User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 30

ThePromenader has once again de-archived the two cases asking for my banishment

Hello. I saw your message in the AN/I regarding "strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule", and asking editors in the Paris talk page to stop fighting each other and for editors with more than 5 edits in the Paris talk page not to express themselves at AN/I anymore regarding ThePromenader's request for my banishment. Is this and this not infringing your rule? This is the 2nd time the guy is de-archiving those cases asking for my banishment in the space of 6 days (see previous de-archiving here and here). Thanks in advance. Der Statistiker (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

From 'How to use this page': " or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment."

Both issues were bot-archived before closure. I added nothing to the discussion. I appreciate the intervention in the Paris page, but what of the topic-ban? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just leave it to others. I didn't really see much of a consensus for doing anything in those threads, once you discount the !votes from those already involved as opponents in the disputes, and from my own perspective, frankly, the state of affairs on the Paris page was due to toxic behaviour from more than one side, and putting the blame all on Statistiker would hardly be fair (even though he's certainly been one part of the problem). What I would now like to see is whether you all, including him, can work together on that page without more bad blood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The topic-ban request wasn't motivated because of just this kerfuffle, it was a result of ten years of observing (enduring) the same behaviour (in all Paris articles). Two non-concerned admins had endorsed the topic-ban motion [1][2], and how can I 'leave it to others' if it's archived? I haven't made any serious edit to the article since years; my watchlist only showed me the disturbance there a week after it had already begun, and the thought of seeing history repeat itself yet again is not exactly motivating. I won't be contributing anything to the article until I'm sure all this has passed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ten years"? Sorry, you'll have to be a bit more concrete then. Unless I'm missing something, Statistiker has had an account only since 2008, and except for two minor edits in 2009 only began to edit the Paris article in 2012. His first record on Talk:Paris was in Summer 2013. But anyway, I'll gladly go and ask those two admin colleagues if they would prefer a follow-up on the ban debate. However, in that case, your own conduct in bringing apparently false/imprecise evidence against him into that ANI thread might also come onto the table. Not sure if this is in anybody's best interest really. I'd really much prefer to see everybody just go back to work on the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind at all my conduct being examined, and in fact, I invite it, and there is no false or imprecise info in that case: I was careful to only indicate the behaviour that I had evidence for. Would the version history of the concerned articles have been examined, it would have raised further questions, and I was relying on unconcerned party objectivity for this.

But okay, for your enlightenment, let's see what happens in the article. I've already announced what I can do there to contribute (translate a section from the French FA article), but instead of contributing directly, I'll just work in my own sandbox and keep an eye on how it goes. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fut. Perf., I was about to close that topic ban discussion (with a "yes, topic ban"...) when I ran into your note. So I guess I would like to know whether you're still interesting in overseeing that talk page, and/or if you have any other insights to offer. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, yes, for the moment I'm watching the Paris page closely, and right now it seems the parties concerned are working on the content with relatively little friction. As for the ban discussion, my impression is it was seriously flawed through the amount of partisan bickering and faulty evidence, and I don't personally see Statistiker as the only party at fault in this case, but if you see a valid consensus there, that's your call. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll hold off, then. Yes, it is a convoluted discussion, though the problems you spot, I didn't see so clearly. I certainly don't think Statistiker is the only problematic editor, and I am happy to not impose a topic ban. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Paris talk page

Hello. Is this comment not infringing your strict, no-exceptions "comment on content, not on contributor" rule in the Paris talk page? Der Statistiker (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned no-one in particular, and that message was an answer to the journalist. I hardly see how mentioning documented misbehaviour (and attributed to no-one at all) can be taken as a 'personal attack'. Had the journalist known the whole story, his article wouldn't have been the same - he obviously knows very little about how wikipedia works.

What's being questioned here, the fact of what I said? That was confirmed by a few admins and obvious to all, but by all means, there's WP:ANI. Actually, in light of the mistruths and passive-aggressive nature of a few comments these past days (that motivated the journalist to actually answer them - his only second-ever writ on wikipedia), contributor restraint has been nothing but admirable, but I'll leave that judgement to Sunrise. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment

Still recovering from the old stuff, if you recall.
I'm trying to control myself but again, for some strange reason, I find myself in the usual place, I'm one d(step) away from relapsing into... :)
Please comment and/or ... on this.
Thanx.
Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise, just wondering which word is missing or too much in the text: A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes Lotje (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything missing actually. That sentence was written by one of the best English writers this project had. It contains a creative conversion of a transitive verb ("contain") into an intransitive use. You could of course gloss it as "A box promises to contain something", but I think it works quite well the way it was stated. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense Luxure Σ 07:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Map of Kozani.jpg

Hi ФПαΣ,

This image of SW G Macedonia, has been uploaded by myself to Wikipedia Commons here. I have nominated the file for deletion, but due to your expertise all things Balkan-related, and due to your competence, I would ask you to delete the file located on the English Wikipedia

Cheers, Luxure Σ 07:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Forget about it. Already done Luxure Σ 09:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:UrbanVillager

Curious why you blocked this user since you didn't leave a block message, nor did you leave anything in the block log. Are you aware the topic ban has been reversed as being out-of-process?--v/r - TP 19:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, indeed I wasn't. There was nothing about that on his talkpage. Where was that decided? (And sorry for not posting the block message immediately, I was interrupted while typing it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your block message now. Please see this thread. The topic ban was reversed because Ricky was involved with this user in an editing dispute and 2 out of the 4 commenters are also involved on the Boris page. Which means, only 2 uninvolved editors have made a comment. Not enough for a topic ban. I reversed it here and here. I didn't leave a message on his talk page because I knew he'd be following the ANI thread. Sorry to confuse you.--v/r - TP 19:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's regrettable then, but of course I have no magical powers, so how did you expect I or some other administrator would know about that decision? You should at least have left a note about your reversal in the ANI thread itself, and of course also on his page – it's not just him that needed to be informed, you know. As things stand, I will of course lift the block, but I'm afraid the blame for the misunderstanding is entirely on you. I will also check if the formalities are fulfilled for me to impose a topic ban under ARBMAC instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to impose blame on anyone, and I am opposed to accepting much more than what I've already apologized for in my last comment to you. I'm not sure how a polite conversation has suddenly turned into blaming - it's entirely unnecessary. However, if you had checked UrbanVillager's contribs, which is something you should always do before blocking someone, you'd see another ANI thread where I commented here. Or you could have checked WP:RESTRICT which is where these things are logged. Editor talk pages are not community noticeboards. Messages there are for the editor. I had nothing to share with them. So, as I said earlier, sorry to confuse you, but this was sloppyness on your part. Plenty of avenues were available to you to get it right. That's if we think blaming is even necessary.--v/r - TP 19:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• I just closed an AN/I report about this conversation. If either of you feels that the matter needs to be escalated there please feel free to undo my close. --John (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks. Obvious troll is obvious, I suppose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish block

Hi Future Perfect. I see that you blocked SMcCandlish, possibly after representations by editors with whom he has had disagreements; there's a claim that they've been tagteaming. I'm not familiar with the scenario, and would like to stay out of it. But I see there's an unblock application (sigh, as usual very long). Are you certain that the block is consistent with all of the relevant policies, and is SMc's request reasonable? There's no reply yet.

I get the feeling from a distance that right–wrong is unclear: is there anything you can do to moderate the interactions of all parties, as a more lasting solution? I mean, by discourse rather than admin. tool action. Tony (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon

Is this and the rest of his statement a violation of his topic ban?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I put up a request at WP:AE just in case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

One could certainly argue that Titanium Dragon's participation at WP:RFAR is not an appeal of his own topic ban, and thus he shouldn't be there. The other option is that anyone can do anything at RFAR. I'm inclined to think the first. Do you want to give your opinion at AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've updated my comment, because I see you entered the ban at WP:BLPLOG. This makes it under the authority of WP:BLPSE which comes from Arbcom. So AE can review his behavior and I think he shouldn't be posting in front of Arbcom except to appeal his own ban. Charges against others are right out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey...

I think you broke the C/A Arb page, you replaced about 38K of other stuff.. I'm going to revert you, just add it back in at the top/bottom/wherever :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, you beat me to it :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I was about to ask if you had accidentally deleted most of the ARCA page, but it appears that you did and then restored it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just love destroying things, when it comes to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting ARCA must have been a Freudian slip. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules

RE: this the link to the diff is broken. You meant to link to this [3]. You added a 9 to the end of the URL by mistake. I'd fix directly, but I'm not sure if that is kosher. — Strongjam (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk: Gamergate controversy.
Message added 10:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Something weird happened when you corrected the reference. It seems it was duplicated and no one noticed. Could you remove the duplicate that you somehow corrected when you made the edit too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Gamergate controversy

Protection of Gamergate controversy does nothing but to stifle the development of the article while generating pages and pages of worthless talk page dreck. The last bout of protection generated 500+kb of nonsense and this amount of improvement.

There are sanctions already in place. If there's edit warring on the article, just block them all - there's no excuse for it regardless of sides. - hahnchen 17:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Sidenote

Please do not take this message I am writing to you as vandalism or deliberate inflammation, I am just giving you a link to something which you may find interesting. It's from the Sydney Morning Herald.

[4]

What do you think? Ping me! Cheers, Luxure Σ 11:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your 'comment on content not contributors' rule regarding Paris article

I don't think this and this in the Administrators' noticeboard is going to help the Paris article. And plus it violates the rule you set you. How often is ThePromenader going to open complaints against me in the Administrators' noticeboard? I wonder. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I already notified Sunrise about this yesterday. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment on the Paris talk page, I wasn't referring to some conceptual debate about what the name "Paris" stands for, but I was referring to ThePromenader's deletion of the table by countries/territories of birth, a table which he has already deleted twice in the article: here and here. The table was re-added in the article by Minato ku on November 2 ([5]), and yesterday ThePromenader deleted it again. Now my question is: is ThePromenader going to delete this table a 3rd time? Judging from his sandbox, apparently so. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, when I wrote 'antagonistic', I meant comments like this one the Paris talk page yesterday: "No, I'm not going to cut out the poorer departments and frame the map just to show the richer ones ;) ". What is a comment like that supposed to achieve? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) That table - and I think a road map - were the "Promenader DELETES content from the article, and intends to delete some more" in the article since... I don't know how many years. I noted my reason in the edit summary. Both are back. If that table was really important, that should have been noted on the talk page - it wasn't, I noticed (that it was back, in fact) in the "always deleting" accusation. And for the map, you were ordering me (as I made it) to only include the (richer) south-western quarters instead of centering it as it should be, and that would give a misleading image (only rich) of the Paris region. Please explain why you wanted me to do that, then. Really. Around half of my talk-page participation is debunking Statistiker's disingenuous accusations.

It seems, Sunshine, that you have been blinded by your own decision that my rare periods of intervention are a cause of the problem. I don't really care what the article contains as long as people can improve it, as I know that any errors will be corrected with time, but this will never happen as long as each new wave of well-intentioned editors is being reverted, belittled and bullied until they leave. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

People, both of you, please, stop it. You really, really both need to lay off the constant complaining about each other. As far as I can see, none of the article edits either of you has made has been a sign of irresponsible editorship in any way – we are dealing with an article that's seen a flurry of editing during the last days; it's only natural that disagreements about details may arise, and it's only natural that edits may involve some reshuffling of other people's material and partial reverts – in moderation. All the article edits I've seen look like the results of responsible editorial considerations – things one can disagree about, but not things that are disruptive in themselves. Just get back to simply discuss the content, stay on topic, there is nothing here that reasonable people couldn't work out between each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., for the sake of the Paris article, I think it's probably best you ban both of us (ThePromenader and I) from the Paris and Paris-related articles. I can't see how the Paris and Paris-related articles can move forward as long as ThePromenader is around. If that means banning me too from these articles, then so be it. The last reams of messages on the Paris talk page, if you have the patience to read them, is frankly crazy. We have an editor who knows very little about economics (he thought GDP was the sum of profits made by groups headquartered in Paris!) berating us about the importance of economic sectors in the Paris economy. This frankly needs to stop at some point.
Every section of the article is methodically attacked and destroyed, one by one. We have not even had time to agree on what (and where) the history and religion sections should be, and already another section (the economy section) is submitted to frantic deconstruction. I have edited Wikipedia for many years, seen some quarrels and bad behaviors, but I have never seen such a shambolic article as the Paris article right now. I'm almost inclined to agree with Dr. Blofeld who wants to restore his July 2013 version of the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read the Paris talk page, you'll see that almost everyone there but the person complaining here has been involved in a patient, constructive conversation, and I really get the impression that something has changed there today. There is an increased interest in editing the Paris article, and it looks like this is going to win out over whatever problems there were there... which means that things can take their course naturally through reason and consensus (and that means an end to all the complaints ; ). I only come to the article only after there are problems there, twice over the past year because of an organised off-wiki invasion that, both times, had the complainer here at the centre of it (and a few still remain as 'support'). If you read the Paris talk-page, you'll see that over the past 24h no less than three contributors, even the most diplomatic of them all (not me), have asked Der Statistiker directly to stop his bullying editing behaviour and manners.

I've already taken the fall for other contributors (who were not 'allowed' to complain about Statistiker's bad behaviour) without complaint. I think Statistiker's 'if I can't win, than he can't either!' is very revealing - and the only reason I am targeted like this is because I have been, even though I've hardly contributed anything to the article since years, a most obstinate defender of other bullied contributors there every time I've been alerted by the noise there. But he's wrong: it's not one contributor who's 'winning' there, it's all of them. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to speak up in defense of Promenader; he has been helpful and cooperative with me and other editors, willing to compromise, and careful not to delete content without notice and an opportunity for discussion. I have had frequent problems with Der Statistiker, who has often deleted my material without notice or discussion, has been condescending, and insults and belittles anyone who disagrees with him While I've sometimes disagreed with Promenader, he always treated me and other editors with respect, he's helped me find and understand sources, given me good advice, and explained tactfully things I should correct I think it would be wrong and unfair to block his access to the article. Thanks for your consideration. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This and this and this edit, among others by Der Statistiker, clearly show that this user is responsible for the disruption at the Paris Talk page. I also note in passing that it was this user, Der Statistiker (along with Sesto Elemento), who began an edit war with a number of Wikipedia editors, for example here, over an image of the Eiffel Tower and the skyscrapers of La Défense. It was also he who was highly suspected of canvassing meatpuppets from another website (dedicated to skyscrapers) to sway the vote on the lede image. Consensus eventual swung in favor of the photomontage now in the lede. This user has since then continued on the same campaign of edit waring with the same arguments (based on his personal point of view) he employed in an attempt to save the image of the skyscrapers of La Défense in the lede. This has to stop. Coldcreation (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you accuse Sesto Elemento, Minato ku, Metropolitan, and God knows who else, of being my meatpuppets, then you (and SiefkinDR, and God knows who else) can probably also be accused of being meatpuppets of ThePromenader. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any such accusation. But in their defense, although Sesto Elemento, Minato ku, Metropolitan and Clouchicloucha are all from the same skyscrapercity.com forum, it is not known if they are Der Statistiker's meatpuppets. Whether he did canvass them or not, Statistiker did side with them to try to 'win' that photomontage vote (probably why they were called in the first place) two years in a row knowing full well they were canvassed, though, and a few still stick around as Statistiker's 'support'. But why the BOOMERANG threat when no accusations were made? The idea that SiefkinDR is my (and why me?) meatpuppet is ludicrous. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing any of you has said in this thread is helpful. Please stop it. If you people can't sit down to collaborate reasonably (and I notice there were some positive signs in between), then this whole mess will soon have to go to Arbcom, and I predict that few of you will get out of that without having their feathers ruffled. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

Hi Fut.Perf., just letting you know that I've added the anonblock template to your 159.205.128.0/17 rangeblock as the range is used by people who aren't the intended target and the template gives them some information on what to do. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect move

