User talk:Samsara

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


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

Pending changes on extended-confirmed protected articles[edit]

Can you remove pending changes protection from Mossad and Hosni Mubarak because both articles are extended-confirmed protected? PC isn't needed since all edits that can be made will be automatically accepted, as the only users who can edit those articles are extended confirmed users. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: @Mark Arsten: Any comments/objections on the above? Samsara 03:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
None - and I've gone ahead and done it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that I was talking about leaving extended-confirmed protection in place but removing pending changes only. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 13:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it's all good. Samsara 19:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Samsara![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Samsara![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Samsara![edit]

Charles R. Knight New Years's Card.jpg

Regarding this[edit]

I just wanted to note that the situation is not a content dispute. The IP has been trolling for over a year and their game has resulted in numerous page protections and blocks. Not protecting the page is fine; they'll be back. That is all. I would have replied at the request itself but I was not active and it is now archived. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You reverted an admin when after removing the CSD tag, they placed tags indicating problems with notability demonstration and referencing. These tags were perfectly justified, and your removal of them is clear evidence that you are engaged in a conflict. Samsara 23:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no edit war here, believe me. The supposed conflict isn't even regarding the admin. I removed the tags because I am currently working on the article and they were only added in response to a vandal. Tagging the article is silly when it is under construction and you could slap several more tags on it if you wanted (incomplete, outdated). The admin's subsequent comments indicated that they had no problem with the removal of the tags. If you feel strongly about it, reinstate that tags; they'll soon be rightly removed when I am finished with what I am currently doing at the article anyway. I have no interest in discussing silly tags further. My post here was just noting that the 'conflict' between me and the IP was not a conflict at all; you thinking that way is exactly what they want. They got their start here harassing admins, resulting in revisions being hidden, and now, after playing a few other games, they focus on me, with one highlight being impersonation accounts. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

George Michael[edit]

The full protection ended. Can you restore the temporary semi-protection, or let this slide for now? --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Restored and extended - thanks for spotting it! Samsara 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Scurrilous Knave[edit]

This is actually a sock of Kingshowman, so I would appreciate if you could extend the block. Thanks very much, GABgab 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not without evidence. Samsara 00:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Johnny O...[edit] now at AFD. Patient Zerotalk 13:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It seems there wasn't an admin keen to pull the trigger, so I'll be curious to see what the community thinks. Samsara 13:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem, same here. Patient Zerotalk 13:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

changed protection level for Switzerland[edit]

Pardon-me, but I cannot really fellow the rational ehind your changed protection level for Switzerland. What was the incident justifying it? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The protection reason was the following: Persistent disruptive editing: long prot log and RfPP request. There were a total of 14 previous protective actions, including semi from 19 July to 29 October 2016. Recent edits from non-autoconfirmed users include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. If you can make a strong case for enabling PC1 instead, I will consider it. Regards, Samsara 08:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi can you please block the user:Kellymoat as they keep harassing me and are a vandalism only account too? 2A02:C7F:DE12:2400:BD0C:23A8:A4FF:4F6A (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A user has expressed concerns that this range of IP addresses is being used by MariaJaydHicky, a notorious sock puppet vandal. But feel free to investigate me.Kellymoat (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect request[edit]

Can you semi-protect ÷ (album), Castle on the Hill (Ed Sheeran song) and Shape of You to persistent disruptive editing. (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Full protected all three. Seems a genuine dispute - typical case with reverts flying back and forth and little or no discussion on talk pages. Samsara 04:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
May I request that the way the pages were before the IP started edit warring on Ed Sheeran's pages be restored? Meaning "Shape of You" as the first single. It was my understanding that the way the page was should be kept, and any proposed changes to it (i.e. the IP's edits) reverted until they can be discussed. Ss112 09:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


You semi-protected my talk page for sixth months after someone else made a request at WP:RFPP. I appreciate the concern other users have for me but I don't think that it's necessary. Please lift this protection from my tp. At this point, I'm totally used to the vandalism, and it doesn't bother me anymore. In fact, these long periods of talk page protection actually make me more uncomfortable than the occasional spell of vandalism the page receives. If I ever change my mind, I can just let you know and have protection reinstated. Sro23 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please try to be more polite[edit]

