![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/African_Hooded_Vulture_%28Necrosyrtes_monachus%29%2C_Kruger_National_Park.jpg/600px-African_Hooded_Vulture_%28Necrosyrtes_monachus%29%2C_Kruger_National_Park.jpg)
![]() | This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her. |
Userbox barnstar
Awarded by DHeyward
10:19, 2 September 2015
Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
- A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
- AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
- Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
- The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.
- A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
- Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
- A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Deletion of Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok
Hi User:Bishonen, May I ask why did you delete the above page without confirming that the unambiguous infringement had been fixed based on the COPYVIOS? see COPYVIOS results of less than 24% and I had posted a notice on to contest the infringement based on the changes? Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like the COPYVIO results are not showing because the page had been deleted. Thankfully I had archived that page using screenshots. Let me know if you need that for verifications. Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was marked as a copyright violation by Diannaa, one of our most experienced admins with regard to copyright. I've pinged her in the hope that she'll take a look at your complaint. Meanwhile, do you really not understand how disruptive it is to promptly recreate the article under a slightly different name, Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok, just three minutes after you posted here, without waiting for a response? That's simply a trick, and I don't see how you can have thought it was a proper or honest thing to do. You are creating a lot of work for a lot of people. I have blocked you to slow you down. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC).
Wayne Dupree again
I am baffled why Wikipedia would remove the Wayne Dupree page. It appears very much like partisan targeting to me. This is the person that removed the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.245.208 (talk • contribs)
- (I've moved your post to the bottom of the page, where new posts are meant to go.) Hi. Yes, I'm the administrator who deleted the page. I closed (=summarized) this discussion (please click on the link and read it), and found the consensus to be "delete". That's how it works: somebody can nominate a page for deletion because they don't think the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, then other people discuss it, then an admin makes the call. Anybody can create an article, and if we didn't have some kind of procedure for assessing notability, we'd drown in them. Anyway, my own opinion doesn't come into it, I just summarize. Please note that if a person is found to be "not notable", it does not mean that we're calling that person unimportant! It merely means that there's not enough support in reliable independent sources to support notability as Wikipedia defines it. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC).
- I read no partisan commentary from any of the commenters during the discussion. Please quote them, if they exist. This looks like a tactic to divert attention from the fact that Dupree is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Tapered (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The article is on deletion review, now, Tapered, in case you want to comment there. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commentariat Tapered (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
"The section above"
Thanks you for your note on my user page. Frankly, I was surprised at the ban. This relatively brief interaction is our first ever (that I can recall at least).
- It started just before when we had both contributed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#user:184.145.42.19 Discussion after closure when the defendant user:184.145.42.19 popped in to express disgust that no one had told him the ANI had been re-opened. BMK was the one who had re-opened the ANI without notifying the defendant, and I had since been on the defendants talk page, and didn't notice that he hadn't been notified.
- So I replied to the defendant to say that they should have been notified by BMK or myself and that I'm sorry. [1]
- BMK then came and swore at the defendant (he seemed bothered that he had the temerity to return) and then told me "Don't ever apologize for me again"[2] Which seemed odd, as I put the blame on lack of notification on both BMK and myself, and then said I apologise instead of We apologise.
- So I called BMK on both things and asked him to now apologize to both of us.[3]
- Meamwhile, he's simultaneously come to my talk page, and made a similar comment about not apologize for him. And asked about my background, noting my paltry experience, lack of edit history, concluding that I shouldn't be on ANI.[4]
- I was a bit taken aback by his tone, but left what I thought was a civil reply, to which he replied saying he was being civil but blunt.[5]
- So I bluntly told him what he'd done wrong. My second ever edit on his talk page.[6]
- And he said I had clearly apologized for him (how?), misquoted me (why?), asked me to stay off his talk page,[7] and posted that "ban" notice on my page.[8]
And that's all there ever was between us.
He can "ban" me if he wants to; that's fine. My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy." He over-exaggerated it a bit, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate. Instead of just politely asking me to stay off his page he chose to use words that were wikilawyering. (I've since observed, he's "banned" a lot of people - so many he even has a template[9] at the bottom. He calls it 'Bunting for a home run!)
You commented about:
- WP:COMMONSENSE - I agree. He has every right to ask me. But WP:COMMONSENSE is an essay, not policy.
- wikilawyering - I'm guilty as charged. One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me. Sometimes I just use their own words a bit and post it back. He wikilawyered, so then I did too. I shouldn't do that.
- Obviously "banned" means you're not welcome there - yes. But the word "ban" has a meanings in Wikipedia. He was wikilawyering.
- I'm not surprised BMK warns you off his page when you post offensive psychobabble - look at my previous edits. There was not one thing like that previously. What can I say - I'm not perfect. And I think he'd been rather incivil to me - this was my first (and last) incivility.
- supercilious advice about "improving the encyclopedia" - That was just me acknowledging his own comment using the same phrase from his first post to me at[10] - I'm glad you think it's supercilious, because that's what I thought too actually when he wrote it!
- Do you repost those things here on your own page because you're so proud of them?- One, I wanted a record of it. Two, yeah, I was kind of proud of a couple of things there - particularly reusing his own supercilious language!
- Incidentally, what's this about your "policy" stated at the top of your talkpage - It is my policy. I've worked that way for over a decade. As you probably recall there was a lot more of that back in the day, before notifications, and these new-fangled pings. I was also reusing his word "policy". Bad nfitz.
- that requires you to respond on the other person's page - "requires" was wikilawyering, guilty as charged. I was using his made-up policy against him.
- How can a principle you made up yourself require you to do anything? - guilty as charged
- does it really require you to repost the other person's post on theirs, as if they had written it there, which is quite confusing? - I've always done that. Look at my edit history. So I didn't do that out of spite or anything. I started to do it, because back when everyone posted replies on each others pages, you couldn't follow the conversation after a while. So I just got in the habit of copying the thing I was replying to, to be polite and clear. To tell the truth, with all the pinging and notification these days, I've been thinking that my "policy" is getting a bit stale, and perhaps I should just do it the way everyone else seems to do it now.
- you repost your own post here, supposedly to illustrate "long-term issues of Beyond My Ken", leaving your "principle" full of holes. - I don't normally do that.
- Leave BMK alone. I don't only mean don't post on his page, I also mean don't troll him on yours or elsewhere. - I will leave him alone. I made that very clear in my post. You'll note that when I copied it to my page, I removed the ping that was originally there, so that I didn't inadvertently ping him. No guarantees that in 5 or 10 years I might not do it by accident in a discussion - because honestly, I forget things over time. I have no intention of trolling him. I admit my parting shot was a bit trollish (I'm not perfect).
Thanks again for your comments, and the chance to defend myself (if you've read this far). I hope that after reading my explanation, that you'll at least see where I was coming from, if you can't forgive me. No hard feelings. Nfitz (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. You both lost your tempers. But you seem to have read BMK's post hastily. Either that, or you quote him in a misleading way. "My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy."" You seem to be suggesting, by this partial quoting, that he said he was required by policy to ban you? Or maybe that you were required to respect his ban? Would that be why you say he was wikilawyering, and that's why you did the same thing back, "using his made-up policy against him"? Well, he wasn't; he never said or implied you were required by policy to respect his ban. There was no made-up policy for you to parody. He was telling you to stay off his page unless you were required by Wikipedia policy to post there. You know, such as, you're supposed to alert him to having mentioned him on ANI.
- You say "One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me... I shouldn't do that." No, really not, especially if they didn't. I'll say no more about it. But, while I don't particularly want any quarrel to take off here on my page, I'm pinging BMK for information, if he cares. Not sure why you talk about me forgiving you — nothing to forgive, so don't worry about that. Bishonen | talk 11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- PS: "BMK then came and swore at the defendant"? Oh, come on, now! Context! Did you not notice the post he was responding to, and quoting? It's right there in the same diff. Not that I think swearing is so heinous in any case. But doing it as a quote back to somebody? I'd expect you to approve, since it's so much what you do yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- Actually, I never lost my temper. I was only bemused by his unfriendliness when he "banned" me. I was quite civil in everything I wrote until then. I get the impression he's someone who isn't good at handling being told they are wrong - especially when they are in the wrong. And his reaction is to then simply try and eliminate the presence of the person who did that, than simply confront the issue. So, he's wrong ... everyone's wrong. Apologize and move on.
- PS: "BMK then came and swore at the defendant"? Oh, come on, now! Context! Did you not notice the post he was responding to, and quoting? It's right there in the same diff. Not that I think swearing is so heinous in any case. But doing it as a quote back to somebody? I'd expect you to approve, since it's so much what you do yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- And speaking of being wrong ... I did indeed misread the bit about policy in his post - odd, I read that more than once. Either way, the whole thing was supercilious puffery - which I don't think belongs anywhere near the project. And it's pretty easy to see (for example when you search for the words in his template), that this has come up again and again in the past.
- Swearing at the defendant. Yes, he was doing the same thing I do (the irony) - I'm guilty as charged there. Much of what I reacted to, is that he was the one who had failed to notify the defendant that the discussion was re-opened, and not failed to take responsibility for it, but in the very same edit [11] also attacked me for apologizing for it, claiming I had apologized for him. Which I most certainly had not, as others have noted[12]. If he hadn't simultaneously attacked me, I doubt I'd have responded at all. I think there's a major WP:AGF failure in his assumption that I apologized for him. In retrospect, I probably did lose my temper a bit when I made my response[13], but I think I remained civil, but annoyed.Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Part of this, is that I (like many other peons here) feel I've been unfairly treated by a few admins in the past - guilty until proven innocent and all that. Clear failures of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. It's almost like some admins feel that an important pillar here WP:5P4 doesn't apply to them (the same ones often seem to think that WP:5P5 doesn't exist either) - at least when dealing with lowly users. So when I see others being picked on (even if they do deserve it sometimes), or I detect that kind of attitude, I speak up. Which then makes me a target with someone who has that type of belief. (I'm not referring to BMK here, I'm thinking of older experiences - perhaps I misread him). Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm feeling disappointed you didn't respond to me here or say something on my talk page, but instead felt a need to have a go at me at [14]. I'd have thought that was generally an inappropriate comment for an ANI thread and should have been elsewhere (though I'm having problems finding the guidelines for ANI discussions - I'd appreciate if you'd point me to them). Obviously you feel I'm overlinking, though there's nothing about overlinking for talk pages on either WP:Overlink or WP:MOS. I don't think I've shown any unwillingness or inability to civilly (and I thought friendly) discuss my skills. Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Part of this, is that I (like many other peons here) feel I've been unfairly treated by a few admins in the past - guilty until proven innocent and all that. Clear failures of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. It's almost like some admins feel that an important pillar here WP:5P4 doesn't apply to them (the same ones often seem to think that WP:5P5 doesn't exist either) - at least when dealing with lowly users. So when I see others being picked on (even if they do deserve it sometimes), or I detect that kind of attitude, I speak up. Which then makes me a target with someone who has that type of belief. (I'm not referring to BMK here, I'm thinking of older experiences - perhaps I misread him). Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I feel you're overlinking? No, I feel you're swarming all over the place. Do you realize how many times your name currently appears on the ANI page? Also, I feel you're sharing too much trite wisdom there, and telling people things they already know.. You're focusing on an unimportant detail in my post (the linking). There's nothing about linking on talkpages in MOS, really? What a lot of guidelines you know. What you're by contrast ignoring, both in your ANI response and here, is my main point: that your finger-wagging is unlikely to have a good effect on the people you direct it at, probably because they're mostly grownups. A bad effect, more like. Resentment. Aren't you interested in the effect? I'm not aware of any "guidelines for ANI discussions". We don't have every last thing codified. ANI etiquette is a loose baggy work in progress, like all the other traditions and practices here. I used ANI to comment on your posting on ANI because I thought it more direct, to comment right below an example of the kind of post I was objecting to. But YMMV; TJW used your page for the same purpose; and you were equally defensive about that, and wanted to know about the guidance and styleguide for who should contribute on ANI and how. Who do you see writing these styleguides? There are none; we're all on our own when it comes to writing and acting appropriately. But I'll take a shot at a short ANI styleguide for you, if you think it'll help:
Look in thy heart and write; introspect about your own motives; cogitate about the effect your post may/can/will/won't have on others; and be open and sensitive to the culture that's all around you.
Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC).- I don't feel I've been defensive with TJW - I've asked him for help in understanding where his objections are, so I don't repeat, and he won't (can't?) provide any. I'm scratching my head about who YMMV is. Garchy popped in, but I pretty much agreed with him. I'm missing something about MOS, as I'm not seeing much about talk pages at all, let alone linking. Finger wagging (goes back to ANI to read my post) ... you mean the "Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. part of it". Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong - they are grownups after all. You think resentment would come of it? Personally, in my run-ins with people at WP:ANI back in the day that created resentment, is when those responding, tossed AGF out the window, were rather uncivil about it, and then got their back up when they were called on it and whatever other policy they'd decided wasn't convenient that day - which tended to back and forth a bit until someone else came in and called them on the BS. But that's me. I thought the person I responded to was being a dick; even if he may have been technically right. Resentment ... hmm. What would you have told him ... or could still tell him I suppose given it's open? Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Nfitz: YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary, a universal disclaimer borrowed from automotive advertese. Roughly “that‘s how I see it, but your perspective may be different.“—Odysseus1479 08:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- You're doing everything perfectly and the people objecting to your style are totally wrong. We get it, in fact we've seen it before. However, please add me to the list of those who believe your policy of flouting talk-page norms by copy-pasting comments between pages is confusing and pointy. Many years ago, some editors replied on the poster's talk, but pasting junk was not fashionable even then. In recent years, the silliness of those old habits has been understood by pretty well everyone. By the way, posting walls-of-text laden with links has also gone out of fashion—most people know to press PageDown whenever they see stuff like that because experience shows that trying to find whatever point is being made in such a blancmange is a waste of time. If you have a response to a comment, just make the response and leave the blue links for beginners. When someone suggests that a particular IP is a disruptive editor, probably a sock, who is being fed by attention, they are making a substantive claim. The only reasonable response would be to investigate the claim and back off if it seems plausible (say nothing), or refute the claim with evidence. Arguing is apparently important for some people, but my suggestion would be to have the last word and then drop this particular debate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Now consider that you have received some criticism, Nfitz, and go back to your own post above: "Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong". I can't help you further; please be done arguing on my page. Bishonen | talk 09:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- I don't feel I've been defensive with TJW - I've asked him for help in understanding where his objections are, so I don't repeat, and he won't (can't?) provide any. I'm scratching my head about who YMMV is. Garchy popped in, but I pretty much agreed with him. I'm missing something about MOS, as I'm not seeing much about talk pages at all, let alone linking. Finger wagging (goes back to ANI to read my post) ... you mean the "Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. part of it". Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong - they are grownups after all. You think resentment would come of it? Personally, in my run-ins with people at WP:ANI back in the day that created resentment, is when those responding, tossed AGF out the window, were rather uncivil about it, and then got their back up when they were called on it and whatever other policy they'd decided wasn't convenient that day - which tended to back and forth a bit until someone else came in and called them on the BS. But that's me. I thought the person I responded to was being a dick; even if he may have been technically right. Resentment ... hmm. What would you have told him ... or could still tell him I suppose given it's open? Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I feel you're overlinking? No, I feel you're swarming all over the place. Do you realize how many times your name currently appears on the ANI page? Also, I feel you're sharing too much trite wisdom there, and telling people things they already know.. You're focusing on an unimportant detail in my post (the linking). There's nothing about linking on talkpages in MOS, really? What a lot of guidelines you know. What you're by contrast ignoring, both in your ANI response and here, is my main point: that your finger-wagging is unlikely to have a good effect on the people you direct it at, probably because they're mostly grownups. A bad effect, more like. Resentment. Aren't you interested in the effect? I'm not aware of any "guidelines for ANI discussions". We don't have every last thing codified. ANI etiquette is a loose baggy work in progress, like all the other traditions and practices here. I used ANI to comment on your posting on ANI because I thought it more direct, to comment right below an example of the kind of post I was objecting to. But YMMV; TJW used your page for the same purpose; and you were equally defensive about that, and wanted to know about the guidance and styleguide for who should contribute on ANI and how. Who do you see writing these styleguides? There are none; we're all on our own when it comes to writing and acting appropriately. But I'll take a shot at a short ANI styleguide for you, if you think it'll help:
To account or not to account
Regarding today's discussion of the disruptive IP, I wanted to explain more privately. Said editor has deposited my IP location information on the Talk page in question. Were I to switch to using an account now, my recognizable style and typing quirks would make it clear I was the same editor and would effectively out that account with regard to geolocation. To prevent this I would avoid editing the page in question under that account, page protection would block me from editing with or without an account (at least unless/until my pending request to oversight that IP information is acted upon). 50.37.123.131 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I understand it can be undesirable to switch from IP to account in the midst of a fight. Though that's not so much because that IP has posted your location information. When you use an IP, anybody can see your location — it's just a click away. Look at your own talkpage. (I know it's a redlink; that doesn't matter.) See the "Geolocate" link? Anybody can geolocate an IP, any IP, just by clicking on "Geolocate". That's one of the reasons, indeed, for creating an account. For doing it from the beginning, I mean; I quite understand your reasons for not wanting to do it now. Anyway, I see you have posted some diffs for the other IP range on ANI; I'll take a look. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- Yes, I know they can look it up, but most people will not go to the effort. When someone puts it right there on the Talk page, that significantly reduces the effort involved. (I didn't want to delete it immediately because it would likely have just brought on another outburst from the other IP, or at least drawn attention to it. How long does an oversight request usually take?)
- You are right about the second (temporally first) IP range: likely stale, and the editor really went from simple annoyance to disruption after shifting to the more recent range, so probably not worthy of action. 50.37.123.159 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know; I doubt they'll oblige in any case, since it's so un-secret anyway. If it's just a matter of whether people have to take more or less trouble, removing it from the page would surely go a long way. Who reads histories? (Well, I do, but obviously not most people.) Unfortunately the talkpage is such a mess I can't find it to blank. Give me a quote — a few words — I can search for, and I will. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) Does 50.37.123.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) know about revision deletion? I'm guessing not, if they are actually asking for WP:Oversight. They might feel better if you felt able to rev-del the geolocation as WP:CRD #3, "Purely disruptive material", perhaps? What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good thinking. But they haven't told me where it is yet. I don't much feel like combing through the history, when it would be so much simpler to do a search for a phrase. If 50.XX cares, I expect they will eventually tell me where it is. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- It occurred at this diff specifically, but this earlier edit also gave the information that's bugging 50.XX. I can imagine that they didn't really want to draw more attention to the info. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, right at the top? I couldn't face looking at the history, sorry. Revdel'd. 50.XX, it's as diappeared as it needs to be; check the history and you'll see what revdel does. Thank you, RexxS. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Cheers, both of you. 50.37.127.180 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Chère. Can I just point out this intermediate revision, which you may have overlooked, without appearing too picky? --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- ? It's supposed to be already invisible, because of the way it's placed in the history, surely? Isn't that how it works? (Are you saying you can see the text? I'll check tomorrow if Bishzilla can.) Also, when I tried to revdel it separately just now, the system told it "already had the required visibility settings". Mind you, I never did understand revdel 100%. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Thank you, Chère. Can I just point out this intermediate revision, which you may have overlooked, without appearing too picky? --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers, both of you. 50.37.127.180 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, right at the top? I couldn't face looking at the history, sorry. Revdel'd. 50.XX, it's as diappeared as it needs to be; check the history and you'll see what revdel does. Thank you, RexxS. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- It occurred at this diff specifically, but this earlier edit also gave the information that's bugging 50.XX. I can imagine that they didn't really want to draw more attention to the info. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good thinking. But they haven't told me where it is yet. I don't much feel like combing through the history, when it would be so much simpler to do a search for a phrase. If 50.XX cares, I expect they will eventually tell me where it is. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) Does 50.37.123.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) know about revision deletion? I'm guessing not, if they are actually asking for WP:Oversight. They might feel better if you felt able to rev-del the geolocation as WP:CRD #3, "Purely disruptive material", perhaps? What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know; I doubt they'll oblige in any case, since it's so un-secret anyway. If it's just a matter of whether people have to take more or less trouble, removing it from the page would surely go a long way. Who reads histories? (Well, I do, but obviously not most people.) Unfortunately the talkpage is such a mess I can't find it to blank. Give me a quote — a few words — I can search for, and I will. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- Hey, 50.XX! Another IP, 85.84.115.9, has just turned up and vandalized Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage. I was rather glad to see it, as it made it much easier to block the relevant range, 85.84.112.0/21. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
Oh noes
With reference to the Christ Myth edit war we previously discussed here, the editor in question has not taken in anything that was said on the talk page and has removed the sourced text yet again. I've reverted, but expect to be re-reverted soon. At this point, I wash my hands of the issue (topical, huh?). MjolnirPants, is it time to propose a topic ban? Feel free to suggest a way forward. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Gawd. (Even more topical!) And after Doug Weller warned them. I'll look at it tomorrow. I've gone to bed! Bishonen | talk 00:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- @RexxS:, I'm generally reluctant to ask for sanctions, but in this case I'm leaning towards "Yes, it's time." This editor seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting that they can be wrong about anything. For an example of pretty much this exact same issue, but with an editor willing to accept correction, see the section Removing Dorothy Murdock's claims at the exact same article talk page. Contrast that with Rosa's tactics. I don't think there are any DSes which apply to this, so I believe an ANI thread is the way to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Bishonen I typed the last having read, but for some reason not grokking your comment. I'll wait for you before starting an ANI thread. If you're willing to take action (or if Doug investigates the ping here and takes action himself) then there will be no need for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just blocked for 48 hours, with, I hope, an explanatory block notice. This user is well-informed, I think, and could be an asset, as soon as they figure out how Wikipedia works. I'm reluctant to start with a full-on topic ban or indefinite block. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- That works for me. In other news, I fixed the weird offset at the top of the Je sui Ikea template. It looks much better now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, arhh. I used your code, since I wanted to put it on the right hand side of the page, so I should probably go back and fetch the new code. Thanks for making it, it's very handsome. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Bish, your edit summary is off by about six months. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- You know what today is though? Possible the most ironic day for this editor to catch a block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you little user, is good info! Bishonen | talk 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Sorry all, missed it. I've just tried to set him straight about reverts as he insists he didn't revert. And again deal with a mistaken claim of being one-sided. I'm not dealing with the unblock request as I'm hoping yet another new to him admin will. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you little user, is good info! Bishonen | talk 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Oh, arhh. I used your code, since I wanted to put it on the right hand side of the page, so I should probably go back and fetch the new code. Thanks for making it, it's very handsome. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- That works for me. In other news, I fixed the weird offset at the top of the Je sui Ikea template. It looks much better now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Have discretionary sanctions not been applied to that article (and the related Historicity of Jesus) yet?