Please revert this move: [6]. You seem to have misread both the history of the moves and of the RMs related to it. The RM on its talk page concluded in no consensus to move the article from Dutch Landrace (there was at that time no need to disambiguate it). A related RM, at Talk:Aspromonte goat later concluded to disambiguate such articles naturally. PigeonIP pre-emptively moved it to Dutch Landrace (goat) despite that RM and every single other RM on animal breed names and natural disambiguation in the last three months. Anthony Appleyard correctly moved it to Dutch Landrace goat based on the later RM (the one at Talk:Dutch Landrace goat did not at all conclude somehow in favor of parenthetic disambiguation), but you reverted it without cause. It cannot be status quo ante reverted to before PigeonIP's undiscussed move, as Dutch Landrace is now a DAB page (there's a Dutch Landrace pig article now, and it's likely there are other animals sharing this name (cattle, sheep, whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish block

I am trying to see where SMcC made any errors in move requests related to the RM for Dutch Landrace (goat), and I'm just not seeing it in his edit history, or where anyone might have brought any concerns about this to his talk page. Can you clarify your blocking rationale? —Neotarf (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about this, a bit. In this move you reverted a page move SMcCandlish requested as uncontroversial, noting that it went against a recent RM close. That was my close, on October 31, and it didn't end with the page at Dutch Landrace (goat) but with the page at Dutch Landrace and no consensus to move to another title. It was PigeonIP who then moved the page against the close--there is a section on my talk page about this change. After SMcCandlish created the Dutch Landrace goat article on November 6, a week later, it did make sense for the other page to be at an unambiguous title. However, it was not his move (or request) that was against consensus, I would posit: the one page I did move as a result of the discussion, I moved to Swedish Landrace goat, not Swedish Landrace (goat). To have moved Dutch Landrace to Dutch Landrace (goat) only four hours after I closed the move request as "no consensus" with no other articles at the time making it ambiguous was a provocative action, and I probably should have followed up on the section on my talk page. I thus can hardly blame SMcCandlish for his request and would support the title of the page being Dutch Landrace goat per the close. While the fighting on both sides is counterproductive and I have no strong opinion about the outcome, it's hard for me to see what he did wrong. Dekimasuよ! 05:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm now catching up on the aftermath on the talk pages, as I see that this has already developed quite a bit further, but the concern that brought me here was the revert, which hasn't been changed. Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) It's disappointing to receive no reply. May I point out that the admin policy, which you agreed to in standing for adminship, states inter alia: "Administrators are expected to respond *promptly* and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (My highlighting) Tony (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You folks probably haven't seen the big picture; for the entire time SMC was blocked, he made dozens of RM requests on individual article breed pages, in each case asking for multiple articles to be moved, and argued vehemently for these moves. Then within days of his ban ending, immediately moved a couple articles against consensus and then put several RM requests up as "noncontroversial technical moves" and fooled a few unsuspecting admins into moving articles where there was known controversy. The problem here is that there is not consensus for these moves by the editors who were actually working on these articles, nor the affiliated wikiprojects. Plus, whenever SMC is thwarted, he immediately goes on an extensive tl;dr tirade against anyone opposing him (I'm sure he will do so here pretty soon, in fact), generally characterized by attributing motives to his opponents that either don't exist or are a projection of his own behavior onto others. FPAS had an entirely appropriate block. Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I closed many of those moves, too, so I am familiar with what's been going on, and with your position. Pursuing things through WP:RM is a good way to get a broad cross-section of editors to comment on a page move and avoid basing actions on local consensus. In some instances the move requests have shown consensus in favor of moves, and since such requests are considered on a case-by-case basis, it's not productive to preemptively claim a lack of consensus as a reason to oppose future requests. At any rate, I came here to comment on a specific aspect of the one specific case that resulted in a block and, in my opinion, an article title stuck at "the wrong version." Dekimasuよ! 07:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining, Montana; I'd like to hear SMc's (short) response. It's a problem that Future Perfect doesn't seem able to explain and discuss her/his own actions. And that the unblock request went unanswered. Tony (talk)

I'll make it as short as I can while actually addressing all the points raised (a common tactic of Montanabw's is to make a string of compact and evidence-free allegations, then declare any full response to them "tl;dr", as if that made her accusations unaddressed; it's like supposing that someone accused of a crime should only get to say one sentence in their defense, and only present one piece of evidence). First, I've never been blocked before, and certainly made no RMs during the block (I could do nothing but post on my own talk page), so Montanabw's comment makes no sense. I think Montanabw means while I was move-banned, not blocked. The raison d'etre and entire scope of that move ban were for me to use RM process instead of engaging in unilateral mass-moves. Therefore, Montanabw's complaint still makes no sense at all; it's as if Montanabw was paying no attention whatsoever to the scope and terms of the move ban. I think what's happened here is that Montanabw (and Jlan, from what I can tell), have missed the fact that ANI came to the conclusion that, regardless of the fact (as some in that discussion observed even while still calling for a move ban) that the policy and other arguments for the moves were actually on my side, someone manually moving a large number of articles without discussion was a problem (one that I've acknowledged), and that was it. They've sorely mistaken it for ANI agreeing with them that the rationales for the moves were wrong (never happened) and/or that the articles should not be moved (never happened). I have to observe that this tagteam tried to pillory me twice more at ANI/AN for related use of RM and failed both times, being told quite explicitly that me using RM was precisely what the move ban instructed me to do. This is part of what I've been getting at when observing that they're forum shopping. They're using RM talk, AN, ANI, etc., etc., all to try to prevent moves they don't like when they fail to carry the day in RMs, which is the consistent result.

Montana's complaint above that I "argued vehemently" makes no sense and is hypocritical. Was I supposed to argue confusedly and weakly? Montanbw, Jlan, and that PigeonIP guy (who was usually posting enormous rafts of off-topic proposals in "shall" and "must not" terms), argued not so much vehemently as antagonistically, relying almost entirely on ad hominem pseudo-arguments. Naturally, they did not see any of the relevant RMs go their way, not even the one to mass-revert to status quo ante, which is usually a shoo-in. They poisoned their own well, and are now just lashing out. I need comment no further on Montanabw labeling RM admins to be fools, other than just pointing it out.

Montanabw and Jlan rely heavily on the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS fallacy, the idea that the preferences of a wikiproject trump all other policies and guidelines, but all of us here know WP doesn't work that way; RM proceeds on the basis of WP:AT policy primarily, and where it deigns to defer to them, to other site-wide guidelines like WP:NCCAPS, WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSLIFE. Even aside from that, one or two loud people do not represent everyone in a wikiproject; I'm also a participant in all the relevant ones, and I know that no one elected either of these editors to be their RM representatives. Everyone's invited to RM, and everyone who cares to do so will participate in it. The RMs have been going the way I've suggested more than 95% of the time, and 100% of the time when it comes to a) the overcapitalization that Jlan sometimes defends (mostly, it seems, just to prevent a breed article from being renamed, at all, not because the name to be moved to is wrong), and b) the parenthetical vs. natural disambiguation supported by Jlan in principle (i.e. because he thinks it's more correct or useful), and by Montanabw purely to oppose me personally (she said so: "I am basically siding with people who hold a view opposite from my own preference on titles ... because you are bullying them..." [7] - the very definition of battlegrounding). The rest of Montanabw's rants against me are pure psychological projection - verbally attacking me, and accusing me of attacking her, even accusing me of projecting about it! (Cf. the "bullying" quote; I could paste literally over two dozen other diffs with similar personal attacks from Montanabw, but this isn't ANI.) I've gone out of my way an entire month at a time, twice this summer and autumn, to avoid all contact with both Montanabw and Jlan, but their hostility just never ends, even if Jlan's is less tantrum-like; my taking a break from them is exploited as a sign of weakness instead of peacemaking (speaking of which, see also Montanabw urging Jlan to join her in refusing to engage in dispute resolution with me [8]). Montanabw has been administratively warned numerous times (e.g. by Dreadstar repeatedly) to stop attacking me and personalizing disputes about domestic animal articles, but does it day after day, month after month (here's a recent example [9] implying I'm on psychological medication, and it is from the very discussion that I got wrongfully blocked over). Montanabw acts as if completely immune from any consequences of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations. It's time that stopped. That's what I'd call the real "big picture" here: An unending firehose of tagteaming hostility simply because I've upset someone's WP:OWN party, by using proper process that generates discussions the results of which two individuals refuse to accept.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Article titles will be fixed eventually, don't worry about it. The important issue is that a collaborative community must not allow itself to be overrun by belligerence. Have a look at the heat generated at just these admin noticeboards: July 2014 and July 2014 and August 2014 and September 2014. Perhaps everyone else is wrong and SMcCandlish is the only one in step, but after all that drama, pressing on with the campaign was very disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, part of what happened here was a close by an administrator, a move by another administrator in line with that close, and then overriding the actions of the two administrators by another administrator, along with going straight to a block that the other two didn't think necessary. That's one of the reasons I want to get this sorted out. I'm averse to drama and try to stay away from the "heat" at ANI, and that's another reason why I can understand the frustration at not getting responses on this page or at the block. Dekimasuよ! 18:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to User:Dekimasu's effort to get to the bottom of this but also not surprised by FPAS's block, which has now expired. If User:SMcCandlish can exercise diplomacy from now on it will be appreciated by admins such as myself who often work at WP:RMTR and are faced with requests to revert undiscussed moves. Lately many of these moves have to do with capitalization of animal breeds. An especially messy case was Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014. This was opened as a regular move after an editor asked at RMTR for admins to revert a large number of moves that User:SMcCandlish had performed in June and in early July. That dispute preceded his most recent move ban and may have helped to motivate the ban. Due to practicalities, some of SMM's June changes will remain indefinitely since there are just too many to revert. This does not appear collegial. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As some others noted at WT:RM, the main reason to not revert them is that RMs on the merits would re-revert them in short order; the 100% success rate of natural over parenthetical disambiguation in animal breed RMs over the last four+ months makes that clear. Diplomacy: See diffs above; I've tried various forms of diplomacy with JLan and Montanabw, to no avail. The latter I even engaged with in very lengthy attempts on my page to negotiate some kind of truce, and again on Dreadstar's talk page, and it went nowhere. I will continue following RM, CIVIL, etc. rules in good faith, whether others still throw verbal stinkbombs at me or not. People own their own emotions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What we have here is a single user attempting to impose his own view on articles and projects, overriding WP:CONSENSUS of others, whether on an article by article basis, or in defiance of a project's carefully discussed understanding of an issue (which should not be dismissed as mere "local consensus" when there is a logic to the decision that fits the situation) . As you see above, SMC attributes motives to others (as he did above for me and @Justlettersandnumbers:, creates his own guideline" articles to support his views, and simply floods his opposition with walls of text and hundreds of daily edits—a pattern of activitythat, yes, did prompt me to describe SMC as "off his meds" as a purely observational comment—I am making no comment as to his mental health, only using a colloquialism for someone who appears to either work at super speed or to have no need to eat or sleep. I would also point out that SMC has repeatedly misrepresented the position of @Dreadstar:, who neutrally attempted to impose order on a couple of articles by locking them down, once drawing SMC's wrath by locking the WP:WRONGVERSION. Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all. RM is a WP-wide consensus process. You can't keep failing to get what you want in RM after RM after RM and then blame it on one person. I didn't attribute any motives to you, but you're doing so against me here (more of your typical projection and gaslighting). You did in fact make a personal attack that was a comment on my mental health (see diff above); your description of it as "observational", rather than, say, metaphoric, only proves the point. The phrase "off one's meds" has no relaiation of any kind to work speed or focus, but to cessation of the taking of medication. And being efficient isn't something to be criticized for on WP, anyway. Your "ally" Pigeon IP posted much longer RM responses than I did; you only consider detailed response "walls of text" and "tl;dr" when they contradict you. I've never misrepresented Dreadstar. He issued us both warnings to cease personal attacks and personalization of editing disputes between us, and have not stopped. For my part, I've ignored you completely for an entire month until you started attacking me again. I have no idea what wrath you're talking about (what was that about imputing motives and mental states?). Nothing else I can see to address here, other than to observe that it perfectly fits your pattern of continual hostility and escalation. WP:JUSTDROPIT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gotta love it; you never give up; at least you are consistent. You attack others and claim they are attacking you. You are the master of projection and gaslighting yet accuse others of the same. You escalate hostility while accusing others of being the ones who start it. You were restricted due to your massive moves against consensus and in that time tried to move dozens if not hundreds of articles via massive RMs, many of which you lost. You try to create a fait accompli and claim it is a consensus. Here, when you made another round of mass move requests, but through the sneaky method of claiming them to be "uncontroversial" to a bunch of people who didn't know about the underlying problems, FPAS appropriately blocked you. Now you are here to criticize FPAS and complain about how unfairly you are being treated. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"You attack others and claim they are attacking you" is an attack. Do you seriously have nothing better to do than antagonize people? I was restricted to using RM, and your complaining that I followed those instructions and used RM. Blah blah blah. I really wish WP had a user-blocking function like Facebook. <sigh> I'm hardly alone in criticizing FPAS's block, in case you hadn't noticed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding TLAM

While DS has denied links to TLAM on his talk page, please take a moment to review some links that I've posted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. There is subtle evidence that both accounts were abused and operated by the same person. Mar4d (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello. In the Paris talk page you've mentioned RfC several times. I would like to open an RfC regarding ThePromenader's last edit in the article. He wrote this very technical paragraph about statistical methodology at the beginning of the economy section [10], I moved it to be a simple note, arguing that it was too detailed for a general article like this [11], but he insists on having this paragraph in the article itself (see his revert here). Do you know whether we can open RfC for minor issues like these, or must it be about more general issues? Also, is there a board where I can call the attention of other uninvolved editors regarding this RfC? I can't seem to locate one. What we need I think is for new and uninvolved editors to look into this, and probably many other issues. Perhaps instead of one vague and general RfC it would be better to have several more circumscribed RfCs which people can give a simple answer to. Thanks in advance. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No response? Der Statistiker (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I blocked you

I blocked you, but I meant to block another user. I unblocked you. So sorry. Feel free to slap me with a trout. Chillum 08:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yay, and for nothing less than "Abusing talk page, clearly not here to write an encyclopedia"! Good one. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we please have "block an admin day" where we all simultaneously block each other, then all go out for beer? "Clearly not here to write an encyclopedia" is one of the nicest things people often say to us anyway... DMacks (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FP is too effective and does too much work; obviously he deserves to be blocked </irony>. When can we look forward to you running for Arbcom? Perhaps next year. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, no, I don't think I'll be available. Probably will have far too little time anyway, real-life-like. And I really doubt I'd get the votes anyway, too many people think I'm a nasty old grumpy power-crazy bastard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Level heading

I got down to here, feel free to delete this I wanted to do a bit of fun and show the results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Huhm, yeah, looking it up at HTML element#heading in advance might have given us both some hint too... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan's first cosmonaut

Regarding this, I like to know why such image gets deleted and not this, this, this, this, or these?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerns regarding Ayurveda edits

As you know the Ayurveda article has been contentious and is under sanctions. To me it appears that these edits were made despite civil and good-faith objections on the talk page by other editors, and contradict the spirit and letter of the sanctions extant on this article. The editor who made them disagrees. It would be helpful if you could give your views on the matter. I had brought this concern to a different administrator, User:Arthur Rubin, but was told by another editor that it appears he no longer wishes to participate in discussions of the article. My apologies if the two of you overlap. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Corrected diff above, mine was almost a minor.(see Wikipedia:ERA) Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

SBHB, I assume (with Bladesmulti, apparently) that you are referring to the edits by Prodigyhk (talk · contribs). Please fill me in, what are the POV concerns? I cannot quickly find the section in talk where somebody actually explains why they objected against the insertion, and it's certainly not immediately obvious to me as an outsider why that would be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Boris has not reviewed properly. Arthur Rubin had reverted all the way to pre-0rr restrictions.[12] After that, I had posted them for review, see Talk:Ayurveda#Other changes since 0RR for review, only the content added under Ayurveda#Efficacy(related to diabetes) faced objection, but others didn't, we decided that we wouldn't be adding it. Prodigyhk thought of recovering rest of the content that had no objection. He was correct if he made that recent edit after more than 36 hours. He had also notified when he had added them last month, see Talk:Ayurveda#Natural_medical_substances_used-_further_additions. If Boris has any objection, he can clarify his objection with these changes on the talk(page) of article. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

You topic banned DSA but failed to notify him about the topic ban. You might want to do that before someone overzealously tries to block him when he's unaware of the result of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I did notify him [13], and he has clearly responded to it showing he's aware of it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, he removed it. My bad, thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

I think "2012-12-27" was supposed to be "2011-12-27"... I wasn't editing in Dec 2012. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, 3-R violation by previously banned User:Poeticbent

He's removing referenced info on article Czesław Mączyński. Diffs: [14], [15], [16], [17]. I stopped at 3 reversions, after having attempte dto discuss this on talk page. Warning to him and a request to restore info: [18] as well as a request to discuss prior to his removing info: [19] (he agreed to RfC but reverted anyways).Faustian (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would also appreciate your intervention here' or at the article talk page. Basic Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are out the window here in the name WP:POINT, Poeticbent talk 06:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention tot he situation.Faustian (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What to make of this supposedly blocked user?

