User talk:Bishonen: Difference between revisions

Hi Bish. Can you put this category out of its misery? I've tried leaving friendly notes on the creator's talk page about using WP for social networking and publicity. Not sure they'll take it in, though. I'll keep an eye his edits in case he needs a sterner word from an august admin . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm just an april admin, but I've applied the coup de grâce. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RexxS! Could you (or Bish, or both) possibly put User talk:Kanishk1901 and his user page on watch? My previous two messages to him have fallen on deaf ears. I've now left a third. He's currently using his talk page to inform the world about the Corona virus. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Voceditenore, but user space is less of an issue, as none of it is indexed by Google or other big search engines (see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, RexxS. In the great scheme of Wikipedia shenanigans, this one is relatively minor, but he has already managed to suck up a considerable amount of admins' time—one (you) to delete his "category", two more to delete his user page (recreated after the first delete) [1]. Hopefully, he's got the message now, but I'm not holding my breath. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for blocking Bond of Nepal Development (talk · contribs). The user has now decided to use their talk page as a way of advertising the organisation. Could you please remove TPA? --MrClog (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MrClog. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop going round in circles at Talk:September 11 attacks. Wikipedia is not an opinion outlet; Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Please consult it. I quote: "On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research." See further down on the policy page for what counts as a reliable source. You are bludgeoning the discussion by insisting that the article should depart from Wikipedia policy, despite having it repeatedly explained to you both at article talk and here on your own talk.[2] Everybody has to follow our reliable sources policies — if it's your opinion that "I never think Western media is reliable enough on various topics", you need to check that opinion at the door. If you insist on promulgating it and thereby flouting our policies, Wikipedia may not be for you. Please desist or you are likely to be blocked from Talk:September 11 attacks or topic banned from the topic September 11 attacks. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You argue that I don't follow the policy, but how about WP:TERRORIST policy and WP:NPOV, are you forgetting those ones? normal people would consider "Islamic terrorist" is more original research through editorial bias rather than factual "suicide hijackers" found on the incident. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense to answer in two places, nor to copy my own post back to me. I have replied on your page. I suggest we keep it there. Bishonen | tålk 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Julian Assange. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)"

Dear Bishonen,

Vandalism? Really? For changing a subjective and emotive heading to one which is neutral? How do you justify your claim?

218.214.148.54 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<tps>Stop promoting conspiracy theories. The article had to be protected because of your edits. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 218.214.148.54: I should have said "disruptive editing and edit warring" rather than "vandalism", I'm sorry. You changed the header "Seth Rich conspiracy theory", which is strongly supported by the sources, to "Seth Rich alleged connection", which is not — that's tendentious and disruptive editing — and then you edit warred to keep your version. The article was indeed protected because of your disruptive editing, and if El C hadn't done that, I would have blocked you next time you put your favored version in. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I believe you had already warned and blocked this user for more or less the same thing (forumshopping etc). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, they don't seem to be aware at all that forumshopping is a bad thing, but proclaim quite proudly that "I have started half a dozen discussions asking him for explanations" (him = ජපස). I've posted a strong warning. Thanks for the heads up, ThatMontrealIP. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

This IP is clearly the same person: [3] They were using it to edit war over the same thing yesterday.

Thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For my talkpage stalkers, this is in re this RFPP. Crossroads, you may want to also look at this IP, same /23 range, same vandalism, which is blocked until December 2022. @Widr: blocked it for 3 years, which makes plenty of sense considering their block log.[4] Widr, do you see anything wrong with me blocking the range 142.161.26.0/23 for a couple of years or so? It's contributions are pretty much all vandalism afaics,[5] going back many years. (A school?) Also pinging @Johnuniq and RexxS: for rangeblock wisdom. Bishonen | tålk 00:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Recent ones are unlikely to be a school IPs as Manitoba schools are currently closed (as are all other North American schools).. Meters (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking 142.161.26.0/23 for a couple of years looks desirable. I sampled the 30 edits back to 2018 and they were all bad. The 2018 edits looked like more junk from the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Looks to me also like the IPs are the same person and a long term troll/vandal. I say lock them out for a good long while. And while it may not be a school, they sure are juvenile. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, Bishonen. Widr (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the encouragement, everybody. It felt a little hairy to do it on my own. Range blocked for 3 years. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm happy to see an end to that long-lasting trolling. Meters (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Podstar
		For bravery in wielding the range block button. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, the podstar got an airing! Thank you very much, RexxS! [A shoal of poddies bravely join in.] Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Pay attention to their artistry rather than their synchronicity. ---Sluzzelin talk

So, someone who claims to be user Hciam has stated in a thread on another wiki that they are user Kuiet evading a ban. I can provide a link to the thread but due to site policy the wiki they posted on I cannot provided checkuser logs. I'm coming to you since you were the user that banned the original account and I'm still somewhat New to Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy, and thus am not sure where else to post. Comrade GC (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen, you might find the discussions at User talk:Hciam § Previous accounts and User talk:Newslinger § Not sure who to ask about this or where to post it... to be useful for context. — Newslinger talk 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING was much stricter than I had thought. Never mind, and thank you TonyBallioni for the quick correction. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I had to revert the link there since our interpretation of our policy on linking accounts is quite strict (not Newslinger's fault since in some ways it is counterintuitive, though there are reasons we read it the way we do.) Anyway, don't post links or threads from other sites here. I'm a CheckUser and oversighter on this project, so I'll look at the accounts to see if there's any correlation that can justify a check, and you're also free to email me Comrade GC. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I understand and will respect the rules. Apologies if I mistepped. Comrade GC (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger and Comrade GC: No worries. So I thought it was Roostnerve (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who is a sock of User2083146168, but they're in the wrong country and I trust the ISPs involved here to not be spoofed. I haven't directly checked Kuiet, but he didn't turn up in the checks I did run. Of course, if the editor is behaving disruptive, people should feel free to block regardless of the question of socking.

