Hosta

• I can't believe somebody's reporting Director to ANI for some obvious jocularity, nor that admins and others are putting on a big voice about Diorector's jocular comment here. "I will see you in court for not closing the thread"? Come on, guys. Please just close the thread. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(Non-administrator comment): This is the first time in my life I have ever considered the possibility that smileys, or those dorkly "friendly banter" tags, have an actual use. Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the inventor or ^[FBDB], I'm glad the scales have fallen from your eyes. Between that thread, and the recent "Death threat" thread, I'm this close (makes "this close" gesture with thumb and index finger) to proposing that a special license be required for on-wiki humor. These amateurs are endangering our wikihumor heritage. EEng 00:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC) P.S. Better watch it with that word dork. As you know, there's been some prickliness about that recently.[reply]

Well, I'm a refugee from a place with a particular attitude toward smileys. Please take this handicap into consideration. Besides, the really bad word that we can't say is d-sr-pt-v-. Anmccaff (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<runs off to file an ANI thread about Anmccaff>ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And most annoyingly, the crappy software didn't give me an edit conflict. When I saved my ANI remark, which somebody has now indiscreetly pasted above (I had promptly removed it), I had no way of knowing SlimVirgin had just archived the thread. Grrr. And for this I interrupted a perfectly good pout break! And I wasn't even nearly as rude as I felt like being! :-( I think I'll just go on another pout break, over that. Please don't post here, guys. I'm on break. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh very well, I'm not on break any more, it's shot full of holes anyway. Bringing back the summer meadow with horse. Thank you for your comments above, guys. Bishonen | talk 08:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

...I'm feeling a ittle hoarse myself...

This page has a {{bots|deny=all}} tag y'know, you'll have to sign your posts yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

There's too much work lion around on Wikipedia to sign off comments Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

You should just shoot from the hippo like that. Anmccaff (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revdel. The same info was added earlier by an IP, User:66.87.148.226. Should that be revdel'd too? Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, done. Thank you for reverting. (I had to revdel your edit summary as well, as the username was a violation in itself.) I wonder if I should semi the page for a while? Scary stuff. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello,

I don't seem to understand the removal of the phrase that was used to indicate her as an Anambra descent. That's a regular word that is used to indicate people's origin in almost all varieties of English. Phrases like "European descent", "Scottish descent", etc are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Can you please explain why "Anambra descent" is bad quality?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Jamie Tubers:. Are you seriously suggesting that you think "Okaro, a descent of Anambra, in Southeast Nigeria, was born in London, United Kingdom." is correct English? The idiomatic English expression that you're trying to mimic would be "of European descent". Note: (1) the preposition "of"; and (2) the adjectival form of Europe - "European". The phrase is almost always used as a direct qualifier, i.e. it's adjectival. You're trying to use it in apposition to a name, i.e. as a noun phrase – which it isn't. There's no way in English of economically constructing the sentence you're looking for. Something like "Okaro, a woman of Anambran descent (Anambra is a state in Southeast Nigeria), was born in London." would be the nearest that I can muster, but it's awkward. Have a think about the point you're trying to make and ask for help if you can't construct it in English. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, what RexxS said, Jamie Tubers. The English is incorrect. My edit summary saying it "isn't better quality than anything", may have sounded brusque, but I was referring to the previous edit summary, "better quality", which User:Celestina007 used when she restored the phrasing "a descent of Anambra". Celestina thanked me for my edit, btw, so she presumably didn't mind. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) @Jamie Tubers: Since the Anambra link gives the information about its location in Nigeria, maybe drop that and go with something like "Okara was born in London but has Anambran ancestry." or "Okara was born in London to Anambran parents." followed by "The family returned to Nigeria where Okara attended the Santa Maria Primary school in Enugu State.". Thoughts, RexxS, Celestina007? EdChem (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I see what you mean now, but then again I was more concerned about the fact that you removed a very essential information because it's "bad quality". I felt, you could've reworded the statement, instead of just out-rightly removing the information. Anyway, I'll just re-add the information, hopefully, my edit would be of a "better quality" :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your new version, "She is of Anambran descent, a state in Southeast Nigeria" is not good syntax, as it's not the descent that's a state. (Also it should end with a full stop, not a comma.) People have made several better suggestions above, please consider them. But I'm not interested in arguing about the wording; I'm not invested in the article, and won't edit it further. I merely reverted some bad English, in the hope that someone would add the info in a better form — as I indicated in my edit summary, I didn't know, and still don't know, if "Igbo" ought to be in there — perhaps you do. I can't find it in any of the sources. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• I've spent several hours tidying up, and in so doing have done away with the repetition of sources and content, changed to reliable sources, etc. She was in an Igbo language-film, FYI. Bishonen, hopefully you can now nap for a few hours and do nothing.  :)

Jamie Tubers, I left out Anambra as the reference is poor, and I noticed that there were other references that did not support the content or had reliability issues. I strongly encourage you to consider the WP:RS policy. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work, Ed — I watched you at it. (I like watching work.) Maybe I should now change my page image to an even more relaxed animal, such as this? Notice the impressed little vandals gawping. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

But I don't want my picture at the top of your talk page! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants, that picture is Obaysch, so allow me to congratulate you on your prolific editing, a significant achievement given your "hands" are singly ill-equipped to using a keyboard and you've been dead for well over a century. I'm impressed to learn you have inspired your own dance and that you managed to father Guy Fawkes (commiserations over what happened to him, though at least you can take some comfort that he wasn't alive when drawn and quartered) over two centuries years before your own birth! Since you've now outed yourself, you might consider adding a COI notice to your article's talk page. Being (I suspect) the first WP editor to begin editing after death, your notability is assured (though verification might be problematic) and you can represent the perspectives of other deceased article subjects, but please be careful... I'd hate to see accusations of proxy editing for others who have died, Wikipedia doesn't need headlines for blocking the only known deceased Wikipedian still editing nor for being speciesist in blocking our only known hippo-editor. I know that we do have 'zillas and other cute critters editing, but none that I know of has your additional existential handicap. Finally, I understand that you value your privacy and Bishonen posting your picture may be embarrassing, but you are something of a celebrity as a computer-literate and functional deceased Hippopedian and paparazzi come with the territory. Perhaps some small tramplings might keep harassers at a more respectful distance? You might consider doing a couple of interviews to satisfy people's curiosity, which could also provide RS material for developing your article to FA (it'd be great to see you return to the main page).  :) EdChem (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being (I suspect) the first WP editor to begin editing after death ... – your memory is short, EdChem. Surely you cannot have overlooked Ka of Catherine de Burgh? --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, I would not want to insult, overlook, or in any way disregard (or worse, disrespect) Lady Catherine, especially having already committed the faux pas of appearing inappropriately attired in front of Bishonen, another of the formidable Women of Wikipedia, earlier in this thread. However, I must confess to being confused. As I understand it, Lady Catherine died in 2008 and her vital essence edited between February 2009 and January 2012. However, Lady Catherine herself had edited prior to her death, from December 2006 until November 2008. Her Ladyship re-joined us, adopting her full and proper title, from 29 September 2012, and we continue to benefit from her wit, wisdom, and magnificent condescension to this day. MjolnirPants did not join us until September 2013, but died in March 1878. I think that Lady Catherine is likely the first editor to return to editing posthumously, and almost certainly the only editor to grace us with her presence in living, vital essence, and deceased forms – achievements that in another editor might be miraculous, but in Lady Catherine, with her unlimited capacities, seems to be somehow predictable. MjolnirPants, however, is the only editor I know of to begin contributing to Wikipedia after having died – an achievement all the more impressive given the computer was not even imagined in the 19th century and MjolnirPants has also overcome the formidable computer-usage limitations that come with being a hippo. Both deserve our respect for their achievements.  :) EdChem (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that medical science and voice recognition technology have both obviously come a long way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were watching? Admins can remote control the cam on my computer? I'm not dressed properly to be watched by anyone, let alone someone as graceful and refined as yourself... Bishzilla, trample me now!

On the image, I can see the symbolism, in that the hippo can appear tranquil and relaxed but when roused can run faster than a vandal and aggressively deal with crocodiles, so edit warriors would cower in their presence. :) EdChem (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I love the engraving of Obaysch's family, Adhela and Guy Fawkes. (Guy Fawkes is a girl. Couldn't they tell?) Would the little MONGO mind if I snuck it in amongst his atmospheric nature pictures in the edit notice? Let's see how long it takes before anybody notices. ("Hey, MONGO, I didn't know you'd taken up engraving!") Apropos, Dürer's Rhinoceros is already an FA. Written by a good friend of mine, long gone from Wikipedia. Also a cool critter. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I would imagine that distinguishing Guy Fawkes' gender would have been straight-forward, but perhaps Guy Fawkes transitioned? I like the idea of the extra image in the MONGO collection. As for good friends long gone from Wikipedia, it is sad the extent to which this site uses up editors and spits them out, but I guess that is inevitable with the way this place operates. EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page gnome) @EdChem: Not only the administrators; I assumed that you were part of the bathrobe cabal... — PaleoNeonate — 13:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, I am surprised anyone has noticed me enough to think me part of a cabal. I'm also worried about how many editors were watching me, though, I'm not sure that a Bishzilla trampling is going to be enough to repay my debt to Wiki-society.  :( EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Bishonen, I'm not emotionally invested in the article either. I just happen to be watching it, because she is a Nigerian subject. I tend to be averse to the removal of content, without adequate explanations. Sorry for the hasty revision. All the same, thank you :).

@EdChem: Good job on the edits. I am aware of RS, I just didn't bother to check the quality of the source (and I didn't add the information initially), my bad. I guess it's resolved now. Thank you all for your time and efforts :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Guy Fawkes is a girl. Couldn't they tell?)Does no one remember the 5th of November?

It's about time, that Anmccaff (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamie Tubers: sorry, I had forgotten you were not the editor who added the content. EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO still around...but stubborn fight with Dell computer to fix their junk has me sidelined sans desktop at present, just as I was starting to get back into editing....grrrrrr. Yes please do add images to the MONGO collection...which is going to be greatly expanded by August anyway after I return from wild woods excursion from my ancestral lair from whence I came.--MONGO 15:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Pleased.] Hello little MONGO! Bishzilla was starting to consider sending out sock posse to search! Adhela and Guy Fawkes added to edit notice. Charming. Ugly baby, admit, but Adhela nevertheless wonderful motherly expression, rather like 'zilla herself contemplating homely darwintwins. More Bigfoot images and bears from MONGO optimistically awaited. And birds, see current edit notice! bishzilla _ROARR!! 15:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Greetings Bishonen. I'm enjoying not being a very active editor! I spotted at least one editor not behaving very well. Here's the page and issue in question. Be well and regards. Tapered (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link doesn't work, Tapered. But also it's a redirect, and the IP seems to have given up, so probably no need for action. (Goes back to nap.) Bishonen | talk 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Bishonen. While I have your attention: User:MShabazz went through my contributions as a result of the Zionist Occupation Government debate and reverted most of my edits that mentioned the subject's religious background in biography articles. Is this not notable when properly cited? It seems to me that religion is one of the most important aspects of someone's upbringing, and most "Early life and education" sections include far less informative details. See User_talk:MShabazz for my message directly to him. Franzboas (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old bone of contention on Wikipedia, I believe especially because some editors have insisted on adding the subject's religious "background" even for subjects that are, for example, agnostics. I'm not well up on what practice is nowadays and, indeed, I have trouble understanding why it's so bitterly contested on both sides. I'm not the right admin to answer your question. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your input. Do you know who would know more about it? Franzboas (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I usually toss thorny questions like "religious background" at User:HJ Mitchell. He's well known as impartial and can be relied on to do a thorough analysis. And I don't want him to become as idle as us old folk. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RexxS, good idea. I can't shake a conviction that there's a general discussion about it somewhere, but I don't know where. WP:ANI doesn't sound right, as it's a content issue. Anyway, I don't think it can be decided across the board in a simple way, because circumstances alter cases where biographies are concerned. BTW, the article you're talking about isn't called Zionist Occupation Government. That's a redirect, and your efforts to get the article moved back to that title don't seem to be gathering consensus so far. I'm putting it mildly. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, I've given up on getting it moved. It's not worth the fight, and I've always understood that there is a valid argument for keeping "conspiracy theory" in the title (although I think it's the weaker argument). I'm confident that the recent torrent of support is self-reinforcing bias, but I don't think it's important enough to appeal. I'm just going to get consensus for a few factual changes and move on. Thanks for being civil, respectful, and helpful through all of this. Franzboas (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant links to discussions and consensus regarding religion in articles are WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS. This is a link to the RfC that resulted in the removal of the religion infobox parameter. Essentially if an individual's religion can be reliably sourced and is pertinent to their notability, it (generally) can be included in the body of the article. Being able to prove the subject's self-indentification with the religion is also important if there is a dispute as to whether it should be included. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there we are. You rock, Ponyo. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

how one can have a not on an article talk page for nearly a month, asking for any thoughts for potential improvements prior to nomming for GAN... and not a single comment.... but immediately after dropping the template on the talk for GAN, templates magically appear on the article... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean there. Must be aggravating. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

moreso that the editor placing the tag is rather unspecific about where it needs cites... in an article with over 60 footnotes. really not helpful. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the article on my watchlist, so why would I visit its talk page. It was nominated for GAN, so it is posted on the WikiProject's announcements, which is why I saw it. You nominated an article that has obvious issues. You evidently haven't bothered to read WP:GACR or the article you nominated fully. If you had bothered to do both, then you would have be able to identify these issues and fix them before your nomination. Nominating articles that clearly aren't up to snuff isn't helpful either. It's just a waste of a reviewer's time. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" is really all it says regarding cites. now, true, there are a few places that may need cites, and it may very well be that the refs are already used elsewhere, and i just need to reference them again. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that you didn't bother to prepare the article before nominating it for GA and now you're scrambling because I've identified that it clearly doesn't meet the standard. Gotcha. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nay, more like, i hadn't noticed some of the locations lacking sources previously. from what i can see, compared with similar video game GA's, the only think it's missing is perhaps the critical reception. compare it with minecraft. anyhow, let's maybe take this to the article talk page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in talking to you about the article any further. It has issues beyond the sourcing and woefully bad reception section. Maybe next time, don't start talking rubbish about me on another editor's talk page when you're clearly at fault for nominating the article in the first place. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of understandable, though, isn't it? A note on the talk page is seen by a small handful of people; making it a GA nomination shines a spotlight on it and brings lots more eyes. BTW, I tried to remove the {{refimprove}} tag, but messed it up somehow, and you'd removed it anyway. So all I did was make article history look dumb. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yeh, that's true. it makes a certain amount of sense. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the header "Tags" on my talk: I seem not the only one who thinks degrading tags are a disgrace. I had three article tagged (all solved by now, but sooooo ugly before), and recently a TFA about a piece of art was distorted by a tag for a suggested (silly) merge for much of the day because the bot kept bringing it back. Ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: He opened by attacking me as a paid editor calling me a "shill". So i received a warning because he is your friend? Does an editor without COI make personal attacks and then refuses to apologize and instead claims he is more qualified then me? Did you give him a warning? Bishonen you've dealt with me before. I'd never get banned from a topic, look at my history. I am almost always right. Be neutral and dont post false warnings on my page. Did you see any attacks on other editors who disagree with me? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also to let you know RexxS has been stalking me reverting articles I wrote which passed AfD. I am perfectly allowed to post on his talk page if he keeps engaging in work I've done. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I was still thinking whether or not to respond here, and indeed trying to think of a good reason to even leave your post on my page after you removed mine from yours, the issue went to ANI. I suggest we keep it there. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Civil Services of India and Central Civil Services need your urgent attention as the sock is back. He has already vandalised both the articles twice and using profanities in the edit summary. This time he's using anonymous IPs. I strongly ask for protection for indefinite time even from registered users of both the articles after restoration, and a CU on "Uncletomwood", "Ganeshpote", "Kiranmohadika" among others. Please add the pages to your watchlist along with Vehicle beacon lights in India, Indian order of precedence, Indian Police Service, Indian Administrative Service, Indian Ordnance Factories Service, Ministry of Defence (India), Indian Armed Forces, Indian Revenue Service. Thanks!

