Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

[[?title=User_talk:Bishonen&action=purge Purge the page to see a different image |?title=User_talk:Bishonen&action=purge Purge the page to see a different image]]

Hi. I was wondering if you could protect the page in question. So far, IPs and newly registered users have been using the page for WP:NOTAFORUM posts and nonsense. There hasn’t been a single constructive discussion from any one of them. I chose to approach you personally because you used a similar rationale for protecting Talk:Mohammed bin Salman. Thank you in advance. SunilNevlaFan✨ 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man, what a festival of crap. Semiprotected for a year. Thanks for letting me know, SunilNevlaFan. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I like your revolving artwork and love to see Krøyer's paintings. Marie Krøyer was a beautiful subject, reportedly the prettiest girl in Denmark at the time. The last time we visited Skagen, I bought a book about the Skagen Painters. It burned in the fire, but I just ordered a used copy thet should arrive soon.

• Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
• Summer Evening at Skagen. The Artist's Wife and Dog by the Shore
• P. S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie

Michael Ancher and his wife Anna Ancher were also very talented.

The lighting in Skagen really is special, and having two oceans meeting, crashing together, and battling around one's legs is quite the experience. Well worth the visit. My wife was born about two hours drive from there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Krøyers are hard to resist aren't they. I have visited their home/museum in Skagen - an unassuming cottage full of art. Many of Marie's portraits of her daughter hang there, I really liked them. You'll hardly have seen the Swedish TV feature Selma, about Selma Lagerlöf, from 2008? Not likely... it doesn't even have an English Wikipedia article. I was just watching a rerun, though. Not bad at all, with Helena Bergström as Selma, a good deal more congenial than I've seen her in anything else. Anyway, in that, Marie Krøyer was played extremely well by the Danish actress Sonja Richter. And Göran Stangertz was a pretty useless Strindberg. Well, it was a useless part, with little to do except sneer at women writers and artists, individually and as a group. ("Mrs Krøyer, of course you realize you wouldn't be selling any paintings if it wasn't for your husband?") Realistic as far as it goes, that, for sure, but S had some more complex sides also.

The module [oh la la, she said "module"] that RexxS created for my revolving pics is at Module:Carousel/Shonen. Feel free to add more Skagen paintings to it if you like, Valjean. Bishonen | tålk 05:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "political hack" in this block summary. Is it part of a IP hack, or is it "hack" as in a minced oath? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LilianaUwU. It's hack as in definition 1 and 2 of hack (noun) here, in Wordsmyth: a person who surrenders integrity in return for reward, a flunky. I'm getting this from the edit summary and text here (repeated here) — from the flavor of it. I'll allow that the IP could be just somebody who loves Modi with a passion and speaks from the heart, but, well, I find that hard to believe. Incidentally, the definitions of hack in Wiktionary seem quite incomplete — they focus on computing, whereas the sense I use it in is older, and surely at least equally well-known. I suppose that may be because Wiktionary is "the dictionary that Slashdot wrote". Bishonen | tålk 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

{ec} It's a standard expression and even has an article: Political hack. The truth of that assessment can be seen in just the edit summaries left by Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:25:FD00:0:0:0:0/64. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Oh yeah, I had no reason to doubt it was related to their unreasonable love for Modi. I wondered what exactly the term meant, and you two answered my question. Thanks! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Johnuniq: I didn't know we had an article! Or that "political hack pack" was a thing, lol. Bishonen | tålk 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Hope all is well. One minor task I do here is tidy up after erroneous blocks (which lead to incorrect warnings on m:User:Krinkle/Scripts/CVNSimpleOverlay unless I or someone else remove them). In that context I noticed these two actions. I totally get the motivation there, but there's actually a whole thing at WP:REVDEL prohibiting this (even if I personally think that rule's a bit too broad). Would you mind un-logdelling? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came to find out what "lodgelling" is. Got a F*** off your not an admin error. Sigh. - Roxy the dog 08:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, @Tamzin:. But I've thought about it, and I think I won't undo my revdel. The reason given at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Log_redaction as to why log redaction is not permitted for "ordinary matters" (and I suppose a misclick is an ordinary matter) is that the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper (bold per original). The community does not in fact need to review WWGB's block; I can't imagine circumstances where that block would be of interest. I'm leaving it revdel'd per WP:IAR: it improves the encyclopedia to oblige WWGB when they request it, because it makes a constructive editor of 16 years' tenure happy, and does not reasonably disoblige anybody. As I told WWGB, I don't for my own part see a "clean" block log as something particularly positive, and am in fact proud of my own more colorful log (featured on my userpage). But clearly they don't feel the same way. Bishonen | tålk 13:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

That's what I was talking about . Fixing it now Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bish, just to let you know that while this has a certain rationality, it really does look like an OWN conflict with someone who has made less edits to both article and talk space than the individual who opened the thread. While CUK is an inexperienced editor and should be ‘realigned’ to ensure they could be a constructive editor, there was equal disruption from the OP which wasn’t really examined. My comment came in late in the day when it was probably too late, but the problems with the OP (who I have previously had to pull up for misrepresenting sources and adding incorrect information on a BLP) will continue on this and other articles. I don’t expect (or suggest) any change to what’s happened, but it’s worth keeping an eye on in future. Cheers SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, your statement expressed skepticism of the value of edit counts in assessing disruption and then proceeded to only cite edit counts as evidence of misconduct on Shibbolethink's part. You appear to be repeating the allegation here with no more evidence. Edit counts are particularly unhelpful when it comes to Shibbolethink, who has a habit of repeatedly amending his own comments before others respond. I've told him before that I find the habit suboptimal, but it's doesn't make his editing equally disruptive to CUK's. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fair criticism, that I also probably participated a lot in those discussions. I think when I see a user who is so clearly violating PAGs or furthering a POV, I don't hesitate to reply or comment trying to describe the right course of action. I don't think my replies amounted to bludgeoning, though, as multiple other users also commented and replied to the user, and many of my replies were to comments from CUK directly addressing me in section headings in violation of TPG. There are many threads where I did not reply, or replied once and left the rest up to other users.

I would add that a good portion of the 57 edits that SC describes are me actually fixing CUK's WP:TPG violations. I would say the "# of edits" is indeed a poor metric, given FFFs absolutely true comment that I repeatedly edit talk page comments after posting them. As far as I can tell, this does not go against anything in TPG, which indeed says this is totally kosher to do up until someone replies. And, besides, the complaint actually described "increasing prominence" of ones comments, the length of such comments, and "repeatedly making new discussions" as the issue, not the actual "volume" of responses. In total, I made 68 replies on the page, versus CUK's 82. (in reply or "comment" count, not edit count)

SchroCat has, as far as I can tell, no relationship to the page itself, or the talk. I certainly hope they are not participating here and at ArbE simply because I was involved in a long and drawn out AN thread about their conduct as an anonymous IP. I think, in general, they like to comment on conduct discussions, so I don't think this is HOUDNING or anything like that. But I also would say that our history probably precludes them from being "objective" in this matter. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bish, I’ll leave my comment for you to discuss, without the misguided accusations of “HOUDNING” (sic), etc., but given the possible grief, feel free to ignore it all. Cheers (and sorry again). SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SchroCat, thanks for following up. I didn't partial-block for the number of CUK's edits, but for their character: I considered (many of) them promotional, while I believe Shibbolethink was playing a defensive game to keep the article neutral. I placed those p-blocks on my own authority, early on in the AE discussion, but left the section open for further input, and it turned out that the other two uninvolved admin who commented agreed with the blocks. (Pay no attention to the technical discussion of p-blocks vs p-bans; as Callanecc says, that's merely about the paperwork.) As for sealioning that you mention, it's explained in our article and I think it's fine word! And relevant here. It comes from this cartoon. Bishonen | tålk 07:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for coming back to me; I’d query some of the nature of some of the edits made by all sides in this, and it looks like CUK is ‘sinned against as well as sinning’ here. It’s dispiriting to come across someone who reverts input without due concern (while I was editing as an IP, Shibbolethink did exactly that to me on Mark Rylance - going so far as to misrepresent sources on a BLP just to block out my edits, then stonewalling on the talk page and outright lying on what was the STATUS QUO). It seems this may be the case with some of the edits here. It’s easy for a couple of people to push a third party onto the talk page and tie them up in knots over STATUS QUO, while claiming to be keeping an article ‘neutral’. One OWNer’s ‘neutral’ is often not a reflection of the sources. CUK is obviously inexperienced, but needs help, not drama boards to get them to improve. There are some “games” - defensive or otherwise - we do not need see played out on BLPs, and there seems to be similarity with my experience at Rylance; I hope the pattern is not repeated elsewhere, although little surprises me on WP any more.

As a ps, you can ignore the snide insinuation that I have only raised the matter because of the failed AN thread - that's a straw man (and actually another red flag of a battleground 'player' trying to stack the odds in their favour): my concerns are based on the experience from the misrepresenting sources on the Rylance BLP violation, and the sub-standard approach I have seen elsewhere, including Moorgate tube crash. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... are amazing. When they revert vandalism, lightning stands still! It's appreciated, guys. Bishonen | tålk 21:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ha, this is great, but I've no idea what the stalkers did? Dont care actually, hehe. - Roxy the dog 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... Polar bear in a quandry, in case you were wondering. - Roxy the dog 23:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They did what they always do, Roxy: moved as silently as the jungle cat and reverted vandalism to this page faster than the Phantom. The guardian polar bear can't catch everything, I guess. Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hey do you mind protecting the Ukraine Greece page for persist sockpuppetry? Could use some behavioral based blocks too [[1]] Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? I'm not aware of any page called "Ukraine Greece". Please provide the actual page name (preferably in link form) for requests like this. Bishonen | tålk 14:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe start following your own decisions? Seriously, I’m not the one who changed the article title to Odesa. -Correct spelling of cities in Ukraine (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Bish, Greece–Ukraine relations Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by mr ScottishFinnishRadish. Bishonen | tålk 14:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

And the obvious sock/meatpuppet blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You both are amazing. The SPI is undergoing a Checkuser now and there are more accounts. Whack-a-mole time for the SPI folks. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I just didn't expect it to take 7 months before the attempt. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they took my comment pretty literally. Already declined, I see. Bishonen | tålk 08:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

"There's no business like show business like no business I know

Everything about it is appealing, everything that traffic will allow"

Yur welcome. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it look like they were pronounally challenged on DEWIKI -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was a big fan of "I did nothing wrong" as an unblock rationale directly below You guys are so cool and powerful! why don't you just suck each other off and the one who does a better job gets to ban me. touch grass ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

eeewww -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I missed that. I do wonder where their "disagreements" with me took place, per the unblock request, as I have no memory of them. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I think they were just lashing out at you because you were the blocking admin, and you asked who they were a sock of. I don't think you actually interacted directly with them anywhere else. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's what I was getting at: it's an example of how they speak at random. Not the only one. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ajwadsabano sought renaming. I declined as it looks like attempted obfuscation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fritter. Can a blocked user even be renamed? How can they even seek it? Where? (Asking for a friend.) Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Global renaming requests on META. There are more ways than I can count. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not this user. They were just blocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little reluctant to reveal the depth of my ignorance, but here goes. Why doesn't this global renaming request show up here? Or here? Bishonen | tålk 20:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Because that's how it shows up. In contribs. Maddening -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make a federal case out of it, but I don't see the "absurdity" of my evidence relating to Wes sideman. The guy (I assume) goes around like a bull in a china shop, disparaging other editors and reverting their edits with little logic. In the diff I provided he was presented with a long list of sources, other than the Atlanta Constitution, which carried articles on the Shaun White "white Jesus" controversy, at least two of which Wikipedia specifically lists as reliable. He replied: "Again - one article, in the local Atlanta newspaper". That s the kind of thing which certainly gets politicians labeled as liars. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February songs

my daily stories

Fresh flowers for you, with thanks for petit fours served ;) - My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? - On your great user page, the archive image is too bit for the new layout. I could work for a week to make my archives look halfway decent, sigh. I miss Doug. Just today and by chance, I found a great quote by him, put on my present user page for easy reference. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for celebrating Ukraine today, Gerda. Too big..? Yes, I suppose it is, but the Stockholm Public Library is pretty big. Better now? Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

