User talk:Euryalus/Archive10

Signpost Arbitration interview request

Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as an outgoing Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 18:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I stepped down early to do more article work - I'd rather spend my time on that than on an arbcom retrospective. However I'm sure you'll get a couple of the outgoing Arbs to comment, so all the best with the interviews. And thanks to you and everyone else who works in the Signpost - I haven't agreed with every article but it's always a worthwhile read. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your service, Euryalus. Back to your ships now. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks, that's very nice of you. In passing I'm already there, and it looks a lot more fun than whatever you all are doing over at ACN. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Me? Doing something? You must be mistaken. It's probably Kelapstick, who doesn't have a real job like normal people. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you

Hi Euryalus. I've been wanting to post some thank you notices to the outgoing Arbs, but circumstances have prevented me from doing so until now. Anyway, I thought I'd drop a quick note to say thank you for your hard work on the committee. I was pleased to see a fresh face applying for Arbcom, and think you did an excellent job in a tough year. Thanks for your hard work. Worm^TT(talk) 14:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Natalac Records for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalac Records is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalac Records until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not my article (see below, I was just the OTRS guy). Pinging Rosemaryujoh as the account with the largest role in editing and transferring the userspace draft. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep This Wikipedia Pages has been on for 10 years, but after 10 years later demoted to User Draft because of improper format and lack of references" Now some references have been added.... I believe as a artist grows so do their enemies... Yameka (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Thanks for the notification but I didn't create this article - I'm just the OTRS volunteer who userfied a requested draft. Pinging Yameka and Benleg4000 as the accounts with the biggest role in editing this page. -- Euryalus (talk)|

Sorry. I will send a "thank you" card to Twinkle (damn this automation)! --CNMall41 (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No problems. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep This Wikipedia Pages has been on for 10 years, but after 10 years later demoted to User Draft because of improper format and lack of references" Now some references have been added.... I believe as a artist grows so do their enemies... Yameka (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Thanks for the nomination. Well, I only improved the page and also added some references.

Actually, the Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis page was created long before March 18, 2010, (about 10 years ago).

Now this wikipedia policy says: Unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs) created after March 18, 2010, can be proposed for deletion using a special proposed deletion process. Refer to these 2 links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

So, it means, the Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis shouldn't be deleted since it was created before March 18, 2010.

Aside from that, I've improved the page and added some referencesBenleg4000 (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Natalac

Can I ask you why, when you created User:Natalac/draft, you copy pasted rather than move the deleted article at Nat (rapper)? That action lost the history of the page and it seems to me to be a breach of the licensing terms. The point is moot now as the article has just been deleted yet again, but I would be inclined to merge histories just in case it ever gets undeleted or userfied again. SpinningSpark 12:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Short answer is I don't remember. One possibility, seeing as they contacted me via OTRS is that they did not actually link the two articles but simply forwarded me a draft directly and asked for it to be userfied for them. Alternatively, I may have made a human error and forgotten to merge the two pages. Or there may be some other explanation currently buried in the depths of old OTRS tickets.

To explore this further I would have to go back through the tickets from 2014 and spend some time doing a chronology. And as the article has (rightly) been deleted again, I agree with you that this seems a bit moot. If it was indeed a human error then please accept my apologies. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't meant as a criticism, nor do I need you to dig out the old archives. I just wanted to confirm I wasn't missing something before doing a history merge (...and maybe I was hoping you would do that so I didn't have to bother, but it's done now). SpinningSpark 20:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh no problems, it was an entirely fair question. Thanks for doing the merge too. -- Euryalus (talk)<

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Saint Francisco & Saint Paulo

Hi Euryalus, do you know what happened to Saint Francisco & Saint Paulo when she was sold in Sydney? I assume that she may have been broken up due to her leaky condition. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Newm30: apologies, somehow I missed this post. The other Spanish ship was pressed into colonial service, but not this one unless it was renamed. Give me another day or so and I'll see what I can find. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I have found in Llyods Register under San Francisco & San Paulo between 1805-1811, indicates capture in 1804, she was owned by Ellioiviaga, built at Valencia and plied the Bristol to Bilboa route. No record after 1811? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Mikedonald711

Hi Euryalus, I read the blunt warning you added to the above users talkpage as a result of being brought to ANI.[1] It's too bad it has to come this, but it might be time to look at a block. I doubt he's going to change anytime soon, has edited two articles since the warning, one unsourced that made no sense [2], and the other added unsourced personal information to a living persons article.[3]. I have reached out to him several times in the past year offering to help him, but was ignored as were any attempts I or others made to try to explain policy to him including WP:BLP. By now he should know not to add the name of a spouse without providing a source, but that's the same type of edit I just reverted him for. Cmr08 (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I placed this message in the wrong location. You can just ignore it, or remove it if you want. Cmr08 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mikedonald711 is still at it with his unsourced and poorly written edits to articles. These are his latest ones: [4] [5] [6] Creativity-II (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, will have a look at this in an hour or so from now. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I had to revert him again, this time adding the subjects middle name unsourced.[7]. I left another message on his talk page, but I doubt it's going to do help. Cmr08 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Its abundantly clear there has been no improvement so far in his willingness to source his edits. However the edit rate is so low that there seems little immediate point in a block. Let's see if there's improvement if/when he returns to active editing. @Mikedonald711:, pinging you so you're aware of the discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMCS Integrity (1804)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMCS Integrity (1804) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMCS Integrity (1804)

The article HMCS Integrity (1804) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMCS Integrity (1804) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Integrity

I've reviewed it (although I've asked for a second reviewer as I'm new to this), and the only problem I've found is that the first hook is not referenced in the text, so you'd have to go with ALT1. Red Fiona (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, replied at the DYKN page. It's referenced in the second last line of the "Construction" section. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your thoughtful closures on ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Need a vandal blocked

Hi. Sorry to bother you directly, but can you please block Big8388desa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I reported him to AIV, but he's on a vandalism spree, and nobody is there. Also, Egg (Illumination Entertainment) is an article he just created and probably needs to be speedy deleted as hoax/vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done by various people. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI closure

Hi, Euryalus. I just wanted to comment on the closure of the ANI.

