User talk:Bishonen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Benquet jachère fleurie 2.JPG
We Can Do It!.jpg
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

Hamster-powered barnstar created for this user by User:Penyulap 24 June 2013

Contents



DS block for User:Giridharmurthy100[edit]

Hi - blocked this guy for 72 hours for violating the DS you placed on him - he was reported to AIV and I guess it was my turn. Did I do it right? Do I need to log it somewhere? I'm an AE virgin, so don't abuse me too much. ;-) Katietalk 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Katie. If I'd been around at the right moment I think I might possibly have warned the user after the first post-ban edit — not the actually first, which was so harmless, but this one — because they're so new, so genuinely green — not a sock, then, I think — and the topic ban template I gave them is in miserably bureaucratic language which more competent editors may well have trouble with. The templates are the worst part of arbitration enforcement. But I've spent the afternoon in the emergency room with an aged relative. (Comes to us all.) And really, blocking them is all good; they have no other interests than Kapu (caste), so my topic ban was practically a block, and we have to consider Sitush's sanity, too. 72 hours seems right, and very clever of you to use the uw-aeblock template. But haha, no, you're not done, are you kidding? [Bishonen slaps her knees and staggers around a bit. These virgins!] You're also supposed to log the block here. Look for my topic ban of Giridharmurthy100 and note your block right underneath. It's actually comparatively easy, the page doesn't have the thrice cursed tables that community sanctions do, that are the bane of my life; you just write it in humanspeak. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
You are the only person I know who says AE/DS etc is "humanspeak". —SpacemanSpiff 07:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, logged in humanspeak. This is an area with which I'm incredibly unfamiliar other than to know that India and Pakistan don't get along because reasons, so I saw 'topic ban' and 'ignoring it' and went 'stop that'. I didn't even know there was a template but Twinkle had it, so there you go - I'm all for Twinkle. Twinkle is the tao. Twinkle is the tai chi. Or something. You are all kinds of awesome for helping - thanks, and all my best wishes to you and your family. I'm almost there with my dad so I get it. :-) Katietalk 18:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In this case, it wasn't a nationalist issue but rather one relating to caste. No practical difference as it falls under the same sanctions. Appreciate your intervention and we'll see what happens next, although those of us with experience can probably already predict that! - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

'Zilla Beanie[edit]

Do you care to argue whether or not this image will be saved? It was just a lark I created many moons ago. I don't have the energy to argue unless you would like to keep it. Tex (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tex! How's the patter of tiny feet? I see a couple of Zilla's fans have weighed in, including a "pocketed" one,:-) but well, frankly... it was created for a particular party, wasn't it? I don't think she's any too likely to wear it again. That reminds me, I should clear out my own attic, too. Life is too full of stuff. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC).
Things are good! Little ones are not so little anymore. Starting kindergarten soon...crazy! Hope all is well with you and yours! Tex (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it revdel or something? Vandalism on T/P[edit]

Hi Bish I wonder if you could strike this [[1]]. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's too silly to dignify with revdel. (Rather like my own rather primitive friend who just edited this page.) You know, too much attention. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC).

‎Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu[edit]

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: Rodhullandemu 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, --George Ho (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lady Walford Davies[edit]

Dearest Mrs Bishonen, please do rush over to pages for deletion where dear Lady Walford Davies is under attack. It is a travesty of enormous magnitude, where are those gender gap women and Cis people when one wants them? Poor Lady Walford Davies is about to be deleted unless she marries another famous man, can you believe such a thing in the 21st century? If every woman who has only married one notable man is to be deleted, who next will we loose - Anne Boleyn? Winnie Mandela or even the dear Queen Mother: I can only say "birds of a feather....." If she was a plain, old uninteresting Mrs, like pop stars' and footballers' wives, no one would bat an eyelid at her having her own page, but because she is a very dear and personal friend of mine she is pillaged and insulted. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've done what I could, dear Lady Catherine, hinting at sexual scandal that one hopes will make the cis and trans people sit up and take notice. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
Thank you My Dear, most kind. I can't quite get my mind around all this cis and trans, it's just all too confusing. I wonder who puts these ideas into their heads. In my day some men got married and others went to live on the Amalfi coast, and one or two did both. Women, of course, had far better things to do with their time. Except for poor Vita, who was very odd indeed. One would have thought with those unfortunate equine features, she would have been so glad to find a husband at all that she would have behaved herself. Harold though was very odd too, it wouldn't surprise me if he hadn't made one or two trips to Capri himself in his youth - he had a mustache and that's always a sure sign. All those strange books they wrote too, all that To and fro-ing from Lighthouses, it's quite obvious they had odd minds. I tried to read it once, couldn't understand a word and I am very well read, educated person. I wonder if they have goats on the Amalfi coast - I must ask my nephew, he's bound to know. Anyway, My Dear, I must run; it's 6pm and my cocktail shaker is beckoning. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

If you find time for it, please take a look at this comment and [2] by an established user. Calling someone a "sicko" and implying that it is not even enough to explain how they feel about someone is excessive and uncivil. Also the rationale itself for the AfD is uncivil in my opinion. I might be wrong but it seems to be over the top.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't sound good the way you describe it, BabbaQ. I'll take a look tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
OK, I've warned them. Another admin already had. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
Thank you! There is also another editor Libstar at the AfD that once again taunts me, this is an annual occurence over the last few years with taunting messages about me. [3], [4] these are this years insults so far. And it always happens in June. He has already been warned not to write these kind of stuff about me in the past by you [5]. I can give you diffs of similar comments last year, 2014 and all the way back to 2011. Anyways, just notifying you. As an AfD is not the place for these kind of remarks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I also wonder why this kind of taunting is necessary by the user. He keeps doing this all the time. Anyways thank you for your assistance.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

BabbaQ has been shopping around at other admins User talk:Sergecross73 with identical complaints. I note BabbaQ's refusal to take this to WP:ANI. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And I note that as Sergecross73 notes I have the right to contact admins about situations. And that you continue to put fire on this argument at the admins talk page and at the AfD in question. My final word about this.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And another admin contacted on the same issue [6] LibStar (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The same MO I see as usual. Going on and on about one event or topic, while at the same time disregarding the comments of a admin and others. If you want me to not contact admins about your never ending comments about me every single June, then do not comment about me. Quite simple really. BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought you said you were no longer going to comment on this? LibStar (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

These comments says it all. I rest my case. Also why do you keep fishing for my attention with comments like the one above. It is really not necessary. I will move on now. Goodbye.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
all I can say is WP:KETTLE. sergecross also pointed out contacting multiple admins was "unnecessary ". LibStar (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:73.133.140.233[edit]

I'm not that fussed either way. But I just thought there was some kind of need to enforce rules? Or even try to engage in conversation? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It now seems that User:Materialscientist has done the dastardly deed. Oh well, I tried. Thanks. We just have User:2001:558:6020:161:25df:cba7:cd64:6450 to worry about now, I guess? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

p.s. what a stunning Talk Page image, just beautiful. But that poor horse! Does it know it's about to be covered by a sea of flowers??

That IPv6 seems to be trying to get blocked. I'll be happy to oblige if there's any more nonsense out of them. About the horse: the photographer has told me that both the horse and the meadow are now gone. :-( Bishonen | talk 22:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
Horses can be such skittish things. Well, they existed, that's the main thing. Unlike Blodeuwedd, of course (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You might want to consider 73.133.140.233 to be bypassing their block per 2001:558:6020:161:25df:cba7:cd64:6450 (talk · contribs) contributions.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean, Jetstreamer. The odd thing is 2001:558:6020:161:25df:cba7:cd64:6450 repeatedly reverted 73.133.140.233's blanking of their own talk. I'll ask a CU. Not sure they can do anything with two IPs that are obviously not related as such, but maybe. CU can sometimes see… hmm… forget what's the proper way to refer to it… but see the hardware used, more or less. And they can have an informed WP:DUCK opinion. Anyway, I'll check Bishzilla's pocket for little checkusers. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Sorry, Jetstreamer, thought you meant me. Yes, I had considered that. But that didn't appear in the advice given to me by User:RexxS, so I assumed it was to be regarded as a "separate issue". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Maybe. What bothers me is that both IPs are more or less making the same edits on the same topics...--Jetstreamer Talk 20:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. We await the check of Bishzilla's pocket with interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Bishzilla just caught the little CU critter trying to escape through the catflap! The IPs can be assumed to be the same person. I've blocked 2001:558:6020:161:25df:cba7:cd64:6450 and the range I believe they have access to. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Suspicions confirmed.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's hope we don't get into any more Talk Page antics. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Martinevans123: It seems we're having another sock of this IP at 209.50.132.131 (talk · contribs).--Jetstreamer Talk 00:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This [7] blanking says it all.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Long time...[edit]

Hi Bishonen! Hope this finds you well and happy!! Randomly looked at your page and checked your "Optimist's guide to Wikipedia". Great stuff! I am well and currently in beautiful Guarujá, Brazil rather unsuccessfully trying to further my love life (TMI). But I really like Brazil and, especially, this city. --Lyncs (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hiya Justa, so nice to see you. I trust you flew to Brazil under your own steam! Bishonen | talk 00:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Steam-powered planes? Mind, the Brits had steam-powered submarines in WW1 so I guess anything is possible, even if not practical. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
All to the good for subs, they're supposed to sink. Steam-powered computers are a popular feature of the Steampunk type of SF. Reasonably practical, or so a devoté of the genre assures me. Compare The Difference Engine. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
How do you think Glow-in-the-Dark Tin Fishys generate the electricity to power the motors if not by heating water past its boiling point...? People tend to forget that the once you split an atom, the energy released has to be then translated into a useable form. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Wooh! It's the little user LittleHeard whizzing by again! [Bishzilla makes several swooping movements, attempting to catch the nimble little critter, but no luck.] Gone again! Now sad! bishzilla ROARR!! 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC).
You must be swifter in grabbing hold of that single precious curl Bishzilla! It's his only weakness! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Grabbed hold of user in March, my little Ponyo, stuffed in pocket, poured concrete over catflap.[8] But little escape artist still got out! How???!!! :-( bishzilla ROARR!! 21:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC).
Are you certain your didn't just catch this guy instead?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
And Steam-powered planes very nearly happened, props to Sir Hiram Maxim. Who says transatlantic Brits are clowns? . . dave souza, talk 15:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Another caste edit war[edit]

Care to step in re: this? They've had the sanctions notice and I've tried to direct them re: the problems. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm on the run , but I'll take care of it as soon as I get back. Thank you for warning the user and attempting to discuss. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Done. I'm not as sweet as I look. Bishonen | talk 13:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Thank you. That cheered me up, just as Wales scored against England in Lens. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Maestro's handmaidens sharing an account[edit]

Hi Bish. Ms. Molnarova, the PA of this maestro, who has been a real pain re his article over the years, has announced on my talk page that she is logging in and using the account of his former PA (Ms. Lapsevska). I left a note on her talk page about this, but she refused to acknowledge it and went on her merry way massaging his article. She also made a veiled threat of what the maestro might do if his wishes are not catered to, but that's relatively minor compared to the shared account. Anyhow, the talk page of the account she's using is User talk:Lienelapsevska (permalink to my message). Best Voceditenore (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've blocked, and handed out some advice about disclosure, the Terms of Use, bla bla. Bishonen | talk 10:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, Bish and for leaving the COI information for her. I imagine she'll be back with a new account and proceed where she left off. I'll be interested to see what happens next. What is it about these maestros? Here's another one from yesterday (or his PA claiming to be him) who just can't keep his hands off his article. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Closure at ANI[edit]

I hope your admin colleagues hold impromptu hallway discussions on my ANI thread at Wikimania. I wonder if I did something dadaist like requested Marek. Be. Restricted. From. Using. Single. Word. Sentence. Fragments, if there is some way I'll ever be able to swing "disrupted economic stagnation" on my CV. I throw myself on your or your colleague's mercy. EllenCT (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ellen. I hope somebody closes the ANI soon, but I'm afraid it won't be me; I'm too ignorant of the subject and the conflict. I've never even disrupted economic stagnation.Bishonen | talk 17:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

Here we go again[edit]

I am sorry to do this but CA is at it again. I was going to let it go by because he wasn't causing trouble but he has been editing as an unregistered user. After I voted delete at one of his articles and it got deleted, he nominated three of my articles for deletion (Baby Grandmothers, Euphoric Id, and Sir Winston and the Commons). This is clearly a revenge maneuver and I would appreciate if it could be dealt with. If there isn't anything you can do, I understand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @TheGracefulSlick: didn't realise you had a history with said editor, otherwise I would have put up a bit more resistance in nominating on their behalf.. Though it does explain why they stopped replying after creating an account was mentioned -- samtar talk or stalk 15:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Samtar it is okay I understand. I just wanted you to be aware in case he seeks you out again. You did nothing wrong and I appreciate your response to this. In all likelihood Bishonen will put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Note CA hasn't stopped nominating articles. He nominated another article, most likely because the creator is a close associate of mine on here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Consider this, logging on to a retired account would create a sockpuppet problem and would violate WP:CLEANSTART. So what you are asking is to violate a rule. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And now consider this, IP: your big wikilawyering point before was that CrazyAces wasn't blocked. That was the result of admins leaning over backwards to be nice. I even unblocked him once, on certain conditions, which he has flouted. I have blocked him now, for six months. (Presumably he won't mind since he's retired anyway.) I certainly hope there won't be any block evasion! Note, the above IP post was made ten minutes after I blocked. And why did you remove my block message on ANI?[9] Bishonen | talk 07:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

The block is a block. You blocked an account based on allegations from TGS. An account that hasn't edited in 5 months in any manner. The removal of the message was based on an edit conflict and not deliberate. [10] Sorry about that, it was a pure accident. You and I both know that removing a block message does nothing to stop an actual block. CA wasn't blocked so s/he was able to retire and move on. So blocking an account that was retired seems rather and hasn't edited in 5 months seem rather... vindictive. TGS's is annoyed about the AFD's but if you look at the actual AFD's they have problems with sources (blogs), personal websites, and non reliable sources. One AFD is moving towards a merge [11] A notice was placed [12] and [13] but was promptly removed by TGS. The tags give an opportunity to fix articles. He himself places tags on articles. [14] If nominating articles from the same user is a problem, why is Alongstay allowed to continuously AFD articles from one user [15] ? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In other words, here we go again. I've blocked the 2607:FB90:249C:E1F9::/64 range for a couple of weeks for block evasion. Thanks, Niteshift36. Bishonen | talk 08:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC).
Thank you very much for protecting the page. I understand blocking the address will not make much of a difference. Hopefully your message will get through to him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mdtemp. Yes, that's CA evading not only the block on his account, but also my block on the 2607:FB90:249C:E1F9::/64 range. Unfortunately he has access to mobile IPv6 ranges, which means that there's little point in my /64 blocks. I suggest this: if the IP starts with 2607:FB90: and it's a typical CA interest — both conditions must be met — then feel free to revert him per WP:DUCK, with an informative edit summary (for example "rv block-evading sock of CrazyAces489 per WP:DUCK"). Refer to me if you're challenged. Saving the diff for this post of mine might make it simpler. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
PS, I've semiprotected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Maley. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen I was watching a rather nasty discussion on User talk:ALongStay. Apparently, the IP, which is obviously CA, stated he wrote the article Ryushin Shouchin Ryu, which was created by the account User:Nihon-no-budo. However, I am not fully convinced that is CA because the writing style is somewhat better than CA's. Then again, I do not know why he would randomly choose that account if he was lying, and the user is fairly new so your guess is as good as mine. I'm not sure what to make of it, so I was wondering what your thoughts on it are.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the overall contributions of Nihon-no-budo, I'm convinced CA was just blowing smoke. Also, considering the long-term abuse he's been perpetrating, I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 01:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC).

