I too am quite baffled.

In any event, I am fine with Calliopejen1's version. I have posted on the talk page as you have recommended.

I am not fine with the previous version, which contained blatantly biased language. It used the term 'anti-abortion', which has negative connotations, and 'abortion-rights', which has positive connotations. This would be like using the terms 'anti-life', which has negative connotations, and 'fetal-rights', which has positive connotations. I'm sure you would agree articles must hold a neutral point of view. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Myron Ebell

I have concerns about the edits of User:BatteryIncluded to the article Myron Ebell. As you know, this article is under general sanctions.

First, this editor has been adding poorly sourced content to support what appears to be a bias against the person in this biography. For example, this was a sloppy summary of the source cited, and was not supported by the source cited. When the edit was removed, the editor reverted with the edit summary "Show references to the effect instead of deleting the existing ones." This is not how Wikipedia:Verifiability works. The editor later added references here from a personal blog.

On the article's talk page this editor made this statement where they lament "Unfortunately, the courts had not caught up yet with Ebell to make him stop -an now under Trump's wing, he likely won't be stopped for a long time." Editing this article seems to be a political mission for this editor, which is certainly contrary to WP:IMPARTIAL. This editor also left a message on my talk page here warning me to "Please keep your Republican tags and opinion." This editor, in my opinion, has demonstrated an inability to remain impartial when editing this article, and a willingness to intimidate other editors who do not edit with his or her bias. Thank you for your attention to this. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

All those entries are facts of his career. You can't erase his past. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Please note that a caution about discretionary sanctions was left on BatteryIncluded's talk page here. I have concerns that this caution was not effective, and that this editor has continued to intimidate other editors of Myron Ebell. After that caution, another editor was called an "idiot" here. Please note that I have expressed my concern about this editor at User talk:Zigzig20s#For your attention. I also looked at Talk:Myron Ebell and found disturbing comments made by BatteryIncluded about other editors:

• [17] - called an editor "dumbass".
• [18] - called an editor "obnoxious and unethical".
• [19] - "cut the bullshit".
• [20] - "cut the bullshit".
• [21] - "You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold".

This editor's sentiment is clearly articulated with this edit, where they state "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you."

Intimidation of other editors is not helpful to the project, and will certainly not enable the positive, honest and well-sourced growth of the Myron Ebell article.

This editor is well aware of the discretionary sanctions on that article. I appreciate your attention to this. If you feel it would be better to pursue this at ANI, please let me know. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Magnolia677, I do think ANI would be better, for more eyes. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

Polyenetian a liar, exaggerator, troll

This guy is a total maniac. If I'm not mistaken he is the same troll who used to write about how many Africans died, how many people were massacred. He is extremely offensive. He's been allowed to manipulate wikipedia all this time to fullfill his negative and hateful agenda.

I promise I'm not going to write anything nasty to him, I just want to make a very short reply. I just want him to know I replied and after this message I'm not going to write to him anymore.

He is also the type of guy who cherry pick sources from written google books and exaggerate his edits and it doesn't if the sources are reliable or unreliable. He will mis-interpret it to his willing direction. He properly used a new ip address again.

77.98.238.98 (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent. Compare my note to RrBurke, who reverted your edit on Polyenetian's page. I've removed Polyenetian's part of the quarrel too, as perhaps you saw. But no, the semiprotection stands, in other words you can't make a reply on the page, short or otherwise. I don't see what good it could do. If you believe he's editing logged out, or has used other accounts before, feel free to tell me about it. I wish you could e-mail me... but IPs can't. Look, I don't understand why you don't create an account. IPs tend to be treated with less respect, as you can see in the way you were reverted. Bishonen | talk 13:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

Is there anyway to message him privately? right now I simply just want to reply him so I can rebuke all of his garbage exaggerated claims. I want to teach him a lesson but I will not do it on wikipedia however I don't know how how else to contact him. Please show me a way.

77.98.238.98 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know a way. You could try googling the account name and see if a facebook account or something comes up. Wikipedia isn't about "rebuking" — what's the point, if he's all you say? Bishonen | talk 13:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

How do you stop people who plays by the rules but have such bad intentions in their wiki edits? For example you can see that in his talk page Polyenetian, he insist on editing massacre of about 40,000 Manchus by the Taiping rebels in nanjing however despite reverting his edits multiple times he still continues. A person like who have a agenda to talk about the massacres of other ethnicity, he clearly enjoys it but do you moderator do anything about it? 77.98.238.98 (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the area myself. The place to appeal to "you moderators" is WP:ANI, but I'm not holding out high hopes. Nationalist warriors are one of Wikipedia's most intractable problems. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

His recent edits "The Thirty Years' War brought tremendous destruction to the Germany, more than 1/4 of the population and 1/2 of the male population in the German states were killed by the catastrophic war" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=749152324

and many Armenians have a hateed Turkish people primarily due to the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and its denial by Turkey which killed an estimate of 1.5 million Armenians. ::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Turkism&diff=prev&oldid=749125507

It's very obvious the point of his edits is massive number of deaths of other ethnic groups 77.98.238.98 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2016

Please take a hint, 77.98.238.98. You've worn out your welcome on this page. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Okay than this will be my last reply. I just don't know why it takes so long to stop someone who clearly have nothing more but evil intentions, why is he is still free to edit whatever he wants? at least remove his ability to edit. And also none of the moderators did anything to remove his repetitive exaggerated evil crap on the cantonese people main page, I had to do it and keep an eye on him and his lying bad intentions edits. 77.98.238.98 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2016

I've opened an ANI section about the user here. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Businesstoday123 block

Hi Bishonen, I reverted an edit of User:Businesstoday123 earlier, and noticed the user has now been blocked. Was the user really posting promotional content? I can't see the user's deleted revisions, but based on the user's prior edit at Wikipedia:Red link, it looked like the user was trying to create an English translation of the French-language Didier Pineau-Valencienne article.—Laoris (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, @Laoris:. The user's English is about on a par with my French, but I can see it's a version. The deleted contributions were simply an article containing a shorter version of the post at Wikipedia:Red Link, so they wouldn't tell you much. I deleted the article after Businesstoday had blanked it, which is a speedy deletion criterion (WP:G7). I thought it was pretty disruptive to post it at WP:Red Link, thereby blanking a considerable part of the content that was there. And I saw "prominent", "prestigious", "flagship", "great success", "pioneering", "innovative" in there, so I jumped to the conclusion that this was one of the many spammers who insert advertising on random pages. Perhaps I've become jaded... I see now that this might simply have been a newbie who knew a "red link" means an uncreated article and thought that was the place to put an article. Well, sort of. I'll unblock. (They've already been told their username is dodgy and should be changed, I see.) Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for revisiting this. Undoubtedly the translation quality was not up to par (looks like maybe Google Translate, actually) and missing all the refs, etc., so I don't fault you for the assumption. Looks like the original article was pretty long too, so I don't know if anyone would have been willing to bring the translation up to standards. And thanks for all you do around here!—Laoris (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Maslowsneeds

Hi. I noticed that Maslowsneeds is potentially using an IP, geolocated to NY also the residence of Maslowsneeds, to prove again the same point and going as far as calling editors "sadists". I don't know what course of action could be taken from here, but I am sensing NOTHERE right now. Thoughts? Pinging @Doug Weller: for his analysis. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I see 184.189.217.210 (talk · contribs), User:Callmemirela, but that's a California IP. Has to be determined behaviorally I think. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have the wrong IP? The IP I was referring to was 2604:2000:9046:800:DDDE:8915:FDD9:2BD5 (talk · contribs). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That one only has one contribution, but its /64 range (=the same person) has some suggestive ones. IMO this is an occasion for Doug to use his CU tools (or ask another CU if there's something wrong with him doing it). Bishonen | talk 10:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 13:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

hi

I noticed you seem to be online right now. As an uninvolved admin, would you mind closing this thread? It's kind-of descended into a gay bashing lynch mob and, after being told to "drink my semen" [22], I think I'm too involved to close it myself without risking it being reopened. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I was chillin' in the snow, LavaBaron. (Greatest November snowfall in this city since 1905 when records began. Looked a bit like the Tetons image in my edit notice, if it's still there when you read this.) Apparently another admin has closed it. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

No worries, and sorry to harass you with bookkeeping requests! I haven't seen snow in two years so I'm defo jealous. Have a good night. LavaBaron (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard Pombo

Hello - thank you for flagging. I'm new to this and am hoping to make numerous edits to bring a page of a living person into better context. To me, it's obvious a majority of the page was written by someone with a biased viewpoint during a snapshot in time (ca 2006). This is evidenced by some of the wording being written in the present tenseSince many of the links are dead and from those links still available it appears the articles were cherry picked for the worst evidence against the subject, I hope to create a more objective page reflecting both sides of evidence, deleting potentially libelous claims, and later would like to add some of the contributions of the subject.