Also, hi Bish. Happy Easter :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Comrade GC and thanks very much Tony for checking it. I hope you're having as good an Easter as is possible in these dire times. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen,

Heavy edit-warring in Koli people page. You may want to take a look. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, Nittawinoda. Abecedare has taken care of it. Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen, would request you to protect the article on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. Now that I have incorporated some reliably sourced info, which goes against the POV of the ones trying to promote caste based on dubious sources, vandalism has started, and will only increase. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian, always nice to see you. I have topic banned Leo de facto from caste pages. Looking at his edits, I'm far from sure he'll understand what I say, but that can't be helped. If more socks and vandals arrive, I'll consider semiprotection, but at the moment I'll hold off. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen,

The article Kingdom_of_Jeypore is mainly riding on two Raj-era sources. Is this acceptable? Aren't Raj-era sources forbidden? Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly whole articles should never be based on them. I've prodded the article. Good catch, Nittawinoda. Bishonen | tålk 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for reviewing it. Nittawinoda (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please tell us why you want to delete our page kingdom of Jeypore. It’s based on reliable sources please check the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyporeRajMahal (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @JeyporeRajMahal: Because it's not based on reliable sources. Did you read any of the rationale in the prod that you removed? I've used the same rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore. You might want to comment there. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JeyporeRajMahal: I gave the answer to your question in the prod template that you removed. Didn't you read it? Sources from the Raj era are not reliable. Now can you please in return tell me why you speak of "us" and "our page"? Are you speaking for more than one person? Is User:JeyporeRajMahal an account used by a group? If so, what kind of group? Bishonen | tålk 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, This nittawinoda talks about my article riding two Raj sources and that is only because he is meddling the facts of Solar Dynasty page and I edited it out. He is clearly misinterpreting the facts and creating his own theories. For example, the book says "Iksvakus are not Dravidians

The Iksvakus was the great pre-Aryan Bharatiya race, Pargiter has tried to establish that the Iksyakus should be equated with Dravidians. 32 The Puragas do not know any Dravida tribe, It appears that the Dravidians had not gained any importance by, the Puranic. age circa 30Q. A. D."

and also

But he has not adduced any evidence to prove that the Dravidians existed in Bharata before the Aryan invasions. He has also failed to unearth any Dravidian tradition to prove that the Manavas or Iksvakus were Dravidians."

while his work says - The dynasty takes its name after king Ikshvaku who was the son of Satyavrata also called Shraddhadeva Manu, the king of Dravida kingdom.[6] As per the Vedas, Ikshvaku was the protector of the five territories of Panchajanah who were non-sacrificing pre-Aryan and non-Aryan people. The Atharvaveda and Brahmanas associate the Ikshvakus with the non-Aryan peoples, that is they are different from the Vedic Aryans who composed hymns like Rig Veda.[7][8] F. E. Pargiter has equated the Ikshvakus with the Dravidian peoples.

• PARGITER HAS TRIED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IKSHVAKUS SHOULD BE EQUATED WITH DRAVIDIAN PEOPLE.
• Does not matter how much a dravidian edits pages of solar or lunar dynasty. The fact will always be the same, they were indo-aryan families, Dravida are not aryans they do not even have kshatriyas.

Please look into this, If I can be challenged for only writing an article then why not this nittawinoda some deluded dravid trying to meddle history. JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, JeyporeRajMahal is making personal attacks on my talk page [6]. He has been removing referenced content and posting his own research and opinion on [7]. Nittawinoda (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me! Nittawinoda , You are the one who is posting your personal opinion by misinterpreting the source. I have only corrected it and also provided a relevant source. You are acting like a cyber bully, removing the facts and replacing them with your own biased opinions. Check : The Hindu History by A K Mazumdar (Redacted).JeyporeRajMahal (talk)

@JeyporeRajMahal: That sort of incivility aided at another editor is completely unacceptable. You have made another personal attack on their talk page. I've left a final warning on your talk page. Please take it seriously as the next time you insult another editor in that way, I will remove your editing privileges. I hope that is clear. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JeyporeRajMahal, as I've just explained on your page, you're lucky that RexxS saw your attacks before I did, or you'd be blocked by now. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen and RexxS Mr. Rex first of all do not teach me civility, you are not my guardian. Secondly, you are teaming up with another dude who is clearly posting his own opinions. Look at the message that I sent you, He is clearly misinterpreting and when I caught him and raised the issue here you completely ignored it. I will definitely edit out any wrong information that I see on wikipedia and especially those wrong information that is deliberately channeled into wikipedia by bigots. Nittawinoda on other hand is trying to force this theory onto every reader and scholar that 'Manu was a dravida king, Ikshavaku was a dravid king'. It is a racist attempt to meddle the history of its true facts which bolsters Dravidian ideology followed by a racist group of people.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JeyporeRajMahal: You need to learn civility, and I don't need to be your guardian to apply that lesson. I am teaming up with no-one, as I am acting as an uninvolved administrator when taking steps to curb your behaviour. Accusing another editor of racism is a step too far. --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done an SPI just for the record and in case of future need. Bishonen | tålk 18:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I am this user (ToxiBoi) requesting to be blocked for somewhere around 3 months. Ontop of that, I'm taking a break from editing on that account and as of now only on-and-off editing on this public account. For confirmation of affilation, you can see this account's userpage history. If that is not sufficient, I might be able to email you the CI. For the reason why I am requesting to be blocked, you can see my main account's userpage, or, in short: someone has somehow managed to wrecked the only computer that has access to the main account, so that account is inactive until further notice.

To make sure this user doesn't do something like recover the password off of my Google settings, I am also requesting a block to my main account, not my public account.

Thanks for your help. [This edit was made on a Xbox. My apologies if I mess something up.] –ToxiBoi! _(public) 09:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ToxiBoi~pub. In principle, yes, I will, but I don't know you, so I will apply my usual 24-hour waiting period before I block. During that time, you need to tell me that you have read my information page about self-requested blocks, User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks, and that you accept the conditions outlined there. I'm frankly a little worried, also, about blocking just one of your accounts, while you continue to use the other — something I've never done before. It would presumably have to be a soft block. Dear talkpage stalkers, do any of you see a problem with it? Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This is, supposedly, the second time their account has been compromised, and they're clearly most interested in gussyfying their user etc pages than actually editing. ——SN54129 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