Sorry to ask but could you protect my sandbox User:TheGracefulSlick/sandbox? CA has edited it twice, but it is supposed to be for me I believe.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

Page mover right and rollback right[edit]

Hit Special:UserRights/Dorg2994 Dorg2994 (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you mean Special:Block/Dorg2994. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Look, you're new. If you don't stop trying to get random admins to give you rights, after what James086 told you on your page, it will be Special:Block/Dorg2994 and no mistake. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
Hi, Dodo, long time! bishzilla ROARR!! 08:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
Hello, again! ::waving:: =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Say hello to ma little friend!!! Muffled Pocketed 08:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Outing?[edit]

Just how I feel on this warm morning

Morning, I just wanted to confirm something I think you said in this section. So if I was to be blocked and then return under my IP you can't point out that the IP is the block evading CambridgeBayWeather? Right now I see that my IP says I live in Winnipeg, a place I have never been to. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it just seems safer not to. IPs generally give some geographic information, even if yours didn't much, and I'd rather not share that with the world. Though Doc9871 may well be right that the only people formally prohibited from connecting an IP and an account are the CUs. (I see they are accosting me about this matter on their own page, I can't imagine why. A reasonably civil post on this page is of course never removed.) Anyway, say hallo to the outed horse at the top of my page, young arctic fox! Bishonen | talk 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
Come on, now! I am not accosting you. IP information is freely available to everyone. If someone edits while logged out, that would be OUTING and it would be oversighted. If sock account Mr. Jackass (talk · contribs) starts editing as IP XX.XXX.XXX, it is just simply not outing to tie the named account to the IP. Doc talk 12:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe The Lady Catherine de Burgh enjoys the occasional outing, as long as it is not too strenuous and no ladies ride astride their mounts. And as I hear it, she is "reasonably civil" as a matter of course (if not pride). Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. If I can work up a bit more energy than the pictured fox I will see about clarification at WP:VP/P. By the way my previous ISP gave my location as Whitehorse, Yukon, Kugluktuk, Inuvik and Cambridge Bay, only one of which was correct. Hmmm, before I was 104.160.220.65 in Winnipeg and now I have moved to 104.160.220.100 which is in Rankin Inlet, not a place I really want to live. Well, I must away and stuff a 19 year old female in my water tank. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Really..? Are you a taxidermist now? (Was that in fact a stuffed fox?) Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
No an ordinary human female. It's a strange Arctic ritual. All our water is trucked in and sewage trucked out. Every few years we get our water tanks cleaned out. This involves draining the tank and getting in it. Given that there is 12 in (300 mm) gap between the top of the water tank and the ceiling it takes a really particular body shape to get in. The woman that is to do it this year felt that she couldn't get in. I felt that getting in was the easy bit but getting her out was going to be the hard part. So we are going to cut a hole in the ceiling and have a permanent access put in. So now you know why weird 60 year old white males are putting 19 year old Inuk women in water tanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This could very well be one of the most fascinating stories I have every read on Wikipedia.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I know! I'm proud to host it! Bishonen | talk 18:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Could get you arrested any where else Face-wink.svg Muffled Pocketed 18:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
We even have an article on it. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This sounds a bit like Victorian chimney sweeps in terms of the demand for small and often underage people who fit into tight spaces. If it's any consolation, CBW, here on the Big Island of Hawaii, most of us go through a somewhat similar but opposite ritual for our water, in that there is no piped-in water but only water we catch from our roofs into tanks. The tanks require regular cleaning and weekly disinfection. Once I found a very decomposed dead rat in mine. Yum... Softlavender (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
And I was reminded of the recent underground astronauts. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, the nineteen year-old may not be only female... Muffled Pocketed 19:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well it doesn't have to be a female. In other years they have used males. We actually tried to put my 12 year old grandson in but he couldn't make it. The water is pumped up from a lake about 4 km (2.5 mi) from town through an underground pipe into town where it is pumped into trucks (just visible on the right). Every so often somebody claims that they found a fish in their tank. Not true as the filters are too small. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You may still have fish in there, just not whole ones. I know of a Canadian city where a major brewery was having a tough time keeping their water filters clear. Apparently eels drawn into the city water supply intakes from the reservoir were being mushed by the city's filters, and the resulting goo was clogging the brewery's filters. As the brewmaster explained it to me, to keep their products tasting the same across the country regardless of the local water supply, the supply waters had to be filtered to an extremely pure state to ensure that all of the breweries were starting with the same water. In effect, everything was filtered out, and then any required/desired ions for flavour were reintroduced. The brewery was very popular with the filter media distributor. Meters (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Gurjar[edit]

Hi i just saw the revert. i wanted to ask what is the reason behind removal of sourced material . All the theories exist, we beleive in that so why is that article only on the gujjars of india and not on gujjars overall of which the majority resides in Pakistan. Can you please add the material back as that has been verified by renowned historians not by me personally. I would appreciate this. This guy louis argon has removed plenty of sourced material which means we cant even put information with references. can you please have a look in this matter. Saladin1987 19:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the number of references, Saladin1987, but about the quality. To be a reliable source, it's not enough for a theory to exist — far from it. Please use academic and up-to-date sources. Do not on any account use sources as old as Cunningham (1871) (even if he is renowned). And as for the Global Journal of Engineering, Science and Social Science Studies, it's an obscure journal which shouldn't be used. See this note on the article talkpage by User:Doug Weller. Do you ever read the talkpage? It would be much better to discuss sources there, with people who are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm not; I'm just an admin. For instance, asking your question there, and for example replying to Doug's post, would be more constructive than asking me about it. It's what article talkpages are for. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

Saladin1987[edit]

Hello Bish. FYI I have just posted a level-3-warning on their talk page for unexplained and undiscussed POV removal of sourced content on Gilgit-Baltistan and History of Gilgit-Baltistan, edits that show that Saladin is back to his old habits (check his talk page for previous warnings and his block log for what he has been blocked for...). Cheers /Tom Thomas.W talk 21:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's time. I don't know why he ignored my reply above and stated he was still waiting for it. Anyway, topic banned for six months. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC).
Dear Bishonen, there are other users that are ready to reinstate the problematic stuff of Saladin1987 [18]. You would see perfectly sourced content deleted and replaced with Saladin's OR (with two spurious citations, p. 297 of the book is the last page of the index!) Perhaps a warning would be in order? In fact, the only thing this user seems to do in a day's work is to revert me or other editors that he wants to pick on [19]. It is becoming a huge time sink. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Contributions with seconds[edit]

Re our discussion here, I thought I should give that page a rest so am replying here. It's a bit weird, but it is possible to see a timestamp including seconds, and I think I once saw a mention of a JavaScript tool that includes that feature. However, with patience you can construct the URL needed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=usercontribs
&ucdir=newer                        show oldest contrib first
&ucuser=Bishonen                    user name with "_" instead of space
&ucstart=20120823000000             yyyy mm dd HH MM SS
&uclimit=5                          number of contribs to show

Putting that all together gives this link. The second result has timestamp "2012-08-23T11:36:16Z" which means what you would expect: 2012-August-23 at time 11:36:16. I can't compete with other sections on this page, but you could consult Zulu time#Time zones for info regarding "Z". Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Jat people[edit]

Hello, Bishonen. A user is destroying the whole balance of the Jat people article by removing relevant well-sourced content & replacing it with some frivolous info. Can you do anything regarding it? - NitinMlk (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What "balance"? Wikipedia allows editing to improve the pages. I am only editing it as per the citations provided, the above user just vandalized all my edits by reverting them, no explanation given. It was an act of vandalism on his part, I invite him on talk page. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Barthateslisa: The existing content that you removed with this edit just destroyed the whole subsection. I leave it up to the discretion of Bishonen. - NitinMlk (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
With this edit, I have removed POV by an author, to give the section a neutral tone, also I have added content relevant to the section, backed by citation. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

12 years.[edit]

BishFamily.png
  • OMG, it is twelve years today, how awful! Well spotted, NQ. And I note Bishzilla has been here for 9 years, 8 months, and 14 days (she has one of those self-congratulatory boxes). That may well mean ten years, actually, because she edited as an IP for a few months and (crossing out! nonsense, Bishonen!) was a fêted IRC personality before she registered an account. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC).
10 July

Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - + 12 years Bishonen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You're far too merciful...[edit]

2 weeks? The editor is WP:NOTHERE.

Sorry if I seem critical, but it doesn't seem like giving disruptive SPAs ROPE serves any worthwhile function. It's not like the user has some history of constructive contributions.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If they sock, file an SPI. Simple. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I agree they seem unpromising, Hijiri 88, but I scruple to go straight from a 48-hour block to indef. I've e-mailed you about your other comments. Bishonen | talk 18:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC).

TheLongTone, again...[edit]

He's just nominated Murder of Kylie Maybury for deletion. You know, that murder case that's been mentioned in books, had an extensive 30th anniversary article in the press and has had recurring publicity for the last 32 years. One of his acolytes, if not him himself, didn't take defeat in the Riley Ann Sawyers AfD too well and sent me a transphobic email (I'm a trans man). Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I warned TheLongTone about their personal attacks ("sickos") in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers, I remember. Anyway, you don't have to put up with abusive e-mails. I suggest you report it to ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC).
this diff indicates he has a personal grudge against Murder of... articles. Speedy close of the Kylie Maybury AfD as it is clearly motivated by an emotional grudge and maliciousness? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry i didnt realise i was shopping. I just feel action is urgent. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I even more strongly recommend you to take it to ANI. For my part, I don't find the diff you link to heinous.[20] But I do think you should act wrt the abusive email (which, if I understand you, was from another user?). Bishonen | talk 18:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC).
It may not be heinous but it indicates he has a grudge against murder victim and disappearance victim articles on the en-wikipedia. He's nominating articles in bad faith and because of an emotional grudge and obsession. He is harming the project. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned on ANI[edit]

I mentioned you and a topic related to you in an ANI that can be found here. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bhumihar[edit]

The article is under DS extended confirmed but the talk page has now become a bit of a forum. It isn't affecting regular editing so I'm hesitant to place it under DS like Talk:Nair. Do you think a long term semi for the talk page might be helpful? —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's a good idea. At present, it looks like Sitush will be in an endless debate with moving IPs. Semi protection will at least constrain the sources of the debate. --regentspark (comment) 15:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I ignore them for much of the time. I've just collapsed the latest bunch, which I first noticed some days ago. I thought the collapse rationale might be the best way to get the message across. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing seems a good idea. As long as no good users are inveigled into wasting a lot of time and patience engaging with these IPs (who would surely do better contributing to a caste forum, and find it less frustrating), semi for the talkpage seems a bit drastic IMO. And actually, so far recently it's one IP. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
It's every edit from Aug 23, 2015 when Christich was topic banned. Some time wasting of reverts and discussion has happened but none of the non autoconfirmed edits are related to the article since then. They are all just forumy theorizing. But I get your point, that's the reason I didn't feel comfortable doing it without some sort of discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 15:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of that topic ban. If you think the IP posts are related, I wouldn't mind having a look. Maybe you didn't spell the name right? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
Wasn't Chrishitch topic banned for basically repeatedly pushing a pro-Brahmin stance, while the IPs are doing the opposite? I've lost track because I'm not good at spotting patterns. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they are two different poles on this dispute, not related except for the disruption aspect. It was the same issue at Nair with two groups fighting it out, as is the case with many of these caste pieces. —SpacemanSpiff 16:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There are some really useless posts at Talk:Bhumihar, but not yet a large number. Sitush collapsed one thread. The comments by that IP would be enough to block the editor for disruption or vandalism, if it were an account: "if you see a bhumihar and a cobra, you should kill the bhumihar first, because a bhumihar is more deadly". (In the US we might call those comments racist, depending on what group was attacked). So on grounds of nastiness I'd lean toward at least three months of semiprotection of the talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say I missed that choice remark. (That's the trouble with these TLDR caste warriors, at least for me — I skim.) It's a static IP, so as a first attempt to stem the flow, I've blocked it for a month. If those types of posts continue from other IPs, I certainly won't object to semi per Ed. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
I was trying to collapse several consecutive sections in one hit. It seems that doesn't work. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we'll be semi protecting it soon, this IP belongs to Level 3 Communications and I distinctly remember blocking an IP from their Broomfield, CO office for some other such stuff in the past and then it resumed via a Comcast cable internet connection. The posts by the IP are not very different from some stuff (probably deleted) at Talk:Ezhava and Talk:Thiyya when the Nair sock farms were active. Unfortunately, there's not enough time to police all this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

...for cleaning up on Jens Stoltenberg. What was shocking, was that the vandalism was there for hours ...and, over the years, I have noted other (equally infantile) vandalism also being there for ages. One problem is that there are only 84 editors "watching" that page, (while it gets on average 500 views a day) ...do you know how we could get more people "watching" it? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Huldra. Theoretically, I suppose a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway would be the thing, but I can't say I have much faith in it. The project's talkpage doesn't seem very active (few of them are). Asking for watchers on ANI is probably better — those always seem to get a few responses from experienced editors, at least. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC).
Ok, thanks, I´ll try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway first, and see if that works. If not; then ANI next, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Purple Prose barnstar?[edit]

Do we have a barnstar for Purple Prose? 1963 English Greyhound Derby and its related articles would deserve it! I am suspecting a copyvio but will await input from the main contributor. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, just about every article they have written re: greyhound racing seems to be a copyvio of various pages on a website, eg: this is at Lifford Greyhound Stadium. There are a lot of them. I'm wondering whether they control that site. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Gaffney[edit]

He's notable for being accused by far-left extremists of being a conspiracy theorist. The "well sourced" sources belong in that category. I see you've decided by consensus to be blatantly POV in this article. I don't have time for an edit war, so revert it back, but you folks are the reason Wikipedia gets a bad name when it comes to political topics.

