User talk:Bishonen

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 Archive 26

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you! I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended your block on this account. This is yet another incarnation of a multiple sock that has been repeatedly reappearing over may months. The now expired short protection on my talk page was to stop previous attacks from other SPAs obviously linked to this. If you are not happy with my action, please feel free to do as you see fit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim, your block length is fine. However, did you notice I hardblocked them (in my second block)? I ticked "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address", because after checking the IP's contributions, I realised that the attack on you on your page had to come from some way you had disobliged them — say, blocked them — not in the form of this IP but in some other incarnation — likely an account, or more than one account. Your longer block is not a hardblock. Should it be? Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, missed that, hard blocked now. There are some giveaways with this vandal in that their other edits follow a pattern, notably references to Samuel Claesson Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, neither of those comments about Bon Courage were "attacks". If you read their talk page, you'll find it is littered with other people complaining about their editing warring.

Secondly, neither was my editing "disruptive".

The Wikipedia has strict policies, which surely you as an admin must be aware off including; a) the removal of any content that is not supported by references, b) NPOV/bias, c) discussion on the talk page,

all of which I was engaged in, at an intelligent & informed level, while Bon courage was just grinding their POV & reverting, & offering zero engagemnt.

You have no grounds to enact such an onerous punishment.

Thank you. Not a similar account name (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. There's a whole load of material on the internet about you abusing your admin powers, and blocking people based on "non-existant personal attacks" - precisely as you have done to me, so I guess I am wasting my time appealing to reason with you?

If you care at all about 'accuracy' on the Wikipedia, you've allowed the other party to turn the lede into nonsensical rubbish, absolutely contrary to facts.

They were, precisely I stated, just gaming the system to gain control over the topic. Not a similar account name (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think neither "a pattern of wasting other people's time and energy for them" nor "a pattern of contention & mendacious interactions with others" nor "I am just the latest victim that they think they can pick on" are attacks? What does mendacious mean in your opinion? Or pick on? I disagree that a block from two pages, out of the whole of Wikipedia, is a particularly onerous sanction for the amount of disruption and battlegrund editing you've been doing. But you can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Of course they are not attacks. Look at Bon courage's talk page for evidence. They're just a statement of facts. For a previous victim of Psychology guy and them, see [1]

Same players, same game. Neither providing citations, neither have any knowledge of the topic they are controlling.

And if what I wrote was an attack, then why isn't this an outright threat?

"It won't work, and if you keep it up you will probably be removed from the Project, which likes to protect itself from this unwelcome crap. Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024"

They threatened this user, then they started making an identical threats to me, gaming the system to control the page.

Look at my edits, and what am I doing? I am asking them for citations they can't or won't provide.

I've read the rules and policies and are they clear, e.g. NPOV, no citations equal removal, etc.

I am following the rules, they are not, and you are rewarding them. Not a similar account name

(talk) 22:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think so, Not a similar account name, why don't you request unblock, which I have several times explained how to do? Or you could complain about my admin abuse at the WP:ANI noticeboard. Don't forget to mention the 'whole load of material on the internet about me abusing my admin powers and blocking people based on "non-existant personal attacks"'. Bishonen | tålk 23:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen or even Wikipedia:Administrative action review Doug Weller talk 09:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Not a similar account name There's a whole lot of stuff on the Internet accusing good Admins from people whining about their blocks, including me. All nonsense. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a similar account name, it is incorrect to assume other editors have no knowledge in this topic area; it is also not true that sources were not provided to you (I provided several good ones on the talk-page). I have been reading books on fad diets and dietetics for over 20 years. Off-site I am in regular contact with food historians and have exchanged much research. You argued on the talk-page without providing any good WP:RS that the macrobiotic diet is a traditional diet. It isn't and no food historian would claim that. As I explained in a message on your talk-page, the best thing to do is to wait until your block expires and not attack other editors or get aggressive like this. If you have other interests, edit another topic area. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iimitlessyou has been edit warring and editing tendentiously on Lyle and Erik Menendez, to exclude the prosecution arguments from the article.