"I'm sure you've realised by now that" -- really? Do you think that's a constructive way to go about communicating with other editors? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Protection level for "Arabs": New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page. Arabs article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict also. like the Arab League and Palestinians articles.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not see reference to the conflict in that article and would therefore decline the request. Samsara (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There was a conflict, but it became less, I think will be back. I suggested at the moment (Semi-protected). Like the vast majority of ethnic groups have a sensitive situation.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern. I'm sure there will be conflict again at some point in the future, but we do not protect pre-emptively (this is in our protection policy), so the article will have to remain open for as long as editing conduct is reasonable. I looked at whether there could be cause for enabling pending changes, and also could not justify this. Best wishes, Samsara (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm al-Hiran[edit]

Hi, I saw that as per a request from Zero0000 you protected Umm al-Hiran under ECP for ARBPIA. I think that was a mistake. If the article needs protection, regular protection levels are enough. This article has nothing to do with the Israel Palestinian conflict. Please modify protection settings. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I strongly disagree with this. The conflicts between the Negev bedouin and the State of Israel are a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as construed by many reasonable sources. Note that although the acronym ARBPIA stands for "Palestine-Israel articles" for historical reasons, the actual Arbcom ruling says "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" and it is always interpretted that way. So it fits. Zerotalk 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, the Bedouin issue is one of real estate and villages, etc. and the disputes on Wikipedia doesn't really come to the level of sanctions. If there was disruption on the article, regular protection should be the first resort. Not every dispute in Israel is automatically Arab-Israel as a part of the ARBCOM ruling. I mean, it's rather arbitrary, look at the section right above. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The Negev Bedouin are classified as Arabs, the area is in Israel, and the article clearly talks of conflict. If you still feel that I have made a mistake, I would ask you to make your argument at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee or a similar venue (and notify me), where I shall be happy to respond to the input of actual arbitrators. Samsara (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, no reason to get snippy though. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Onam : Page Protection[edit]

Hi, please look into my request for page protection. Thanks. Shimlaites (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply was made (by me) some time ago at the request page. Samsara (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect Shape of You[edit]

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent genre warring? (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is either one of the two versions actually referenced? Samsara (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks[edit]

Could you perform an indefinite extended confirmed protection on this article per WP:ARBPIA3? Thanks! (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The last edit from a new user was in 2015, and with no evidence of disruption, taking my cue from recent discussion with other admins active in protection as well as arbitrators, I'm going to have to decline this one. But don't hesitate to bring it up if you find that there is disruption. Best, Samsara (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, though, I saw this and thought I'd ask because per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30:
All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
From what I understand here, it doesn't look like the article necessarily has to have recent disruption in order for any Arab-Israeli conflict page since new editors aren't allowed to edit it anyhow... (FWIW, I'm actually currently logged out right now...). But I guess that would also contradict the fact that pages shouldn't be protected preemptively. Cheers. (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Some relevant discussion if you're interested:
HTH, Samsara (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kellymoat and Binksternet's 3RR breakage[edit]

On the Folklore (Nelly Furtado album) article both Binksternet and Kellymoat keep reverting (on numerous occasions) my edit; I've added sourced content and they both keep reverting it; Binksternet has been blocked numerous times with regards to edit wars; if you look at the Dreamlover (song) history Binksternet went as far as 8 reverts in a-less-than-24-hour-span; can you please try and protect the Folklore page so that only admin can access it as I can see them not giving up anytime sooner? Many thanks. --2A02:C7F:DE24:AE00:BDD2:31AF:2750:8648 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Gilda (singer)[edit]

"that really is best reserved for the article about the locality". Not really. The coordinates not only point to the location of the accident, they also point to the location of the shrine erected by Gilda's followers, thus inclusion on the main page is mandated. Even if there were a separate page for the "location" (there isn't) it would still be proper to include the coordinates of the location, a small and innocuous tidbit of text. Now please revert your edit and add the coordinates.

None of that information has been made verifiable. Samsara (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No verification needed: Just follow the coords link into Google Maps (satellite view) and look for yourself. You will even see the crashed bus. The location Gilda's shrine is a very well-known public piece of information. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A Google Maps search for "Santuario Gilda" (Gilda Sanctuary) points directly to the location with the coordinates you censored. A regular Google search for "Santuario Gilda como llegar" (Gilda Sanctuary directions) retrieves 31,200 links: The existence, and location, of Gilda's sanctuary is common knowledge. Can you please revert your edit and restore the coordinates? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have ceased responding. Can you please either provide a solid reason to remove Gilda's shrine coordinates or else put them back in? Many thanks.