Also, the structure currently doesn't make much sense. For example, early on, the page summarizes the 1992 - 2004 elections and then moves to "political positions" to "environmental record" to "controversies" and then...to the 2006 election. Upon closer reading, the sections in-between 2004 election and the 2006 election all deal with issues that were more topical in the context of the 2006 election. I would like to move the 2006 election summary up so it follows the 2004 election. Some of the information in "political positions," "environmental record," and "controversies" can be condensed and added within these areas.

The current page spends more time on the 2006 election and "corruption" allegations, but there is no conclusion. And many of the allegations, upon further review, have no source to back it up. The article also fails to mention successes of the subject, awards given, and never states that the subject wasn't formally investigated, no charges were filed, and the subject was never prosecuted.

I would be happy to work with an editor to make the improvements to the page. Thank you! Rencoyote (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Rencoyote. Those alerts I gave you don't imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions, as it says at the top. I've moved your note down — please post at the bottom of talkpages. It's the convention, and your posts risk being overlooked if you put them at the top. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Sorry about that, Bishonen. This is a new world to me. Help me know what I'm waiting for now? Is it for someone to review what I tried to change? Rencoyote (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rencoyote: Not exactly, no. Did you notice Cahk's alert on your page, telling you there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved?[23] The idea is that you should take part in that discussion — that's why he alerted you. The noticeboard is big, but this is the specific discussion. Post below me.

Another thing: I don't know if you have discovered the article's history tab. There you can see User:JzG, who is a very experienced administrator, reverting your edits, with the comment that you had removed a lot of sourced criticism.[24] You have edited nothing but this article on Wikipedia, and in a way that removed criticism of the subject, so you should realize people may think you have a connection with Richard Pombo. If you have, please say so — it's actually better to get that out of the way before posting at the noticeboard. You can declare any connection right here on my page if you like, and I'll tell you what to do next. @JzG:, if this new user goes to ANI, could you perhaps post there as well, or on their page if you prefer? They clearly need guidance. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I appreciate the feedback, and yes, I have no problem saying I know Richard Pombo. Have never visited his wiki page until two days ago and was surprised to see it looked like a time capsule from 2006 with a few 2010 additions. So I'd like to see a more balanced portrayal. Am a moderately heavy wikipedia user but have never felt the need to correct anything, because you guys do a nice job. :) Rencoyote (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to post at [25] Rencoyote (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, bad luck. I see the page has been temporarily protected from editing by new users (of less than four days' tenure). That'll be because of heavy vandalism. You've only been here two days. Hmm. I'll try to wave a magic wand to give you permission to edit the page. Done. Please try again, it should be OK now. However, saying that you know Pombo is a little vague, sorry. Please see WP:COI: is Pombo a family member of yours, a friend, a client, an employer? Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged. You can read all about the niceties of that at WP:COI. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the permissions, [[User:Bishonen|. I am a former employee of Richard Pombo. It's been more than a decade since I worked for him. No one else has thought to edit his page, yet any lay reader from whatever perspective or bias would see that the current page is outdated and highly biased. If I don't take this on, who will? I'm happy to leave it to you or others, as long as a thorough review is accomplished. Thank you. Rencoyote (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rencoyote: I've left a note for you at Talk:Richard Pombo #Importance of sourcing, hopefully giving you a nudge in the direction of what to do next. I would also encourage you to pick up your discussions about Richard Pombo at that talk page. Eventually, your thoughts will be more useful for other editors who will find them there, than in 'Shonen's talk page archive. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: My case is laid out at Talk:Richard_Pombo #Numerous suggested edits. Hat tip for bringing the page to my attention. – Rencoyote (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 13:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like...

...7 candidates for 7 positions open on ArbCom, with about a day to go before nominations close. Any thoughts about throwing your hat into the ring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you already threw mine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha, Writ Keeper! I am Bishonen the Thrower of Hats, look on my works ye mighty and despair! Not a thrower of my own hat, though. I work in the dark, I am Cardinal Mazarin, the whisperer to Louis XIV! My secret goal is to collect the entire little Arbcom in Bishzilla's pocket! Bishonen | talk 22:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC).

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Bishonen.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

AE parity

Ever since you said that this was among the most obvious topic bans from 1932 politics that you ever gave, I've been wondering what you would do with a user who has violated WP:5P1, WP:5P2, WP:5P3, WP:5P4, been warned for edit warring and who always acts in concert with the user you topic banned User:Maslowsneeds for calling out. I would not continue to push on this question if I did not think more light needed to be shed on this type of behavior. Subtle POV warring is not something I particularly want to be engaged in on Wikipedia. I know I have a point of view and when a copy-editor weeds out a word or two that is inappropriately rhetorical I learn from it. I have never engaged in the sort of behavior that I have seen accepted on some of the political pages this season. While there may be certain words that are taboo on Wikipedia because they don't AGF; User:Maslowsneeds is certainly not alone in thinking the bullying went a bit too far (I get called a "sociopath", for instance, because I corrected a copyright violation (making a politician look bad), a grammar mistake (politically neutral), and undid POV tweaking of the wiki-text leading to a dead link). The 30 word paragraph I'm sending you to here shows a user violating the four pillars mentioned above and yet... User:Snooganssnoogans has never been topic banned to protect Wikipedia from unbalanced editing and adding more heat than light to the political pages. The rushed RfC in which two admins argued to include the user's copyright violation on a BLP page was a very troubling symptom of this. I'm not sure whether I want to bring this to AE where it would quite probably generate more heat than light at a time when everyone is tired of it, shell-shocked, and generally annoyed about having to look backwards. Still, we do need to "protect the wiki". What do you think should be done for AE parity? After all, if a user shows they can edit without incident elsewhere, an indef ban is indefinite and preventive, not punitive. I like fairness and being polite. Thank you for taking the time to think about this. SashiRolls (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SashiRolls. I have thought about it. Considering that you have posted this rather obvious though non-explicit request for an AE sanction against Snooganssnoogans while the user is blocked, and without even naming or pinging them, they're unlikely to respond here even after the block expires. Therefore I have also thought about this comment, which they made about their block and about the provocation they felt you had given them. I agree with User:EdJohnston's block, as the personal attack against you was pretty bad, but I'm also interested in the provocation.

By my somewhat hasty count, you have edited Snooganssnoogans's talkpage 45 times since 7 August, out of a total of about 80 edits on the page in all by other people, everything included, SineBot and so on. That does seem excessive. It doesn't look like your posts are exactly welcome either. Many of them are warning templates and reproaches of various kinds, including this edit, which absurdly stacks up three standards warning templates, {{Template:uw-npa1}}, {{Template:uw-npov1}}, and {{Template:uw-error1}}, and ends with "Hoping these reminders will encourage you to adopt a more helpful collaborative demeanor". That's a completely unrealistic hope for the effect of filling somebody's page with templates (all of them beginning "Hello, I'm SashiRolls", just as if it was a robot talking — your own name appearing four times in a single edit. This displays so little sense of what templates are for (they're primarily for telling new users about policies they're probably not aware of — of course with one template at a time!) that I'm more inclined to ban you from using talkpage templates than to sanction Snoogans. If you put yourself in the other user's place, don't you see that even with good intentions, that kind of robot-talk will have the effect of harassment? (That edit made me think you might be a new user, with a confused belief in the magic power of templates, but I see you've been here almost four years.) And when I see your {{Redflag}} edits,[26][27][28], I start to doubt your intentions, too. This is what I'll do: I'm hereby telling you informally to stop posting on Snoogan's page, and to stop pinging him. (Unless it's really necessary in order to keep him informed. This present complaint would have been a good occasion for a useful ping, but here you didn't even mention him.) Please don't follow him around, either. This is just an informal request, but if you continue to pester Snooganssnoogans, it can be converted to a formal IBAN and logged in the usual way, which I'm guessing you would like less.