• here is their first revert, removing a summary of the prosecutions argument.
• here they reverted me a second time, calling me "completely biased" and a "pro prosecution editor" who is "adding debunked information"

At that point I placed a warning on their talk page (they blanked it) and I opened a dialogue (pinging them) on the article talk page which they ignored: They have completely ignored my request for discussion on the talk page: Talk:Lyle and Erik Menendez#Dispute over edits/lead by Iimitlessyou

• They ignored that, and proceeded to revert me again here and called me a biased "pro prosecution editor".
• They reverted me a forth time for "biased edits".

I reverted them 3 times and attempted to discuss, they reverted me 4.

I've tried to explain that the article is supposed to reflect the WP:RS, and this includes the prosecution case, but they seem to interpret this as "biased" against the menendez brothers who murdered their parents. Also note the editors heavy editing of the Netflix series article.

Zenomonoz (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've taken this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard where evidence they fabricated quotes is posted. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Zenomonoz, I had a go at it, but I'm afraid I just don't have to bandwidth to research all that at the moment. Even the first revert diff you give (while Iimitlessyou's edit summary certainly makes a bad impression) records so many changes, and so many sources, that I found it pretty unmanageable. Bishonen | tålk 19:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

No worries, it's handled. Feel free to blank my discussion here. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bish,

Have you been following the ANI saga? If not, you can read a summary at this month's Signpost.

So, the latest update in the case involves the Court threatening to not hear WMF until Wikipedia deletes the page on the case, created by Valereee, a week ago! More importantly, in the same hearing, WMF's lawyer appears to have agreed to provide the details of the unknown "authors" who have/had edited the page on ANI, to the Court in a "sealed cover".

Given the whimsical nature of Courts — not just in India —, there is always a probability of unsealing at a later date and hence, shouldn't such a step require making the broader community aware on how WMF plans to approach similar lawsuits in what is the most populous (and probably among the most litigatious) country in the world? Undoubtedly, WMF is not governed by the consensus of editors on how it approaches Courts and silence is strategic but perhaps some discussion will do good?

I want your opinions on the broader locus before I take this to one of the centralized discussion boards. Talk-page stalkers and watchers, feel free to join the discussion! TrangaBellam (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to interpret that tweet. Maybe it means something, maybe not. Perhaps The Hindu will have commented on it by this time tomorrow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little more: "The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela were presiding over an application filed by Wikipedia seeking permission to file relevant documents in a sealed cover. Wikipedia, represented by Advocate Sibal, expressed concerns over the consequence of releasing the name of the author. The court, however, observed that the company was accusing a journalist (ANI) of being a state-sponsored agent and suggested that the author of the content should defend their statements." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bishonen, Long time no see!, Hope you're well,

So in July 2024 you protected Kefas Brand, Rodney Kefas Namisi has now been created and I didn't know whether I should CSD or AFD it as don't know what the content was before, Gut instinct says CSD but I've had CSDs declined before because "the content is different" so just thought I'd ask you first, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is in fact different, Davey2010, so I guess AfD is the better fit; Kefas Brand was very short and barebones, with a characteristic tabloid emphasis on the subject's romantic relationship and little other content. Lousy sourcing in both cases, though - seems to be all highly promotional interviews + press releases. BTW, Davey, might you have seen a new article for Kefas's brother Arnold also turn up somewhere? The original articles for the brothers were closely connected, as you can see from my note at both AfD's. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Ah okay and nope not seen that yet, I came across this via Simple Wikipedia (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefas_Brand and tried moving the article here to Kefas and then found out it was protected etc

I'm guessing they've given up with here and will try Simple instead –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you! Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 20:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what a fine star! Thank you! Bishonen | tålk 20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for being so proactive at blocking that user IP. I appreciate your work. Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a certain friend of ours does not in fact have years of experience of editing on behalf of other people, nor even of any kind of editing. If they had, they would by now know of the COI guideline, the sockpuppetry policy, etc etc, and would not have come along shouting out that they were flouting them. The stuff they posted was obviously AI generated, and was all about trying to make themself seem impressive, by being an experienced and professional editor, not some newby who doesn't know what they are doing. Anyway, it was pretty well obvious from the start that a block would almost certainly be arriving sooner or later.

Is all that so obvious that I might as well tell you that grass is green? Maybe, but I just felt like saying it anyway.