User:Viktalen. Edit history: [20]. Hard to believe Poeticbent would just make a sockpuppet now, but writing"leave me alone" when removing references to Poeticbent here: [21]? Faustian (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah, that one was User:Wikinger, a long-time vandal; he sometimes jumps into other blocked or otherwise problematic editor's conflicts and tries to impersonate them, just in order to create confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry for lashing out at you yesterday. I wasn't thinking with my head and I ended up making an idiot of myself. I'm very sorry about that. --DSA510 Pls No H8 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR

Tell me why WP:REFACTOR doesn't apply in this instance. Particularly, this bit: If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Tutelary (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request regarding WP:AC/DS

Hi Fut.Perf., just letting you know that I've archived the amendment request you filed regarding WP:AC/DS to here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dari language

I was just looking at some edits to Dari language, and I found some errors in syntax and usage, and was just fixing those. I removed "can be considerable" because of what followed, "can be likened to the differences between American and British English", which, to me, are not considerable. If the phrase "can be considerable" (or "are considerable") is desirable, then I think "can be likened to the differences between American and British English" needs to go.

But then I was looking at the list of differences in Dari language#Phonology just after that. There were some punctuation errors which I fixed. I added one short note to editors (visible only in Edit Mode), but overall, I thought the list was not especially clear. The words "realized" and "realization" are used repeatedly, but -- maybe because I'm not an expert in linguistics so I don't know all the lingo -- that is not clear. The actual differences -- this is the case in one language while that is the case in the other language -- are not uniformly clear. (Some are clearer than others.) I wonder, if you have time, whether you could look at this list and fix it up a bit. Since there have been quite a few edits made recently to this article, I wouldn't be surprised if you found other things to fix, also. CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In Item 3 in that list, it says "Dari, on the other hand, is more archaic". I wonder why "Dari" is used instead of "Afghan Persian" which was used elsewhere. I think that's confusing to go back and forth between "Dari" and "Afghan Persian". Also, I wonder about the use of "archaic" here. Wouldn't "more conservative" be more accurate? CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock template

Hi, I don't understand the effect of this edit. I'm almost clueless when it comes to template coding, but I use these templates all the time as part of my job as an SPI clerk, so I'd like to understand what you've done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Two things: according to the template documentation of {{sock}}, the parameters "proven" and "confirmed" should have the exact same effect (both being for checkuser-confirmed socks). However, prior to this edit, only "confirmed" would sort a sock page into the full "Wikipedia sockpuppets of XYZ" category, while "proven", rather paradoxically, would leave them in the "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of XYZ" category instead. So I fixed that by making "proven" behave in the same way as "confirmed", as it should. The second change concerns the status "blocked". This, according to the docs, is for socks that were blocked not on the basis of checkuser confirmation but behavioral grounds (aka "DUCK" blocks). Up to now, such blocked socks were also left in the "suspected" category. This seems wrong, because a "DUCK" block decided as the formal outcome of an SPI case is considered just as much a certain identification as a checkuser confirmation; it's a different kind of proof, but still no less proof. That's why I think these cases should also go into the full sock category. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see Callanecc has reverted my edit, without waiting for any discussion, which is annoying. In any case, at least the first half of my edit needs to be reinstated; the unwanted distinction it was making between "proven" and "confirmed" is totally counter-productive and contrary to both the documentation and common sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: There is actually yet another annoying inconsistency in the current practice. The header of sock categories, {{sockpuppet category}}, when used on a "suspected" page, says that accounts should be tagged as "{{Sockpuppet|<username>|blocked}}" ("if the account has been blocked"). The same header template, in its form displayed on full sockpuppet category pages, says that accounts should be tagged as "{{Blocked sockpuppet|<username>}}" (if the account has been blocked and "if the behavioural evidence makes the link beyond reasonable doubt"). However, the two instructions don't amount to the same, because {{Blocked sockpuppet}} actually translates to {{Sockpuppet|confirmed}}, not to {{Sockpuppet|blocked}}. So, if I follow the one version of the header instruction, I'm going to end up placing the account in the "suspected" cat; if I follow the other, I will be placing the same account in the full cat. Plus, the coding of {{Blocked sockpuppet}} and the instructions on the category headers are both in glaring contradiction to the instructions in the doc page of {{sockpuppet}}. Confused, anybody? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I also pointed out inconsistencies in the use of such templates on the SPI clerk talk page last month, and it might be relevant to move this discussion there, if you don't mind. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, interesting. Could you point me to the earlier discussion? I must be missing it somewhere in the labyrinthine depths of the SPI page system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It's here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Template	displays	sorts into category	per template doc	per cat header (full)	per cat header (susp)
{{sockpuppet}} {{sockpuppet|suspected}} {{sockpuppet|spi}}	"editor has expressed concern"	Suspected	if not yet blocked	–	if not yet blocked
{{sockpuppet|blocked}}	"is a suspected sockpuppet"	Suspected	if blocked per DUCK	–	if blocked
{{sockpuppet|proven}}	"is a sockpuppet"	Suspected[!]	should be same as "confirmed"	–	–
{{sockpuppet|confirmed}}		[Full]	if confirmed by CU	if confirmed by CU
{{blocked sockpuppet}} (shortcut for {{sockpuppet|confirmed}})			–	if beyond reasonable doubt	–

So here's the inconsistencies:

1. "proven" sockpuppets are sorted into the "suspected" categories
2. "proven" and "confirmed" are said to be the same in the template doc, and show the same text, but lead to different categorization
3. Cat header instructions make a distinction between {{sockpuppet|confirmed}} and {{blocked sockpuppet}}, but both produce the exact same result, the one being a shortcut for the other
4. {{sockpuppet|blocked}} and {{blocked sockpuppet}} sound as if they were meant to be the same, but they are not
5. Template:Sockpuppet/doc and Template:Sockpuppet category/confirmed give contradictory instructions about how to deal with DUCK-blocked accounts, one of them leading to a categorization as "suspected" ({{sockpuppet|blocked}}), the other to the full sock categories ({{blocked sockpuppet}})

Apart from the obvious and trivial fix that has to be taken in any case, of aligning the categorization behaviour of "proven" with that of "confirmed", there are four possible ways of making these practices internally consistent again that I can see:

1. The "suspected DUCKs" solution: (b) redefine {{blocked sockpuppet}} so that it translates into {{sockpuppet|blocked}} rather than {{sockpuppet|confirmed}}. All DUCK blocks (even those that are considered "beyond doubt") will then be described as "suspected" and be categorized accordingly.
2. The "proven DUCKs" solution: change the template docs so as to consistently recommend the use of {{blocked sockpuppet}} for DUCK blocks. These will then be categorized exactly like CU-confirmed cases. The "suspected" categories will remain only for the temporarily unclear cases still under review.
3. The "two kinds of DUCKS" solution: introduce a four-tier system: (1) "suspected"; (2) "blocked" (but only based on strong suspicion); (3) "proven" (per DUCK evidence certain beyond doubt); (4) "confirmed" (per CU). Here, {{blocked sockpuppet}} should be re-defined to {{sockpuppet|proven}}, and "proven" should be given its own description (e.g. "is a sockpuppet, as proven by behavioral evidence"). Levels (1-2) would categorize as "suspected", levels (3-4) as proven.
4. The radically simplified system: Completely do away with the separate categorization for "suspected" and proven socks. Owing to the contradictory instructions, this technical distinction has been used in a haphazard and inconsistent way for years, so its information value is currently close to zero. In practice, whether an account has been in a "suspected" or a full sock category has never made much of a difference. In any case, we should only be categorizing accounts as socks if their sock status is practically certain and uncontentious, so there's no real need for "suspected" categories anyway.

Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! You could probably use the wording from {{sockpuppet|nbconfirmed}} for CU confirmation it so it's blatantly clear, maybe also call it "cuconfirmed" (leaving the current behaviour for "confirmed" as is in case of legacy issues), also so it's clear what that's for. For clarity the main reason I reverted is because the template has more than 100000 transclusions so discussion which considered the legacy issues really is needed first. Also worth noting at User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js will likely need some changes made if the template is changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but which of the solutions I sketched out is the one you'd prefer? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, number 3 is my first preference. At the same time we could probably do away with the {{Blocked sockpuppet}} and {{Checked sockpuppet}} and get a bot to use {{Sockpuppet}} instead, as that'll also simplify matters. Having separate categories (however especially clear user page templates) does help with CU as it gives an account you're sure is related to compare reported suspects with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your assist for User:Bishonen appreciated

You assist for User:Bishonen was appreciated last week on the Freud page. The same previous editor is involved in reverting against two editors again, and I have posted his page for edit warring against this violation involving @ImprovingWiki. Could I ask for you to glance at this when time allows. This appears to be a repeat of the last issue which was caused by the same previous editor.

That previous editor appears to be involved in edit warring WP:EW against two editors including @ImprovingWiki on the Freud Talk page concerning the following edit which has placed him in a WP:3RR violation with his next edit [22]. He has been asked on his Talk page to please stop edit warring WP:EW and to use the Talk page at Freud to establish consensus prior to further edits which would put him over WP:3RR. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a 3RR violation – he only made two edits today, didn't he? What I'm seeing is that you are both edit-warring – some other guy added that diagram back in November [23], User:ImprovingWiki removed it once [24], Almanacer reinserted it twice; you re-removed it twice; there seems to have been no engagement on the talkpage by either of you, although you both accuse each other of not discussing. Or has there been some older backstory regarding this diagram that I haven't seen? I see there is a long history of this kind of edit-warring on the article in general, most often between the two of you. It may well be that in the long run one of you bears more of the blame for this than the other, but just judging from the present sequence of events, I honestly couldn't judge which, and I certainly haven't got any handle for blocking or otherwise sanctioning one of you and not also the other right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Without excusing edit warring by either myself or FelixRosch, it does have to be said that this is another unfortunate example of Almanacer's tendency to try to over-rule disagreement from other editors by performing multiple reverts. I will say something on the talk page soon. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a deleted image

Hi, The image you deleted recently File:Scott Ehrlich at Woolworth Building Press Conference.jpg was reviewed earlier by another administrator and the result was to keep it. Can you check it please?

Thanks.

Happiest persoN (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ronhjones declined deleting it on grounds of "replaceability". I deleted it on grounds of falling under the Speedy deletion criterion #F8, as having a clearly invalid fair-use tag (among other things, the non-free use rationale you chose for it claimed, obviously falsely, that "[t]he article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work"). It also quite obviously fails the non-free content criterion 8, contextual significance, because nothing in the visual information of how and in what environments Mr Ehrlich was standing and facing those journalist on that particular occasion is of any importance for understanding the contents of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)⟩

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Mount Athos Languages

Hi, I see you have removed the languages from the infobox about Mount Athos. These languages are used in e liturgy (and is spoken) in the following Monasteries:

Russian language is the liturgical language in the Agiou Panteleimonos monastery

Serbian language is the liturgical language in the Hilandar monastery.

I confirm these 2 languages are indeed used officially in these 2 monasteries! Been there myself. I don't have proof to present you as documented fact as people don't get anything when visiting the monasteries.

But I can't confirm that the Bulgarian language is used in the Zograf Monastery because I haven't been there myself. However, somebody listed Mount Athos under the list of entities that officially are using the Bulgarian language, alongside Bulgaria and European Union... You can find Mount Athos listed here: Bulgarian language.

Also, aside from Bulgarian language's page, I noticed that the Mound Mount Athos is listed in these pages too: Serbian language, Romanian language, Russian language. That is why I updated the M.A. page, to be in accordance with the other pages.

Note that Mount Athos does not have its own constitution, nor the Greek constitution binds it. Also, the EU laws and norms do not apply here. Women are prohibited and only monks and male workers, including Fire Department are permitted to visit it. Monks of all ethnicities can live here for infinite days, even withjout EU passports. Liturgy is done by tradition in Greek at Greek monasteries, and in other languages in monasteries of other countries.

I couldn't remove languages from into box if they are really recognised (as the corresponding pages about these languages claim), but what I for sure know is, it is a fact that the monasteries have their own traditions, as they are independent from each other, free to conduct liturgy in their native languages. -AuditoreEzio (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the article talk page please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My bad,had to reset android cache to see the changes in article talk page. I ll copy paste my response to the talk page. My apologies, future, feel free to clean this message.-AuditoreEzio (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mount Athos may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• File:Mount Athos (7698222302).jpg|Mount Athos seen from the sea]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion caused problems

Future Perfect, you renamed Surena Soren Suren without redirect, but in the process, broke at least 10 redirects to that title. I went with the simplest solution to this, which was to restore the redirect and tag it as {{R from incorrect name}}. If you want to re-delete, please fix all incoming links first. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, seems I didn't think of the fact that the redirect bots wouldn't be able to fix the redirects back to the old title when I speedied the erroneous one. Thanks for flagging that up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Links should be fixed now, so I guess there's no objection to a re-deletion, is there? You said there were also "off-wiki" links to that target, but what makes you think so? It had only existed for a few hours at the time I deleted it (and the interwiki database did pick up the move back to the old title properly) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it had been around longer. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Syriac people

Hi FPaS, hope you're doing well. There's a longstanding edit request at Talk:Syriac people#Protected edit request on 11 November 2014, where a few new editors would like the present redirect at Syriac people to be turned into an article. After several declines and a sockpuppet investigation, we are at the stage where some of the editors involved have made a draft of their proposed article at Draft:Syriac people. I think the next step should be to send it to deletion review, but before I go and file that, it would be good if you could comment, seeing as you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people (back in 2008) and seeing as you protected the redirect. (However, I should warn you that the edit request discussion is long on text and short on policy comprehension.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, not this s**t again. This has been going on for years, and is one of the most hopelessly entrenched sets of ethnic POV crusades I've come across. Is User:Dbachmann around? He was always the most knowledgeable admin in dealing with this mess.