- I recall an Arbitration case back in 2014, but my involvement was peripheral and ended early on, so I don't remember how it ended except that the initiator's TBAN was upheld. It seems like the project would be no worse off if admins had the authority to ban anyone found causing further disruption there. It's a POV-magnet, because it's one of few topics where the scholarly establishment is in (very) basic agreement with fundamentalist Christianity (i.e., both agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person) but the former (with perhaps one exception) have done an abysmal job teaching the general public, and so a lot of otherwise smart and rational atheists and other non-Christians have become convinced that the whole "no serious scholars reject the historicity of Jesus" is a lie told by their local churches along the lines of "a growing number of scientists are questioning evolution". I have no problem admitting that, growing up in Ireland as I did (where the Catholic Church dominate the school system), I too found the mythicist idea appealing when I was a teenager. I don't think I ever edited Wikipedia to that effect, but it wouldn't surprise me if I had.
- Like the electric cigarettes article, it's a topic that should not be inherently controversial, but because of unrelated societal factors surrounding it it attracts tremendous controversy on Wikipedia.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can see all topics under discretionary sanctions here, Hijiri 88 (scroll down a bit). I can't see anything that fits. If you want ArbCom to put ds on these articles, you'll have to ask for them at WP:RFAR, I think. Right, @Doug Weller:? I doubt it'd do any good, though. ArbCom only takes on stuff that the community has tried and failed to deal with — really infected, out-of-control areas. Arbitration is supposed to be the last resort, as I'm sure you know. You'd need ANI discussions to point to at he very least.
- However, Scientology is under ds. If you're concerned about people removing/adding Hubbard's ideas about Jesus, I suppose that might be a Scientology ds matter. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- Just for the record, I don't think sanctions are necessary. This topic gets a lot fewer outright cranks than pseudoscience articles do. The level of disruption is consequently much lower. The only problem is that people editing in religious articles -especially articles which touch on the intersection of history and religion- tend to be incredibly emotionally attached to their views, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Our Friend is back
Hello my pal. Our friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemant_banswal has finished his two weeks suspension, and is already exchanging feature photos in articles with his own. The issue I have here this time isn't so much the quality of his photograph, but insistence on changing "feature article photos", without having the courtesy of going to the articles talk page, and getting a consensus. If he should run into an article that has "no feature opening photo", I would have no issue with him putting one of his there if it is a quality photo. But his habit of booting a feature photo in exchange for his own without consensus is inexcusable. Thanks→ Pocketthis (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Pocketthis: Indefinitely blocked by NeilN. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Until we meet again...thanks, and P.S. I think I may like MONGO. Cool Pic. Thanks→Pocketthis (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Note
I'm of the opinion that TRM's current block should be reduced to maybe a week or a number of days, as opposed to a month. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Take it to AN for community review. The request was filed at 21:01 UTC. There was one comment suggesting "cut him some slack", and then a decision was made by one admin at 21:41 UTC, a mere 40 minutes after the request. That's a denial of any opportunity for debate, and a decison taken unilaterally without consideration of even the small amount of debate that had occured (no slack was cut). The block was at the extreme end ("initially up to a month") of what was available, and well beyond what Wikipedia:Blocking policy #Duration of blocks indicates as standard: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". --RexxS (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I did, and they said to take it to ArbCom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
TRM AE
It appears that Arbcom specifically mentioned protecting the editor's talk page as an available remedy. "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I would suggest that you restore the protection unless User:Sandstein is OK with lifting it. Otherwise we might start going in circles unnecessarily. If Sandstein considers his protection to be an arb enforcement then another admin mustn't unilaterally lift it due to the well-known rules. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I'm afraid you're mistaken. The ArbCom decision was clear:
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
- I've carefully examined both the log on that page and the DS log. The DS log makes no mention of sanctions on TRM (and it shouldn't). The case log carries the following entry from today:
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) blocked for a month for violating their conduct prohibition per AE request.
- As everyone can see, the sanction that is logged as "performed under the authorisation of a remedy" is a one month block. Any other sanction which may have been applied was not logged and is therefore unquestionably not an ArbCom sanction, so is subject to reversal like any other admin action. Given Sandstein's notorious inability to listen to reasoned argument, I wouldn't have advised 'Shonen to waste her time in taking up the matter before restoring talk-page access. I commend her on doing the right thing, and in such a timely manner. I'm almost at the stage of offering to run as an admin with the sole purpose of taking part in AE, just to restore some common sense to the process. --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen: The talk page protection, which is explicitly provided for in the relevant remedy, is an arbitration enforcement action and you may therefore not unilaterally overturn it. (I did not log it because it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction.) The protection does not prevent an appeal because an appeal may also be submitted per e-mail. Please restore the talk page protection within an hour of your next edit following receipt of this message. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Sandstein: With respect, if TRM is abusing his talk page (and despite having multiple run-ins with TRM, I'm not certain he's doing that) surely the logical step would be to revoke talk page access? Why protect it? Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, and I might have done that, but the remedy does not permit revoking talk page access. It only allows full talk page protection. There may be reasons for why ArbCom made that decision, perhaps something to do with baiting or proxying? It's not my job as enforcing admin to second-guess that decision, only to enforce it. Sandstein 06:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: You may revoke talk page access pursuant to the normal blocking policy; it would not be an AE action in that case because it isn't under the remedy. The remedy does not say anything about being unable to remove talk page access, and continuing conduct on a user talk page that resulted in the block is a strong rationale for removing talk page access under the blocking policy. Having said that, this clearly was an AE action, and the protection must be restored. As for why protect the page, I expect that the Committee intended that provision to prevent grave-dancing or other behavior that might provoke TRM while he's blocked, resulting in further sanctions. Personally, I think such a protection is in the best interests of both the community and TRM himself to minimize unnecessary drama during the block. Note that that only works if administrators don't edit through the full protection, which was occurring earlier (and should not have been). ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 Trying this ping from scratch... ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I saw the first ping, I was just busy. I am not, obviously, as well versed in the ins-and-outs of arbitration policy as you folks; but intuitively, it seems to me that authority to block must include authority to take away talk page access with the block. While I can understand the concern over grave-dancing on the part of stalkers, or alternatively over TRM going into a rage and saying stuff he will later regret, my reasoning is as follows (admittedly my only interactions with TRM are at WT:DYK). What do we as a community want, ideally, from any disciplinary action against TRM? Ultimately, we want him to go back to creating and reviewing content (which he is good at) without unnecessarily getting under the skin of about ten people a day (which, currently, he is failing at). Removing his ability to edit his own talk page, in my view, undermines this objective in the long term, because it is in some ways treating him as a child. He is on his own talk page, where his snark can and will be ignored: so why not just leave him to it? Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 Trying this ping from scratch... ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: You may revoke talk page access pursuant to the normal blocking policy; it would not be an AE action in that case because it isn't under the remedy. The remedy does not say anything about being unable to remove talk page access, and continuing conduct on a user talk page that resulted in the block is a strong rationale for removing talk page access under the blocking policy. Having said that, this clearly was an AE action, and the protection must be restored. As for why protect the page, I expect that the Committee intended that provision to prevent grave-dancing or other behavior that might provoke TRM while he's blocked, resulting in further sanctions. Personally, I think such a protection is in the best interests of both the community and TRM himself to minimize unnecessary drama during the block. Note that that only works if administrators don't edit through the full protection, which was occurring earlier (and should not have been). ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Full protection of TRM's talk page is either a sanction or it's not. For this case, you are obliged to log any "block, restriction, ban, or sanction taken as an arbitration enforcement action" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man #Enforcement log. You did not log the full page protection because, you assert, "it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction." in that case, your action is not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators, which states "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without ..." (my emphasis). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways. The page protection was vindictive and unnecessary, and your entire decision at AE was hasty and ill-judged. You should not be surprised when your actions are reverted by other admins when they are so far from what is reasonable, because WP:AC/DS #sanctions.modify was never meant to be used as an excuse for misuse of admin powers. --RexxS (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ignoring the above evidence that TRM is an unblockable, Sandstein, you probably do want to log the full protection. It's an action taken under a remedy, which is what's intended to be logged as a record that ArbCom can then reference as needed in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Your logic is faulty. Nothing I've adduced here could possibly be interpreted as showing that TRM is unblockable. Indeed, he is blocked, and anyone who can read can see that I have made no argument that he should not be. However, the action taken to fully protect the page is a different beast. There was no evidence adduced that such an action was needed, or even desirable, which means that it was not preventative. By his own admission, Sandstein believes that when he took the action, he was not performing "a block, restriction, ban or sanction". Are you arguing that his judgement in that was defective? If so, it speaks to the lack of wisdom exercised. It would certainly be foolish to attempt to retrospectively add the page protection to the log now, wouldn't you agree? What is absolutely certain is that any admin who attempts to re-impose the full protection now would be indisputably wheel-warring. --RexxS (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- BU Rob13, thanks for the sugestion, I have now logged the protection also. Sandstein 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sandstein, the talk page is not currently protected. Are you planing to re-protect it? I do not think that would be wise in the present circumstances; no one wants a contest over something like that. The rulez allow you to protect that talk page, but one of the reasons for allowing that possible action was to prevent gravedancing, and I don't see that happening. If you desire to stop TRM from accessing his own talk page, you can revoke his access to it--I fully realize I am to some extent repeating what Bish and Rexx have already said. I suppose I'm not here as Da Arb, but rather as someone who seeks clarity (the reason for the protection) and de-escalation. What I can tell you is that Da Arbz are talking about this, of course; I suppose this is the initial stage of a conversation and one of the topics is whether this or that needs to be tweaked. But let's try and deal with this particular situation first. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, I do not intend to re-protect the talk page myself. I am awaiting a reply by Bishonen, and will then decide whether to request that the Arbitration Committee sanction her for her out-of-process reversal of an arbitration enforcement action. Sandstein 15:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ignoring the above evidence that TRM is an unblockable, Sandstein, you probably do want to log the full protection. It's an action taken under a remedy, which is what's intended to be logged as a record that ArbCom can then reference as needed in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein, I thought your protection had to be a mistake. The only non-admin who had edited the page at that time was TRM himself. The procedure "revoke talkpage access" exists for the purpose of preventing the blocked owner of the page from editing it. There was no reason to stop everybody else below the rank of admin from commenting. (I still don't see any gravedancing, 28 hours after I unprotected, so the event doesn't seem to show the danger of that was imminent.) You say above (replying to Vanamonde) essentially that you protected the page because protecting was allowed for in the relevant remedy and revoking tpa wasn't. It's not the case, however, that everything on Wikipedia that isn't allowed for is forbidden. The remedy didn't say "Talkpage access must not be revoked". Of course you could have revoked tpa. Not as an AE action, no, but what's the big deal with that? Revoke is revoke.