So much for the boomerang. As for your complaint against Snooganssnoogans, it's hard to understand. Linking to all the five pillars, one after the other, is no substitute for diffs (remember the "diff culture"?). And mysterious circumlocutions like "the user you topic banned User:Maslowsneeds for calling out" don't help either. You overestimate my detective abilities and my ability to follow your train of thought, especially as I'm not aware of topic banning M for calling out anybody in particular. AFAIK, I topic banned him for persistent disruptive editing and BLP violations. Another example: you mention a "rushed RFC" but don't link to it, and I'm not in the mood for undertaking the necessary research for finding it: what page, what RFC, which two admins? Et cetera. If you feel like submitting a new complaint which is more reader-friendly, I'll consider it. On the other hand, if you compose such a complaint, why not post it on AE? I just noticed on User talk:Snooganssnoogans where you talked about taking him to AE: "Would you like to indicate that you are aware of your errors and intend to correct your behavior or do you need to be taken to AE?"? I'm not AE. You suggest above that you're not sure whether you want to bring it to AE, "where it would quite probably generate more heat than light at a time when everyone is tired of it". You may be right, but the way you have presented your complaint here on my page generates more heat than light as well. I've answered you at some length, so I'll summarize my most important point above to make sure you don't miss it: stop posting on Snooganssnoogans' page, stop pinging him, and stop following him around. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC).

OK, thanks for your response. Would you like me to ping you when I bring it to AE? Sashirolls very tasty maybe to Bishzilla with enough Wasabe. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I keep an eye on AE in general, no need to ping. Though I suppose it would be appropriate for you to mention that you tried me first. If you'd rather not, I can do it. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC).

OK, thanks for clearing up that the user was a "he". I hadn't ever read that before, though I had indeed assumed as much... SashiRolls (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Help, please help

I have been trying to clean up an article I came across reviewing new pages - Uebert Angel. The original author seems to have not only a poor understanding of Wikipedia's content guidelines but a bad case of OWN. I have tried BLPN and 3O and gotten nowhere. My temper is beyond frayed and trying to get anything done is effectivly an edit war. I have tried everything from explaining what I see as the problems, to stubbing the article [29] and explaining every single removal that brought it to a stub on the talk page. To trying a compromise version [30]. Nothing works. I was willing to AGF right up to the point where, after adding a sourced last name it was removed with an edit summary of (His name changed completely so surname ... can not be included) [31] And in the very next edit they added a source using that name in its title [32].

I can not think of where to go from here. Maybe I am wrong about the content issues but whatever the case my communications skills are obviously not up to the task and my objectivity is gone. I do not know if I have fallen into objecting to things 'just because'. Would you please take a look at the article? I really need an outside opinion. Thank you! Jbh^Talk 07:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well that was interesting. I did my best to clean up the article using the sources cited. Then Fyddlestix queried the Daily News (Harare) source, which claimed to quote Forbes Magazine. Long story short, I eventually found an article that confirmed his suspicions, so I've ended up in a small "edit war" where I've reverted his self-revert (that I requested) in order to restore his preferred version. There's always something new on Wikipedia. So, Jbhunley, see if the efforts of Fyddlestix and me have improved the article in your eyes. Who knows what Simon Mugava is going to think of it? --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 19:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley, when you can't think where to go, it's always helpful wrt articles under discretionary sanctions (such as blp's) if you post a discretionary sanctions alert on the user's talkpage. The template looks like this: {{subst:alert|topic}}, where you replace the word "topic" with the standard code for the topic in question, such as blp for biography articles. See all topic codes here (scroll down a little). I'm sorry if I sound terse, but I'm frustrated to see all these people including admins coming to the editor's talkpage, and not one has alerted him to the discretionary sanctions. I've posted the alert now. Let's see how it goes after that; I'm hesitating between topic banning him from the article, and speedying it. Don't worry! Bishonen | talk 18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC).

Thank you. I do not think the article is really a speedy candidate. The subject is recognized in academic RS as being a primary example of the new Pentecostal charismatic "prophets" in Africa. I think there is enough out there in high(er) quality sources to demonstrate notability and for a small article but the popular press coverage is, in my opinion, too low quality for controversial claims. Jbh^Talk 19:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. I decided on a topic ban in any case, since the user simply steamed right ahead with the disruption after my ds alert. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC).

Looks like a TB is not going to work [33] Jbh^Talk 22:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Already? OK, he gets one for free, as is my usual practice. Few users, especially new users, can get their heads round the concept of a topic ban right away, no matter how insistently it's linked and explained to them. I've warned him. Nice quick catch, Jbhunley! Bishonen | talk 23:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC).

BTW, I don't see the term "mega-church", nor "Goodnews church" in any of the sources. (Well, I don't know if his own website may contain them, I'm not so interested in that.) Bishonen | talk 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict) The Good News Church is the new name for Spirit Embassy Ministries. It was changed in 2015 [34]. Good catch, you are correct, it is not a megachurch. I think is is more a huge, spread out congregation but I have not seen it characterized in sources. Jbh^Talk 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please put us out of our misery and press the button. SmartSE (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, SmartSE, it has to be done by degrees. 48 hours. I must log it... curses... well, that'll have to be tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC).

I went to make those changes and guess what?... [35] Nope... not going to learn. Jbh^Talk 00:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. You have more faith than I. SmartSE (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a good deal of cynicism. Look at the user's page now; I have trouble discerning what's unwillingness to get it, and what's WP:CIR. There's a bit of both, I guess. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC).

I have found that in almost all cases where an editor writes something like "I am writing true facts" they lack the sophistication to exercise editorial judgement because "true facts" have no nuance but are rather more potent and absolute than either truth or fact. I see the same thing, lack of nuance, with people who use that phrase in real life as well. Maybe there is a paper there... Jbh^Talk 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, pentecostalism is full of potent and absolute true facts. The user has appealed the 48-hour block. I actually think the way they're parroting the Guide to appealing blocks is a sign of improvement (even though not the sign of a good unblock request): they listened, they clicked on a link. Bishonen | talk 09:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, absolute truths must be very comforting. Anyway I hope against hope he takes the idea of working with others onboard and is sometime able to bring his knowledge to that topic area. It looks like there are several of these prophets in the region who we do not have coverage of. Jbh^Talk 04:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Of absolutely no use, and nobody asked me, but "megachurch" is still a fluctuating neologism. Within the evangelical and young Protestant churches of the USA, where the phenomenon has originated, the term is roughly defined as a congregation of 2,000 or more. Therefore, it isn't really a question of church footprint, but congregation size. Note that the churches themselves quarrel over whether a congregation is "members" or "attending." Some of the churches have vast membership and not so vast attendance, and others have vice versa. (In other words, "megachurch" only has an operative definition, although I feel confident it's in the new edition of the American Heritage Dictionary.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Username change

What do you think? -Roxy is so sexy bark 12:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Obviously it's more becoming if somebody else says so, like my little friend here. I'm too sexy billing and cooing. 13:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

You're both sexy. Soooooo sexy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note to say thanks for the help and support over the last few days - very much appreciated. Hope you enjoy the WikiBreak. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, DrChrissy, I happened to notice Oshwah's barnstar to you, and went check it out. You certainly were very patient! Bishonen | talk 22:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC).

Topic ban

Hey. I just noticed you topic banned this editor here: [36] after I posted a warning template to his talk page. Seems like this editor may be violating that ban by editing Donald Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, as you can see here: [37]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's covered by the topic ban; I've warned KINGOFTO. Thank you very much, SerenelyFurious. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC).

Clearly TTAC is trying to skirt ARBAP2 Sanctions

I saw your involvement on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging]

Well, the accused has made an (outrageous) rebuttal [38], in which he all but confesses to (proudly) violating those boundaries, going as far as to declare his right to do so! He's also accusing everyone (including the admins) of "stalking" and "witch hunts" and the like.

What bothers me the most in that reply [39] is that he discusses hitting back at members "twice as hard" when he perceives himself to be wronged. I'm not sure he should be hitting any one at all.

It's hard not to see his attempts to rationalize his way around Wikipedia policies. My fear is that he's been getting away with this disruptiveness for too long. There is nothing worse than an experienced editor who gets away with gaming the system. FCS, he's been getting away with edits on articles suggesting Obama is the "founder of ISIS" and is politically jailing conservatives (all lies)!