From what I remember from last time I looked, all these "Syriac", "Syrian", "Assyrian", "Chaldaean" or "Aramaean" groups are not separate ethnicities, but different ideological positions regarding the identity of one single group. Ideological factions within this group's diaspora community in the west, which have been at each other's throats for years, but which, crucially, all claim to represent the same original set of local minority populations in the Middle East as theirs. As such, these articles are clearly all classic POV forks of each other. Just nuke everything and indef any account engaging in these shenanigans on sight. (That said, at a brief glance it seems to me that the current target Assyrian people article has also been mangled, probably by members of the opposing pro-"Assyrian" POV team.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought just blocking all the accounts may be excessive, so I went ahead and filed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 19#Syriac people. Although you probably knew that already from the ping. Sorry for the extra drama! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor Janev again

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Can't move incorrectly created page. New user Counter-Security and Counterintelligence (talk · contribs) has created another Igor Janev article on the talk page. I have moved it pro tem to Draft:Igor Janev, and added the author to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome. I'm not familiar enough with this to know whether it is a case of delete and block at sight. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've blocked the sock and deleted the article. It was exactly the same as the previously deleted version, so I'd guess it should qualify both under G4 and G5. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Christmas Spirit

Christmas and the change of the year are approaching and it came to my noticed that in talk pages of other users, people are trading their wishes, and I wanted to wish you Merry Christmas, Fut.Perf! (Yes, I am aware of our past tensions in Wikipedia, and that this not a chatroom of some kind, so I will be short, and feel free to remove this message). I hope you are well, Merry Christmas to you and all Administrators, and everyone! With best regards, -AuditoreEzio (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Turkic peoples

Happy Christmas.

You placed a protection tag on the article on Turkic peoples‎ four years ago.

• 09:15, 11 December 2010 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Turkic peoples‎ [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (article should never be full-protected for this long. Renewed edit-warring will be met with blocks.) (hist)

Please can you take a look at Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 3#Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014 and Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 3#Changes to statistics by Shqipërisëtonluk. I have reverted Shqipërisëtonluk (in the belief that his/her edits were vandalism); however if I carry one reverting him/her it looks like I am edit-warring.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I've blocked the Shqipërisëtonluk account for a short while, as they have evidently been editing disruptively; can't see anything wrong with reverting them in a matter as clear as this. (Just one content detail that I stumbled over in the data you cited: in the table row for Usbekistan, you proposed counting Tajiks under Turkic peoples; that's probably a mistake, as they are Iranian-speaking.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put the calculations done (including your and the IP's corrections) in the footnotes for the article along with corrections.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Diff request

Please provide diff as requested at [25] NE Ent 12:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing help

To start with have a Merry Merry Christmas. After a long period of absence I am planning to return for a while... WP has changed a lot since my erstwhile visits and I'm afraid I've been creating a mess with ref. no 1 in Proto-Greek language I somehow can't get rid of highlighting... If you can fix it for me, please do... and here's a Gloria with my compliments[26]. Cheers.

Solved it!

Hey, good to see you around once more! :-) Sorry I didn't get around to look more closely into that issue at Proto-Greek language, but at a first quick glance I hadn't actually seen what your problem was. Best, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

last minute heads up

I dont know if you have seen them, but there are a couple of last minute proposals and findings regarding you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink needed on fully protected article

The protected version of Gamergate controversy needs a small edit to add a wikilink so that the article's sole reference to Christina Hoff Sommers (just her surname at present) will be unambiguous and informative. Please see if you can spare the time to look at the edit request at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Christina_Hoff_Sommers:_necessary_edit_to_fully_protected_article which gives more detail. --TS 14:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --TS 16:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

TheBloodyAlboz05

Hallo Fut.. The specific editor refuses any kind of discussion and insists on pov pushing. In Dardani for example he moved the article twice in order to push his pov [[27]] (turned Dardani to Dardani Illyrians).Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw your post here and tried to mitigate the problem by moving the articles involved. I'm not sure if the Dardani village is actually called "Dardani" or "Dardania". I could not find any source for a village by that name. I'm not sure it even exists. I thought this editor was misguided but I assumed good faith in the beginning. This is however becoming disruptive. Feel free to propose any further moves according to commonname. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Good work Future. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Assyrian people new rules

Hi, re Talk:Assyrian people#Warning: New rules for this page, do its talk page provisions also apply to Talk:Syriac people? See Talk:Syriac people#Protected edit request on 11 November 2014 for examples of how this has been contentious. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that page. I would have thought that it should be fairly obvious to the editors involved that this applies to all debates regarding this topic, and in fact I already blocked one account today for continuing the nonsense on the "Syriac" talkpage. Alas, he responded with an outcry of "what did I do, I didn't even edit Talk:Assyrian people?!" Sigh. In any case, Stradivarius' notices on the Syriac talkpage should have made it equally clear to everybody involved that there is no legitimate reason to continue debating anything there at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Another edit request for Gamergate, this time with potential BLP implications

Thanks for helping with this protected article. In another astonishing burst of harmony, we seem to have unanimity that a proposed edit is at worst "okay", while others think it's necessary to remove a BLP issue. Please see this edit protected request. Do please check the current version of the talk page in case there are last minute objections. --TS 16:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Er, looks like I screwed up in the demo edit. The main article needs to have the reference "dlist" commented out in the references section to stop the parser complaining. --TS 17:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Another edit protected request

We seem to have agreement that the current Gamergate draft is an improvement and should be moved over the main article while protected.

See the formal request here. --TS 18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Please ignore this request. We're still trying to get attended. --TS 02:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thumbs-up

		A Thumbs-Up
		Per this 100% accurate comment. I could not agree with you more, and I'm glad someone finally said it. Kurtis (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

rangeblock of 83.10.170.147

Im just letting you know that I posted here about the rangeblock on 83.10.170.147 . I can look up more info when I get home. And I meant to post on your talkpage to let you know what I did that day anyway, but I forgot, so I apologize for that. Let me know if you have any questions. —Soap— 17:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Kunal gurjar

Hi, I realise that it is a while since but Kunal gurjar (talk · contribs) has returned to make dodgy edits relating to the Gurjar community. They've been topic banned before and you were the last person to do so. Since the other implementer (Spiffy) is inactive, I wonder whether you might review this nonsense. It isn't worth re-banning them for it but perhaps a shot across the bows? - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see you went for the nuclear option. That's fair enough: they've done nothing useful thus far. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Closed already. Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Make my job easier

Please don't call editors "trolls" even when they are. You can say something more polite such as "You seem to be provoking others", or you can call an edit, "Needlessly provocative". If you call a troll a troll, they will take delight and troll even harder. If you frustrate them with excessive politeness, you'll spoil their fun. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, having learned the lesson myself in the Historicity of Jesus ArbCom case. He is a troll, and one of the most clever trolls that we have, because he isn't obviously a troll, and he is the one who is clever enough to be almost unblockable. Either block him or ignore him. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You do have Beeb's fuck off page which you could use as a sort of defense, and allow me to say that there are few if any other editors who I can imagine more desperately wanting to tell to do just that. And, given the recent filing at ANI, I suppose you could maybe take that to AE for action. Some of the comments on that user's talk page with Avono show the same kind of uncontrolled narcissism and self-absorbed self-righteousness that made them such a hit during the HJ arbitration. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not consider actually explaining why you have a problem with my comments? And why not make the effort to try to understand what I'm saying? Both of these would be a lot more effective than insulting or disparaging me. And they'd take a lot less of your time. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's too bad we can't see each other over the net. This image I think may well be one of the better indicators of what many of us look like and are thinking when being forced to deal with certain editors. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to see each other over the net, we can use Google Hangouts. Maybe if you saw me, you'd treat me with greater respect. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Good suggestion. More respect all around, and some beers if appropriate. Many active Wikipedians are older and more professional than expected. Jehochman ^Talk 22:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin etc.

Hello, FP, good to hear from you, and Happy New Year. Frankly, I'm not sure what I'd gain by being an admin. What do you see as the benefits of being an admin? or do you see it largely as a service to the community? --Macrakis (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, one thing is you'd be able to deal with vandalism and similar problems much more quickly yourself. Of course, when it comes to seriously disruptive editing you happen to come across, the community's current tight stance on "involvement" often means you can't make use of your own admin status if it's to do with articles in your own field of interest, but a lot of basic everyday cleanup (BLP violations, vandalism, copyright issues, technical moves) are still a lot easier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally, another agreement to update Gamergate controversy

I spent two or three days getting consensus for this. If you want to unprotect the article, that would be fine, too

This proposal to sync a certain recent draft revision to the main Gamergate controversy article. --TS 01:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to be busy I'll ask another admin. --TS 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, light finally dawns. I noticed that the protection expires in a couple of days anyway. --TS 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair use File

I have uploaded a file, File:IAI Ghost Rotary Mini UAS.jpg that was tagged for speedy deletion. According to Israeli Copyright Act - 2007, fair use is permitted for private study, research, criticism, review, journalistic reporting, quotation, or instruction and examination by an educational institution. You can find it at Copyright Act, 2007. Could you review it? Thanks. --Anton^Talk 04:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, AntanO, saw your post here and I'll try to answer your question. Copyright law may permit Wikipedia to use this photo to illustrate the article in question, but Wikipedia's own image use policy does not. This is because Wikipedia policy requires that all non-free images (that is, those being used under fair use) be used only if they can't be replaced by a free image. In this case, someone could take a photo of the vehicle in question and release it as a free image. Therefore, this non-free image is replaceable and cannot be used under Wikipedia policy. (As a counterexample, Mickey Mouse uses a non-free image because the image of Mickey Mouse cannot be replaced with a free image: all images of Mickey Mouse fall under copyright, even if I were to draw him myself.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Heimstern Läufer. --Anton^Talk 10:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure

Hi Future Perfect. Can I also close Talk:Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis#Requested move 14 January 2015? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Walker

I have notified Robert Walker, Robertinventor, of the discretionary sanctions. Since he wasn't involved in the thread that you boxed, I don't know why he requested closure review, unless he was engaged in an activity known as general shit-stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That is, harassing me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Town of Sheboygan Town Hall.jpg

Why do you believe my copyrighted image that I took should not be attached to the Town of Sheboygan article? I took the picture. All of my images are copyrighted, however, I granted Wikipedia permission as I said so in the image upload. Please explain further why you think the image should be removed in English. Asher Heimermann (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for offering your photos. The issue is, however, that Wikipedia has a self-imposed rule that it will accept media only if they are released under a fully free license, allowing anyboy else to re-use them too. Exceptions to this rule (so-called "WP:Non-free content") are only made where they are factually unavoidble, e.g. because a topic through its very nature cannot be illustrated with anything other than a specific non-free work. These exceptions do not apply here. The tags you placed on your images appeared to indicate that you meant to invoke one of these exceptions and that your license offer was meant for Wikipedia only. Under these circumstances, Wikipedia unfortunately will have to respectfully decline using your works. If you want to see these photos used in the articles in question, you could of course agree to release them under a free license, then they'll be fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Involvement

Seen the history of these pages, I find that you are involved with the Indo-Aryan theories pages. Wikipedia:INVOLVED says that "whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias", but these changes do speak of your involvement.[28]-[29]-[30] That means you should not make page moves, close discussions as administrator action or warn others like this[31]. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You must be joking. No. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are calling one theory a fringe and telling that it is not commonly accepted, it was not a minor edit or you were reverting copyright violation/vandalism. It itself tells a lot. Recently you have warned only those users who you have questioned the origins of the opposite one(Aryan migration), and it is evident that you regard the opposing theory as fringe. You had also participated in the AFD of the Indigenous Aryans. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You dug up edit history from 8 years ago, showing I made one !vote in an AfD discussion, which didn't in fact hinge on any opinion on the correctness of the theory in question but merely on a judgment that the topic deserved an article, plus two identical edits from five years ago, of me reverting a trivial piece of POV vandalism? Yes, that edit was vandalism; it would have been "mere" tendentious POV-pushing if that editor had been trying to pass off the map as representing the "truth" about the origins of the Aryans. But he was in fact claiming that it represented "the most commonly accepted theory". That's not merely tendentious but must have been but a deliberate lie – while some people might believe (wrongly, but in good faith) that the indigenous-Aryans theory is a serious academic contender, nobody who isn't completely brainwashed could in good faith entertain the notion that it is "the most commonly accepted" theory. That edit was deliberately and consciously falsifying the contents of the article, and removing it was therefore clearly a "minor or obvious edit which does not speak to bias". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Got that, thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Future Perfect,

User @Sr76 keeps on removing information of a credible source, Simo Parpola, by citing, on the talk page, critics of his works. Just because there are those who disagree with him does not make it right to remove information from the Assyrian people page. Sr76 has deleted numerous points and gives the reasoning deleting "per the talk page," when in fact there is no consensus and he is arguing with himself Penguins53 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

Addendum: 'AynHalo and Shmayo are two users, for instance, who are discussing the unwarranted removal of an academic. As one of them points out, Sr76 not only selectively quotes, but also provides quotes that deal with the link between Assyrian religion and Abrahamic faiths. Please reinstate the edits. I do not want to get banned for reverting Sr76's edits when they are truly unwarranted. He goes so far as to delete the 'population estimates of Assyrian just because it's Parpola's work. That is ridiculous. 'Penguins53 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

Wiki

Warum darf ich meine Meinung auf einer Talk page nicht kundtun, solange sie nicht gegen die Regeln Wikipedias verstößt? User Shmayo konnte unbehelligt den "Arameans in Israel" Artikel löschen, ohne jegliche Konsequenz fürchten zu müssen, während alle anderen gesperrt wurden. Das Problem wird zum Teil sehr einseitig von dir bzw. euch gehandhabt, was ich nicht als gerecht erachte!--Suryoyo124 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please keep this in English. You, just like everybody else, are not allowed to "express your opinion" on that talkpage, because that is not what talkpages are for. Talkpages are for discussing what needs to be done to make the article best reflect what reliable sources say about the topic. This specific topic is special insofar as there's such a noticeable lack of people who are able to get this simple idea. Blocks will continue to be handed out until that changes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: it should be said that it is appreciated the processes you have put in place to get more valid sources on the Assyrian People page. It should also be evident that it is a monumental task it is to get these sources. You need to keep in mind the Assyrian People page was structured to accommodate a highly bias perspective that includes deliberate misquotations and selected references taken out of their literal and historical context. Every section of the page and every line is there to accommodate the Assyrian cause. Any corrections that are made; is like putting a square peg in a round hole. For this reason it can't be cleaned up by academic sources alone, because most of the points that currently sit on the page are so inane that no academic will waste their time dealing with them (e.g. the Genetic Study).

Take the example of Michael the Syrian, that I just posted on the talk page. His Chronicles are one of the most important works in Syriac literature. How many academics are going to deal directly with the "Assyrian interpretation" of his one quote that supposedly supports their claim? 2-3 maximum......no body else is going to bother because its not important. Now consider a less important Syriac text than Michael the Syrian's Chronicles, that the Assyrian misrepresent to promote their agenda. No academic is going to directly refer to these.

ArmyLine logging

Shouldn't that have been logged in the GG case, since it was a ArbCom topic ban rather than an exercise of discretionary sanctions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing. I think it should have been logged at WP:ARBGG#Enforcement log unless it was intended as a discretionary sanction rather than a block to enforce the ArbCom TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Are we now supposed to split up the sanctions logs for the same case into two different locations? That makes no sense to me at all. Of course, feel free to move the log entry, if your clerkish conscience compels you to doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't help it, I've moved it to the case log. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:AN#Block Review of ArmyLine. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Engineer's Country Club Picture

Hello:

You recently deleted a photo I had placed in the article "Herbert Strong (golfer)". Please be advised that I called the golf course manager yesterday and got "explicit permission" to use that photo. I made mention of that fact when I uploaded it, even giving the name of the person who permitted it.

Please un-delete it and restore it in the article.