(talk page watcher) There are certainly precedents for someone losing access to their main account for whatever reason, and that account being blocked until they recover it, while the editor continues to edit using a secondary account. (Giano/Giano II would be an example with which I assume you're familiar.) I do agree with what SN54129 is implying but is too polite to say outright above, that this looks like a textbook example of someone who's on Wikipedia to goof around rather than to contribute, and that if we go out of our way to accommodate an unusual request it should come with the expectation that you settle down and actually do something useful. (I have to say, I don't really understand why you want the block to have an expiry date. Given that you only have a total of 96 contributions, almost all of which are extremely trivial, why not just start afresh with this new account?) ‑ Iridescent 12:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the messages above, I don't think I want to do this, ToxiBoi~pub. I'm sorry, and I wish you well in your future editing. Please note Iridescent's advice. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That's quite alright, thanks for your advice. However, given the recent circumstances, it will be hard to do more content-creation edits since I'm still restricted to Xbox edits only (and edit conflicts are weird on here). Again, thanks for the advice, and I wholly understand your decision to not block the account. [This edit was made on a Xbox. My apologies if I mess something up.] –ToxiBoi! _(public) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you once again. The article on Sen (surname)‎ has become a subject of vandalism. Cleanup 9060301 seems to be a sock of User:Dr.SunBD, and has resorted to personal attacks using abusive language (Hindi) on my talk page, in spite of informing him on his talk page. Would request you to take necessary action in order to stop this menace. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ekdalian. I've indeffed the sock and blocked the sockmaster for a week. Bishonen | tålk 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, once again. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got a notification that Module:Carousel/Komodobish now has its own Wikidata item: Module:Carousel/Komodobish (Q92193785). That was amusing, but even better was when I spotted that the module also exists on the Bangla Wikipedia bn:মডিউল:Carousel. Just when we're all stuck at home, Komodobish is circling the globe -- T-RexxS (rawr) 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Circling with social distance, I hope, dino! I see I'm (or you are? or Komodobish?) invited to "add reference", "add value", and "add statement" at Wikidata. Hmm. I'd better not try, I'd be bound to break it. But you, perhaps? I don't think anybody can "add value", since it's so excellent just as it is, but how about for example a statement? Bishonen | tålk 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I did. I added the instance of (P31) Wikimedia module (Q15184295) statement. It was looking a bit empty before that, but I can't think of anything else to say now. Maybe you have some ideas? You can't break it. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen, perhaps you could add some perspective to the discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Not global? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HopsonRoad: thanks for remembering me! But I'm altogether ignorant of warfare topics, so I fear not. Of the languages mentioned, the only ones I understand are Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, with maybe a smidgeon of French. Worse, I have no skills in searching for the kinds of sources in question. Sorry. Perhaps some of my fine talkpage stalkers would like to join the discussion? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) Random questions about warfare? Count me in! creffett (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely have I seen the phrase used more aptly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Boing!, that's very kind. I got three five six^{Note1 - edited by Ched} "thank yous" for that comment, which I value very much — you guys know who you are — plus a snide complaint from PackMecEng,[8] which I frankly also value highly. Without it, there would have been something missing for me. Bishonen | tålk 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

El_C 11:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First thank-you in May, Bish, because a click seems not enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remotely in the context: a new IP (as of today) is going around and adds sentences about someone having died during this crisis to article leads. He did that to two articles which I watch, and where I reverted, and for one, Dmitri Smirnov (composer), they not only reverted me, but came to the article talk and to my talk with accusations. Please comment on the article talk, or their user talk where I wrote a welcome message, - on my talk I'm done. I may be wrong, believing that the lead should rather cover a person's life than death. I feel guilty of not having written (yet) more about his life. Not that it matters, but for context: the composer was also a contributor, and wrote the article, and took the photo, of his colleague Alexander Vustin who died only days later. As if all this wasn't sad enough ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I left the IP a note (on your talk page) about observing WP:ONUS. El_C 13:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism everywhere nowadays. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to dampen the mood, but deepest condolences, Roxy. El_C 11:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is because I care. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the people who get told to fuck off bury relatives and are grieving too, as they likewise are real people who have feelings. It's as if there was a policy written to treat other editors with respect for this very reason. --Pudeo (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and sometimes people cherrypick (from the suspects Talk page for goodness sake) in order to stir the muck. I'll not use a bad word on Bish's page, but your post was kind of indicative of the sneaky unpleasant low lifes that exist around here. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ^{Note1 - edited by Ched} Hi there Bish. I hope you don't send Zilla after me for editing your talk page. It's just a minor edit to account for a number update. Hope you're well - Please stay safe. — Ched (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, — Ched! It's actually eight at this moment — I thought it was time I stopped boasting. (Really? Why?) But indeed I have never been so amply thanked for an edit, not anywhere close. Good night all! Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Want high numbers? look at the views for Roy Horn - couldn't believe it, yes I knew he was famous, but still ... - my best contrib was to not have the lion's paws cropped off. Better than recent deaths: long-ago birthdays, - I even dared to go for FAC, with the music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

going nicely, thank you! - today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is at it again, unfortunately. Popcornfud (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) They have a block from me now, for 3 months. I only held off indefinite because it's such a nice day here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, having looked again I realize now that I was being misled from my grumpy character by a bit of sunshine. The block needs to be indefinite, so I have made it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get to enjoy the sunshine, Boing! said Zebedee. El_C 14:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strange case. Thank you both. [Pats Boing's grumpy character cautiously on the head.] Nice grump! Keep out of the sunshine! Bishonen | tålk 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

I would like to ask you to consider relisting this afd. The notability criterion which ismet is WP:PROF, and it was not adequately considered. Mst of thecoments were based on either GNG, or other rrelevant factors, and it is an error to consider the wrong criterion--since }WP:PROF is independent of theGNG. I could of course go directly to Del Rev for this same reason, or , undelete and userify it myself, and then rewrite itandmove it back to main space, but I'd rather ask you first. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming here, DGG. I've re-read the discussion, and I'd rather not relist it, especially considering the creator's bludgeoning and accusations of bad faith. Several people addressed the question of the number of citations, and I don't feel I'm familiar enough with the field to dismiss their arguments. I'm not sure in what sense Nakamura would meet WP:PROF. I'd take it to Deletion review if I were you, and go into more detail than what you have done here on my page. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It's a pretty poorly sourced article and of course there's nothing to stop you from creating a new one, very different one. That would be simpler and hopefully end up with a better article. I doubt that I'd support a relist given how thin the evidence is. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug , that is indeed immensely easier than Del Rev. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're one to talk. I see on your user page you have been blocked 3 times.