You stated above, when you were asked why you didn't record the protection in the log, that it was because it wasn't a sanction. That makes sense IMO, because page protection surely isn't a sanction. I have to agree with RexxS above[15] that that's a big problem: if it wasn't a sanction, it's not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator" bla bla.
Anyway. Just for completeness, and not relevant to whether or not you take me to ArbCom for undoing your AE action: I'm also opposed to revoking tpa. (I'm kind of for the block itself, though I believe it was overlong.) I'm nearly always against revoking tpa for venting against a block. It seems like adding insult to injury. But anyway, tpa wasn't revoked. BTW, I disagree with the people who have said you should have waited for more comments at AE. That's really OT here, though, and I've posted a detailed comment about it on AN. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker)I took a look at this solely due to it's "interesting factor" in that an admin has turned in their mop under cloudy circumstances and been subjected to a block as the result of their behavior. I don't really have an opinion on the outcome of this discussion, either. But I will say that the direction of arguments (in the formal sense, not to imply that this is a particularly heated discussion) in this thread is a little troubling. All sides seem to be flirting with -if not outright engaging in- wikilawyering. Now, I'll probably get quite a bit of chastisement for saying so, but I would like to humbly suggest that the best course of discussion would be to answer the question: Should TRM's talk page be protected? Not whether the prior protection or unprotection was 'proper'. Now, feel free to expound in great detail why I'm wrong, and how arrogant it was of me to jump in here to tell the rest of you what you're doing wrong. I'll not defend myself beyond saying that I was just offering my two cents, as a fairly disinterested third party. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, if you think we're wikilawyering, you should have seen the last time I was taken to RFAR for unprotecting a blocked user's talkpage![16] There hasn't been any gravedancing since I unprotected, which it has been suggested was a concern on the part of arbcom here. I don't know if it was a concern on Sandstein's part; if he has said so, I haven't seen it. Indeed I haven't seen him say why he protected at all — you'll have to ask him. That protection was allowed for is not what I'd call a reason, and I refuse to believe he thinks so, either. The page is better unprotected — just look at it now. Unprotected is the default state of pages. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'm not going to comment on the core issue unless explicitly asked, but I will say that this response is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for: a reasoned argument as to why the page should remain unprotected/why the page should be protected with no consideration of rules. MjolnirPant's first rule of rules is: When a rule gets in the way, don't just break it; ignore it completely. (On the other hand, I have to admit to being a wee bit disappointed that I remain un-excoriated.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, if you think we're wikilawyering, you should have seen the last time I was taken to RFAR for unprotecting a blocked user's talkpage![16] There hasn't been any gravedancing since I unprotected, which it has been suggested was a concern on the part of arbcom here. I don't know if it was a concern on Sandstein's part; if he has said so, I haven't seen it. Indeed I haven't seen him say why he protected at all — you'll have to ask him. That protection was allowed for is not what I'd call a reason, and I refuse to believe he thinks so, either. The page is better unprotected — just look at it now. Unprotected is the default state of pages. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, I have filed a request for clarification about questions I think are raised by your reversal of my protection of the user talk page. Sandstein 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have responded there. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
- @'Shonen, I can tell you why Sandstein fully-protected TRM's talk page – straight from the horse's mouth, as it were – this edit:
"According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited, "the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block."
- And that's the problem: he chose to fully protect a talk page instead of revoking talkpage access, almost certainly in the mistaken belief that that action could not be overturned. It's clear from his subsequent comments that he did not make his decision by exercising judgement about what measure would have been most appropriate, but simply picked full-protection because ArbCom had mentioned it as being with an admin's discretion (but with no understanding of the reason why ArbCom chose to mention it), and he thought that by calling it an "AE action", it would become unchallengeable. That's the very worst reason for picking a measure to discourage TRM from using phrases like "shit admins". There's a certain irony there, that I assure you won't be lost to ArbCom if I'm forced to take my case to them. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @'Shonen, I can tell you why Sandstein fully-protected TRM's talk page – straight from the horse's mouth, as it were – this edit:
Qué tal Taichi?.
Ya veo que por aquí sigues siendo un baboso-infantil igual que en la española. También te tengo fichado en la japonesa.
Agur anti-vasco!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.184.165 (talk • contribs)
- No. Bish is not a babbling baby!! You may have confused Bishonen with Bishbaby. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please block that IP and blank out his gross insult in my talkpage? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maragm, I've just noted above and on ANI that I've had to semiprotect Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage, because the individual has access to such a big range that I can't block it. I honestly don't see any point in blocking the individual IP, since it keeps jumping about. Me, blank the insults? Well, if you like, but you can just as well revert them yourself, as you have been doing. Question: Would you like me to semiprotect your talkpage as well, for a couple of weeks? That will keep the IP out effectively, which blocks won't. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
- Could you please block that IP and blank out his gross insult in my talkpage? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Maragm: Sorry you have to suffer through such insults and harassments, please know I admire your work and the quality of reliable sources you bring. Nice birds pic in the MONGO box. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Acacia_dealbata.jpg/220px-Acacia_dealbata.jpg)
It's lovely! Thank you very much, Maragm. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
Wordsighn
What is a administration? Wordsighn (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, Wordsighn. Did you mean "What is an administrator?" If you did, please click on WP:ADMIN and read all about it. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
- How do you become one? Wordsighn (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- First you have to be an experienced editor who knows a lot about how Wikipedia works, because the duties of adminship can't be carried out very well unless you know your way around. And secondly you have to have interacted with others in a good way, which makes them trust you and think that you'd be a good admin who doesn't abuse the admin tools (did you read about the admin tools at WP:ADMIN?). Then you can apply for adminship at WP:RFA, and other people can comment on your application. If you take a look at this successful application, and this unsuccessful application, you'll get a bit of a feeling for what's required. Believe me, you're not ready, Wordsighn, and you won't be until you have acquired more Wikipedia skills. Applying before you're ready is a not a good idea, because then the discussion can easily become a depressing rejection-fest, as somebody put it in the second discussion I linked to. There's more advice in the Guide to requests for adminship. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- Alternatively, you can have 'zilla monster as your PR manager. "Nice community you have here. Be shame if Bishonen could not protect it and nice community turned into the Hellmouth." --NeilN talk to me 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, little NeilN. Be a shame if Bishonen couldn't unprotect stuff, too, wouldn't it? Did you know she schlepped to RFAR once for, guess it, unprotect talkpage of blocked user? It her favorite thing, unprotecting those. (Don't worry, young Wordsighn, we just chatting.) bishzilla ROARR!! 22:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- Or frightening off puny Arbcom member making bad block. Bishzilla very handy to have around. --NeilN talk to me 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to remember Bishzilla was admonished for that caper. Are you envious, NeilN? I know I am. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- In the October of 2015? Bishzilla got praise for the button pushing. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm? Misunderstand each other? Bishzilla block little arb in 2009.[17] Admonished, hohoho! bishzilla ROARR!! 00:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
- 'zilla undoing bad block from sitting Arbcom member here. Never did get a good explanation for that block. --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm? Misunderstand each other? Bishzilla block little arb in 2009.[17] Admonished, hohoho! bishzilla ROARR!! 00:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
- In the October of 2015? Bishzilla got praise for the button pushing. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to remember Bishzilla was admonished for that caper. Are you envious, NeilN? I know I am. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- Or frightening off puny Arbcom member making bad block. Bishzilla very handy to have around. --NeilN talk to me 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, little NeilN. Be a shame if Bishonen couldn't unprotect stuff, too, wouldn't it? Did you know she schlepped to RFAR once for, guess it, unprotect talkpage of blocked user? It her favorite thing, unprotecting those. (Don't worry, young Wordsighn, we just chatting.) bishzilla ROARR!! 22:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- Alternatively, you can have 'zilla monster as your PR manager. "Nice community you have here. Be shame if Bishonen could not protect it and nice community turned into the Hellmouth." --NeilN talk to me 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- First you have to be an experienced editor who knows a lot about how Wikipedia works, because the duties of adminship can't be carried out very well unless you know your way around. And secondly you have to have interacted with others in a good way, which makes them trust you and think that you'd be a good admin who doesn't abuse the admin tools (did you read about the admin tools at WP:ADMIN?). Then you can apply for adminship at WP:RFA, and other people can comment on your application. If you take a look at this successful application, and this unsuccessful application, you'll get a bit of a feeling for what's required. Believe me, you're not ready, Wordsighn, and you won't be until you have acquired more Wikipedia skills. Applying before you're ready is a not a good idea, because then the discussion can easily become a depressing rejection-fest, as somebody put it in the second discussion I linked to. There's more advice in the Guide to requests for adminship. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- How do you become one? Wordsighn (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you friends or enemies ? Wordsighn (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
And thank you Bishonen for the advice I will do what you told me. Wordsighn (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Bishzilla and NeilN are friends, anyway, Wordsighn. No, I'm kidding, we're all good friends. If you click on Bishzilla's userpage, you'll see what manner of critter she is. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
Ok thanks i was just wondering Wordsighn (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
![]() |
Thanks! BigDwiki (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC) |
Til?
Sorry to bother you, but an IP[18] or two[19] just showed up on ANI and requested that I be TBANned from a topic area I hardly touch anyway. I honestly have no idea who it could be, but the Christianity comment kinda-sorta reminds me of Til. But I doubt it's him, because he didn't use any homophobic slurs. It also seems to be interested in United States right-wing politics; I can vaguely recall conflicting with someone on Talk:Inauguration of Donald Trump, but I just checked and they seem to still be in good standing, so it's kinda incredible that they would log out to troll me.