Again..? I talked at some length with Uncletomwood here, and with you. As I said at the time, I doubt Uncletomwood would be of interest to a CheckUser. There are actually better people than me to ask about these articles, 59.88.136.171; I'm not Indian, not a Checkuser, and I'm ignorant. Please sign talkpage posts with four tildes, ~~~~ , so people don't have to look for you in the page history. IMO you should also create an account and take ownership of both your edits and your complaints and not avoid scrutiny with all these different IPs. Pinging @Sitush, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, and Bbb23: if they care to take a look. Bbb, how's your headache? Is anything here of interest to you? Bishonen | talk 14:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for protecting the article! Could you please also protect Central Civil Services? Also, please have a look at Central Secretariat Service, the same person is adding promotional content which shouldn't be here in the first place. Also, I would like to nominate

• File:CSS Special Training Assistant Superintendents 1951.jpg (since it does not serve any purpose here), and
• List of Income Tax ranks in India for deletion (since the Group A ranks are mentioned in Indian Revenue Service and Group B ranks in Income Tax Service, Group ‘B’, so no need for the third article for just the ranks, and in fact these are not "ranks", but "posts" as the former are only in the uniformed services, which income tax in India is not) and I know the same person is operating all the accounts, he cannot hide and lie forever, the truth shall prevail! Thanks, again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.247.7.249 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2017‎

See, there really is no point in you spreading vitriol when you do not know the truth. There was absolutely no reason for you to act like this, anonymous IP. Any rational person would know that I am not socking and not handling those accounts nor am I adding any of the promotional material to the Central Secretariat Service page. It seems that you already do know and you are still being ignorant about who it really is. Guess I really have no option but to stop responding to your threats because I am not scared of it because I haven't done anything. I am not adding any promotional material and nor am I handling those accounts. Let the truth prevail. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how frustrated the IP editor is with all the promotional content but he/she must understand it is not me. I don't want to out myself again but I want the IP editor to know that it is not me handling those accounts. PLEASE CONDUCT A CHECKUSER or any sort of other test on me to prove that I am not the socking IP Uncletomwood (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My headaches is a bit better, Bish, thanks for asking. Nothing of any interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too modern for me, Bish, and too much involving potential BLP issues. I generally prefer my subjects to be dead or, at least, inactive. I wonder if HM The Queen ever thinks this? - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: the thought of reading all those articles and histories, which my sock sense on high alert, makes me lose the will to live myself. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

At least you have a sock sense. I've spent countless hours dealing with socks without actually realising they were socks. I don't mind being perceived as a mug but I do detest the waste of time incurred. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've only heard of such a thing as "sock sense". I wish I could buy one. Even my socks don't have any sock sense. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Jack had more "sock sense" than anyone I ever came across. I suspect that spending huge amounts of time on-wiki looking at other folks' editing patterns contributes more to its development than any innate ability. Not recommended. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i'm getting a sense of deja vu here... wasn't there just a discussion about these articles? also, i highly doubt uncletomwood is socking... keep in mind that the becaon lights article is up for AfD. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick passing comment, these articles are the playpen of Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs · logs), a notorious copyright violator (among other behavioral issues). Then there's also Motbag, the two have seemingly opposite views. I haven't looked close enough (and won't have time to in the near future, unless I'm spoonfed some evidence), so anyone interested can take a look at the various sock categories and tags of jacob (the SPI is pretty bare as Moonriddengirl and I have mostly blocked named and IP socks outside of SPI). —SpacemanSpiff 05:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you, Spiffy! You really are a highly irregular editor! Bishonen | talk 08:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

SOrry for the late reply. he's back at it again. vandalising the articles himself and calling others vandals and Indians "illiterate"! This is ridiculous how are articles not yet protected and what's the harm in having a CU on Uncletomwood and his other socks?! Can't you see the similar traits?! He was saying that his parents are IAS officers while using Panrussia account and while using Uncletomwood account he claimed many false things and was bragging about them. None of which was true. I have to leave and will be back in a few hours and will share his other accounts as well

By all means, I welcome a CU on me. I am not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varghesejacob nor am I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vrghs_jacob. And nor am I Panrussia nor motbag nor wikicab. I am only unlcetomwood. Please understand. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, judging from the history of the Civil Services of India article, somewhere between most and all edits in May are by now-blocked socks and IPs, who are mostly reverting each other. Perhaps re-institute semi-protection (as was needed in 2013) on this page, set Bishzilla in the edit notice for the page, and Darwinbish could keep occupied any who edit problematically? EdChem (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi six months. No, no, Bishzilla in edit notice is a stronger form of protection, done instead of semi in dire cases. Before going that far, maybe we try extended confirmed protection, or db and her henchmen. Who removed Bbb23's post? I'll dig it out a little later. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC). No, it was there, I'd just got temporarily blind. IP — FGS sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~ — Bbb23 is a CU. So, I've asked him. —[reply]

Bishonen, I was thinking Bishzilla in the edit notice might cool any, ahem, over-exuberant IPs who register accounts to continue editing and acting like a royal pain in the posterior... :) EdChem (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why my username is being constantly dragged into this. I made false claims in 2013-2014 but have never made any such claims thereafter. I repeat that I am not associated with any of the socks of Vrghs Jacob. I welcome a checkuser if only to clear my name from this mess. I also ask the IP editor to kindly please stop this disparagement immediately. Thanks! The IP editor is warned not to do this again. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that Bbb23 doesn't think you're a sock, Uncletomwood, and that the varying IP isn't getting any traction here. No need for you to worry. You know how many users I've been disparaged by? Just ignore it. And could you please use colons to indent your posts, to show who you're replying to? See WP:INDENT. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much for reassurance, Bishonen. Uncletomwood (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due apologies, Bish, I'm sort of on Wikibreak; and I have neither the time nor the bandwidth to look into this at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have yet more users logging out in order to troll me on ANI.[1] I can't just blank their comments since a logged-in user who just has a grudge against me but is not engaged in sockpuppetry has been humouring them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented to the IPs, Hijiri, but I hope you don't expect me to read the entire thread. Both Alex and you have written way too much in it, and the law of diminishing returns has set in. I advise you to leave well enough alone, and let whoever wants to get the last word. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I know that, and I am happy not to have you read the thread. I am well aware that nothing will come of it, and that both Alex and I have written way too much. Thing is, though, I actually want the thread to be closed and/or archived without any specific result. The two users Alex and his friends have been criticizing have not done anything sanction-worthy, and I don't want Alex or his friends to be sanctioned because ... well, I know from experience that people in whose boomeranging I was involved almost always blame me for what happens rather than reflecting on their own behaviour, and I don't need any more of that nonsense at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. I hadn't actually noticed, but this is the second time in as many weeks that one of them has shown up in a thread I was commenting in and essentially tried to make the discussion about me.[2] I guess I'll just watch out for this guy from now on, and the next time he trolls me -- I'll ask someone else. ;-) Sorry to bother you again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hijiri 88. I come in peace and would like to state that I am not a sock nor a user who logs out to post anonymously about you. I'm just a guy who reads the ANI and occasionally comments. As you are practically involved in every dispute ever filed on ANI, the law of averages has meant my odd comment knocks on your door more often than others. I have no beef with you, or agenda - I just think you need to stop flooding ANI with your verbose and unhelpful fanning, and give the admins a chance to address the problem properly. That's it. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, on two separate occasions (one long before my recent dispute with another verbose user in a thread I didn't mind becoming bloated) you commented on discussions I had commented in, and instead of addressing the content of the dispute you specifically went after me. In the former instance, I was only a peripheral third party, and you chose to specifically go after me (pinging me despite of all the other editors who had posted a lot more than I had), and in the latter you completely ignored the substance of the discussion, your comment reading as though my behaviour was the subject of the thread.

And no, I am not practically involved in every dispute ever filed on ANI; I have commented in less than half the threads currently open there, and less than half in the most recent archive, even though this is basically the most active I have ever been as an ANI contributor.

It's pretty clear that, whoever you are, you are interested specifically in harassing me, and your excuses for doing so simply don't hold up: at the time you posted the above-linked comment in the ethnic/media discussion, my sig appeared 58 times on ANI, compared to 37 instances of B2C's sig, 14 of MBurch's and 12 of FFA P-16's: if I was only replying once to each comment by each of these three users (and yes, most of my comments were just responses to one or more of these users) that would explain all of it. I had only commented twice in the thread you chose to ping me in in the diff above, compared to six comments by Xx236, four by Spikeballunion, two by Jjbers (whose sig appeared 18 times on the page), and yet you devoted half of your comment to me, and mentioned only me by name, despite the fact that my comments had been several days earlier and had largely been ignored by the rest of the discussion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Hijiri 88, why don't you just stop? Please self-ban yourself from ANI for a few days. You don't have to answer everything. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I don't need this grief. I'll try to make sure my sig doesn't appear anywhere in either the next ANI archive or the one after that (if one of the threads I have already commented in takes a really long time to get archived). Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He brushes off the criticism with another wall of text, which avoids the point in favour of wild swinging and empty waffle.I know how this works - I write back that I'm not picking on him or I'm not hiding my identity and we are suddenly writing screeds about that instead of the point, and I'm the next unwilling participant in the Hijiri Show. Just accept you have a problem and maybe dial it down. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hijiri hasn't posted on ANI since they made the undertaking above several days ago — "I'll try to make sure my sig doesn't appear anywhere in either the next ANI archive or the one after that" — and yet you think it appropriate to come to my page to needle them further? Would you like to be blocked for harassment? Bishonen | talk 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think your comment about "the syntax problems presented by the two parallel clauses" nails it. I made the tiniest change to the opening sentence. I was hoping you could have a look, if time permits. I've opened a talk-page thread as well. Hope all is well with you. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented... ? Aha, found it. The woman who went out to dinner and never returned. I like your current version of the first sentence. The whole two first paragraphs feel a bit uncomfortable, though. (The third reads well to me.) That's probably because everything's contested and everything's a compromise — you know, like the horse designed by a committee. I was gonna say, there's some repetition in the first paragraph — but I see you have already fixed it, great. Then, the sentence "Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes" in the second paragraph is pretty reader-unfriendly. It starts as if the reader's gonna know beforehand about irreducible complexity and specified complexity, and know that they're ID arguments — without having to first click on the links. Of course the previous sentence is meant to introduce them as ID arguments, but I don't think that works very well: a stronger connection between the sentences is needed. Do I dare to eat a peach? I've fiddled with the second paragraph. What's the worst that can happen? (Hides.) Bishonen | talk 14:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Forgot to ping Joe. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The worst that could happen is you'll be tormented in Purgatory for a thousand years for that bit of blasphemy. On the bright side, it would meant I'll have some intelligent company. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The worst that could happen? Jimbo will block you for 3 & 1/2 hours, and a second Arbcom case will run concurrently alongside the one about whether to place the comma inside or outside of the closing quotation mark. :-) The article could really use a thorough copy-edit, but it's tough to convince some folks that the prose can be improved while still honoring long-standing consensus as far as what's being said. Thanks for joining in! I appreciate the comments & suggestions, and the second paragraph is definitely better as a result of your "fiddling". Joefromrandb (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo will block me for three and a half hours, Joe? That must be what they call escalating blocks. Compare WP:BLOCKABDICATE for what happened last time he blocked me. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Escalating blocks indeed! I knew that joke wouldn't be lost on such a learned and perspicacious user. It was long before I arrived in the Wikihood (technically maybe not, as I made the occasional edit as an IP for 5 or 6 years before finally joining the place), but I've read about it. Jimbo has blocked users since his "permanent abdication" of the tool, and it's interesting that WP:BLOCKABDICATE no longer notes this fact. Of course, if Wales has the power to overrule Arbcom, their "acknowledgement" of his "abdication" is the rough equivalent of "democratic elections" in North Korea. One of these days we're going to have to finally get around to doing something with this! Joefromrandb (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he has only blocked the odd vandal, sock, and supposedly hacked account since then; I'm not bothered about that. The hacked accounts were blocked by a hacker who had got access to Jimbo's account during the notorious Great Password Spill in November 2016.[3] That was very annoying from my POV, because I happened to see it — I saw the Jimbo Wales account vandalising on 11 November. One of the edits turned up on my watchlist. See the red figures in the contribs here? One of those. So I went to block the account, but of course I was a little taken aback, I hesitated for a moment, and checked what else it had been doing — like a fool, because it meant another admin got there a few seconds before me. Arghh. :-( :-( :-( There would have been such a pretty symmetry in me blocking Jimbo. Would really have set me up. ("Didn't Jimbo block you once?" — "Yeah, and I blocked him once.") Bishonen | talk 21:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Just wait till I pass the RfA I hope to god never happens; I'll block you at least twice a week. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as predicted, the edits to Uebert Angel and talk page arguments have started again. Two new editors this time: one you've met on the talk page and another whose first edit to the article was to remove "formerly known as Uebert Mudzanire" from the opening. Have a look at the history and the talk page, and have a think about whether it's for PP again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still semi'd, RexxS, for a few hours more. I've replied on article talk. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Someone has just miraculously recreated Laxmi Chand Tyagi, an article that was previously redirected to Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti, which was itself deleted following your nomination. It's the same SPS/PROMO stuff as previously, and it has appeared in a single edit by a newly registered account. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Space has deleted and blocked, I see. I salted it. Maybe Dürer's Rhinoceros would say it best, re these ever-pushing promoters? Bishonen | talk 09:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