A bit better but ... - I wish Doug was here. I'm afraid that everybody sees things differently now, depending on which skin. For me, the pic escapes the frame on the right, still. I wonder if an upright definition would cure that? I keep using the frame design copied from Br'er Rabbit, without understanding which parameter makes what. Perhaps there's something saying: surround the pic no matter how big, to give the Stockholm archives proper space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried now something with your pic that works for me, but how is it for you? - today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsymmetrical for me — was neater before — but only slightly. It'll do. Are you using something abhorrent like Vector? Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I use the abhorrent new style because I'm afraid most of our readers will see it that way. Feel free to return, or find a centering device perhaps? - For me, it sticks out of the frame on the right, but you should be pleased. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about the appearance of the "A r c h i v e s" box at User:Bishonen. The image extends past the right-hand side of the box for me in both versions although in the new skin Gerda's version works. I would ask at WP:VPT about how to fix the wikitext but the fundamental problem appears to be an attempt to specify the width of the box as an absolute value while the image it contains is also a fixed width (I think). There would be some clever way of using proportions but changing the box from width:14em; to width:16em; works for me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the bigger image,like this? Or you change it, please, John. Bishonen | tålk 03:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

That works for me provided I enable scripting which almost everyone will have enabled. It's likely some guru could improve the html but that might not be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So... what's scripting? And you replied at 09:19, just after Gerda made another change, John. Is that the version you say works for you? Because I've reverted her last change. It's unattractive, sorry. Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

We will have to accept that we see different things, depending on the skin, so can't see "it is ugly", but only "what I see looks ugly to me". I see a round-edged box and an image that's inside top left and bottom, but sonsiderably protruding right. I wouldn't cal it ugly but surprising, and wondered if intentionally so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A much bigger box than the photo of Doug Taylor that it sits below is an unattractive element of the page layout. The library pic still protrudes in the new Vector skin? Let's see what John says about that. No, the protrusion is not supposed to be an artistic effect, lol. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I was saying that Gerda's version from 09:15, 1 March 2023 works for me (if WP:JAVASCRIPT is enabled). For me, the Bishonen version from 10:08, 1 March 2023 is broken with the image significantly protruding from the right-hand side of the box even when the browser is maximized on a big screen. The following links should show the current user page in two different skins: monobook and Vector 2022. Both are currently broken for me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the Vector 2022 looks absolutely terrible. But the Monobook looks fine — indeed, that's how it looks for me always, since I use Monobook. I don't understand how that can look broken for you, John. I give up. As for Javascript... well, I have a lot of Javascripts in my User:Bishonen/monobook.js and User:Bishonen/common.js (yes, I have both those, because I'm an idiot). Shouldn't that mean js is enabled? Perhaps I'd better just stop archiving. [Removes archive box.] Definitely better, even if I wish the "Bookmarks" thing would be on the right rather than in the middle, but I can't tell how to achieve that. OK, no archives. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

How is this (sorry, drastic change): The archives seem to be no archives of the user page, but of the talk page. Move the whole container to the talk page, with whatever big size of the impressive library? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bishonen. I wonder if you will be willing to post the following in the ANI discussion about me:

Unfortunately, my computer has stopped working, and my phone can't cope with really long pages, such as ANI has recently been, making reading the page at times difficult and at times impossible, and making editing the page totally impossible, so I am asking Bishonen if she will help by posting this for me. All I have to say about this is that I've read it, and everything I might have said has already been said. JBW (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBW. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnuniq. 🙂 JBW (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like anime and manga in Japan. Therefore, you cannot have an NPOV perspective on my editing. If you didn't like anime and manga, I wouldn't say it could be blocked just because I talked about the similarities between "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Korean sentiment". In this topic, you should not restrict my editing, but other administrators should intervene. I think your intervention is not objective. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at your name and user page, you cannot take an objective view because you are Japanese or have a friendly view of Japan even if you are not Japanese. You should never use administrator privileges in this matter. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of identity you have, but it's really upsetting to do a Japanese-style user page and tell me "blocked" about the topic. I believe that if you were an administrator unrelated to Japan, you wouldn't have threatened to "blocked" me with that editing. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had much better join the discussion of your edit that Zero0000 has started on Talk:Antisemitism than make foolish personal assumptions here on my page. I have little to no interest in Japanese (or Korean) topics. Bishonen | tålk 13:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, they'd made two edits when I warned them. I don't go digging through templates for wording nitpicks; if it were significant enough (e.g., "You've made ten edits, and all of them have been based on your opinion") I would have added a separate comment to the end of the message. —C.Fred (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, I'm sorry I seem to have offended you. That was not my intention. Bishonen | tålk 15:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No, you didn't, not at all. I'm sorry if it came across as if I were offended; I wrote that before I'd had my first coffee of the morning. :) —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we're good. Bishonen | tålk 18:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the proper way place to put this, so I apologize if its not, but I've noticed that User:‎Sebastienostertag has been making edits in violation of a topic ban. They have continued to edit abortion related articles in ways that mischaracterize the legal limits of U.S. state abortion law and remove trans-inclusive language. Edits to support such claims can be seen here, here, here, and here. RoundSquare (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mischaracterizing. That is the law as written in those states. Sebastienostertag (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You are banned from editing all pages and discussions related to abortion. The articles you have been editing actually all have the word abortion in the title, and I urged you to look up what "topic ban" means, so I can't see any room for misunderstanding. Blocked for a week. RoundSquare, thank you very much. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Sprechen Sie Hindi? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Non, m'sieur. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. I noticed while processing a WP:ACC request that your block of User:82.132.184.0/22 had {{rangeblock|create=yes}} as the block reason, but account creation is still blocked. Could you please either allow account creation (if that was what was intended) or change the block reason to not have the |create=yes parameter? Best, — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mdaniels5757. I'm sorry, and a little embarrassed, but I didn't know what rangeblock|create=yes means. I was merely parroting the partial 6-month block set by Tamzin, which had been running for 7 weeks, and which I wanted to modify into a sitewide block. (Or maybe I didn't even spot the phrase in her block — I can't say I remember the incident.) See the log. From your post, I understand more or less what it means, i. e. that account creation is allowed. So be it; I've fixed it. Thanks for getting in touch. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I made this mistake on one of my own blocks recently. Perhaps there should be (or already is) a database report for such mismatches. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Towers (2nd nomination) with "Delete", which is in fact consistent with all !votes but mine, which was for "Redirect". However, on the merits (including that we are obligated to consider and use alternatives to deletion, and there is a good alternative suggested), IMHO the outcome should be "Redirect". Could you possibly please reconsider, and if you can agree please restore the article and then redirect it, instead? I'm maybe sorry to be a bother, but IMHO this stuff matters (including for sake of preventing re-creations of the same articles again and again, because outsider-type editors can't see the edit history). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you decide, please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Mana Tower (2nd nomination) which ran simultaneously, where I copied in my statement from the Palm Towers AFD, and others agreed and it was closed Redirect by User:Ritchie333. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later, Doncram. I do note that Ritchie and I both closed our respective discussions per consensus, but the cases are undeniably similar. I'll think about it some more. Bishonen | tålk 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

As Bishonen said, we closed the AfDs with the consensus we were presented with, but it's interesting to see two fairly similar articles get different views at AfD. One possibility, I guess, is that the term "Palm Towers" is a bit more generic and vague, and therefore the participants at that AfD might have felt it to be an unsuitable redirect. Alternatively, as another way forward, we could re-open and re-list the AfD for a further week, asking specifically about the redirect, and if consensus comes back as either "yes, that'll be alright" or "no, we don't want a redirect either", then that's your answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean re-open and re-list both of them, Ritchie333, or just "mine"? Either way, that sounds good to me. If it's not an imposition, do you think you could do it? I'm not really at home in the AFD world; I only know to click "Close", write a rationale, and sit back and watch Twinkle do the rest. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I've re-opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Towers (2nd nomination) so it runs for another week. It's basically the same procedure as a deletion review closing as "relist", but with a bit less drama. I don't think anyone's objecting to the Al Mana Tower AfD, so I don't think that needs relisting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks very much. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen. Thank you for removing what sounds like a nasty post from my Talk Page. I am a bit curious what it was all about, but also maybe it is for the best that I don't know. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't enjoy this one much, MrsSnoozyTurtle, but frankly, the time I handed in my tools, I really missed being able to read revdel'd posts. My curiosity was killing me. Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I know the feeling, I click on the "admins only" link, thinking "I'll just double check this" and every time come away thinking, "jeez, I wish I hadn't read that". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for shielding me from it. Nice pun in the edit summary, Bishonen :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am feeling pretty harassed. They are following me around, since the Minaro123 AE thread where the result went against them:

• January 2023: Talk:Tuqaq#(resolved)_Error_In_#Ethnopolitical_affiliations_and_in_the_Maintenance_tags_section_above

• Note that ER has never edited any article on Seljuq (or Turkmen) history unlike me. And, the thread is absolutely spurious.

• February 2023: User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_129#GCB_etc

• Attempt to poison the well, again w/o pinging me. I spotted it quite late.

• March 2023: Today's thread at Harry's t/p.

Do note that I have never interacted with ER since the Minaro123 episode since our editing interests do not align at all. So, I won't even care if it is a two-way IBAN. What say you? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, TrangaBellam. Supposedly I can set I-bans at my sole admin discretion per the Contentious topics system, always assuming I'm able to wrestle the bureaucracy of it to the ground, and maybe I will. It had definitely better be a two-way I-ban, yes; I'm sure I'd get enough protests and indignation over that. As an introductory salvo, I have warned Elinruby (you forgot to ping them, TB!) and have asked Barkeep49 about some technicalities. Bishonen | tålk 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  Thanks, Bish. I do not mind the occassional friction, esp. if in good faith, but this is something else, as you rightly recognized. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Really ought be a one way i-ban (with a IPA t-ban) or even an indef block, they are clearly following TB around, either just to complain about them or to get into arguments. This is plain hounding and it'd be completely unjustified to impose a sanction (through a two way i-ban) on the one being hounded as well.

  I say this especially after the recent comment on your talk page which is filled with assumptions of bad faith, lot of which boils down to accusations of racism (e.g, "rewrote it into a diatribe about ... and/or money-grubbing naive villagers", "made it into an ethnic slur", etc). I have been looking at the Aryan Valley and I don't see anything remotely resembling these incendiary accusations. This is accompanied by ownership behavior or rather frustration at a failure to own (e.g, requesting the article to be deleted and salted because it doesn't say what they want it to say?, then the comments, "She completely appropriated an article that got through AfD because I said I would work on it", "she should have ranted about Hindu nationalists in her own damn article instead of the one I said at AFD that I would foster and nurture")

  If Elinruby can't deal with content disputes or consensus being against them and resorts to this kind of behavior then they shouldn't be editing. I would absolutely not want to deal with someone who reacts like this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cough. Don't mind me, Tayi ArajakateI, am just passing through getting diffs. Pretty sure you are missing a few things or not going far enough back in the talk page history, but cough, you are definitely saying things that aren't true about me, and really, what is your interest in this? You seem very very invested in disparaging me, and I know I:be never talked to you before. I ignored you earlier, but either desist, please, gather some evidence that I was trying to own an article (that I didn't write, lol) and get formal about your strange preconceptions. And I wish you luck with that. I advise the former, but of course this is totally up to you. I don't feel the need to spend more ink on this than I just did, but please watch out for what you don't understand but gossip about anyway. I despise the drama boards but pushed hard enough I *do* reconsider. It's just ridiculous to say that I own *any* freaking article, and I suggest you think carefully about ranting on an administrator talk page in this vein again. Bishonen, I have had reason to appreciate you and yesterday was one of those times, but please teach your talk page lurkers to ping! And better yet, not to carelessly cast aspersions. Apart from copyedits and translations, Tayi ArajakateI, all I *do* is work on big messy articles with several other editors. What I *don't* do is take an article to AfD because I myself already wrote an article on a related topic. Eye roll. Peace out, Bishonen, and thanks for all the lulz. I promise not to edit any typos in this little admonishment I just administered.Elinruby (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, I can't much sense of what you are trying to say here but I did ping you and the evidence is there as well. When you say (Special:Diff/1145209696) things like "she should have ranted about Hindu nationalists in her own damn article instead of the one I said at AFD that I would foster and nurture", it shows an WP:OWN attitude (as well as it being pretty uncivil), no one is obligated to leave an article for you to "foster and nurture" and anyone is free to introduce content in it.