No matter who it is, I kinda think the comments (and my take-AGF-to-suicidal-levels premature responses) should be blanked, but since I was the target I might draw more heat if I did it myself. Would you mind taking a look and judging for yourself?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not Til EUlenspiegel, although he's been around this week calling me names. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was gonna say, I don't think it's Til. Til has never been much of a one for posting on ANI. And look at this guy: it's all he does![20] Also, the IPs aren't in any of the Til ranges I've blocked over the years. I don't have much concept of who it might be, but I can always give 71.198.247.231 Darwinbish's "Anonymous coward" warning on their page and a sharp word on ANI. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
- Done. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
- And very well done, one of the funniest warnings - no, the funniest warning I've ever seen. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doug. :-) Darwinbish is very proud of all her warning templates. Have you seen the Shakespeare insults..? Bishonen | talk 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
- @Doug Weller: The user concerned didn't enjoy Darwinbish's warning so much, I guess. But everything that's any fun gets removed in this dull place![21] I liked your edit summary, though, Bbb23! Bishonen | talk 01:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- And very well done, one of the funniest warnings - no, the funniest warning I've ever seen. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
On an unrelated note: I was reading ARCA for my own reasons earlier today. I think you were in the right. You will understand why I don't chime in, though. Your fellow sysop and I had a run-in recently regarding a different matter, and I don't want anyone thinking I'm helping my "friends" against my "enemies". As ridiculous as it sounds, I'm finding increasingly that people seem all too ready to believe that kind of thing recently (the above IPs being only the most recent example). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, and no, don't chime in. The arbs can probably manage. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
Our friend is back pushing more woo-woo nonsense at Talk:Bosnian pyramid_claims#Dr. Korotkov confirming the Bosnian Pyramids, should be included in this article. I think he needs to be cut off more quickly this time, if you feel like you can take an admin approach to it (I can't as I've been involved in the content dispute). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- No need, all done, the ever watchful User:Acroterion has stepped in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I reinstated the topic ban indefinitely. Since that's the only subject of interest to that user it amounts to an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- And you have my thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Looking... aha, I only topic banned them for three months. Thank you, Acroterion. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
- And you have my thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I reinstated the topic ban indefinitely. Since that's the only subject of interest to that user it amounts to an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
CEngelbrecht2
Just as an FYI, User:CEngelbrecht2 is violating his topic ban on the Aquatic ape hypothesis talk page. --Tarage (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tarage. I'm asleep; I'll look tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 02:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- I just want to point out that Bish is right. I don't think I've ever edited while fully conscious. At least not according to any pro-fringe editor I've ever interacted with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hayek79
Just FYI (and I don't think anything needs to be done about it), but after Hayek79 retired that account, he activated his alternative account User:L.R. Wormwood, and removed the note that it was an alternative account of Hayek79 from the user page. I had left him a comment on the L.R. Wormwood talk page to the effect that warnings, advice, sanctions etc. attach to the person doing the editing and not to the specific account, but his response was to ban me from his talk page (turnabout being fair play, I suppose) and delete the comment. When the L.R. Wormwood page was created (in the second edit) he admits to being 15, so I think we just have to wait and see if he grows into being a good editor or not. I'm only mentioning this to you so that you know that if problems develop with L.R. Wormwood (and I have no intention of following his edits), it's a continuation of the Hayek79 situation. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Admits to having been 15 when he created the account in 2013. Hayek79 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- He also didn't especially want the username "Hayek79" anymore, since he was 15 when he created the account. He would also appreciate the recognition that he has made useful contributions, and isn't just a problem-editor. Hayek79 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: The move of Hayek's user page to the L.R. Wormwood page showed up on my watchlist, so I sort of knew it, but I thought he'd changed his name. L.R. Wormwood was a pre-existing account? OK, fine. No, I won't dog his footsteps either. (After edit conflict.) Hayek79, I acknowledge that you have made useful contributions, but why exactly are you using the Hayek account now to post here on my page? Please don't use two accounts, as the page moves make that very confusing. I suggest you make up your mind which account you want to use. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'm using this account because I can't comment here using the new one. I assure you I will make an extra effort to be civil on talk pages in future. Hayek79 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. That's fine, then. The problem of the confusing two accounts will go away as soon as the Wormwood account is autoconfirmed, I assume. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- L.R. Wormwood: I understand that you're trying to distance yourself a bit from the Hayek79 account, but I think it would be a good idea to redirect the user and talk pages of the Hayek79 account to the pages of the L.R. Wormwood account. I don't believe anything in policy requires this, but it would help to eliminate any confusion. See User:Before My Ken and User:Between My Ken for examples. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Hayek79, you may want to do something different. The new account L.R. Wormwood only has a few edits. Isn't that a pity, since you take pride in your useful contributions? If you want your work credited to the new name, you can request a name change, instead of creating a new account and abandoning the Hayek one. See Wikipedia:Changing username for how to go about it. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'll redirect it, I don't especially mind about edit counts. Hayek79 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Up to you. If you change your mind when you've slept on it, you should probably use the Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations process, since the name you want already exists, which would normally prevent a rename. It shouldn't be a problem — you'd just have to explain that the new account User:L.R. Wormwood is your own. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'll redirect it, I don't especially mind about edit counts. Hayek79 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. That's fine, then. The problem of the confusing two accounts will go away as soon as the Wormwood account is autoconfirmed, I assume. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'm using this account because I can't comment here using the new one. I assure you I will make an extra effort to be civil on talk pages in future. Hayek79 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: The move of Hayek's user page to the L.R. Wormwood page showed up on my watchlist, so I sort of knew it, but I thought he'd changed his name. L.R. Wormwood was a pre-existing account? OK, fine. No, I won't dog his footsteps either. (After edit conflict.) Hayek79, I acknowledge that you have made useful contributions, but why exactly are you using the Hayek account now to post here on my page? Please don't use two accounts, as the page moves make that very confusing. I suggest you make up your mind which account you want to use. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
recreation of article you closed as delete
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruise (film). I see the article has been recreated, and I see no RS in support of overturning the prior AFD. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: G4'd it. The prior article actually had a bit more to it. --NeilN talk to me 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thx. Hopefully someday soon we will have reason to recreate this due to abundant sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you both. TonyTheTiger, I don't see why not, since the concerns were WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
- Thx. Hopefully someday soon we will have reason to recreate this due to abundant sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Steve Hassan BLP
I brought up some issues concerning the Steve Hassan BLP at the Talk page of that BLP. This includes self published single sourced entries in violation of Wikipedia and reliably sourced directly relevant criticism from a noted publisher ignored that is well within Wikipedia standards. Could you please explain why Wikipedia standards are not being consistently followed at this BLP. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Rick: 'Shonen is not responsible for the content of Steven Hassan and it is untoward to expect her to explain why other editors have not agreed with you so far at that article. FWIW I've replied to your concerns at Talk:Steven Hassan #Lack of balance, which is the appropriate venue for discussing improvements to the article, not here. --RexxS (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- ThanksRick Alan Ross (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, RexxS. Yes, the fact that I once stepped in and topic banned a user who was attacking you on your bio page, User:Rick Alan Ross, hardly makes me responsible for all bio pages, and I frankly have no particular interest in this one. I intervened at the page Rick Alan Ross purely because of my interest in making sure article subjects are treated decently when they attempt to comment on their Wikipedia biographies. (Compare the current brouhaha here on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, in case you're interested.) Anyway, I'm glad to see you're not editing Steven Hassan, since it looks like you have a COI — a personal interest — there, whether positive or negative, as I've already pointed out on your own page. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
- Thanks. I have never edited the Steve Hassan page. Just have questions about how it is being edited. Please excuse me.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
IP and disruption
A persistent IP, now at 4RR, is deleting English language content sourced from multiple scholarly sources, and replacing it with non-English content in Durga. Left a message on Talk:Durga page, and a caution on the IP's talk page. Did not help. Alleges scholars are wrong, wikipedia content policies are wrong (we should rely on the native version, rather than scholarly sources), etc. The IP provides no sources to back up their claims, adds "You seem to have a motivated ill intentions"! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Colourful character. It might be a good idea to give them a 3RR warning, Ms Sarah Welch. They're actually at 2RR, not 4RR — this was a change, not a revert, and do you see how they reverted themselves once? By mistake, possibly, but it still means they're only at 2RR. All the more need for the 3RR warning, actually. They haven't edited since your and Mr. Mjolnir's warnings, so I think I'll leave them alone for now. Not much point in me chiming in on their page, anyway, since we're all wrong! Please let me know if they revert again, or take it to WP:AN3 if I'm asleep (going to bed now). Or are there any little admin talkpage stalkers in a superior timezone out there? Because I agree the edits are disruptive, certainly. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
- Done. Thanks Mjolnir and Bish, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Anytime. I'm always willing to be completely wrong to help out a fellow editor. Or even just for the hell of it, most days. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks Mjolnir and Bish, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Query
Greetings. This is a bit of a dicey question, but here goes. Do Admins have internal back-channel communications, not accessible to non-Admins? Tapered (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia e-mail is equally available to everybody, as is the Wikipedia IRC channel. Admins do have a dedicated admin IRC channel, but it doesn't seem to be much in use these days. That's my impression. I've looked in a few times, to see if there was anything going on, and it has echoed quite hollowly. It's my sense that e-mail is more used, and not more by admins than other experienced users, I think. Who can really tell, though? Bishonen | talk 23:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
- Jackpot question. I want to 'do' an RFC. The plan is to publicize it @ one Noticeboard and three Projects. Two of the projects' Talk pages are not terribly busy. Candidly, full disclosure, I believe that these projects would be more favorable to my position than the other project or noticeboard, though I'm not certain. To be as certain as possible that people from the projects read about the RfC, I'd like to ping the last 10 contributors to these talk pages—and, of course, follow suit by pinging the last 10 participants at the other talk page. Is this kosher? Since this is a specific, and possibly arcane, question, is there one expert Admin whose word/opinion who could answer this question authoritatively? Tapered (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Too arcane for me, yeah, Tapered. The admins who can probably answer hang out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, and they seem to respond quite briskly to queries. That looks like a good place to ask. I see some non-admins replying there, too, but that should be OK. In case of doubt, you can always wait for more than one person to reply. To estimate who is more knowledgable/authoritative among the regulars, take a look at previous replies on the page. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
- Jackpot question. I want to 'do' an RFC. The plan is to publicize it @ one Noticeboard and three Projects. Two of the projects' Talk pages are not terribly busy. Candidly, full disclosure, I believe that these projects would be more favorable to my position than the other project or noticeboard, though I'm not certain. To be as certain as possible that people from the projects read about the RfC, I'd like to ping the last 10 contributors to these talk pages—and, of course, follow suit by pinging the last 10 participants at the other talk page. Is this kosher? Since this is a specific, and possibly arcane, question, is there one expert Admin whose word/opinion who could answer this question authoritatively? Tapered (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Unblock
I handled OTRS ticket:2017031610022141 in which user Sbelknap confirmed his real-life identity. I think this is the first identity confirmation I've ever handled so please don't hesitate to let me know if you think I've missed something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sphilbrick. I'm not very used to them either, but how hard can it be? I'll just unblock. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
- Oh, I see you unblocked. Good, I'll write something on their page. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
- In this case it wasn't hard, due to the email address, but if someone has a gmail or yahoo account, it can be a bit trickier. (Sorry, I should have mentioned that I unblocked.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Jamenta?
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
ARCA archived
A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
IP block request
Please could you perform an IP range block on an IP user. They were initially blocked for disruptive editing [23], then they have repeated the same edits using these IPs in the same range [24], [25]. Silverfish (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sure I can, @Silverfish: I see Oshwah has blocked a few single IPs, and I might as well do the range. However, I see the range I blocked before, on 26 February, was 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64, while the one you're asking for now is 2600:8800:4481:C4B0::/64. Unfortunately that suggests it may be on a mobile connection, so I don't know how much good it'll do, but we can hope. Done, anyway; I've blocked for a month. It's not much good giving that character dainty little blocks. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC).
D.Gray-man
Grettings. A fellow user has suggested me to ask you for help with the FAC D.Gray-man. It has been copyedited by the guild as well as another user experienced in prose. Still, a reviewer found some issues with the writing. Could you give it a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tintor2, I don't have much time to spare, and also I don't feel very confident around these subjects. Perhaps you thought I would be, because of my username? I'm afraid that's a bit misleading. Manga is unfamiliar ground to me. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC).