At the very least, since TTAC is now trying to bully his way out of his ANI with a lot of slander and red-herrings, maybe you could at least revisit the ANI with thoughts about his 'rebuttal' there? [40] After looking into it some more, this seems like a really big problem and it would appear this editor has a long history of WP:GAMING and just barely getting away with it for all this time simply because of (A) luck and (B) because a proper investigation has lacked proper follow-through. Again, if you have time and want to respond to his slippery attempts to talk his way out of it and his perchance for manipulating the ANIs, it might help ensure that he is at least receiving a fair hearing for everyone else involved, most important of all for his victims. I just don't want to see anyone else hurt. Speaking of victims, if you've taken the time to read TTAC's account page, he even lists his "take down" of "opponents". He brags about edit warring and seeing wikipedia in terms of a giant video game with human prey, and his language on his account page referring to his fellow editors as "opponents" and content disputes as "battles" is frightening to say the least. Thank you again for your time and sorry for the vent! Just happy to see you guys on top of this :)

I agree his response isn't much to the point, but I'll leave my fellow admins to evaluate it. You're obviously an experienced editor too; please log in to post on my page. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC).

I will remove

Hi Bishonen You're right. I didn't see the pings to Jytdog; I was on a phone while traveling and missed them. While my point stands as a general observation and I know this from my own interactions, I do not want a false statement to stand which would be unfair to Jytdog. I will be removing the point and may add something later today when I can get on my own computer.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

Thank you, Littleolive oil, but when you say you'll remove it, I hope you mean strike out? Please don't remove stuff that people have responded to, as it wrongfoots them. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC).

Oh, I see you have already removed it. Come on, you're an experienced editor, please don't edit like that. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am an experienced editor and in my experience at arbitrations and AE, at least several years ago, editors removed content, an accepted way of dealing with adding new content and removing old content or stuff that was no longer useful. I am happy to redact but can't until tonight when I get on to a computer. If you would like to readd and then redact the point please feel free with my permission. I am going to ask that you assume good faith on all of this. I interrupted a family vacation to comment because I have concerns with yet another editor in danger of being removed. These people/editors are not necessarily advocates for anything, and many are willing to learn if treated with respect and patience. I understand there are those who are not here with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, but the problem is an inability to destinguish between those who are learning and those who are pushing something. The danger for Wikipedia is that it has become, in some topic areas, a closed community with gatekeepers who, with what I have to assume are the best of intentions, lose patience with new and often highly educated and intelligent editors who do not respond well to those who see themselves as the owners of some articles. Collaboration takes skill and we don't do ourselves any favors by removing rather than teaching. I've done what I can with a phone, and if you don't feel you can make the change I will later tonight. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC))

Thank you. I'd rather not touch your texts; I feel I've been a busybody clerk enough on that case. (Compare also [41] and you may see what I mean.) Bishonen | talk 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC).

No worries. Done.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC))

Speedy, I think

I'm still not here. I'm writing about politics and avoiding grading papers and splashing around in the slough of despond. However, I hit "random article" every now and again, and I hit Leah Marangu. It appears to be a 100% slander article and violation of BLP. Don't these people have SnapChat to malign administration? Hithladaeus (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, dear, good catch. I've reverted the slander, which was the three most recent edits, and what remains looks more like a promotional article, seriously undersourced. Perhaps I ought to WP:PROD it as such... not sure. Oh, never mind. I wish there was some point in blocking the IPs that added the slander, but I doubt it. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC).

Another caste warrior

Hi Bishonen, you are most familiar with the trouble with the caste articles. Can you deal with this guy, and semi-protect the Telaga article? There is incessant noise on the talk page. I have spent quite a bit of time this week to research the issues, and take their concerns into account. But all they want is to glorify their castes. Pity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I've blocked 173.167.210.137 for disruptive editing, which they have certainly perpetrated, but I have a little difficulty with this. You say on User talk:173.167.210.137 that they have made nine edits to Telaga, but I only see four, and not that many IP edits at all recently in the article history. I'm not sure semi is needed. Are you saying they've been using other IPs/accounts to edit Telaga? Bishonen | talk 12:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, yes, you are right. Four edits. It is ok to leave the page open for now. Thanks for your attention!

This is really Sitush's baby. But I haven't seen him around lately. Hope he is ok. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

AE

As an active administrator on the AE notice board and as the twin (is it?) of Bishzilla, I wanted to mention that there are problems at Talk:Sciences Po that you could possibly help with. I was alerted there by an RfC. Thank you for your time in doing something or delegating inquiries into what exactly is going on there. As I said on AE, happy December. SashiRolls (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually Bishzilla's mom, but I don't have a lot of control over her. Unfortunately I can't spare the time to engage with Talk:Sciences Po. And it's not connected with arbitration enforcement, is it? I suggest either dispute resolution or, if it's a behavior issue, WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC).

They've been there and done that. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935 #Agressive comments over Sciences Po page for the failure of ANI to sort anything out. Meanwhile the fully-protected page has chunks of unsourced puffery like "Partner universities include: Berkeley (USA), Cambridge (England), ...", ungrammatical text - complete with Spoonerisms - like "Descoing had been criticized for offering large sums of money (through salary rise, free accommodation, etc.) to diverse members of staff, included his wife, in spite of the fact that Sciences Po in partly stately funded.", and similar poor writing. I'm glad I didn't attend a stately funded university. I don't expect you'll want to dip your toes into this dispute, but at some point, somebody needs to read the article (not the talk page) and do some clean-up. Just my humble opinion, of course. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to point this out gently, but that's not so easy; the article is locked down to those who don't care because of those who do. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

{{subst:Arbitration enforcement appeal

| Appealing user

 = <Simon Mugava>

User imposing the sanction
 = <Bishonen>

  < Indefinitely topic ban from Uebert Angel and all related pages imposed at

I do feel that this topic ban was imposed incorrectly. Editors misunderstood my concerns regarding the matter of Uebert Angel. At times we were all saying the thing with other editors. I agree that i made some changes without notifying other editors on the talk which is wrong however I wasn't fully aware that it was a mandate to do this and I can promise that I will inform other editors of my opinion before making changes. I was also banned because cherry picking nice words, I was under the impression that that's what Wikipedia is for, now I am aware that if i'm quoting an article in newspapers I will quote everything as necessary for the betterment of the article on wikipedia

I will make useful contributions on wikipedia especially concerning this article & I would like this ban to be reconsidered and be lifted Simon Mugava (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Simon. I suppose you're asking me to reconsider your topic ban from Uebert Angel? I'm afraid I won't. I blocked you for tendentious editing and failing to engage constructively with what people told you on the article talkpage or indeed on your own user talkpage. That's serious, and disruption of biographies of living people is altogether taken extremely seriously on Wikipedia. I want to emphasize again that you're free to edit the entire rest of Wikipedia, and it's a pity you haven't done any of that so far. Of course it would make a better impression if you showed some interest in Wikipedia as such; then you wouldn't merely come across as an Uebert Angel fanatic wanting to promote your prophet. For those reasons, I'm afraid I think it's pretty unlikely that the ban will be reconsidered by the community either, yet, but perhaps after you have shown you can edit articles that aren't related to Angel. You are certainly free to try appealing on one of the boards WP:AN, WP:AE or WP:ARCA, now or later (just one of them!). If you want to try WP:AE but have trouble with the required template (as you seem to have, since you posted parts of it above on my page), how about asking Boing! said Zebedee, on your own page, to help you format your request? Bishonen | talk 16:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC).

Ok thank you. Again I am not a fanatic of Uebert Angel. Of course i can find something that i have knowledge about or at least researched and edit on Wikipedia. Also remember I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so sometimes I can only edit topics I have researched or that are in my interested. I did explain why I was editing that way and i did not know the consequences of what i was doing, I sincerely apologise and promise to to do it again. I would like to trust that you can lift my ban and appealing on one of the boards might not be necessary. You can still check all my edits on this article if anything is tendentious then you can always ban me. In the mean time i will look for other articles to edit as well.Simon Mugava (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Simon Mugava: She has already declined your appeal and told you how to proceed if you still desire to appeal the ban. Continuing to push here will not get you the result you want. I would strongly suggest that you find some other topics to edit for a couple of months before you attempt to get your topic ban lifted. As things stand now I am all but positive that no appeal you make will be successful. You have only edited on a single topic which not only were you topic banned from but were blocked twice in rapid succession for violating that ban. It also seems evident that you tried to get around the ban by socking (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon Mugava).