I have already replied on your page. Please sign posts on talkpages with four tildes (~~~~), which will create a signature when you save. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
As have I, in case you are not watching! -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel pinging Jimbo to say I'm a notorious white supremacist[edit]

See [21] - note he edited his own talk page with that IP address. Isn't this pathetic. Ah, he's back now using edit summaries for the same attack.[22] Doug Weller talk 11:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I blocked some of his ranges back in the day, but it does risk a certain amount of collateral damage. Ah, what the hell, I'll block 71.127.128.0/20 and 71.246.144.0/20 for a month. They're very nearly all Til, certainly recently, and pretty nasty.[23][24] Right? Let me know if you have some objection from a CU point of view. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC).
@Doug Weller: could work a filter if the LTA is widespread enough? I'm not overly familiar with Til, but my test filter gets good matches against this wonderful phrase -- samtar talk or stalk 11:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not using CU here of course. There's a 3rd range now. User:Samtar, thanks. I'm not sure that specific abuse is widespread enough, he sometimes uses other terms. And only in response to me - at least I assume it is, maybe he's attacking me on articles I never visit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs)
(edit conflict) Okay, no worries :) I'll keep a half eye on it -- samtar talk or stalk 12:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how much use this whack-a-range is, but it always makes Til furious, so it must be doing something. I've blocked 172.58.176.0/20 as well. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. Dealing with a family problem right now (lost credit cards in Charles de Gaulle airport) and then off to pick up wife and daughter from airport this side of the channel! Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, this particular Til Eulenspiegel's pranks are not so merry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hehe, it's the little Heim prankster! Hasn't completely forgotten his friends! bishzilla ROARR!! 09:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

This is ... interesting[edit]

Hey. Thought you might be interested in taking a look at Stefanomione's user page and its recent history, as you imposed their topic ban based on community consensus. It's not a violation of the topic ban as best I can tell, but neither is it the sign of an editor moving on and improving the encyclopedia in areas other than those they caused problems in. ~ Rob13Talk 08:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those edits keep turning up on my watchlist, so I've already thought about it. But it's his userpage. He's making a point, yes, but I can't see it doing any harm. We've topic banned him, it was necessary but was obviously a blow, and I'd rather not compound it by engaging him about this. We can't exactly force people to show signs of moving on. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
Yeah, I know, I just thought you should be aware of it. Nothing that he's doing is actively harmful at the moment, but obsession usually doesn't end well. More often than not, this sort of behavior is followed with an editor disappearing, exploding, or slowly marching toward an indefinite block. ~ Rob13Talk 09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Those are definitely possible scenarios but I don't see anything positive coming out of taking any action now. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you allowing Wikihounding/Stalking and abusive comments on talk pages?[edit]

This editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SchroCat is stalking pages I edit to keep up the garbage he has done since beginning this nonsense. Clear evidence of disruptive editing designed to piss off other editors. He has been doing this for over 6 hours and apparently likes to do this and has been "blocked" before here for abusing other editors https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=202384753 and abusive comments like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172.56.12.50&diff=next&oldid=731426271 any vaguely sentient being with a couple of brain cells to rub together which you read and said nothing about. I have never commented on their talk page and will not be drawn into intentional taunting here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=731443668#Talk:Gun_show_loophole stating I'll not remove it: I'm sure it would only inflame them further Petty solid evidence of disruptive editing, edit warring, and abusing other editors. He has violated 3R many times in the article and talk page as well. 172.56.12.50 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons is a complete shit show. What happens there correlates negatively with common sense and decency. As soon as you cited that, it was clear that you are the aggressor, not the victim. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, J. I don't think SchroCat's response to me on his own page was objectionable, especially given that people have somewhat greater leeway on their own pages. But both of you should stop talking about (and hinting about) the other. As for stalking, please don't link (for the nth time) to SchroCat's block on Commons a year ago. Give some specific and recent (you seem to speak of the past 6 hours) evidence — examples — of stalking, i.e. following you to pages he hasn't edited before, and I'll look into it. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
Adding: OK, I see you can't respond because you've been blocked (not by me or Jehochman). Bishonen | talk 12:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
  • I'm not sure whether this is the same individual (presumably, given the timing etc, but trying to AGF), buut I appear to have an IP stalker who is undoing some of the edits I've done recently. As at their 13:53, 25 July 2016 edit on Billing (filmmaking), every one of the edits has been to revert one of my earlier ones... The new user's history is here. Also pinging Acroterion, who had one of their edits reverted too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry: blocked by Ymblanter while I was typing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This page is the anti-ANI. If you post here, you'll get immediate attention from a group of admins who care about human decency, and are skeptical of rules lawyering. Jehochman Talk 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I probably shouldn't comment here but Jehochman please. The behaviour you show at this page during this discussion can hardly be called human dencency. I tried to calm this user down because the conflict was exported to Commons and yet I see you undoing this work by steering up the drama with rude comments unworthy of any admin. Natuur12 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with you 100%. You should not comment here. Jehochman Talk 12:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You've been...[edit]

Row-by vandalism in action!

...GALLEYED!

Peter Isotalo 17:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Very fine conveyance, thank you. Does "galleyed" mean I get to water-ski after the galley? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
No, no, it’s obviously[original research?] the French form of …
… WALLEYED!

Odysseus1479 21:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. But only at RAMMING SPEED. Bring yer whip.
Peter Isotalo 21:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of the MythBusters test of waterskiing behind a rowboat.[25] Good stuff. Maybe I could ski behind that big fish, too. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
Sadly, neither the galley nor the fish can sustain the speeds needed to water-ski. My experience is that around 18 to 20 knots (33 to 37 km/h; 21 to 23 mph) is required otherwise I sink. Judging by this, 'Zilla also needs the speed. --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, no puny boats required.[26]
Peter Isotalo 18:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see the old girl giving the little users a treat, RexxS : great fun for them to watch her water-skiing with a front-row splashing thrown in, almost like at Seaworld. I suppose those standing on the pier are the pocket guests, temporarily let out for a special day. [Bishonen peers, tries to identify the little Bigfoot.] Hmm, not sure. I pictured him differently.[27] And you're right, Peter. Like I recently pointed out on ANI, when Bishzilla swoops, lightning stands still. Bishonen | talk 03:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC).
You found the movie of me grannie...caught in the buff after what was suppose to be a peaceful dip but so rudely interrupted by less evolved humanoids. If only I'd been more than a wee lad then, heads woulda rolled I tell you.--MONGO 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the pics, I think we have a truly AWSM movie pitch on our hands: Mutant Walleye vs. Giga-Galley. Tagline suggestions?
Peter Isotalo 08:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu again[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.79.191.29 Need a fresh block and protection on the pages they are editing. --Tarage (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Would you like your own pages semiprotected, Tarage? Bishonen | talk 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
Sure, thanks. --Tarage (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.56.13.146 --Tarage (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.56.7.51 --Tarage (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

European wages[edit]

You have to explain me why you blocked me.TechnicianGB and Absolutepuremilk added the net average wage for Italy from a private source and not from the national statistic agency like for all other states as required in the article.That value 1560€ and the reference related must be deleted. They are vandals.Without the page of ISTAT as reference Italy at the moment has NO official national data as required in the article.Thanks.Sad9721 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's actually quite strange to me that you simply went on making the same edits that you were blocked for when your block expired. People have explained to you again and again that you must give a reference where the reader can see the figures you give. You don't give a reference at all in the article — you just remove the Forex reference, replacing it with nothing, and when discussing on talk, you say the reference must be istat.it. That's a big site, not a reference showing your figures. You're new, and I'm sure people would be willing to help you find the proper reference, but in fact nobody has been able to locate the figure you give at istat.it. You don't seem to hear what they tell you. I'll give you one last chance: find the url at istat.it that proves what you say, and put it either on the article or its talkpage — or feel free to put it here on my page, if you like. If you continue to edit in the same way without providing this url, you will be blocked for a longer period. Please try to get your head round what you've been told. Don't edit again until you understand it. This is your last chance. I've c rossposted this warning to your own page to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
I didn't add any data.I just deleted their data that aren't the ones required in the article.They are posting data of a private company named JP that isn't at all the natonal italian agency of statistic.Article requires that one.So how can they post ?That's a no correct data and so vandalism.The guy TechnicianGB that should be serbian and not spanish and even offended me is lasting in his acting.He must blocked and banned because of vandalism.Sad9721 (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
(Please indent your posts with colons on discussion pages. Look in edit mode to see how I do it.) Right, you just removed the data and the source that were there without adding any of your own. The figure and the source you removed have WP:consensus on the talkpage, so it's no good calling them vandalism and it's disruptive to remove them. Look, if you simply run your own race as a new user, without taking any account of what you're told by experienced users, you'll be in deep trouble. You've already been blocked once, and if you don't change your attitude you soon will be again. At least click on my link and read: WP:Consensus. And don't discuss what nationality people are, it's not your business. Only comment on content, don't make personal remarks about editors. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
Adding: but I see you have done it again, after my warning. You have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC).

AN/I[edit]

You're going to need this if you are going to haul Bish to ArbCom ;).

I should haul you to ArbCom, disruptin' my closes... -- samtar talk or stalk 10:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[Bishzilla, uncomprehending but a bit worried, hauls little Samtar off to her pocket for safekeeping. She can be quite protective of the little ‘shonen.] bishzilla ROARR!! 22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) Sure, but if you want to haul Bishonen to ArbCom, I suggest you give DRS a call and ask them to supply a Class 57/3 locomotive to haul Bishonen over to ArbCom (get it)? Class455fan1 (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:AdamSmith12 ignoring blocks[edit]

Hi Bishonen,

AdamSmith12, whom you blocked previously, is still removing deletion notices. His user and talk pages redirect to Adamsmith, so warnings appear in the wrong place. --Slashme (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello Slashme the article Namrata Sapkota have issues before and i have edited and fix the issues but why you put deletion tag again and again. Did you check article before and after ? Did you notice other article ? How you trying to revert deletion tag again and again ?? I know before there was issues on the article but i have already edited all and fix the dead link !! AdamSmith12 (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The AfD template explicitly tells you not to remove it. This is, and let me be very clear about this, regardless of the merits of the AfD nomination. If you've been blocked for this behaviour before, repeating it could lead to a very long block or even a ban. Don't do it again. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi all. TomStar81 has blocked AdamSmith12 for 3RR vio for 24 hours (rather short, considering previous concerns and block). Sadly it looks like there will soon have to be an indefinite block due to competence and IDHT problems. Anyway, Slashme, since the user has ignored my questions about the illogical and unhelpful redirects of the userpages, I have boldly reversed them, so that the account actually used, User:AdamSmith12, is now the one you get to when you click on their signature, and posts will appear in the right place. ("Adamsmith" is already procedurally indeffed because it was a confusing and unused account.) Bishonen | talk 10:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC).
Thank you all. No-one will be surprised to here that it made its way to ANI- WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AdamSmith12 ignoring warnings. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 11:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Nepalirider123 block[edit]

Hi, I noticed that Nepalirider123 was blocked for being a sockpuppeteer of AdamSmith12. Yes I know this is crazy because they have close interaction with eachother and other stuff you pointed out at his talkpage but the thing here is that I've opened a SPI case regarding them a while back and the checkuser has confirmed that they're unrelated to eachother. They were also suspected at another SPI and the checkuser has confirmed that they're unrelated again. So, maybe Nepalirider123 might be telling the truth at his talkpage. I'm just letting you know. Thanks. Ayub407talk 17:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that the checkuser tool cannot "confirm" a negative. "Unrelated" only means that there are no visible technical connections between the accounts. Checkuser data cannot override common sense and obvious socking because it's too easy to manipulate. This is noted in the second paragraph of the Checkuser policy page "Conclusions derived from checkuser data have limited usefulness, and a negative finding by a checkuser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry."--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. Ayub407talk 19:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(I didn't realize there were so many pretty pictures on Bishonen's Talk page.) Don't ever trust a CheckUser when they quote policy. Ponyo, of course, is speaking for herself. My checks are infallible.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all. There are pretty pictures on my page and some even prettier links, Bbb23. For instance this from crazy water denizen RexxS. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC).