Thanks

--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that won't work, unless the copyright owner provides a fully free license for it (you said what they gave you was permission "for Wikipedia only", which is not enough for us). Since anybody could take new photos of the place any time, having a photograph with anything less than a fully free license is excluded under our WP:NFC policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about WP:AN

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise,
I was just looking at a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about whether a ban should be lifted on an editor and I noticed that most of the votes came from regular editors, not admins. While I have participated at WP:ANI and occasionally make comments on WP:AN, I thought decisions affecting appealing blocks or unbanning editors were decided by admins, not other editors. Is this a faulty perception? Can any editor cast a vote on these important decisions or is AN really particularly for the use of admins?
I didn't know where to raise this question but I noticed you were active on the page so I directed my question to your talk page. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Message at commons

Hi,

I left you a message at commons (diff). All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Arameans in Israel

Please, could you take a look at the Arameans in Israel article, because there is an edit war with other users. Thanks in advance.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User Suryoyo124

Hi you blocked me and other for editing Assyrian people page without discussing, user Suryoyo124 have now deleted several sections in the same article without even discussing it and he have done that several times before and he has been blocked, why are you not reverting his edits and why are you not blocking him as you did with me and other? --Suryoye85 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dirar Bin Al-Azwar Mosque.jpg

Hello, sir.. i've ask the Pic owner and he gave me the permission for non Profit. here's the evidence:

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/samdefranc/4214867817/Ahendra (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for your effort. Unfortunately, the permission you requested is still not sufficient, the way it's worded. What we need is a fully free license, such as "cc-by-sa", which will allow other people to re-use the image too, for any purpose, not just a permission to use it here on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

An admin help!

Can you please intervene here? The IP user 83.57.166.20 keeps adding unreliable charts to the article, I have warned him and he still continues. And in the end he removed all the charts. He didn't do this once, he does it all the time after I remove the unreliable charts. Thanks! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34 and Wikinger

Hi, i discovered that you created the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger, which i used as inspiration to create Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. There is an ongoing investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34, and i discovered that Wikinger (talk · contribs) sock Viktalen (talk · contribs) has made edits very similar to confirmed Tirgil34 (talk · contribs) sock Kervani (talk · contribs) and suspected Tirgil34 sock User without username (talk · contribs). Could there be a connection between Tirgil34 and Wikinger? I recommend you take a look at the Tirgil34 SPI. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Very unlikely. I'm not really familiar with Tirgil, but Wikinger's mode of operation is quite different from his. However, Wikinger has the habit of sometimes impersonating other disruptive users, just randomly reinserting edits by users who have recently been blocked, especially in cases where I was the blocking admin, simply in order to create confusion, so it wouldn't be surprising if he had made some edits that superficially look as if they were Tirgil's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This IP 83.10.74.195 (talk · contribs) is probably Wikinger. The IP has been trolling User:Tirgil34[32] and the Tirgil SPI.[33] It has also added a link to an obscure Polish forum on my talk page.[34] Krakkos (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Now another IP 83.22.130.239 (talk · contribs) has appeared on my talk page.[35]

Thanks for quickly dealing with Wikinger's IP trolling. On a sidenote, is it possible that you could grant me rollback permission? I've been spending quite some time reverting problematic edits by Tirgil34, and access to the rollback feature would greatly ease this effort. Krakkos (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Engineer's Country Club Photo

I have permission from Engineers Country Club to use the photo you've deleted. Mr. Gold is the club president. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sent from my iPhone On Feb 23, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Gold, Jonathan <goldj@stifel.com> wrote:

No problem

Jonathan S. Gold Senior Vice President Investments Stifel Nicolaus & Company 1225 Franklin Avenue - Suite 150 Garden City, NY 11530 516-663-5422 800-223-8163 Fax 516-746-0530 GoldJ@Stifel.com www.stifel.com

From: Mike Parker [36] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:38 PM To: Gold, Jonathan (Garden City) Subject: Re: engineers cc

Do I have your permission to use the attached photo for the Wikipedia article on Herbert Strong? This is the lovely shot of the wooden bridge with the course in the background.

Mike Parker

Didn't I answer this some days ago already? Please see User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 30#Engineer's Country Club Picture again. What we need is a fully free license such as cc-by-sa, which is not what you said you had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

== Your re-uploading of File:Engineers CC - Roslyn Harbor, NY.jpg ==

You've asked me twice about this image, and I've explained to you twice why it isn't useable here under the license you said you had for it. Instead of listening, you've just silently re-uploaded the same file under a new name each time. This is disruptive. I have tagged the file, one final time, with a "no evidence of permission" tag. Unless you provide proof (via a public link or via e-mail to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org") that the owners have given explicit permission for anybody to use this file, anywhere, for any purpose, it will be deleted again. If you continue re-uploading it again, you will be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I sent an email to "permissions". If you can't find it, then perhaps I can retrieve it. I asked Engineers Club for permission to use the photo and their answer was simple and straightforward: "no problem".

--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can instruct me on how I can amend the license tag to make it appropriate for use in the two articles in which it appears.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not about the tag, it's about what the owners actually told you. You said they gave permission for us to use the image on these specific two articles. That just isn't enough. What we need is a license that explicitly allows anybody to use it anywhere, for any purpose, i.e. a license such as cc-by-sa. If you can contact the owners again and ask if they'd be willing to grant such a license too, that would be fine, but short of that it just won't do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Odd photo/drawing?

I do not know all the details pertaining to photos/drawings, but would you know if this drawing passes necessary formalities for Wikipedia? It appears to have been hand drawn by a Wikipedia editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it formally, in terms of copyright/licensing, unless it is closely copied from some undisclosed source in its details of graphical/visual design, which would make it plagiarism. What is of course a problem, both with respect to this potential licensing issue and with respect to encyclopedic content quality, is the lack of source information (it might conceivably be the case though that it is both (a) based on a reliable source in terms of content, and also (b) graphically independent from that source in such a way as to not making it a copyright violation; or the source might be public domain; in both these cases it would be okay). The fact that it is hand-drawn rather than computerized is a bit of an oddity these days, and you might say constitutes a visual quality issue, but it is not in and of itself against any policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I will leave the issue up to you, since I am not acquainted with the policies surrrounding photos/drawings. Thanks for the information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assyrian continuity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cook. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Marianna Vardinoyannis

Hi

Can we protect the above page, the IP's hopped to 83.27.105.53. Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Small situations

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm requesting your assistance on two minor situations. The first in article: History of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire, a newly registered user is using Wikipedia as a primary source for content. See here: [37] . I want to revert, but I'll be violating the 2RR. The other article: Acts of the Apostles, a IP is changing era-styles violating WP:ERAS. A discussion has been started by the IP, but I know the message I sent won't be followed through. It would be nice to have your input on it, or at least an watchful eye. Hopefully, all of this will be resolved before you can see this message. Thank you and Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting comments?

Did you just delete my comment? Really? --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to remove your comment. I did, however, mean to revert your hatting of the other editor's comments; don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted images/Tijuana airport

Hello Future Perfect. On August 23 last year you pointed out that I incorrectly uploaded images using fair use for an article on the Tijuana airport. You directed me to the protocols and concurrently Stefan2 selected the images I uploaded for the article Tijuana cross-border terminal for deletion. I was new to the process and did not understand the requirements. I stated the source of each image, those that belonged to me and those that belonged to others who had given me the images while I was a negotiator in the Mexico-San Diego discussions. I then requested that the images I incorrectly uploaded be deleted [See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 1#Tijuana Cross-border Terminal. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC) The result of the discussion was: All deleted per uploader request. TLSuda (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)], and then uploaded only my own images onto Commons. The article Tijuana Cross-border terminal was then nominated for DYK in September, passed the review process and the 5,000 viewer threshold. In December, the images were deleted as it was stated they were “originally claimed as fair use, but removed from Wikipedia due to false claims and now claimed as own work" making specific reference to Stefan2 deletion request. I explained that the images involved in the discussion with Stefan2 and that belonged to others were NOT uploaded onto Commons, I only uploaded my images created during the 16 years I promoted the cross-border terminal. On December 2, User Ww2censor reviewed the discussion dialogue concluded “assume good faith” but his opinion was ignored and that attacks continued. In the written Tijuana article, I supplied more than two dozen newspaper references in which I am used as a source including a feature article from the Wall Street Journal in which Mexico's border commissioner attributed the project to me. I was invited and presented the project before the U.S. State Department and the U.S.-Mexico Presidential commission known as the Partnership for Prosperity. I now went through the OTRS process which had a 2 month backlog and was again accused of making false claims by the very Administrator who deleted the images in December, and she again made reference to the Stefan2 deletion request but ignored the fact I requested the deletion. I have contacted Stefan2 to see if he recalls the images and hope you can also assist. Again, the images passed the DYK review process and I was both the developer and originator of the concept as documented by dozens of news references included in the article, all of which were ignored. Thank you for your consideration Rnieders (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing WP:NFCR discussions

When closing discussions at WP:NFCR, you need to keep in mind that the archiving bot is buggy. Unless you substitute {{subst:archive top}}, the bot arranges so that it is impossible to see the reason for the closure. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

For your amusement

See this. Dear, oh dear. Dolescum (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Violation

You recently topic banned User:Bolterc from India/Pakistan topics, but he's still continuing his clueless arguments here. Squinge (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That was quick :-) Squinge (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Neostrada ranges

Hello ;-) I've seen that you blocked some Neostrada /19 ranges because of wikinger. You can extend them to whole /16s. We, on plwiki, often block whole /16 ranges for a few hours. Greets, Tufor (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Having bookmarked the photo upload talk page, I noticed that you are one of the people who can program Wikipedia. I want to thank you and others who make my writing possible.Jacqke (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Vardis Vardinogiannis

I think the odour of smelly socks may be wafting over Vardis Vardinogiannis and related pages, again. See Alfaweiss (talk · contribs) and Loudovic19 (talk · contribs). 220 of ^Borg 03:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Lawrencegoriel‎

Seems to be going into meltdown on his TP... threats about the media, insults, alleging paedophilia etc... cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

G5?

Hey, FPaS, I saw a thread at Drmies's talk page which made me curious. How did the two articles by Darkness Shines (Summa de casibus poenitentiae and Draco Normannicus) qualify for G5? AFAIK, G5 only counts for articles made in violation of an existing block or ban; it doesn't apply retroactively to articles created before the block or ban was placed. Since DS made them with his own account, I would assume he wasn't evading a block at the time he created them; was there a topic ban in place or something that would've prevented him from creating them? If not, then I don't think the G5 criterion ever applied to the articles, and they should be restored to mainspace. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At the time DS made those articles, he was a ban-evading sock of his previous account (now renamed to DarknessShines2 (talk · contribs) retroactively). This is why the DS account was blocked in the first place, because he'd been a ban-evading sock all along. So yes, G5 formally applied at the time. I agree it doesn't apply now. However, the two articles were so bad that moving them back into mainspace at this time without fixing them would constitute blockable source abuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm, that's not what I expected. I guess that makes sense then, thanks for the explanation. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock

Just a heads up, looks familiar I'm kinda new to SPI reports but, I'll get through it if that's whats needed. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolls

A band of the usual suspects from the Assyrian People page, keeps trolling through my edits and reverting them....they have started an edit-warring on the Arameans page.Sr 76 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked the whole lot, including yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A picture I uploaded was deleted. But it doesn't violate any copyright?

The image File:MladenBodalecSinger.png was deleted?

Hello. Even if the image does not violate copyright, Wikipedia's own policies on non-free images (which are stricter than copyright law) do not under usual circumstances allow non-free images to be used to illustrate a living person. This is because they are presumed to be replaceable by free images, and use of non-free images that are replaceable by free images is not allowed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean-related articles

I was just wondering if you're still working on this issue, if so could you please set Mosul and Nigeria if these were ones to be protected under your proposition. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 19:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, "Nigeria"? ;-) I am continuing to have an eye on a number of articles, but haven't found the time to take any radical action (such as stub+protect) on the most central ones. Has Mosul been attracting more disruption? (If it's related directly to the civil war rather than mere ethnic naming and POV lameness, it can also be handled under discretionary sanctions, I think.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mosul disruption has been over Assyrian/Chaldean-related dates, area and the names themselves, remember this, plus I think this article would benefit from not only the protection but, the stubbing of the "Liancourt Rocks" maneuver also . Nigeria maybe not so much at the moment. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in the Athens article

An anonymous user keeps vandalizing the page Athens multiple times in a row, and, despite our reverts and the warnings send to him, he hasn't stopped this behavior. Can you help us in dealing with him? It is the 3rd time he has vandalized the page in less than 1 hour. Thanks and much appreciated. --SilentResident (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A picture I uploaded was deleted. But it doesn't violate any copyright?

The image File:MladenBodalecSinger.png was deleted?

Hello. Even if the image does not violate copyright, Wikipedia's own policies on non-free images (which are stricter than copyright law) do not under usual circumstances allow non-free images to be used to illustrate a living person. This is because they are presumed to be replaceable by free images, and use of non-free images that are replaceable by free images is not allowed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean-related articles

I was just wondering if you're still working on this issue, if so could you please set Mosul and Nigeria if these were ones to be protected under your proposition. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 19:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, "Nigeria"? ;-) I am continuing to have an eye on a number of articles, but haven't found the time to take any radical action (such as stub+protect) on the most central ones. Has Mosul been attracting more disruption? (If it's related directly to the civil war rather than mere ethnic naming and POV lameness, it can also be handled under discretionary sanctions, I think.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mosul disruption has been over Assyrian/Chaldean-related dates, area and the names themselves, remember this, plus I think this article would benefit from not only the protection but, the stubbing of the "Liancourt Rocks" maneuver also . Nigeria maybe not so much at the moment. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in the Athens article

An anonymous user keeps vandalizing the page Athens multiple times in a row, and, despite our reverts and the warnings send to him, he hasn't stopped this behavior. Can you help us in dealing with him? It is the 3rd time he has vandalized the page in less than 1 hour. Thanks and much appreciated. --SilentResident (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible T-Ban violation

I am in touch with your recent actions,[38] TBAN goes on to read "on topics related to the Kashmir conflict and the history of Kashmir". Now check [39], "For Shia Muslims, the Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir which would mark the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali", that red part was added by him. Also consider checking his contribution history. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Saw the block, thanks.

You have got up to 30 archives but your index has enlisted until 29. Kindly update, thanks again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Death Certificate for Dorothy Campbell

Thanks for deleting the death certificate I uploaded. I wasn't sure about the licensing and availability to use that. I had a funny feeling it was not free use when I could not find a suitable licensing category on the upload page dropdown box.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, while I have you here on my talkpage: may I remind you that I once gave you a very clear, very unambiguous warning not to re-upload File:Engineers CC - Roslyn Harbor, NY.jpg – which you have nevertheless done again, at least twice, since that time. I really ought to have blocked you now (I was actually considering doing so right this minute). You never gave any sign of understanding what it means to have a free license for this image – a permission that explicitly covers not only use of the image on Wikipedia, but free re-use by anybody else and for any purpose. Did you finally get such an improved license? I take it the initial permission you had from them was not of this kind. Do the messages you sent to permissions-en contain a fully free license? Please give me a clear answer this time, yes or no, because this is really your final chance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What do I need to do, Sunrise, to get approval for this image? I thought it was approved for use since I obtained written approval. It doesn't need to be in Commons, but just in the Engineers Country Club article and also in the Herbert Strong article. I am not trying to be a trouble maker, and certainly not trying to defy your instructions. Thanks.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I told you what you need to do, several times. You need to contact the owners again and ask them for a release under more general terms, which must allow fully free re-use of the image not merely on Wikipedia, but also by anybody else for any purpose. The easiest way to grant such a permission is simply to say "I, the owner of this image, release it under the terms of the Creative Commons (attribution-sharealike) license (cc-by-sa)" or something to that effect. Ask them to send that to our permissions-en email address. Wait for the respondents at the email queue to respond and confirm they got it, then ask me or some other admin to undelete the file for you (that's preferrable to re-uploading it yet another time). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this still in effect?