I would have been so happy not to have started this if they’d simply responded to me on their talk page with some version of “I’m sorry, you’re right, that was uncalled for,” or to drop it if they’d responded at ANI ditto; what I wanted was some feeling that they’d at least try to be civil in future dealings with editors with whom they disagreed. Instead what I got was that in future they'd maybe make sure they weren't being incivil to someone who might put up a fuss. I’ve made my point; if no admin thinks it's worth dealing with, at least there’s now another ANI on record for this pattern of behavior. Maybe next time it comes up some admin will think it’s worth dealing with to try to make WP a place with a tiny bit more civility.

I know this editor does many valuable things and is a good editor and in all likelihood a good person and even generally polite when dealing with people face to face. But if they were rude to me over what was literally NOTHING, not even a conflict directly with him, just a simple and reasonable and civilly-worded comment in an AfD which didn't upset ANY other participant, including those who might have had a right to be upset but instead who assumed good faith, then they're probably doing it all over the place. Research on customer service has shown that an extremely small percentage -- like in the 2% range -- of people who have a bad experience with an organization will complain to the organization. The rest will simply go away and tell everyone they know of their bad experience. And of course these days, 'everyone they know' means social media. We should be thanking people like me who are willing to follow up a complaint in a civil manner, asking for it to be dealt with by an admin. Instead our admins ignore them. valereee (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thanks for the message and apologies for the slightly delayed reply - I haven't been here as much as usual the last couple of days. Let me start by saying there's nothing wrong with your having raised this issue at ANI. The close is not a reflection on you, and should not be taken to mean your complaint had no value. As you probably know, civility issues have been an ongoing debate for some years. Sometimes debate centres on swearing by editors (but less so following recent Signposts). Sometimes it's around harassment. Most often it's about how rudeness simply makes the editing environment less pleasant for everyone and reduces willingness to edit and productivity in editing. Various answers and standards have been proposed, without much success. FWIW there's also a contingent that argue that Wikipedia offers a much less hostile environment than most other websites, so presumably we don't need to do anything at all.

My opinion, backed up somewhat by WP:NPA: Wikipedia is not a "workplace" in any legal sense, but the appropriate standard of conduct is to treat people as you'd treat actual work colleagues. That means you do get to argue vociferously to advance your case, but you don't get to call people names, stalk them, or form a gang of fellow workers to bully them. Equally (and relevant to this ANI thread), if someone loses their temper and uses an insulting name, they should apologise and back off. We can't measure the sincerity of the apology - it's the fact that it's made that matters in the first instance. Someone who repeatedly loses their temper and insults others, or someone who is so insulting even in a one-off that they simply couldn't be tolerated in a workplace, shouldn't be tolerated in Wikipedia either.

In this case, an insulting name was used and then withdrawn with an apology. It was appropriate you raised it. It was appropriate that it was apologized for. But absent evidence of a pattern of behavior, there's not must else to be done. I've never worked with you or the other editor involved, but in the circumstances I'm pretty sure you can both get back to productive editing if you accept the apology and the incident doesn't recur. If there's repeat incidences, please come back and highlight them. And in general, please do keep raising anything that affects the editing environment, good or bad. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus, no worries -- I'm not upset at the outcome, I just wanted to comment. I'm with those who think the general level of rudeness reduces willingness to edit, and I strongly suspect it's a major factor in the gender gap here. The fact it's worse other places is a nonstarter for me. I don't care how they do it on 4chan, young man, at our house we keep a civil tongue in our mouths.  :) Best wishes to you! valereee (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Valereee: I agree with you re the general level of rudeness. Mind you I mostly edit old Royal Navy articles, where a certain gentility prevails. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Proposed community ban for the "Perun" disruptive editor

Hi, you closed this with a topic ban that nobody had been proposing or discussing. Instead, there was unanimous support for the proposed full community ban. Could you please re-close the discussion in line with this consensus? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what I was thinking. Amended. If you disagree with the wording of the amendment, please feel free to further modify it with my blessing. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Will log it when at a PC, in an hour or so. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMCS Integrity (1804)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your unmatched expertise in closing and deciding complex disputes. Thank you for your tireless service to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: thanks, that's very kind of you. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick note on your ANI close re Gamergate

About your closing remarks at the Flyer/Charlotte ANI (which were very well done!!) about the GamerGate arbcom case and the " (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy", please see here. Part b was intended to be very broad. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: hi, and thanks for the kind words. I had the dubious honour of being able to vote on the Gamergate remedies, and acknowledge there are several ways to interpret the scope of the sanctions. My argument is that the gender-related component of the Gamergate DS was included to draw a line around the likely areas into which the case subject could spread. It was therefore designed to cover more than just writing pro- or anti-Gamergate commentary into peripheral articles; it also covered attempts to (say) reinterpret unrelated gender articles through a Gamergate lens, or (say) extend the poisonous "battle of the sexes" attitude from Gamergate, into POV crusades in random sexuality articles.