Unblock the original Adamsmith account[edit]

Since that block a week ago was in error, and in fact the original Adamsmith is a completely innocent user who may one day wish to edit again after his break (he seems to return every one to three years), could you please unblock his account: [28], and remove the unwarranted redirects from his TP and userpage? -- Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose one can assume "our" Adam Smith doesn't have the password to that account, so OK. In fact, good idea. But isn't it amazing the amount of trouble one foolish young user, who isn't even indeffed (yet), can cause, with some assistance from another foolish user. Grumpf. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC).
Thanks very much. Yikes, now I see more problems: The talk page [29] is actually still the talkpage of the Nepali editor. But the Nepali editor also has a completely separate talk page [30]. It's apparently all because of the hijacking -- but should those two TP histories be merged at the Nepali editor's TP (and removed from the victim's TP history [unless we still need it as evidence at ANI, etc.]?)? Also the Nepali editor had yet another username even before Rajusharmaofc -- see the edit at the bottom of that first TP history: used to be Websolutionnepal. Paging Bbb23 and Kudpung. Frankly, the two Nepali editors have violated WP:HONEST so many times it wouldn't seem out of the question to me to show both of them the door. Softlavender (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Bhumihar caste warrior/glorifier[edit]

Pandit4580 (talk · contribs) has a long history of pov-pushing regarding the Bhumihar caste. That particular article is under 500/30 restrictions but it is not stopping them from continuing their campaign at other articles, always unsourced etc and with inflammatory talk page messages. I issued an ARBIPA notice but they seem still to be NOTHERE. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I was looking, but now I see Utcursch has indeffed them. Just as well. I was thinking in terms of a TBAN, but it's really the same thing when they only have one interest. A lot simpler, too, and as Utcursch says in the block log, there are clearly competence concerns as well as intransigence. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC).

h

Should I have to put up with this?[edit]

I accept some "rough and tumble" in debate, but should I have to put up with this comment from John Cline? As you know, I rarely drink alcohol, so I find the "in a drunken stupor" jibe very inappropriate, but the "seek medical attention right away for an apparent decline of cognition" is simply beyond the pale for me. I know I'm advanced in years, but I don't see that as a reason why I should have to accept another editor casting aspersions on my mental abilities. --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, I winced when I read that, and consider it to be an ill-thought out comment, at best. But having said that, and playing devil's advocate here, would he have been expected to know what your drinking habits were? Also, I see he did redact it when he saw that it upset you. Oh, and by the way; you're only as old as you feel. Face-wink.svg -- CassiantoTalk 22:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was disagreeable; a good example of the kind of thing people would probably never say face to face, but (I suppose) think is merely jokey in text. He did redact it, though. I'm always sorry to see the anger infoboxes (of all things, seriously) give rise to. I see it's gone to ARCA now. I'm so glad I'm not an arb. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC).
I don't suppose the vast majority of editors would be aware of the old maxim "don't drink and dive", so he couldn't be expected to know. On the other hand, I do know folks who have (or have had) problems with alcoholism, and it's really not a joking matter. As for infobox anger, I just don't understand it. It genuinely doesn't bother me when an article has no infobox, and I would never have been the person to add one to Holst's article. But when I see that somebody's added a hidden comment telling other editors not to add an infobox, even though there has never been any debate about it, I felt obliged to support the editor who removed the comment. --Don Quixote de la Mancha (tilt) 15:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Crazy Aces?[edit]

What do you think? [31] Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think yes. If it's not a sock, it's surely a meatpuppet. But the name suggests sock. Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Thank you, Niteshift36. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC).

Whoa[edit]

What happened to your table of contents? Altamel (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that before; that's pretty cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It is skewed like the scenes whenever they were at the villains hideouts in this version of Batman. Speaking of skewed could I do so any older :-) Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
By "this version" of Batman, I assume you mean "the one true version" of Batman. I showed an episode to my stupid kids the other day, and they pronounced it "weird" and "dumb". So I've disinherited them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Well Floq, I know it was a tough decision but it had to be done - Hee Hee. OTOH weird can be glorious and you might have set them on the road to enjoying that one day :-) Bish I like the pic you found for those of us to see when we edit your talk page. Now if we could just get Stan and Ollie to dance on somewhere in it!! MarnetteD|Talk 02:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello little stalkers. Darwinbish saw a tipsy TOC like that on somebody's page and gave me one. Ollie and Stan got deleted, shame! And another shame is that apparently I can't use this supercool animated version of tipsy, where Bishapod gets really seasick, on Wikipedia. Or so User:RexxS says.[32] Why, Rex? Won't it work, or is it just verboten? Bishonen | talk 07:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
@Bish: Whoa, indeed!!! Thats cool. I should spend more time visiting your talk page. :-), Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
To get it to work, it needs the @keyframes wobble to be created in a cascading style sheet (you can't define it in-line). You could do that in your own Special:Mypage/common.css, but sadly only you would then see it. We would need to convince the folks at Mediawiki:Common.css to include the @keyframes stuff, and they don't have a huge reputation for granting fun requests. --RexxS (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Newbie accounts edit warring in Maya (illusion)[edit]

@Bish: See Maya (illusion) where an edit war and persistent disruption since January 2016 by @Kashmiri has flared for the third time. Professors such as Jan Gonda and others were apparently incompetent and not reliable for @Kashmiri in the past, now not qualified/needed and can be mass deleted in @Kashmiri's view, with an edit war. Again. A newbie account has joined the "lets delete scholarly sources and sourced content" edit war. I am wondering what is the best way (semi-protect?) to deal with SPA newbie accounts adding to the disruption? There is an RSN in progress on this, fwiw. @RexxS has joined the discussion on that article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi makes sense. Done, for one week. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
And now at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, despite a clear note at the top of the page "Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.", Kashmiri has re-engaged in personal attacks on Ms Sarah Welch:
  • "Ms Sarah Welch has shamelessly manipulated my words"
Kashmiri's whole contribution there is an ad hominem argument that Sarah Welch isn't a Sanskrit scholar and shouldn't be arguing with someone who is. Is there sufficient to ask for WP:AC/DS or do you think I should pursue a request for a topic ban at WP:AN? --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
AN? Like, propose a community topic ban? No, don't do that, RexxS, I don't think you'll raise enough interest. WP:AE, if anything. But I'll take a look, tomorrow at the latest, so I'd wait for that if I were you. As I explained a little while ago to a user I had topic banned, they're discretionary sanctions, i. e. they're within admin discretion. Note also that I have warned the user (promptly removed, just like your own warning). I don't have any time right now, and of course I can't promise anything, but I'll definitely take a look later. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the advice, Chère; I'm not a frequent visitor to the Great Dismal Swamp, and I'm happy to avoid it. I'm not in any rush anyway, unless some more meat/sock-puppets turn up. I'm hopeful that Kashmiri will realise that the policies on sourcing aren't subject to his own idiosyncratic views, and that he'll lay off Sarah Welch. Let's see how it all pans out. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The user is not acting in a very agreeable or collaborative way, certainly, RexxS; removing all criticism and warnings from their page seems contemptuous of others' opinions, and the remarks on RSN and elsewhere about Ms Sarah Welch's editing are overly personal. However, I don't see anything actionable at present. The removal of posts on their talkpage is allowed, as you know, and they have been warned about civility, by both you and me. Nothing more to be done right now IMO, though of course you can take it to WP:AE if you think other admins will view it differently. (And please let me know if there should be something outrageous.) Bishonen | talk 15:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Image questions at Austen page[edit]

Over the week-end I did put in a renomination of the Austen page now that the GOCE review was done for the article. Someone has made inquiry there concerning some of the images on the FA assessment page (version II) which I thought you might be able to look at. The images were selected by the late Wadewitz and although I could easily exchange them for other Austen related images, I did want to be respectful of the choices which the late Wadewitz made when she originally included those images now under question. Possibly you could let me know which images need to be updated and which ones replaced. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've amended the Commons Copyright tags of some of the images to something that may be more acceptable. Perhaps 'Shonen will check them out for you. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps *I* will check them out? RexxS is obviously poking fun at me, Fountains-of-Paris. He understands these things and I don't. I hope his updates have solved the problem. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
Its nice to see a little humour in this corner of Wikipedia. I think the ammendation of RexxS are useful changes to these images issue there at Austen [33]. The new assessment seems to be off to a slow start, possibly the slow summer month of August, though if time allows you might check my wording in introducing the new assessment to see if its ok. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just applied a few accessibility fixes for you and done an accessibility review at the FAC. There's a convention among reviewers that they generally ignore accessibility, but our best articles really ought to be accessible, and I don't see any problem in reminding them that Jane Austen is a good example. --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I'm willing to make a small wager that somebody will complain that in the references, the capitalisation of Ed./ed. is inconsistent and that Wiltshire's two monographs are not in chronological order. But those are the only problems I could spot. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Those were very nice changes you made, RexxS, and I am supporting you in your trying to reason with User:Ling at the assessment page for Austen. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Heads up on topic ban appeal[edit]

Hi Bishonen, I thought I'd drop you a line to note that your February 2016 topic ban of Sfarney (talk · contribs) from Rick Alan Ross has effectively been superseded and extended by a one-year ban from the entire Scientology topic area, imposed by The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) and confirmed by the community. Sfarney is currently appealing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Scientology. If you have any comments you're welcome to add them there. Prioryman (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Prioryman. Well, there's one way it's not superseded: my topic ban from a sensitive BLP was indefinite, and I believe should remain so, whereas the much broader Scientology topic ban is for one year. Perhaps I'd better point that out on ARCA. Hmmm... no... it doesn't seem very relevant, after all. I don't see any suggestion that the Rick Alan Ross ban might/should/would/could expire when the Scientology ban does. Never mind, then. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Discretionary sanctions at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

Greetings, I'm reaching out to you since you've been engaged in enforcing discretionary sanctions at the Trump articles. An edit I made to consolidate sections and remove redundant content was reverted at this article. The revert had the effect of restoring the redundant content (reference to March 2016 letter). I notified the editor of the issue and requested a self-rv, but that has been disregarded. The editor has been previously notified that discretionary sanctions are in effect at the article. Can you please take a look and confirm whether discretionary sanctions have been violated? (Ping: User:Gouncbeatduke) Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pardon my lack of understanding, but when I read the DS notice, it says "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm 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." Doesn't this mean that for sanctions to be breached, there has to be (1) an edit; (2) a reversion of that edit; and (3) a reinstatement of that edit without talk page consensus? I can only see two edits in your sequence. I can't see where Gouncbeatduke reinstated an edit that had been challenged (by reversion). Am I missing something? --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's the original edit. My edit essentially removed this content. GouncbeatDuke's edit restored that content.CFredkin (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
And here's a reciprocal example.... I made a number of edits] at Hillary Clinton. Gouncbeatduke reverted them en masse with the edit summary "The old version of this was much better than the new one for many reasons, please bring changes to the talk page". Instead of restoring my edits, I started a Talk page discussion. However if I've been operating with a mistaken understanding of this DS requirement, I'd like to know. I can then edit accordingly moving forward.CFredkin (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's too complicated for me to fathom tonight, CFredkin, since a number of changes and moving-around of content were involved. (It's too late in my timezone for that kind of thing. And in RexxS's timezone too, one would think, but he seems to be annoyingly alert at all hours, so I daresay he's got it right.) I'll look properly tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
OK. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, let's hope a good night's sleep has restored my wits, CFredkin. So Gouncbeatduke didn't restore their own edit, they restored Melanie's edit. (That means your "reciprocal example" isn't the same thing.) I had to think about it to conclude that the DS page notice on article talk actually refers to any edit, not just to any edit by the person themselves. And I'm still not 100% sure. A new user such as GBD can hardly be expected to figure out subtleties that admins are uncertain about. Also, after their edit, GBD promptly started a discussion of the issue on talk. Pace RexxS, I think your complaint is technically correct, but is overly technical. By contrast, I have in fact been concerned about GBD's editing as regards civility — in fact, though I didn't mention names, some of their posts were the immediate occasion for my general "civility warning" on Talk:Donald Trump.[34] But as far as I've seen, they were only rude when quite new, and before my general warning — calling you a vandal, for instance, which is quite unacceptable — but have posted properly since then. Water under the bridge, in other words. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for taking the time to look into this. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like my interpretation of the DS requirement is correct, but that your inclination is to give Gouncbeatduke a pass in this instance given his relative inexperience. I can understand that. But I think it would be worthwhile to consider pointing out to him/her that technically he/she violated the requirement. Otherwise, I don't think his/her behavior will change. (He/she is certainly ignoring my warnings.)CFredkin (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, CFredkin, but I'd rather not. My momentum re the Donald Trump articles drained out of me when I got this crap on my page for my efforts there. (We're all volunteers, and sometimes we lose heart.) I didn't mind responding to your polite query, but that's as far as I'll go. Unless I see extraordinary cause, I'm not going to sanction or warn anybody for their editing there any more. If it's worth it to you to get GBD warned, I'm afraid you'll have to either appeal to another admin or take it to ANI or WP:AE. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
I feel like I'm walking through a minefield when I'm adminning there. One wrong word and I'll have editors yelling about how I'm showing favoritism to the "other" side. We really need something short of AE to handle the day to day stuff on those set of articles. I'd love it if we could set up a page where editors could go for their DS questions and requests and a panel of three admins would answer them. --NeilN talk to me 17:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
What this place needs is an administrator that would happily block everybody and that's former admin MONGO!!! VOTE MONGO FOR ADMINISTRATOR 2016!!!--MONGO 08:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
MONGO FOR ADMIN!!!