--Akb20 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20[reply]

Yep. I put the link to my block log there (you didn't follow it, I bet) because I want it there, I'm pleased with my block log. I've already replied on your page. There's no need to come here to request my attention; I recommend you to use the ping function, it's simpler. Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

So you can imagine how pleased I am with my block log. EEng 01:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: yours is a feast for the eyes, but it's a flaw that you don't have Jimbo Wales in it. You need to work towards that. It's harder now, but still. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You are too modest, Bish – you caused a Lex Jimbo! Now there is something few of us may aspire to. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...or is that a Lex Bishonen? They usually name them after the person who suffered the consequences, I guess. Even so. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just fear that it'll be like scaling Everest. There will be no new worlds to conquer. Life will lose its meaning. EEng 14:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued an IPA sanctions alert and I hope that Akb20 will now drop the stick. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can understand it's frustrating to be new and unaware of policies and of where they might go to "take this further", and how to navigate the place altogether. I thought of recommending WP:ANI for complaints, but that might qualify as entrapment. Good night, RexxS. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

--Akb20 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20[reply]

? I've advised you to use WP:ping instead of posting here and you're not interested. Fine. Please stop posting here in any case; this is the last reply you get on this page. Talking on two pages is just inconvenient. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding this AE outcome – does this mean that !votes by the blocked one in this active polling situation (and subsequent sections on that page) can/should/need to be struck? And if so, is that something you'd process, or rather delegate to someone else? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the account was a sock, as this SPI indicates, then I'd say their !votes should indeed be struck. I'll make it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Francis Schonken and Boing!. Yes, it's better not coming from me, since I blocked them. Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

If you or any talk page stalkers would like a nice easy job with plenty of prestige, there's an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #RfC on table captions that needs closing. Any takers? --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky i en bar, best I've heard today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, that's great. Mr Fröding, concerning "Tegnellen", did you happen to catch him with Trevor Noah on the Daily Social Distancing Show? Handled it with distinction, I'd say. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That was pretty good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed that – thanks, Gråberg! (And hey, the pub is Katalin And All That Jazz [sv]! I remember when you could go there. And have whisky, in the bar.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, Aasim 06:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to your pet monster as well. :) Aasim 06:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Bishonen a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Bishonen a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your contributions to the project, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a very Happy Adminship Anniversary! Thank you for all the great work you have been doing here for years. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all from me and my pet monster. (Who was an admin for a while — please encourage her to take up the tools again by !voting here.) Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Is your pet monster ready to come out? Or are they just um... tired and maintaining two metre distance? Aasim 20:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yess! Lots of happy!! But... only one pet monster? Maybe 'poddies too small. Not so active lately, admittedly. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) To come out? On that, compare her userbox: "This user straight but not narrow." She's out all right, and flirtatious with it.[9] Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
      • Dave souza Well, Darwinbish is reasonably active, Dave, and considers herself the CEO of my sock conglomerate. You can !vote in her RfA too! Goodnight, folks. Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen,
Freezing cold winter Sunday morning in 2018 - it must have been only 14°C (!) - banh mi for breakfast - <Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies voice> "42.8 million dollars!"
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seemed I was egging on the user from the last dust-up on ANI... really was not my intention, but you know what they say about the road to hell.

Just posting a quick note here because I had asked that user not to ping me any longer due to my annoyance with lots of ping-notifications[10]. But I am happy to rescind that request considering the circumstances. Don't know if that's worth communicating or not, but just wanted it to be clear.

Clear skies!

jps (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've just read that user talk page, and in your position I think I'd just walk away from it now. There are some talks worth talking, and some not, and I'd rate this a not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. jps (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, jps. Gtoffoletto has now posted again to ask if it's all right with me if you want to "defend yourself" against their "accusations" on their page. I don't think I'll reply, because I feel myself getting quite impatient and I might.. show it. But the whole notion of "defending" oneself against name-calling, assumptions of bad faith, and character-assassination is just absurd. I mean they're not actual "accusations", just attacks. I hope and believe you don't want to engage with them. The road to hell is paved with frozen door-to-door salesmen, I thought? User:Gtoffoletto, I'm pinging you to avoid "talking behind your back", but I rather hope you don't have anything to add here. Please don't let any of us drag this out further. Bishonen | tålk 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the ping which I always greatly appreciate and ciao! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular desire to engage. I guess I might have a soft spot because I definitely know what it's like to feel like no one is willing to help. Still, on reflection, I realize that every time I have tried to do this in the past it hasn't worked. What did Albert Einstein not say the definition of insanity is? Okay, enough. jps (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, George Darwin is supposed to have said that every once in a while, you should do a completely crazy experiment. "Probably nothing will happen, but if it did, that would be a stupendous discovery." If you stay optimistic about people, you'll be disappointed most of the time, but it's really great on the odd occasion it works out. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Interesting quote. I wonder what would have been the positive result here to the experiment... I guess: me stating that the user that has been edit warring against me for months while constantly refusing to engage in discussion is a wonderful human being for suddenly wanting to discuss once he has managed to get me topic banned. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you did have something to add after all. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