However a key point of any Arbcom decision is that the remedies must relate to the locus of the dispute. The relationship can be distant, but it has to be there. In this instance, the relationship is not there. To my knowledge, Charlotte135 is not a Gamergate-related editor, and their hounding of Flyer22 Reborn was not about advancing a Gamergate agenda. It was simply hounding which happened to occur in gender-related pages because that's where Flyer22 Reborn was editing at the time.

Of course, this is all a bit academic. We could seek a clarification at ARCA, but only if we all had nothing better to do. Short of that, the TL:DR: when a choice is possible, I prefer a narrow and locus-specific interpretation of Arbcom remedies. But other views are welcome, and are equally likely to be valid. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I am an idiot aren't I. Sorry for not realizing you were part of that arbcom and would know better than 99.9% of people here including me what was intended. I'm sorry, and thanks for your gracious reply. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: meh. That's what we were thinking when we wrote it, but it doesn't make us right in practice. It may be that a broader interpretation of the Gamergate DS would be a good idea in reducing disruption. I wouldn't personally support that, but it's a perfectly valid argument to put to ARCA now the sanctions have had a year of field testing. @Jytdog: repinging as forgot to sign. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Hm Hm. That makes sense, and I will keep that in mind. I always thought they were broader and have thought that was smart; I don't have data to back this up but my impression is that "men's rights" POV pushers entered like the tide coming in along with GamerGate specific folks. I don't want to take up arbcom's time with a theoretical but will look out for test cases. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Range block

Looks like blocking the range 120.88.228.0/24 would fix the little IP hopping issue we're seeing on Widr's talk page :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done. BethNaught (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh God, thank you BethNaught! Finally :-). Also, thank you, Euryalus for helping me with all of those reversions. Now I have another sock puppet IP hopper to get blocked :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BethNaught and Oshwah. I've also semi-protected the talkpage for a while. Seems a bit redundant given the range block, but perhaps it avoids more time-wasting from whoever it is. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good call, Euryalus. It'll save some headaches (or at least until they pick another talk page to start harassing) :-) - great teamwork you two! <3 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. Widr (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited English ship Fairfax (1653), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Santa Cruz. 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) 11:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Constant (1801)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI

about this would you consider changing that to just saying "yes" instead of giving the address? just asking per the regular impulse to keep SPIs down low. thx Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: thanks for the message, but don't understand why the SPI shouldn't be mentioned. Btw I suspect this is meat puppetry rather than socks. Either way, feel free to flick me an email if there's a confidentiality issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

when i first started here i used to give notices when i filed SPIs and someone said to me "we don't do that for a reason - if people who sock aren't smart enough to watch spi we don't want to tip them off" or something. which seemed not unwise to me as a general practice. i won't change your comment! just wanted to ask. thanks for replying, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

This, this and this is a clear violation of the topic ban. Domestic violence is undoubtedly a gender topic (in addition to being a medical, legal and social topic) and consensus has twice supported disruption at that article and talk page in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see how there could be any misunderstanding of what that topic ban involves, given what you explained. How could anyone think that the Domestic violence article is not a gender or gender-related topic, given its heavy references to gender? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is exactly why I asked you on my talk page Euryalus, to exactly detail the articles I could not edit. You said gender, sexuality and the gender aspects of an article. That's it. You also said my TB was for hounding this other editor, which I believe has been the opposite in the past, and them posting here with such accusations, further supports this. You also made it very clear that my editing was not disruptive. You also directed me to policy on topic bans, which I then read, and it clearly states to not address the other editor directly in discussions. This was an entirely new section I opened on the talk page, and I avoided the previous sections. Child murder (filicide) is certainly not a gender issue in any possible way. The fact that this has been posted here is further evidence of me being harassed, hounded and stalked and not provided the assumption of good faith by this other editor. It is a further personal attack on me. It is evident also that when editor Timothyjosephwood invited me to edit topics in the feminism field, I flatly declined, in respect of my TB on gender and sexuality. I do not consider child murder or other aspects of family violence for that matter, to be gender related. Perhaps if I had edited the intimate partner violence article or gender sections of the family violence article maybe it could be loosely construed in that way. If you do Euryalus, please specify why. I genuinely cannot see how or why child murder by a parent is gender related or how this broad article on family violence is gender related in any way. No, this is another form of harassment toward me by this other editor who has a 2 way interaction ban on them also, which should be addressed here, by them coming to you and mentioning this. No other editor did.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe this editor has clearly breached the WP:Interaction ban which has been placed on them whereas I have been very careful to comply.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The points I am making regarding the article on family violence can be summarized here. [8] Please also see my other earlier, good faith comments on Talk:Domestic violence under the heading I opened titled: New section proposed. Based on all of this evidence, I strongly believe I have not breached my TB. However I am being harrased, hounded and stalked by this other editor who has recklessly breached the WP:Interaction ban which has been placed on them.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems this editor has chosen to continue to discuss me openly on their talk page, which is a clear contravention of the WP:Interaction ban they are currently sanctioned under. Unlike this editor, I genuinely do not see, nor cannot possibly see how family violence is a gender related article. It covers violence against any and all members of a household, including grandparents, siblings, even boarders and other relatives staying in the household. Period. Maybe the intimate partner violence could be seen as a gender topic, but I have not gone anywhere near that article, or any obvious gender related articles. Further I have not gone anywhere near the gender aspects of the family violence article. I have edited the child neglect article and my proposed inclusion in the family violence article related to child homicide by a parent. I also find it concerning that this editor views family violence as some gender based article when clearly it is not. I stand by this.