Greetings. Is this topic ban, which you notified the user of, still in effect? [40] Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, yes. I certainly didn't have any hand in lifting it, and it is still listed at WP:RESTRICT too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you might be interested in taking a look at these; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and several more. If a formal report is required, I can submit one, but given the orgy of evidence.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, FPAS, if you're too busy to take a look at this I totally understand, but if that's the case just let me know! Vanamonde93 (talk) 2:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

(talk page stalker) I don't see any of those edits as having to do with colonialism, and "history" seems like it would not cover elections from last year for example. I suppose it depends on how broad "broad" is, but if it was intended to be a ban from all aspects of india and indian politics, it seems like that should be explicit. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"History" may not cover last year's elections; but as I understand it, the tban was imposed chiefly for editing fairly recent topics, such as the 2002 Gujarat riots. FPAS would know better, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

DS log

Hello, Future,
I was looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#India-Pakistan and it looked like you logged in at least one recent block for a year different than 2015. It's a bit confusing how the log is divided up but I can not move your entry as the page is locked for nonadmins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

I have asked for an IBAN at ANI due to you continually hounding me, the discussion is here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

I've noticed a long-term pattern of disruption on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson, particularly from the User:Marteau ‎account. He also seems to be disrupting the Elizabeth Warren topic area as well, but I'm not cognizant of the specifics in that case and I've asked another user to look into it. Meanwhile, to head off the disruption on the Tyson topic, I recently archived the talk page. In response, an IP came ouf of the woodwork and reverted me.[41] Is this an already existing, registered account that refuses to login? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Followup: admin attention requested.[42] Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring notice board

There is a discussion about a user you blocked in the past, 156.61.250.250. I noticed you just reverted the user's change at "Year" (but there doesn't seem to be edit warring at "Year", only some other articles). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greece–Italy relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Relations Refer To Relations problem

Future Perfect at Sunrise, thank you for letting me be aware of WP:Refers to. For your information, this page was the original source of the Refer-To phrase, presumably added by someone unaware of WP:Refers to, I don't know how many pages across Wikipedia are using the Refer-To phrase, but I have seen several of them before borrowing it myself into the Greece-Italy relations page. --SilentResident (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's a rather frequent error. Thanks for your understanding though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sr 76

Can you revoke his talk page access? His newest unblock request is similar to the previous one.[43] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Neil deGrasse Tyson RfC

As one of the closers for this RfC, this may be of interest to you. There is a question on the Bio's for Living Persons Notice Board (under "The Federalist (website) inclusion of the Neil deGrasse Tyson "fabrication" allegation." heading at the bottom) pertaining to it's scope, namely, is the prohibition of mention of the quotes issue binding on the entire encyclopedia, or just the Tyson article. I believe your input would be of value. Thank you. Marteau (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's closed now. The consensus was that mention of the Tyson quotes issue was not prohibited outside of the Tyson article. Marteau (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Byzantine

I linked some of the old discussions hoping to show anyone thinking about making changes just the sort of hornet's nest they were getting ready to kick! Don't know if some of us could go through another round of that again. (Heh, every time I see changes made to the top there, a sense of dread kicks in!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Name of Syria

Hello, I visited the article Name of Syria expecting to understand how the country was named but all I could find was Assyrians this, and Assyrians that ! it was funny but frustrating as 50% of the article spoke about Assyrians rather than the name. In addition, I found a source forgery claiming that Herodotus applied Syria to Assyria, while in fact he did the opposite. I deleted most of the sentences about Assyrians and left the sentences about the actual naming and application of it, and I fixed the forgery and provided the source that show exactly what Herodotus said. The source I provided is by John Joseph (academic), as Assyrian himself and a renowned scholar himself The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East. published by BRILL 2000. However, dealing with Assyrians nationalists in Wikipedia is like stepping into a pit of snakes ! I know that I will be reverted and dragged into an edit war, which I wont do of-course. So I hope you could review my edits, and since you have brought order to the Assyrian people article, I beg you to do the same with the Name of Syria article. its beyond my energy to deal with Assyrians/Syriacs/Arameans/Chaldeans !!. Thanks.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Recruitment posters of the Waffen-SS.gif

Hey there. Could you please explain in detail why you delete this image? All the images used are from the German Bundesarchiv who has uploaded most of their World War II collection to Commons. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please produce a valid reason for it's deletion? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You tagged the image as non-free and added a non-free use rationale claiming it was being used "for visual identification of the object of the article" and that "the article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work". These claims in the FUR were obviously wrong (as the article not about these posters, and the posters as such are not object of discussion). If the images are non-free, as you said, then they fail WP:NFCC. (One or two of them might be justifiable as non-free samples, but only if the article were expanded with actual discussion relating to these posters as means of recruitment propaganda).

What you are now saying is that the posters might be free after all. In that case, you need to tag them differently, and provide the source links to the individual items to demonstrate they are cc-by-sa or whatever. I can of course provisionally undelete the file, if you undertake to make that correction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I can do that, but you would need to restore the image first! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me know what you think now. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's still formally mis-tagged – if it's really free, you want to get rid of all the "non-free" tags and get a proper cc-by-sa tag on. I can fix that for you, but I'd still ask you to add direct links to the individual source files. If they are from the Bundesarchiv material, each of them ought to be already on Commons, shouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do fix or change the tag to free instead of non-free. It would take some time, but I suppose I could find individual links to all the posters. I'll see to it tomorrow. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 02:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia

Hi and thanks for your question at ANI. Since the topic at ANI is inevitably bound to descend into a collection of User:Direktor's diatribes about my alleged political leanings which I couldn't care less about reading, I'll post my answer to your question here, feel free to copy it wherever you see fit. The issue at the List of Presidents of Croatia concerns chronology and ordering. Virtually all Croatians and virtually all sources consider the ordering to have begun since the first free election in 1990, which more or less coincided with the country's independence. Direktor, on the other hand, insists on conflating them with officeholders who supposedly led the country way back to WW2, through decades when the country was one of six federal units of Yugoslavia. This is a totally original view which expressly goes against WP:OR and WP:V. In addition, "presidents" before 1990 were neither referred to as "presidents" and were not considered heads of state since Croatia was not a sovereign country, nor did they hold anything close to powers of heads of state or modern day presidents. This was discussed to death at talk page, the claims stating otherwise have been tagged for citation since at least 2013, Joy knows this, Direktor knows this, everyone who was ever involved knows this, and everyone who lives in Croatia knows this. The only persons who doesn't seem to agree are Direktor, and lately, Tuvixer - both of whom are not topics for the faint of heart. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

old ANI summary

I'd really appreciate it if you could read the previous ANI report about the now-infamous list of presidents of Croatia. I think you can observe pretty much the same pattern of behavior from all of the reported participants.

The effect of WP:INVOLVED in this case has been solely to prevent good admin work to be done, because both you and I are applying it in a conscientious manner, whereas nobody else actually cares, or even worse they prefer the lawlessness that this vacuum has enabled.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

This article has been the site of intense talk page discussions. I hope you considered consensus when you deleted a huge amount of content from that article. There was already a discussion at BLP noticeboard about whether to include the man's name or not and there was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not involved with this article, other than commenting on a BLP/N thread. I was wondering why you fully protected the article for a month. That seems a bit excessive, no?- MrX 02:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou

Have a look at his contribs. After receiving notification of his topic ban, and archiving it yesterday at 21:24, Timbouctou's been active on

• Ibrica Jusić, a Croatian singer
• Mate Matišić, a Croatian screenwriter
• No One's Son, a Croatian movie
• Bad Blue Boys, a gang of Croatian football hooligans
• Talk:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where he's discussing Yugoslavia's republic system (which directly relates to Croatia's legal status, and its inception as a republic during WWII as defined in its constitution).

-- Director (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. You, however, have also broken your interaction ban by reporting him here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, we're grown people... I'm reporting him to the admin that just banned him a day ago. I'll cut-and-paste the report to ANI if you're serious. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's exactly not what you should be doing. You are interaction-banned (at your own request, remember?) The ANI exemption to that interaction ban would apply only if you needed to report the other guy for breaches of that same interaction ban against you. Any other restrictions he's under are none of your business at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Right. Won't happen again. Wasn't clear on that point, somehow figured all the bans are lumped together in that regard. -- Director (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps you should make an exception there ("allowed to post a report on topic bans")... Rather an elegant way to have the ban police itself, in either direction. Back at the time of the original IBAN, the IBAN was all there was. -- Director (talk)

Procedural question

Could I ask a procedural question, as you're an Admin I've come into contact with often, and I don't you or I have ever been in a conflict either on the "same side" or "opposite sides" so probably neutral. What to do in case a reported incident at WP:ANI goes unattended and the situation just escalates? Of course it's not just curiosity, I filed a report yesterday I thought was unusually clear about a user who has claimed ownership of several articles (not just my impression, pointed out by several users). [44] Since then, very little admin response and in the meantime the situation just escalates with reported user funnily enough reverting three different users just today [45] and still claim they represent the consensus despite being opposed by all other users both in editing and on the talk page. The easiest thing, personally, is to walk away. At the same, this rewards that type of behavior. Another user point out on the talk page that it's apparent this user tries to wear down everybody else to "win". I understand Admins have tons of things to do and cannot attend to all situations, and that is only natural. But what recommendation would you give in a situation like this one?Jeppiz (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier. I can feel your frustration; in fact, I myself had an ANI complaint the other day that lingered on without action for weeks too. The thing is, given the scarcity of high-quality admin attention, anything at ANI that involves more than a brief glance at immediately spottable behavioral patterns of the 3RR/personal-attacks/legal-threats type, especially anything that would require people to actually look into the merits of edits and content-related arguments, to see which side is or isn't acting responsibly with respect to sourcing or neutrality in a dispute, is likely to be ignored, because ANI regulars are simply too lazy or busy to do that. And I plead guilty in that I, too, saw your complaint thread there and opted to not take a stand on it. Luckily, in this case, it seems that the issue has now been more or less sorted out, is that correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Clarification needed: does "Croatian officeholders" extend to people with some Croatian ancestry, who were not officeholders in/of Croatia? As in say, Josip Broz Tito (Slovene/Croat president of Yugoslavia) or Ivan Gašparovič (Slovak/Croat president of Slovakia), etc.. -- Director (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell out things in too much detail. Let's put it like this: as long as you don't start disputes that are similar in nature to the one about the "presidents of Croatia", I won't have a problem with you editing the Tito bio or stuff like that. Just please don't let me find you getting yourself again drawn into semantic debates over what exactly Tito was head of and whether that makes him a predecessor in office of some other guy today; that sort of thing. You're an intelligent guy; I do trust you can draw some reasonable line for yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, sure thing. Wanted to be sure, didn't want to repeat the above mistake. -- Director (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Block of Retartist

Hey FPaS, I saw you blocked Retartist and they definitely deserved a block. I was considering anywhere from a week to indef, so a month is fine with me. But one thing, the block appears to be a normal admin block, and not an AE block, which is a different category and is cataloged and handled a bit differently. Would you consider making your block an AE block? Thanks... Zad68 14:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I forgot I should probably log it somewhere. Let me just go and see where that log has moved to this month; I keep losing sight of it these days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I think after putting the entry in the log you need to: modify the AE close to reflect that there was a formal AE action taken in the form of an AE block (feel free to modify my close), put a formal AE sanction notice on their User Talk (I think {{Uw-aeblock}} is the right one), and re-block with a note that it's an AE block in the block message. Zad68 15:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, are you sure I don't also have to send in verified copies in triplicate to the Foundation and to Jimbo? :-) Seriously though, the talkpage notification is moot, since the guy has already acknowledged he's seen it and understood the reason, and was told about the appeal process already when the topic ban was imposed. The block log entry is fine as it is, and as for the AE closure note, if you think it should be in there, wouldn't it have been up to you to include it when you made the close in the first place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Also make sure you read WP:NOTBUREAU to remind yourself that it's not a bureaucracy. It just isn't! Policy says so, so that's settled. I didn't note in my close that the block was an action that happened as a consequence of the AE request because the block wasn't marked as such, but I'll modify the close, no problem. My only real hang-up is marking the block itself as an AE block. When I'm reading through stuff at AE I do look at the block logs of those involved to see whether they've received any AE blocks before, because some ArbCom case resolutions give specific instructions about escalating block lengths, so I have to know if they've ever been blocked under that ArbCom ruling before. Also, some other admin might see the block and not know it's an AE block that cannot be unblocked without going through Arb rigamarole. If you'd rather not bother, would you might if I redid your block (same parameters) and just marked that it's an AE block? Zad68 16:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: Fut perf is correct, if you reblock as AE block, systematically it would count as 2 blocks and it can be disparaging for the editor. Keep it as it is, it says enough. Have his usertalk page watchlisted for a month so that you would know if someone is going to undo the block or not. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, nah, because some non-human algorithm might report a higher number than it should isn't a compelling reason to avoid giving admins correct, descriptive information in a block log. Anybody who's making decisions based on a number instead of actually reviewing the log entries shouldn't be doing whatever they're doing, block logs have LOTS of errors in them (look at mine!). Zad68 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo note

Hello FPaS, I have followed the thread at Talk:Kosovo#Redundant_note and see that you are an admin. I see from the posts that the note is usable and there are times that it is redundant. Earlier I made this very edit[46] but you'll see from the previous edit that the note was already in place, it simply lacked the cross-reference. In your opinion, would you say this is correctly applied or is this an example where it is not required? Personally I confess to having thought it belongs everywhere there is reference to modern-day Kosovo (except the article of course per your removal). If I am mistaken, can you give me an analysis as to where I should not insert the note for future reference? Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Denizeryuruk, who you may be able to help

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, my name is Howicus. I don't think we've interacted before, but I recognized your username on Category:User tr-2. Today, I ran into User:Denizeryuruk. This user has repeatedly created Turkish-language pages on the English Wikipedia about topics already covered on English Wikipedia. I messaged them in English, but they don't seem to realize that they're in the wrong place. I would appreciate it if you could send them a message in Turkish, letting them know that they should be writing at the Turkish Wikipedia and not here. Thanks, Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Sorry if I am being too blunt, but the current version violates WP:NPOV and is an attack page against Paul Nungesser. Could you please unlock the page especially since recent sources have surfaced favoring Nungesser. In terms of neutrality, we must go by legal and investigative sources. The only formal investigation conducted by Columbia dismissed Sulkowicz's case. She failed to provide any physical evidence circumstantial evidence provided by both parties in the form of texts and Facebook favor Nungesser. [47] The tone of this article suggest Sulkowicz is victim of misjustice and a survivor when in fact sources and investigation state otherwise. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming nonsense at Liancourt Rocks dispute

[48], [49] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

trout

loved your trout comment at the HiaB AE. Being required to provide proof of eating an actual trout is an excellent idea. I'm a member at a different site that requires you to log in once every X days to keep your account. Users are given one "free" re-activation, but if they want to re-activate after that, they are required to post a video of themselves foolishly dancing to youtube so that they may be mocked before returning. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Arnhem 96?

Today I got to remember Werieth, from this talk page, where I've been pinged. I also remembered the ANI,[50] where checks had been made and the SPI where you had pointed those who are socking against Betacommand. I find this IP to be similar to Arnhem 96.[51][52] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you think?

I'm involved in reverting 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs) at Common Era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't know if given the three blocks if you think anything needs to be done. I'm not going to be concerned too much about it though. Block, protect, or ignore. Your judgement, your choice. Doug Weller (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the marvelous answer you gave User:Sitush at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Problem_with_citation Your effort uncovered a subtle, but nasty bug in the "et el." parser. This is a perfect example of the occasional potent usefulness of the Help:Questions page. Now Wikipedia will work a tiny bit better, and the Sitush with be able to edit that article.