Topic Bans[edit]

Hi Bishonen. Just to clarify - a topic ban from Donald Trump related articles also covers noticeboards and other drama pages, and specifically reports which involve Donald Trump articles on these boards, right? (At least that's how these t-bans have been interpreted in the past).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, Volunteer Marek. A topic ban applies to all pages with the exception of appealing the ban at some appropriate board. Are you thinking of anybody in particular? Bishonen | talk 13:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
I don't want to pretend to speak for Volunteer Marek, but I had a similar question when reviewing Doc9871's edits to this page. At the time, the close of the case against Doc9871 was still viewable on the main page as he made his remarks against Volunteer Marek (the one who initiated the initial AE request against Doc). I'm still new here, but it struck me as odd that it would be permissible for such retaliatory remarks to be submitted as part of AE, particularly when the evidence in the scope of the case against VM falls under the topic ban prescribed. I consider myself a patient person, but I honestly can't understand how VM has made it this far in the process without giving up.
I would also note that another administrator, Coffee, essentially said that Doc's behavior was acceptable on another talk page [35]. I can't be sure if he meant that singular edit on the same talk page (the implication would be he was unaware of the context at AE) or if he meant the behavior at AE as well. Lizzius (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think it depends on the admin. I was blocked for supposedly violating my topic ban when I made a comment that had nothing to do with my topic ban at an AE action against someone where the underlying AE was about my topic ban. What I was told was that just commenting on the AE was a violation of my topic ban. So, if the AE request is about topic X and you are banned from topic X then commenting in the AE is a violation. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that makes sense, though I'm sorry it wasn't clear for you at the start, Sir Joseph. Just a note: looking closer at the history, it seems that Doc9871 made the edits to Drmies talk page before adding his opinion to AE, as though he took Coffee's reply (and implicit dismissal of any concerns VM may have had) as permission to proceed. I apologize if that assessment seems cynical. This case (and last month's case in American Politics 2) has shaken my trust in the admin corps, to say the least. Lizzius (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Coffee blocked me twice for editing those very specific discretionary sanctioned pages before Bishzilla's little topic ban. If anyone would know if there was "disruption" happening in that very specific topic area, one would think it would be Coffee. Right? Interacting with Volunteer Marek on something that has nothing to do with the topic I was banned from is not a violation of said topic ban. Absolutely reaching here, folks. Doc talk 14:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Commenting on an AE report filed against me in which my edits at the Donald Trump article are *exactly* the locus of dispute is a pretty clear violation of your topic ban. It is not "Interacting with Volunteer Marek on something that has nothing to do with the topic I was banned from". It has everything to do with your topic ban. What's worse, is that you got your topic ban for making personal attacks against me, and then you showed up at the WP:AE to continue this behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"It shows clear disregard for Wikipedia policies, a nasty WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, dishonesty, manipulation, obscurantism, tendentiousness and... very problematic POV." You hypocritically don't practice what you preach. Personal attacks against you are actual personal attacks, but you are above that sort of thing?! That's a blatant lie. Gimme a break! Doc talk 07:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"Bishzilla's little topic ban"? [Bishzilla's rare belly laugh rolls across Wikipedia, the mere sound waves sending the tiny little doc tumbling arse over tip.] Bishzilla bans never little! Always place BIG bans! bishzilla ROARR!! 16:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
Eh? I am being not banned by mighty 'Zilla. How positively exciting! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Banned? No, the little Less is being arrested! And stay there! Exciting, not exiting! No rope ladders in pies this time! bishzilla ROARR!! 16:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC).
Twice? That's cute. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, yeah, Coffee shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near admin tools, nor had his admin status reinstated after being desysopped. Since by some cosmic mistake of the universe, he is now an admin, he should still be kept as far away as possible from anything with the words "discretionary" and "sanctions" in it, since he doesn't seem to understand what the first word means and enjoys the second way too much. So I'm definitely sympathetic to anyone (yes, even including Doc9871) who's had the misfortune of falling victim to Coffee's erratic and immature behavior. But two wrongs don't make a right, Type I and Type II error and all that. The problem with Doc9871 is that *he knows* he's being disruptive and breaking his topic ban, but doesn't seem to care, because apparently it's more important to him to be able to throw insults and attacks at me than avoiding sanctions. I'd be entirely satisfied if he simply removed or stroke his comments at the WP:AE report. Otherwise, this is a pretty strong signal that their behavior is getting out of hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not striking one thing at the AE. I know that I am not being "disruptive" there; rather, you are trying to paint my comments as disruptive. It hasn't been working. Now at least 3 admins have not seen fit to take any action on your false allegation that I violated my topic ban. This includes the admin who blocked me twice, the admin who issued the topic ban, and an active arbitrator. They would know if the topic ban was violated a lot better than you! You can't expand my Trump topic ban to you and your broader activities simply because Trump falls into the American politics 2 realm. I can't currently edit Trump-related pages. I am absolutely not prohibited from commenting on you at AE. So give up trying to get me in trouble when I did nothing wrong. I've watched Bish's page for many years, BTW, and I'll leave this discussion now. Bye. Doc talk 05:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You are not only violating your topic ban you are doing so in a way which is exactly what you were topic banned for. You have no reason to comment here. Your only purpose is to insult and to try and exact petty revenge for some imagined wrong (even though your topic ban is entirely your own fault). Even IF this wasn't a topic ban violation, it would still be disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that the three admins I mentioned here, who have vastly more experience in these matters than you, are wrong while you are right? Are they just not "getting it"? You keep claiming that I "clearly" violated my topic ban. Well?! If it were so clear I would have been already been blocked for it! I am done arguing with you. Go write another novel at AE. See where that gets you. Doc talk 13:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasutra, AN?[edit]

Mayasutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

@Bish: It looks like @SpacemanSpiff is away since August 1 (good for him). He had issued a final warning to @Mayasutra in April 2016. But, @Mayasutra is back with personal attacks, this time in Kapila article, casting aspersions on @RexxS, and me here. It is not one time, but repetitive. The battleground approach of @Mayasutra is apparent in a response to @Diannaa, who cautioned @Mayasutra about large scale cut-paste from a non-free source here. Previously, @Mayasutra had taken a battleground approach with @Kautilya3, @RexxS and me in the Maya (illusion) article, and @SpacemanSpiff's final warning put an end to that episode. I have been cleaning up the article after @Mayasutra edits to Kapila, but the personal attacks and forum-y posts by @Mayasutra on the article talk page is not productive way forward. What are the right steps in such circumstances? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Right, it's a long-term problem. I've blocked for 48 hours. Ms Sarah Welch, are you trying to ping users by writing an "@"? Because that doesn't work. You have to either link their name like this [[User:SpacemanSpiff]] or use some ping template such as {{yo|SpacemanSpiff}}.
  • @Bish: Ahh!, so I was not using the ping template code properly!! I am quite clueless with these templates, frankly. Now I know. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

GRAVIS sock/meat[edit]

This new contributor looks like a duck for Milkmen437 (talk · contribs) and their other presumed sock, Niveditadhi (talk · contribs). Relates to that monstrous PR exercise at Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti and two related biographies. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked when I was processing a RFPP report. --NeilN talk to me 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've closed the SPI. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC).

Your note[edit]

I just saw what you said to me at another user's talk page, and I wanted to respond. In one fish's opinion, what you did was actually very helpful, so please don't feel aggravated about it. It's a tough talk page, where almost anything can get an unpredicted reaction. As for the point where you disagreed with me, in isolation, no obviously it doesn't look like harassment, but taken in the context of a long history, it was something I don't want to see repeating, and it arguably was. Not that I'm going to look for any action against the editor who sent the email, more like setting down a marker and saying don't do it any more. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Boilingorangejuice again[edit]

After this, this and this (with the first edit showing concern by Berean Hunter), Boilingorangejuice (talk · contribs) tried it again. Also see Boilingorangejuice's edits at Sex tourism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). We discussed that. I know that Legitimus has been concerned about Boilingorangejuice's edits. I'm not sure about Herostratus or KateWishing. But this editor's POV-editing on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics has weighed thin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 has a history of personal abuse against me. I have reported her several times for harassing me on wikipedia. She has reverted many of my edits. Based on her emotional response to pedophilia compromising the NPOV of many articles. Simple possession of child pornography is completely legal in Argentina once again she is trying to reframe the facts to suit her personal agenda.

"The Penal Code criminalizes facilitating, promoting, or benefitting economically from child prostitution.(36, 37) The Penal Code also prohibits the use of children in pornographic shows and in the production, publication, and distribution of child pornography. However, it does not criminalize the possession of child pornography for personal use.(25)"

https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/findings/2012TDA/argentina.pdf

Finally the user that reverted this change, berean Hunter is no longer active and most likely is a sock puppet controlled by flyer 22 as she has been banned for using dummy accounts in the past. "This user left Wikipedia. Berean Hunter has not edited Wikipedia using this account since February 14, 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else."Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello both. This matter has perhaps landed on my page a bit at random, and I'd frankly rather not deal with it. I understand that you're both at a bit of a loss where to go, especially since Berean Hunter hasn't edited since February, but this isn't a good place for it. I suggest WP:ANI. Just a note to you first, Boilingorangejuice: it's a really bad idea to throw out sock accusations at random. Berean Hunter has edited Wikipedia since 2007 and is a long-time administrator; the idea that he's "most likely a sock puppet controlled by Flyer 22" is far-fetched. I'd advise you not to repeat it on ANI. Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence, and you don't provide any evidence at all. Also, you see how many diffs Flyer provides, to enable the reader to check what she says? If this ends up on a noticeboard, you should do the same, not just say things like "Flyer22 has a history of personal abuse against me" and "I have reported her several times". Show, don't tell. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC).
I agree with you that is is random that she posted this matter on your personal talk page. Hopefully it will get resolved in WP:ANI and Flyer22 will receive another ban. This time for NPOV disruption, harassment and Undue weight. I apologize for you having to deal with this offensive user. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow! if you can now get banned for undue weight, I'm in big trouble till I can get back on my diet. --T-RexxS (rawr) 23:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Bishonen, I came to your talk page because, on Boilingorangejuice's talk page, you gave Boilingorangejuice a stern warning for his POV-editing on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics, and was clear that, if he continued such editing, he would be blocked for it. As Boilingorangejuice's editing history shows, Boilingorangejuice has not reported me to any editor...unless he has done so via email. And, as you can see, nothing happened if it is indeed the case that he reported me. My problem with Boilingorangejuice is made clear by the WP:Child protection policy, what I've stated on his talk page and elsewhere. As for a ban, I have never been banned from editing any topic. There was recently an interaction ban between me and another editor, but the Wikipedia community made it clear that the other editor was WP:Hounding me. The interaction ban, which is now expired, was meant to help. Furthermore, as Boilingorangejuice certainly knows, I never sockpuppeted. Berean Hunter and I reverted Boilingorangejuice for valid reasons. I am very busy these days, but I will see to it that this is editor is eventually indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 what you are doing is attempting to censor freedom of thought to make all articles inline with your one track emotional response to anything related to pedophilia. You say possession of child porn is illegal in Argentina while my sources (which i reference) come directly from official government websites and in a non-nebulous manner support the claim that child porn is legal. Your emotional fanaticism against pedophiles is not only embarrassingly transparent to all editors in the wikipedia community but also destructive to integrity of articles and the intelligent articulation of thought. Wikipedia is a open forum for the discussion of ideas and concepts. I think you would be better suited as a District attorney in rural texas than as a responsible and free thinking editor. I have donated tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the wikipedia foundation and try my best to ensure accurate and balanced articles. Your response to an idea you disagree with is to get the editor banned instead of having an open discussion about the subject. Perhaps engaging in ad hominem attacks is easier than trying to support a un-defensible and incorrect position.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Boilingorangejuice, nowhere did I state that "possession of child porn is illegal in Argentina." You love to twist matters, don't you? I'm really not interested in anything you have to state, though. The reason why should be abundantly clear to you after my varied responses to you, including on your talk page. And, for the record, the way pedophiles and many child molesters (oooh, there's that term you hate again -- child molester) usually think is not welcomed here at Wikipedia; that is why the WP:Child protection policy exists. If they want to edit here, they should make sure that they actually understand the WP:Neutral policy (especially since the overwhelming weight is against child sexual abuse and child pornography). They had better do well to not make edits that violate that policy. Not revealing that they are a pedophile or child molester is a plus (not that I usually need them to tell me for me to know anyway). I make my views very clear at the top of my user page and talk page. So I clearly bathe in that transparency and fail to see what is embarrassing about being against child sexual abuse and those who use Wikipedia to spread nonsense about child sexual abuse and child pornography (which is also usually child sexual abuse). Your embarrassing and indefensible position will not be prevailing here. So it would be wise to take your "promotion of minority positions/assessments/opinions to secure NPOV" mindset elsewhere.
Bishonen, I will handle this via other means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a case for the fringe noticeboard...edits like this are fringe or original research or both.--MONGO 12:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no more boiling orange juice, it seems. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, MONGO and Drmies.
Alison had looked at the Boilingorangejuice account months ago, but I think she said that the WP:CheckUser data didn't identify the editor as User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte. If it was Tisane/Leucosticte, the way he talked to me was not the same as the way Tisane talked to me under different accounts. Maybe that's because it was a part of his cloak. Either way, he knew who I was from the beginning. Anyway, much thanks to Wikipediocracy and HJ Mitchell for handling this. Because of a matter I noted before (which is about a different editor, not Boilingorangejuice), I didn't have much faith that the WP:WMF would do anything. In the future, I'll consider going to Worm That Turned (who has commented at Wikipedia talk:Child protection) for matters like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Fixed typos. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem editor[edit]

Bish, Megawave111 has been warned suitably reg ARBIPA and other problematic behavior but doesn't seem to get the message. Seems to be interested only in labeling anything not suited to their pov as "racist". RP and Kautilya have wasted more time here than I have, but it's a time sink for many editors. Could you take a look please? This is the latest I can confirm that the cited source does say that and Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund are better qualified on the topic than this person here. —SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Then there's edit warring at India, after a specific warning. —SpacemanSpiff 14:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Space, nice to see you around. The user doesn't seem to realise the risks associated with ignoring warnings in this area, so I've given them a shortish block as a shot across the bow. I don't want to start out with a topic ban from everything they're interested in, but I'll consider it if the disruption continues after the block. Timesinks are bad business. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
Update, SpacedOut: Megawave111 is now indeffed for socking during the 48-hour block, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Megawave111. Didn't realise the risks of unnecessary socking during a short block, either. Altogether unreceptive. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC).
I'm quite sure this isn't the first account, the master's hidden somewhere. —SpacemanSpiff 00:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871. Again.[edit]

[37]. I know this is about Clinton and Doc9871 is topic banned from Trump. But of course Trump is running against a Clinton. Anyway, even without the topic ban, the comment is obnoxious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything in it as far as the actual Trump topic ban, Volunteer Marek. Trump isn't even mentioned on the page Clinton Foundation. That said, the reason I topic banned Doc was his disruption of Talk:Donald Trump specifically in the form of attacks and personalized comments against you — see the diffs in the AE discussion.[38] Per consensus at AE, my ban was not only upheld, but Doc was also warned that "any disruption under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban."[39] And now he's disrupting the talkpage of Clinton Foundation in exactly the way he disrupted Talk:Donald Trump: by attacking you in a personalized way. The AE didn't result in any formal IBAN between the two of you, but the reason he was topic banned was his attacks on you, and I actually stated in the discussion that "I hope he realizes that he's on notice wrt to [questioning the good faith of others] now, especially as far as attacking Volunteer Marek is concerned". So it seems he didn't realize it. I'm going to do something about this — not sure what — I have to think. Unless you'd rather take it to AE yourself. Going out now. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC).
I've warned him. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Regadring the deleted know thyself page[edit]

Hi,

This book is there in google books also.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=cmK2BgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=gian%20kumar&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=gian%20kumar&f=false

Yes, Jagadeshanh|, but that only shows the book exists. To have an article on Wikipedia, it also needs to be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books). This means it needs to meet at least one of the critera here, and to have references to reliable sources that show it meets them. The article was deleted per a deletion discussion here, and then recreated with a different title. That's why I re-deleted it. Another thing: you have been asked on your own page if you work for or are being paid to promote Gian Kumar and his books. You need to respond to that question, please. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme[edit]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Jobas (& Sro23)[edit]

Hello. I recently polished an article per WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOCRYSTAL, removing news organizations, blogs, et. al. unreliable material, and redundant repetitions, after I noticed the bad quality contributions of Jobas. I also reported the issue here.