  When you do decide to appeal to one of the noticeboards I would suggest you try WP:AE. Administrators are typically very good at considering appeals dispationatly. If you bring the issue to WP:ANI it is possible for things to go off the rails because they will not only examine the appeal but everything. That could possibly expose you to a WP:BOOMERANG indefinite block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, especially if you have not done some productive editing in other areas before bringing the matter up there. The worst WP:AE is likely to do, unless you do not listen to their input, is say no.

  I hope this helps a bit. Jbh^Talk 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, User:Simon Mugava, I completely missed your post yesterday, or I would have replied. I don't know how that happened. Thank you very much, Jbhunley, for giving Simon good advice, and I hope he takes it to heart. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

Appealing ArbCom block

Hi Bishonen, On July 31, 2015 you imposed a 24 hour Arbitration Enforcement block on me. This was immediately after i had posted the following message on the talk page of a relatively new editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rabt_man&diff=673889946&oldid=673889874

I had posted the message due to WP:BITE, and also because Sitush has readily made similar comments on my talk page and also the talk page of other editors in the middle of conversations not involving Sitush. It had nothing to do with any ArbCom sanctions on me. (There are no sanctions against me right now, but at the time i think i was restricted from editing any article concerning the Indian sub-continent.) You and i have had several disputes and confrontations ever since you falsely accused me of socking when i first started editing on WP, immediately after i had some disputes with Sitush, and it is not inconceivable that the reason you imposed the ArbCom block on me (which made it impossible to appeal to any other Admin) was because of your close relationship with Sitush.

Here is only one example of an editor who faced your wrath after being involved with a dispute with Sitush (in which you admitted to making an incorrect block long after the editor had stopped editing on WP):

WP:ADMINABUSE

Dear Bishonen. I am bluntly stating that you have all the appearances of being an involved administrator since Sitush was frantically signalling you to block me - and was very confident that I would be blocked too. I am concerned with WP:ADMINABUSE in my indefinite block because Sitush specially involved you (why you ?) in a dispute the SPA was having with him and myself,and then followed it up with calls on his talk page (which he knows you watch) sending signals about me BLOCK .. BLOCK .. BLOCK. All these factors indicate you are a BIASED admin whom Sitush deliberately "involved". When Sitush clearly wrote I would be blocked before my WP:3O would be taken up it he was certain you would do it. Why for instance have you not similarly blocked User:Dev raj gujjar who Sitush had also said he would write up for a ARBIPA block on Sitush's talkpage [11]. ie. Why me ?

PS: It was certainly an accident that I read the dictionary in that way, and stopped reading at "butt in". Sigmabaroda (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Dear Bishonen, Your statement that you don't edit pages on India is incorrect. You and Sitush have both closely edited here [12]. And you both also have closely spaced edits on India Talk pages [13], Sigmabaroda (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sigmabaroda. You were quite right in January that arbitration enforcement blocks aren't supposed to be indefinite. I don't know why I was so stubborn about it, I apologise. I have now converted your AE block to an ordinary indefinite block, which you can appeal in the ordinary way per the instructions below. Bishonen

— talk 08:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sigmabaroda

I can give many more examples of you coming along and banning or blocking editors who have been involved with disputes with Sitush. And this edit of yours indicates that you know Sitush personally: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=740882474 since your claim that Sitush has experience in the academic study of Indian topics is clearly ascertained through personal communication with Sitush (Wikipedia editing is clearly not a form of academic study).

I did not appeal your earlier block since i could not appeal an ArbCom block with another Admin, and because i thought it meaningless to appeal a 24 hour block at AE since they typically take more than 24 hours to decide any case. But i recently came across WP editors who went to great lengths to establish whether the blocking Admin's block was a valid one in order to maintain the sanctity of their block records and to prevent further frivolous blocks. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer/BlockLog

I am therefore proposing to take you to WP:COIN so that you can disclose the full extent of your personal relationship with Sitush. My proposal is that you should not be banning or blocking or be involved as an Admin with any editors in edit conflicts with Sitush due the fact that you are WP:INVOLVED since you seem to know Sitush personally. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Soham321, your accusations are completely ridiculous. I strongly urge you to drop the stick as I can absolutely guarantee you that you will not get the result you're looking for as your entire argument is based on a platform of ignorance.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo, I thought about whether i am guilty of not dropping the stick. In my opinion i would have been guilty of not dropping the stick if i had taken Bishonen to ANI or AN. But a COIN investigation is not just about me and Bishonen; it is for the greater good of Wikipedia. If Bishonen can satisfactorily explain here on what grounds she wrote that Sitush is "very experienced with the academic study of the subject", i would be happy not to initiate the COIN investigation. Soham321 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the purpose of COIN and are going to misuse the noticeboard to make a baseless complaint about a 24-hour block that occurred a year and a half ago. It's an unnecessary time sink for everyone involved and this petty vendetta will continue to reflect poorly on you. This is no different than when you unsuccessfully appealed your topic ban again and again and again. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

My unsuccessful appeals about the Arbcom sanctions imposed on me were due to the fact that i was not knowledgeable about the rules of wikipedia editing earlier; this was applicable both to my WP editing (which resulted in the sanctions on me in the first place) and also to the way i framed my appeals. I am now a lot more knowledgeable about WP rules and recently successfully contested an ANI complaint initiated against me by someone. Soham321 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That you are framing this complaint as an WP:INVOLVED and WP:COIN issue, and that you somehow believe this continued witch hunt "is for the greater good of Wikipedia", demonstrates that you are not "a lot more knowledgeable about WP rules". --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I will also note that no Arbcom sanctions are currently imposed on me as of now. Soham321 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reading your post hastily at first, User:Soham, I was just about to briefly state the full extent of my relationship with Sitush right here, but then it dawned on me that you never even asked me. You just talked about taking me somewhere so that I could disclose it (?), and expressed your own suspicions that I "seem to" know Sitush personally. Is it just me, or is it remarkably rude not to start by simply asking me? Since you didn't, I don't wish to answer. If somebody does ask, say at WP:COIN or wherever, I will certainly answer truthfully and perhaps even make sensational and intimate disclosures about our relationship, who knows? Do take me anywhere you like with my blessing. Don't be a spoilsport, Ponyo. Hey, Drmies, you seem to support Sitush a lot too, don't you? What do you have to say for yourself? There was even a special Sitush complaint generator with extra Drmies; doesn't that tell you something? Bishonen | talk 22:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC).

Reposting and re-signing with a new line because I had the wrong username, of course it should be Soham321, sorry. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for your response Bishonen. I apologize if you considered my earlier comment to be rude. I apologize for not framing my earlier comment more politely. I am now asking you again to explain on what basis you wrote that Sitush is "very experienced with the academic study of the subject" and whether you know Sitush personally.Soham321 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Soham321: please go ahead and waste your time at COIN. Just make sure that you notify 'Shonen here, so that I can drop by the noticeboard and ask for sanctions on you for wasting other editors' time and tendentious editing. I'm possibly the only Wikimedian who has had the pleasure of meeting both Sitush and Bishonen in person, one in England and one in Sweden, and I can assure you that neither knows the other personally, nor is there any conflict of interest involved. The fact that Sitush will often share problems he encounters on-wiki with Bishonen is an indication that she is one of the most responsible and helpful admins we have, and has a reputation for listening and taking dispassionate action, without fear or favour. There are not many who have taken Jimbo to ArbCom. For those reasons, you'll find that no experienced user is going to accept with the story you're trying to peddle. Now, you can take my advice and drop the stick, or you can sail on into the inevitable removal of your editing privileges here. Don't cry afterwards that you weren't warned. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Bish and Sitush, sitting on a tree, K I S S I N G ! [I fondly remember the "extra Drmies". Bish, next time we're in the hot tub I'll tell you all about a dream a colleague of mine had WITH EXTRA DRMIES IN IT!) Also, Soham, you know I love you like a brother, but I don't know what you're trying to get at. However, a. it's not there and b. this isn't the way. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to know that Sitush went to a top British university, and has very little patience with uninformed, pov-pushing editors. You may not like his temper, but at least he's well-informed and razor-sharp in his arguments. By the way, the correct link is WP:COI. But that's not the policy you're looking for; maybe you mean WP:TAGTEAM? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sitush went to university? That explains a lot--this bias towards facts and reliable sources. Very irritating, and very old-fashioned. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that Sitush, as well as JamesBWatson and Slim Virgin all attended my alma mater, although I'd graduated before those young'uns matriculated, so sadly I never had the opportunity to meet any of them in Cambridge. I was a contemporary of Prince Charles and Douglas Adams, but that's no consolation. Anyway, that should give the conspiracy theorists plenty to work on for their next round of finger-pointing. Point away, I say. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You're pretty full of yourself, RexxS. I'm a contemporary of Charlotte Brontë! My dear, dear Mr Thackeray and I sat in a tree, composing Jane Eyre under a pen name! Bishonen | talk 21:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC).