However i am very concerned that this editor continues to recklessly breach the sanction placed on them with the interaction ban by choosing to continue discussing me on their talk page. Wikipedia:Banning policy makes it very clear that "Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" This is further evidence of this editor's harassment, stalking and hounding of me. It needs to stop. This editor holds no more rights than any other editor and should not be brazenly breaching sanctions like this knowing nothing will ever happen to them while constantly pointing the fingers at other good faith editors. I have however fully complied with my sanctions and have avoided this editor. Another editor confirms this, by saying "To be fair, she's intentionally not interacted with you." [9]Charlotte135 (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135: Any reading of the Domestic Violence article makes clear it is clearly related to the topic of gender. In good faith I will assume this was somehow unclear and leave it at a warning, but please abide by the topic ban and stop editing this or similar articles until the ban expires.

Flyer22 Reborn: In a similar spirit, please refrain from making any comment anywhere that is about interacting with Charlotte135, including on your talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Although it was unclear to me, I won't continue debating it. Thank you for the fair warning.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you handling this, Euryalus. And for the record, I was respecting the interaction ban. Or trying to. WP:Interaction ban states that we should not "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." And for its exceptions to that, it states, in part, "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)." So, clearly, bringing the matter here to your talk page is an exception. And here at your talk page, I only commented on the topic ban violation. As for the commentary on my talk page, Timothyjosephwood brought the matter to me as a form of dispute resolution. I was clear that I had an interaction ban to respect, and I commented solely on that interaction ban and the topic ban, what should be obvious by what a topic ban covers if it's a gender-related topic, and quoted what you stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, I initiated the conversation on Flyer's page. I didn't realize there was a TBAN in addition to an IBAN. I agree that DV is clearly a gender related issue, and conversation there has stopped per the TBAN. Discussion on Flyer's page was pretty much about the ban, and not really about Charlotte per se. No harm, no foul I say. TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Ibans rarely work, because there are too many acceptable use cases and grey areas. Like this one. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus, this is the type of stalking thing I was referring to -- the editor "randomly" showing up at articles I heavily edit. I could understand an "Oh, I just coincidentally wound up at that article" excuse if I was only involved in limited editing of that article, but the article's edit history and talk page clearly show this is not the case. In the thread you closed, I complained about being followed to articles I heavily edit and even ones I've briefly edited, as though my contribution history was being analyzed. And I get the same feeling from this latest edit. I also see that, in this case, to try to divert suspicion away from the fact the following has yet again happened, this and this music edit was made afterward. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If I see any future examples like this (you know, the transparent following), I will report it here and/or compile a list on my computer notepad to eventually be presented as evidence at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And cases like that are additionally frustrating because I can't revert, and I most certainly would have reverted in that case per WP:Overlinking. When it comes to interaction bans, there have been a number of cases where an editor tries to annoy another editor by showing up at an article they edit. You can't contest anything the editor does, which makes the interaction ban a perfect weapon. Either way, your closing warnings were clear, and I expect those warnings to be adhered to. Thanks again for taking the time to deal with this mess of a situation (these contested interactions). It's a situation I'd rather not have to deal with, but I'm never the one seeking it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Noting for documentation here out in public: Most recent example includes the Depression (mood) article (see here and here) and the Self-harm article (see here and here). Those are two more articles I have extensively contributed to. The editor is still tracking my contribution history, but is trying to be more subtle about it; for example, by making edits to articles that are related to the articles that I have extensively contributed to, and then editing the latter articles afterward.