- I thought it was German - Können Sie mir bishonen? Or something like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- German? That's a new one, lol. No, it means "pretty boy" in Japanese — not sure why I used it, being neither pretty nor a boy — I just didn't think I'd be here long, I guess [all my socks burst out laughing at that], and Momus's eponymous song was running through my head at the time. A bishōnen is a stock character in manga and anime. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
- We (Germans) say Schonen for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I come from Schonen — I was born there. So Bischonen would be a pretty good name for me. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
- We (Germans) say Schonen for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- German? That's a new one, lol. No, it means "pretty boy" in Japanese — not sure why I used it, being neither pretty nor a boy — I just didn't think I'd be here long, I guess [all my socks burst out laughing at that], and Momus's eponymous song was running through my head at the time. A bishōnen is a stock character in manga and anime. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
- I thought it was German - Können Sie mir bishonen? Or something like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Edson Frainlar I
Hi Bishonen. You indefinitely blocked Edson Frainlar back in February for for disruptive editing, etc. Edson Frainlar I was created a few days later and immediately began editing/creating articles related to the DMI Group of Institutions. I'm pretty sure this is a case of WP:QUACK, but not sure whether SPI or ANI is more appropriate for block evasion. Please advise on how to best proceed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, you can just ask some sympathetic admin, for instance the one who blocked the original account. ;-) Both SPI and ANI seem like unnecessary bureaucracy in a case that's as clear as this. Thank you, Marchjuly, I took care of it, including deleting the article they created under the new name. Bishonen | talk 01:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
Someone's fantasy TV universe
I'm not sure this counts as anything really important, but it appears that a user has set up his own private TV universe, starring himself, using multiple accounts. These accounts user subpages seem to be:
- Jjnguyen (talk · contribs)
- 39 Clues (talk · contribs)
- Book of Jeremy (talk · contribs)
- Elite Force (talk · contribs)
- Maze Runner Legacy (talk · contribs)
The same name keeps cropping up on the pages, not to mention interlinking edits. --Calton | Talk 09:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Complicated... thank you, Calton, I'll have to take a look later. Bishonen | talk 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
Beyond My Ken
I thought I might take this to you before I do anything else, since you appear to be familiar with this user and their work. I'm not sure if I'm required to let the user concerned know that they are being discussed, but if I am, please ping them.
The issues on the Alternative for Germany page haven't gone away. There is a pattern whereby the user adds material to the ideology section of the infobox, such as "anti-feminism" or "climate change denial", piles up references, and then proceeds to edit war on the basis that those trying to remove their contributions are breaching NPOV. They have now accused three users, including myself, of being AfD supporters on this basis, most recently here:
Though you decided that I was at fault over the previous dispute, my argument throughout was that the sources did not adequately support the claim, and that the claim shouldn't feature in the infobox anyway. There is a reason why, to my knowledge, no other major political party, even comparable parties like UKIP, have things like "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" listed in their infoboxes. My concerns mostly have to do with the advice here: MOS:INFOBOX, and consistency with similar pages. There are now three of us on the talk page who agree that the latest addition to the infobox shouldn't feature in the article. Do you think this is something that could go to arbitration?
You have mentioned before that this user does "NPOV work", but I would suggest that some of his recent comments would indicate partisan editing. I don't feel that the following is acceptable, for instance:
This in particular struck me: "And if you don't want to be typed as an AfD supporter, then you should stop behavior which is supportive of creating a positive view of the party, such as removing ideology items from the infobox, and reporting the person you are in dispute with on the talk page to ANEW."
It's also very difficult to pick up on this sort of thing without reinforcing their perception that those on the talk page who disagree with the user about the validity of the references, and about infobox style, are not trying to portray the party positively.
Might it be possible for you to discuss some of these issues with the user? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, @L.R. Wormwood:, but I don't actually know the user well, nor the article. My block of you was purely behavioral. I just don't have time to take this on at this time. I don't know if you want to take it to ANI — I appreciate that you came to me to avoid the worst sides of ANI. Talkpage stalkers who are less ignorant than me, feel free to chat below, but I'm not going to say much at this time. (If things should get out of hand, I may invite User:Bishzilla.) And yes, I think a ping of @Beyond My Ken: is needed. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
- Yes, I understand that most people wouldn't be interested in this sort of thing, or have the time to deal with it. It's just frustrating that there doesn't appear to be any means of resolving issues like this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could help me with this - at what point can we say there is a consensus on a talk page? At the moment it's 4 to 1 (possibly 2) against inclusion on the talk page. Obviously we will have to wait a few more days for further comment by other users. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- This appears to be in line with L.R. Wormwood's behavior as Hayek79 - expecting immediate results. In point of fact, I have not seen the article talk page, except for a quick look when I read this just now, since I saw Jytdog's reply to my suggestion of a compromise. So, L.R. Wormwood's bad faith assumption that I'm ignoring consensus is incorrect. At a quick look, it seems as if there is indeed a consensus at the moment not to include "Climate change denial" in the "Ideology", but it would be nice to be given the opportunity to respond before Wormwood jumps down my throat. Recall, please, that this is the editor who pledged to behave better on talk pages on this very page, and here he is, basically forum-shopping and admin-shopping before I, or any other editor who shares my opinion on this issue, to respond. There's no particular hurry, and this needs to wait until this evening, when I'm finished with work, and production meetings, and parent-teacher conferences, so I can take a look at it. In the meantime, L.R. Wormwood needs to keep his shirt on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note that I found time to look at the page (between the production meeting and the parent-teacher conference, and I'm not seeing a consensus. I'm certainly seeing a plurality, but not a consensus. To formalize this dicey issue, I'll be opening an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- This appears to be in line with L.R. Wormwood's behavior as Hayek79 - expecting immediate results. In point of fact, I have not seen the article talk page, except for a quick look when I read this just now, since I saw Jytdog's reply to my suggestion of a compromise. So, L.R. Wormwood's bad faith assumption that I'm ignoring consensus is incorrect. At a quick look, it seems as if there is indeed a consensus at the moment not to include "Climate change denial" in the "Ideology", but it would be nice to be given the opportunity to respond before Wormwood jumps down my throat. Recall, please, that this is the editor who pledged to behave better on talk pages on this very page, and here he is, basically forum-shopping and admin-shopping before I, or any other editor who shares my opinion on this issue, to respond. There's no particular hurry, and this needs to wait until this evening, when I'm finished with work, and production meetings, and parent-teacher conferences, so I can take a look at it. In the meantime, L.R. Wormwood needs to keep his shirt on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could help me with this - at what point can we say there is a consensus on a talk page? At the moment it's 4 to 1 (possibly 2) against inclusion on the talk page. Obviously we will have to wait a few more days for further comment by other users. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Gratuitous stalker comment: If the claims about the group's ideology are supported by RSes, then it really doesn't matter if articles about similar groups include them or not, what matters is that RSes attribute those views to the group. The complaint at the top really looks like a content dispute to me (and one over NPOV which are generally the worst ones in my experience).
- I haven't done more than read the sources used for "anti-feminist", but I'm really not seeing the wiggle room to argue that attributing that to them is a POV problem: the sources are reliable, explicitly make the claim, and there's a number of them. I was also able to find out, for example, that "AfD antifeminismus" is the top suggested autocomplete result from google.de when typing "afd " (note the space).
- Though mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, diesen tagen, I know enough to know I mangled the grammar in that and enough to puzzle my way through statements like "Die AfD hält nichts vom Feminismus. Mit abgenutzten Vorurteilen machen sie ihre Positionierung deutlich." (MPants translation: "The AfD has nothing to do with feminism. They are obviously prejudiced.") It's also worth noting that the second suggested completion was "afd antisemitisch" which I don't think requires any translation.
- Whether or not any member of the AfD is anti-feminist (or antisemitic) is not something we can say, but when the general perception among reliable sources is that the group s a whole is, it's decidedly non neutral to exclude this info from the article. And that's all I have to say about tha-ut. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- This was a comment about BMK's behaviour in general, which I didn't want to waste people's time with on AN/I. I was not "admin-shopping". I didn't want to discuss the AfD dispute here. I don't believe that acccusations of bad faith on my part from BMK carry much authority given how BMK has addressed people who disagree with him on the AfD page (as the Diffs show above). Honestly, this is exhausting and I don't have time for it; I was just raising an alarm about minor behavioural issues which I have noticed.
- As for the comments above, I'll have a more careful read later, but so far all the objections on the talk page have been concerned with whether things like "climate change denial" and "anti-feminism" should be listed as ideological commitments of the party in the infobox (I.e. Is climate change denial a political ideology?), and an emergent consensus on the talk page would suggest they are not. Obviously, these are things which could be mentioned in the main body of the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- There was also a secondary objection upheld by myself and one other (not concerned with the appropriateness of "anti-feminism" in the infobox) which you've mentioned, and I'll respond to that later. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- L.R. Wormwood: You need to read a little more closely than you are, because there is a distinct and important difference between saying that someone is a supporter of AfD -- which is something I have not said -- and saying that their behavior looks like it could be the behavior of an AfD supporter. It is the actions I questioned, and the possible meaning of the actions. Frankly, I still have some difficulty understanding why someone would edit an article in ways that prevent the subject's somewhat embarrassing viewpoints from being exposed if they weren't engaged in protecting the subject and skewing the article in their favor. Because this is an encyclopedia which is designed to provide information to the public, and not a sophomoric exercise in rhetoric, I have little or no patience with edits which are made not because they improve the encyclopedia, but because "it's the philosophy of the thing." Fie, I say, the philosophy of the thing be damned, edits should improve the encyclopedia and help present valid and supported facts to our readers. Period, full stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- There was also a secondary objection upheld by myself and one other (not concerned with the appropriateness of "anti-feminism" in the infobox) which you've mentioned, and I'll respond to that later. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Insinuating that someone is an AfD supporter is not a cover for making a direct accusation. None of the contributions made so far could be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that there are any motives other than those provided on the talk page. Several people have tried to remove content you have added which they believe is inappropriate for the infobox of a political party, and you have returned with the assumption that people are trying to airbrush the page (and participated in an edit war claiming NPOV). I don't believe that discussing this further with you will be productive, so I won't. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to say that I've been directly insulted (no aspersions, no hints, no commentary on my apparent POV, just directly insulted) at least three times since the new year and I have yet to ask an admin to do anything about it. This helps me to be a productive Wikipedian, because it means I waste less time arguing about arguing. Be like Captain Hammer Pants. Just let it go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, this seems to be running down, I hope we're done. I very much like MjolnirPants's principle: be like Captain Hammer Pants and just let it go. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
- Yes, I just noticed a pattern, that's all. I'll let it go and avoid them in future, since it would seem their style of editing brings out the worst in me.
- Regarding User:MjolnirPants's comments, my complaint, and that of about half a dozen others now (I'm not tallying), is that the "ideology" field for political party infoboxes is used to provide a general overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, and usually lists no more than four or five items, often much fewer. See: Socialist Party (France), The Republicans (France), Democratic Party (United States), UKIP, New Zealand National Party. This makes the information more accessible, and reflects the guidelines in the MOS (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Often, the descriptors used are so general that there could be no cause for reasonable disagreement, and for this reason are often un-referenced: example: Labour Party (UK). There are also far too many references for each claim (partly because they are so needlessly contentious), when as another user has noted (Diff), one reference from a reliable source would be sufficient (but I was not allowed to remove the redundant references).