Bishonen, they already have two logged warnings (April 2022, January 2023) for similar behaviour, isn't it time to consider broader sanctions? Pinging Callanecc, who gave the latest logged warning, to see what they think. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for this right now but you misunderstand completely. The guy who wrote had very poor English and I said I would coach him through it. If you did ping me it never hit my radar. I can look into that later if it's important Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakate, I'm not well enough versed in the field (or fields) involved to consider broader sanctions at this time, but I certainly won't stand in the way if another admin wants to, or if you would like to take the matter to WP:ANI or WP:AE. I'm more just applying a tourniquet here, with a no-fault two-way I-ban that will hopefully stop the bleeding and take some of the pressure off both users. Elinruby, Tayi did ping you, in the sentence starting "If Elinruby can't deal with content disputes or consensus being against them..". Pings do fail occasionally, but that's not her fault. Bishonen | tålk 16:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

ok. If she spelled my name right then that is probably what happened though. I'll look at my history later but basically I have no interest in crying aspersions but what she said was close to libelous and I don't see how she can know anything about that situation at all. Not going to speculate on where she got her information because that would be bad. Now Barkeep asked me a question about the Collaboration with Axis powers article and I don't mean to be rude but I would like to finish that and go to sleep, k thanks. Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my answer on my talk page, and the link linked hijacked thread where she threatens me. However I am asking to add her as a party to the Arbcom case fyi so please do exempt that. She keeps begging me to take her to a board so I am gonna. I can't stand bullies is why. Elinruby (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Elinruby (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for some reason I thought we were on Trangabellam's page. I don't follow her anywhere though, for crying out loud. I watch RSN, and that is why I asked about adding her, and looked her up. And I also need to be able to discuss Aryan Valley, where she completely gutted an article after failing to AfD it because it was "unnecessary" because it was she had already written about some other aspect of the disputed ethnicities up there. Elinruby (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that I would be delighted to have her out of my life. Elinruby (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as for "I have never interacted with Elinruby since Minaro123", ooo. That is *really* misleading.

Strictly speaking this is true, since it is always about that bit extreme newbie biting she did at AE, but I think the link I sent you disproves that. I was minding my own business commenting on an RfA, and WritKeeper was nice enough to fix a tag for me. Does that sound like provocation to you? Elinruby (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To address her complaints above, yes, I wanted to add the Minaro case to the other one, but withdrew after realizing that that editor did seem to be somewhat at fault. My bad, I admit to impulse control as an issue. I am working on it. As for the HJ Mitchell page, that was with respect to only giving her a warning for these repeated behaviors of hers. He said that since she hadn't previously been warned it wouldn't make a difference what I added, and maybe she would amend her ways. It's possible I didn't ping her and if so my mistake. She didn't mention it at the time, just posted a diff where she accused me of distorting a source because I called a town on the line of control a village. I didn't mention a freaking source at all. I was complaining that she rewrote Aryan Valley as I protested in real time and was told that there were no editing restrictions on anything but the the India-Pakistan conflict, and I said that some of these villages are right on the front line. Ok, apparently Kargil is a town. It's also not in Aryan Valley.

But anyway. While you are working the logistics of that out could you be kind enough to remind me of the proper search term to find the editor interaction thingie? "Editor interaction tool" isn't working for me. I am sure someone is going to want to to see the diff where she made fun of an article I've never edited then of me for not knowing what the hell she was talking about. I got editor of the Week for *Operation Car Wash*. I happened to also have a barnstar on my page at the time for contributions to articles in the category of "African cinema" during an editing drive. Also, she is wrong about my edit history. I in fact regularly edit Central Asia, but my interest in that case was the similarity in tactics to what happened to Minaro123. Sorry for all the edits, I forgot To @TrangaBellam:. Done talking here now. Elinruby (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was minding my own business commenting on an RfA, and WritKeeper was nice enough to fix a tag for me. Does that sound like provocation to you? - WHAT?

I started with, Hi, not creating a new thread ... Why do you make it seem like I had jumped on to some issue that concerned you and WritKeeper? I did not feel like opening a new thread and would have appended my short message to whatever damn thread was the last on your t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's this in relation to? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla sticks the little Writ Keeper in her pocket.] Never mind, little user, not worth the ink! Have sherry on sofa in Victorian parlour. Decompress! [A little more sharply:] Stay! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 18:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Elinruby:, I can ban you both from interacting with each other, with an exemption for you to add evidence about TB to the current "History of Jews in Poland" arb case (especially since I see you have already started to), and for her to respond there if she wishes. But there will be no exemptions for Aryan Valley; a ban is not a Swiss cheese. Instead, see WP:IBAN for how to act if you should run into each other there: "The interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other". They're not allowed to reply to each other in discussions or undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. If there is good faith, it's simple, really. All right? Bishonen | toålk 18:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

If it keeps her away from me that would be great. I don't think it will, but I have no choice but to AGF right? I'll do my best but I am trying to picture how the Aryan Valley part would work, and I am not seeing it. She took an article about a place and rewrote it into a diatribe about some alleged plot by Hindu nationalists and/or money-grubbing naive villagers. And the article already survived AFD.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, Bishonen, and I know you are thinking "but you are", but I really really need a path forward on that. Other than that, hmm, I want to say what if she keeps doing this but I guess at this point I can let other people take care of that. Is it possible to just delete and salt that article? Would that require another proceeding? I promised that kid it would get taken care of. You were there and corrected me about what is a topic ban, remember? As in not a page block? Apart from that one issue that would be fine. Fantastic even. Maybe if you take a look at the article you'll see my point. She completely appropriated an article that got through AfD because I said I would work on it and made it into an ethnic slur. it's the first day of spring here and I need to get some diffs in before I go plant tomatoes. Let me know. Thanks. PS: Writ Keeper I concur, you are only very very peripherally involved. Someone hid out in your thread is all. TL;DR as far you are concerned is that she should have loomed menacingly in her own damn thread, just like she should have ranted about Hindu nationalists in her own damn article instead of the one I said at AFD that I would foster and nurture. Yeah I'm still mad. She's was doing the same the to Marcelus *last night* after getting him a zero-revert sanction. And then came and told you some fairy story about how I am stalking her for god's sake. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC) /me coughs, not of course that there is anything wrong with seeing fairies <g> many of my remote ancestors no doubt did that all the time. So as you think best, Bishonen, as you say this is a ridiculous amount of ink and at least she'll have to stop this stuff. Elinruby (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus took TrangaBellam to WP:AE, and you describe that as TrangaBellam getting Marcelus a zero-revert sanction, really? AFAICS, Marcelus got themselves that sanction. Anyway, OK, I've done as I think best. See your own page, and you see yours, TrangaBellam. Also, Elinruby I'm trying to be tolerant of your number of edits here, because I realize it's hard on mobile to keep them together and to avoid corrections, but you realize you have edited my page, and thus pinged me, something like 15 times in the space of 7 hours? Just putting it out there. Bishonen | tålk 22:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I actually do realize that you got notified every time I did something and appreciate your good humor about it. How did Writ Keeper get pinged though? Confused about that. But yeah, fwiw I don't think any such allegations should have been on your talk page to begin with. I went to HJ Mitchell because it was his warning. But I do realize that you probably earned that barnstar below once the drama came over here. I still think you are looking at it wrong, or at least not the way I am. To the extent that he had prior edit-warring history, I agree with you. My point is that he wasn't edit-warring any more than I stalked anybody. So while I understand how the sanctions were arrived, that is what I am talking about. In that particular context. You can figure he would have edit-warred somewhere else and maybe you would be right. All *I* know is that I asked him to help me with that Collaboration with the Axis powers article, and he is doing a damn good job of not arguing with people there even though some of the other people at article right now have had big arguments with him before. We're not buds, you know. He knows more about the Baltics that I do is all. Peace. I reread several times and hopefully caught all the errors this time that I am not trying so hard to erm, not invoke the lightning bolts of indignation or something  ;)Elinruby (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get pinged; I watch Bish's talk page, and happened to pop in on this thread and saw my name mentioned twice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have much sense of drama, Writ Keeper. You should have done as the great Raul654 used to when he got a question on those lines (not literally about pings, because they didn't exist yet); he would grandly declare "I see everything". I was a green user, and I sort of believed him. I thought he must have some secret tricks, and actually did see everything. Bishonen | tålk 23:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan, fyi. The two of you, having edited the concerned page, might like to be looped in since I have sought a one/two-way IBan with ER and might not be able to contribute to the article or relevant discourse any further. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You deserve this for your prompt and tireless efforts as an admin in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, the latest example being protecting the article on Mahishya! Ekdalian (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Ekdalian! Bishonen | tålk 15:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen. As the AFD nominator, I need to be careful about WP:BLUGEONING... but I think there's something fishy about the accounts 24GT, 1OA9 and MarkJustice54. All three are less than a year old and it looks like this is their first AFD involvement.

Would you mind having a quick look and seeing what you think please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, MrsSnoozyTurtle; now that I finally get time to look, I see it's all over. With the result you preferred, so that's good. I'm not sure one could have done anything about the accounts, anyway. 10A9 and 24GT look shady, admittedly. They may have been contacted off site - both have wiki e-mail - or.. or... well, look at the similarity of the types of names, plus the fact that they were created just 26 hours apart, 7 months ago! Duck test material, for sure. The third account doesn't fit in, though. Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No need to apologise, there was no rush at all! These accounts seem like a concern, regardless of the outcome of the AFD. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this. I have requested a sockpuppet investigation for 1OA9. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, apologies for you not getting a ping. I did attempt to ping you in this edit but I forgot to sign it. And then when I did sign it didn't occur to me that I'd have failed to ping you. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A related process question, isn't your removal of the exemption, Barkeep49, either subject to WP:CTOP#Appeals and amendments or a sanction independent of Bihonen's IBAN itself (so subject to WP:CTOP#Contentious topic restrictions)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation with me wasn't an option, then, or even an I-hope-you-don't-mind note on my page, but only a ping? I accept your apology, Barkeep49, but I would still prefer it if ArbCom took over these I-bans. It would be awkward for me to try to enforce or follow them up, or discuss them with the users, when ArbCom is in the process of overruling my conditions, and may do so again. Would the simplest way be for me to lift my bans, and the committee can replace them with whatever they prefer? Or is this where I get told "ARCA's thataway"? Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

At the risk of talking out of turn, I'm rather surprised ArbCom chose to modify a CT sanction within days (hours?) of its imposition without consulting the admin imposing it. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we're an interesting area of "wikilaw" that I hadn't fully considered when I acted. ArbCom has a lot of latitude, by both precedent and procedure, for managing the conduct of participants with-in arb space. As a drafter I have specific authority around managing the case to enforce behavior norms. I arrived to the project, having multiple user talk messages from each and from an extended challenge of evidence already submitted. And the edits were continuing to come. So I felt a bit or urgency while also wanting to create time for a plan. The plan would decide how ArbCom wanted to handle and rather than allowing the two to go at each other, I felt I would build on the existing sanction to create space for the clerks and ArbCom to make a longer term decision with-in arb space. It was never intended to be a permanent change, only, from the start a temporary one, a nuance that I think got lost initially but also doesn't matter to the larger point being raised here about modifying a sanction.