Give my regards to 'zilla. JBW (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, James. Cornered themselves, didn't they? They lied here or they lied here, or both. And, as you say, the rotting LLM smell is unmistakable in both texts. Anyway, I've asked Girth Summit, on whose page I found them, for a CU; that may bring further clarity. Bishonen | tålk 00:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Aah, "James". Very rarely I still get someone calling me that, and it seems really strange. Considering all the years when I used that pseudonym, it's remarkable how completely disaccustomed to it I've become. JBW (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do know it's not even your real name! But in my book it's your Wikipedia name, you'll just have to grin and bear it. Or, well, I'll switch to "Jim" if you like. Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome in pocket, little James! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean "little"? I've never said on Wikipedia that I'm little, so if I am then that's a violation of WP:OUTING, and if I'm not then it's a lie. JBW (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Fondly:] Pint-size James! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

It's an odd one. I tend to agree with JBW (Jimbo II perhaps?) that the creation of a userpage like that isn't something an experienced spammer would do. On the other hand, they were editing from a clean proxy of some sort, which suggests to me that they were taking steps to cover their steps, so perhaps aren't as clueless as that userpage might suggest. Some sort of experiment to see how we'd react? Someone just messing around? Anyway, nothing more to do as far as I can see. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ist wie Scheisst macht. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Deep Fried Dutch? Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, could you take a look at this user Powerinhand. He is making nonconstructive, tendentious edits promoting religious, caste and regional supremacy - here he added POV irredentist views claiming Haryana is South Punjab; it is a common viewpoint among Punjabi nationalists that Haryana is part of Greater Punjab along with the random "who" tag, more POV pushing by unfairly removing a figure's religious identity. He also created an article which seems to be promoting religious supremacy tacitly, by including surnames which are not exclusive to Sikhs (Malhotra and Uppal) and claiming that they are Sikh in origin, even though the adoption of those names precede the creation of Sikhism.

It seems pretty clear that they're NOTHERE. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, incomprehensible tangents on peoples' talk pages: [2], [3], [4]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new user, Southasianhistorian8. (Well, putatively. Hard to believe a user who creates a category page and shows awareness of WP alphabet soup as in this edit summary, and other signs of experience, is really new, but even so.) Much better IMO if you first warn them and explain what the problem is. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, will do. Thanks for the advice. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. They have a very idiosyncratic use of edit summaries, so you can report them here when they pop up again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ponyo. Will do. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, my little Ponyo. Admittedly, it would have been more fun if they had answered my question on their page. ("My sockmaster is Truthfindervert, and yes, it's blocked, thanks for asking.") That never happens with my "Whose sock are you?" posts, but I won't give up hope that some day it will. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you very much :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [Surprised] Did 'shonen do something useful for once? darwin bish 06:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Look familiar? [5] Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it doesn't look all the familiar. In that case, would you mind moving the now present article to the salted title? My quick overview of the sources shows that it is probably the COMMONNAME. Not that I have any skin in the game, the move and then blanked redirect page is what brought this to my attention in the NPP queue. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bobby Cohn. Yes, I will. The new article is not the same as the old one, which means I don't want to prevent it from being created. I'm just now typing up an explanation to the creator, who of course only used the (unnecessary) disambiguator because they were unable to create the straightforward title Kefas Brand. (It would have been better to simply ask me, but these things happen with new users.) And, considering the various maneouvres to get the subject into Wikipedia (compare this section higher up on my page), I will definitely ask them about COI also. Bishonen | tålk 22:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello @Bishonen I had come to message you about this subject and the issues relvoving around his article. I have not been long on Wikipedia and do not know much for I am still learning how to use Wikipedia. So I do not wanted to seek your permission and know is it okay to contact the subject via social media and consult about the ongoing. Because if these are paid promotions like stated I’m just wondering why a 23 year old will adamantly pay and pay and pay just to get on Wikipedia. On the other hand it could be true as stated by many editors but also could be wrong. On the hand again I believe most concerns raised could be based off of feelings and emotions by various editors. So kindly I’d like to know is it okay. I’m seeking your permission being you have had encounters with that subject previously. my English May not be so good for im not from an English speaking country but I am learning And Wikipedia is playing a great contribution so you could pardon my grama or tense. Thanks Idrisskunle (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Idrisskunle, I don't advise you to contact the subject on social media to tell them their biography is up for deletion. Even if your intentions are good, it would surely result in meatpuppets — perhaps the subject's fans, perhaps the subject himself — coming here and opining at the Article for deletion discussion. AfD discussions, if they are going to be fair, must be conducted by actual wikipedia editors, not by people drawn here via social media. Compare also this guideline. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen thanks, I have understood that that’s why I wanted to inquire from you before anything I’m greatful for your response. According to my analysis I found the articles more of interviews where by if one is interviewed they’d answer the question as it is. However that would appear promotional but for this case I look at exactly what the subject is promoting and found not. Also the sources are reliable being they are not blogs but mainstream news papers from Uganda which I think answers the question of not notable sources. Also other references mention the subjects works. Personally I don’t know the criteria considered by Wikipedia to be worthy but I find no problem with the article and the references. Probably there is poor sourcing yes whereby I think being a new article it would have been granted more time to be enriched with more sources. That is what I think. But also I am Learning a lot from this specific article being I am forcused on becoming a better editor and contributor on Wikipedia so any guidance I totally welcome it.