...this editor? My inclination, as with all American politics articles, is to point my nose in the opposite direction of any drama. But something seems off here. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my little Ponyo. Well, merely that the user states here that they have an account: "I do have an editor page but choose not to use it when I am editing on political pages because I do not want it banned because of a dispute of an editor with a power trip." Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That sounds more like "avoiding scrutiny" than WP:VALIDALT.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely. That's why I posted one of Darwinbish's finest templates on them. (Hello, Serial, thanks for your encouragement of Mama Bear.) Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That is a spectacular template! Meters (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yer, except that 'Shonen posted it at User talk:173.172.158.168 which stopped editing on 11 May, not on User talk:67.10.206.161 which began editing on 12 May and continues with exactly the same tendentious edits as previously. --RexxS (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXIT if you like, RexxS. Everybody's welcome to use Darwinbish's templates, she says so. Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I fixed it, I blocked the IP. Pretty obvious even without CU. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done here. Bishonen | tålk 15:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Bishonen, the discussion over at AN/I was archived without a complete discussion/investigation regarding all the editors involved [11]. Is it normal procedure? What does it mean when a discussion is closed like that? Sorry to bother you (I know you are fed up with this) but I wouldn't want to be accused of forumshopping or some other crazy infraction. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's incredibly normal that an ANI discussion is archived when nobody has posted to it for eight days. If anything it's abnormal that the bot didn't do it sooner — I've been wondering if it was malfunctioning. Talkpage stalkers, how soon is Lowercase sigmabot supposed to archive ANI threads when nobody's posting to them? After three-four days, I'm thinking? Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC).[reply] Near the bottom of the sprawling mass of text at the top of the ANI page it says "Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III." No idea if that is accurate or not, but that's what it says. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] It looks like people added little joke comments buried in the middle of the section on 13, 14, and 16 May, so it makes sense that it wasn't archived until now, even though useful comments ended around 12 May. The bot is not (yet) able to separate wheat from chaff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] No prize for guessing who. EEng 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I see. Well, good job it's finally been put out of its misery. Bishonen | tålk 20:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC).[reply] Shoudn't the report be addressed though? Why wasn't it? (p.s. if possible ping when you reply or I won't see it unless I check. Thanks) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] (talk page stalker) Probably because any outstanding elements of the "report" were a big nothingburger and nobody was interested, hence the thread grew stale. Very usual for ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] What Alex said. You got dealt with, the rest was just irrelavent cruft. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Roxy, as always, for your kind words. Not surprisingly, you define "cruft" an incident report regarding your edit warring (which was not posted by me) that was not investigated by anyone. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure you understand the basis of Wikipedia, Gtoffoletto: it's the volunteers. There aren't any functionaries that have a responsibility for making sure that everything that gets reported to ANI (or the other noticeboards) gets "a complete discussion/investigation" in all its aspects. On the contrary, us volunteers, including the admins, will comment on the reports or parts of them that we're interested in, and will investigate the reports or parts we think deserve investigation. From your questions, I get the impression that you see the noticeboards more like places where people can report perceived problems to something like a government agency, staffed by, say, civil servants, whose (salaried) job it is to investigate all complaints. That's not what our boards are. As Alexbrn says, if there are aspects of an AN or ANI report that nobody thinks worth commenting on, then nothing will happen with those aspects, and this outcome is extremely common. Bishonen | tålk 16:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC).[reply] If I din't get that I'd be handing in my invoice for the last 10 years :-) I understand that very well and that is why I worry Wikipedia's handling of problematic users is so FUBAR. This case is emblematic of this. The fact Wiki is volunteer based is exactly why I don't think discussions should be archived so fast on AN/I. Especially if noone has properly investigated the report. It may lead to abuses of power ad conflicts of interest. I am still waiting for your explanation of your exact reasoning to understand your handling of this case fully. When do you think you'll have the time to do that? Thanks.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] No, Bish... keep calm, deep breath, and relax... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Gtoffoletto: If you're "waiting for ['Shonen's] explanation of your exact reasoning to understand [her] handling of this case fully", you'll be waiting until hell freezes over. That's because there was no case and no admin handled it, nor would any be obliged to even if there were. Your preoccupation with ufology is a net negative to this encyclopedia, and you need to step away from it and let it go. If you can't, I'm quite certain an uninvolved admin will come along and block you until you can. --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @RexxS: thanks for your interest. But I'm afraid you are not up to speed with this "exciting" saga :-) During that case (in which apparently I was the only one worth looking at despite me not being the main subject of the report, nor the one that opened it, nor there being any proper investigation) Bishonen HAS topic banned me indefinitely from UFO related topics. "is a net negative to this encyclopedia" is what I would like to understand. Many keep repeating this but no evidence has been provided to me or examples of what this grave menace is (such that an indefinite ban would be the only solution). What did I do wrong exactly and where (DIFFS not hearsay please)? I would expect this especially from her per WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries. Not sure what promptly means usually but I've been waiting a couple of weeks. Thanks again. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Bishonen has been more patient than necessary already and has posted a long post on your talk page at your request the other day. I will try to explain why I stopped reading your talk page (this page is on my watchlist since a long time though). The topic ban implies that the topic itself should no longer be discussed, meaning that other than encouraging you to read yourself the edit summaries and comments in relation to past reverts, etc, it would be inappropriate for other editors to lure you into a permanent block for failing to respect the topic ban. A clue is also that you're still at it, rather than moving on, which topic bans are for... —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @PaleoNeonate: I appreciate the time she took with that long post. However, as I have replied on my talk page, none of it is related to UFOlogy in particular and to my TOPIC ban. Many general suggestions and questions in there I will be happy to answer once this is resolved. I would have no problem with you or anyone else giving Bishonen DIFFs with examples related to the "persistent POV pushing" she has banned me for. You keep "teasing" :) so if you have it bring it forth. I would expect Bishonen to have seen it already since she imposed this sanction. I am asking for the evidence for my sanction not to start a discussion on UFOlogy and WP:ADMINACCT grants me that basic right (that one at least...). I am well aware I am topic banned and I have stopped editing Wikipedia in general (might have an exception for major breakthroughs from Italy regarding COVID-19 I think are important to share such as one that happened today and which might otherwise be missed.). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Gtoffoletto: I outlined in detail and with diffs what you did wrong here a week ago. I tried to show that you had attempted to push other people out of discussions, poisoning the well against them, talking down to them, and bludgeoning Talk:Ufology. You had made complaints about "aspersions" which I don't understand, and which you have so far not answered my questions about. Altogether, you made Talk:Ufology difficult for others to use. At ANI, just before the topic ban, you made attacks on opponents ("this reaction by Roxy is a disgrace") which I did not then and do not now understand, and which you have not answered my questions about. You accused jps, Roxy and Lucky Louie of "constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting". I've asked you for an example or two of these threats, to which you have not responded. You accused opponents of defacing Ufology and degrading the encyclopedia, you linked to off-wikipedia attacks and irrelevant ANI threads — pure opposition research. But I understand that you feel these examples of disruptive editing are a poor fit for the brief reason I gave for the topic ban ("You have been sanctioned for persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing"). Perhaps I was hasty in formulating it. I have therefore changed it to "You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing in the subject area." Bishonen | tålk 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply] Thank you Bishonen for changing the topic ban reason. I'm glad we established that accusations of me "POV pushing" anything are unsubstantiated (I would invite others to stop repeating this lie as fact now or provide evidence). I now understand exactly what you saw and will reply to the questions and doubts you raised in your detailed report as soon as I can research it and analyse it in depth. I would suggest a second look at the original report given the misunderstandings that have emerged here and elsewhere regarding that incident. But that is not for me to decide I think so I will focus on my actions for now. Have a good day. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Gtoffoletto: This will be my only comment in this thread. I suggest you note above that Bishonen wrote "Perhaps I was hasty." That contemplation hardly redefines the alleged POV-pushing, as you write, as "unsubstantiated" or a "lie." Note further that "persistent disruptive editing in the subject area" readily admits, among many other things, POV-pushing. Now won't you please please PLEASE move on from this and edit constructively on some other topics? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @JoJo Anthrax: thank you for your interest. Unfortunately I'm out of Wikipedia at the moment for anything outside of this discussion (COVID-19 project work might be a small exception). This will be my last message here I think. If you (or anyone) wishes to point out to me some problem with my editing with DIFFs I will appreciate the critique (I'm a fan of peer-review). My talk page is always open. Otherwise I'm sorry but I don't think everybody adding their general opinions here is very helpful in this (already messy) and (in the grand scheme of things) pretty useless discussion. I will let Bishonen's talk page be and reply to her questions on my talk page. Thanks Bishonen once again for clearing this up for me. I'll try to reply to you in my talk page once with a well documented reply to all your questions to minimise the waste of time. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Gtoffoletto: yes, minimise it, good idea. And stop thanking people for their interest. If you think that's polite, you're mistaken. Also don't ever tell anybody again that they're not welcome to post on my page. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply] So, the next hobby is to be lobbying for the addition of preprints as sources for COVID-19 articles. Imagine my thoughts on that prospect. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhEKsdrzKIY Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy_y9yOrgxk Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/957925981 even after your block. Seems like a obvious NOTHERE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Though did you see this edit summary a couple of days earlier, Galobtter? Almost sad, isn't it? But I think they've used up all the rope now. You spotted it, would you like to action it? Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No I stay away from adminning on AP2 stuff which is why I posted here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I blocked them previously, which is why I suggested it would be better if I didn't do it again. But OK. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Just too immature. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. Another obviously very young user I've been talking with at length recently makes OR look like a miracle of maturity and a master of the art of listening. I've unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 05:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I remember his technical data well enough that there doesn't need to be a recent sock, for what its worth. He's not very good at hiding. I think we have some old cuwiki data on him, but I'd have to check. Mainly just go based on having dealt with him enough. Anyway, the PreferredUsername guy wasn't him, but if there's someone who looks like him, you can report it to the SPI or email me even if there isn't a sock to check... he's not very clever. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for myself I didn't think PreferredUsername talked like Hidden Tempo — he'd have to be pretty clever to use such a different tone, even if the sentiments are the same. Thanks, Tony, I'll remember. Bishonen | tålk 09:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Pretty positive this is actually User:Urgal, who you blocked recently. Edits the same articles the same way. Rikster2 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SmooveMike and Machr123 are both  Confirmed to Urgal.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See, all I need to do is sleep through it all. And go up Urgal's block time... oh no, my little Ponyo has taken care of that too. Thank you both! Bishonen | tålk 09:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I've studied the user talkpage with interest: apparently the user has been here ten years and is surprised to learn you can't simply use a sock account when your main one is blocked. Restored the declined unblock request again, and revoked tpa. Bishonen | tålk 09:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you all for putting this sock back in the drawer. There has been a persistent problem with socks and IPs blanking content, adding fringe views to the lead, and adding the NPOV tag to Racial views of Donald Trump. I wonder if we should consider placing the article under WP:ECP, especially in light of current events. The edit history is self-evident, but I could readily produce a list of the top 50 unhelpful edits of the past 12 months if that would help make the case. - MrX 🖋 11:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There won't have been any IPs recently, MrX — the article was indefinitely semiprotected in December 2019. I'm not very much at home with ECP — studying the Rough guide to extended confirmed protection here... right. I might. So, Mr X, could you provide a list of recent disruptive edits to the article? Not 50 diffs! Say the latest ten diffs, while ignoring Urgal and his sock. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