On looking deeper, there appear to be a couple of older socks, the milk man wasn't the first to bring us milk!—SpacemanSpiff 09:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bish :) Remember The Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg? He's back. In my attempt to save some time I've run into a bureaucratic snag at the SPI, though. The rangecontribs shows there is some cleanup to do -- possibly a large amount of it -- and having the checkuser would help. So in those great words spoken to Tim the Enchanter, anything you could do to help would be very helpful. Manul ~ talk 15:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, kitty. Er.. so Harry Mitchell extended the short rangeblocks I had originally placed, right?[4] I see Harry is a little sporadic, but I still think I'll leave this to him and/or EdJohnston. I can only handle rangeblocks/range contributions when they're very simple and the wind is in the sou'west. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In the SPI I mentioned that I left a note with an admin (Ed) who is familiar with the case. I was surprised that the checkuser request was evaluated and rejected before Ed's input. It makes little sense having each SPI in these long-term cases start from square one, explaining the evidence as if the person reading the SPI has no knowledge of the history. Oftentimes the socks are obvious to those acquainted with the sockmaster's edits, as it is here with the distinctive madness espoused by the Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg. I don't understand why the person evaluating the checkuser request wouldn't look at the history and wouldn't wait for input from an admin familiar with the case. Rather than spending the time writing up evidence starting from square one, I had hoped to get an admin who has dealt with the Mad Lad to affirm that it's obviously him. In any case I've added some evidence that may be sufficient on its own. Manul ~ talk 18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AT WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos, I've semiprotected Heat death of the universe and Synergy for two years each, and proposed two more blocks. As time passes, we will wind up semiprotecting more and more pages since the guy won't run out of IPs any time soon. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The heat death of the wikiverse, Ed. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Please, since you are so utterly brilliant at it, is there any chance you could merge the history of Draft:Main:Pamela Clemit to that of Pamela Clemit? They somehow got lost in the moving process. --Hegvald (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are now three versions, that's the trouble. But the more I think about it, the more it should be simple enough. (Trembling from head to foot.) I'll do it; just let me collect myself. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Please don't look at my moves in the history, Hegvald, because they show how utterly brilliant I am. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

But the history...? It seems to have gotten even more lost in the process. --Hegvald (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Arggh! RexxS! Help! Or perhaps any clever admin stalker would be better, who has delete rights. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

That'll teach you to ask me, Hegvald. I've asked for help on ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Alas, I'm not trusted to do jobs like that (thank goodness ). However it looks like Cryptic has sprinkled the magic fixi-dust: Special:History/Pamela Clemit. All's well that ... --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the botching was done somewhat elegantly. But thanks to Cryptic for mending the thing. --Hegvald (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like watching a contortionist, wasn't it? No, RexxS, I know you're not "trusted" to delete and recreate and carry on, but my first thought was you might hold my hand while I did. Asking on ANI was admittedly quicker. I must get admin tools for Darwinfish, then we wouldn't have this circus every time (because it's not the first). Bishonen | talk 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I have also made the mistake of moving to or within the wrong pagespace, as Ipigott did in this case (and I have very nearly made the mistake a few times more). It is undoubtedly a part of the interface that could need an improvement of some sort. --Hegvald (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be at all possible if you could delete the edits made by this particular IP? The IP in question is being used by a vandal who appears to be copying and pasting large amounts (300,000 to 600,000 characters) of what appears to be lurid written pornography, and, in addition to being graphic, and possibly copyright violations, it screws up the loading of each page when one looks at the history.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If the excerpts are indeed from The Story of O I’m pretty sure they can be revdel’d as copyvios: the (supposed) author only died in 1998.—Odysseus1479 00:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) looks to be a direct copy of this book (possibly nsfw). or what you mentioned. either way, it's a copyvio. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and IP blocked. Please let me know if more turns up from related IPs; the range can easily be blocked if needed. Bishonen | talk 03:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

salute--Mr Fink (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think X06 (talk · contribs) is here to build an encyclopedia, as a glance at his contributions list would show. This comment from Talk:Richard B. Spencer is particularly choice (highlight: "When White nationalism wins power across the West, we shall see what the Wikipedia articles are saying..."). --Calton | Talk 14:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Calton. A little surprisingly, the user has been here for ages, so I don't see a NOTHERE block at this time. Blocked for a week. If the disruption continues after the block, perhaps a topic ban can be considered. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

There's also this. Obviously WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Volunteer Marek, but that was eight years ago. I'm surprised he wasn't blocked at the time. Wait, was that the edit that was mentioned recently on Talk:Richard B. Spencer? Yes, I see it was, and he responded by saying he was thirteen at the time. In any case, you know, VM, if he carries on in the same way you won't have to wait very long before he's blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

User:Bishonen, this is just the latest in a long series of disruptive stunts by EtienneDolet. Just a few days prior to the incident with the video they made this comment: "(Germans) know a thing or two about crematoriums" in reference to the Sednaya Prison Syrian crematorium and only struck it after it was pointed out to him that saying something like that could get him sanctioned.

Here EtienneDolet is dishonestly misrepresenting another user's comments. The user said that not EVERY negative thing needs to be put in the article (which is of course trivially true), EtienneDolet is disingenuously claiming that the user said that NO negative thing can be put in the article and then when confronted with this blatant misrepresentation he argues with the straight face that the words "every" and "any" mean the same thing. And of yeah, on the same article, he is also arguing with a straight face that the participation in a coldblooded execution in Syria is "non-controversial" (!!!) so he can add info to an article without having to provide reliable sources, just sketchy ones. You simply CANNOT have a reasoned discussion with someone so shameless and deceitful. Hence all the trouble in this topic area lately.

I can provide older examples as well, like when ED claimed that "scholarly sources" backed up one of his assertions, then when asked to provide them he stalled and finally provided links to anti-semitic conspiracy websites as his "scholarly sources".

Does he have a clean block log? Yeah, because he's great at WP:CPUSH and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally obstructing any meaningful conversation. Doesn't actually make his behavior any better. Like I said. This is an instance where a user simply needs to be removed from a topic area as they've done nothing but caused trouble and sown chaos.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he needs a topic ban in that case, Volunteer Marek. But I don't feel familiar enough with either the area or the user to be the admin placing either of those. Especially, as I said, in view of the clean block log, because that makes it a big deal — never mind how, exactly, he has escaped being blocked. (His topic ban log is not clean, no.) Bishonen | talk 17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

VM: If urging two admins (1, 2) to sanction EtienneDolet for the same edit isn't "admin shopping", three certainly is. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life Lambden. Quit the stalking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that making the "(Germans) know a thing or two about crematoriums" comment was a different edit from the one where they link to a video of an execution. Or is there something I've missed? If not, wouldn't that be shopping for three admins over two edits? --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three admins are fine. After that it's a WP:3AA violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've let ED get away with a warning for that Germans comment—as I have let VM get away with a warning for violating 1RR in that same article. El_C 08:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the behavior by ED is really problematic and just asked an opinion from another admin about it [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You simply CANNOT have a reasoned discussion with someone so shameless and deceitful—How many NPA and civility warnings do you need, Volunteer Marek? El_C 08:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[P]rovided links to anti-semitic conspiracy websites as his "scholarly sources"—That is a serious accusation. How come you don't have a diff accompanying it? El_C 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In my opinion, that's not a PA at all, it's a casually stated opinion based on years of longterm disruption and borderline trolling by ED. Also, this isn't ANI, it's Bish's talkpage; no one need supply diffs unless pressed. In my opinion, ED is gunning for some sanctions. He's been playing games with these sorts of articles, and needling and harassing VM and MVBW, for as long as I care to remember. I think it's time to put a permanent stop to it somehow. Although I'm not sure how this ended up here rather than ANI, I think ED is going to end up at ArbCom someday soon if this isn't sorted out. VM and MVBW aren't entirely blameless but most all of the troublemaking, disruption, harassment, game-playing, and community time-wasting comes from ED in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, fail to see how calling someone "shameless and deceitful" isn't a PA. All this venom and accusations without evidence—that doesn't work for me. If there is disruption, someone ought to compile all the evidence, with minimal invective, and we can go from there. El_C 10:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[6].Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El C, did you study the complete situation? As VM was alluding to, I found ED's use of the link to that video completely unacceptable, and came within an inch of blocking him. See User talk:EtienneDolet. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I had already have warned ED about that link. El_C 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not know anything about EtienneDolet until he started editing page Putin with inserts like Putin has enjoyed high to very high approval ratings throughout his career, particularly following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. [7]. This led him and Khirug to an editorial dispute with several users including VM [8]. He then followed and reverted edits by VM on another page [9] and reported him at WP:3RR [10]. The discussion on the page was heated [11] and resulted in complaint by ED about another user [12]. ED then submitted a rejected RfA request and made numerous WP:AE comments. His initial complaints were mostly about editing page Putin. I was especially impressed by this page created by ED. This is something I did not see since the "evidence" by Russavia (talk · contribs) and Offliner on WP:AE. ED followed edits by VM on Syrian war pages. But whatever. I would simply minimize contacts with these guys by leaving any pages where they appear. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, that wasn't a rejected RfA request, it was a rejected AE request. (I did quite a double take over that one.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a failed RfA request by ED and an WP:AE discussion started by ED where you commented. Thank you for helping to resolve various issues on talk pages and good neutral editing. I would like to minimize my involvement in this. Talking with ED is too frustrating for me [13]. I am not sure how VM has so much patience to talk with him and other strongly minded users on so many pages. I simply can't. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would you propose that someone describe an editor who has repeatedly, time and again, taken actions that are underhanded or deceitful? Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A disruptive editor. Certainly, not call them underhanded or deceitful outright, but refer to their actions instead. El_C 09:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply calling them "disruptive" fails to identify the specific problematic type of disruption being specifically referred to, which is deceit and underhandedness, which definitely bear mentioning because ED has been utilizing gaslighting/deceptive type of techniques longterm (and therefore merits an ArbCom case in my opinion). Stating facts is not WP:PA. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong on the NPA policy. You can't say something like that about one's character, only speak to their actions. El_C 04:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Furthermore, you are unfamiliar with the ongoing longterm problem with this editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a comment about VM just made by another user. Is not such comment on article talk page a blatant WP:NPA violation? How anyone suppose to discuss anything collaboratively with such people? My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same as "the possibility that he makes a good-faith request to be unblocked, he recognizes what he did wrong, and said request is accepted, within the next few months"

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954#User:MjolnirPants on Reliable Sources Noticeboard and other pages

Should the WP:RESTRICT entry be altered to mention that it applies to the sockmaster (as editing restrictions apply to people and not individual accounts)? Or just removed as almost certainly being redundant, as the master is indeffed and doesn't seem likely to return?

Courtesy-pinging User:MjolnirPants, who opened both the ban discussion and the subsequent SPI.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right, Hijiri. But naah.. I think ignoring the whole topic ban business is fine. I won't bother to remove it, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But let's all try to remember this sockmaster, and keep a weather eye out for them on Argument from authority , because when you say they don't seem likely to return... ha, I wish. I know what you mean, of course, but ha, I bet they'll return all right. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, you're totally right. I was just being coy. Then again, maybe by "return" I meant the possibility that he makes a good-faith request to be unblocked, he recognizes what he did wrong, and said request is accepted, within the next few months. If block evasion is assumed, then the TBAN would still be redundant, as any new sock accounts are already due to be blocked based solely on the block evasion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that all sounds likely. --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinfish studies the code for the cropped flying pig with interest. How'd Mr RexxS do that? He cut off a piece of the image! There's both height and width and also size. And yet there's only two dimensions. Hm, hm. I suppose the size must be the size of the actual pig, right, Mr RexxS? Like, size = fatness? darwin^fish 21:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Darwinfish: The size is the width of the image that you want to crop (the scale, if you like); the height and width are the dimensions of the "window" that you are cropping to; the offsets (top and left) are the position of the "window" relative to the top-left corner of the whole image. If you're a really good fish, I'll let you play with User talk:RexxS/Overlaid images. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'zilla + MONGO horses, thanks to RexxS!

Wow RexxS, thats cool. Lots of possibilities, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's brilliant, Ms Sarah Welch. And a little alarming, because, you know, how hungry is she? Let's see what Darwinfish can do. He's still staring at the code. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Darwinfish: those brackets, slashes and semicolons confuse me! too many!! it is not proper English and no way is it grammatically clear, but somehow works! Geek-grammar magic, probably! @RexxS: is there a way to make the overlaid images float, let text wrap around them to the left or right, somehow? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'zilla + MONGO horses

I actually intended it to work as a template like this:

{{Overlaid images
| frame_width      = 350
| frame_height     = 250
| back_filename    = Horses and thunderstorm1.jpg
| back_height      = 360
| back_rightshift  = -30
| back_downshift   = -80
| back_alt         = 
| front_filename   = Bishzilla.png
| front_height     = 60
| front_rightshift = 20
| front_downshift  = 10
| front_alt        = 
| caption          = 'zilla + MONGO horses
}}

That should be much more readable, and would make it easier to put inside it something else that floats it off so that text can wrap around it. It also would allow a border, etc. as this demo shows. Do you think I should just move it all to template: space? --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'zilla + MONGO horses running scared

• He he, fine template, easier to change. Look, more scary! [Darwinfish is actually very impressed by Ms Sarah's prowess with the less easy code. It confused him deeply.] darwin^fish 15:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• RexxS: Indeed, finer template than before. Darwinfish will probably nibble and figure out the "rightshift" and "downshift", then share the bits. I may try the overlaid images with some maps and a few other ideas. Yes please, when you have a moment, move it to template: space. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and documented. See Template:Overlaid images. Further improvements welcome. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not fish food

Thanks RexxS. Is it possible to make it default to a floating image, or add a parameter such as float = right/left/no? I will play with the "<div..." thingy, in the interim. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could make the containing div part of the template and pass a parameter, but my natural inclination is to treat the overlay template as one thing and the part that positions it on the page as another, mainly because the way I've demonstrated for floating a container to the right (or left if you prefer) is quite generic: you can wrap anything you want inside that sort of div, so it's a useful thing to learn how to do. Here's a suggestion: see if you can get the sandbox at Template:Overlaid images/sandbox to do what you want - or talk the fish into having a go. It's easy to test by just changing one of the examples to read {{Overlaid images/sandbox ... etc. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: So you know, your efforts have not been a waste.... I have been playing with the sandbox in preview mode. I have some questions, and will bother you after my wits are exhausted. That may be soon enough. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I received an e-mail message from wikipedia this morning saying Legacypac had proposed (what I thought was) the speedy deletion of the Lucifer (1970s Rock band) article, so I left a message on his/her talk page querying that. I now realise it was not actually about the article but my Luciferfan user name! Thanks for pointing that out. I chose that user name when I was putting my first article on wikipedia about the group 'Lucifer' a few years ago, obviously with no offence meant to anyone. Hopefully that's the end of it. Thanks for your help. Luciferfan (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. You don't have anything to worry about — I could read your contributions history like a book, and it's all there. Nice article! Bishonen | talk 20:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beyond My Ken. I also engaged Franzboas on their page at an early stage, and they've been here. But I don't think I'll weigh in all the same, as I have some doubts about what should best be done. But thanks for notifying me. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you and the other guys for the swift action regarding the Craig removal case. Although I suspected some of those accounts were fake, I'm actually surprised that all of them turned out to be so. Clausgroi (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was odd. I was pinged, but your message didn't show up on my User Talk page at first.

Maybe I should have chosen a less colorful expression, but what I meant, generally, is that a lot of spammers/SEO types think that posting stuff on Wikipedia increases the importance/visibility of their stuff in Google search results. I don't know if that (or other similar tactics) actually work, but it seems a common enough belief that finding spam on User pages and user sandboxes could be a full-time job.