I see you're giving me the silent treatment. Glad It's all going on record! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

J. B. Priestley[edit]

You might like to comment on an issue I have raised at ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the RfPP discussion has taken a new turn, for reasons given there. Your review might be appreciated by others. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Replied at RfPP. Samsara (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection of Quebec City mosque shooting[edit]

Thanks for this edit, where you asked "Did you mean for that to be indef?" The answer is "no", so I have changed the protection to 10 days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that you appreciated it. Samsara 13:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


I see that you've decided to reinstate Europefan's edits. You're welcome to do this of course, per WP:EVADE, but please be careful to check that these unsourced edits (which you're not sourcing either) are valid and accurate changes. There is a long-running problem over several years of Europefan pushing inaccurate and biased edits, and of course unsourced. Those who've been cleaning up this mess have gone round this loop with other well-meaning editors beforehand: they lie. This also means that re-adding these edits is hard work, as they have to be checked one by one. Even when that's done, the hit rate is so low that there's not enough left to make it worthwhile. So for some years, the response has been to simply blank the lot, per WP:DENY. This isn't refuting those edits, it's not wasting the effort to check which of the few might be worth keeping.

I do not appreciate having this termed "edit warring". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Lego Batman Movie[edit]

The film was released in Dublin and I finally found a source that doesn't appear to be a report from the unverified Tweet. Thank you for your assistance in the matter. DarkKnight2149 23:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition to the Wyandotte, Michigan, page[edit]

Hello Samsara,

I would like to suggest an addition to the section on Wyandotte Chemicals. You say the company made "a variety of soaps and cleaners." Actually, although their chemicals might have been used to make soaps and cleaners, the big business was ethylene glycol, which we know as antifreeze. That was a bulk industrial product. Also, in the 1950s, the company was one of the pioneers of polyurethane foams, now a major business. Makers of insulation foams, such as Icynene, buy their chemicals from Wyandotte Chemicals. I know this because my father was head of the labs at Wyandotte in the 1950s, then went on to become president of the company. Thanks

Charlotte Wolter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techlady (talkcontribs) 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Misbug for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Misbug is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misbug until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AtlasDuane (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Tuberculosis in popular culture for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tuberculosis in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuberculosis in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SCOTMregular[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:SCOTMregular has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portals-short[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Portals-short has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Protection request[edit]

Persistent vandalism just like Song Joong-ki's page due to recent engagement news Pain and Powed (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

14 years![edit]

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

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

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Samsara. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Sing (My Chemical Romance song)[edit]

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

@Bowling is life: The display of locks is not automatic, but done by a template. This is a long term known flaw/feature of mediawiki - there's a link on my userpage if you want to know more about it. Samsara 22:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I've added the template now - you can always check the history to see if something is protected. Samsara 23:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Dera Samsara,

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

- Raine

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

Thanks for the note, Chevy111 - pleased to meet you! Of course, family must always go first - please take good care of them! I've sometimes thought it unfortunate that some of Wikipedia's processes DO work towards a deadline - I personally lean towards Wikipedia:There is no deadline#View two: Don't rush to delete articles, but that may not be reflected by the people typically attracted to AfD. I was happy to see that usernamekiran offered to help. I look forward to seeing that collaboration begin, and will try to continue to personally contribute as well. Thanks again, for now, for all the good work you've put in! Looking forward to more. Best, Samsara 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Samsara :)
Hi Raine Face-smile.svg I hope all is well with you, and your family. I wanted to let you know that it wasnt Samsara's words that changed my mind, but it was the passion of both of you that did the trick. :)
Although I respected Samsara before this AfD incident, his polite demeanour through this debacle, and his passion obviously, increased my respect for him further. Also, I am not at all attracted towrds deletion. I always think of deletion as a lost resort, it can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barel. But unfortunately I have been casting a lot of delete votes recently.
The reason I pinged you both, is an essay that I have been working on since almost a month a now. I would appriciate it very much if both you provide your opinions of the talk-page of that essay. Also, this very essay was a reason why I nominated these articles. User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices). There is no hurry at all regarding your comments. Just to be on the safe-side, I will add a DNAU notice for the bot. I hope Samsara wouldn't mind. :)
See you guys around. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Geological ranges in taxoboxes[edit]

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

@Lavateraguy: I did not change any articles that already said "Holocene". I do think "Recent" is potentially confusing, and I observed that many of the more edited articles and many of the higher taxonomic levels (phylum, order, etc.) already used "present", presumably because of this reason. If you want to change all articles to "Holocene", I will not stand in your way, but it's also not a battle I will fight on your behalf. :) As a minor point of interest, I believe I discovered that if the template is given names of epochs as parameters, and if the most recent point is given as any string that isn't recognised as an epoch, the template will behave as though Holocene was specified, and display as though the taxon is extant or extant until "recently" (for some value of "recent" - not sure off-hand how much non-recency a pixel's width would imply). Best, Samsara 02:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
PS In some edit summaries, I referenced MOS:JARGON, which arguably bears on this case. Samsara 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation pages with potential has been nominated for discussion[edit]