All the best, Nick Beeson (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User Muffi blocked again

FYI, I just issued two weeks of arbitration enforcement block because Muffi resumed his edit warring at Kosovo. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User vandalizing Motto of the EU multiple times

Despite the efforts of the people, an anonymous user with the IP 142.255.102.125 keeps vandalizing the article about the Motto of the European Union, by changing the translations of the "United in Diversity" moto into "United in Unemployment". So far his vandalism have the characteristic of crude humor or fun. he has done this 3 times and when we have his edits reverted, he re-reverts them back. It may need the attention of moderators if he keeps this behavior. Thanks --SilentResident (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning?

You warned me for edit-warring; I am not edit-warring, I am trying to stop an edit war. I'm confused about which edits are edit-warring, as I have been discussing this issue at Talk:Newar language#Reverts over dead link. Ogress _smash! 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Like, seriously, this and this are an edit war? The first one - the second revert - the user literally says "No need for that. As a Nepalbhasa speaker myself (my mother-tongue) I can tell you we speak no words of Portugese or Spanish.)", where 'that' is "discussion at talk". Ogress _smash! 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist IP troll

Hi, FPAS. How are you these days? I wonder if you could help us out. One Thousand and One Nights has been plagued by a persistent nationalist IP troll 93.110.97.47 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserting a Persian title in the first line. There have been many talk page discussions in the past which determined this was irrelevant as the book may have had distant Iranian origins but the existing work was only translated into Persian under that title from Arabic in the 19th century. I and other users such as User:Soundofmusicals keep reverting the IP but it keeps coming back. Requests that the user should communicate with us have met with no reponse.

There is firm evidence elsewhere that the IP is an ethnic POV-warrior. It was blocked on French Wikipedia yesterday for messing about with their Nowruz article.

Could you either block the IP or semi-protect the One Thousand and One Nights page?

(I've mostly given up on dealing with ultra-nationalist idiots these days so I'm a little out of practice with this kind of thing). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight

Hi FP, the protection you added to the above expires on 3 June. Several people, including anons, have expressed strong views on talk and suggested BLP violations for the article. Can you restore semi-protection when full protection expires, and would you consider adding PC2, per IAR? The trouble at the article is likely to continue. The accused student has filed a lawsuit, which details the other party's alleged sexual history, and lifts a Facebook message out of context to make it seem that she suggested the act that she alleges happened. Someone is likely to add those details to the article, and in response BLP violations against the accused are likely too. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah (SV) that continued protection could be helpful. The article has really benefited from only allowing protected edit requests. Even recently, there have been multiple editors on talk page expressing interest in adding POV text stating explicitly that this is a false accusation of rape based on op-ed's, blogs and/or personal opinion. The accused student has released snippets of Sulkowicz's text messages out of context. At some point prior to the alleged assault one was apparently sent that reads "fuck me in the butt" which Sulkowicz said was just an expression Freshman year to mean "I'm so annoyed" [53], but it's been picked up by men's rights blogs etc out of context as proof Sulkowicz is lying. I think as soon as protection is removed, the article is going to be bombarded with BLP violations.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for uncontroversial move and check on an AfD

It seems like the article title Aorsen is the German name for that people. The title should be the Latin name Aorsi, or perhaps the Greek Aorsoi, as they were mentioned by Strabo in the Greek-language work Geographica. Could you also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn? The article raises some concerns which deserves the attention of a knowledgeable admin. Krakkos (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

India-Pakistan

You might know this and I can't find info on it quick, is the India-Pakistan mess under discretionary sanctions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, WP:ARBIPA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

required notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

re: repeated rapid hatting and sanctions threats Handpolk (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

GGC

Hi. This is my first experience with 'hatting' so I don't know how this works. I see you closed the discussion because you feel it won't lead to any change. I respectfully disagree with that decision. Am I allowed to re-open it? If not, who is?

I suspect the answer to that is you. If so, here is my appeal: It was a brand new discussion, only hours old -- and there was no consensus yet, nor an attempt to reach one. It could have gone either way actually. We were still working things out. Still establishing and defining the problem. It seems very premature to declare nothing useful would come of it, without even giving it a chance. Would you please consider re-opening it for at least a couple days?

If the answer to that is no -- what steps can I take from here to get it reopened? Thanks Handpolk (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:DAOHATTHOD says to leave the discussion open until it's natural conclusion, for exactly the reasons I listed above. Handpolk (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: FYI that's an essay, not a policy or guideline. Some essays have wide support, others don't. You'll often find essays that are in direct opposition to each other. — Strongjam (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. In the future should I note 'this is an essay, not a police or guideline. Some essays have wide support, other's don't.' So people don't feel the need to pedantically point that out? Handpolk (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly caution you against pushing further towards re-opening it. A thread that was essentially arguing that "pro-Gamergate" and "anti-Gamergate" viewpoints should be given equal weight in the lead, as if these two kinds of viewpoints were just a matter of taste comparable to an issue like "is Coke better than Pepsi", has not a snowball's chance in hell of reaching any positive outcome. The "consensus" here is exactly what people told you in their replies: we don't do that, because there simply is no significant body of published opinion in reliable sources that supports any such "pro-Gamergate" side. You may not like this answer, but that doesn't change the fact that it is all you're going to get here. This has been debated to death, for months and months, and if you were to insist on having it debated yet further now that would be seen as a sign of disruptive "I didn't hear that" filibustering and would lead to sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And I note the canvassing spam on his own TP- now removed as per TPG. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And this precise situation, which has been repeated over and over again, is why inexperienced accounts are now prevented from editing the talk page and article...they are unfamiliar with their histories.

Handpolk, I recommend you browse through the vast talk page archives to see previous discussions. You'll see arguments that are almost identical to the one you posed although the Coke vs. Pepsi mixed-up analogy was new. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi What 'canvassing spam' are you referring to? I put nothing of the sort on my talk page. Please backup your claim or apologize and retract it. Handpolk (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your request for an apology would have carried more weight if you hadn't just talked about another editor like this: You're not supposed to accuse people of being socks so I won't say that he is the most obvious sock that I've ever seen. I didn't say it. diff Except you do say it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What you just showed is a before and after of me learning from my mistake. Thank you for pointing that out. And just as I won't be accusing others of things they didn't do again - I expect them not to do it to me. Handpolk (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, Thank you for your response. Your threat of sanctions for continued disagreement on this issue has been noted. Now I see why all of the banned and blocked editors are from the pro-GG side. They are told to shut up and and sit down or get sanctioned. Ironically, if they didn't all get sanctioned they'd probably have consensus themselves. Smells a lot more like Attrition warfare than building an encyclopedia, to me. Handpolk (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So, I'm guess this opinion is no longer held by you, Handpolk: I'll start by saying that I am as neutral and objective on this topic as one could possibly be. I don't even understand it well enough to know if I support one side or the other. I am not a gamer or a journalist. I have no horse in this race. I heard about Gamergate and came here to learn more about it. My interest here is simply as a Wikipedian who likes articles to be neutral. Or this one: I'm not on either side. If the ggers had consensus, I'm quite certain I would strongly disagree with their version of the article. I'm on the side of Wikipedia. Of neutral, unbiased articles. Or right here: I have no bias or agenda. Unless you call wanting neutral and unbiased articles a biased agenda. I agree with both sides of this on many things. It seems like you have definitely taken a "side". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no side on the controversy itself. I have said that repeatedly and it has not changed. I am on the side of Wikipedia. And if Wikipedia is manipulated to allow a War of attrition against one side of consensus, I am going to point that out and do what I can to prevent it. Handpolk (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: It's clear to everyone that there is a war of attrition going on with endless zombie and sock accounts coming in a proclaiming their "neutrality" and going on and on and on about how the article isnt "fair" or "neutral" and about how those "professional victims" are being accepted and attempting to WP:CRUSH editors who are trying vigilantly to correctly report what the sources say and whinging about how the admins have not been fair in blocking so many more accounts that push the GG point of view than any other. Its good to see that as one of your first steps up from baseline zero knowledge about the subject is to understand this perspective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The war of attrition occurs when you ban all noobies, leaving only the established editors. And then ban all GG supporters, leaving only anti-GG people -- who then write whatever article they want.

I can understand why people assume and accuse me of being a gamergater given the history. Put yourself in my shoes and wonder how pissed off that would make you if you were not. I am not. As hopefully further evidence of this, I am coming around to the argument that neutrality doesn't mean both sides are presented equally. I think the media are biased on this but I doubt there would be consensus for that. So I am going to shift my focus to improving the article in other ways. Such as not editorializing. Handpolk (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No one - and I mean no one - believes you about this, about you being 'neutral'. No one. You've got your own subreddit where you call people "SJW shills". That's decidedly not neutral language. You'd probably earn more respect by at least being honest about your intentions.--Jorm (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you do a poll on whether I was acting in good faith that I'm not aware of? Can I see the results where it showed 100% of people thought that I was acting in bad faith, as you claim? If not, please retract your accusation. And stop making personal attacks on me and accusing me of lying or you will be reported. Familiarize yourself with WP:AGF if you've forgotten it. Handpolk (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, would you seriously consider Masem and Chrisrus to be anti-GG people? They are active on the article talk page which I think you should read over before you make these sweeping, inaccurate statements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what sweeping statements you are referring to. I was talking about myself, not other editors. Your history of constantly misinterpreting my words and attacking arguments I never made (straw man) makes it very difficult to assume good faith. Handpolk (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask everybody involved to take this discussion elsewhere please; I don't really need this on my talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Here we have a situation where hatting would clearly be appropriate but you ask us nicely to move the discussion (to where, I have no idea. If we did this on GGCTalk you would hat it). Yet on the talk page you instantly hat or threaten to hat where letting the discussion continue would be appropriate. Your actions deeply confuse me. Handpolk (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is more the bias in the sources than in ourselves. We are asking journalists to report on their own payola scandal when they can so easily make it a tale of about harassment. This is not to belittle the problem of biased Wikipedians, however, that is a serious problem there. If the GamerGate side can get something published somewhere at the high level of WP:RS, I promise to try to give it a fair summary in the article, although it's clear that means I'll be attacked by zelots. In the meantime, there's little I can do, but I invite you gamergate supporters to bring anything you've got to me and I promise to listen and see what I can do. Chrisrus (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked you all nicely to take it elsewhere. Do I have to be more blunt? Get the fuck out of here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Truce?

I doubt that the two of us will ever agree regarding our recent dispute, so can we at least agree to both just walk away from it and move on to other, more productive things? I am pretty much finished with the religion/infobox corrections (roughly 600 removals, all accepted by the editors of the pages in question. one still being discussed) and am currently working on "for for" errors (example: Tank Battalion (film) says "The score is largely based upon Debussy's Three Nocturnes for For Orchestra", and there are roughly a hundred more for me to fix). I would prefer to get on with that effort rather than spend any more time fighting with you. So can we both agree to call a truce and walk away from this before it gets really ugly? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to walk away from. I gave you an administrative warning. That warning stands and is valid. If you have no intention of editing further in the area, there will be nothing further for us to deal with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This:[54][55][56][57] is not "an administrative warning". It is a content dispute, and you are at 2RR. You are clearly WP:INVOLVED and thus are required at this point to let other administrators deal with any behavior issues as they see fit. So once again I ask, regarding the content dispute, are you or are you not willing to walk away, or do I have to bring your behavior up at ANI and, if necessary, arbcom? It's a simple thing; leave me alone as an administrator (which you are requited to do now that you are involved) and leave me alone as an editor regarding our content dispute over the RfC I posted. Please, just let it go, stop editing my RfC, and accept my offer of a truce between us. Or post a clear refusal to do so (nobody is trying to force you to drop it; this is a polite request that you do so voluntarily) so that I can take this issue to the appropriate venues. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not "involved" in any dispute with you. You disrupted the RfC process by improperly posting your own editorializing notes on top of the closure; I cleaned up the page to restore proper process in my capacity of an uninvolved administrator, and I'm also now warning you not to continue messing with that page in this way. I have no idea what you are getting so hung up about anyway; if, as you say, your editing about the "religion" parameter has reached its conclusion, then the matter is settled in any case. The only party that has anything to "walk away" from is you, and you just claimed you already had, so what else is there to discuss? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will take that as a "no" and pursue this matter in other venues. Unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As an admin who is wholly uninvolved in this I can say that removing an giant bold ALL CAPS with exclamation marks!!! comment at the top on an RFC is a fairly normal thing to do. I don't see how this makes Fut involved on any sort of content dispute. We don't let individuals frame debates by putting shouting messages at the top, we try to present these things in a neutral fashion. Chillum 13:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

AN/I... for about the tenth time?!

You've probably had enough of 'your' thread at AN/I, but just wondered whether you've seen this? Patent nonsense, of course, but I wonder whether it's our friend logged out- his last TP edit summary suggests as much. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Potočnik (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolving the POV of the Assyrian People page

Resolving the long running issue of edit-warring and disputes. Let me know your thoughts.

Time line of existing appellations

Ancient Period: ancient names regardless of historical and political persuasion are: Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans
Christian Period: Syriac
Modern Period:
1600s Vatican give the break-away group from the Nestorians the title "Chaldeans" as a religious designation. (They continue to called themselves Suraya - Syriac)
1860s introduction of the name Assyrian (They continue to called themselves Suraya - Syriac)
1950s regenesis of the name Aramean as a means to combat Assyrianism, the name Aramean was mainly considered a Synonym for many Syriac scholars (They continue to called themselves Suryoyo - Syriac)

My Solution
Change the name of the article to the following:
"Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)"

This will refer to the common Christian period. Leaving the Arameans,Assyrians and Chaldeans pages to refer to the ancient peoples.

The page should reflect on the common name (Syriac) that is not contentions, but then refer and explain the 3 politically-national designations that all happen to be labeled based on the ancient names.

Currently the page name Assyrian is not only disputed but is the reflection of the one political ideal. That leads to offence and disputes and to put it simply it is historically incorrect. Please see the below link of what the name Suryoyo actually translates to in the European languages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Bilingual_Dictionary_Definitions_of_the_words_Syriac_and_Assyrian

Reasoning
The name Syriac (Suryoyo) is accepted by all the Arameans, Assyrians and Chaldeans.
All Christian Churches from the near east trace their origins to Syriac tradition including the Maronites (how can people that far west be Assyrian's?), all have a Syriac Aramaic liturgy.

Syriac avoids the complex historical issues and the problem of people promoting their own political ideologies. Since every ideology does not deny the Syriac identity. What an individual considers his ancient ancestors becomes irrelevant, since the term Syriac only came to be used by the Syriacs themselves during the Christian period. Naming the page Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans) causes little historical contention. This also makes finding sources and references for the page very simple and compliant with the academic consensus.

Right now, none of the page has any valid sources, because Assyrian history since the fall of Ninveh in 615BC was simply made up by the modern-Assyrians that got their name in the 19th cenurty.

Calling the page "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" is verifiable, Non Original research and Neural view point.

Calling the page "Assyrian People" falls short on all fronts is not-verifiable, not-Non Original research and not-Neural view point.

Changing the name to "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" would comply with the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Current Ambeguety.
The page being called Assyrian people does not distinguish between the modern-Assyrians and the ancient-Assyrians, naturally this happens to be the ideological agenda of the modern-Assyrians.

The current academic consensus considers the modern-Assyrian identity to be introduced by Western Missionaries during the 19th century A.D and any ancestral connection between the two, to be "hog wash".
The widely criticized Simon Parpola is the "only academic" that supports the claims of the modern-Assyrian's ancestry, please see the following sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Origin.27s_of_today.27s_Assyrian_Identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Reference_-_Simon_Parpola

The Synonymity issue becomes a void argument.

Weather synonymity of the word Syriac is with Aramean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Syrian.2FSyriac_synonyms_with_Aramean) or the word Syriac is Synonymous with Assyrian, with my proposal either answer becomes irrelevant. What do i mean by this:

If the Assyrians are correct, and word Syriac means Assyrian then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Assyrian people? Any objection is politically driven.
If the Arameans are correct, and word Syriac means Aramean then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Aramean people? Any objection is politically driven.