User Sro23 immediately reverted my edits claiming that I am another user who incidentally was at war with Jobas and was blocked. I am not that user. The fact that we both noticed Jobas' biased and low quality editing is because Joba's editing is really bad and biased. I noticed on Sro's talk page that he made the same mistake recently, reading your latest post. Please consider to look after Jobas' editing. Thank you.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Since when Pew Research Center is an unreliable source, you removed reliable sources, your edit been revert by user user:Bbb23 who left this in your page, and it is been revert by user:Bahooka, The user that you mention before he has long history of sockpuppets (at least 100) and disruptive edit's, and his edit's are pretty knwon for the other editor's.--Jobas (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I did not remove "the Pew Research Center", I removed forecasts.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You deleted entire paragraphs backed with "the Pew Research Center" references.--Jobas (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to look into this right now. There seems to be a very reasonable discussion going on at WP:NPOVN; thank you for starting it, 151.xx. Bishonen | talk 08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC).
    • Hello again! Sorry if I try to involve you again in the issue, but it is even more serious that I thought. Please read my latest comments. I have discovered that Jobas has a history of edit wars and sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons. As I was rollbacked and accused to be "Anatha Gulati" just for putting into question Jobas' editing, I suspect that other users may have been blocked just for the suspect they were "Anatha Gulati" because they noticed Jobas' biased editing.--151.36.49.214 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
      • User Bbb23 reverted my edit of 18:57. Their behavior is disturbing. A check user would demonstrate I am not one of the users they claim, and it would totally discredit their work. Can you ask a check user? Or can I do it myself?--151.18.105.221 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • See here, and the whole page. Not sure you'll get any joy, though. Bbb23 is himself a CheckUser, but I'm not sure he'd be willing. The thing about CheckUsers is that they can confirm stuff, but not really rule anything out. So CheckUsers often go by contributions and interests, just like ordinary mortals. I presume Bbb23 has looked at your contributions. (Right, Beeb?) And quite frankly, why don't you simply create an account, if you don't already have one? Bishonen | talk 22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
          • It's actually against policy to check a user to demonstrate their "innocence". That said, I'm not happy about the IP or the registered editors slinging around all of these accusations of sock puppetry. I know who Anatha Gulati is, and I know who Eulalefty is. Never even heard of Ich Pilot before today. I wish they'd all just concentrate on the merits of the content that is in dispute and skip the rest. My guess is the main problem with the IP is their changes are too large. If they want to improve the content of the article, they should proceed less aggressively.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Bring issue's from Wikimedia Commons that happened in 2012 is irrelevent. "Anatha Gulati" has sockpuppets (at least 100) and disruptive edit's. he been worned many times. The fact that this IP and Juliandas51 (Anatha Gulati" sockpuppet) even knew of that Wikimedia Commons old thing and used it to smear me is telling alot.--Jobas (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! Since Jobas has decided to stop responding at the discussion that was taking place here, at my request to restore the maps he manipulated on Wikimedia Commons to their original versions, and has instead dedicated himself to a very strange editing activity which can be reasonably explained only as an attempt to bury the history of the latest discussions in which I have revealed the unfair nature of his editing, I have eventually opened a discussion about his editing at the Administrators' Noticeboard which was finally unlocked to unregistered IP users.--151.82.71.159 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop throwing accusations, user:Коваленко Кирилл on Wikimedia Commons reverted the map to the orginal version (05:57, 27 March 2014 to the version, which is even before my manipulated on Wikimedia Commons as you cliams), and user:Leftcry and admain Elcobbola who reverted the edit of B88 5010 -User:Ich Pilot sockpuppetry- (so the mape back to the orginal version 14:16, 13 May 2014, before my manipulated on Wikimedia Commons as you cliam), so Stop throwing accusations, The map that you support (that been upload by User:Ich Pilot who was blocked - in 2014-), are been reverted to the orginal version (AnonMoos version, Коваленко Кирилл version) that you claim i manipulated it on Wikimedia Commons.--Jobas (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Jobas, please use "preview" before you post, instead of endlessly fiddling with your own post. You're giving me alert after alert, and bloating up the page history. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

blocks...[edit]

While I have responded to your comments on my talk page, and the article talk page, I will request here that you block that annoying sock IP, that is behind half of the drama on that article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Really? It looked to me like you were behind most of it. I've responded about the IPs on article talk. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC).
Sorry, but you were wrong on that article. If you're going to:
threaten blocks for adding content (that did have easily located sources to support it)
fail to block the obvious sock IPs
complain about content because it was"moreover sourced only to a subscriber-only article" (while totally ignoring WP:SOURCEACCESS )
give up on the article by saying "I think I'm done here; at least, further questions about things I've already detailed aren't going to draw me back. "
...and then try to defend your actions by blaming me, rather than accepting that as an admin you made a mistake and would learn from it, then I see little point in discussing this with you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Good. If you have concerns about my admin actions or demeanour, there's always ANI. Spacecowboy420, I understand that you probably removed the IP complaint on this page because you considered it to come from a sock. But you shouldn't have, both because the complaint was about you — let someone else do it if needed, my page is well watched — and because you didn't offer any explanatory edit summary, so I'm having to guess at your reason. IPs are by no means to be reverted on sight here. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
IPs are fine. Sock IPs are not. Maybe I've got into the habit of removing that particular sock's edits on sight.
But I do get your point, there could be a perceived COI in me removing a comment about myself, no matter what the source.
Either way, I certainly won't be complaining to ANI about you. I felt the need to explain how I felt about this issue, I consider it done. All is good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The gradient of total potential nuttiness[edit]

Hey Bish! I regret to inform you that my current music-oriented language obsession has shifted from Swedish to Portuguese, largely due to this recording. Of course it's an old song with many versions, including English translations, but there's something special about that Portuguese recording in particular.

Back to business ... remember this nonsense? The range blocks have expired and the IPs are back. NeilN unhelpfully closed the ANI without addressing the long-term problem.[40] I then contacted HJ, who was the last one to block, but he isn't particularly active right now. (The SPI could sit for weeks, and the patrolling admin probably won't be familiar with the case.) Manul ~ talk 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to recheck EdJohnston's page. DVdm and EdJohnston seem to be on top of it; perhaps we can just leave it with them. Manul ~ talk 18:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
To the detriment of my sanity, I just re-read the old fringe noticeboard thread and the new ANI thread. Man. [Bishonen sticks straws in hair and sings a strange little ditty in Portuguese.] I'm glad to hear Ed is dealing with it. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

Spacecowboy420[edit]

  Hi, I you have time take a quick gander at spacecowboy420's edit history, they are here to do one thing in particular and it sure ain't building an encyclopedia

I'm aware of the user's record. I frankly don't need this kind of tip. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

Hello[edit]

I picked you at random from Grammers Little Helpers talk page. I think this guy is wiki stalking me and trying to get me into hot water and egging on some people with some lobbying. I don't mind being corrected or proven wrong but a bunch of editors on crypto currency articles are involved, I believe, promoting CoinDesk type things as sourcing there used to be a lot of sourcing to those cryto coin mags, now there is not so much. Some of these people are involved with the subject itself, crypto currencies and have created a walled garden scene of Bitcoin and Ethereum articles in my opinion that borders on promotion.

Along comes Farney to add fuel to a content dispute [41]. If its possible I would like him to leave me alone and not fan further problems. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, Earl, but the topic of crypto currency is so deeply mysterious to me that I'd rather not get involved. You'll have to appeal to another admin, or ANI. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

O.k. really its not about that subject of those currencies but rather about trying to get this guy off my back [42] I feel he is wikistalking me and trying to create conflict. I just saw you have conversed with him previously on his talk page. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Brahmins[edit]

I know, I know! You semi'd List of Brahmins for six months, that has expired and we're already hitting problems again. Should the semi-protection be reinstated? - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary says it all, really. I've made it a year. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. Roll on the day when the community finally realises that these lists are completely unencyclopaedic anyway. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Most lists are, IMO. But castelists are the worst. Bishonen | talk 16:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

Annoying Anoyet[edit]

Me again, oh happy day! Anoyet (talk · contribs) has had numerous warnings relating to various articles but right now seems to have settled on Yaduvanshi Rajputs, where they're removing sourced info without explanation. I can't revert them again but have asked them to self-revert. If nothing like that happens in the next few hours then I think they might benefit from some admin attention, pretty please. I issued an IPA warning earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. I thought maybe they were one of the helpless newbies who don't know they have a talkpage, but after your warning they actually used an explanatory edit summary, for the first time. That suggests they read your post, to my mind. Anyway, whether or not, a 48-hour block should assist them in locating their page. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
I've reverted the article to the last good version that I could find. --RexxS (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Dino. You just have to look for "Sitush" in the history. It works, bitches. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

Til has another IP[edit]

Special:Contributions/71.246.148.52 Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, the old 71.246.144.0/20 range again. See how many times it's been blocked. 3 months this time. Perhaps I should have made it a year. Thank you, Hijiri 88. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC).
Changed my mind and, in fact, made it a year. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC).

Template:Infobox Social Worker needs to be deleted[edit]

I can't figure out what CSD rationale to use (housekeeping?) but Template:Infobox Social Worker needs to be deleted. Created by the same person who has just added Gajendra Choudhary which, as Talk:Gajendra Choudhary tries to explain, is some POV pushing of a minor official following a recent AfD about the same person using an alternate name. What a mess! - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Considering the template is broken, how about G2: failed experiment?—Odysseus1479 09:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone has now done that. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Skewered chocolate-covered sock for Bishzilla
Yes, thank you Odysseus, equal of Zeus in counsel. I'll take a look at your individual, Sitush. Maybe they're already blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC).
Actually the template hadn't been deleted; done. I've warned the user (just as you had, Sitush, but I mentioned the word "block"). I reined myself in from saying "recreated under any name or from any account", because I'm a very good-faith-assuming admin. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC).
Until the BBQ is hot and the skewers are ready, anyway Face-wink.svg Muffled Pocketed 09:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Bish. - Sitush (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

220.255.100.134 and UFAA[edit]

Hey, not sure if you noticed as well, but 220.255.100.134's contributions on UFAA seemed rather odd, almost bot-like, especially the one mentioning a filter. I left them a message on their talk page with links to bot pages to properly set things up. Thought you should know as well. I'm not quite sure if it rises to the level of WP:ANI yet. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 12:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw your message — after the rather off UAA reports that I commented on, I'm watching their talkpage. I hadn't thought of it, but certainly complaining that "MrBonner" is too much like "MrBoner" (jeez) is a lot like many of the normal bot reports on the page — DeltaQuadBot has the same kind of salacious mindset. But I don't understand much about bots, you know. I mean, I can see their footprints, such as "MrBonner", but I don't really understand how they work. Maybe you should in fact take it to ANI for more eyes? At least, if they edit again in the same vein without answering you. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) It's certainly odd. All of the UAA reports are mobile/mobile web edits. I find it hard to run a bot on my phone, but I guess it's not impossible. I wonder if he's running a script against a dump of usernames on a desktop and using his phone to make the reports based on the output. Seems an odd way to proceed. Also, there are three edits from the same IP that are not flagged as mobile - surely the same IP can't belong to both a phone and a non-mobile device? Or maybe he's using his phone as a wi-fi hot spot. The ISP is 'Singtel Fibre Broadband' in Singapore. It's all very odd. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Update: strike that, having thought about it. Could be a home network with a single IP and the mobile could be a tablet or similar as well as a phone. Maybe less odd than at first glance. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of odd, RexxS, what the actual are these IPs? Just as I thought I was getting the hang of IPv6. :-( Is it just a different way of writing them? Bishonen | talk 17:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
It's just a different way of writing them (and not a very good way, at that - but what do you expect from devs?). If you mouse over each of them, you get a popup (well at least I do) with the full IPv6. So
  • 2600:387:5:803::bb <==> 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:BB
  • 2600:387:5:805::97 <==> 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:97
Or you can click the link to their contribution(s) which shows all eight blocks. The rule is that :: means "as many :0 as needed to make eight blocks". Not my idea of intuitive. --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the privatisation of British Rail[edit]

Bishonen, do you think this qualifies as a snow close? (Learning curve, you see) Muffled Pocketed 18:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably does. It's not merely 9 Keeps to no Deletes, but most of the Keeps are substantial and reasoned. But if you're poking me to do it... no, I'd rather not. Is there a hurry? And if you're wondering if a non-admin such as you could close as snow keep (i.e. close before the standard 7 days are up), no, absolutely not, get back in pocket, little Muffled. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
Purely curiosity! But, yep, interesting to know, cheers! Muffled Pocketed 18:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying not to comment on the wisdom of nominating this article for deletion. A related discussion was at ANI. No matter how implausible the AfD, it is usually better to let it run for the full time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why I asked- I was going to !vote, but when I double-checked: a kind of "WTF?!" moment. Thank you Mr Johnston. But anyway-
I'm far too busy atm with my pocket unpicker: plans are ahead of schedule  ;) Muffled Pocketed 19:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 00:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got a message![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Self block request.
Message added 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Replied. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC).