In this specific case, the drive-by editor seemed to be attempting to legitimize the so-called binary options -- you may remember the massive COI/spam battle over Banc de Binary -- so I figured that while it wasn't an advertisement, it WAS an attempt at juicing Google to spin results favorably. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I wonder if I get any google juice from my first invisible message..? It's in there somewhere — inside some template — though that wasn't where I posted it. I don 't really understand how your page works. Are there templates within templates, perhaps? That never has a good effect. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Some now-blocked user dumped a load of comments on my User Talk page, where he attempt to bludgeon me by reproducing the ENTIRE contents of a Talk page. Some well-meaning person came in and tried to separate the new from the reproduced comments with some sort of template I don't understand, and I hatted the whole mess so I wouldn't have to look at it. But I've archived everything, so you won't have to deal with it in future. --Calton | Talk 16:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bish. The edits by the disruptive IP seemed familiar, so I did a search on <removed> the name the IP signed with on their talk page, and found similar disruptive edits going all the way back to 2011 (see Special:Contributions/24.25.237.226, <removed>, and posting incoherent rants on talk pages, just like the IP ypu blocked), meaning that they've regularly wasted other editors' time for at least six years now, and still haven't learnt anything from all attempts that have been made to make them understand. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom. I removed some of your post, as we can't link IPs to RL names, unfortunately. But I'll keep it in mind. Does it affect many pages? Possibly an active use of semi would be best. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In addition to plugging own theories about Norse cosmology they also plug an own home-grown theory (no doubt based on their own surname...) about everything that starts with "Mus" being derived from an old middle-high German word meaning "moss/mosses" (see Special:Contributions/172.78.205.84 for another IP they have used recently...), which means that it also affects any article that starts with Mu*, or has an article title containing Mu*, such as Muspelheim, Musbach valley, Mutzbach, Müssen and so on (see [14] and [15] for two old examples of it, and [16] for a recent one), so they can pop up almost anywhere here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC) (The IP signed their posts on their own talk page with their real name, BTW, and have done so for years, thereby AFAIK waiving WP:OUTING)[reply]

Good grief, Tom. That reminds me of my highschool teacher talking about how, according to Olof Rudbeck in the Atlantica, Eva, as in Adam and Eve, got her name: it was from Adam exclaiming "Eh! Va!" the first time he saw her. I'm not sure he, my teacher wasn't making it up to amuse us... but it does sound quite Rudbeckian. Reading our article... Rudbeck thought Swedish was the original language of Adam from which Latin and Hebrew had evolved... yes, of course, we're all patriots here... and Diderot used Rudbeck as a cautionary example of the deceptive linking of etymology with mythical history. A similar idea, isn't it? Just refer the IP to Diderot for the "deceptive linking"! And yes, I realise he has outed himself a few times, but still, and especially since it's an unusual name, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• They're back as Special:Contributions/172.78.207.216, wasting other editors time by using talk pages as a forum, and trying to spread their home-grown theories (see their contributions and talk page). Behaviour and comments that make me believe that the main problem with this editor is lack of competence. They have also edited as Special:Contributions/172.78.220.21, an IP that was blocked for block evasion after I reported it at WP:AIV, but was unblocked again when the admin chose to WP:AGF... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thomas.W, that's a biggish range they apparently have access to, 172.78.192.0/19. But certainly in the past few days, all edits are by our guy,[17] so I've blocked the range for 3 days. Much good may it do, since this is clearly long-time abuse, but I don't have any better ideas. :-( Pinging @There'sNoTime: for information. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Thanks, Bish. What irritates me most about this IP-hopper isn't that they're trying to push OR theories, because there are lots of people doing that, but the deceptive way they go about doing it. For example by first making changes in one or more articles, such as in this example Musbury Castle (with these edits by multiple obviously related IPs; check the contributions of each of those IPs and you'll see that they're all the same person...), and then asking questions at the reference desk, where the people who answer questions obviously will check what the articles say before answering, and then give an answer that confirms the IP's theories, since the answer is based on the IP's own edits (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Are the words Muspell, Muspiell, Musburg, and Musbury related?). Giving the IP-hopper the support and confirmation he/she craves, and at the same time making more and more people believe that what the IP-hopper says is true. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm at it I might as well add an example of the type of incoherent posts/rants the IP-hopper is fond of adding to article talk pages... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dispatching that vandalism-only account! Alas, his talk page vitriol continues via IP. Very grateful in advance for any kibosh you are able to put on that nonsense! Take care - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi'd the user talkpage. If the IP persists elsewhere, please take it to AIV, Julietdeltalima, because I'm just going to bed. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure what the deal is, but I'm not going to comment unless some specific issues are presented. Not particularly keen on going on a wild goose chase. —SpacemanSpiff 03:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-inserted again [18]. Linguist^talk|contribs 11:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Linguist111, deleted. I suppose they know they have a talkpage? They posted on your page, so it seems logical. But if I end up having to block them to get their attention, so be it. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, they've replied to me a few times in the past (for example, after I reported them to ANI for persistent addition of original research back in January [19]), but they've hardly ever communicated apart from that. Not to be harsh, but it seems like they're having some competence problems (notice they've never used an edit summary and have created a number of poorly-referenced BLPs [20][21][22][23]). Also notice their last contribution to an article before they started using their user page as a web host was two weeks ago, so they seem to be WP:NOTHERE now as well. If they recreate the page I'd, regrettably, be in favour of a block. Linguist^talk|contribs 12:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reported an IP to AIV. Not sure if this edit qualifies for rev-del. But would you please take a look into it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well revdel, I think, and I'll check the rest of the history, which seems very lively, and perhaps protect the article for a few days. Thank you, Usernamekiran. Somebody else has blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, somebody might have seen the report in AIV. I didnt realise, but that page is going through a lot of vandalism. I think the subject was recently in news. There is already a request on RFPP by other editor, I requested there the protection for 48 hours. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Is there any wikipedia guideline/policy or essay which states "a good online presence does not mean notability"? —usernamekiran(talk)

He seems to have a lot of fans, and they all seem to think Wikipedia is a chatboard. I've semiprotected for a week. Well, I don't think we have any principles for what doesn't mean notability so much, there's just too much of those things. But a good online presence isn't a reliable source. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

lol yes.
Would you please take a look here, and let me know what you think? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Usernamekiran: There is only one completely agreed criterion for notability and that is:

• "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

If you look harder at some of the alternative notability guidelines, you'll find them qualified by something like this (taken from Wikipedia:Notability (people) #Additional criteria:

• "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

I'd recommend making sure your essay is framed in the same manner – and remember that our guidelines are meant to descriptive of our practices, not prescriptive of what may be allowed. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot RexxS. Your inputs are very useful. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Linguist¹1¹ 09:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(I've replied, there's one more thing to do) Linguist¹1¹ 11:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am so annoyed that you are complaining all the time. I have not done you. I only added Next Topmodel Contestans which are my favorites and that is just fun because I thought I can do this on MY page but I did not know anything about it. So I leave now alone and take care of you or others around me all the time. PantherLoop (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use wikia.com or some other webforum if you think Listen! is an appropriate way to start a discussion. As has already been explained, no page at Wikipedia belongs to you or any other editor. See WP:UP for the general procedures regarding user pages, but bear in mind that the community decides what happens at every page, and there is only one editor who thinks deletion of your user page was inappropriate. See WP:NOTHERE for an idea of what happens when someone spends too much time on things like user pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) @PantherLoop: Note that Wikipedia also has user sandboxes (like User:PantherLoop/sandbox). However, even those sandboxes are expected to have to do with Wikipedia, i.e. to be work-in-progress article drafts (per WP:NOTWEBHOST). Those experienced editors and administrators are not harassing you, they are only making sure that Wikipedia policies are observed (which is required for the quality control of the encyclopedia). I agree that there are better suited wikis, blogs and other web hosts for your material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PantherLoop, I understand it can be annoying to get many complaints, but you really have to try to look at the substance of them, not just the annoyance: what they're complaining about. Please click on the blue links that they contain; they're meant to help you. And please don't put exactly the same message on my page as you already put on another, it makes it harder to take it seriously. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, I am in need of some assistance...this person really needs a topic ban. Battleground behavior, disruptive talk page posts bordering on harassment; see this, and the fact that their user page is lifted from Tyler Durden; original research and battleground behavior [24] (that content is not supported by the source; and their comment is total nonsense). If all this were not enough, plenty of name calling, most of it after being warned. I dropped an ARBIPA notification on their talk page yesterday, and they went ahead and reinstated their original research, so I'd say they were eligible for a ban pronto. I'm posting here to avoid a much longer trip to AE; if you don't feel up to dealing with this, and that would be perfectly understandable, let me know and I'll bite that bullet. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, it's almost a pleasure to get an easy request for once; it looks extremely clear-cut. I'll deal with it. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Vanamonde93, do you feel the same way about SPI as you do about AE? I blocked this one yesterday and for some reason he refers to the account you mention above. It's likely the same person from language and bheavior, but just trolling in a different way. —SpacemanSpiff 08:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I thought WBV seemed unexpectedly aware of the idea of multiple accounts for a new user (in the sense of accusing everybody else of using them). However, I have treated them as a new user and only topic banned for three months, which is pretty short for such disruption. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks, Bish. Spaceman, honestly I'm not certain. I'm quite sure WBV has had some experience on WIkipedia before, but I'm not sure where or as who. I was initially not convinced that he is the same person as epistemphilic, but after looking at the evidence I am more certain that they are in fact the same person. I will look at the behavioral similarities in greater detail tomorrow. With MYA, I'm really not certain, mostly because there isn't much material; but they do share similar quirks of in their similarly poor english. Watch the SPI, I'll post something in more detail there shortly, since this will have to deal with behavioral evidence. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Out of curiosity, how was CheckUser information able to verify that it was one person, not two, operating the Tyler Durden and Marla Durden accounts? As I understand it, CheckUser is only able to verify that two accounts used the same device and Internet connection. In this case, both Tyler and Marla were open about the fact that they were using the same connections and devices, so it shouldn't be a surprise to us that CheckUser would verify this. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I go into a deep trance and sense that the two accounts are in fact one person. Actually, there were some technical characteristics that made it more likely they were one account person.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I trust your sixth sense. Thanks for clarifying, Bbb23. Mz7 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) and (edit conflict). Hi, Mz7. I wrote a whole thing, but I see the CheckUser in question has shared his shamanistic insights already. (You mean, more likely they were one person, right, Bbb23?) Anyway, they did not affirm that they were using the same device. Tyler merely said, when you complained about Marla having edited from his, Tyler's account (as well as her own) and you told him he should get a new password at once[25] that, no, he hadn't given her his password, but he had 'had to' let her edit his user page from his PC, because she 'insisted him' (and he was logged in on his PC at the time, I assume, or it wouldn't make any sense at all).[26] The reason she had insisted was that, as a new user, she was unable to edit his userpage from her own account. If we weren't all so frantically good-faith-assuming, he would have been blocked after that rigmarole ('had to', indeed). But I'm sure you can see that the implication is that she normally used her own device, as indeed would be likely. I'd do a double-take, for my part, if I saw two siblings, aged 22 and 17, sharing one device between them, in this day and age (and one of them referring to it as "my PC", yet). Of course that wasn't it. WP:BEANS applies re Bbb23's trances, I expect. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) I think WP:BEANS and WP:DUCK are likely to be relevant reading. But I would have thought Mz7 ought to be aware of that already. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, RexxS, Mz7 is one of the most helpful and civil administrators at WP:SPI. It's a pleasure to deal with him, so no snark, please, even if you consider it mild.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: 'Shonen's talk page is one of the most popular places for vandals, spammers and sockpuppets to post, so asking here for more details about the technicalities of checkuser is a really, really bad idea. I'm one of the least patient and uncivil editors to grace these pages, so I'm unlikely to be responsive to admins like you telling me what to do. Is that clear enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Mz7: There's also a third  Confirmed account, and they're playing/trolling around with the third account and and Tyler Durden attacking each other on a Talk page. Maybe the third account is the black sheep in the family. You should also take a moment to read some of Marla's comments. It's like something out of a badly written children's book.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was like a manga/anime narrative. You know, the perky/sassy "little sister" stereotype. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for all the input, everyone. I don't like the situation any more than you do, and given all this, the blocks are reasonable to me. @RexxS: I'm indeed aware of WP:BEANS. My only question was whether CheckUser information is able, in this case, to provide more information beyond what Tyler and Marla had already made public to us. Since the answer is clearly "yes", I'm satisfied, and I'm not pushing for any more details. Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still have my doubts. Having extensively interacted with Tyler Durden over the last six months, I know him quite well, but Marla Durden was doing newbie edits like this. But, now that Mahant Yogi Adityanath also got tagged as a sock of his, I think I will need to wait to hear from him whenever he is able to come back and file an unblock request. But the funny thing is that TD has been doing quite well, earning barnstars and appreciation from several quarters. He has no reason to play games like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The manga/anime drama was puzzling, the disruption bad. In the best case, Tyler Durden may have tried to welcome others to wikipedia, be protective, then cover their mistakes. In the worst case, shadows of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Either way a mess, a useless time sink, not helpful to the project. I fully support the blocks by Spiffy, Bbb23, Bish, others. Time to move on, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm rather baffled by this whole episode. this one was a totally pointless account, and the shenanigans with the "sister" as well; but the "master" did seem to be able to edit productively, when they knuckled down to it. I'm especially confused by the idea that Tyler created two socks, but the whole lot are unrelated to this lot (we could use some behavioral evaluation there, btw) because I can see a user creating a sock to play Jekyll and Hyde in the belief that it will raise their standing; what I cannot see is a person who creates socks to do this while engaged in a dispute with another sock farm. To me, this suggests that either Tyler is a lot less mature, and possibly younger, than we think him to be, or that this is part of a larger pattern of disruption, that we have only begun to discover. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come to know about this. Moreover, I am traveling, and have only hurriedly read a few snatches of the supposed family drama that has proved Tyler Durden's downfall. I too thought Tyler was becoming a productive editor, and contrasted with his productive contributions, these seem puzzling. I don't believe, though, that they rise to the level of an indefinite block. I say this as someone who has very likely interacted with Tyler more than anyone commenting here, with the obvious exception of Kautilya3. Please consider blocking him for a short time, a couple of weeks perhaps, even a month, and allowing him to return with ample warnings about any future infringements. Our ultimate goal is to see the creation of reliable content, not to penalize people over indiscretions that only obliquely interfere with the creation of that content. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fowler&fowler. I have respect for your opinion, and Kautilya3's, and have been considering shortening the block to a couple of weeks; but I'm not sure. I don't think his unblock request, which I just noticed, does him any favours, especially his suggestion that his sister probably created the other sock, as a "prank". In other words, he hasn't socked at all; it was his WP:LITTLESISTER's doing, all of it. That's a little much for me. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, I've looked at the behavior of this bunch once again, and I'm more convinced of what I've said above. Either Tyler is telling the truth; or he is also connected to this lot, and we are just being hugely trolled, as Spiff seems to be suggesting. I haven't made up my mind, but I cannot believe that if he has socks at all, he has only two. Vanamonde (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Yes, I do understand that his explanations are not convincing. But, from my perspective, there is the counterpoise of his increasingly mature contributions, and the fact that the infringements seem to come from no provocations that commonly lead to the creation of socks. (And I've crossed paths with a few masters of the art in my time, starting with the redoubtable user:Hkelkar.) I am suggesting that we ignore Tyler's explanations, that we not request him to come up with better ones, simply block him for a month, with no access to his user talk page, allowing him ample time to meditate on his folly (or at the very least his choice of company), to allow him to return on the condition that if there are any other incidents of this sort, a non-negotiable indefinite block will ensue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen, I believe that Tyler Durden is telling the truth, as I said on his talk page. It looks like Bbb23 is looking into the details, but in general the computer tools haven't gotten so far better that we can dispense with human judgement where needed. To claim that TD was playing pranks against himself is too far-fetched and defies everything we know about him. We need to take a second look. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Bbb23 has this well under control. If Tyler provides the information Bbb23 has asked for, it should be possible to see that there is a little sister (i'm keeping an open mind on the existence of one) and who controls the Yogi account. If it turns out that Tyler was socking, and that the explanation provided in the unblock request was wrong, then an indef block is the best option going forward (sockpuppeteers never reform). If the evidence is murky, then a short block of the sort Fowler is advocating is the right thing to do. If the evidence clears Tyler, then, I'd support an immediate unblock. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If (sockpuppeteers never reform) then why Kurimat got two weeks block, and NadirAli has very impressive block log touching every block zone. But he is still editing Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nadirali. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not taking the position that he did not make the sockpuppets, only suggesting that even if he did, and lied badly about it, he deserves to be given another chance because he was becoming much better at NPOV content creation and reliable sourcing. Playing "gotcha" with a few sockpuppets the motives of whose creation remain murky, misses his positive contributions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If making positive contributions were a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for sockpuppetry, we'd still be graced by Jack Merridew's technical skills. Not to mention that Geogre would never have been so badly treated by ArbCom that he stopped editing. Are Tyler Durden's contributions really worth so much than either of those two? And before you ask – yes, I'm still pissed off about the way they were treated. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but I am saying that positive contributions can be a get-out-of-jail-after-serving-a-month-card if you are a minor (by own admission and behaviorally) and a first time offender for sockpuppetry which doesn't, prima facie, involve orchestrating greater support for a POV or avoiding a block. Meridew was one among 45 sockpuppet brethren, some seasoned editors with edit counts in the quadruple, even quintuple, digits; had a block log a mile long, lasting over many years, Tyler has three sockpuppets, whose combined edit count barely crosses 50. The editing histories of Meridew and Tyler are not apples and oranges; they are watermelons and cranberries, the former selling at half-price after a week in the supermarket, the latter still in the bog. This is as far as I go with making my point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You fixed the wrong mistake in indenting (see WP:LISTGAP if you can't see why). Jack was nevertheless a skilled and valuable editor whose crime was to eventually kick back against still being under an unnecessary sanction over four years after serving out a "standard offer" of rehabilitation. Geogre was a peerless writer on many subjects whose crime was to create an undeclared alternative account which he used when editing from work. I can see no equivalent justification behind Tyler Durden creating sockpuppets and playing games with us. Let me make my final point: It is fundamentally unwise to treat children as if they were adults; but it is catastrophically perverse to treat adults as if they were children. Many of the problems we experience on Wikipedia are quite probably a result of making those two mistakes. --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to make 2 points. First, I want to echo Kautilya3's points above. TylerDurden appears to a productive editor and it is very much out of character for him to do something like this. If he has a trolling tendency, why didn't it manifest itself before? If you're going to make a bold claim like TylerDurden is "Mr. Jekyl & Dr.Hyde" you better have a long history to back it up.
• The second point is regarding the scale of disruption caused. If TylerDurden did resort to sockpuppetry, he should no doubt be punished. But that punishment should not be an indefinite block. Tyler/Marla Durden caused less disruption than many edit-warring users do, who often get only 24-hour or 72-hour blocks.VR _talk 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiBodhiVamsa

@Mz7: Tyler Durden's previous name was Vamsee614 and the last name is same as WikiBodhiVamsa. They could geolocate to the same region, as @Bbb23: found WikiBodhiVamsa unrelated in different SPI. They both mention their name and caste in their userpage. Checkusers don't give private details, but if Bbb23 can confirm that they are from same city? Actually they have already given their location in their userpage. If they are unrelated, I don't want WikiBodhiVamsa to be blocked. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBodhiVamsa account is blocked for different reasons. I wonder if the Vice regent account has any relation to Tyler Durden account? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, WikiBodhiVamsa isn't blocked at all, merely topic-banned. Yes, I notice:d the "Vamsa" coincidence, Marvellous Spider-Man; as you say, they both gave their RL names on their userpages. It's odd, for sure. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"Vamsa" means a story or history, often a chronicle. It's odd for Britannica to have an article where we don't: https://www.britannica.com/topic/vamsa --RexxS (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I never knew that! However, "Vamsee" means flute, Krishna's musical instrument and part of TD's real name. Not sure if WBV knew what "Vamsee" means, but he has been trying to mimic or mock TD from the beginning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be surprising if these two sock-farms are now linked!That will be the perfect climax!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also may be duly noted that Mahant Yogi Adityanath, Marla Durden and WikiBodhiVamsa--all the three users accounts were first welcomed by Tyler Durden.All (except Marla) were subsequently even warned by Tyler and all the three seemed excessively interested about one-another.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attach any importance to the welcoming stuff. I advised TD to give guidance to new users when he reverts their edits. That is the right thing to do in my opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS: Indeed, Vaṃsa (vansha) is a notable topic in Buddhism as in Buddhavamsa etc. Also in Hinduism as Suryavamsa (solar/son-based family) and Chandravamsa (moon/daughter-based family) of the Puranas. Jainism too. Surprise!, we don't have an article. Will create a stub this week, unless someone else saves me the effort. Kautilya3: we mention vamshi in the Bansuri article, perhaps need to add vamsee in there as an alternate spelling, and maybe even a redirect. Some contributions and replies by Tyler Durden were indeed thoughtful and productive which is probably why we are even discussing all this... WikiBodhiVamsa account, fwiw, is quite new. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected some meatpuppetry here Talk:Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus#Explain_how_many_editors_constitute_.22We.22 (collapsed discussion) Marvellous Spider-Man 17:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite shocked that User:Ms Sarah Welch would suggest that I might be a sock puppet of TylerDurden. That is completely false. The fact that something so utterly false is being said about TylerDurden makes me wonder if some of the other stuff said against him are also equally false.VR _talk 06:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just gone right up to 11, triggered by the works of User:JurganHolst crapflooding Bosnian pyramid claims with this. I can't take any admin action on bullshit grounds as I'm involved, but as it's a clear copyright violation from here (including the bizarre parenthetical bit about autism) I feel justified in imposing a 24h copyvio block after he added it again after being warned. I'd be eternally (well, for at least a few days, maybe a week) grateful if you could cast your sharp admin eyes over it (and perhaps ask one of your friendly ankle-biters to guard the perimeter). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look later, but do you think it's a sock, Boing!? You'll remember the user who is now indefinitely topic banned from the subject, see for instance [27]. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No, I'm sure it's a different religious follower. There's a comment from someone with the same name here (being careful what I say for Outing reasons as I/we? know the identity of the banned one). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Starting with 24 hours for copyvio seems about right. I dropped a DS alert, though I don't think it's very likely to be of use if the editor persists on the same level. Ordinary blocks may be simpler. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, we'll see what happens when the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quiet so far (distal bodily appendages positioned in a cruciform alignment). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he gave up. Did you see the banned one has written quite a bit about the iniquity of Wikipedia on his blog? (That surely can't be outing. So many people have.) Bishonen | talk 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, I saw that. If it keeps him happy and away from here, that's fine by me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Khalsa and its talk page. An IP is busy wholesale reverting the article to unsourced / blog-sourced / non-RS content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Same disruption today from 59.89.7.112! No response on talk page invitation so far. But first check out MONGO buffalo pic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic, Ms Sarah Welch! I've tried blocking both IPs for a couple of days. Please let me know if there are more; I'll semi if necessary. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Clearly needed the same treatment on 59.89.7.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as it's undoubtedly the same person using Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited as ISP from near Jammu in Kashmir. I've left them a warning for future reference. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now 139.5.5.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from the same location performs the same action. Any chance of a block and semi, please? --RexxS (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All three are static, now all blocked for a week for block evasion. I suppose I might leave the article unprotected as a honeypot for the IPs (proxies?) the individual has access to, but.. nah. Semi'd one week. It's never been protected before, so I'm loth to give it longer, but I will if the same disruption recurs after the week expires. (Provided somebody alerts me.) Bishonen | talk 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

P. S. I have also blocked the 59.89.4.0/22 range, to take in the IP posting at the bottom of this page (59.89.5.91). Bishonen | talk 13:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, how are you? :) As you asked for, I changed the first sentence of the article Carrera y Carrera, I also added a source to El País news about Carrera y Carrera(probably the most important newspaper in Spanish in the world) and a source to Vogue_(magazine)´s news about it too. I think Carrera y Carrera is well-known in many countries so this article should stay in Wikipedia and not be deleted. What´s the next step? Thank you, Pravdaverita (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've declined the prod, because the El País and Vogue sources confer a real possibility of notability. You should not, however link to searches or tags as references. Please use the source at http://elpais.com/diario/2002/01/20/negocio/1011535406_850215.html from El País to report neutrally on the take-over in 2002/2006 by Lladró; and use the Vogue article at http://www.vogue.es/moda/tendencias/joyas/articulos/flechazo-del-dia-por-la-sortija-de-oro-con-amatista-de-carrera-y-carrera/18379 to describe La Edad de Oro de Carrera y Carrera as a fine example of their jewellery – making sure to use the actual urls as references. That will go a long way to establishing the notability of Carrera y Carrera should it be taken to WP:Articles for deletion. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pravdaverita, your new sources are fine, and improve the article greatly. Another thing you could do to improve it is to remove Carrera y Carrera's own website as a source. Also sources like DesignJewelryBrands.com, a directory where it's pretty obvious that representatives of the brands describe themselves — it's not a neutral third-party source. Note, it's all right to use such self-created sources for things like neutral history, such as the first paragraph of the "History" section. Sourcing things like that to Carrera y Carrera itself is fine, but something like exporting to over 40 countries — that should preferably have a neutral third-party source. Also, there are some dead links, such as Brands of Spain — it would be good if you could find something else to use for that. (I hope Brands of Spain isn't needed at all, because it's obviously another self-created directory.) Thank you too, RexxS. RexxS took the next step, Pravdaverita — he removed the prod template. If he hadn't, you could have removed it yourself. I hope you understand how to use RexxS's links — if you have trouble with them, I'm sure he'll help, he's a nice dinosaur. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Done, thank you :) Pravdaverita (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bishonen,

Is this language used by slbEdit permited in Wikipedia?

This user isn't WP:CIVIL, he does not assume WP:GOODFAITH and is constantly engagin in WP:WARs. with his WP:Disruptive editing attitude. He is known for WP:Harassment and does not respect the WP:No personal attacks rule. He does not WP:TALK before removing content or try to get WP:Consensus before you revert other wikipedians contributions.

May I remind you that he edited my own user page? And also this one.

Could you do something? P3DRO (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, P3DRO, I don't have time to look properly tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. But the diff you refer to is nothing IMO, considering the post they're responding to. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I forgot to mention one thing. I'm sure that this user Notyetmyboy is a Sockpuppet of slbEdit. The modus operandi is the same, he only contributed in pages related to SL Benfica, he was only active when slbEdit was not editing and he stopped editing when slbEdit started to edit again. Also, the user name is a clear provocation. I once called him a boy because of his behaviour and he was suspended for one month, thus the username: "not yet my boy". P3DRO (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P3DRO, did the Notyetmyboy account edit disruptively? It doesn't much look like it, as nothing has been posted on their talkpage. Notyetmyboy edited while SLBedit was away, yes, but not while they were blocked, so it wasn't used for block evasion. If it wasn't used for disruption either, nor used while the SLBedit account was editing, I can't say I'm very interested in the possibility that they're an alternative account, nor will a Checkuser be, because it wouldn't matter much.

I have to admit I have little or no understanding of sports articles, and I'm reluctant to dig into SLBedit's very voluminous edit history to find personal attacks or other disruption. If you give me some diffs with examples of those things, I'll certainly look at them. (Preferably something better than the example of "bad language" you gave above.) Bishonen | talk 10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bish. I wasn't quite sure what to do there, considering the (fairly) good (well-intentioned) edit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every part of the name is capable of offending somebody except the "the", so definitely a username block, I think. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be some sort of cool dance move - The Jesu Stroll. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm trying to abandon it. -New account 2 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you see that Ms Sarah Welch has changed the entire article/Page in last 15 days. This article was a standard for many years. and Now suddenly someone with a posh Christian name ropes in and changes it and you make this page protected. If you really have some morals and ethics, then make it protected from June 12, 2017 standard and not the ones that Ms Sarah Welch has changed single-handed. Though it can;t be ruled out that you are all same a gang of wiki thugs... Rascals of highest order, if you can't see who is vandalizing what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.5.91 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether people have posh names or not. What matters is that they add well-sourced and appropriate material. Ms SW's sources were excellent, and you removed the additions, and the sources, with no input on talk, and taking no responsibility for your edits, such as you could do by creating an account. You don't merely use dynamic IPs but you also flit from range to range to evade your block. Please sign your posts, so people can at least see which IP is talking for the moment. Even better: don't post, because you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, you never told me you got inducted into the Order of the Silver Rapscallion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, are rapscallions the highest order of rascals? Very nice. 59.89.4.0/22 range blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bish: you know I am clueless about these IPs mumbo jumbo, but is there a difference between blocking 59.89.5.* and 59.89.4.*? Our passionate Can't-you-see-Rascals-of-highest-order editor seems to be at the 59.89.5.* IP. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you did block 59.89.5.*; hopefully not the other if that matters!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just do what I do, Ms Sarah Welch, and pretend you understand it. See, what I did was I put all the 59.89.xx IPs I had seen, which included 59.89.5.91, into an IP Range Tool For Dummies my son has made for me (this is why we have children), and got the range 59.89.4.0/22. That means that range does include 59.89.5.91; it doesn't mean I understand anything. No, 59.89.4.0/22 was the range I blocked; there was no "5" in it anywhere after the leading 5: see the block log here. @RexxS, Johnuniq, and Writ Keeper: maybe one of you can explain the mumbo jumbo for Ms Sarah? Even better, maybe you can find a simple IP range tool on the internet for her to use? (I can't away with Wikipedia's tool, or any other I've found out there. Unfortunately the stupid-friendly one I use isn't online.) Oh, look at MONGO's mountain lake! Bishonen | talk 20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, I can try, but it's gonna necessarily be kinda technical, so I'm sorry in advance if it doesn't make sense. Basically: y'all know that computers work in binary (0s and 1s), not in the decimal system (0-9) that we humans work with. The thing about IP address ranges is that they use binary math to calculate the ranges, but when it gets translated back into human-readable decimal numbers, it doesn't look right.

So an IPv4 address (the X.X.X.X numbers we're familiar with) is a 32-bit number; it's represented in the actual computer as a set of 32 bits, which is to say 32 1s or 0s. When we display an IP address, to make it a little more legible, we break it up into 4 numbers, each of which represents 8 of those bits, and then we convert those bit groups into decimal. As it happens a set of 8 bits can represent a total of 256 numbers--which is why each part of an IP address ranges from 0-255. So, if we were trying to see what 59.89.4.0 (ignore the /22 part for now) looks like to a computer, we would do this in reverse: 59 in binary is 00111001, 89 is 01011001, 4 is 00000100, and 0 is--of course--00000000. So we could read 59.89.4.0 in binary as 00111001.01011001.00000100.00000000.