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

Microsoft Office 2010 protection[edit]

Greeting, Samsara

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

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

  • [6]: Committed revert-vandalism in List of typefaces included with Microsoft Windows, brazenly claiming that PP (page protection) won't stop him. (He is unrelated to the IP that originally vandalized that page.)
    • This IP range is blocked by Materialscientist for harassment. Clearly, there has been many other instances of harassment from this range.
  • [7]: The edit summary of this revert reads: "Another editor was asking for clarification which you did not provide." No. Not another editor. Codename Lisa herself had asked for clarification. Later changed her own mind. But any excuse for harassment, right?
  • [8], [9], [10], [11]: Tried bad-mouthing Codename Lisa in four admin's talk pages. Mr. Stradivarius blocked his IP range.
  • [12]: Grossly insulted Mr. Stradivarius for blocking his other IP range.
  • [13]: Tried to do revert-harassment in ANI. Another admin dealt with it.

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

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

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

m:WRONG VERSION Samsara 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
And here is his latest vandalism today: [14] Changing some dates to something random. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not have checkuser to confirm that. I'm also concerned that you may be misrepresenting the situation. What triggered my involvement was an edit by RecentEdits who has edited a variety of topics not known to me to have any particular connection with Codename Lisa, and who looks to be an editor in good standing. The edit was summarily reverted partly based on containing weasel words, but that is always poor reasoning as weasel words can simply be removed. Furthermore, no attempt was made to find a source that clearly states that XP is not affected - I would expect this to be easy to do, if only in the phrase "versions of Windows prior to [some version] are not affected". As the dispute seemed to be spreading to engulf other articles, I decided to pull the brakes. The reason for this spread may well be the harassment you describe. However, also note that protecting for disputes nearly ALWAYS generates the sort of complaint that you've just shown, which is why (1) (I suspect) most admins pick those "fights" quite carefully, and (2) the mere fact that you responded in this already-anticipated way holds no particular weight. The time would have been better spent on resolving the dispute.
The bottom line is that if you want to build a case page for this harrassment, I'm the wrong person to turn to as I don't have CU available, but it seems to me that a valid question was raised by RecentEdits. Based on your query, I just looked this up, and it turns out that Microsoft does remark on disabling the feature underlying Petya vulnerability in Windows XP.[15] That being true, it would be easy to see how an editor might be frustrated at having the entire material reverted, and suspect a conflict of interest on the part of the reverting editor. So I would encourage you to go to some more effort to convincingly clarify whether this is or isn't an issue that can affect XP and merits inclusion in the article. Petya was front page news, so I think the issue of notability is already sufficiently addressed. We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone! Focus on content, not the contributor!
I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals.
Regards, Samsara 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Samsara
How do you do?
I see that FleetCommand started this post about the Microsoft Office 2010 article but your response is exclusively about the Windows XP article. But there are few mistakes in your message that I feel I must address anyway:
  • I do not have checkuser to confirm that. You cannot use CU to confirm that; you need the geolocation tool that you (and I) already have. (CU does something entirely different.) Other people who have attended this case were all admins, such as yourself. The question is: Assuming you could see the truth full and untarnish, would you have attended this case?
  • We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone! Quite true. But the sordid fact is that vandalism, COI, spam, harassment, socking, hounding, lobbying and disruptive editing has been part of our effort to build this encyclopedia. The important fact is: You say this sentence when you know for sure that the accusation is false and non-constructive.
  • Focus on content, not the contributor! If ask so, then so be it. This contribution is false: The source says so.
  • I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals. This person had been hounding me for four years. There is no end and no resolution in view. Of course, I personally do not insist that you lift this protection; it is suboptimal but not a catastrophe at all. (If the situation was serious, I'd have presented my evidence in ANI and asked the admins who previously dealt with the person to reduce the protection.) While you and I are not here for a victory, this certain hound definitely is. And getting this certain poor edit to stick for 8 years is the biggest victory he has achieved to this day. Let's let him have that. After all, he wastes his numbered days in this world on a futile effort to disrupt Wikipedia and spends his afterlife getting punished for it. The way I see it, he is the true loser in this whole affair.
By the way, there is something I always wanted to ask you: How do you manage to become an admin with only 23715 edits? That's quite an accomplishment. (No, I am not being sarcastic; I have been to many RFAs.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)