Pre-Appeal Notice

Just thought I'd address your reasons for the ban before I appeal: Regarding your reasoning that I deserve a ban because I called Volunteer Marek's edit "filth," this user has been harassing me for over a month, following me from article to article. Not at all "civil," as you say. I committed no BLP violations, therefore the repeated "warnings/threats" from this tendentious editor are unwarranted. I stand by my characterization of the user's harassment as very qualifying for the word "filth." Regarding your claim that I launched a "wholesale attack" when I raised the issue of Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding, that phrase is absolutely backed by the sources that I cited, which includes the words straight from the mouth of a Clinton camp staffer. Band's words were also analyzed by a RS, and cemented the revelations from the email. I was very careful about my wording. I never said Chelsea used Foundation funds; I said that there was no mention of this issue in the article, inexplicably. Not a BLP violation. So what we're left with is a 6 month ban for an alleged WP:SOAPBOXING violation and something about "hobbyhorses[sic]." Hardly fitting. If you'd like to respond and/or defend the very lengthy ban here, I can wait until you've done so before forwarding this case up the ladder. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think I'll just decline your appeal to me, if that is what this is, rather than discuss it; I don't think we'd get very far. More eyes would be better, so please don't wait to take it to a suitable board. I suppose you know where to go? There's a link in my ban template, and as you can see you have three boards to choose between. I advise you to take a look at them before you decide — they're not all the same. Feel free to ask here if you'd like me to elucidate that. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC).

Oh no, this wasn't an appeal to you at all. I already knew that would be a lost cause, and it would compromise my own values and dignity. We're finally in agreement about something! I just figured I'd be nice and give you an opportunity to defend your accusations. So since you declined that opportunity, I think I'll just address that...content that you left on my page in the appeal process. Many thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)<sarcasm>How generous of you to give Bishonen an opportunity to "defend her accusations".<sarcasm> Sheeesh, either make a formal appeal or drop the stick, because what you're doing here, patronising the administrator who issued the topic ban in full accordance with Wikipedia rules, isn't exactly helping your case... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha...I'm working on it, I'm working on it! @Thomas.W The process ain't exactly user-friendly. Trying to make sure I follow all the rules and protocol, here. The administrator in question has been condescending towards me from our very first encounter, and I refuse to kiss the ring in order to restore my editing privileges that I should never have had revoked in the first place (in my opinion). I feel very confident that I've done nothing wrong. Anyway, back to work for me. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There is an appeal at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Going to look, I noticed there's one from Peeta Singh below as well. Well, there are worse crimes that not notifying the admin, I guess. (But not many! Grrrrr! ROARRR!) Bishonen | talk 10:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

Reason for Block?

How is contributing towards the improving Wikipedia being construed. [42] I've followed the rules, improved articles and spent countless hours expanding Wikipedia and i'm rewarded by getting blocked.

Before I edited the Punjabi language article [43] At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?

Before I edited the Gurmukhi alphabet article [44] At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?

Before I edited the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punjab page [45] At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for improving the Wikiproject Punjab page?

Was I construed for creating template such as Template:Punjabi film list and Template:Cinema of Punjab so it improves the standard of the Punjabi cinema article?

Was I construed for following the guidelines and considering Consensus? [46], [47]

At least tell me why I have been blocked and how improving articles based on reliable sources is pushing a national agenda? Why do users and administrators on Wikipedia do not want the improvement of Punjab and Sikh-related topics?

Peeta Singh (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peeta Singh: Our paths have not crossed lately, but your disruption has gone on for too long. Just read the patient guidance and reminders by numerous admins and editors, that you just mass deleted from your talk page. From repeated copyvio reminders to using wikipedia articles as a platform for "Panjab-nation/Khalistan" POV-pushing as noted by @Apuldram, from WP:OR to WP:BATTLEGROUND with @Utcursch, to edit war warning by @RegentsPark. Much you have done and keep doing shows WP:NOTHERE. Now you feign surprise at block by @Bishonen, and allege your disruption "improves this or that project, or Punjab and Sikh-related topics". You are way off, way off my dear. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't been involved with this editor, but their POV-pushing has been all too apparent.

@Peeta Singh, you have been topic-banned from only the Sikh/Punjab topic area. The rest of Wikipedia is still available for you to edit. I would encourage you to do so and learn to edit according to Wikipedia policies. If you demonstrate good understanding of the policies and show problem-free conduct over a period of time, you can request for a lifting of the topic ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why am I being accused of "using wikipedia articles as a platform for "Panjab-nation/Khalistan""? I'm sincerely improving articles using reliable sources. I have rarely used these terms "Panjab-nation/Khalistan", then how am I promoting it?

Yes, I agree that I have made unintentional copyvio, but that was when I was new. Every time I've been told off, I tried learning from my mistakes and not repeating them. I tried being careful, but your crew didn't stop: hassling me, bulling me, trying to getting me blocked (from day one and numerous times) and disrupting me from improving Punjab and Sikh-related topics. I felt intimidate at every stage by these people who act as the owners of the Punjab and Sikh-related pages.

I'm allegedly being accused of WP:NOTHERE but what about how their crew promoting India at any and every article where it's not relevant, even sometimes without proper referencing [48]? What about their crew trying to push the Indo-Aryan theory? [49] Why are the guideline different for their crew and me?

User:Kautilya3, why have I been blocked for sincerely improving articles in the first place?

Peeta Singh (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Peeta Singh, you have not been blocked. Blocks prevent you from editing Wikipedia (if you had been blocked, you wouldn't be able to edit this page, for example). You have been topic banned. That's not a block, and does not technically prevent you from editing anywhere; the topic ban means that you're not allowed to edit pages related to the Sikh/Punjabi topic area. People have been explaining to you in detail above how you have been disruptive in the area, and a lot of advice and warnings have also been posted to your own page — you have blanked most of it, but I can still read it through the page history. For this reason, I will not reconsider the ban. My advice to you is to edit the rest of Wikipedia, that you have not been banned from. But you are certainly free to appeal the ban, on one of the boards WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. Only one of them, please. Oh, I see you have already appealed at WP:AE. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

• @Peeta Singh: you should have notified all people who you allege in your AE filing, without edit-diffs, from "day one" have targeted you and tried to get you blocked. I will do it for you. @Apuldram:, @Utcursch:, @Uanfala:, @RegentsPark:, @Kautilya3:, @Salma Mahmoud: please note. FWIW, I do not know what "day one" means in this conspiracy theory, but might refer to the day @Peeta Singh registered the account (15 October 2016). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel like User:Peeta Singh is just repeating himself when he answers every query. Despite leaving him plenty of long messages on his talk page, he simply replies with a repeat of what he stated earlier and proceeded with POV insertions and edit warring.

How is anyone "promoting India at any and every article where it's not relevant" & "pushing the Indo-Aryan theory" when that is what the original text that has been present for years said? How come is it that, for years on end an article with over 2000 views daily that stated "Indo-Aryan" was never challenged as "promotion of Indo-Aryan theory"?

Besides the disruptive editing in infoboxes and leads/first sentences in articles that have been discussed on his talk page as well as on the admin incidents notice board; I find the User:Peeta Singh's categorisation also to be an attempt at unduly depicting a Sikh/Punjab country. Sikh male poets Category:Punjabi law Category:Punjabi_legal_professionals Category:Punjabi law Category:Punjabi scientists (most of them being empty and contain links to nationalities x by nationality or x by country, essentially referring to Punjab as a country) The very need for the existence of such categories is questionable.

User:Peeta Singh's edits on Wikivoyage and Wikidata are also of interest. On Wikidata he named "Khalistan" as one of the aliases of the Punjab [50] (Along with the symbol of Sikhism being inserted as the symbol of Punjab); he also changed the language family of Punjabi from Indo-Aryan to Indo-European; further showing subtle attempts to depict a Sikh/Punjab-nation while removing all associations to Indian-related topics.