Upon deeper reflection, I continue to think that a sanctioning admin can't bind the committee (or its authorized representatives, the drafters) from managing the behavior of editors at a case (or more broadly with-in arbcom space). So the exception can be made, without issue, and in fact is a positive exception But this is not at all clear cut and the opposite position - that it could only be modified through a formal vote - is a reasonable one. And as I admitted up front was not something I considered or focused on and, for what it's worth, was not something that anyone who weighed in on the email thread I started mentioned either. So ultimately I would really encourage you to go the ARCA route because I think there's a bigger piece here that needs clarity. This would also let the Committee formally take it over. But if you don't want to do that the simplest is you can make me the enforcing administrator. FWIW, on my list of things to do now are to implement the consensus lifting that suspension. Courtesy pings for @Vanamonde93 and @Callanecc. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I don't believe anyone here is questioning ARBCOM's authority to modify sanctions, only the need to do so without chatting with the sanctioning admin, or indeed even explaining the reason for the modification. If I'm understanding you correctly the two parties are interacting in such a way as to make the evidence phase harder for everyone; but even just saying so explicitly when making the modification would have avoided the need for this conversation, I think. I'll pipe down now, and I'm certainly not going to ARCA, but it seems to me ARBCOM shouldn't be doing things that discourage admins from taking discretionary actions in CT areas; it's hard enough as it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you partial block someone as a CT, explicitly saying that a full block isn't appropriate, and then disruption continues I then make it a full block am I overruling you? I would argue no. I think if my ping had gone through in the first place a lot of this agitation would have been lessened. But you're right that more communication should have happened here. And you're also right that supporting admins who do CT enforcement is very important to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a sanctioning admin can't bind the committee, Barkeep49, but surely nothing can prevent the committee from exercising the ordinary niceties, in this case talking to me before modifying my sanction, at least at the same time as talking with the banned users. Leaving me to notice Kautilya's post here on my watchlist is not quite the same thing. Before you repeat that you tried to ping me, pinging is not enough.

Anyway. I'm not enamoured of the ARCA route. Clearing up wrinkles in the Contentious Topics rules, or in the ArbCom charter, isn't the kind of thing I would choose to spend my time doing at Wikipedia.

Are you sure an enforcing administrator is a thing? I don't actually think I have any particular responsibility for enforcing those bans just because they're "mine" in the sense that I set them. Any admin can enforce any I-ban. What I am, though, is the first port of call for the I-banned users if they want to have their bans modified, or lifted, or ask a question about how the ban applies in a particular situation. In the current situation, I don't much like to be that first port of call. This is what I'd like to do: if the users come to me with any of those questions, can I send them on to you, without any previous formalities? That would be more comfortable.

Finally, Barkeep, I do appreciate what a lot of thankless work a big arb case like the Polish Holocaust involves, especially for the drafters. As a Wikipedian, I appreciate you taking it on, and I absolutely do not want to make your life any harder. Bishonen | tålk 19:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

As I noted above to Vanamonde, more communication wouldn't have hurt and would have definitely helped. And yes in terms of "enforcing admin" maybe we dont' use that language any more but it's exactly what you were suggesting - who can change/remove the sanction without a consensus of admin/arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your answer is to my question, Barkeep49. Could you please state explicitly whether it's agreeable to you that I send the users in question on to you if they come to me asking to have their bans modified or lifted, or asking about some specific application of the ban? Also, is the "agitation" you speak of your description of my posts in this matter? Perhaps also Vanamonde's? Or what does it refer to? Bishonen | tålk 23:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for not being clear on that. It is agreeable but please update the log to note it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Are you not going to answer my other question, Barkeep49, about my (?) "agitation"? Sorry to be a nag, but I'd like to know what you mean by that kind of talk. Bishonen | tålk 16:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't answer because I was trying to move on from this and so continuing to dive into what has happened here didn't seem like the best use of my time and didn't seem like it was necessary for you since you wrote I absolutely do not want to make your life any harder. I was referring to how I've read your posts. "Upset" would have been a better word choice, but agitated was what I came up with in the moment. I have given this conversation a lot of effort, at the expense of the case itself. I have now spent the last hour working on this response rather than summarizing evidence as I intended (and still need to do), because I respect you Bish and because I have been trying to not let my own emotional state (puzzlement which has turned into extreme frustration) bleed into this conversation. And because of that respect for you I've attempted to own what I did wrong here. But I also haven't belabored that because you told me you accepted my apology. What I don't think I did wrong here, and so have not apologized for, was suspending the ability of the two people to participate in the arbcom case. I genuinely appreciate Callanecc's description below but I am also not going to apologize or say I should have done a better job with that because I did give that a lot of effort. If I ever have to do this again, I will use Callanecc's wording as my basis because I am constantly looking to better myself. But it's hard for me to say I should have done better because I get the sense that despite whatever appreciation you have for me, that appreciation has not been worth enough grace for you to consider my point of view: I was not undermining you but rather doing what I am one of 3 people authorized to do in trying to manage a difficult case that have emotions running high from a lot of people and which was continuing to spiral out of control even after you had left both parties a firm sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste any more time here. I know you have a lot to do. Bishonen | tålk 17:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

It's distressing when people we respect are at odds. Barkeep, we think about 95% of this would have gone away if you'd simply said (or, if you say now) "I'm sorry, Bish, I should have talked to you, being an Arb is hard and I was inadvertently rude". We can easily imagine that the "mistakes were made" phrasing you're using (and which we don't remember you using in the past) can get under Bish's skin. As God Emperor of Wikipedia, we hereby assign responsibility for this i-ban to Barkeep. And note that only we, as God Emperor, get to use the royal we around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying down here to make the threads above a little clearer). On reflection, I think a better was way to look at this, that I hadn't considered before, is that: Bish's sanction was under CT but Barkeep's wasn't under CT but was instead under the Committee's authority to manage Arbspace (à la this). While Barkeep's had the impact of modifying the IBAN sanction (as it was described) it is actually a completely separate restriction under separate authority. So, the exemption that Bish gave to communicate within Arbspace still exists but there is a separate sanction in place under the Committee's direct authority. So, if the parties have general questions about the IBANs or would like to appeal them they should contact Bish as the admin who imposed the restriction (previously called the 'enforcing administrator' under DS) and if they have questions about the Barkeep's Arbspace restriction, or would like to appeal it, they should contact Barkeep, another drafting arb or the Committee. Both sanctions are separate so a successful appeal of one doesn't change the other. I think this is what Barkeep was trying to get at above? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have been saying. Thanks Callanecc for stating more clearly what I have been trying to express. And the restriction I placed has been lifted. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I am not supposed to even look at the section above to diagnose this, but here is the promised follow-up: I have examined my notifications and I do not find one from the editor where this was in question. I am willing to accept that they *thought* they pinged me, and frankly was much more perturbed by the content of the discussion of which I was not notified. Since I said my piece about this at the time, I will not be escalating this further, although I will respond if anyone else does.

I consider that I have warned the editor about aspersions and am dropping this particular issue of the ping because life is short, unless somebody pushes me into doing otherwise. Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should have dropped it right away, or at least when I informed you that I'd checked and yes, they did ping you. As I told you at the time, pings occasionally don't work even if executed correctly. If you go on about that ping any more, I'll consider it bludgeoning. Bishonen | tålk 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! I saw a thing at BLPN and wondered "Didn't I ask Bish about this guy once?" Turns out I didn't, that was another guy. But your old talk-stuff is a little inaccessible, though being both listig och stark I managed to find it. You don't use the usual searchable archive-thing on this page, and though I think there used to be something on your userpage (with a hummingbird?), that seems to be gone too.

So, if you'd like to consider some archive-something as a service to your fans and WP-archeologists, please do. Or maybe it's there and I just don't see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bishonen archives are a mighty treasurehouse, so I can understand your request for searchability, but I don't know how to achieve it. The bird image and various other images were always just decoration. If you'd like to put in the usual searchable archive-thing for me, feel free, Gråberg. Bishonen | tålk 10:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I've used Help:Archiving (plain and simple) sometimes, like at my own talkpage, when several people told me they were tired of scrolling, but I don't think that would work with stuff already archived. So I'll pass this buck in the hope one of your other stalkers will be able to do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did some of it, but then ran into protection on the older archives. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, kind IP. Oh lord, the older ones are protected... yeah, I guess so. I think I rashly protected my entire userspace some years ago, using a script. It was so easy! But how to undo it, short of hand-crocheting their protection status one by one? I've inquired of the creator of the script, Writ Keeper. Now we shall see. Bishonen | tålk 17:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Meanwhile, might it be possible to change the color of the yellow archive box? For instance to #e8e6fe. Bishonen | tålk 18:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Nope, sorry, no can do. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pretty! Apparently the contradiction in your edit misled a talkpage watcher into reverting you, but all is well now. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I see there's a minor problem with the aan templates - since you have the archives as subpages of User:Bish instead of User talk:Bish, the link to "current talk page" goes to the wrong place. Ah, well, not a huge issue... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would Sarek or somebody else like to explain to me if that is a problem, not a problem, or a minor problem? Do I need to do something about it? Will it become a problem next time I create a new archive? Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I'll think about that and the fact that the IP was unable to add aan to each archive. I'll take a couple of days and would welcome thoughts. Would you want the protected archives unprotected and aan added, or just add aan? It might be better to move all the User:xxx archives to User_talk:xxx now rather than put it off. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be different from the crowd. Yikes, but if they are moved, should the redirects be kept? That's more to think about. Johnuniq (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are talking to me like I was a grownup. What's aan? I've unprotected all the archives now (and have told the IP so on their page); the ever helpful Writ Keeper modified his protection script for me so that I could do it with one touch of a button - just look at my contribs! Move them..? Ooooh noooo. [Howls like a wolf.] Do I have to? I don't want to put it off. I want to not do it at all. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

{{aan}} is put at at the top of archives. It is a redirect that calls Template:Automatic archive navigator. That puts clever links to other archives at the top. Re moving to User_talk: let's separate the desirability of that from the pain. The howling is making so much noise that I can't tell if you want to keep User:xxx or whether you don't want the hassle of moving them. Someone like me can do the busywork. Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can solve this one way or the other. I believe {{aan}} takes a parameter with a new message, so if you don't want to move the archives (or have them moved for you), we can just overwrite the default with something that actually works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, John. I'm glad the howling carries across the ocean. As for whether I want to keep them as user:xxx or just want to avoid the hassle of moving them, it's a bit of both, really. I'm a little sentimental about the ancient klutzy names for that ancient material. If we leave them as user:xxx, the way Sarek describes, would that lead to persistent misunderstandings down the line, for instance next time I create an archive? If the answer is yes, well then, of course I do want them moved. I'm a little ashamed of letting other people do my busywork, but I won't pretend I wouldn't love it if somebody did. Oh, and John, what you tried on my userpage looks lovely for me, but is it all right in vector? And can the archives be searchable like that? Perhaps we'd better go with the now prettily pale-purple box on this talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 18:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

You can see how the new Vector skin looks here or by starting a private (incognito) session in your browser and pasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen for the address. How it looks depends on how wide the browser window is. If you have a wide screen and maximize the browser, everything looks good to me. However, if you make the browser window a more natural size, the three columns will interfere with each other. If you slowly move the right-hand edge of the window from very wide to very small, you will see how the three columns move around in response to the narrow width. I think you should keep the archive box at the top of this talk page with its search bar. Therefore, you might want the archives box removed from your user page. The three columns might be replaced with two and some different arrangement of the items, with or without the archives. If you want me to play with it, say what you think you might like (three or two columns, with or without archives). Or, experiment yourself and ask for opinions if needed.