once again thanks for your response im greatful. Idrisskunle (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried.

Thank you for your swift action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not much you can do with a pure troll, Timtrent. And note the username also! Didn't exactly fit the supposed opinions, did it? Bishonen | tålk 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Not much at all. Since I am not an admin I use militant kindness to allow them to find and use up the rope. It gives full evidence to those who can take action, and prevent harm. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that you banned for vandalism across many demographics pages in Latin America is back to making the same changes on another IP address 2A02:8440:250C:AAA4:5C9D:4864:F7C3:27F5 ElMexicanotres (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ydududu seems to be related to the ip ElMexicanotres (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

PS, please take any further information to ANI, here, rather than to my page. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

Ekdalian (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen, CharlesWain has violated 3RR in the article on Guha (surname) in spite of an article talk page discussion initiated by me, just after I posted some relevant messages on their user talk page! Would request you to take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not. You should also avoid edit warring. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you use {{noping|}} template while complaining about me here? If 3 revert is considered as WP:3RR violation then you have done the same by making three reverts[6][7][8] since your very first revert is itself reverting this months old edit. CharlesWain (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CharlesWain has made three reverts AFAICS, Ekdalian, as I think you yourself have also done. Consecutive edits count as one revert, and violating 3RR means making more than three reverts. You guys are both edit warring; please use the talkpage. And, Ekdalian, I have to agree that using the {{noping}} template here was not appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 11:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Noted. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether making a joke about ARB would make you laugh or cause an appearance by Bishzilla (rwoar). Personally, I think they're missing out on your obvious experience. ❤️ Knitsey (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was disappointed and admittedly (in my vanity) surprised. Perhaps I was missled by this comment into thinking it would be easy! :-) But I'm sure everybody acted in the best faith, so no jokes. Bishonen | tålk 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite their 31 hr block Qalnor is continuing their attacks against Doug continuing their attacks against Doug. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for repeating myself sorry for repeating myself JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I did revert their edit, but I'm not sure if this was the correct thing to do. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like they reverted back to their version with the attack. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, thanks, JoJo. I have to go to bed; hopefully Yamla will deal with it if it recurs (it's gone at the moment). That page is too fluid for me altogether; I tried over and over to fix various formatting errors, only to be edit conflicted. I'm a slow little old lady. Good night. And now I'm being edit conflicted on my own page too. Come on, guys. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I've got it. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a slow little old lady. No one says that about you as far as you know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've had disagreements both here-[9] and here not too long ago. The latter in particular, because the user reported was initially believed to have no connection to the sock-master, but after my report which detailed significant new developments, was deemed as having a "possible indicator of sockpuppetry". The sockmaster had multiple socks who were almost unblocked and "let go" by admins, where I had to take drastic steps to ensure that didn't happen. Given these 2 disagreements barely a few months ago, I think you being an uninvolved administrator is tenous, at best. I hope we can resolve this here, because I do not wish to take a monstrously confusing SPI case to A/E and divert focus. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southasianhistorian8, I've done what I intend to do about that here. I've no further comment. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The editor VaudevillianScientist is becoming increasingly upset that I and several other experienced editors in good standing support the deletion of "their" new article here. That editor has bludgeoned the discussion (not a huge problem given that they feel highly invested), they have canvassed for like-minded opinions on and off enWP (see here), and things are getting increasingly out of hand and a bit too personal. I advised them here to restrict their comments to content/topic, and to not comment about other editors, but they have unfortunately escalated to a bad-faith attempt to out me here, in which I am referred to as "Leonid." That name almost certainly refers to Leonid Schneider, who in January 2022 I was accused of being in a guffaw-inducing joe-job by one of Ariel Fernandez's many, many socks (see this SPI discussion). Needless to say I am not Schneider, and I invite any CU to determine that independently.