Regards

--Salma Mahmoud (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Salma. I agree with you about the WP:IDHT problems, that's why I topic banned. Where users will listen, bans usually aren't necessary. They do repeat themselves a lot. Perhaps you should report disruption of Wikivoyage and Wikidata at those projects? Wikipedia admins don't have any influence there. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

Just curious II

Hi Bishonen, I just came across the "Do not say With all due respect" discussions, but even after lengthy reading, I didn't find what was this mysterious one original sentence of your essay. :( Could you give me a link or tell me what your words were? --SI 07:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC) (BTW, being "welcomed" on editing your talk page by "Welcome to my page, little user." comes across rather patronising to me.)

Hi Schmarrnintelligenz. It's been deleted, so I can't link to it, but I'll tell you the entire content. It said: "When addressing another editor, it is normally better not to start with the phrase "With all due respect" as everybody knows it really means "Go fuck yourself". On the other hand, using the phrase can be quite handy in a case where you do wish to tell a user to go fuck themselves, but prefer not to be blocked for incivility. Using the phrase and linking it to this essay ensures maximum clarity, but may carry a degree of risk." A silly little "essay", as you can see — it was never meant to be there for years and years. There was a "nutshell" too: ""With all due respect" means very little respect is due." About the little users in my edit notice: oops! I'm afraid I was channelling User:Bishzilla, who is very large, and, reasonably, addresses people as "little" all the time. I suppose I was sort of talking to the people who come here who do know Bishzilla, as many of them do. That was fairly idiotic of me, as certainly other people come here too. I've removed it, thanks for pointing it out. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

I think the variant "With all appropriate respect" as used here [51] has some zing in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Heheh, nice lawyerspeak, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Maybe we need a little essay on referring to people as "estimable", or to someone's retirement from authority as "a happy occasion". :-) Bishonen | talk 10:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

I don't know what you mean by "zing", but lawyers are experts at telling people to go fuck themselves without actually saying it. Maybe that's what you meant. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Or some actually say it, as other editors who want to tell someone to fuck off without saying it refer to: "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram" 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. Saying it to the FBI (deservedly so, AFAICT), makes it even better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, your TOC seems a bit slanted. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User:Mandruss. The TOC is hanging off a single nail, rocking gently back and forth (refresh page to see it move). Compare this thread above. Not much I can do about it as long as I have these evil talkpage stalkers. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: in view of your username, perhaps you understand Bishzilla's ancient tongue? I expect she might say something like "Med lagom högaktning". Bishonen | talk 20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

Now I understand, thanks. Maybe the evil TPS can make it explode repeatedly? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Låter rimligt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen/zilla, thank you for both responses :) And sorry that I restarted that old discussion again, that was not my intention. And I am really astonished, because I still lived with the impression that "with all due respect" was usually considered polite. Good that I now learned I should never use it. --SI 22:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. What if I write "with the greatest respect", or "with respect", (because I respect the person in question) will that also generally be interpreted as "go fuck yourself" on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

grammar point

Hi dear dude Could please tell me what's the difference between "have to" and "gonna have to"? thanks

Please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) for a signature and timestamp, Alborzagros and please don't spam the same general question on several user talkpages. I see Marvellous Spider-Man has kindly answered you, so I won't. For the future, you're very welcome to ask general questions at the Reference desk. Language questions go here: Reference desk/Language. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

This spamming has progressed from user talk pages to user pages now. I've left a warning asking to stop. —SpacemanSpiff 12:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Permission request

Dear Bishonen,

Being topic banned, [52] I would like to request permission to complete the Template:Punjabi film list by listing the Punjabi films in the remaining years and including Punjabi films from east and west Punjab from the years they are missing. This is a non-controversial task which will improve the Punjabi cinema article.

Peeta Singh (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

--RexxS (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, Peeta Singh. The ban apples to all editing of Punjabi- and Sikh-related pages, even editing that would possibly improve the article. Also, its hard for me to fathom the possibly political subtleties of such a list, so I can't tell if your editing would necessarily be uncontroversial. @RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: do you agree with me?

My advice to you is to edit articles outside the area of the topic ban for at least a few months, and show you can do so without POV-pushing and then — having shown yourself to be a valuable contributor — apply again for the ban to be lifted. Unless of course your current appeal is successful, but that's not looking very promising at WP:AE right now. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

What Bishonen says. Edit other stuff for a few months and then ask for the ban to be lifted. --regentspark (comment) 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No disagreement with Bishonen or RP on this. —SpacemanSpiff 03:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it be against my topic ban if I prepared the content but some other user posted it?

Punjab region-related articles need attention, because these articles are neither the priority of the Pakistani and nor Indian users. Just go through this article, and you'll realize how their just battling over the region and just trying to push their POV.

They've got un-sourced material such as:

"The propensity of the Punjabi (be it from the Pakistani Punjab or the Indian Punjab) is to be very vocal and loud and open about things Punjabi"[53]

Whats the need of writing "be it from the Pakistani Punjab or the Indian Punjab", People who are reading the article must already know about the physical geography. Now I don't know if these terms are put in place intentionally or unintentionally but they're unnecessary.

Another example is the Sikhism article where it says "originated in the Punjab region of the Indian Subcontinent during the..." but according to the Indian subcontinent article, "South Asia" is the conventional nomenclature. [54] I tried changing it and making the article NPOV but because i'm Sikh and Punjab, other users may have got the impression that I'm trying to secretly promote something. [55] That has never been the case!

Further the article says, "An Indian religion, Sikhism rejects claims that any particular..." I've checked one source and haven't found this term, not sure about the other one. Users may argue that it's been listed as a Indian religion because it was founded in India, but Guru Nanak the founder was born in Rai-Bhoi-Di-Talwandi, Punjab (present day Pakistan) and the Sikh history took place all over Punjab, both west (in Pakistan) and East (in India). Doesn't categorizing a religion/nation under the name of a country founded in 1947 breach NPOV? Just for the sake of categorizing Sikhi, some may argue that it's a Dharmic religion. In Sikhi, dharm means path of righteousness, don't all religions claim to be the path of righteousness?

Even though these are valid points, I know i'll just get ignored and directed to WP:OR.

From the Punjab region article, "The Punjab region within India maintains a strong influence on the perceived culture of India towards the rest of the world. Numerous Bollywood film productions use the Punjabi language in their songs and dialogue as well as traditional dances such as bhangra. Bollywood has been dominated by Punjabi artists including actors Prithviraj Kapoor, Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand, Vinod Khanna, Dharmendra, Shammi Kapoor, Rishi Kapoor, Shashi Kapoor, Kabir Bedi, Rajesh Khanna, Angad Singh, Amitabh Bacchan (from his mother's side), Pran, Prem Chopra, Vinod Mehra, Manoj Kumar, Akshay Kumar Sunny Deol, Anil Kapoor, Poonam Dhillon, Juhi Chawla, Hrithik Roshan and Kareena Kapoor, singers Mohammed Rafi, Mahendra Kapoor, and Narendra Chanchal. Punjabi Prime Ministers of India include Gulzarilal Nanda, Inder Kumar Gujral and Dr. Manmohan Singh. There are numerous players in the Indian cricket team both past and present including Bishen Singh Bedi, Kapil Dev, Mohinder Amarnath, Navjot Sidhu, Harbhajan Singh, Yuvraj Singh Virat Kohli, and Yograj Singh."

Based on what? Is this not POV pushing?

I think this is stating to get way too long so i'll conclude, please just give me an indication, if I can or cannot prepare the content and request another user to post it. The reason i'm doing all this is because I want to improve a topic that needs intention.

Regards Peeta Singh (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Peeta Singh, no, you cannot, and you can't discuss these topics anywhere, not even here on my page, or other user talkpages. I understand that you posted your questions in good faith and didn't realise they are covered by your topic ban, but they are. Now you know, so please don't do it again. See SpacemanSpiff's warning on your page. Isn't there anything else you might be interested in editing on Wikipedia? Bishonen | talk 09:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

Feedback

Quack quack!