- The problem with the inclusion of "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" under the "ideology" field of the infobox is that these are not political ideologies (as the user has, in one case, already admitted on the talk page Diff). There is also the fact that there are now ten entries under the "ideology" field, which is far more than is necessary, and most of these are covered by each other (Right-wing populism could plausibly cover minority anti-feminist sentiments, or Christian right tendencies, for instance), and are therefore redundant.
- Regarding the sources for anti-feminism specifically, two concern a Facebook campaign (one is an opinion article), and one concerns the views of a parliamentarian from the Baden-Württemberg landtag. Personally, I don't think this provides enough support for the claim that anti-feminism is a leading feature of the AfD agenda, and certainly not so great a feature that it deserves to appear under the "ideology" field. These tendencies could, of course, still be mentioned in the main body of the article. It is possible that we just disagree on this point. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I responded to User:MjolnirPants's comments because I said I would yesterday, I do not intend to discuss this with BMK here; he is aware of my position. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the inclusion of "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" under the "ideology" field of the infobox is that these are not political ideologies
They meet the criteria in the article you just linked, so I'm not seeing anything here but a bald assertion coupled with contradictory evidence. Any ideology that concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology. This includes climate change denialism, pro-science advocacy, feminism, anti-feminism and a rather staggering number of others. Note: this is content, not conduct and does not require administrative intervention.as the user has, in one case, already admitted on the talk page Diff
I'm afraid that diff demonstrates nothing of the sort. BMK's comments in that are simply drawing a distinction between the component plurals and the ultimate singular use of the word "ideology". Every mental faculty I have that concerns logic, human nature, language and communication tells me that is not in any way, an admission that such ideologies as are listed are not political in nature. Of course, BMK might come along and say "Sorry, you big handsome tooltrouser you, but I really did mean to admit that they aren't political ideologies," but I somehow doubt that will happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I just noticed a pattern, that's all. I'll let it go and avoid them in future, since it would seem their style of editing brings out the worst in me.
I disagree. The comment was concerned with the following assertion: "The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology.", which as I have tried to demonstrate above is not the case (i.e. This is not how the field is used, as I attempt to show above, and in my response to the comment here: Diff).
Re this: "They meet the criteria in the article you just linked":
The phrase "certain ethical set of ideals [etc]" is important. Generally, I believe, a political ideology is understood as a set of views, dispositions, prejudices, and so forth, which form a body of ideas, loosely defined, which might be encompassed by a term or phrase (or held by a particular body of people [26] Cambridge English Dictionary). I consider a political ideology to be a set of ideas, therefore (this is the meaning adopted here, I believe: List of political ideologies). We might say that "neoliberalism", for instance, is an ideology. We wouldn't say (though you might) that structural adjustment is an ideology (though it might be ideological, informed by ideology, etc).
Therefore, when you say: "Any ideology that concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology", this is not what the article I provide says, and I suspect this is just your view.
This is, I believe, what BMK means to say when he makes a distinction between "ideology" and "ideologies" (that is, he agrees with my position on the meaning of ideology in a political context above). When he says, "The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology", he means the field is not supposed to merely list a group of political ideologies, i.e. national conservatism and so forth, but the component "beliefs" which constitute the party's ideology. This might include things like climate change denial, anti-feminism, and so on. This is how I interpreted his comment when I first read it, on re-reading it, I still believe I am correct, but I am willing to be corrected. This is not, however, as I have said, how the field is used. BMK's view is just a novel interpretation of what the field "ideology" might have been intended to imply.
Therefore, he is admitting that climate change denial is not a political ideology where he says: "So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology", i.e. it is not in itself an ideology, but it is an element of the party ideology (and therefore ought to feature in the infobox which, it is alleged, is intended to provide a laundry list of links which describe the "set of beliefs which is the party's ideology"). I do not believe that he was merely making an obvious distinction between the form words take when used to refer to "component plurals", and when used in the singular, but you are welcome to your view. I would recommend you read the whole exchange for context.
The entire paragraph for reference: "The infobox field says "Ideology", not "Ideologies". The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology. So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology."
Every mental faculty I have would also confirm that BMK is not making the admission that "such ideologies as are listed are not political in nature", but that would be an admission entirely different from the admission that they are not "political ideologies".
Now that I have clarified what I mean, I no longer believe that it would be fair to say that all I am contributing is "bald assertion coupled with contradictory evidence". It's also a little frustrating that you only responded to one paragraph (this is what got me into trouble over the last dispute), but I understand WP policy doesn't oblige users to respond to all points raised. I also realise that we are now discussing a content issue, but I am only responding to a content issue you raised when you responded to my comments concerning the dispute on the AfD talk page. I'm happy to continue this parsing elsewhere if User:Bishonen doesn't want it on their talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- You've said you were here over behavioral problems, but you've yet to give any evidence of any behavioral problems, or even name what, specifically they are. In fact, every diff you've shown has been one which demonstrates some aspect of the content dispute. Now, I certainly could keep arguing about content with you, but I'm not going to, because this isn't the article talk page, but Bish's user talk page. I don't believe I'm buying your end of the argument at all, but again: that's beside the point. My advice to you, take it or leave it, is to attempt some dispute resolution steps. Try an RfC, or possibly mediation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, @L.R. Wormwood:, I think it's time to take your disagreement elsewhere. An RfC on article talk seems like a good idea. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC).
- "you've yet to give any evidence of any behavioral problems": I provided evidence of behavioural problems in my initial post Diff, and you responded to this by saying that you have been directly insulted several times since the new year, and yet have let it go, with the expectation that I let BMK's insinuation that I'm an AfD supporter go.
- I'm happy to provide more diffs to validate my case, but I'm not spending any time on this since I've said I won't pursue it. My complaints are a generally aggressive and unpleasant tone (here he calls me dysfunctional, for instance); and a frequent and fairly blatant failure to assume good faith:
- The issue has gone to RfC, and the survey is currently 8-2 in my favour. I doubt the two dissenters will back down, so it will likely be closed formally.
- When you say: "I don't believe I'm buying your end of the argument at all", I'm not sure whether you're referring to my position on the behaviour dispute, the content dispute, or my previous comments about your interpretation of BMK's remarks on the talk page. If it's the former, I've provided you with some more diffs, which show some (blatant, and admitted) bad faith, and low-level incivility - nothing actionable, but I was hoping when I came here that someone who is familiar with the user might "have a word with them", so to speak.
- If you disagree with me on content, you are welcome to believe that the sources demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party, i.e., that "anti-feminism" is a significant part of their agenda, but I don't, and my reasons are all over the talk page. You may believe that opinion articles can be credible references for that sort of claim, but I don't, and most people I have encountered so far on WP agree. You may wish to adopt a very abstract interpretation of the term "political ideology", which is apparently that anything which "concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology", but this is not how the term is used here or here, where it is used to refer to a set or body or system of ideas, preferences, notions, prejudices etc concerning the way society or government ought to be organised. This is supported by the Cambridge English Dictionary link which I supplied, and also here and here. This might refer either to the general ideological orientation of an individual, or group of people (not individual policy preferences like climate change denial, pro-life policies, etc, though they might be ideological positions), but will often also (and in this context does) refer to a particular set or system of ideas, such as the political ideologies listed here. This is how the term has been interpreted for every article for every major political party, as I have shown, where they list things like anarchism, or social democracy, or neoconservatism, and not things like pro-choice, small government, or climate change denial. I believe there is an obvious qualitative difference between these things. The latter might be associated with particular "political ideologies", they might be positions or preferences informed by the general ideological commitments of particular individuals, but I do not believe that any conventional understanding of the term could lend any support to their designation as "political ideologies". This term (in the English-speaking world at least, as far as I have encountered) has a specific meaning, which does not include any ideological commitment related to politics.
- The same goes for my interpretation of BMK's comments. I cannot find any other reasonable interpretation of what he meant beyond what I laid out as clearly as I can yesterday. I don't see much room for your interpretation of him merely identifying and pointing out the distinction between "component plurals" and singular use given everything else contained in the paragraph, and given that he would not be contributing anything at all by simply pointing that out (what would be his point, if your reading is correct?)
- I can't find any other way to express my thoughts more clearly. I am convinced that I am right (validated by the fact that all but the two original contributors agree with my position on the talk page RfC survey), and I hope this additional clarification has convinced you, but I can't be convinced otherwise without actual arguments being presented (which the dissenters on the talk page have failed to provide convincingly). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Come on, @L.R. Wormwood:, please take a hint. I get an alert every time you post on this page, you know. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'll go now, @MjolnirPants: can respond on my talk page if he wishes to. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Come on, @L.R. Wormwood:, please take a hint. I get an alert every time you post on this page, you know. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC).
- I can't find any other way to express my thoughts more clearly. I am convinced that I am right (validated by the fact that all but the two original contributors agree with my position on the talk page RfC survey), and I hope this additional clarification has convinced you, but I can't be convinced otherwise without actual arguments being presented (which the dissenters on the talk page have failed to provide convincingly). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Request for admin attention
Greetings. I was looking through the 'R's @ Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to compare listed editors with one I'm considering to add. If you click on the "count" link for User:Random Passer-by, some of the info at this next not-exactly-Wikipedia page appears to have been vandalized. A small thing, but still vandalism. Regards Tapered (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker/non-admin): You mean the weird numbers here? I'd guess it's a bug with X's Edit Counter tool. Unless I'm missing something, no one is maintaining that tool anymore or even replying to queries about it. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah... I see User:Random Passer-by's first edit was in 2099.
I wasn't aware of a problem with X's edit counter — I thought cyberpower678 was maintaining it? Aren't you, Cyber? Bishonen | talk 10:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'm listed to recruit new active maintainers, but I stopped being involved a while ago. It's now being actively maintained, and rewritten by Matthewrbowker, and the WMF.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cyberpower678, that's good to know. [In a cackling, ancient voice:] I hope one of you young folks will keep an eye out for Random Passer-by when they turn up in 2099. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
- I don't see a 2099 in that count. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Rivertorch: Appears you've run into T97153. It's a bit of a funny issue that we haven't found the root cause for yet, though it appears to happen when the database returns an incorrect result. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- You say it's T97153; I say it's a time portal. (Bishzilla know all about.) If it shows up on certain other tools, we'll be able to see edits before they happen and block vandals before they vandalize. In the meantime, someone might like to update Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters#Wikipedia compatible edit counter and page counters, which still lists User:Hedonil as maintaining the tool. RivertorchFIREWATER 12:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Done ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- You say it's T97153; I say it's a time portal. (Bishzilla know all about.) If it shows up on certain other tools, we'll be able to see edits before they happen and block vandals before they vandalize. In the meantime, someone might like to update Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters#Wikipedia compatible edit counter and page counters, which still lists User:Hedonil as maintaining the tool. RivertorchFIREWATER 12:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Rivertorch: Appears you've run into T97153. It's a bit of a funny issue that we haven't found the root cause for yet, though it appears to happen when the database returns an incorrect result. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a 2099 in that count. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cyberpower678, that's good to know. [In a cackling, ancient voice:] I hope one of you young folks will keep an eye out for Random Passer-by when they turn up in 2099. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'm listed to recruit new active maintainers, but I stopped being involved a while ago. It's now being actively maintained, and rewritten by Matthewrbowker, and the WMF.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah... I see User:Random Passer-by's first edit was in 2099.