In addition to the SmooveMike&Urgal puppet show, we have these from roughly the past six months:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]

This is in addition to the significant disruption from bad faith IP editors up until recently. Normally, this would not be much of a problem, but because Coffee and then Awilley placed editing restrictions on the article, these throwaway accounts have been used to game the system against editors who actually research reliable sources and who are invested in improving the encyclopedia. But, there are fine people on both sides. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for digging those out, MrX. But I hesitate to try to fix extreme and awkward editing restrictions (as I agree they are) by adding yet more extreme editing restrictions. Also, there won't be any more IP disruption, since the semi is (very sensibly, thank you, El C) indefinite. Furthermore, this one was a good edit, removing vandalism from an IP. No, I'm afraid there isn't enough disruption for my taste. You may want to try WP:RFPP. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

OK, thanks for hearing me out. - MrX 🖋 13:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Do you have any suggestions as to how the current sanctions could be fixed/modified to better empower editors who research sources and are invested in improving the encyclopedia? Or do you think wholesale removal of all sanctions would be an improvement? Also could you elaborate a bit on how the sanctions are being gamed? Is it the 1RR sanctions or the BRD sanctions being gamed? I sometimes imagine nightmare situations where veteran editors hoard their daily revert allowance, saving it for when its really necessary, while IPs, socks, and drive-by POV pushers edit freely. ~Awilley (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here: The BRD sanction is meaningless, except as a snare, and it has not been uniformly enforced. 1RR slows things down, but with an endless stream of socks and SPAs, good faith editors are forced to ration their revert, possibly saving to remove a suspected but unproven SPA's edit, and not use it for ordinary-course reversion of good faith edit that needs talk page discussion. The BRD sanction has been controversial from the start and should be deprecated in favor of simple 1RR, possibly with a broader exemption to help limit the SPA edits.

The BRD restriction has not been productive because there is no standard for "discussion". Disruptive editors discuss disruptively. Regulations need to be simple and clear. Revert restrictions are somewhat clear, at least. The best enforcement is the judgment of wise and experienced Admins who monitor articles and step in. That's tough work, and it's not surprising that there are relatively few volunteers for that duty. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: The current restrictions slow the damage done to articles, but they also slow the repair. Most experienced AP editors abide by the editing principles pointed out by Arbcom. That is largely the result of some of the most offending editors having been topic or site banned. I agree with what SPECIFICO wrote about 1RR slowing everything down, but I would actually propose eliminating 1RR on mature articles like Racial views of Donald Trump that are not heavily edited, and instead implementing a BRD restriction that respects the status quo/silent consensus. In other words, if an editor (boldly) adds new material (including tags, links, and categories) or removes material that has been in the article for some length of time (90 days or more?), then those edits are limited to 1RR and the editor must discuss the edit on the talk page and wait 24 hours before restoring. That would have saved numerous person-hours of dealing with the socks on this one article alone. I think we also need to lower the bar on identifying socks. Accounts jumping into controversial articles with precocious knowledge about NPOV and formatting refs are not new users learning to edit. I will say that all of the admins in this discussion have done exemplary work addressing editor conduct in the AP space, but the day-to-day burden of defending the integrity of content has largely fallen on the shoulders of regular editors who have contribute an untold number of volunteer hours to editing, research, and discussion, only to have their work damaged by the socks, SPAs, and throwaway accounts.

To answer your question more specifically, 1RR and BRD are being gamed because these socks are not new editors and they understand that they will be given additional warning before being sanctioned. All they have to do is say they didn't see the yellow warning box. When they do get block, they can create a brand new account and start the whole process over. That could be solved by zero-tolerance enforcement that gives new users a short topic ban on the first offence, followed by escalating sanctions for repeat offences.