Since I cannot revert, I want to state that Doc James might want to take a closer look at this. Clearly, we should be sticking to what the literature states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And regarding my comment to Doc James, I felt that it was the "necessary dispute resolution" part noted at WP:Interaction ban -- the part that states "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." As noted above, the talk page of the administrator who enacted the ban is an appropriate forum. If I can't revert in cases where the edit should be reverted (well, reverting vandalism is a given), I don't see how best to go about that in the case of a WP:Interaction ban. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Euryalus. To my horror, I have just noticed this other editor who is party to our 2 way interaction ban, has been secretly posting here their misleading comments regarding my editing. It may have been nice and respectful to have alerted me to this self indulgent rubbish they have posted here. I would like you, as administrator, to take action please, against them for recklessly violating the interaction ban they are currently under I have attempted to strictly and genuinely adhere to my side of the ban, all the while this other editor recklessly violating their ban, and perhaps knowing that they would get away with it. FYI, and in response to this editor's comment "The editor is still tracking my contribution history" this could not be any more inaccurate or misleading. However evidence shows that they in fact must have been tracking and stalking my edits on various articles. Please Euryalus have the courage to stand up to this editor, who seems to treat the project as their own property, and treat so many other editors, both experienced and new, with disdain and disrespect. I do wonder whether their editing here is doing more harm and upset to other good faith editors, than any good. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Another related question please Euryalus, is that given the fact this other editor is obviously stalking my edit history on articles and continuing to harass me, is it okay if I were to alert you and/or other editors about some inappropriate or incorrect edit they may have made on an article, as they seem to feel free doing. I think a 2 way interaction ban, is just that, and should be strictly enforced especially given I have attempted to meet my obligations in every possible way. However this other editor has recklessly breached the conditions of their interaction ban, on more than one occasion now, and their argument above for doing so is not valid and weak, unless I am free to do the same, and alert other editors and ask them to act, and/or comment on, a poor or inappropriate edit of theirs that I may see. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BANEX provides for exactly this discussion, on this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus, I have avoided all topics I need to be avoiding, and other articles in the medical and psych fields for example, I check the first page or two to see if this editor has recently edited (which is tiresome to be honest) and if they have not edited in the last 3 months or so, I may edit the article. I think that's fair. The point others have made is that this other editor's editing history is ubiquitous, literally thousands of articles it seems. As you can clearly see though I have certainly acted within the spirit of this 2 way interaction ban. My point is this editor obviously stalks my editing, and evidence for this is them posting on your talk page all this time, without me knowing, and is constantly trying to trip me up again and making insinuations which are clearly false. I think I have been pretty productive in articles if you look at my edit history and as a relatively new female editor I should not be chased away by this aggressive editor who has it in for me. I have edited in harmony and collaboration with other well respected editors, no problem. I just want this person to stop stalking me and making feel intimidated and make ridiculous insinuations that center on them self. Not much to ask is it.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus, in your close at WP:ANI, you stated, "While Charlotte135's actual edits are mostly innocuous, there is evidence and consensus that the motivation is not." As I pointed out above, that same transparent stalking has continued. You also stated, "That editor mainly edits in gender and sexuality-related articles. Please stay away from these articles for the duration of the topic ban. Please also stay away from this editor on any other articles, for the duration of the interaction ban." And yet the stalking on articles that I extensively edit has continued. There is no doubt that I extensively edit the Kanye West article. There is no doubt that I extensively edit the Depression (mood) and Self-harm articles. Charlotte135 popping up at all of these articles I extensively edit is no coincidence, especially given the different fields they are in. Anyone who knows how to recognize transparency can see that Charlotte135 followed me to the Kanye West article, then tried to play it off by editing other music articles. Anyone who knows how to recognize transparency can see that Charlotte135 has begun following me to the medical articles I edit and has tried to play it off by editing other medical articles. Indeed, I also edit medical articles, as WP:Med editors can attest to. My actual Wikipedia editing has mostly focused on sexual and medical articles, far more than gender articles. In addition to that, I edit media topics (such as popular culture, celebrity, etc.) and weigh in on guideline or policy pages. Charlotte135's interest in articles mainly change based on the topic I have edited. Easy to see. That is not paranoia talking. And Charlotte135 acting like it is difficult to avoid articles I edit because of my "ubiquitous" editing history is absurd. Editing with WP:STIKI is not the same as clearly having an interest in an article. And there are plenty of Wikipedia articles to edit, and yet Charlotte135 continues to pop up at ones I extensively edit. If Charlotte135 really wanted to avoid me or avoid annoying me, Charlotte135 would not be editing any article I extensively edit. Not only is Charlotte135 still stalking my minor edits to articles, such as this one, which is partly a sexual topic, Charlotte135 is still stalking the articles I extensively edit. It looks like I will be taking this editor to WP:ANI yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: I received an email that this being followed up by this is indication that I am still being closely monitored. This obviously comes as no surprise to me. The person who emailed me the bit was clear that they don't consider the edit a coincidence. Either way, I'm not overly concerned about it, but I did think it was worth noting here, especially if a pattern like this (me commenting about something and then the other editor making an edit to that very page soon afterward) develops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

‎Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920

Can I ask you to look into the archived discussion on Charlene McMann? It was archived without closure. Thanks.--Cahk (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Will have a look. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't meant to ask for the thread to be unarchived - I simply meant if you could close it either way. Given it was a complete one-sided SNOW, I am not sure if it requires relisting on the AIV board.--Cahk (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No problems. Needed to unarchive because I can't (or shouldn't) amend the archives directly. There's a clear consensus in the thread but the issue also raises some BLP issues that I'd like to think about for a moment or two. There's also the simple challenge of finding the evidence across multiple IPs and accounts, which is necessary to confirm the reasoning behind the "support" votes. Will get to it in a short while. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Closed by TParis. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Thank you for closing the discussion that implemented an interaction ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. There's a further discussion ongoing on ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Feudin.27. Part of it also stems from this now closed discussion at User_talk:Floquenbeam#Please. I was wondering if you'd mind weighing in on this aspect: does opening an AFD on an article the other created violate an interaction ban? Winkelvi said, at the Feudin' ANI thread, that he'd take a "voluntary" step away from MaranoFan, but then nominated an article Maranofan created for AFD 48 hours later. He says that's okay because the article is a bad article. My thought is that this clearly is an interaction between the two parties. Would you mind giving your insight? It obviously happened before your close and implementation of a formal iban, but I think it'd be good to establish now what would happen if this kind of thing were to occur under an established, formal interaction ban. only (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, WV nominating MF's article to AFD is not exactly interaction, but as a rule of thumb this sort of thing does little but stoke fires. WV really should not have done this. Blackmane (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Only and Blackmane: thanks for the messages. Late here, so will have a look in about eight hours unless anyone beats me to it. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done} - apologies for slight delay. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination)

Your close is sound, though not result I hoped for. What do you think a reasonable time to renominate is? Though I feel bad for the subject, I am guessing 6 months is necessary for everyone to clear their heads.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Milowent: Randomly, I'd say 3-6 months - enough time for a clearer view on whether there is anything more to this article than the single news event of the conviction. Regardless of BLP1E, they are certainly only notable in the context of the Foundation - if you are so minded you (or anyone) might explore whether there should be an article on it or its successors instead, in which case this article might usefully be proposed for merging. This would potentially address some BLP1E and WP:UNDUE concerns. However it depends on if the work of the Foundation is of sufficient note - a quick google search suggests otherwise but I'm no expert on US charitable or medical organisations. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI close review

Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_of_ArbCom_case_by_Dan_Murphy; you're mistaken. The course of least drama would be to shut the thread down immediately and refer any not urgent (e.g. outing, ongoing disruptive edit wars) matters to the clerk's page; what the OP failed to noted is the prior block (June 2012) was be a member of the committee at the time [[10]]. NE Ent 20:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The thread was, in fact, shut down immediately. The block from four years ago is not relevant to this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly. An immediately shutdown thread would not have Drmies and TP (listed alphabetically) carping at each other. NE Ent 21:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you're seeking here, but thanks for coming by. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeking any of:

• Reclose with direction to refer problems to arbcom clerks. (Best option)
• Leave it, but next time you see a similar ANI thread, close with referral to arbcom clerks (better option)
• Ignore me (this is an option a lot of editors choose, and that's okay, too) NE Ent 21:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but I feel they add a bit of bureaucracy where it isn't immediately required. The issue was raised at ANI as an allegation of disruptive behaviour by an editor not party to the prospective case. It was resolved there in the normal course of dispute resolution. There was no need to escalate it back to arbcom. Of course it's all a matter of opinion on all sides, am content to agree to disagree on the ideal course. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the last suggestion certainly doesn't add to bureaucracy ... just to be totally clear I wasn't suggesting referring it to arbcom, I was referring it to arbcom clerks, which I've always found to be a de-escalation compared to ANI. Anyway, thanks for the replies, and obviously at this point the only good course it to move on. NE Ent 01:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you implying that ANI is not in fact a place of quiet policy-driven reflection, leading at all times to tranquil acceptance of dispute outcomes? -- Euryalus (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Undelete request

No problem as far as I'm concerned. Deb (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Deb: Thanks, now merged and redirected. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Gem of a user

		A Gem of Wikipedia
		I present you with this award in recognition of your unique contributions to Wikipedia. Your closures on ANI are thoughtful, nuanced, and balanced. You strive for balance and show impeccable judgement. You are an indispensable asset to the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Never seen one of these before, it's that's very nice of you. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest vandalism to User:Flyer22 Reborn

Regarding "(Deletion log); 05:32 . . Euryalus (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page User:Flyer22 Reborn: content hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)," who was the culprit? And shouldn't we tag that account as a sock?

On a side note: Feel free to shoot me an email regarding what was stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in 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/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your rev-del left a big, unsupported allegation.

I don't think it was your intent, it was just easier to remove the name. However, by do so you left a big, unsubstantiated aspersion that when read in context makes no sense. The end of your rev-del is here[11]. But you left "Can you not compare Gamaliel to an alleged serial sexual abuser, please?" - it was that quote that triggered the rev-dels and now stands alone with no mention that A) I never made the comparison and B) after the revdels it reads as an unsupported aspersion without even context (even with "alleged, it was an supported aspersion). Never once did I use that language (pre or post revdel) and now it just hangs there with no support, diffs or references and reads like a personal attack. Please remove that statement as part of your rev-del. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: apologies for the delay, am travelling. You're correct that this was not the intention. I am reluctant to engage in a more wholesale removal of content as the issue you raise may fall outside the very strict rules for suppression, however I will raise it on the Oversight mailing list so others can respond if they have a different view.

I am also reluctant to add more context to the thread as that risks also adding to the BLP issue. However, for the record (if required): your original post compared another editor to someone with a reputation for blaming their accusers. That person is also an alleged sex offender, but you were not making the comparison on those grounds. People might find your original post distasteful, but it was not of itself a significant violation of BLP. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

-_-

WHO the hell are you to say someone is "particularly notable"?

WHO the hell are ya when you have no idea at all what is going on!

-_-

Pianolisko is loved and hated all over the world and people wanted to have a Wiki page for it, many people always asked me to do one. Now I do one you come up like "blablabla"

Pianolisko is one of the independent free artists who do NOT follow commercial crap and is still successful! 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The article did not contain any credible assertion of notability. Further information is available at this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

endeavour
... you were recipient no. 840 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Brilliant (1757)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Brilliant (1757) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Brilliant (1757)

The article HMS Brilliant (1757) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Brilliant (1757) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Anne Galley

On 22 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Anne Galley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1744, the British fire ship HMS Anne Galley (pictured) exploded and sank after onboard cannon fire ignited loose gunpowder in the ship's hold, killing all aboard? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Anne Galley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Anne Galley), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Question

May I ask why you state HighInBC did nothing wrong? What is appropriate about erasing other people's comments on another person's talk page without the talk page editor's permission? (unless perhaps it's obvious vandalism)...he can't just erase my comments because in his opinion they're somehow bad and supposedly contain bad advice (which they don't, but that's beside the point)..it's perfectly valid for him to respond to my comments, however..not to mention the flow of the thread is now disrupted in terms of the time stamping of erased comments etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel this has already been answered in the discussion, but if not: to put it bluntly your comment was neither helpful to the new editor concerned, nor designed to be helpful. Personally I'd have left your comment there - not because it aided the discussion but because removing it risks wikilawyering. However, if the policy needs pointing to: removal of talk page comments whose sole purpose is derogatory is covered in both WP:TPO and WP:RUC. It's a judgement call, and HighinBC made an appropriate one in this circumstance -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Same m.o. as other IP vandal