Now, what the /22 does is define the range, and it does that by identifying the significant bits in binary--so what 59.89.4.0/22 means is the range of IP addresses that have the same first 22 binary digits (which in this case means all the IP addresses that look like 00111001.01011001.000001XX.XXXXXXXX in binary.) This includes all the IP addresses that look like 59.89.4.X, but it also includes all the IP addresses that look like 59.89.5.X. This is because the binary representation of 5 is 00000101, and so the binary representation of 59.89.5.0 is 00111001.01011001.00000101.00000000. As you can see, the first 22 binary digits of 59.89.5.0 are the same as the first 22 digits of 59.89.4.0, so when we block 59.89.4.0/22, 59.89.5.X is included in the range block. In fact, the range block will include all IP addresses that fall between 59.89.4.X and 59.89.7.X, since that's all the IP addresses that have those first 22 binary digits. Make sense?

Now, if we wanted to *just* block 59.89.5.X, without touching 59.89.4.X, 59.89.6.X, or 59.89.7.X, we'd block 59.89.5.0/24 instead. This time, the /24 instead of the /22 now tells us that we want the first 24 binary digits to be constant. Since we know that each of the first three decimal numbers represents 8 digits apiece, and that 8*3 is 24, we know that all of the binary digits in the first three numbers would have to match, meaning that that would make sure that only the IP addresses with the same exact first three decimal numbers would be included. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look... so many 1s and 0s!

I'm grateful that Writ Keeper provided the details. The condensed version would be to assert that 59.89.4.0/22 means the first 22 bits of 59.89.4.0 when written in binary, and that is the same as the first 22 bits of 59.89.5.91, so the latter is included in the former, along with all other IP addresses that start with the same 22 bits. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Actually when I read that, both the long and the short version, I kind of understand it for a minute, or Darwinfish does; but I can not get my head to actually think in binary, to calculate the ranges. So I just use a tool. Did either of you have an online tool to suggest for Ms Sarah? I suppose there may be one at labs. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The traditional IPv4-only tool is toollabs:blockcalc and a popular alternative is [28]. As you know, previewing {{blockcalc|1=59.89.5.12 59.89.4.44}} in a sandbox would be an alternative. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are all wizards! Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ms Sarah Welch. Just wanted to let you know that I hid the non-free image File:LittleRascalsSaveTheDay.jpg you had added with an earlier post. Non-free images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. The file can be linked using the colon trick if you like; I didn't do that myself because I wasn't sure where you want the link to show up. In addition, you can replace the non-free with one of the files found at c:Category:Our Gang if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ms Sarah Welch, thank you very much for the fine illustration of Darwinfish trying to get his head in binary gear! :-D. (I see the Little Rascals poster isn't free to use on userpages; thank you Marchjuly, of course you're right.) Bishonen | talk 08:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oops, oops Marchjuly! My bad, my bad. Thanks for the note. I should have scrolled down and seen the permissions. Next time! We have a decent collection of Die kleinen Strolche images. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Técnico (moved from WP:AN). I think you were far too merciful, but then in recent months it seems like everyone except ArbCom is moving away from permabans in favour of temporary bans in even the most extreme cases (see also: Drmies's dealing with a certain comics-focused editor in February).

But your close seemed to be effectively a one-year imposition of a DS-style restriction on the user (he can be given a more extensive topic ban on the discretion of any single admin), which -- while less restrictive than what the majority !vote was -- seems a little beyond the purview of an ANI-closer. I ask because a few months back, in an unban discussion, an admin seemingly offered to support the unban if he were allowed place the user under similar probation indefinitely and unilaterally replace the ban if disruption resumed, which seemed like a gross misunderstanding of how the banning policy. Your action was not that bad (the discussion was grey enough, and participation low enough, that you probably could have closed it without action, and even a super-!vote like that would not have been the same as unilaterally overturning a clear consensus), but I'm always worried when I see anything like "admins can impose bans" being placed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee in anything other than extreme circumstances.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When is too much drama not enough? The most sensible response is seen in Special:Contributions/Técnico which shows that the account may never be used again—what a surprise. I have no idea whether Bishonen correctly filled in the form required to sanction a user, but it is just a statement of the obvious, namely that if an editor gets the result shown in that ANI section and gets a lenient sanction and later repeats their disruption, an admin could respond in a suitable manner. A suitable manner might include an indefinite topic ban under the terms of WP:ARBAP2—that would be based on repeated disruption after a clear warning. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, User:Johnuniq: I'm not ignoring you to be rude. I had a reply to you ready to post when my iPad suddenly jumped from 2% to 0% and I lost it all. The basic gist is in my replies to Bish below, but I was too depressed about what happened to redraft my direct reply. Basically, I didn't mean to imply that I was criticizing Bish for filling out the wrong form: I was curious if (she thought?) she was technically filling out the correct form since I've seen a lot of weird shit going on around bans over the last seven months or so, and I was wondering if it was just a coincidence or I was just missing something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88, no, I'm probably not, it was pretty IAR. Though there is a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card in WP:CBAN: "the community may engage in a discussion to impose a topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction". My sense from that is that I'm more free to impose tailored sanctions than when I'm banning per arbcom discretionary sanctions. I'm more worried about imposing a sanction nobody in the discussion had actually suggested, than about going beyond the purview of an ANI-closer, but I still don't think it's fair to call my close a supervote. Lenient ban + probation was meant to be a compromise between all the points reasonably suggested. The discussion was at a high level (except for the user's own commentary), and I tried to find a solution that would do justice to everybody's concerns. Probably didn't succeed, because that would have been what my language calls a tulipanaros, a tulip rose, but it was my aim. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean to call your close a supervote -- that would entail the assumption that most (or perhaps some) of the !voters would have disagreed with you on the substance; I suspect some of those more vested in the dispute than I might take greater issue than I do with your mercy, but it wasn't like you chose to overrule the community consensus in favour of going the opposite way. What I meant was that it would have been a supervote if you had decided to close with no action whatsoever (something I've seen in similar cases), but that even if you had done that it wouldn't have been as bad as overturning a previously imposed community sanction based on the assumption that you could unilaterally reinstate it without another ANI flare-up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As John implies, the probation is also technically unnecessary. Since the user has received the DS alert, any admin can impose a topic ban at discretion should the disruption continue. Indeed, I thought about doing it per DS myself. But with the full and well-considered ANI discussion staring me in the face, it seemed disrespectful to the community to just place the usual old quick-and-dirty arbcom sanction. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, I know. I also suspect (based partly on my experience with similar editors in the past) that they are either gone for good now that they have been told that what they had been doing was unacceptable, or will violate the probation anyway. If I had any serious concerns about your specific close it would be that the latter would happen and we'd just have another flare-up at ANI. I was mainly asking a technical question because I've seen the "admins can impose bans" thing crop up from time to time, and even though you could have cited ARBAP, it didn't seem like you or the majority of commenters in the thread were explicitly citing that. My experience earlier this year with an admin who will remain nameless has made me wish ANI-closers and/or random admins had less power to impose or overturn community sanctions and/or sanctions that should have been treated as community sanctions. I'm too lazy to check, but I can't help but imagine that there's a reason sysops are only allowed unilaterally impose sanctions in certain designated areas where ArbCom has given them the authority to do so, while sanctions otherwise require community consensus or a specific ArbCom ruling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen,

I restored an ANI thread after it was removed by an IP editor with the edit summary "rv troll." This was my first action in the area, I was unaware of the ongoing discussion / dispute before the ANI thread appeared. I was then approached on my talk page and I made this post. The IP suggested it demonstrated that I am WP:NOTHERE, and another user has described my post as violating WP:NPA. As an experienced admin who I respect, I ask for your view of my actions in this ANI thread, on my user talk page, and at the end of the article talk section (most of which preceded the ANI thread). Pleas be frank, if I've misjudged my actions or acted inappropriately, I would rather be told. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't take criticism from an editor who behaves like 71.198.247.231 seriously, Ed? If that had been a name account, it would be indeffed by now. Oh, wait.. could that possibly be the reason they prefer editing from an IP? Well, I never! Anyway, I've blocked them for a couple of weeks for disrupting ANI, it's ridiculous. As for Arthur Rubin, who I assume you're referring to, I've no idea what he's talking about in the ANI thread, and I see other people in the discussion also appear baffled. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I thought the IP's comment about NOTHERE was funny because it was so absurd, and their post to me that I should strike my description of their behaviour as disruption was also ridiculous. Thanks for the block on the IP, I was surprised no one had done it sooner, to be honest. I was just trying to give you the background that led to the comments from Arthur Rubin, whose post to ANI on deadnaming is followed by one with the edit summary "clear WP:NPA violation, even if accurate." I do not think of myself as someone who engages in personal attacks, and I was very surprised to see an admin refer to a post of mine as a clear violation of WP:NPA, and that is why I sought input from you as an admin who I respect and trust to honestly tell me if I've done something foolish and violated the rule against personal attacks. Arthur is talking about deadnaming so I interpret his comment as referring to my post to Colonial Overlord on my user talk page. Arthur has also said that the IP has a point in saying I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. I don't want to turn the ANI thread into a discussion of my comments as the thread needs to focus on the behaviour at talk:Trans woman. However, the comment about my being NOTHERE which I saw as silly coming from the IP is much more serious and objectionable to me coming from an admin. An admin stating on ANI that I have clearly violated {{WP:NPA]] is also problematic when I was trying to make the point that disrespecting the gender identity of a transgender person is offensive and unacceptable. I intend to raise it with Arthur on his talk page, but I wanted a reality check from an experienced Wikipedian who was outside the situation first. Am I missing something and can I be seen as NOTHERE and having clearly violated WP:NPA? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not IMO, no. I don't understand why Arthur Rubin thinks your use of the term "deadnaming" is a personal attack. If you look up Deadname on Wikipedia, you get redirected to Transphobia, which says (leaving out the footnotes): "Misgendering can be deliberate or accidental. It ordinarily takes the form of a person using pronouns to describe someone that are not the ones that person prefers, calling a person "ma'am" or "sir" in contradiction to the person's gender identity, using a pre-transition name for someone instead of a post-transition one (called "deadnaming"), or insisting that a person must behave consistently with their assigned sex", etc bla bla. That's the only reference to deadnaming I've found, and you can see it even says it can be deliberate or accidental — so how could telling people not to do it possibly be a PA? I don't understand how Arthur Rubin can construe your telling Colonial Overlord that he has no right to deadname a transgendered person (" that does not give you or anyone else the right to violate the BLP policy by deadnaming or by denying any transgendered person their gender identity"[29]) as a personal attack. It seems very far-fetched to me. As for the way he, Arthur Rubin, expressed it — "The anon has a point"[30] — when the only point the anon had made was that you were not here to build an encyclopedia — I can only assume it was accidental, and not intended the way it sounds. It would be, well, pretty extravagant for AR to suggest out of the blue that you're NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 15:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your comments and opinion, Bishonen. I am glad to say that Arthur Rubin has struck both of his comments in the ANI thread.  :) By the way, the IP made an unblock request that leaves me curious about whose bad hand they are. EdChem (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who thinks I have a personal vendetta against them isn't a very distinguishing characteristic, though. Users who think that (or to put it with more precision, who say they think that, and that several other admins also have a personal vendetta against them) are as the sands of the Sahara. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed... like meatloaf through a straw, so is the originality of sockmaster whinges... EdChem (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Thank you for the kind words. Actually, I soft-blocked the long-name account, so it was okay for them to create the shorter one afterward. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Yes, it was OK after you softblocked it for being too long, but was not OK in the sense that Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo seems to have been itself a sock. At least it was sockblocked by DoRD.[31] BTW I see you've also welcomed a medium-length name account, Doidlodilalo, before you welcomed Doidlo.[32] If you're not worried they'll think it's OK to use both, fine — I'll leave it up to you. I may be getting jaded, but I don't think a user who messes about to this extent, with the "frodesiak" names too, shows great promise of becoming a useful contributor, but let's hope I'm wrong. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

All this, ...lodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldil... stuff is hurting my brain and I'm getting confused. :) From what I see Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo was the first account, softblocked by me, with an invitation to create another account. So, that long account was never a sock. The new accounts created were made (according to the user) to be possible new, main accounts.

I agree about your last point. The number of accounts created after the soft block and their names indicate a bit of trolling. I just want this editor to get to work using one account and make up for the time wasted so far. I'm doubtful and suspect this user was around before and had a problem with an admin.

Convenience link(s):

• Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Doidlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ddili Afrodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Doidlodilalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• A Frodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Dioldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (main account, all others blocked)