Now I have a question for any of you three admins: What's the upside of Urgal having not been permanently topic banned from AP? - MrX 🖋 19:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not exactly an upside to them not being topic banned, I suppose — it's more that not being topic banned is a user's natural state. It takes a little time and a few, uh, incidents for that state to change. For me personally, I sanctioned the user for edit warring (a 72-hour block). I don't like to give more than one sanction at a time — it doesn't feel right. And with the amount of disruption from this editor in a short space of time, I don't think I'll fiddle around with topic bans if they incur a sanction again any time soon; I'm more likely to indef. Bishonen | tålk 19:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Awilley: This is what I'm talking about.[17] - MrX 🖋 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You protected the creation of Michał Cieślak (boxer) in 2016 due to multiple creations and subsequent deletions as the subject failed WP:NBOX and GNG. Could you unprotect it so I can create it? He’s since satisfied the criteria for NBOX after his recent WBC world title challenge and by being ranked in the top 10 of the WBC and Ring magazine, as well as now satisfying GNG with multiple English and Polish outlets covering Cieślak over the past few years. – ².O.^Boxing 00:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Squared.Circle.Boxing. It's not that I don't want to, but I really know zero about the boxing world. Zero is enough to create-protect a repeatedly recreated article as a pure housekeeping action, but possibly not enough to unprotect it. You may have to take it to WP:RFPP, but before you go to that trouble, let me just ask my talkpage stalkers: is there a little admin out there who is up for unprotecting the article? Please give it a day or so, Squared.Circle.Boxing. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) Squared.Circle.Boxing Sure he meets WP:NBOX with that shot. Have unprotected. Glen 09:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. RFPP slipped my mind. I’ll use that if I encounter this again in the future. Thanks again :). – ².O.^Boxing 10:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has better stalkers than me. Thank you, Glen. Bishonen | tålk 10:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

is requesting unblock at UTRS 30749. Best unblock request I've seen in a while. How do you wish to proceed with considering their request? I'll be wikibreaking imminently and may not respond till Tuesday.. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider UTRSing. All the cool kids are doing it. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I was put off UTRS a few years ago because the interface was so baffling, I couldn't handle it. It's been rumoured since then that it has been updated and improved, and, sure enough, when I followed your link this time, I merely got told I wasn't an admin. Much simpler. So I wish to proceed by not considering their request, as I'm seemingly for UTRS purposes not an admin. Also I'm in bed. Some cooler kid will have to do it. Bishonen | tålk 01:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

May I restore TPA and carry it over? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS does not want to be my friend, either. It always wants things — even if, as a platform, it gave much to its community and asked little in return (I know, a paradox). Anyway, I'd like to be alone with the sandwich for a moment. El_C 01:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) PS: in the meantime, I've received an e-mail from UTRS Development Team telling me, if I understand them, that I'm now an admin. There was no hint of this coming elevation in the original message, and I'm not exactly in the mood to try again to get in right now. I may take a look tomorrow. Perhaps. Yes, feel free to restore tpa and put the unblock request there, AFAIC. That may put DeltaQuadBot's nose out of joint. Now I want to be alone with my bed. I'll look at the talkpage tomorrow. Bishonen | tålk 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I can assure you you are now an admin on UTRS.If still awake, will do those things. I did not have a sandwich. I had shepherd's pie. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll give it a good home." El_C 01:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I got UTRS to work! It may be the new setup, but it was actually super-easy. El_C 06:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my mistake and i reverted wrong template. - BeamAlexander (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed; I've already removed my note to you. (And I've blocked the user in question.) Welcome to Wikipedia, BeamAlexander, and thank you for your contributions! Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/961408190 2402:3A80:DD2:E228:2105:7FC9:7A7D:CC13 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bishonen | tålk 16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

He is trying to control information. Example - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/957010944 . This is a communal problem. 2409:4065:E9F:78D1:952A:2B9A:DF6A:8F11 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your account? Is it blocked? Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm blocked for wrong reason. I didn't disrupt anything. He argued with me and created a situation where my edits matched with others. I may be blocked but I'm telling the truth. Facts always remain same. If other editors will try to add these facts then they'll be accused as sock. Logical Man 2000 was my account. Thank you. 2409:4065:E9F:78D1:952A:2B9A:DF6A:8F11 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock confirmed at the SPI by a checkuser. IP now blocked. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which IP, RexxS? You see all the different ranges they come in from? Can they even be meaningfully blocked? Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I blocked 2409:4065:E9F:78D1::/64 who was evading the block of User:Logical Man 2000. I don't know who 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 is, but I don't see that it's the same editor, as the 2409:: refers to him in the third person, unless they are referring to Chaipau, of course. If 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 were to be blocked, it would still only affect one person. As there are 18 million million million of those /64 ranges available, the chances of another user being assigned it is considerably less than the user being hit by lightning three times in a year. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know I know about the /64 ranges, I was taught by the best. That wasn't my point. I kind of assumed the two IPs above were one person, though so far apart in range. It's a little surprising that two different people would find my page — I don't think I've had anything to do with the issue the IPs are both interested in. Oh well. If they are one person, they're presumably on two quite different connections. (Both of them incidentally in Guwahati, Assam.) Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I do know you know about the /64 ranges, but I couldn't resist posting the lightning analogy, as it's easy to remember. On reflection, I guess you're right about both IPs being the same person. If they post again, it's easy enough to block for ban evasion. --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Every morning IP range changes. I can create an account but I didn't because i'm speaking the truth. I thought admins are helpful. I'm disappointed. Dear @Bishonen:, I didn't think i would be cheated in this way. Thank you for hurting me. Will you block this range also ? If you'll block every range then entire city will be blocked. I'll neither edit nor contact you. I trusted you but you hurt me. 2409:4065:D95:23DD:456E:DC6F:7CAF:D5EE (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Your three years block is punishment to some other users. Please don't punish them for my mistakes. Thank you. 2409:4065:D95:23DD:456E:DC6F:7CAF:D5EE (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll make a daily block on your new IP for your block evasion. No problem for me. There are no other users on your IP, so there's no problem with leaving it blocked. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Stay safe. I'm sorry 😔. I'm sad. 2409:4065:E95:CF60:58EE:BD6C:6342:DC1A (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few clicks and ... it's blocked. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your deletion of Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan per G10, I don't think the deletion is valid. See AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Tessaracter (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tessaracter, thanks for raising this. I didn't think Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan was any kind of encyclopedic article, but pure propaganda — I'm surprised to learn it was kept at AFD in February. But I see it was, and unfortunately I missed the existence of that AfD — I should have read the talkpage more carefully. However, the article was deleted on 28 November 2019 for being created by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (in other words by a sock of an indefinitely blocked user), and then it was recreated by another such sock on 27 January 2020. Both these socks, Minicoyamini and Lebronplz, were run by the same sockmaster, Jishnusavith, who had been blocked on 19 June 2019. See the page log and the sockpuppet investigation, as well as the userpage of User:Lebronplz (who didn't get listed at the SPI for some reason). So, I may have been wrong to delete it as an attack page; but I still consider it speedyable per G5, creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block. I don't think a later AfD can override G5, but it's a nice point, so do feel free to take it to Deletion review. That might be a good idea also because G5 specifies that there should be "no substantial edits by others" for G5 to apply. It's hard for me to tell how to call that, because it has been edited by so many other now blocked socks (for instance Perogyanci, yet another incarnation of Jishnusavith), though of course I assume also by some good faith editors. Would some of my admin stalkers, who can see the deleted revisions, be interested in taking a look at the history of Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan? Pinging User:RegentsPark. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like the article was a playground for socks so a G5 deletion is warranted and a later AfD doesn't override that. Hard to see what the quality of contributions of different editors are but a rough look at the history indicates about 10% is added by non-sock actors so my inclination is to just leave it deleted. If you like, I could take a content look to see if there are quality differences but I seriously doubt it and it doesn't seem worth the time. --regentspark (comment) 11:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my own recollection of that article, I would also endorse its deletion if it were to come under review. El_C 12:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, El_C, me too, because of the crappiness and the obvious propagandistic purpose, but I guess that's not the point: we're not supposed to relitigate the AfD at Deletion review. In defending my deletion, I'm going by who created (and recreated) it, and by all the socks that edited it. It should have been speedied after the second creation, as indeed it was after the first, and never have gone to AfD. But we can't have eyes everywhere. Bishonen | tålk 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I just don't see how restoring it for bureaucratic reasons would be of benefit to the encyclopedia, but fair enough. As mentioned at DRV, I think starting it over (from scratch) as a draft might be a good compromise, if there is serious intent to bring the topic up to quality standards. El_C 13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure starting it over would be much benefit to the encyclopedia either — IMO it's just a POV fork of Forced conversion, which has a substantial Pakistan section. We also have articles about Religious discrimination in Pakistan, Minorities in Pakistan, and Human rights in Pakistan. Bishonen | tålk 14:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 9. —Cryptic 13:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen, shalom. I have submitted an appeal to my topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. The procedure requires of me to inform the one who imposed the topic ban, and Administrator Ed Johnston thought that you should also be informed.Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Hope all is well. I wanted to bring this issue to your attention. Recently, there is a user that has instigated a pattern of disruptive editing not conducive to the integrity of the newly formed Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart page. That includes other article pages for Ratchet & Clank (2016) and Ratchet & Clank. I was wondering if you can best assist me on dealing with this issue. Elainasla (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've come to the wrong admin, Elainasla. You found me on your page, didn't you? But that was about something else. I know nothing about games and their sourcing. I suggest you either a) report the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (more fully than you have done here, explaining what's wrong and providing diffs), or b) wait a day or so to see if some other more game-literate admin who watches my page is willing to help. @RexxS and Johnuniq:? Bishonen | tålk 22:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