• Check out 106.186.20.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), seems to be the same m.o. at Talk:Dead Sea. 3RR vio and profane edit summaries. I'd have included it in the ANI report but it was closed a bit rapidly. Jusdafax 09:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

IPs and socks

If you would, you should follow User:Sean.hoyland's contributions, as he seems to be the target of this vandal who shows no signs of quitting yet. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, same IP hopper as my request just above. I've added a 3RR template. Jusdafax 10:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article review

Hi Euryalus, As you have an interest in these things and have managed to get a similar article to FA status, I was hoping you might drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1 and make some comments, and perhaps even lend your support if you thought it met the criteria. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: of course, will have a look later today. Speedy and Temeraire certainly need some company. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be very much appreciated, thanks. It is currently sliding down the list towards the archives.--Ykraps (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Made a start. As I noted in the review, I have a justified reputation for pedantry. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Should finish this today, sorry for slight delay. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am grateful that you are taking the time and trouble so need for apologies.--Ykraps (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus. Thanks for your review and I hope I have answered your queries satisfactorily. Have you now finished or do you have anything else to add? Best regards --Ykraps (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Added final comments. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Aquilon (1758)

On 14 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Aquilon (1758), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1761, the crew of the 26-gun frigate HMS Aquilon rowed for 26 hours straight to escape an enemy ship of the line? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Aquilon (1758). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Aquilon (1758)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Victualling Commissioners page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ReferenceBot! -- Euryalus (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Warning

You are not allowed to remove my comments. I pointed out blatant personal attacks and you reverted me. If you disagree, say so, but you can't remove my comments. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:DD77:9B81:32D:E8D9 (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Angus McMillan

Hello. You may want to revisit Angus McMillan. See my comments this date on the Talk page. Best wishes, J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Active (1758)

On 11 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Active (1758), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in May 1762, the crew of HMS Active earned more than 33 years of wages from the capture of a single Spanish vessel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Active (1758). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Active (1758)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Warning

You are not allowed to remove my comments. I pointed out blatant personal attacks and you reverted me. If you disagree, say so, but you can't remove my comments. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:DD77:9B81:32D:E8D9 (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Any idea..

...what is causing that double/blank header? I have cleaned up a few of them recently on various noticeboards... Did you use a script to close that section or was it manual? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, alas. The only oddity here was restoration of a previous close, but I did that via cut and paste rather than undo, so it should have come up like a normal edit. Thanks for removing the duplicate, I was doing the same but you clearly type faster than me. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I had edited the section to close it, and it came up as just a header, having seen a few of them in the last few days I knew what happened so just edited and deleted. Not sure why it is happening. Who knows, it might have done it a lot but I have only noticed it recently. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135's talk page

Regarding this post by Stelba90, should I simply ignore the replies that Charlotte135 will make there, considering that the replies will likely be about me, Montanabw and/or Gandydancer? Or should I note any inaccuracies to Stelba90? As you may know, one of my biggest issues with Charlotte135 is Charlotte135 mentioning me on the Charlotte135 talk page or elsewhere and misrepresenting what happened. Charlotte135 has done this over and over again on the Charlotte135 talk page and elsewhere, and I have only countered it at WP:ANI and recently on my talk page. On that note, I last commented about Charlotte135 on my talk page on July 23rd, noting, "Any further replies you make on your talk page to me about any of this will be ignored by me." And yet we see this recent post by Charlotte135. Charlotte135's recent sporadic contributions indicate that Charlotte135 is biding time and is trying to see about pursuing interaction with me; I've already stated what I have to state on that matter, and I know you are tired of dealing with this as well. Still, I ask for your advice since you are familiar with this case and have ruled on a WP:ANI issue regarding it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(pinged)stelba90 posted the same message to me and apparently has gotten into trouble and had email shut down for spamming too many people. I would just watchlist and observe. Take a wait and see. Montanabw^(talk) 00:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(pinged) OK, I have only a few moments each day to spend here. A post of mine was recently deleted in which I called another editor "tiresome" for being an attack on another editor, so I will not say that again. ...even though that may exactly be my thoughts... Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for the message. Passing opinion:

• I agree with Montanabw above. I find these kind of surveys a little pointless but there's nothing offensive in the questions asked. I appreciate your concern is with the potential response, but let's wait and see what that response is before responding to it in turn.

  More generally, I suggest you ask Charlotte135 to stop pinging you, or mentioning you, on their talkpage. Per WP:POLEMIC, usertalk pages are not to be used for the maintenance of perceived lists of wrongdoing by others unless that material is imminently intended for use in dispute resolution. There is sufficient policy justification for asking Charlotte135 to archive the last few sections on their talkpage, or to proceed immediately to dispute resolution regarding their contents. Feel free to ask them to do so, or if you wish I can ask them to do so as a neutral third party. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This [12] was all I posted on my talk page. Given Flyer22reborn had no serious recent evidence to back their baseless claims up, posted on her talk page, I took it as harassment. I also would like to ask Flyer22reborn to read our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy again. As long as they stop with their baseless claims here on your talk page, and on their own talk page, I've got nothing more to say to her and will not ping her for a response, I can assure you Euryalus. End of story.