- Whoa! Wasn't expecting such an in depth response! Now I capish. Sort of. Tapered (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Re this. I wound up semiprotecting this article. Let me know if you disagree. A semi is usually easier than a rangeblock! The guy himself could be notable, since he appears to be a full professor at the American University of Beirut. The article itself appears to be mostly copyvio, and I imagine people will get busy and trim it down soon, if it survives at all. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good call, Ed. A rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 range (normally one person) is thankfully very easy too, but semi may well give better protection. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
"Nader El-Bizri" article
Dear Bishonen, what has happened over the past couple of days has been a misunderstanding that may have resulted from haste in editing that has been carried through with tags, and this seems to be harmful to the reputation of the actual person being covered by the entry "Nader El-Bizri". Please more care needs to be directed to this from you as professional editors and from your Wikipedia colleagues. I fully understood now that as a casual editor that I should not interfere with tags, but all along I wanted to bring the latest edits to the attention of your administrators just in case there was a case of vandalism or unfair editorial handling throughout, and for this purpose I used the noticeboards and miscellaneous queries pages on Wikipedia as a means of contacting the professional Wikipedia editors without knowing that this is not your protocol. There was a suggestion even made by one of the editors of deleting the whole "Nader El-Bizri" even though it is a page that has been on Wikipedia for several years and has multiple links within Wikipedia and to external references etc. Please look into it under your editorial care. Thanks 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:E5B3:EBD7:4E2F:D5 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:E5B3:EBD7:4E2F:D5. Edit warring in particular is not our protocol, and we take a dim view of it. Because of your rather aggressive editing (repeatedly removing tags), the article has now been semiprotected by another administrator, per the section you see above. Semiprotection means IPs can't edit it at all. You can still request edits on Talk:Nader El-Bizri, though. Post the template {{Edit semi-protected}} (just copy that as it appears on my page) and write your request in the form "please change x to y", and give your reason. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For giving us all closure at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
- Me? I'm not sure I deserve it, but thank you very much, Bearian. Any particular close..? Bishonen | talk 11:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
Qué tal Taichi: Round 2
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/1_patti_060121_1Ds_8266.jpg/125px-1_patti_060121_1Ds_8266.jpg)
@Bish, our spanish writing editor is back, with choice personal attacks. This time on my talk page! For Round 1, see above.
Never crossed paths with this character in any article or article talk page, as much as I can remember. The IP was 85.84.184.165 harassing Maragm and you, now hopped to 85.84.113.133. Bbb23 has blocked the new one for 72 hours, which suffices. If persistent against Maragm or others in Latin America / Iberia-related articles, may need more Taichi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah... perhaps we're giving the childishness too much attention. Let me know if I can interest you in a semi of your pages. (Wow, did you see MONGO's stormcloud?) Bishonen | talk 21:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
- Good idea, thanks. Lets semi it for 6 months, save Bbb23 some future effort.. who must be overloaded with work. I admire how much work Bbb23 does to keep sockpuppets and disrupters at bay. Scary stormcloud pic that is. MONGO... waiting for more nice pics! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- 6 months? Well, if you're sure. I looked at the edits to your page in the past 6 months, and there was one reasonable IP, no more.[27] Perhaps you'd like to put a note on your page recommending non-autoconfirmed editors to take their concerns to article talkpages? Or something. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
- Indeed. It is the third time you protected my talk page for another 6 months. Thanks. May be next time, we go much longer. Look at the MONGO pic quickly before it changes. Two pretty pink beaked pelicans. Good photography, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the mentoring of Endercase
Thank you for your recent comments on User talk:Endercase.
Could you also look at the recent behaviour by Endercase's mentor User:David Tornheim? I requested that he talk to Endercase about his recent behaviour, and was met with "Why should I? I'm not an admin."[28] I am not asking for sanctions against David, but I am increasingly wondering about his capacity to act as a mentor when he essentially admitted upfront that he would act more as an enabler than a teacher (User:JzG and I both expressed concerns during the ANI thread, as well as on JzG's talk page). Since the close was an involved, non-admin close that didn't explicitly mention any binding agreement on who should do the mentoring, what the mentoring should cover, and how long it should last, I'm wondering what can be done about it. I'm not that familiar with mentoring (I just thought that if I offered advice on how to edit, everything would be okay, but it's been causing me a lot more stress than that, especially since the ANI thread was closed), so I'm not sure.
After Endercase attacked me (despite my being his other "mentor"), I initially told him off, but also requested David back me up.[29]
After he refused, I went to User:MjolnirPants and mentioned David's shirking, and have as a result recently been met with a string of "warnings" for "lying" about him and not pinging him, even though he made it quite clear he didn't want anything to do with it.[30][31]
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri88 is misrepresenting things in number of forums and it is a huge waste of my time having to correct the falsehoods he is telling. What he did do was ask me to tell some other editor to "knock it off" [32] and I that's why I said no. He previously told me I needed to investigate the interaction of him and some other editor [33]. Neither of these requests is appropriate and I said no. The full discussion is here. He is also making unfounded accusations and talking behind my back [34], saying that I have failed to continue mentoring Endercase. That is not true. If he had provided me the diff where Endercase attacked him, I would have said something, but he didn't. (When I did find out about it, I did say something [35]). The request that I investigate Endercase followed his claims I was supposed to shoe off the other two other editors who disagreed with him. He provided no diff. I'm supposed to go looking for it? It just gets tiresome. I am happy to continue helping Endercase, but I am tired of Hijiri88 bugging me like this and causing me unnecessary drama. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Struck per agreement to drop it. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have a pair of trouts tied together at the tail like nunchaku and I'm about to start spazzing out like a Bruce Lee movie on VHS with the tracking off and fast forward locked on. Just because you two have been here longer doesn't mean my advice (repeated ad nauseum at this point) is only good for new editors: stop stirring up shit if you don't want to get any on you. Also, I think there's some advice above that works, too: Let's all be like the Dude and just, like, abide, man. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: You're right, as usual. @David Tornheim: You wanna drop this whole thing yet and forget about it? I do. <Offers hand to shake> Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: Yes. Definitely. Going forward, I would appreciate if you only focus on Endercase rather than asking me to investigate or admonish other users. If Endercase behaves poorly, I am more likely to follow up if you provide a diff or page section, and if the request is on his talk (or mentoring) page, or tag me at the place is going on. Okay? I will try to follow up if it is a concise request of that form, okay? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: You're right, as usual. @David Tornheim: You wanna drop this whole thing yet and forget about it? I do. <Offers hand to shake> Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
David Tornheim, Hijiri was obviously very hurt and needed support against his unruly mentee, and I wish you had provided it. That said, though, I think you've been doing a very good job advising Endercase. (Not that I've followed you around, but from everything I've come across.) I was originally with JzG and Softlavender, who expressed doubts about your suitability to be a mentor, but I've had to change my mind. You tell him good stuff, and you don't give up. Perhaps, indeed, you're so tenacious that you're wearing yourself out, because it's quite hard to get Endercase to listen, as you may have found. Mentoring does tend to be an ungrateful task. @Endercase:, please give some thought to not wearing your mentors out — I think Hijiri has already, understandably, given up, and you're making David work very hard without much reward. If both your mentors withdraw, you're unlikely to find new ones. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
- Thanks for your kind words. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Re. reverted edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToshibaCK6R4
Does this help?
Also I appreciate you trying to get in contact with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToshibaCK6R4 (talk • contribs)
- Hi, User:ToshibaCK6R4. Sorry, I don't understand. The user talkpage you link me to hasn't even been created yet — there's nothing on it. Did I try to get in contact with you under another username or an IP? I talk to quite a few new users, so I'm not sure who you are. Is it possibly about this? Bishonen | talk 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
Sorry to ask for another favour...
Could you ask Vfrickey (talk · contribs) to drop the stick as well? He just filled his talk page with a long rant against me (or, rather, the strawman he set up in my place), after everyone else had apparently agreed to put this whole incident behind us.
I really, really wanna just forget about this whole incident, but the guy now has a threat to bring me to ANI (or, rather, a statement of regret that he didn't support that IP troll's ridiculous boomerang proposal) on his talk page, and specifically set it to remain there for 90 days.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, technically it's not a statement of regret that he didn't support the bogus trolling boomerang proposal; it's a statement of regret that no such proposal was made, which is arguably even worse (proposing a boomerang against the OP of an ANI discussion one hasn't even read/understood is inherently worse, right?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just let it go. The other editor stated their opinion—some of it good and some not so. Let them have the last word. I tried communicating at User talk:Endercase a couple of times (most recently to comment on Bishonen's "please try to read policies for their spirit") but received an amazing lack of engagement. I could have persisted but the Internet is a big place and it is not possible to make everyone exactly as we would like them to be. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's a bit much on their part to talk about committing the error of letting other people use their page as a soapbox. A user talkpage isn't supposed to be anybody's soapbox, and I've told them so. But, Hijiri 88, I agree you should let these things go. You'll feel better. Sticks and stones, you know. What does it matter what they regret? Bishonen | talk 05:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
- Yeah, you're both right. I actually knew you were both right before you even said that (I've been desperately trying to drop this whole messmsince Saturday). I was just worried that he'd actually make good on his ANI threat. But a few hours to settle down has reminded me that no one would take such an ANI discussion seriously, so there's really nothing for me to be worried about at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clear the record, nowhere did I threaten to take anything to AN/I in my discussion. I mentioned the issue of other editors being taken to AN/I of a conflation of legitimate disruptive activity and the political affiliation of the sites they were advocating to be cited (in what I agree was conduct requiring a hearing at AN/I, but which ought to have been discussed without use of emotionally loaded terms like "right-wing fake-news" sites which seem to make the issue the editor's politics, when the real issue should be the editor's actions which violate our policies). Hijiri 88 just accused me of serious misconduct without any proof. Please explain the rules about that to him. Thank you. loupgarous (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're both right. I actually knew you were both right before you even said that (I've been desperately trying to drop this whole messmsince Saturday). I was just worried that he'd actually make good on his ANI threat. But a few hours to settle down has reminded me that no one would take such an ANI discussion seriously, so there's really nothing for me to be worried about at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's a bit much on their part to talk about committing the error of letting other people use their page as a soapbox. A user talkpage isn't supposed to be anybody's soapbox, and I've told them so. But, Hijiri 88, I agree you should let these things go. You'll feel better. Sticks and stones, you know. What does it matter what they regret? Bishonen | talk 05:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
- Just let it go. The other editor stated their opinion—some of it good and some not so. Let them have the last word. I tried communicating at User talk:Endercase a couple of times (most recently to comment on Bishonen's "please try to read policies for their spirit") but received an amazing lack of engagement. I could have persisted but the Internet is a big place and it is not possible to make everyone exactly as we would like them to be. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)