Block evasion[edit]

Our ol' friend CrazyAces is back as User:DonGuapo. PRehse first made me aware of the account earlier today. You can tell it is his "style" by the subject (martial arts), frantic spurt of creating bare linked, questionably notable articles, and some edits which redirect to some of his pages as CA. It looks clear-cut to me, but ultimately your opinion affects the outcome more than mine would.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh god. I'm depressed now. TheGracefulSlick, could you please supply a few diffs for the kind of redirects you mention, because those sound the most like a smoking gun. Also, has the Don created any previously deleted CA articles? Bishonen | talk 18:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC).
Based on my review of their edits (email for details if you'd like) and a  Likely technical connection to blocked sock Cantloginnow, the account is safe to block.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
My kind little pony noticed my sad edit summary and was moved, I guess. Thank you very much. No, no, no details! And thank you, too, TheGracefulSlick. It's not that I don't want to be told about these things. It just never effing ends. Blocked and tagged. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC).
It's true! I'm worried if you get too depressed you'll pocket yourself and I'll no longer be able to enjoy your keyboard company.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen you may add User:ILovePeter to the list. After I greeted the "new arrival" he mentions me and Peter (PRehse I'm assuming) inappropriately on his Userpage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ministrations required[edit]

Sadaryohan at Khandayat. They're new, they've had a shedload of warnings and explanations, they've gone over 3RR and they're not talking. I'm stumped because they are at least trying to source stuff, just making a complete mess of it. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. They have now commented at the article talk page, as I requested them to do. But they've still steamrollered their stuff into the article regardless. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sitush Well, i waited for your response, but didnt get any, therefore I added information in another section labeled history with new citations. You should have cared to read and verify those sources before plugging it off. It is was an addition and "not an" undoing of your edit. I have posted those sources that you think is credible, as they are from foreign/Non-Indian authors. It is on the Khandayat article talk page. Generally an overview of Feudal states in India prior to Indian Republic and overview of communities living in it. Check over it and let me know if I could use for my edits. Sadar Yohan

just corrected on the syntax and meaning Sitush

We can deal with this at the article talk page now, Sadar. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for coming to article talk and being willing to learn how it's done here, Sadaryohan. I hope you'll listen to Sitush, who is very knowledgeable in the area. Also, please don't add any more unsourced content to Karan (caste). Bishonen | talk 18:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

What to do with an obvious sock that made one edit two years ago and then disappeared forever[edit]

Unless they made a whole bunch of edits to pages that have all since been deleted, Devildog72 (talk · contribs) appears to also be Til, but obviously a CU can't prove it, and I'm not entirely sure if there's any point worrying about it.

It just seems like 90% of the "anti-myth" accounts that have edited that page at this point (not including people like me who have a somewhat nuanced view of the matter) are actually all the same guy, which possibly devalues a whole bunch of the past RMs, and so catching all of the soxks and systematically categorizing them might be something worth doing...

Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not much point, I guess. There aren't any deleted contributions. If it's Til, they were rather more civil in those days. I'm not enthusiastic about systematically categorizing socks, for my part; it's quite a bit of work, to little end, whereas systematically creating new socks is dead easy. Bishonen | talk 08:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC).
The ironic thing is, Conservapedia is right up his alley, but their official raison d'etre is Wikipedia's systemic liberal bias and how difficult we make it for conservatives' voices to be heard ... even though (unlike on Conservapedia) they are allowed edit just about all of our pages without creating an account, and they can create an account in a matter seconds (or a hundred accounts in about an hour if they so choose). Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I semi'd your talk page[edit]

Because trolls. Feel free to undo at any time without the need to consult me or whatever first ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Strange troll, not one of my familiars. I've blocked the 2600:1010:B02E:233F::/64 range for a week. Bishonen | talk 08:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for that topic ban re EH, etc. Given the history I doubt that waiting two days would have yielded anything other than several more walls of text that restated the same points yet again. Jeh (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Right. Also, since the area is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, uninvolved admins can basically topic ban at will. (Not that I did that; the ban is framed as a community sanction, and logged here.) Bishonen | talk 11:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

Closing of ANI discussion re TBAN for Jed Stuart[edit]

I made it quite clear that I was reading #Proposed_Topic_ban_of_user:Jed_Stuart_from_editing_articles_related_to_conspiracy_theories and wanted a right of reply in two days, when I could get back to ANI. If I had been a person, like the editors wanting the ban who obviously have lots of time to sit on the internet, then I would have had plenty of time to defend myself. Most of what they have said does not stand up. You closed the discussion in under two days, which means that I don't get the opportunity to counter an entirely false narrative about what I am attempting to do in the Electronic Harassment article. It is exhausting for me too. Reverse the closure is requested.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jed, the consensus was unambiguous. The community has had enough. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you see the section just above when you posted, Jed Stuart..? It was a speedy close indeed, but those are done when the consensus is that strong. I'm afraid I won't reconsider. I suggest you write up your defence in detail, as persuasively as you can without any hurry, and post it as an appeal on WP:AN. If you'll take my advice, you'll keep it as concise as possible, or many editors won't read it — contrary to your perception, other volunteers have time constraints too. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC).
I am fully aware that there are volunteer time constraints. I did not create this ridiculous palaver. It has wasted a lot of my time also.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't often see someone violate their topic ban so quickly. The pixels were barely dry! Doug Weller talk 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I am willing to respect the TBAN. This is no longer about the EH article or other similar. I was not requesting re-consideration of the TBAN, just the closure of the discussion at ANI. I can't make the change I think essential to the integrity of the article, so it is no great loss. But, I want the right of reply to grossly inaccurate attacks on my credibility, involving false characterizations of my behaviour. I was pushing a fringe theory etc. If I am unable to counter that nonsense it will stay on the record there and could be used against me at a later date, which has happened in a more minor way before in this event. That was the threat of sanctions at User_talk:Jed_Stuart, the reasons for which I can't go into without violating the TBAN, but at the time I thought it was off the mark and inappropriate, but I didn't make a fuss and then later it gets referred to twice as evidence against me. Closure of criticisms of my behaviour before I can reply have now happened at ANI four times now. What a farce! Jed Stuart (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
"the threat of sanctions at User_talk:Jed_Stuart, the reasons for which I can't go into without violating the TBAN": No, no. You can go into any and all of that here, and also on WP:AN in the context of appealing your ban. That wouldn't violate the ban. You are in no way "unable to counter that nonsense" in the context of a ban appeal, whether or not it is nonsense. And I tell you here, even if you don't want to appeal, but only to refute "attacks on your credibility", here or on WP:AN, I'll allow it as an exception to your topic ban. (Not on any other page, though, unless you should prefer WP:ANI, and not an unreasonable number of times.) If people suggest sanctioning you for that, refer them to me. Bishonen | talk 08:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC).
Ok, that seems fully reasonable. To get an idea of what I was really attempting to do to the EH article, as opposed to what they falsely characterized me as attempting to do at the ANI TBAN request, I will put below what I submitted to MEDCOM around 12 hours previous to the ANI TBAN request being submitted. The TBAN is a direct result of my submitting what I wanted to do to the article. I was hoping that that after a two month break in my involvement there, that they might be willing to talk turkey. They chose to gag me instead. This is the issue I have been annoying them over for a long time now, without ever getting them to even admit that there is an issue. Just lots of bluster and the false narrative that I am pushing fringe theories into the article, bludgeoning the truth etc etc. I would have done other edits to the EH article, only from reliable sources, but this issue seems the most important and essential to the article. And, above the consensus there.
The article violates a fundamental principle of the NPOV policy:
‘Avoid stating opinions as facts.’
In the lede:
" Individuals who claim to experience this call themselves "targeted individuals" and many have joined support and advocacy groups. These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis"
The psychiatric opinion is stated as fact rather than as an opinion. In so doing this wording violates what is stated at: Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view NPOV is: ‘non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.’
Thus the wording should be something like: "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that these experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis"
I mentioned this issue more times than editors at EH found acceptable. ‘Leave it how it is’ was always the firm consensus. Mostly the attitude has been to not give any weight, or not give undue weight, to the Targeted Individuals view, invoking another principle of NPOV policy:
‘Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.’
However the seminal Washington Post article Mind Games cited and the other RS articles that have followed suit, give more than no weight to the view of those claiming to be Targeted Individuals.
They explore the possibility that there might be real covert targeting happening and I would say that they conclude there might be.
I found some support for my position at DRN and so started an informal mediation which was closed without resolution. It was suggested at DRN that I take the matter to NPOVN, which I did. There were two editors there without WP accounts who agreed with me and seven, mostly well-established editors, who did not. That was also closed without resolution. Obviously I am holding a minority opinion here, but it seems of fundamental importance to the article and Wikipedia generally that the matter is considered more carefully.
Should the ‘due weight’ principle be achieved by over-riding the ‘not state opinions as facts’ principle? Surely the article can enact both principles. This is what I would hope to get the editors consensus at Electronic harassment to consider.
The rest of the Electronic harassment article seems appropriately worded except for a continuation of this bias towards the delusions POV in the third paragraph of Conspiracy_theories where claims of covert targeting are referred to as ‘these fears…’ rather than what would be neutrally said ‘these claims…’ This is repeated in the first paragraph of Support_and_advocacy_communities ‘people fearing mind control.’ should be replaced by ‘people claiming mind control.’ I have not attempted to change these two instances of bias, but as they are essentially of the same nature as the more prominent one in the lede, which I did attempted to change, but failed, it seems appropriate to include them now in this attempt to get the article to NPOV.
Jed Stuart (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Jed Stuart. There's a trick on Wikipedia, that you're supposed to use to avoid bloating up pages: linking. Don't put a copypaste here of what you submitted to MEDCOM around 12 hours before the ANI TBAN request, please; put a link (=a "diff") to it, like this. In the first place, I have already read your MEDCOM text, of course (I wouldn't apply a topic ban without studying your recent history). And secondly, it takes up space in an unnecessary way and makes it harder for the reader to focus on new arguments. Don't re-paste texts you have already posted elsewhere. If you have trouble producing a diff, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide, which is as simple as possible. See also my diff above as an example. Anyway, I've taken your MEDCOM argument on board, and it doesn't make me change my mind. Please take your concern to WP:AN or WP:ANI. You're concerned about the ANI thread staying on the record there and conceivably being used against you at a later date. The logic of that seems to me to be that you should place your own argument also on ANI, because then it'll stay on the record in the same way: in the ANI archives. But I urge you to use diffs for anything previously posted, by you or others, that you want to refer to; frankly, if you copypaste old stuff, or otherwise repeat yourself, people may be annoyed to the point of removing your ANI thread. I wouldn't be able to do anything about that. I advise you to make a new, fresh argument. Keep it on the level of your credibility and your conduct. Re-litigating the changes you want to make to Electronic harassment won't serve you, since your arguments wrt that have already been roundly rejected. Simply put, nobody agrees with you about that article. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC).
I didn't do a link to that information as discussion at MedCom is privileged and can't be referred to in disputes at ANI etc. So I only wanted to put a focus on what I am attempting to do. Yes, the logic is for me to put my defense at ANI where the allegations were made. That is in the request for the TBAN. I don't want to start a new topic there. If I do someone else will close it before I can get anything cleared up and then I will have to go to that closers Talk page and it will just go on and on. Par for the course. I request that you to unclose that topic and let me have my say. Just on the allegations if you want and close it without re-consideration of the TBAN. Or, if after I have refuted that nonsense, re-consider if you will allow it to stay open to discuss the TBAN. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the link info. I do have problems with that at times and didn't find that. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
You've already asked me once to re-open the ANI thread and I said no. It's still no. I'm beginning to understand why the people who have dealt with you all seem so tired. The idea of the topic ban is to stop you exhausting the community's patience. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC).
I only did what I had to do. That is, attempt to discuss the matter with you before going to AN to attempt to get the close undone. I should not have repeated to you my claim that what they said about me at ANI is nonsense though, that was a bit tiresome of me. I wont both you with it again. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have posted my request to have the topic re-opened at AN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Closure_at_ANI_too_soon. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep intelligent women on Wikipedia[edit]

I am now returned (barely alive) from the most dreadful, nightmare experience: poor Scrotum IV ran aground off the coast of Sicily and we had to be rescued by insubordinate natives, who I suspect were the employ of my poor nephew's dangerous psychopathic wife. Funny woman, whenever I am talking she just stares into the bottom of her glass clenching and unclenching her fists. I find that very strange behaviour - don't you? Anyway, I return here for a little piece and quiet to sooth my fractious nerves, and what do I find? Nothing more than an orchestrated campaign to delete images of intelligent women (see [43]). Poor, dear Giano uploads one of his beautiful architectural images and a gang of subversives want it deleted because, by chance, it has a blurry picture of an intelligent woman in it - who next one asks - moi? Am I to be deleted because I am very intelligent? Possibly even, eventually, you. It needs to stop and to stop now. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"..whenever I am talking she just stares into the bottom of her glass clenching and unclenching her fists. I find that very strange behaviour - don't you?" Not sure — is there anything in the glass? Bishonen | talk 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC).
Since the glorious reign of His Late Majesty Edward her Ladyship has borne alone. The almost crushing burden of maintaining a proud and ancient lineage, being the moral and intellectual compass to family and aye, dare I say nation, while suffering untold wounds, a noble heart torn asunder too often by husbands' stolen away by a cruel fate or their own grevious failings. This is just the latest cut. Bishonen, I am assuming it is one of the better brands of surgical spirit that her ladyship is referring to. Boots supply a rather smooth example. I believe it is aged in oaken barrels, although Superdrug have been sourcing a rather fine example of late. It has an honest, earthy opening, with a delightful finish redolent of greengages. Irondome (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What a caring and perceptive person you are Mr Dome. It's true my life has been far from easy - a veritable vale of tears and stoical courage. I am the most misunderstood woman of my generation. I just hope that after my all too soon death my humble if profuse and very valuable edits to Wikipedia will be my lasting memorial. As it is, I shall soldier on (ignoring my pain and suffering) writing almost single handedly this encyclopaedia. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Bah humbug. Your fault for mucking around in the Middle Ages with dodgy characters  :p Muffled Pocketed 21:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedian Womanhood: "You're phoney on top, You're phoney underneath, You lay in bed and grit your teeth" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

TalgoKL and Kachwaha[edit]

TalgoKL is repeatedly removing sourced content at Kachwaha that has been discussed extensively in the past, despite being told of BRD, the sanctions regime etc. They have come up with one source that prima facie supports their POV but they're misreading both the context of that source and the nuances of our article phrasing. It is yet another of those situations where an Indian caste is claiming a highfalutin' status, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure this isn't a sock of Oswert/Mrpontiac1, maybe Elockid can tell? It's been ages since I've run across that chap. —SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Elockid is away on his annual holiday and I don't think any of the other current CUs are familiar enough with the MrP to work off of log data. —SpacemanSpiff 06:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have topic banned the user for three months. I guess any sock situation will have to be dealt with later, when Elockid returns. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Well-formed..? No. I've closed it and advised the OP to take their issue to WP:RSN. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC).