Being upset that one's article is at AfD is one thing, but attempting to out an "opponent" is something much more serious. I am however uncertain how best to proceed, especially with the AfD still active. Should I just proceed to ANI right now, wait for the AfD to end, or seek another remedy? Thanks in advance for anything you (or passing jaguars) suggest. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: they have just now replaced "Leonid" with my WP username. But the outing attempt was real, although false, and it remains in the article history. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a business. It's appropriate to block for outing, but I can't find any principle for how long such a block should be. Maybe indefinite? I've given them a month, but I'm just guessing. Any opinion, little talkpage stalkers? Meanwhile, I haven't revision deleted their post - would you like me to? My thinking is that a) it might encourage a Streisand effect, and b) since you repeat the name here, I suppose you're not that upset over it. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Meanwhile, their canvassing is also a serious problem. But I'll leave the closing admin to deal with that. Bishonen | tålk 22:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

For the outing alone, assuming it is a first offense, a month is reasonable. My feelings on it are slightly mitigated by the fact that OP is clear that they've missed the mark and that is not who they are at all, otherwise this would be a matter for the OS team. Malicious outing to try and gain the upper hand in a content dispute is not something we should just look past, even if is is done ineptly.

While they are blocked is a good opportunity to discuss the other points like canvassing so they can better avoid further blocks in the future, or at least can't say they weren't advised about it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably too late to do this now, but attempted outing should be treated the same as outing. Now we all know that JoJo's real name is not Leonid. – bradv 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I'll consider the canvassing (and the bludgeoning) after I've slept. I wish to lodge a complaint: there's a howling blizzard outside. Not sure I'll even be able to go out tomorrow. Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I am less angry at the identity that was falsely assigned to me than the fact that the editor intentionally attempted to out me in the first place. It's a stark example of bad-faith editing. Regarding a potential revdel, although I would prefer that post to be removed I will certainly defer to your post-sleep/blizzard judgement (or to that of any passing admin), as I am sure you have more experience than me in these matters. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I've revdel'd. Bradv, do you wish to oversight? Bishonen | tålk 03:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Done. – bradv 14:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bishonen | tålk 14:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For dealing with a nasty case of racist, anti-semitic vandalism. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, wow, thank you, I dream of horses. "Dealing with" sounds so masterful; I mainly messed it up. Relieved I got it right in the end. The credit goes to Codename Noreste! Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  @Bishonen Well, in the end, you did your best, teamwork happened, and everything turned out well. Good job all around! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is currently a discussion about the Maurya Empire map on the article, reputed users like Fowler&Fowler and Joshua Jonathan have been ignoring our sources and in my view, POV pushing, they have been coming up with excuses , which obviously violate Wiki guidelines on arguments. They have been doing disruptive edits, as of now, they have or tried to remove the Maurya Empire's maximum extent map (by Joshua Jonathan) and then Fowler followed up with "he did the right thing", we have provided dozen articles and books by reliable sources, they have been ignoring them and claiming our sources are not tur. Their map with holes is based on very vague sources. Don't mean to personal attack anyone, but your contributions will be appreciated. @Bishonen JingJongPascal (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is some ways above my paygrade. Too specialized for me. Bishonen | tålk 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

understandable, but do look out there for disruptive edits please. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]