By doing this Wiki-Admin can easily identify ideological and political POVs being inserted into Wikipedia pages.

The St Ephram the Syrian example
St Ephram called the Assyrians "Filth".
He also refered to "our nation Aram-Nahrin".
His contenporaries called him "Aramean" and "the crown of the Arameans"

It is impossible to look up any refence that refers to St Ephram as an Assyrian and yet St Ephriam the Syrian is displayed on the Assyrian People page as an Assyrian. The ONLY way St Ephriam can be an Assyrian is to accomodate a political POV of the modern-Assyrians. The current page.

Consistency with Academic Sources
Wikipedia has become inconsistent with the academic sources. Right now looking at Wikipeadia would send someone in a direction of complete confusion. Even the further reading section of the page, does not match the content of the page, the Saint Ephriam example above.

Sr 76 (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An hypothesis

Sorry I added a few words on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language before noticing you had closed the discussion. Do you want me to take them out? I am happy with your conclusion. Also, sorry I seem to have started it in the wrong place - mea culpa. Myrvin (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Darkness Shine's original IP is still unblocked and active, despite the SPI that was filed. Mar4d (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you check if these two are DS [58] [59]. They're reverting in what DS' sock added [60]. Mar4d (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• You blocked this IP previously as DS sock. He's back. Mar4d (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock

You blocked Tejas MRCA[61] but he is returned with another account TejasAnand[62]. Both of them are apparently socks of Nangparbat. Thank you. --Human3015 knock knock • 09:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Are they really? I haven't looked too closely yet, but I was under the impression that they were advocating opposite viewpoints? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New Tejas is also a disruptive editor, he created account User:Tag Teaming. --Human3015 knock knock • 09:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question, while opening up a new one: why do you think Tag Teaming is a sock of "Tejas" (and of which of the two "Tejas" accounts, if they aren't the same)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tag Teaming is most probably Darkness Shines. Nangparbat is pro-Pakistan and would never create an AN/I-report against other Pakistani editors, as Tag Teaming did. And the two Tejas accounts are most probably socks of two different users, one pro-India and one pro-Pakistan (see this edit where TejasAnand removes a !vote by Tejas MRCA on Talk:Kargil War). Editors/socks on both sides in the conflict make some "trick" edits, though, occasionally reverting people on their own side to make it harder to see which side they're on. Thomas.W ^talk 10:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

TejasAnand created the user page User:Tag Teaming with the notation "Obvious sock account" but I don't think they meant that it was their own sock account but was someone else's. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So TejasAnand maybe sock of Nangparbat as per WP:DUCK. If not of Nangparbat then he can be sock of any other involved Pro-Pakistani editor on that page. Any involved editor can create new account to influence decision on RfCs. This is becoming very irritating. Though I'm very much involved in Kargil War page still I'm not taking any part in that RfC, I think controversial disputes should be resolved by discussion on DRN with valid sources. RfC will not give accurate outcome regarding these issues. It clearly means if more Pro-Pakistani editors are involved there then RfC may go in their favour despite whatever the actual reality, same applies to Pro-indian editors. If admin can do it, then it will be better to stop or delete RfC going on talk page of Kargil War and advice them to go for DRN, there some quality editors can discuss that matter with some non-involved neutral editors. RfC is not suitable here.--Human3015 knock knock • 11:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair use of Eritrean state torture image

Thanks for your comments on [63], I have uploaded files before under similar criteria, but I confess not usually syndicated ones. I have searched extensively for non copyrighted replacements for an illustration of state sponsored torture of the kind described in the UNHCR report, are you aware of sources I am not? Cpsoper (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Disappointed you have not responded here before acting. Cpsoper (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: You're not the only one.... Luxure Σ 04:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting earlier, but the matter really turned out to be a very simple one: it was a commercial news ageny picture, a fact that makes most of the rest of the WP:NFC issues moot. If it hadn't been for that, we might have discussed your rationale, but there would have been more problems still. You never gave any reasoning why a photo of two random protesters at an unspecified place and time is necessary to make the subject of torture understood, nor why such a photo couldn't be replaced (was that the only ever protest event? Won't there be more protests in the future, where other such pictures could be taken?). There were other formal problems too, such as the lack of declaration on the file page which article(s) you wanted to use it in (in the form you indicated you wanted it for the article allAfrica, but then you ended up using it in two different articles). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I understand this better now, and why I had success before (subject was incommunicado). Cpsoper (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Have uploaded same image to Commons under CC SA 3.0 with permission of the original publisher, and their explicit assertion of this licence [64], can you please help delete the wiki fair use file? Thanks. Cpsoper (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you posted this comment [65] after my request for reconsideration, I take it that you chose to ignore. I've posted an appeal at AE to be reviewed by uninvolved admins. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

AE Boards

As you have not responded to my explanation for reconsideration of ban, I am posting an appeal at AE to be reviewed by uninvolved admins.—TripWire ^talk 20:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oversight requested

Another sock out there. Please oversight those edits. I have mailed oversight too. Faizan (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If possible oversight this too. --Human3015 knock knock • 13:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

New socks

You indeffed some Indo-Pakistani SPAs and sockmasters from the Kargil War RfC. Some of those accounts have resurfaced hardly a few days ago with new socks and are creating nuisance on the same articles. Please check the following MCIWS, F-INSAS (displaying strong POV as that of Knightwarrior with identical editing patterns/behaviour, and editing the same set of articles; most likely operated by one master and also linked to this account), 115.245.225.125 and all other IPs here, [66] (NP?). Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Zadon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pushing pro-Pakistan POV and was blocked for 36h yesterday at AN3 for it, along with their equally POV-pushing pro-India opponent in that fight, MCIWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a fight where Zadon19 was deliberately triggered by MCIWS. A triggering that is no excuse for what they did, though. F-INSAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously pro-India, and has been semi-active today, while Islamabad Queen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't done anything blockable yet, but is worth keeping an eye on. And a couple of IPs have already been blocked today, for IPA edit-warring. The articles that were hit worst yesterday, Pakistan Army, Indian Army, Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts and Siachen conflict, have also been semi-protected for a month by NeilN after a request at RFPP by me. Thomas.W ^talk 13:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated. Good job keeping track of all this sock theater. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Islamabad Queen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandalism-only account, judging by the profane Urdu language they used in their only edit. Mar4d (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• F-Insas is a sock of Transformer Auto-Bot, compare his first edit today with those of TAB (indeffed 2 days ago). Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bolterc – again

In my opinion, this edit to the hatnote, so often visited by Bolterc, constitutes a violation of his topic ban. As I have limited experience with enforcing these (and discretionary sanctions in general) I wanted to consult you before taking action. I was thinking of a one-month block, but advice is welcome. Favonian (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see the deed is done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Someone is talking about you at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Vote (X) for Change again, of course. RBI, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A sock-puppet blocked only for one month?

You blocked User:87.81.147.76 with the note continued ban evasion by User:Vote (X) for Change which means it is a sock. Sock accounts generally get banned permanently. Why is it then blocked only for one month? Any good reason? -AsceticRosé 18:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't an account. It's an IP. IPs are usually more or less dynamic; you can never know how long one is going to be used by any one individual, so they very rarely get blocked for much longer (although in this case, now that I look again, it's apparently been in use by this individual for half a year, so one might go for anything up to roughly that timeframe next time.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks for reply. -AsceticRosé 22:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this fair?

RE: Requested move 5 July 2015
You wrote "I will warn you from the outset that this is not going to happen, and your votes will be discounted"

While I'm about to start compiling a 'Survey'

Why should @Shmayo's vote count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Someguy1221#Sock_puppet_Meat_puppet_case

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FShmayo&type=revision&diff=669713805&oldid=669529616 Sr 76 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Shmayo is STILL edit waring: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tur_Abdin&diff=prev&oldid=670266282 Sr 76 (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you confirm this is correct?

Can you confirm that this statement by 'AynHaylo on the 6th of July to be correct?

"This page is not about: Maronites, Melkites (Greek Orthodox/Catholics) or people "West of Euphrate" who just began, for the vast majority, only 10-20 years (and I'm pretty nice, most of these peoples have been pan-arabists during the 20th century) to reject Arab identity. This page is for our people who live in the upper valley of Mesopotamia and its historical cities (Nsibin, Edessa, Mardin, Dyarbakir (Omid), Rish'Ayno, Urmia all Syriac speaking cities inhabited by Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox (and now they Catholics dupes) followers). For this people decimated by the Seyfo and still fighting to this day for his survival. 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAssyrian_people&type=revision&diff=670258675&oldid=670221140

Sr 76 (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

How would I be able to "confirm" anything about this? We need sources. Have you got sources that do subsume these other groups under Assyrians/Syriacs/Arameans? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph of the Assyrian People page contains the following:

"The Assyrians, also known as Chaldeans, Syriacs, and Arameans (see names of Syriac Christians) are an ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia. They speak, read, and write distinct dialects of Eastern Aramaic exclusive to Mesopotamia and its immediate surroundings."

If this is the real objective of the page, and that is what it looks like based on the content. Then why have all these groups have been clumped in under the name Assyrian?

The Arameans were/are not limited to mesopotamia, the Syriacs were/are not limited to Mesopotamia. Only the ancient-Assyrians were limited to Mesopotamia. Assyria does not equal Northern Mesopotamia. Assyria is a small triangular region of northern Mesopotamia.

So why is the "Arameans" page limited to just the ancient Arameans? The Arameans page has been locked because of edit-waring because the Assyrians were policing it, insisting it only refers to the ancient Arameans. However Todays Arameans are not limited to just Mesopotamia either (only the Assyrians are).

Why is the "Syriac" people inserted into page limited to just the mesopotamia, when the Syriac were never limited like this. Syriac Orthodox Church says it a "church based in the Eastern Mediterranean", the Mediterranean and mesopotamia not even close to being next to each other. Terms for Syriac Christians refer to Jordan, Palestine.....making the Assyrian People page completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia and Presenting the Arameans Syriac and Chaldeans as a part of the Assyrian people page is far from clear.

Keeping the article title makes a mockery of Wikipedia's page structure. Sr 76 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, Sr 76 has taken this to MRV. See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 July. Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is it allowable to copy an entire sentence word for word from a source and add it to an article on Wikipedia? Such as this. According to Elizium23, "this passage is not long enough to violate copyright.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced POV edits on population figures

Hello Future Perfect. I have detected POV edits in the page Albanians, where someone (his name mentioned below) changed the number of 1.300.000 Albanians living in Turkey, to the extraordinary 5.000.000 Albanians (!), and backed this claim by citing a book author.

I asked him for more sources but he couldn't provide me with more.

Because changing the 500.000-1.300.000 to the extraordinary 5.000.000 is a serious claim and has to be well-sourced at least, and more sources backing this claim are needed, I reverted back to the official estimes by the Turkish Security Council and CIA but he entered into an edit war with me despite my pleas for more sources that validate his claim. I asked him in both my Talk Page and the article's talk page that we stick with the reliable and official estimates for now, (500.000-1.300.000), unless the source by the book author is proven, but he dismissed the Turkish Security Council's data, according to him, the is a Turkification policy against Albanians living in that country and he insisted on keeping his own dubious sources in place at the expense of the official ones.

The raising of the number 1.300.000 to such a big size, such as 5.000.000 or 8.000.000 in only one day, to me stinks POV and fake, unless it is backed by strong sources. I could ask for the attention of a moderator since I can't help any further (my 3rd revert has already been reached), and the user does not seem to understand the necessity of more sources, and he is really persistent in keeping his POV edits in the page. --SilentResident (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh... FuturePerfect, the particular POV issue seems to not be happening only on my case, but on other Balkan-related pages too, by the same, aforementioned user (name is User:Rolandi+). It seems he has been in some sort of feud with other Wiki users as well, for articles related to the Balkans. Here is link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rolandi.2B_and_Alexikoua.27s_behavior_in_Balkan-related_articles --SilentResident (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And what does it mean?That you can delete others' work and references (not added by me ) without any explanation?

Nope, Rolandi+, this means that you can't 1) just dismiss the official sources that were already present in the Wikipedia and promote unreliable sources in their place. 2) You can't just dismiss the population estimes by the Turkish authorities just because you personally deemed them as being "Anti-Albanian" and accusing the Turkish authorities of "conducting a policy of Turkification or assimilation of Albanians into the Turkish society", and your attempts to justify the extraordinary numbers using the logic that "he is a well known book author, and there must be more Albanians living in this country, so this book author's claim is true". To me all this sounds like POV. Your personal points of view over Turkey's policies on its minorities is not how we prove facts in Wikipedia. Nor does prove your book author's sources more valid than they can be. Do you understand me? And no, nor does a book author's popularity prove that his claims are a valid as ever. I personally have never heard of this book author, and so, I can't just rely on your words. I will need sources. And 2) your lack of cooperation. When I asked you politely, (both in my talk page, and the article's talk page, as you see) for more sources so we can validate these serious claims that increase the total population estime from 1.300.000 to 5.000.000 and reach a consensus, you rushed to revert and go into an edit war. And furthemore, you accused me for POV while it is clear that reverting the page to last reliable sources is not a case of POV. POV is when we do not keep a neutral point of view, and we accuse the other sides for anti-Albanianism, when we bloat the population figures as part of our nationalist pride, and other such examples shown by you. As Wikipedia says: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (you can check it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) If Wikipedia worked the way you wanted, then it couldn't the Wikipedia we all know. And let me clear something: I am not disputing your faith in the book author (you told me he is a well known author, and that is ok but this still does not change anything for me). Nor I am disputing that there are 5.000.000 Albanians (or Turks of Albanian ancestry) in Turkey. What I am saying from the start is: more sources! If the total amount of Albanians living in that country is triple than originally thought, then, there must bee a way to prove it. Right? Such a large amount of people does not magically disappear or reappear at our will and just because a book author claims so. We need some reliable sources. If you have any, please feel free to share them with the community and I will support you. --SilentResident (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly,the informations that you deleted weren't added by me,so don't lie!

Secondly,go and read the Wikipedia's rules.You can't delete informations that have been there since a long time (months or even years ) without concensus,especially when they are referenced.Rolandi+ (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I copy-paste here my response from the Albanian talk page: All right, so just because the unreliable and disputed source didn't came to my attention sooner (I can't check every page that frequently if it is what you expected, as there are lots of pages pending check), does not mean that the information won the right to stay here without any questioning and verification. As for the sources that were already in the page, were there long before these disputed edits to which you reverted back. So lets put the facts strait. Unless you provide us with reliable sources backing your claims, I can't understand how the official information from state authorities, foreign agencies, and newspapers are considered as POV? Unless I am missing something here. As I explained to you above, changing the population estimates from 1.300.000 to 5.000.000 is serious and can't be ignored like that and should well-sourced. --SilentResident (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And I shall clarify something last: Firstly, I didn't said that you specifically added anything. What I said is that you have done POV changes/reverts in the page Albanians, where, after I restored the number of 1.300.000 Albanians living in Turkey until a better source is found, you rushed and changed/reverted this number back to 5.000.000 and insisted on your claim by citing the book author I just removed due to lack of reliability! And you did that again without citing any new sources. Can you please provide any sources that verify or confirm the book author's claim for 5.000.000 Albanians living in Turkey? Please? Any sources? How many times I will ask you the same question? Provide sources, so we can know that the official estimates given by the Turkish authorities, and the agencies, are indeed as fake and as POV as you claimed. If your impression is that you can make changes on pages based on just mere claims, then, you are completely wrong. --SilentResident (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead SilentResident,go ahead!I can't talk with you because you don't know the Wikipedia's rules.You can't delete well established infos without concensus.Just go ahead,maybe I will be banned from that topic,but this doesn't prevent me from reporting your vandalism.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)