Re the archive pages, I infer you want to keep User:xxx. That's fine. In due course I will adjust the message at the top of each archive so the links work. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe that User:Bishonen/Archive_25 now shows the correct link in "on the current talk page". It occurs to me that a more punchy message might be expected. Please edit that archive to taste. When you're happy, I'll put the same message in each archive. For example, it might say:

Do not edit this archive! Instead, put a new message on the current talk page.

The example above finishes with bold text but on the archive page it would be a plain link to this page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always wide screen and maximize browser! Zilla's monitor size of Texas! [Shirtily:] Is plenty natural size! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 09:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, shut up, Bishzilla. Yes, removing the archive box from the userpage would be fine, and presumably give more options for placing other stuff. (Did you notice the IP has put the Stockholm city library pic in the box with the search bar on this page? Nice!) Please do play around with it, John. If you're saying three columns will only work well on a big screen, then please use two. And the more punchy message, yes, please. Perhaps "Instead, post a new message". Oh, and I should have realized the simple way to see new vector would be to open a private window; I do know about them; just didn't think of it. Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

IP, incidentally, is a known user whose manager knows their username who should probably not be editing during the day, but it's so much easier than on their dinky home laptop... --130.111.39.47 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the best excuse for editing without logging in I've ever heard! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The library image is very nice. I'll fix the archive messages in a couple of days. I updated User:Bishonen/Archive_25 to show how it will look. Then I'll play with the user page if you haven't done it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John! Help, I just had a thought! If I put something into the "Search" field in the archive box above, it will be searched for in the entire User:Bishonen space, which is big and full of nonsense, incomplete notes, what have you. Much better if it searches only the archives, which I believe comprise the entire User talk:Bishonen space. Right? Isn't that how it'll work? Then clearly it's better to move the archives to user talk, and spare the people looking for them the big swamp of User:Bishonen. I'm sorry to be so back-and-forth, but this disadvantage to having them in User:Bishonen space only just occurred to me. Bishonen | tålk 09:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, this thread took off, didn't it. Please ping me if there's an RFC or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So nice I had to steal it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll move the archives from User:xxx to User_talk:xxx. Unfortunately the redirects should probably be kept because there are a handful of links from other places to some of the archives. Or, we could tough it out and move everything with no redirect and fix anything needed later. Most of the incoming links are inconsequential and none of them would be missed. Sorry, but that is another decision you need to make: keeping the redirects clutters your user space. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old links to my archives don't deserve much reverence, surely. I'd like to tough it out without redirects. Bishonen | tålk 02:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I have moved all the archive pages to User_talk:xxx and made a few adjustments. I also removed the archives box from your user page and in due course will think about what else needs to be done re formatting that page. A few of the archives have links to other of your archive pages and I'll also fix them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John, you're a very handsome man! Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

How could I ever contradict you B? There are now only a handful of links to the old archive pages (User:xxx) and they all appear to be historical and redundant. Soon we can see what else is needed on your user page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit-warring user at Neo-Confederates whose removals of content are contested by at least 2 editors, as they have not responded to my last attempt to discuss on the talk page, and instead just went with edit-warring again. When I went to their talk page to post a template about the edit-warring, I noticed I had seen them before, but I'd forgotten the name and incident, as it was a month ago. As you were involved in that sanctioning of their previous behavior, I thought you might take a look at OgamD218 (talk) and their recent contributions. Wes sideman (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wes. I don't see that Ogam's removal of See also's has been reverted by multiple users - certainly not recently. It's just you and them, edit warring back and forth in equal measure. You, or Ogam, might try to solve the conflict via WP:3O, which is a simple form of dispute resolution when only two users are involved, or by WP:DRN. As for disruption, I'm more concerned about Ogam's repeated insertion of this text, and have warned them about it. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

That's my bad, I mistook the reversions by Neutrality and Darknipples as being on the same material, and I didn't look closely enough; honest mistake. Still, what do I do next? There was no response to your or my posts on his user talk page. I don't want to revert him again because that just continues the edit war, but because he made the last revert, his deletions stand and he has no motivation to discuss anything. Doesn't WP:BRD mean anything in this case? Wes sideman (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't like my suggestion of WP:3O or WP:DRN, I'm not sure what to advise, Wes sideman. WP:BRD is always voluntary. Also, why exactly do you think it's bad to trim a bloated "See also" section? If you explain that more concretely on talk, you might get other users to agree with you. For instance, do you believe particular "See also"'s have been removed tendentiously? That kind of thing would carry more weight than insisting on BRD. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate the response; I was under the impression it was a policy, and didn't know it's voluntary. And yes, I believe the See Also's, in this case, are being removed tendentiously. I haven't had time to make a case for each and every single one, but I did agree with one removal. The rest of the removals are just designed to distance neo-confederates from similar movements/organizations, such as List of Ku Klux Klan organizations, List of white nationalist organizations, Trumpism, etc. Wes sideman (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to do at this point. The long-standing version of the See Also section at Neo-Confederates is constantly being whitewashed by OgamD218 unilaterally. I have tried not to edit-war with him, preferring discussion on the talk page. I've provided multiple reliable sources that establish firm links between the article subjects and the subjects in the See Also. You protected the article in order to encourage discussion. In the absence of any consensus, OgamD218 waited for the protection to expire, and promptly installed his favored version of the article again. I can't honestly believe that his method is the one that works for Wikipedia - ie, just keep arguing and reverting in hopes that no one challenges his removals, and if any does, just keep arguing and reverting again. Wes sideman (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bishonen, hope you are fine! I had requested for the protection of the article at WP:RPP, but the same has been turned down! Would like to request you or any other admin active here to remove the latest edit summary by the user, Mr Anonymous 699, which is grossly insulting and degrading (abusing another user in raw Hindi)! You may take necessary action for the same; doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess these people think it's a "secret" if it's not in English. But nothing's a secret to Google Translate. Blocked for a couple of days and the edit summary revision deleted. And thank you, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, absolutely! Thank you so much! Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: I revdelled a few more edit-summaries by the user and redacted a similarly problematic exchange with an IP user on their talkpage. IMO an indef would be justified if the 48h block doesn't get the message across.

@Ekdalian: could you please review the editor's mainspace edits? I haven't done so myself but given the nature of their abuses, I have concerns about them being able to edit neutrally in gender and religion-related topics. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abecedare! I have tried to review their edits, and reverted some of them. It seems that the user is anti-Muslim and most of their edits are disruptive ones! I also believe that they can't edit neutrally. Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the indef is justified already, Abecedare; my thinking with the 48 h was more that the socking might not start quite so soon. Sigh. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Ekdalian. And yup, Bish, always a game of whack-a-mole with such editors. Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bishonen, this particular user Vishwabrahman52 seems to be really problematic! The username itself is meant for promoting the Vishwakarma (caste). Sitush had carefully added the statement that they have nothing to do with Brahmins in the lead itself in order to prevent caste glorification! Now, this user is engaged in edit war (please have a look at the article on Rathakara) in spite of warning them and explaining that primary sources like Rigveda cannot be used. Would request your intervention! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian. When the user was first active, years ago, they edited caste pages, but now it's more articles about hindu deities. That makes it harder for me to address them for caste promotion, even if, as you suggest, such promotion is the intention. I'm not well enough versed in the connection between the two to address it. Knowledgeable admins, please? Abecedare, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93? Bishonen | tålk 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Vishwabrahman52's recent edit-warring at Rathakara appears to be a continuation of their effort to portray the related caste of Vishwakarma as Brahmins. See for example the selective deletion of sections that gave alternate theories of the origins of the Rathakara caste/community. And the "stable" version they are reverting to is itself problematic with its over-reliance on primary sources and selective-citation of secondary sources (for example, it cites Radhakumud Mookerji's Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist for Rathakara's participation in some religious rituals but skips the fact that that is in context of discussion of education of vaishyas and shudras (pp 154-155); or that later (p. 174) Mookerji discusses the Rathakaras as a rare example of Sudras that some vedic texts permitted to participate in Śrauta-rituals).

(TL;DR)  I don't know enough of the subject to say if the Ekladian version of the article is preferable to the older one in toto, but Vishwabrahman52's editing doesn't seem to be geared towards resolving that possibly legitimate question. Rather their aim closer to caste promotion and some sanction may be justified. Since I have edited Vishvakarma and some related article in years past, it would be better for B or some of the other admins who were pinged to take the page/editor-level action. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abe. There is one sanction I have no hesitation about: a page block from Rathakara. Done. Something wider may be needed soon. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Abecedare for your inputs. Thank you so much, Bishonen! Ekdalian (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm on making logged-in edits to Indian companies/people and logged out to various Vietnamese geographic locations. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that, Valereee. Hm hm. I've asked. I hope they don't think the IP gets to edit article space now that you've partial-blocked the account from it. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, I didn't feel comfortable blocking the IP, but it's a fair point. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've told them explicitly they don't get to edit articles from the IP either. Bishonen | tålk 17:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Oh god. Valereee, I'm doing my best to avoid writing to them on both the talkpages, but it's hard going. You're probably right they're an UPE, but honestly WP:CIR seems to be the bigger problem. Anyway, they are denying ever editing logged out. Ho hum. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, bro. Valereee (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we all bros here. Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Bro, sure enough they have gone on to edit articles from the IP. I have consequently blocked both the account and the IP sitewide for two weeks. This kills your partial block - that can't be helped, and Bugzilla is aware - but then I don't much think it'll matter. They started with a very complicated way of editing, and can't understand what's wrong with it, and also are not telling the truth. I expect this'll end in an indef. Bishonen | tålk 12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Dude, no worries. I actually considered a full, the only reason I didn't was that the disruption hadn't risen to the level of talk pages. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April songs

my story today

Thank you for the edit summary above, among many others! My story today is about the Alchymic Quartet, - I went away from DYK but it's the last one from last year. - The songs go to vacation pics. - Would you agree that the "contentious topic" warnings for infoboxes make little sense now that Stanley Kubrick (pictured on the Main page) and Mozart have boxes? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda! Yet another bro! I don't want to talk about infoboxes. Thank you for the Hyazinthe im Schnee, hope Bishzilla (another bro) doesn't eat them. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 16:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added, finally ;) - today's stories are about Johanna Geisler and Huub Oosterhuis, a singer and a songwriter. More here if you have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner, and you served Petit Four. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bish and The Jaguars - My Spider Sense is tingling with respect to a new-ish editor who, in the past few weeks, has burst onto the scene with lots of PAG-oriented commentary, and seemingly all over the place, including FTN (a focal point), ANI, and NPOV. Their Talk page is heavily populated with discussions about problematic edits and participation in contentious topics, and they have even started several PAG-related essays (!) It all seems consistent with someone with NOTHERE axes to grind, but none of it seems likely for an editor of their apparently limited experience. I do not explicitly identify them here, or provide diffs, lest I be accused of biting a newbie, trying to suppress an "opponent," and/or boneheadedly initiating a steamy pile of drama. I can certainly email diffs to you. In a situation like this do you suggest that I shut the hell up and leave the matter - if there even is one - to passing admins, go straight to SPI with my concerns (although I have no idea who the 'master' might be), or something else? Thanks in advance. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JoJo. I don't think there's much point in an SPI without a suggested master. ("Checkuser is not for fishing".) Feel free to send me diffs. Any Jaguars with an opinion out there? Bishonen | tålk 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

JoJo Anthrax, (talk page stalker) it's not fishing to check an account that's fishy (ha) even if you don't know who the master may be. WP:NOTFISHING even says "it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sockpuppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded". In these cases, you can report the account to a competent CU – so, that rules me out – you are familiar with, with evidence for a quick check. —  Salvio ^giuliano 21:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bish and Salvio. Later today I will send an email to you, Bish, that includes links/diffs describing my concerns. Thank you in advance for that, and remember, telling me to shut the hell up will be a perfectly valid response. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2] I am fine with it remaining or with it being removed, but I would like to explain the reason for it.