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user just created Dioldo (against your warning, I know). I'll keep an eye on things. (You are within your rights to block if you really want to.) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to relieve my feelings, you mean? No, no. They're such a charmer I'll be happy to leave them in your care. Seriously, good luck. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I hope I won't need the luck. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...Today is my birthday, so I checked the calendar to see who else shares my special day! So happy First Edit Day! LA If you reply here, please {{Ping}} me. @ 09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to closing of the afD. Don't you think the discussion should remain open? Even though nominator withdrew there were multiple other people who voted delete, and a lot who voted merge. There really didn't seem to be clear consensus if any of the three ways yet, and regardless of the withdrawal there was still a debate on the issue. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WikiVirusC, thanks for bringing it up, and you may be right. But the nominator withdrew the nomination because the article had become something completely different from what they nominated, both in name and content. That means that people in the discussion voted on different versions, and my thinking was it would be more logical to start a new discussion — a second AfD — which deals with the new version, rather than attempting to assess such a fluctuating discussion, where people were talking about all different things. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new AfD, which is about the current version and under the current name? In case you'd like to do that, please feel free to tell people I ("the closing admin") said so, in case they complain it's too soon. Another thought: anybody is in any case free to perform a merge-plus-redirect. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It was moved to the changed name pretty early on, but most of the replies/votes were after that, but I now understand the reasoning for closing and just allowing a second nom to happen. I don't feel a new discussion is necessary since a lot of the non-keep votes were merge, and we can discuss a merge on talk page. If someone else feels strongly about deletion I assume they will nominated again I guess, but most likely decision will probably be merge or redirect anyways. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Such pages should not be allowed on Wikipedia and those who create them should be horsewhipped and then banned for ever. They are nothing more than malicious and deranged anarchists set on destroying world harmony by maligning noble and honourable statesmen. I strongly doubt that Mr Trump or any of his family have ever met any of those subversive Bolsheviks running Russia, and what if they had? They were doubtless only discussing human rights abuses in Russia or gay pride or of the other new confangled causes which seem to so preoccupy people these days - all this fake news needs to be stopped at once. I am a great admirer of Mr Trump and he of me but like him, I woudl never allow my personal feelings to cloud my judgement. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lady doubtlessly is privy to information confirming such that we commoners are unable to access; I have no reason not to trust her judgment in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't it time you offered yourself for adminship, m'lady, if only to redress Wikipedia's political balance? It is often said that admins are a disgustingly liberal lot. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It is indeed high time that I wielded the admin tools, perhaps you should nominate me my dear. I am one of the most liberal and egalitarian people on the planet. My mind is so broad I sometimes wonder how I manage to support it. All my servants will regale you with tales of my generosity and good nature. I can see their happy faces now, as I recall last Christmas Eve when I anounced that as their Christmas gift, I would carpet the back stiairs at my own expense. Now is indeed the time for my elevation. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, is adminship not a touch common for someone as elevated as Lady Catherine? If she were a star, she would be the North Star, the constant guiding light around which all others revolve, and so should her Wiki-Status be... not a common admin but a unique position of inspiration through her benevolent example, her supreme condescension, and her willingness to rebuke cetaceans with whom she is vexed. We need a Wikipedia:Request for Catherinehood (singular, as there can be only one WikiCatherine), to formally recognise Lady Catherine as the Wikipedia OverLady with all permissions and whose merest whims would bind us mere mortal Wikipedians by their self-evident infallibility. EdChem (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can say EdChem without fear of contradiction or accusations of false modesty that you have a perspicacity matched only by my own. It is true that I have a humble ability to improve the lives of others with my wisdom, tact and empathy. The tools would be useful, particularly the check-user one which would enable me to glimpse into an editor's private life and thus advise them on real life as well as virtual problems. I have always been very interested in what others are doing - I have a very inquiring mind which is why I am so intelligent. Perhaps you could arrange for the check user to be assigned to my account toute-de-pronto. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, not all of us are left wing commie would be regicides. As far as I'm concerned Western Civilization has been in terminal decline since 1789. I really must make a point of calling on your ladyship. I have the honour to be and remain your obedient servant etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Catherine, I hope you can excuse the tardiness of my response, I was overwhelmed by the magnificence of your generosity and rendered speechless by the effortless poise with which you manage to balance your infinite humility with your indescribable combination of Delphic wisdom, Wildean wit, Applebian discretion, Troiian empathy, and positively anti-Trumpian tact. I feel confident that you will be well accustomed to the effect your august personage can have on those of us who are members of the weaker sex, and believe that your universally-admired condescension will be more than adequate to the task of constructing a reply of unparalleled truthiness. Sadly, on arranging check user permissions for your account, it is not within my authority nor my power. Further, having been critical of ArbCom at times, for reasons I am sure you can readily intuit given your own perspicacity, they are generally disinclined to respond positively to my suggestions. As for our founding cetacean, I suspect he would be so over-awed by your infallibility and omniscience that he would fear elevating you to positions of greater authority due to the shadows you would inevitably cast across his reflected light. I fear that Your Ladyship will need to continue to bear the cross of limited tools as part of the slings and arrows of amassed and intimidated Lilliputians. EdChem (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I voted keep, I agree with the OP that this is not a valid close. The policy is clear, "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it." It is not unusual for pages to change during the deletion discussion, and that does not justify this type of close. I have submitted this to deletion review. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Mattflaschen. Probably the best place for it. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• At the risk of possibly overstepping myself, I hereby nominate Catherine the Great as Empress of all the Russias. Where is the page for that? Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Signpost, behold File:Longnose batfish.jpg (or full glory). Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla maternally interested by the look of the cute, vulnerable little creature.] Hmm. Maybe another little sock? User:Batbish? bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It does look kinda like a sock, doesn't it? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kissably cute!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as adorable as this little guy. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have dealt with this editor's issues,[33] I believe it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia for you to check their latest editing spree.

It appears that Saladin1987 has decided to take their changing of referenced information(for which he was banned from India/Pakistan/Afghanistan articles) to Iran/Turkey areas. I have already had a brief conversation with Saladin1987 on my talk page, though I seriously doubt they will listen.[34] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A problematic user, Kansas Bear. As I told you privately during my break, I have forwarded your complaint to some admins I know. Precisely because I've dealt with the editor before, more and fresher eyes are better. If problems continue, there's always ANI, also. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen. There is an IP user who I think needs an IP range block. They have been blocked on one IP address multiple times ([35]) for disruptive editing about WWE events, and have also made similar unsourced edits on other IP address in the same range ([36], [37]). I'm asking you as I recall you range blocked a similar editor in the past, who I think is the same person, although editing from a slightly different IP range. My last request seems to have been this one [38], although it looks like User: Berean Hunter blocked in that case. Anyway, thank you for your assistance. Silverfish (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfish,  Done /64 range blocked 3 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi ! . Thanks a lot, sir. Much appreciated.

As I stated earlier, No, I didn't accept your offer 'after' reading the message by another administrator, he may have posted that message while I was editing my post, and it was only after sending you an un-ban request that I read his message. I had deleted the earlier message and sent my request after going through that section where I was being accused of using multiple accounts. To be honest, I was, and still am, really shocked at all those accusations and allegations.

I have just one query. Am I not allowed to edit pages related to Pakistan also ? I mean even those pages or topics which are not disputed at all ?. And I don't know what your experience has been with other users, but rest assured I won't disappoint you. And I will request You to un-ban me from editing controversial topics only when I am able to convince you that I can contribute positively, and hopefully I will be able to do that in less than six months.

Regards Samm19 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samm19: The intention of the topic ban is to prohibit you from editing, including discussing, anything political or historical or otherwise controversial, broadly construed, related to any or all of the three countries mentioned, separately or together. But I don't want to prevent you from editing biographies of, say, Pakistani football players, or film stars, or food, provided there is no political connection. (I can say that geographical features are likely to be right out. I can't undertake to assess borderline political implications of those.) When in doubt, please ask me before you edit. And yes, if you think you can convince me in less than six months, feel free to try. You realize it won't necessarily be granted, though. BTW, it's not necessary to call me Sir, or Madam either for that matter (I'm a woman). Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for calling you 'sir' earlier.... And thanks a lot, madam Samm19 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think I'd better describe those exceptions on your page, so other admins and users are also aware of them. Done. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In the course of trying to clean up the single purpose editing on the Luke Messer page, the Indianapolis Star wrote an article about it that included one of your edits. Just thought you would like to know.--rogerd (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and it can now be cited to reliable sources that Bishonen is a "power user".
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did like to know, thank you, rogerd! Appearing in the local media almost makes me feel like a Hoosier myself! (Though I have in fact never visited the States.) Bishonen | talk 09:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The mighty Bishonen is reknown the world over!--MONGO 07:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you get the chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere, which I filed and which contains behavioral evidence of socking, as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MjolnirPants, a retaliatory filing. This person has been socking for years, all to push a particular POV at a specific article. I'd already asked the admin who dealt with it previously, but they're unable to take the time currently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is, what, the third Admin you’ve gone to on your WP:ADMINSHOP to get me banned?

I was cleared by a checkuser. The only ``evidence`` you have that I’ve ever even seen that page before the other week is that I disagree with you about a minor issue involving it.

I do, however, encourage anyone to check out the sockpuppet investigation I opened. That wasn’t retaliatory; even if you’d never opened anything against me I would have known you were socking. Two people making identical arguments in identical style on the same page? And once I looked into your edit histories, the implication was clear. I think that any Admin that hasn’t previously been involved that looks at all of the evidence I pointed out will clearly see what’s going on.

Do you have any explanation for how the other account always pops up when you need it even after months and months of inactivity? Or how, even when on a WikiBreak, you knew to come help it out right as it needed it?

I doubt you would even deny that the Mondegreen account’s editing history or its initial behavior is atypical in the extreme.

Not to mention that now you’re clearly attempting to bring a third account into the mix, that yet again almost immediately responds to you as soon as you call on it. Moltenflesh (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, @Moltenflesh:. Where do you see my 'almost immediate response', considering I haven't responded to MP at all so far, indeed I haven't edited since he posted above? But I think I'll respond now at the SPI you filed. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh none of that was addressed to you, I was replying to MjolnirPants Moltenflesh (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moltenflesh (whose comments here follow the behavioral patterns of Perfect Orange Sphere exactly, surprise surprise) is, I believe, attempting to argue that Chrissymad is a sock of mine based on Chrissy's response at the SPI page Molten opened, rather than accusing you of responding immediately.

Indeed, we're at the point where I wouldn't be surprised if anyone who supports me on content or behavior (which has included literally everyone else who's gotten involved in the Argument from authority page or the multitudinous drama surrounding it; and I do mean 'literally'... well, literally) gets accused of sockpuppetry, right up until the point that an admin blocks Molten as the aquatic fowl they so obviously are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third account was the one mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation, Original Position. Inactive for months and months, but then responds within the hour to your Talk Page post. That is a consistent theme: the Mondegreen account also suddenly comes back to support you when needed, just like you will for it. All the actions fit WP:ALWAYS to a T. Moltenflesh (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your heart, @Moltenflesh:. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The little MONGO turn up, hello! Hope those mountains not shakin! Little MONGO, please give 'shonen link to lots of atmospheric nature pictures when they uploaded. She don't know how to find nuthin! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The file File:Zen Wikimood 08a.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned personal image, no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

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

Bish: The above IP is persistent, edit warring with Joshua Jonathan and I in Turiya article. An invitation on the article's talk page has yielded no response yet. I would request a RFPP for a few days, but I wonder if that will help given the IP has made many edits. Nothing urgent, please take a look when you have a moment. I eagerly await the zillion photos of MONGO, don't you! Even his cell phone shot above is so good, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Turiya isn't contagious. Anmccaff (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn the IP about the edit warring, Ms Sarah. I see their talkpage remains uncreated. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Done, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ms Sarah. I see they haven't edited since you warned them (at least not from that IP). Please let me know if there should be further problems at the article. What about the IP's contributions to Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Are those OK or would you like to revert them? Bishonen | talk 08:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The IP may be Cminard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Bish: Just reviewed the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article too and did some house cleaning (it needs more attention). The IP may be a sock of Cminard, because both edit warred and restored the same section with identical content, months apart (1, 2). Cminard was blocked for similar unsourced/non-RS and disruptive editing by Ymblanter, later by Yamla, on Russia + American politics space articles. Cminard was plugging the same content in Turiya and Gaudiya Vaishnavism articles before the block. Indeed, the IP haven't edited since yesterday. But if they do, will let you know, and we can weigh the Cminard link. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some problematic text from Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Needs more work. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember tPerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs), who was blocked for sockpuppeting back on June 21.

Now comes Don1182 (talk · contribs), created June 30, who's plowing exactly the same fields as PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs). Am I right to be suspicious? --Calton | Talk 19:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Calton, I seem to be on an indefinite semi-break, I suddenly got so tired of the whole thing. Better put a notice at the top of the page, I guess. Anyway, what I do in these cases is ask generally ask Bbb23 or my little Ponyo for a CU — you can do that for yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page watcher) Sorry to hear that Bish, take some time and (hopefully!) come back sometime soon feeling a little less tired of it all -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, too. I'd actually left a message on Bbb23's talk page (since he's the one who did the blocking), but it turns out that he's taking a break, too. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: Can you put the evidence in an SPI? I was away as well; Bishonen, Bbb23 and I clearly didn't clear our schedules with each other! I have a ton of catching up to do, but if you put together an SPI and ping me I'll take a look as soon as I can (if another CU or Clerk doesn't get to it first).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout, eh? I've got just the thing. Vanamonde (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the latest message you posted. Enjoy yourself. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something to sweeten your day. Hope to see you back soon and thus restore the balance of the wikiverse. Dr. K. 11:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This kitten will protect your talkpage for you.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is appropriate for you to close the 3RR and make accusations against me. I think it would be appropriate if you recused yourself and allowed another admin who has no history with me close the discussion. You blocked me for alleged retaliation, but now that there is real retaliation and an incident of BLP violation involved, you dismiss it with a reprimand to me which I find rather disturbing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You have form in not understanding what is going on here Atsme. Do you not remember? Please remember the Griffin fiasco where we first met. There has been no violation of WP:BLP. Please think about it. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Atsme: Bishonen is in no way WP:INVOLVED, your block in August 2015 was a purely administrative action taken after a long discussion on WP:ANI, plus this very obvious act of retaliation from you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least the tps recognize the history, just not their own. Is it against policy for me to request an admin with no prior history/uninvolved? At least I try to avoid interaction with editors who have shown Ill-will toward me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, which is why I have avoided you for the past two years... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeez, I've shown ill will, Atsme? And here I thought we'd been having pleasant conversations about your beautiful photos. Shrug. IMO my close of your 3RR report was very mildly expressed, considering your disruption of Talk:Jared Taylor. You have ignored any number of actual reliable sources, including books published by academic presses, ignored the overwhelming consensus of the non-neutral RfC you opened yourself, and then in obvious revenge you've gone to WP:AN3 to file a frivolous "report" against experienced editors who you ridiculously hint may be socks of each other. I'm on semi-break, but if you continue to waste constructive editors' time and patience (which is our most precious resource) in the way you've been doing, I'll take the time to topic ban you from American politics. If you think admins who have previously sanctioned you are thereby involved, you'd better take a look at WP:INVOLVED. Bishonen | talk 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wasting constructive editors' time? So you don't consider me a constructive editor regardless of how much work I've put into this project, or what I was trying to accomplish - your words cut like a knife through my heart. How is that not considered bias/discrimination against me? What you're doing now is not unlike what you did to me before - it's a repeat performance which tells me you are not going to change - the discrimination is real. I also thought you had gotten beyond that, but I was wrong. I've done nothing to deserve your wrath yet again. Disruption? I made approximately 6 edits at Taylor and tagged it properly, all of which were reverted, then went to the TP to discuss what is already a highly contentious topic because of the wide ranging hatred for the guy, but it's also a BLP. When I realized we were getting nowhere because of a few disruptive editors who flat-ass refused to follow WP:LABEL, I called an RfC. And that is what you're calling disruptive? I thought I was following protocol per our PAGs. Removing sources from my comment in the RfC is what was disruptive but you didn't think so. Reverting large blocks of text at a newly created article in retaliation against me was disruptive, but you didn't think so. I provided the diffs, and you're blaming me. And now you're threatening me with a TB from American politics? The article was immediately listed at AfD by another of my historic detractors who is also involved in Taylor, and you don't see any POV pushing here? I can't even begin to describe how hurt and offended I am by your allegations and threat to TP ban me. Your bias against me has made you incapable of seeing the true picture whenever it involves me. Perhaps the ban that is needed is an iBan for my protection. I created one frigging article that could be considered "political" in its broadest sense - the focus of it being the DOJ which is NOT supposed to be political, and alleged collusion with MSM, and based on that one article you're threatening me with a TB on American politics. With all considered, how is that not discrimination against me? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bish, my last comment here. This is deja vu all over again. Roxy the dog. bark 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think playing the victim is going to work here, it has been done too many times before... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker)Atsme, we haven't interacted much, but since you supported my RFA nearly a year ago with a kind comment I hope you will take this comment in the spirit it is intended. I do not doubt (nor, I am sure, does Bishonen) that you are a constructive contributor to this project. However, I have read through that entire discussion and the RFC. While I do not think you are approaching the page in anything but good faith, you have, to put it mildly, gotten too close to the issue, and the AN3 report was a bad decision. I would respectfully suggest you step back a little from that page. Perhaps work on something else for a while, and if you do return to the page, try to do so with a cooler head and a willingness to read past the frequently antagonistic attitude (for which you are not solely to blame) and to see the substance in other folks' arguments. That way nobody gets upset further. If Bishonen is blunter than I am it is purely because she has shoveled more shit in this topic area and consequently has less patience; but as a person who has only dealt with you in an administrative capacity, she is not "involved" in capital letters. Once again, please take my comment in the spirit it is intended in. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, when I tell you I'm considering t-banning you over your disruption at Jared Taylor, you respond "I created one frigging article [presumably referring to Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting] that could be considered "political" in its broadest sense ... and based on that one article you're threatening me with a TB on American politics". That's quite a leap. I wasn't even aware of the new article, which is now apparently in train for being merged. (Added note 14:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC): I see you mentioned that article at AN3, so technically I have seen it mentioned, but I did not actually read it or its AfD, as your comment about it was even less appropriate in an AN3 report than the rest of your text.) If you think Jared Taylor has nothing to do with American politics, that's another problem. ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been authorized for "pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people", as you have been repeatedly informed. Jared Taylor is one of those closely related people, and crying BLP to prevent him being called what a massive array of reliable, including academic, sources call him is disruptive. I hope it's clear what article I'm referring to in saying that. In case you further misunderstand or ignore what I say, please don't expect me to explain it again. Perhaps one of the kind non-blunt talkpage stalkers would like to if it seems needed.