Hi Bishonen. Someone wrote about me: "Notice too how all the criticism about this obsession of him has been edited so it is hidden for casual readers both here and in his talk page." What they're actually saying is that I've redacted commentaries and threads to hide criticism of my editing, right? Which is a very serious accusation, and a violation of core Wikipedia policies, when it is not substantiated, right? No admin-action needed here, but I wanted to make sure that I'm right when I think that this is highly offensive, so I'm asking your opinion (I'm actually not so much offended, as very curious and surprised about this comment, since it is so baseless). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an obvious sock if they can document JJ's behavior for years and do so within the space of four edits. Also, it's that time of the year when the socks come out at that article! —SpacemanSpiff 05:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: merry Christmas then! I've no idea, though, who would be socking at that page. The incrowd there is very small. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about recent edit

Does this edit [56] seem to be a violation of this sanction applied to the same user at [57] ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks for the heads up, Sagecandor. I will warn the user. Perhaps they weren't aware of the scope of topic bans, and they also seem to have some (erroneous) notion that adding text related to American politics is OK so long as they merely restored the text and didn't compose it. So, a warning. If it happens again they won't have any excuse. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

That seems fair, thank you! (Please see, however, that the warned user appears to be disputing you [58]). Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, right... after I italicized as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic and everything. OK. I'm not interested in arguing with him, because I don't see how I could put it any more clearly. And another admin has already warned him again. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

Yeah that's okay [59] that looks good. Sagecandor (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that he's now defiant in the face of the other admin as well. In future, I'd suggest Sagecandor that you take topic ban violations straight to ANI. Just the diffs of the sanction, and the offending edit - plus perhaps the context of the section where the edit took place would be enough, I imagine, to find an admin who is far less tolerant of topic ban violations than 'Shonen. You only need to find one.

Sorry, chère, but at times you're altogether too soft on these POV-warriors who make the project a nightmare for genuinely dispassionate editors in far too many topics. 'Zilla would have fried them by now. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS yeah I saw new comment by the user at [60]. Not sure about ANI but maybe another time at the Arbitration Enforcement page, if that makes sense at this point ? Sagecandor (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not at all, I'm hard as nails! But I do warn them at the first violation, because 80% of them don't understand the topic ban template, they have to be walked through it. You think I won't block him if he does it again, RexxS? Ha, we'll see. Feel free to come to me about ban violations, Sagecandor. ANI is fine too, but taking them to AE , or Template Nightmare as I call it, is a bit like shaving a pig (= a lot of trouble and noise for not much wool). Bishonen | talk 22:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

Bamboo shoot

I don't think [the message has sunk in yet. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see you around, Calton. I know, but that's a sort of half-and-half needs-more-rope edit. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

On the other hand, I suppose somebody might block him for a while (without talkpage access, for sure) for being a rude jerk,[61] but that's not something I like to do much. Please don't be provoked, Calton, because, you know, that's the intention. Ignore it. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

Ouch, one minute too late. Calton, please don't rise, don't post on his page any more. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict) No, I'm afraid -- for maybe the first time -- I'll have to disagree with you. That edit -- in the face of two explicit warnings by two different admins -- to add unambiguously political content ("Pravdaesque") to an explicitly post-1932 American political page is about as bright-line a violation of his AE restriction as can be, and given his Wikilawyering and ICANTHEARYOU arguments, virtually certain to be repeated unless sanctioned. (Post-ec: so something happened while I was playing hunt-and-peck with my iPad, then.)--Calton | Talk 00:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

After [62] would it be okay for someone to do a Arbitration Enforcement report? Sagecandor (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on. I commented on that very thing just above, Sagecandor. Here. You must do as you like, but I think it's a bad idea (premature). Is there a hurry? Bishonen | talk 00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

No hurry, wanted to check with you but that sounds okay for now. Sagecandor (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Calton, if it's so certain to be repeated (I'd put money on it, too, yes), then what is the hurry? Much simpler to wait till it is in fact repeated, in a more juicy and indubitable way. Anyway, I'm going to bed, talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

Sagecandor, here's a little something you can put under your fingernails. You'll find it less painful than doing an AE report. --RexxS (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the hurry? Nothing, except to try to ensure it doesn't happen at all and save everyone the trouble of having to monitor his edits (which DOES sound perilously close to actual cyberstalking).

Meantime, I'm going to finish my morning coffee, so have a good night. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS:Ha ha that does look painful. Well hopefully there's no rush, and I suppose if the user goes on a bender someone can deal with it if that happens. Sagecandor (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Hidden Tempo's AE appeal of your ban

User:Hidden Tempo came up with a better appeal text, per my request here: User talk:Hidden Tempo#Consider shortening your AE statement. You can see the improved version at WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo. Can you let me know if the new statement changes your opinion about the sanction? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean let you know here on my page, Ed? Well, I see pros and cons with granting Hidden Tempo's appeal. Systematizing:

Pro: the Wikipedian tradition of offering second chances is certainly honorable. Hidden Tempo is obviously very keen to continue editing American politics, or perhaps keen to escape the stigma of a topic ban, or both. For instance, he eagerly embraced your suggestion of providing a shorter statement and even asked your advice about it. That eagerness seems like a good sign, as high motivation would surely make him strive to keep his nose clean, and maybe listen better. And he'll have more eyes on him now.

Con: Hidden Tempo only changed his AE text under the gallows, when it had become obvious that he was heading for a decline of his appeal. Right up to your offer to reconsider if he revised drastically, he had never redacted, retracted, or struck out a single thing AFAICS, no matter what objections were made. He seemed satisfied with what he had written and claimed he had been exceptionally polite throughout.[63] The short text I'm looking at now is certainly a lot better and more civil. But it doesn't sit altogether well with me that he speaks of being "perceived" as having an inherent pro-Trump/anti-Clinton bias, and proposes to take measures "to prevent these accusations from being leveled in the future" — focusing on other people's perceptions, which from his tone ("accusations", leveled") are construed as unfair perceptions. I wouldn't take issue with such subtleties of subtext, which could be all in my head, if it wasn't for the fact that now, after HT submitted the short version, he's still, after all that has gone down, standing by his claim that he is a "neutral editor".[64] I don't think that bodes well, as he has been given many opportunities to deepen his understanding of what "neutrality" on political pages means, for instance Boing!'s cogent remarks here. ("Another example of literalism is in Hidden Tempo's claims that, because he has not specifically said who he does or does not support between Trump and Clinton, he should be seen as editing neutrally. Editing with a POV is a far wider issue than just explicitly stating your position on a subject.") Many editors on Trump/Clinton pages have a bias, indeed – a political preference — you can see Doc9871, higher up on the AE page, proudly standing by his bias, being frank about it, which is a good thing IMO. Most editors are aware of their own bias and strive to edit fairly all the same, though they don't always succeed (and some don't indeed always seem to be trying, either). But I've never seen anybody so aggressively pushing a POV while so tortuously claiming to be neutral.

I guess I ended up with more "cons". I won't be withdrawing my ban. But I don't want to further influence the discussion among uninvolved admins, and please don't think I'll be put out if they decide to grant the appeal. I'm very happy leaving the decision to them. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

Some help?

Greetings, Bishonen. I think you have had some previous experience with Barthateslisa, such as here. Would you mind taking a look at their recent contributions, particularly at Naredra Modi and Talk:Naredra Modi? SpacemanSpiff mentioned that Sitush had also asked you to take a look at them once before, but I cannot for the life of me find that link. I feel a topic ban might be in order, but obviously, my hands are tied. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I might've been mistaken on who brought it up, I remember reading about this issue out here once. I'll hasten to add that at certain points in time, unlike when the Lady Catherine visits, this talk page should be avoided if one wants some light reading! —SpacemanSpiff 07:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You should have pinged @Barthateslisa: instead of using {{noping|Barthateslisa}}, if you are discussing about the editor in another administrator's talk page, requesting a topic ban. I feel a topic ban might be in order, why? Marvellous Spider-Man 15:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not a discussion: this is a message to Bishonen, asking her to take a look at something. I see you've pinged Barthateslisa, but they cannot respond in any case as they are blocked. Also, two days ago you began a frivolous ANI complaint against me which you then declined to follow up in any way: so you'll forgive me if I view your presence here with some skepticism. Since you ask: frequent and persistent misunderstandings of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, and disruptive editing resulting from that. Why not just let Bishonen come by? Vanamonde (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Peeta Singh

There's a discussion on deleting a particular list on Wikipedia. The list was inspired by this list, so if list 2 is against the guidelines then list 1 must also be against the guidelines. I'm topic banned so i'm explaining why I created the list here. [65]

Further I would like to inform you that i'm getting a lot of notifications of reverts by user Salma Mahmoud.

Peeta Singh (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)