Perhaps you can salvage the basic idea with better wording; the fact that one person didn't get my meaning is strong evidence that I was unclear.

The basic idea:

Sometimes (don't know how often, but it feels more common) an Admin who does something that would get anyone else who did it blocked instead ends up desysopped and then has to do something else bad to get blocked.

Sometimes (don't know how often, but it feels less common) an Admin who does something that would get anyone else who did it blocked doesn't get desysopped or blocked because while many people think that they should be desysopped for it nobody is willing to go through the hell of complaining and being involved in an arbcom case, yet there remains this strange reluctance to block instead. So the Admin is neither desysopped or blocked and then has to do something else bad to get desysopped or blocked.

In both cases the basic error is not deciding to block or not block someone for what they do, but instead making that decision based on who they are. In my opinion, everyone should be treated the same and we should see an occasional desysopping based upon multiple previous blocks, and an occasional Admin who stops the bad behavior after being blocked for it.

Of course anyone who abuses the tools will naturally be treated differently from someone who never had the tools and had no opportunity to abuse them.

Again I will leave it up to you to decide whether the basic idea above is worth mentioning and if so how to word it to make it clear.

Thanks for linking to my name in the edit comment so I would get notified. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear? No, I don't think you were unclear, Guy Macon. The alternative case you have described is simply not an example of the Super Mario effect; not the way you put it in the article and not the way you have put it here. (For the curious Jaguars: this is about my edit here.) Bishonen | tålk 03:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. Unwatching this page now so I have more time to write a video game as sucessful as the Mario franchise (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the Great Pickling of 2022? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An uncanny Wikipedia orgy instigated by User:Praxidicae. Bishonen | tålk 00:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hope it went well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, standards about how one interacts with other editors seem to me to be of fairly little consequence in the grand scheme of things, but standards about actual article content matter inasmuch as the value of the reference work matters (and my estimation of that value is something I'm reevaluating), so I'm going to engage with you on your talkpage about that...

regarding: Appeals and amendments - All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may (Stage One) Ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision

You wrote - You have been sanctioned for: article editing and talkpage manner

A) I want to address the second part first. How is talkpage manner something that causes content restriction? Aren't content restrictions intended to solve problems with people altering articles? I assume one can restrict editors' abilities to alter talkpages. Why isn't that what a moderator should do if there's an issue there rather than articles? These are different issues/problems and a sanction that is for fixing one problem being used in instances of different sort of problem just creates a new additional problem.

B) As to the first part, what precisely is the standard you have used to judge how disruptive I was with regard to the actual article? Is there a number of edits or a amount of time specified?

Without getting into detail about my edits, I want to point make a point about timing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OckRaz#Trump_photo_op
That's the warning about editing the article.

There's one edit following that and I don't even recall seeing the warning until after it, although I can't swear to the order: edit then read warning or vice versa. It depends on how focused I was on stuff irrelevant to Wikipedia at the time and how many tabs I had open, etc. Let's assume the worst scenario for my case. It's one edit. Does that satisfy the standard for topic restrictions? Is there a knowable standard, or is it subjective to the judgment of the moderator? Does that suggest "B" was possibly insufficient, so that "A" was seen as necessary to supplement it (and of course I contend is a separate matter)?

OckRaz ^talk 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Unrelated to above. Do you know a reason I would see the silhouette of a woman's body with a halo in the lower left corner? So far at least, it's just a thing I've seen on your talkpage. OckRaz ^talk 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the notification Bishonen's a minor goddess. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR, you were warned several months previous and by more than a single editor, yet you failed to engage on the talk pages. And your repeated bald assertions of a dichotomy between content and collaboration/consensus shows you are not in good shape to participate here. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OckRaz. I'm sorry my topic ban rationale wasn't clear enough, as is apparent from your comment above, where you quote me as saying "You have been sanctioned for article editing and talkpage manner" and you ask "How is talkpage manner something that causes content restriction?". I actually intended you to read the entire sentence together: You have been sanctioned for article editing and talkpage manner that are disruptive and characterized by a battleground approach. I'm calling both your article editing and your talkpage manner disruptive and battleground-y. And that's the reason I restrict you from both articles ("content restriction") and discussions, in other words from the entire "topic" of American politics. As SPECIFICO points out below, there is a connection between content and discussion; they are not "separate matters". If your attempts to push this (which remains ridiculous) into an article had been all, I would have warned rather than banned you. But your full battleground demeanor with regard to this article was developed in your closely connected edits to user talkpages, which I linked to in my rationale. To explain one example more fully, this is absurd, because "pester" is not a blank, neutral word that you can ascribe any meaning to that suits you. It means " To bother, harass, or annoy persistently". There are many dictionaries on the internet; look it up. Drmies's one (quite civil) post on your page can't be said to have persistently harassed you.

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about timing. A warning from SPECIFICO (which I didn't even necessarily rely on) was posted at 20:50 8 April, UTC, and you replied to it six minutes later. Nearly 24 hours after that, I T-banned you. I don't know how you could have not seen a warning that you promptly replied to.

Are your comments above intended as an appeal of the Tban? If so, I'm afraid I'm declining it. As it says at WP:UNBAN, your next option is to appeal the ban at WP:AE or WP:AN or WP:ARCA. I can't recommend ARCA, both because it tends to be glacially slow, and because once you've used ARCA, you can't use any of the others. The difference between AE and AN is that at AE the appeal will be evaluated by uninvolved admins, at AN by the community. You should think about which of these options you believe will serve you better.

Finally, in case you have more to say here, please try to avoid making a single post in so many increments. You realize if you post 9 times, I get 9 pings, and the page history gets all bloated? That's a bit inconvenient for me. Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

re: I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about timing... I don't know how you could have not seen a warning that you promptly replied to. - My point was that it's most likely that my last edited to the page came after being warned due to my seeing the warning too late. Obviously, my responding six minutes after his warning indicates that I saw it, but the edit to the page was one minute earlier. I'm certain I responded immediately, and that I didn't pause first to make an edit then come back to respond afterwards. The reason I feel certain is that until I checked the timestamps I assumed I'd stopped all activity on the page once I'd gotten the warning.

i think you're saying that the topic ban isn't just something that applies to the encyclopedia itself but to any comments anywhere. i find that surprising because i'd thought there were people who just used talk pages for conversation and to socialize with online friends. i don't do that myself, but i thought some did. it strikes me as odd that you'd tell people they're not allowed to broach a topic in that context. after all, while you're right to say there is a connection between content and discussion it's just silly to say they are not separate matters.

what i wrote yesterday was just a procedural argument for not getting a ban. it seemed to me it might be useful to dispense with a topic ban first before addressing the crux of the issue, but i was going to get to that sooner or later anyway. my substantive defense is that the ban is wrongful because the reversions of my edits are unjustifiable. consistently reverting legitimate edits should be seen as disruptive. the edits being wrongly reverted should not. moreover, people consistently making the wrong determination about who's disruptive creates a battleground context where it's correct for one to behave in a "battleground-y." manner.

for example, let's look past the snark about dictionaries and treat your point about the word "pester" seriously. suppose you're told that well sourced evidence of allegations creates a burden to prove innocence (or if you prefer consensus against a judgment of guilt - the functional equivalent). moreover, you're told this burden of proof must be met before you can alter a status quo that treats guilt as a factual truth in a reference work. certainly, these people saying such things are wrong, but if they're persistent in chiding you about it, then they're pestering you. it's true that to be pestered would typically entail multiple acts, but you're wrong to assume that in order to qualify, they must all come from a single source.

re: "your attempts to push push this (which remains ridiculous)" - there's some ambiguity there, and i don't want to be unfair. the wording is rather ridiculous. the problem is that if people object to the word "alleged" you're going to have a hard time finding a concise way to make plain that an assertion is an unproven allegation. you can try to come from the other end and say there's an accusation of attacking people who are peaceful, which is technically correct but an even worse choice of words. it suggests the crowd being peaceful is a fact, but whether they were set upon is uncertain - which is backwards.

It's likely that what you meant was that regardless of wording, even if it just said "allegedly peaceful," it's your judgment that the introduction of the word "allegedly" would be ridiculous. I hope that isn't what you meant. That would be a ridiculous judgment for you to make. as i just said, it's a guilty until proven innocent standard to say one needs to build a consensus to change something from stating assuming guilt to a neutral statement neither claiming guilt nor innocence. i don't want to single you out for criticism. if indeed that's your view, then making that judgment seems to be the dominant perspective amongst wikipedians. that doesn't make it right, just popular.

i cannot believe that articles containing accusations of wrongdoing against living persons only need to meet a standard of consensus from interested editors. i would assume (please let me know for certain) that the standard is to say alleged unless someone was found guilty in court or maybe if they confessed to the wrongdoing, or if there was indisputable proof of guilt. It's obvious that the first don't apply. Does the third?

not only doesn't the third apply, but i believe this is an instance where it couldn't possibly apply. The side saying that the police behaved criminally says the crowd was peaceful, whereas the police claim to have been provoked by being pelted with "bricks, frozen water bottles, and caustic liquids." defenders of the crowd argue they didn't see bricks and caustic liquids. even if it could be said that they saw none of the three, that wouldn't be a dispositive fact. as everyone knows,: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. hypothetically, if there were blanket CCTV coverage of the crowd, maybe we could have relied on that. in reality we have accounts of bottle throwing. that leaves no possible way to prove who's right.

however, in a sense, that detail doesn't matter. i'm not arguing that the specific facts are what matter here. i'm saying that surely wikipedia has a policy regarding articles which allege wrongdoing and that it should establish that articles say "allegedly" whether or not a majority of those who weigh in like the idea. perhaps i'm wrong. maybe you can write articles about living people committing criminal acts which assume guilt that hasn't been proven. maybe as one editor said you always need consensus - with no exceptions. if that's the case then it means i really did transgress against your rules, but that also means they are really bad rules, and they ought to be broken. OckRaz ^talk 12:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again OckRaz. Please note that conversations become easier to read if you use correct indentation. (In this case, I used two colons; you should have used three.) OK, I tried to answer you clearly and helpfully. Altogether I feel I've fulfilled my admin duty to respond to you; you can't expect me to engage with fine-drawn suppositions about what you believe my opinions to be, like "It's likely that what you meant was that regardless of wording, even if it just said 'allegedly peaceful', it's your judgment that the introduction of the word 'allegedly' would be ridiculous". You're done here; I reject your appeal; time to move on to WP:AE or WP:AN, and thereby to get uninvolved people looking at the issue with fresh eyes. I'll give you a little advice for when you do: people won't read your appeal unless you make it a good deal shorter than you comments here on my page. That may sound brutal, but this is a volunteer project, and people do what they like and what they enjoy; that means they avoid long reads. What would help keep it shorter would be to avoid all comments on Wikipedia's general rules. You may be very reasonably interested in commenting on these rules, but you need to save that for another time, because it won't help get your ban lifted. For instance, it's no use complaining about topic bans applying to all pages ("any comments anywhere"). Talkpages are for discussing improvements to the connected article, not "for conversation and to socialize with online friends", and it's quite possible to be disruptive and to waste other people's time on talkpages and on noticeboards. Therefore topic bans apply to these pages as well. This is a principle that has been worked out by many people, and it won't be changed because you complain about it in your topic ban appeal; that's beginning at the wrong end. Stick to your substantive defense, and keep that as concise as possible. Good luck. Bishonen | tålk 16:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