Note that you have now also received an alert about the discretionary sanctions for BLPs. Since your disruption is closely connected to the myopic use you make of such policies as WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, it may indeed be better to t-ban you from biographies, rather than from American Politics, in case of further disruption. I'll think about it. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not going to engage you so you'll have an excuse to block me or TB me, but it seems to me that I do have the right to ask you on what grounds you are making these threats? May I please see the diffs? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Actually, Bish, a t-ban from politics broadly construed would be most appropriate. Atsme has been unrelentingly disruptive, tendentious, aggressive, and unheeding in her participation regarding anything remotely connected to Donald Trump, broadly construed, even in the face of repeated patient and civil attempts to reason with her. It has been an enormous time-sink. The issue is quite reminiscent of the drama-fest that swirled around her a few years ago. I'm not sure how much more the community should be forced to deal with. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs, Softlavender. Without diffs, I believe it's called "casting aspersions." ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment here - please let Bish enjoy her break and have a chance to refresh. It's time to give it a rest. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't ANI, Atsme; I'm not required to provide diffs. However, if or when this does come to ANI or ArbCom, there are quite an overwhelming number of substantiating diffs; in fact, there are numerous repeated and repetitious conversations running into many tens of thousands of bytes each that substantiate. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: And in terms of this message you have just now left on my talk page, what I have stated here does not violate that. If you believe it does, you are welcome to report it at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding information saying there's an Icelandic Resistance Movement. I am adding information that the Nordic Resistance Movement has sent resistance men to Iceland to recruit new members. You can go ahead and stop removing it now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHeathen (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) So, you're adding an Iceland section even though you admit they don't actually have any Icelandic members yet? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recruitment efforts of Swedish/Norwegian neo-nazis aren't an encyclopedic subject, WikiHeathen. You should stop before you're blocked from editing. Your various attempts to promote your tiny marginal organisation and make it look important are not welcome on the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The Nordic Resistance Movement DOES have Icelandic members. I know one of them. It's the entire reason the Swedish Chapter came to Iceland; to seek new recruits.

It's preferable not to start a new section when you're continuing the same dialogue, so I've moved your post up. Your personal knowledge is not a reliable source, nor is the website in Icelandic that you refer to, see WP:QUESTIONABLE. Anybody can put up a website. Also, as I have already told you, it's not only a question of sources. Neo-nazi thugs going to Iceland to distribute propaganda is not a matter of encyclopedic interest, however much you'd like to present yourself as a Swedish "political party". (It's striking btw that the article has no mention of how many members this "party" has. 20? As much as 30?) The article needs cutting down altogether; the English Wikipedia is not a tool for extremist propaganda. The most informative part of Nordic Resistance Movement is the sentence "In the mid-1990s, former members of White Aryan Resistance (VAM) were released from prison and formed the core of Svenska motståndsrörelsen." Says it all, really. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Why you delete the Benlav Flight Systems, its an popular new startup in Iran, a fast growing technology in aviation. please help on improving NOT deletion, I ask you to create the article again. cheers Amir daryaei (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is what it looks like now:

• Benlav avionics
• Benlav Flight Systems
• BENLAV Flight Systems
• Iranian Flight Systems
• and there is also this

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the editor in question and left a summary note for the next reviewer. Alex Shih^Talk 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex. You can have some of the falafel. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The edit comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nordic_Resistance_Movement&type=revision&diff=795871962&oldid=795871373 might interest you. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's interesting. I can't sanction him, as I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article, but I shouldn't think he's long for this world. My page is quite well-watched. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

 Done albeit messily due to stupid tiny phone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla only too familiar with stupid tiny stuff. Peers at the little Floquenbeam through her strongest reading glasses, tries to see his phone. Hmmm. Is that a cornflake in his hand?] bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishzilla probably thinks I'm "stupid tiny stuff". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at Dona-Hue? I was earlier on thinking of topic banning the user from India related stuff but I seem to have gotten WP:INVOLVED now by reverting some of their nonsense in a couple of articles, as are Doug Weller, Vanamonde and RegentsPark. At this point, I don't thin a topic ban would be of much help as the user shows no sign of any competence to edit here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'm supposed to be taking some rest and recuperation. But I'll trot out my usual about the time and enthusiasm of other contributors, and block. It's hard to be tactful in these cases — at least for me — Bishzilla might have done it better. Bishonen | talk 03:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) ((edit conflict): Not really needed any longer, but for the record...) I've been minded to ask you the same. Their edits here (such as this) and here (such as this) are good demonstrations of the problem. this doesn't inspire confidence, either. Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been away too and will be on and off for a few more days, have to take care of the dog who had a bad injury. Thanks for dealing with this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sign seen at Wikimania. Even Canadians take notice mighty 'Zilla. T-RexxS (rawr) 14:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maaan...how big would the poutine have to be though ;) — fortunavelut luna 14:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the young Bistrilla is Bishzilla's little sister? [Hastily fending off the interested Bishzilla.] No, no, Bishzilla! Please don't create any more socks! Bishonen | talk 14:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishzilla's Restaurant - where every dish is blackened! --Lyncs (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla wear socks or only create? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla knit socks. Any clever artist/talkpage stalker out there up for creating image of knitting Bishzilla? bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

KittyZilla (or should that be KittyBishilla?) just kept on knitting, and knitting, and knitting ...

EdChem (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One from the archives, GranZilla on her way to knitting circle, accessorized with latest creation  :)

[Zilla is tickled pink.] Hehehehehe. Little Velut Luna very clever! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm not sure if they have poutine, but I was there for pizza. The best places for poutine are generally cheaper greasy spoons, using home-style fries, often fried in beef fat (no frozen or spiced fries). The gravy must have a lot of pepper and the cheese must not be grated, and should be generous, and no yellow/orange or processed cheese! —PaleoNeonate – 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me the shibboleth of real poutine is the squeak of the cheese curds: I know of no cheese per se that can emulate it. Stupid indent function seems to use the greater of a left-obstruction size and the amount of indentation instead of adding them.—Odysseus1479 04:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Very that, Odysseus1479, very that." —PaleoNeonate – 04:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Hi Bish, just wanted to send you a wikilove item and apparently goats are now on the menu. (Since when??) Enjoy!

Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to send rice and peas too! ;) — fortunavelut luna 08:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect goat has been on the menu for dinosaurs like me since at least Jurassic Park. I certainly recommend κατσίκα με ρίγανη from Santorini. And I do remember staying at a hotel in Crete where each evening the menu claimed to be serving a different sort of meat: beef, lamb, veal, pork, etc. all of which looked and tasted oddly similar. It is interesting to note that on Crete, I saw no evidence whatsoever of a single cow, sheep or pig, but there were thousands of goats. --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [Bishzilla hungry as always. Fondly recollects disappearing goat in Jurassic Park — appetising scene! But also has tender heart. Also notices spiky horns on little critter — uncomfortable swallowing. After some hesitation, sticks the little goat in her pocket. Magnanimously:] Pet, not snack! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Heh... Zilla remember guy hiding in toilet-?  :) bento box style! — fortunavelut luna 16:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sic semper advocatorum" is the appropriate phrase, I believe. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen such a pachidermous greetings on a talk page before. Made me laugh at the end of a long day, so, thanks! 87.1.125.215 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, 87.1. It represents admins at their best; I thought of putting a caption, such as "You talkin' to me?". But OTOH we don't want to get taken to ANI for biting the newbies, do we? No. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

As bitter and astringent that movie is, it's one of the few I enjoyed. But then, you're right, it's not for all.

BTW, you're right, a talk page greeting is the spot where one can be humorous, in a place which in some cases can be quite gloomy. :) 87.1.125.215 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked at ANI to a thread on this talk page involving you. Sorry, because I know from your recent comments that you'd rather this farrago was over. - Sitush (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you left a discretionary sanctions alert on Saladin1987's talk page a couple of months ago. Could you please take a look at his recent edits? He had made a series of edits to a large number of articles replacing Afghan with Pashtun, some of which I reverted. Now he's reverting them back stating that they are sourced edits when that's clearly not the case. I was going to leave him a caution, but I see that he's already received a ton of warnings on his talk page. FYI, besides your latest sanctions alert, he's also received two others, one by you a year ago and another by EdJohnston 3 years ago.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user has receded somewhat in my memory, Cpt.a.haddock, but I'm pretty sure I topic banned him for six months in 2016. (Checking.) Yep, on 8 July. OK, I'll look. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I've warned him. But that damned Google Books stymies me. Sitush, can you help? Even with your head woozy, I'm sure it's better than mine for this stuff. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The Google Books link states,

The Lodis were of pure Afghan origin and Bahlul Lodi pacified the proud Afghans by distributing rich iqtas among them. His court resembled more of an Afghan tribal assembly than the council of a great king.

Cheers!—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Saladin is just a persistent pov-pusher who prefers what they know to what the sources say. I doubt that they will change but perhaps I am in a particularly jaundiced mood after recent events. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Saladin1987 has used up all the rope, he has been given. My previous comment from July 2017 stated the same concerns.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I've thrown him a final loop (final warning), and will try not to lose sight of how he edits after that. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• (talk page stalker) I noticed this thread earlier today, and recognised the user name, so I added a source for "Afghan" right after the mention in the lead on Lodi dynasty, so that there's no way he can get away with claiming it's unsourced if he tries to hit that article again... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndianEditor is just here to push a point of view, not contribute to an encyclopaedia. Just see the editing history at India, Pakistan, Rally for Rivers (where advertising is a problem), Jaggi Vasudev etc. I've warned on ARBIPA and have reported to AN3,and if not for the edit warring at India (which I'm not involved in but am an editor of the article) I'd have taken action (I'm not sure of the right choice between a nothere block and an indef ARBIPA topic ban, though both are likely to have the same effect). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try to inform myself better, SpacemanSpiff, but I can certainly block the user for the 3RR vio. You recollect ARBIPA topic bans can't be indefinite, btw? A year at most. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Well, per my reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions (and how I've seen it applied across many areas) it's only blocks that can't exceed one year but bans can be indefinite. See [39], [40] as two examples from admins other than me. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there's this ARBIPA indef tban imposed by you :) —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Right, Space, it's ambiguous. The comma after topic bans hints that it's only the blocks that are restricted to one year... damn this Kremlinology! Arbs I've talked to seem to think it applies to bans as well. Bishonen | talk 08:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Doug Weller: What do you say? Are ds topic bans (and revert and move restrictions and interaction bans) restricted to one year, like blocks, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions? Bishonen | talk 08:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

There was a discussion a few months back on this when I think it was agreed upon that ds blocks are the only ones limited in duration (can't seem to find the link). Just look at the various years at WP:DSLOG, there's loads of indef tbans out there. Soham321 which had so many participants at AE resulted in an indef tban, etc etc. —SpacemanSpiff 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it needs a rewrite. I've asked on our list. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen! Can you please change the block for Oxycontin How Purdue Pharma Helped Spark The Opioid Epidemic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to a hard block? This is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David_Adam_Kess (see archive for DUCK per naming pattern). Ping me if you have any questions. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. In that case, sure. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

these recent edits as they are about a warning you gave months ago. I've reverted his post to an article talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god. I mean, thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Brave MjolnirPants is trying to have a discussion with him. He's got a real CIR problem. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thin line between bravery and stupidity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something on their page. [Wistfully:] I suppose somebody should explain to them about primary and secondary sources. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for reverting that edit on my user talk page. I'm not sure how I managed to rollback my talk page twice like that... anyways, I appreciate you for taking care of it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, indeed I already said so on your page, Oshwah. (The song is actually "Hey, nonny, nonny", I guess? Shakespeare or something. What an immortal way with words.) Bishonen | talk 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) Two Shakespeare songs that I know of: "Sigh no more, ladies" from Much Ado; and Ophelia's lament for her dead father. Apparently the correct term for it is a "burden". Something new every day. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to post here again, but the subject of the thread kind of shifted dramatically and then was closed before I got a chance to respond, and it actually went into an area that does concern me entirely aside from the main issue (which started slowly reaching a conclusion at the original ANI thread after I opened a subthread). Basically, while the OP, Bish and a number of the apparently tongue-in-cheek later comments were focused on how laughable K-E MT results can be, in this case Google actually got it exactly right on the only part that mattered: the OP was looking for a Korean admin because he was uncomfortable with the Chinese admin he was dealing with (I think i can find some Chinese-English administrators easily but It is hard to find Korean-English administrators). "old user" may or may not have been meant to imply that I was impersonating an admin (the OP dodged the question), but that was really kind of peripheral. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(And somewhere in Shizuoka, User:Curly Turkey unconsciously face-palms and doesn't know why, but has a sneaky feeling it has to do with my tendency to become a really awkward straight-man in facetious Wikipedia discussions coming to the fore again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

I might be facepalming because you act like there's any hope of keeping the whackamole nationalists at bay at these kinds of articles. Noble, but souldraining. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we could convince CU-enabled users to run checks when we are 100% certain there's socking afoot, that would go a pretty long way. I sympathize with the motivation for not telling run-of-the-mill editors exactly why CU is allowed in some circumstances but not others. But it still makes keeping this kind of article safe really difficult. Sometimes I kinda feel like an ARBPIA3-style extended-confirmed protection for all articles related to Sino-Korean relations would not be a bad idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you closed a recent edit-warring report against Darkness Shines. Would you mind examining a similar report I submitted here: User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:James J. Lambden? No admin has reviewed it. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still unreviewed tonight my time (it's noon here now), James J. Lambden, I'll try to get to it. I've just hastily replied to Darkness Shines, and I'm afraid that's all I've got time for before I run. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for closing that AN3 report. Goodness knows you don't need the headache, but I thought I would be remiss not to notify you... I didn't know this at the time of the report, but Darkness Shines was indefinitely blocked, and agreed to conditions for unblock in May of 2017. One of those conditions was a restriction to 1RR for the following 6 months (expiring November 28th 2017). Make of that what you will. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen, I noted the same on DS' talkpage too, but apparently he doesn't want it there (which is fine), so I'll paste it here for you once more:

D.S. has also been routinely reverting on other articles, despite still being under a 1RR limitation as a condition for his latest unblock in May [41]. Recent diffs: [42][43] on Patriot Prayer; [44][45] on Merle Dixon; [46][47] on Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present). Routine disregard of unblock conditions should justify reinstatement of the preceding indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]