tl;dr: IP is removing source and content; others are putting it back. I've told the IP to discuss on talk or got RSN if they don't think IGN is reliable. I've semi'd the article for a couple of weeks rather than blocking the IP. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Bishonen: and @RexxS:, the user in question has not decided to continue with disruptive editing after the restrictions were added to the article. The case should be closed now. Elainasla (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, I always avoid violating wiki rules and tries to help improve many articles on Wikipedia with RS. I was really not aware about create space, I found it is actually self Published source. It was my lack of information about this particular source to which i admit mistake but do you think this language is allowed. I added many points into this Arain page with RS and these points are still there. It was due to my efforts that organisation/Culture/Diaspora heading were added recently otherwise other editors were discouraged and were not allowed to add any point there. I think pages are not controlled by some people. It looks like that inciting me through this type of language, people want me to come into troubled water. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the conversation together, I have copied your post above to your own page and replied there. Please let's keep it there. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Gop Patna (talk · contribs) has just appeared and immediately gone on a Yadav-related spree across articles, making identical poor categorisations to the ones Utcursch & myself fixed last week. An example is at Hoysala Empire. Likely sock of Vipinahir (talk · contribs)? - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go out, I'll look later. Unless one of my dear talkpage stalkers takes care of it in the meantime. Bishonen | tålk 12:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hope so. This is not the edit of a new user. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About as ducky as they get. Blocked.--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks Bish for the earlier stuff today. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you may notice I've incurred poor optics relating to systemic bias.[18] Competence is required in any area, though. That'll have to be my defence if there's outrage. Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hopefully there won't be. I once went into a pub optimistically & left it misty optically. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I find it quite sad that critical articles related to systemic bias (such as those about caste-based violence) attract our worst cranks and least competent editors...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ruined a perfectly good Bond quote. I even got to say боже мой. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Bond..? OK, do you want to tell him he changed Doug's text three times and say боже мой? Be my guest. [Bishonen thinks about Bond.] Sorry, all I can remember is the bit where Bond understands his adversary is no gentleman, but on the contrary a low-life Russian spy, because the person orders red wine with fish. How uncivilised! (I do that sometimes — I hate white wine. Anyway, that's probably not your quote.) Bishonen | tålk 19:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, I saw you blocked Izak, so I know you are reading the discussion and I am not commenting on the block but I would like to point your attention to this comment, one which DGG said that if he didn't already comment on the discussion might warrant a block. I would also point out that this is not the first time OID has made nasty comments in this area. [19] I tried to include the reply and DGG's comment. Thanks. I hope you can appreciate how this comment is not appropriate on Wikipeida, let alone during this type of discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sir Joseph. Saying "imaginary sky wizards" isn't good. I don't like it or approve of it. It's very rude. But I don't find it blockworthy. Now that OID has already been told off by DGG, perhaps another admin will take DGG's comment as a push for a block, and take their suggestion; we'll see. It won't be me, though. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do believe in the Sky Wizard, but take no offence at the scoffing of the incredulous. (Not to be confused with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.) --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen,

You had commuted my topic ban[20] to an indefinite 1RR restriction[21]. If you notice the problem started due to the edits of Sangitha_rani111 (talk · contribs) on the Maravar page. This user was editing with bias and posted negative things about the caste with a malicious intent. The user has now been blocked for abusing socks. A review of the Maravar page would reveal that this user has used accounts like Quertonermento (talk · contribs), Ciuterpoytr (talk · contribs) all suspected socks to post negative things even recently. So, I request you to remove this 1RR restriction, not that I intend to edit-war on caste articles, but because I believe I was unfairly punished with this ban for raising my voice against the particular user's edits. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nittawinoda. I'm a little hesitant, as I think 1RR is a good thing that pretty much everybody ought to abide by. But I can understand it if you feel the restriction is a blot on your escutcheon. OK, I consider you a trusted user, so I'll withdraw it. Done here. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]