It's springtime, so that means it's time for stroopwafels. Andre🚐 00:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked Harry Sibelius for three months today. He pinged me on a talk page which I reverted since he isn't here to build on Wikipedia. This IP, 70.54.43.112, belongs to him since he had the same pattern of editing as with other articles on his main account with the same types of edit summaries. And he defended the IP edit that I reversed since it was an NPOV violation. Just letting you know in case you or I see the IP become active again. Thanks. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WikiCleanerMan, and thank you. That looks pretty familiar, yeah. But I'd better not discuss connections between IPs and accounts in public, for privacy reasons. Please consider using Wikipedia e-mail for this kind of thing. Bishonen | tålk 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

We're getting nowhere with this user at the SPI nor at his nonsense at ANI. He is continuing to defame me. I'd say you need to close both reports and this time reblock for good. It's been a week and he hasn't proven anything contrary to the evidence. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HS would do themselves a favor if they stopped the bludgeoning at the SPI, WikiCleanerMan. But their point that they can't be expected to prove a negative is a good one, so I would recommend you to stop insisting that they need to disprove the allegations. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Then please assert your authority. We've had this opened for a week and he hasn't been able to prove anything in his favor. So please close both reports. He's not here to improve Wikipedia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case is closed. Thanks anyways. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensing that you'll need the caffeine. Goes well with the stroopwafel. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, Abe; kind people are building up quite the picnic for me. Bishonen | tålk 16:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Why are you blocking me from editing everytime, of there is some problem you could have asked a clarification ot deletion of that edit but you have been constantly blocking me What's the problem with you man Putinstalin (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should realize you aren't talking to a man. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Putinstalin, I've explained it in the block log. I haven't given you a new block. Valereee originally blocked you indefinitely from editing articles. Then you evaded that block by editing logged out, from your IP. For that, I blocked you and also your IP from editing anything at all, for two weeks. My site-wide two-week block broke Valereee's block, so that it disappeared. (This is a technical problem.) But it wasn't meant to disappear, it was meant to be indefinite, and therefore I've put it back now. I know you don't understand, I'm sorry for that. It's a little complicated, but I've explained it as best I can. Note that you have never appealed Valereee's block of you from creating articles. I suggest you do that. Valereee's block notice tells you how: add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} (giving your actual reason where it says "your reason here"). Then an uninvolved admin will come to your page and decide if you should be unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, could you review the editing of Karsan Chanda to see if they should be topic-banned from Indian history and/or caste/community-related topic areas?

Background: I came across the editor two weeks back at this AFD, which I !voted to keep even though the fundamental notability claim Karsan had included for the subject, was false (other AFD participants did a great job establishing notability and cleaning up the article). Since then I've noticed that the editor is heavily involved in creating history/biography articles related to the Meena community and the related "Chanda dynasty". The problem is that in their apparent zeal to promote the community, the editor adds false information to articles and cites sources that do they do not have access to and that do not (on checking) support the claims!

See for example, this tag I added, or this one, or the warning I left on their talk page. Instead of showing any improvement, today the editor added "a quote" to the Alan Singh article they had created, which is at AFD. The article is about a 10th-11th c Chanda ruler (of dubious historicity) in Western India, while the source added was a scholarly book about Southern Indian princely states in mid-20th c. Not surprisingly the quote doesn't appear on the book (I checked) and thanks to RegentsPark's input I traced it to a comment left at this blogpost. Here is Karsan's explanation for how they found the "quote".

(TL;DR)  I believe that the editor's continued editing in this topic-area, in which they are very active, risks adding more false information and source-misrepresentation to wikipedia. See also the messages left by Banks Irk on the editor's talkpage for related competence concerns. Could you, or any of the admins watching this page, take a look? Abecedare (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishonen gingerly approaches her computer in her sleep.] I'll...look tomorrow, Abe. Zzzzzzzzz. Bishonen | tålk 01:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, didn't expect any reply from you till well after I was catching the z's. Nothing "urgent" here that can't wait even a few days. G'night. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: It is valid to raise your question, when a new editor comes, he makes mistakes because he does not know the legal claims of Wikipedia, you have tried to see almost all my mistakes, thank you very much for that, but your opinion about me Is wrong because I try to correct back the mistakes made by me too so you don't have to worry you can trust me without worrying. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I think we do have to worry, Karsan Chanda. I will explain why on your own page. Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Would you mind telling me which is the page for which my account is blocked. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little sad but not surprised to see this. I got a bit exhausted by this editor's inability to understand advice and information some months ago, and removed their user talk page from my watchlist... I seem to have posted to it about 30 times. Talk:Alan Singh is another page that shows how much help KC has been getting, from RegentsPark and others, without being able to apply almost any of it. "Don't use sources you haven't got access to" is something multiple people have been trying to tell them for many months. It's unfortunate because there's definitely no bad-faith editing there, but the time sink is just... exhausting.--bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Bonadea, I've generally given up on Karsan Chanda, nothing seems to stick. On the one hand, KC is polite but on the other hand, they are focused solely on raising the profile of the Meena clan (take a look at Draft:Chanda dynasty). I figured that as long as they're working on draft space it wasn't a problem but User:DrhSR saw fit to move the page from Draft to main space despite the long section of negative comments about its suitability, and so, here we are. I support a topic ban but, imo, the appropriate label for KC is WP:CIR.RegentsPark (comment) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea and RegentsPark: I just now took a look at Talk:Alan Singh and your efforts to help the editor are really above and beyond! It is a pity it had come to this, esp. since while the editor's editing is harmful to wikipedia's content and a drain on its editorial resources, (as you say) they are not ill-intentioned.<sigh>

Aside: I found this quote RP dug up very interesting since that was exactly the impression I was left with after reading Hooja, Meena Madan etc but hadn't seen it spelled out so explicitly. Perhaps some of this can be added somewhere on wikipedia (Meena article?). Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Meena, at Talk:Meena#Source, Karsan Chanda explained last year that he doesn't understand English, and uses translation software to identify sources (which he can't read) and write articles. And that's definitely a WP:CIR problem. --bonadea contributions talk 17:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. It's one thing having editors use Google translate to copy material written in languages they don't speak or read from other language Wikipedia pages...which is problem enough. Trying to write articles in a language you don't know at all, that's just ridiculous. He's wasted a lot of other editors' time.  Banks Irk (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since they replied to me. They may have given up, and possibly even realized the Hindi Wikipedia will suit them better. I hope so. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Given the limited scope of articles he was editing, the topic ban probably ended his interest and purpose at en.wiki Banks Irk (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I did not try to link that source but tried to understand it when I could not open that book then for the purpose of seeking help from other editors I added it on the page of Alan Singh and Chanda dynasty when help was not found there also I added it to the article place of debate and then got the explanation. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: You said that I used "fixed typo" but I want to tell that I edit on Wikipedia from Wikipedia website but due to technical problem I could not edit so I tried to edit using Wikipedia app So I got three options available there out of which I chose "fixed typo" option and there was no problem. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Yesterday I didn't have time to answer, so I didn't answer, and even today I have very little time, still I am trying to answer, you said that I am disappointed and leaving English Wikipedia, so you are in wrong idea i like to add historical information on english wikipedia and create historical page even though i don't know english language but you blocked me it is disappointing that some editors say that i am all Wasting the editors' time. I think that building Wikipedia through debate is what makes it credible and important. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: Your access means access to the content that you want to add but my access means to see the content in detail in the source so don't create confusion in thoughts. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Karsan Chanda, I'm afraid these objections don't help you. If they are meant as an appeal of your topic ban, I have to decline that appeal. What remains for you is to appeal the ban at either WP:AN or WP:AE, to let the community decide. However, my own advice is for you to not appeal the ban at one of these noticeboards yet, because you won't have much chance of getting it lifted at this time. Instead, if you're determined to edit the English Wikipedia, I suggest you edit other areas of it for six months. Then appeal, once you have shown you are capable of editing neutrally and competently here. That's my advice. (And jeez, do you have to keep saying I blocked you, after I explained I did not? If you were blocked, you would not be able to edit this page.) Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  My guess is that part of the confusion here is due to Google Translate not being aware of the Wikipedia-specific distinction between ban and block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Karsan Chanda is using translation software to contribute to a project where they don't understand the language. [3] This alone should be sufficient grounds to block indefinitely. Good intentions can't overcome a core lack of relevant competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: During the reigns of his successors the Minas continued to give trouble , as they were anxious to regain possession of their lost strongholds(p.175 by Indian States

A Biographical, Historical, and Administrative Survey 2006).; Minas , Chauhans , and Bargujars of the region all seem to have been in a position of vague subordination to the Chauhan (p.35 by Rethinking Early Modern India 2002) Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quoting me, but a couple words crept in which I didn't say, so I fixed it. Now those words may need to be restored, just not within my quote. Those words make a good parallel point and are worth including as your own point. Fox tells the truth by mistake and then corrects their "error" by lying. See -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry about that. I got interrupted and lost sight of the square brackets I'd meant to put in. Nm, it'll do as it is now. Bishonen | tålk 18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bish.. after a long time! Hope you are doing great. Can you or any other admin active on this page please check the article on Kalwar (caste), I mean the revision history. The user Tamil321 seems to be really problematic and trying to push unsourced POV in the article in spite of all possible warnings on their talk page! In fact, they are trying to justify their POV in response to the warning or the discretionary sanctions alert. Please help. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ekdalian. That was not exactly a difficult call..! Page-blocked from the article. Mind you, I'm not sure they're competent to edit other articles in the area either. Let's see how that turns out. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my goodness! Seems that the user Tamil321 is just a sock; user Karsan Chanda had requested you on Tamil321's talk page to remove the block and then deleted the message. Finally the user has come to your talk page!! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. not necessarily, Ekdalian. I think KC could easily have seen this conversation of ours, gone to Tamil321's page out of curiosity, and then not realized what page they were on when it came to appealing to me about their topic ban. Both accounts are now prevented from doing much harm, anyway, so it doesn't much matter if they're socks. I'll AGF. Bishonen | tålk 17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I completely agree that these accounts may not be able to do much harm now, thanks to your intervention! Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bishonen, an obvious sock having an identical name (User Tamil876) has now come up. Can you please protect the article on Kalwar (caste)! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regentspark has blocked the sock, Ekdalian. Feel free to blank its contributions to the talkpage if you think it's worth the trouble. The sad thing is it doesn't look like Tamil321 even understood my comment that they were allowed to edit Talk:Kalwar (caste), but created a sock to do so. Sigh. But competence is required. I've blocked Tamil321 indefinitely sitewide. And yes, I agree it's best to semi Kalwar (caste) for a while. Bishonen | tålk 21:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much, RegentsPark & obviously Bishonen for your prompt action! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: What do I have to do to change your opinion? Please help me to get my ban removed. Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I could reply here, what you are asking Bishonen to do simply isn't appropriate. You were topic banned because of your poor editing. Your poor editing is clearly due to your poor understanding of the English language. You appear to be using translation software to edit Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. If you wish to usefully contribute to the English-language Wikipedia, you will have to improve your skills in the language to the extent that you can participate without using translation software, and show that you can read, comprehend, and write in English in a manner that isn't damaging to the project. Bishonen isn't going to teach you English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Andy said. Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there, Can you explain why I've been banned from editing the article Junkyard tornado for a month please?

Your boilerplate says I should:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; andrefrain from gaming the system.

Where have I breached these guidelines? AtFirstLight (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your page. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen. Could I please take up your offer of looking into a potential spam situation? Erric679 seems to be a SPA for State Disaster Response Force, Assam article, and they have not responded to a COI request on their Talk page: User talk:Erric679.