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Bishonen. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

IPv6 range contributions[edit]

Bish, @Johnuniq:, can I copy the text on this[44] including comments over to our CU Wiki? It looks useful for en.wiki CheckUsers. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Good, isn't it? I keep a link to it squirreled away in my notebook, for when I get confused again. It's obviously John's baby, not mine. I can't believe he'll mind, but he'd better speak for himself. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. It should probably be added somewhere relevant. This project Wikipedia:WikiProject IPv6 Readiness seems defunct, but we have Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses where it might be relevant. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Doug, have you seen this and this? Bishonen | talk 16:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
No, thanks. Have you seen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 - note my comment, and Yinon Plan and Oded Yinon? Doug Weller talk 16:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Er.. I don't really do ARBPIA. My wikilife stinks enough from doing ARBIPA; I'd rather not get involved with yet another area I'm quite ignorant about, and also people keep mixing them up. Why did you want me to look at that..? You're not going to tell me because it's an interesting principle, I hope. Insofar as it is, I agree with your comment. Or did you just mean it's interesting to see Epson Salts accuse somebody of wikilawyering, as here? Because there I fully agree. Bishonen | talk 19:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
@Doug Weller: Sure, copy any of my comments or whatever. You might like to see the 2014 comment at Template talk:IP range calculator from PhilKnight which says "The tool at Special:CheckUser still seems to work, which is what I generally use." Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor returns after range block[edit]

After this ANI complaint, you range blocked 187.205.0.0/16 for disruptive editing. The IP editor has resumed edit warring and blanking. For example: 187.205.27.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 187.205.153.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 187.205.123.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You can see even more by looking at the history of Hellbound: Hellraiser II and Tintorera. Could you reblock the range? Semi-protection would work on those specific articles, but the IP editor sometimes becomes obsessed with other articles, too, including BLPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It feels funny to block such a big range, but it does seem to be mainly populated by one disruptive individual, so OK. One month this time. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

From a new user[edit]

(Moved down from the top of the page.) A number of the elements of the post "Robert Creamer (Lobbiest) are flat out incorrect... including the fact that he is a lobbyist -- which he is not. We was not born in 1948, but 1947. The last sentence in the article is simply wrong, since Mr. Creamer does not know the person referenced. Mr. Creamer was not at all involved in writing the Affordable Care Act -- although he was heavily involved in helping to pass it. All of the additional items listed were entirely accurate. if you persist in replacing them with inaccurate content we will go to top management of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democracy Partners (talkcontribs)

Hi, @Democracy Partners: Please explain here, or on your own talkpage, whether or not you have a connection with Robert Creamer, as your username strongly suggests, and tell me who the "we" are that intend to go to the top management. Collective usernames are not allowed here; a username is for one person. If yours represents an organization, I ask you to create a new one, that represents yourself alone, or you may be blocked. If you have a connection with Creamer, perhaps a close connection, I understand that you may well know about such details as the year of birth and other matters; corrections are welcomed, but Wikipedia isn't so much about what you know, as about what you can source to reliable sources. You have removed sourced negative content, and unfortunately also its sources, and added a lot of detailed unsourced content; that's not the way to do it. As for the top management of Wikipedia, I'm afraid there isn't such a thing; the project is run by the community. I recommend the Teahouse as a place where you can get all sorts of advice from nice patient people, for instance about where you can take a complaint. Please always post at the bottom of discussion pages; people are unlikely to look for new posts at the top, and so they can be missed. That's why I have moved your post down. Bishonen | talk 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
Besides what I wrote above, I have now googled Creamer on the net, and I see you have largely copied text from this website, which is tagged "©2015 DemocracyPartners.com. All rights reserved." That's a violation of the copyright of DemocracyPartners.com, something Wikipedia takes very seriously; it's absolutely not allowed. If you own the copyright to the website in question, you have to prove that before you can use the material on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how to do that. Note also that the need for sourcing remains; self-sourcing all of it to DemocracyPartners.com itself is unlikely to fly. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I've gone through the article and done my best to clean out unsourced stuff and I've corrected his year of birth since he could not have been born in 1948 (USA Today states he was 58 in 2005). I've converted the raw urls and most of the external links to references, so the remaining text is now sourced. I must say I'm not terribly impressed with Peter Bella's attack piece in the Washington Times, but I suppose it carries some reliability in conjunction with the other sources. I hope that allays some of the concerns of the OP (who really does need a change of username per WP:ISU). HTH --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If they want to edit again they'll have to as I've blocked them with a username soft block. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Rahul Kumar pandey[edit]

Sorry to mither you yet again, Bish, but can you take a look at Rahul Kumar pandey (talk · contribs) please? It's mostly their edits to Kamma (caste) and Naidu, although their older stuff elsewhere seems to have been reverted also, by me and others. I issued an ARBIPA notice but they've just again misrepresented a source. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak English, no edit summaries and no edits to any talkpages including their own. They may well not know they have one. Which is the edit with the misrepresented source? I'll take a look later, after I eat or maybe tomorrow. [Injured tone]: You do realise I'm hungry? Bishonen | talk 21:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
  • I feel so much better after a very nice supper. Topic banned from caste pages for one month. I suspect they'll have trouble understanding it — the AE template isn't exactly easy reading — if indeed they see it. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
Sorry, I missed your first reply. Their edits are sometimes tagged as being via mobile but that still generates a talk page notification etc. I agree that it sometimes appears that people never realise they have a talk page but I am mystified regarding what more can be done - if they don't realise that then they probably will not realise there is an article talk page either. Maybe a temporary edit notification at the article? - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think they're back as Raj singh nauhan (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sitush: Poor fellow, that's the loudest quacking I've heard in a while. I suppose I'll hold off, though, since @Bbb23: has actually said he's in the process of CU-ing them. For myself, I think I might as well indef — both accounts — because it's not getting any better in any way, and both you and I have already spent too much time doling out advice. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Please wait a bit. It's going to change again, and I'd rather do the blocking. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
All done. The extras are free.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice job! I hope you mean we can have T-shirts. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Sure, just order them from the WMF Shirt Shoppe. Tell 'em I sent you and they'll probably charge you double.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: That's OK, as long as Sitush can have a shirt with the legend "Hero of the Dismal Swamp of Caste Pages". For me the popular "Desultory admin" shirt will do. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC).

ANI: Poodleboy[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Poodleboy

Can you put this out of it's misery? It's lasted long enough and no one seems to be acting on the very clear consensus. --Tarage (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated, since the topics are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which should preferably be invoked, yet what seems to be proposed on ANI is a community ban. I think admins may find that thorny. But I'll close it, I ain't scared of the bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC).
What is this about a community consensus on the climate change ban? That wasn't even a climate change community. Most were ID editors. There hadn't been any climate change issues since my previous sanction. As to persistent editing, there hasn't been ANY editing since the previous sanction. Poodleboy (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Correction, looking back, I actually had done some editing that I forgot, it had been awhile. My well sourced changes were being accepted by the community. Poodleboy (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Poodleboy, yes, recent disruption by you on ID pages was the focus of the ANI thread. However, the consensus for topic banning you from both areas was very clear. JzG's proposal was for topic bans for both CC and ID. There was one single oppose to it. One user (Count Iblis) suggested different sanctions than topic bans, 0RR restrictions I think it was, but explicitly for both areas. Two users supported an ID ban only, though not in the sense of opposing a CC ban; one of them later changed their mind to supporting both bans. There were three generalized supports; I'm pretty sure at least one of them, perhaps all three, intended to support JzG's proposal as written. But it doesn't really matter whether or not, because there were at least eight supports explicitly for both topic bans (nine counting JzG himself), many of them quite passionately expressed. I frankly don't understand how you think I could have come to a different conclusion about the consensus. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC).
The issue is not whether there is a consensus to keep me from editing climate change articles among this group of ID editors. They were straining pretty hard to get it included by bringing up matters that had ALREADY been addressed in a previous ANI and accusing comments of being WP:OR that later comments clearly established were not WP:OR. The ANI is not supposed to just allow people to vote off whomever they want, whenever ever they want. You are supposed to use some judgement. Poodleboy (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The issue is precisely whether there was a consensus among the participants at that ANI discussion to topic ban you from ID and CC. And there clearly was. That's all the judgement that a closing admin is required to use, and that's exactly what 'Shonen did. Do you really think she could have reached a different conclusion? because I seriously doubt that any uninvolved reader of that thread could have done. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
She could easily have closed the ANI without doing anything, recognizing that the voters were merely pressing home their victory on the ID talk page in another forum and that there was no continuing activity of any kind that needed to be addressed. It you just count the votes, then there doesn't need to be any substance, just a mob. Poodleboy (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy, you have had reasonable answers from me and RexxS in my opinion. If you continue to argue on my page, without saying anything new, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to engage in further dialogue. You know you can appeal on WP:AN, on WP:AE, or on WP:ARCA, per these instructions? If you feel you have a case, I suggest you do file an appeal at one of them. (If you pick ARCA, further review by another board isn't allowed.) This is the difference between them: on AN the call is made by the community, on AE by uninvolved admins, and on ARCA by the Arbitration Committee. Think about it. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC).

Donna Rice[edit]

Hi Bish. Can you please revert all of the edits [45] made today on Donna Rice Hughes by a editor who I believe is an employee of Miss Rice? Thanks. Caden cool 20:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any particular reason to believe it's specifically an employee (as opposed to the person herself)? Just curious; of course we always leave that vague anyway, so as not to out anybody. I may clean up the article later, I suppose, but to begin with I have warned them about conflict of interest. Let's see what they say about that. Feel free to remove the peacock phrasing in the meantime, Caden. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
It's a gut feeling I have. Caden cool 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Block evading sock IP (73.202.53.43) of User:Janagewen. IP not yet blocked.[edit]

As per his previous blocks on the socks, he began to do the same thing. Socking and all of that. I suspect the above IP to be a sock puppet of Janagewen, who was blocked 2 years ago. First, he began to make false reverts which is disruptive. Then, I found one of his evading creations of user talk pages, so I tagged them for deletion under CSD G5. However, he subsequently removed it without first clicking the button. As I kept warning him, then removing the notices, he made a personal attack, so I removed it. However, it got restored by an autoconfirmed user, so I tagged the talk page for deletion under CSD G10. However, he removed the tag since he didn't want it to get deleted entirely. I again removed the personal attack. I'm not sure if it got restored or not. I still suspect the IP to be a sock of Janagewen. That IP has to get blocked for 1 year for block evasion. Can you please block the disruptive IP? Thanks. 2600:1:B10D:5596:C8F6:90FC:2883:8BD7 (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The accusation of sockpuppetry was deemed completely without merit when it was reported. Check this edit. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Your continued disruption and block evasion has gone wild. Bishonen, block 73.202.53.43 now! 2600:1:B01B:381:69C4:7007:B83E:710F (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering this, I don't believe it is Janagewen. Your report has been deemed bogus by a CheckUser, so you take it to me? Sorry, that won't fly. If you want to make a vandalism report, with a selective collection of diffs that really show vandalism (because I for one have a lot of trouble taking stock of all their contribs), please take it to WP:AIV. Bishonen | talk 08:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC).

A matter of concern[edit]

I just read the thread on my user talk page left by Drinkandtype and it is a very depressing situation. I have to admit that I had doubts about this problem for a long time--I even confronted the TheGracefulSlick with those concerns a while back, but I ended up giving him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, I cannot overlook the fact that we have often collaborated and are both dedicated to the cause of writing about 60s music. And, I recognize that he has helped me on may occasions--for that I am deeply grateful. But, I just cannot understand what would have caused him to do something like this (if it is so)--and, yes it made me feel victimized--but I guess that all of us here have experienced it at times. But, I also feel that he should have a chance to be rehabilitated at Wikipedia, and that we should try to play a supportive role if he wishes to return, provided that he can rise above the mistakes of the past. We should not forget that he has done a lot of good things, and I believe that he has redeeming virtues. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's very sad, and I'm certainly prepared to support him when he returns (as he says he will). Bishonen | talk 08:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC).

Appeal for removing Topic Ban on Kachwaha[edit]

Hello Bishonen,

User:Sitush is pushing his own version for article Kachwaha, and when I reverted him asking some very valid questions, then rather than responding to me, he approached you and got me banned. I was given no warning from any admin and was banned straight away. I appeal you to remove my topic ban on Kachwaha article as the present article is completely misleading from head to toe. Sitush and I can reach consensus with an admin's intervention like yours.

Now let me repeat my objections to the article. The very lead of the article says: The Kachwaha are a caste group with origins in India. Traditionally they were peasants involved in agriculture but in the 20th century they began to make claims of being a Rajput clan. Some families within the caste did rule a number of kingdoms and princely states, such as Alwar, Amber (later called Jaipur) and Maihar. Now instead of using word Rajput clan, the article's lead use word "caste group". Then it says that they were peasants who started claiming themselves as a Rajput clan in 20th century. We definitely need sources for this lead. Which source says all this and what exactly do they say? Sitush should present full quotations for all this stuff. It seems Sitush has less idea of India and its social groups, but he still behaves intolerant towards edits of other editors. In India, its a well-etablished fact that Kachwaha is an undisputed Rajput clan. Its only here that you get to see such baseless imaginary stuff. Sources like [Britannica (link), this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this find no place in the article. But a lot of unsourced content and sourced content (which is about 'Kushwaha', not Kachwaha) gets too much support from Sitush. The article needs your intervention sir. Kindly un-ban me and join us in our discussion at Talk:Kachwaha. -TalgoKL (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)