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite tricky, Mrs S. I'm not sure what to do about such a case. Also, if you look further back in the history of the article, you will see the two accounts Akas2000yyy, who created the article, and Albana56795, who expanded it. I see you have warned Akas2000yyy. A major difference between Erric679 and the other two is that Erric679 only edits State Disaster Response Force, Assam, while the other two, when they were active, also edited several sister articles such as State Disaster Response Force Uttar Pradesh. Taken together, the creation of articles such as this is quite industrial. Anyway. Do these accounts have a COI, and are they socks of each other? I rather think they're socks, because look (UTC timestamps):

• Akas2000yyy last edited 17:16 23 Jan 2023.

• Albana56795 was created 01:31 24 January 2023, and last edited 18:11, 2 March 2023

• Erric679 was created 14:31, 12 March 2023

That's what I call a pattern, especially the short time between Akas2000yyy's last edit and Albana56795's creation. 7 hours! I'm not sure if it's possible to CU them - it's a borderline case. But I'll ask a CU. So what if they're socks, does it matter? They've never edited simultaneously. No. But what reason could there possibly be for creating new accounts every now and then, if not to obfuscate their SPA-ness and their COI? It makes me disinclined to believe their COI denial (at this AFD).

I have posted on Ericc's page and insisted he reply about the COI issue before editing again. Though pressure may of course only lead to the appearance of a fourth account... Bishonen | tålk 18:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for doing all these checks on this confusing situation. I hadn't thought of the possibility of sockpuppetry! If it could help, I'm happy to file an SPA report?

PS Just curious who Bishzilla is... some kind of grammatical alter-ego? :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a word with a CU, who says "likely but not confirmed"; an SPI report can't really do more. I've pushed Erric a little, so I'm not sure we'll see them again. If we do, I may block. Bishonen | tålk 07:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Bishzilla? That would be User:Bishzilla! Grammar one of many, many Bishzilla strengths, yes. Welcome visit in Bishzilla pocket, little turtle! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 07:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Oh my goodness, I am highly amused... and confused! Not sure whether to request a pocketing or a self-block right now :)

Also, thank you for your help re Erric. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Bishonen a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! interstatefive  23:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May songs

my story today

Congratulations! - I had a good story on coronation day: a Te Deum we sang that day. And the following day we sang it for the composer ;) - And today we remember a composer who created music especially for us! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Previously, you had given User:Sebastienostertag a topic ban on the subject of abortion. They were temporarily blocked for violating the topic ban. The topic ban was never lifted (as they never went through the proper appeals process, or really seemed to understand it), and now that their block is up, they have again edited an unambiguously abortion related article. RoundSquare (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your vigilance, RoundSquare. It's a little sad, because I guess the user doesn't understand, but it's not for want of explanation. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello—Just wanted to point out that I had missed Objective's request until I saw your edit (at which point I figured I probably shouldn't go back and delete my comment, lest I actually do what he accused me of doing!).

I do see that I mixed up the update with the previous text in my edit that you highlighted—I did actually add a new timestamp, but with that mix up, it was too easy to overlook, so I see why you missed it. A faux pas on my part, sure, but given that I pinged Objective in that edit to alert him to the update and inviting him to have the last word, I think I was pretty safely in "no harm no foul" territory. My only point—which remains—was that Objective has falsely accused me of deleting a comment after he had responded to it. On his talk page, and later on the page itself, he clarified that he meant that I had edited the comment after he responded and caused an edit conflict. To be sure, frustrating, but still not what he accused me of. Either way, I'm letting Objective have the last word on the Trump talk page (also fine if he wants to comment here; I won't tag him, but I'm happy if you'd like to), and hopefully we can get back to using that talk page to discuss the Donald Trump page soon.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited an RPA into my edit and added another saying I conceded, which accuses me of a PA after you realized it was your mix up. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To clarify: no, as I just said my point "remains"—you accused me of doing something I didn't do. Also, I just want to flag: when you deleted the RPA tag, you didn't add back in your claim—which if you want to add it again was, "Stop deleting your posts after they have received responses." see here. Sorry, sorry, I know I said you could have the last word—if it weren't for that latter issue I wouldn't have said anything, but please don't imply that I somehow agree that what you said, which was demonstrably false, was truthful. It's sort of like me being like "okay last word—you admitted that I was right!" You see? Anyways, barring that, feel free. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, please tone down your language, occasional snarkiness, and what often comes across as purposeful misinterpretation of other editors' posts, whether or not that is the case. Spend a couple minutes to look at the wording of an edit and see if there might be a point you have missed without trying to dismiss the point on an argument possibly not made. Don't respond too quickly. All of us have done this and it rarely works out well. Some articles are extremely difficult and require editors to assume good faith without strong evidence otherwise. Political articles have a low editor survival rate. Most of those that remain have learned that good debate, assuming good faith, is not just valuable, but satisfying and results in better articles. We must be collaborators adding what points we may have, as opposed to enemies. I might add some more, but just had a bottle of wine with my fish.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerome Frank Disciple, I don't see a ping, where is it? You dated the post you simultaneously added below O's (no, I didn't overlook it) — yes, so what? Did you date the update? No. And then you added yet more words, in which I still don't see a ping, above your original, obsolete, timestamp and above O's original reply with its later timestamp. Are you sure you know what pinging means? See WP:PING. However, please note also that Objective is not the only person who will have read your post on the highly watched Talk:Donald Trump. Pinging O, if you had done it, does nothing for other readers' confusion. Much better to not modify old posts at all.

I have to agree with Objective that this, and this with the aggravating header, is battleground behaviour. Remember how you're not supposed to confuse people reading the discussion, and not supposed to wrong-foot another editor by changes to text? This silly removal of nine words by O does both; O's remaining post becomes incoherent. ("You can strike" what?) Altogether, I'd stop trying to defend my actions here, if I were you, JFD. Have a read of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. That said, O, I don't think JFD's decision to collapse some of the off-topic quarrelling was bad per se (just the annoying header they used was bad). You might have left it collapsed. But thank you for your mellow final post above. Bishonen | tålk 08:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Oh sure, collapsing in some manner makes sense. Just couldn't leave it as it was and figured someone would collapse correctly. Actually, WP:TNT might come in handy for the entire discussion.:) Hope all is well in Jurassic Park. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go—this was literally my last edit before O's false accusation, which he never managed to acknowledge as false, but alas. Listen, I'm glad you two are friends—I hope all is well in Jurassic Park, too—but this has been over litigated. Frankly, if O had acknowledged "oh yeah, you didn't do that, but you did do this that made me frustrated," I would have apologized. But, alas ... now we've spent an absurd number of words on the topic, O has never acknowledged that he said anything wrong (and, when confronted, just pivots to "well but you DID do this other thing"), and it just doesn't feel productive. Let's just get back to the actual article.—--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just noticed you already linked to that diff. There's not shortcut, but see the option below WP:PINGIP: "Mentions in edit summaries"—give the user you link an alert if you link their name (without a preceding colon) in an edit summary.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm glad you two are friends", Jerome Frank Disciple? I'm not on close terms with Objective3000. Before yesterday, I find I have posted one discussion on their talkpage since 2007. That was in 2020, in order to reproach them for restoring a removed user talkpage post. Bishzilla, she of the Jurassic era, is everybody's friend, but I'll admit I don't have her patience, so I will formally ask you to take your hints and sneers elsewhere. Don't post here unless you have a request or complaint per WP:ADMINACCT. Bishonen | tålk 17:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen.. considering the editing pattern (user page, talk page quote, etc.) as well as edit warring in the article on Kulinism by the new user Loudsheer, I am pretty much sure that they do not seem to be a new user at all, rather a sock of Nobita456, who has been here with their n number of socks in order to promote the Baidya caste. If you look at this edit by Nobita, it would be clear why they are edit warring. Just in order to brief you, basically, in Bengal, there are Kulin Brahmin & Kulin Kayastha among the upper castes, nothing like Kulin Baidya! Nobita must have earlier searched all possible sources & somehow managed to grab one where Baidya is mentioned! They cited that particular source ignoring WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE in order to glorify the Baidya caste! Now, when I assumed good faith, and added the alternate rather majority view citing a high quality source, they are back to their old form and edit warring as usual like Nobita did for anything related to Baidya!

In case you are not sure, we can request Abecedare to review my edits on Kulinism, or else initiate an SPI. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an SPI can do much, Ekdalian, as Nobita and all their known socks are long since stale, so a CU can't help. I agree this source isn't much cop — it can surely only have a passing mention, and I don't much feel like spending $50 to find out. Abe? Bishonen | tålk 10:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: Hmm. Loudsheer is referring to a weak source offered by Nobita here, I see. That'll do me. I'm prepared to either topic ban for persistent caste promotion or block for sock/meatpuppetry, but I'll wait for Abecedare, now that we have pinged them. Bishonen | tålk 10:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't add that source, I just reverted the vandalization of the ip user. I am surprised Ekdalian didn't give me any mention here. I added a new source, there are even more sources available that say Baidyas also had kulinism just like Brahmins and Kayasthas. One last question in this edit where Ekdalian claimed Kulina worship existed only among the Bengali Brahmins and Kayasthas citing Inden is not POV pushing? I mean I asked for the quote from Ekdalian but straight after that he/she complained about me here.Loudsheer (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loudsheer, I have already warned you multiple times on your talk page and asked you to avoid edit warring. You don't seem to be a new user, isn't it! And this section is regarding suspected sock, not just your edits! If there are genuine sources which mention Baidya as Kulin, why doesn't an article on Kulin Baidya exist? POV pushers could create articles like Vaidya Brahmin citing primary sources like Puranas & Mahabharata, why not Kulin Baidya. Also, non-Kulins have a name; for example non-Kulin Kayasthas are known as Maulikas, similarly non-Kulin Brahmins have been designated as detailed by Inden (text cited, removed by you without discussion); can you answer a simple question: what are non-Kulin Baidyas known as? No, you can't, since there's no such sub-caste as Kulin Baidya! Kulinism among Baidyas does not exist (you know) as per 99℅ sources, the rest 1℅ represents WP:FRINGE. Sorry, Bishonen for using your talk page for such a lengthy explanation! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your primary information I would say Baidya it self is a very small community unlike Kayasthas and Brahmins. So separating a very small section from a small community would be not so easy, but that doesn't mean kulin Baidyas does not exist, at least there is no source that mention it, but we have sources that say Kulin Baidyas does exist. Rest can be discussed on relevant article's talk page. Loudsheer (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of sock-puppetry here since unless I am missing something Loudsheer was simply reverting an IP's deletion of sourced content (not arguing that the source is correct or adequate but that an argument needed to be made by the IP beyond the "Baidya as they are not part of Kulin system" personal opinion). Also this edit by Loudsheer too is logically defensible, since what Inden says on page 1 (I haven't read beyond that) is that his study focused on a sub-caste each of Brahmins and Kayashtas and than certain clans among those subcastes were regarded as Kulina. From this alone it would not obviously follow that other Brahmin/Kayashta sub-castes or other castes didn't follow the Kulina practice but the wikipedia article language stated the latter based on this source. Again, not saying that that the inferred claim is true or false (I don't know). Only that this issue of content and sources is best hashed out on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abecedare, you have mentioned that "Loudsheer was simply reverting an IP's deletion of sourced content"! Sorry, I simply can't agree; as a new user, how's Loudsheer supposed to know the content of the source which is a fringe one added by Nobita! This is only possible in case they are a part of the sockfarm or else they must be a great editor who (even though new) takes the trouble of going through the fringe source in details. Moreover, the IP editor at least mentioned their explanation in the edit summary, but this apparently new user doesn't bother to give a reason while undoing the edits though they seem to know more than the basics of Wikipedia! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: I just posted on the article talkpage. Should we discuss the content issue there? Will leave it to Bish to deal with the conduct/socking. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]