How I respond, or if I choose to respond to Stelba90's questions and research, as a female editor, is my business, and has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with Flyer22reborn in the slightest!Charlotte135 (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So no more usertalk comments to or about Flyer22 Reborn? Great news, thanks for that. Hopefully we can all move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(pinged) My words calling another editor "tiresome" were recently deleted as an attack on another editor so I won't do that again. ...even though they would fit quite well right here... Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus. Can I delete Flyer22reborn's derogatory, baseless (ie. no evidence provided), personal attacks? It's quite simply slander. My reading of policy is I can. Of course if I have done this, which I have not, my comments should be deleted too.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think all editors need to start to adhere to the Wikipedia:Civility policy. Baseless slander with no evidence presented in the way of diffs as I have asked for, and none could be presented, is just that; slander! And it needs to stop. So, can I delete these comments Euryalus?Charlotte135 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to be careful not to appear to make legal threats. You also need to either a) stop making negative comments about other editors here or anywhere else, or b) proceed immediately to dispute resolution at ANI or similar. That applies to other people involved in this endless saga. In your case you agreed above that you would follow course (a). One day later you're back here making more derogatory comments in breach of your agreement. Please now decide either (a) or (b) as a way forward, and then stick to that decision. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I will make it very, very clear right here Euryalus, that mentioning slander is not a legal threat. Could you direct me to what help page then I can ask that question of whether any of us can delete derogatory comments, like "tiresome" given you refuse for some reason, to answer that question as an administrator?

Also could you please explain how I might respond to Stelba90's fair questions and research, relating to female editor's experiences of bullying at Wikipedia? I feel quite threatened and bullied by not being able to answer this other editor honestly. Why should female editors be silenced and gagged in this way! Any of our policies I can read?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, that like many women, I don't like conflict Euryalus and am hesitant and anxious about posting at ANI, as you can probably work out! I would prefer to adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach to our past two way interaction ban and I have offered this numerous times. However I would also now be open to a permanent 2 way interaction ban between myself and Flyer22reborn. Because I'm not the only one who keeps this conflict going, and I can easily prove that, if needed. So would a permanent 2 way interaction ban be something you could apply to us both?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Bans cannot be imposed by individual administrators except in topic areas specifically authorised by Arbcom or as a result of community consensus via a dispute resolution discussion (eg. ANI). Again, please either drop the stick or go to ANI. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for replying.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Iran

Hi, I want to inform you recently, I edited the List of Prime Ministers of Iran and corrected its mistakes. I hope you find it useful. Furthermore, I want to inform you that E'tedaliun Party (Conservative Party) was one of the two major Parties of Iran (Persia) after the inauguration of the second Majlis (parliament). Best regards, Shfarshid (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Something to do with moles

The use of the term was in the computing sense, where Whac-a-Mole refers to it as a repetitive task such as fending off spammers, vandals, or other miscreants. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I recall the arcade game. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

DataCore & Mess

Thanks for bringing this up! It's a pity I was traveling and didn't have time to participate. I'll take care of more edits though. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to undelete article

A few weeks ago you speedy-deleted Plexus Corp. under A7 and G11. Today, I was looking for info on that company and was rather surprised there was no article here on Wikipedia. I would like to request that the article be userfied to User:Etamni\Plexus Corp. (complete with edit history, of course). I'll see if there is something that can be done with it to avoid/remove the issues that caused it to be deleted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. (Note: Please ping upon reply due to watchlist overload.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Etamni:  Done though there's nothing there not otherwise available from the company profile on Yahoo Finance. It's at User:Etamni/Plexus Corp, I dropped off the punctuation mark.-- Euryalus (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. A little busy this week but I'll get back to it next week. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Your close of the ANI Hawkeye75 thread

"read up on WP policies before commenting further on noticeboards like this" - that's a large part of the problem. They have read policies - they just don't know how to sensibly apply them or selectively apply pieces of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Fair point. Have clarified the close and left an additional note on their talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Association (1697), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saker. 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) 10:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Superman article and ANI

Hi, Euryalus, and thank you for closing the ANI. I'm afraid that almost immediately after the Superman protection was lifted — less than two hours later — User:BaronBifford was back making the same contentious, undiscussed edits that (except for one image issue) received no consensus on the talk page. See talk-page history.

I wrote to Baron today before seeing that he had done this, expressing my willingness to collaborate with him as he recently asked me to on my talk page. But now after seeing him hubristically ignore everything said in the ANI and its outcome, with six undiscussed edits in one hour [13] ... Well, I'm flabbergasted.

In your close, you said, "There is enough evidence to justify a block for disruptive editing (essentially, WP:OWN), but we have already gone back to page protection so let's see how that goes." Well, we've seen: Within two hours of page protection being lifted, the exact same OWN behavior returned. You also wrote, "BaronBifford, please consider this a last warning on working more collaboratively when the protection expires." As much as I hate to see it, the protection expired and he is not working collaboratively. When someone is giving a "last warning" and ignores it without consequences, I'm concerned that it sets a bad precedent. And I and other editors are exhausted enough by his actions that as much as we may not want it, there need to be consequences.

Thank you for your work on this so far. I'm sorry to have to come to you with this; I truly am. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with every word Tenebrae has posted above. I feel Baron looks at it like "Well after 2 ANI's and nothing has been done to me ill just keep doing what I want". Honestly I knew this was going to happen as soon as the lock down was over which is why I supported a block on the last ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nuisance, but the complexity of Superman content disputes baffle me and I need a fine pointer towards which specific post-protection changes by BaronBifford relate to which specific talkpage threads. Given your expertise in this topic, helping with these connections should hopefully be a quick process. BaronBifford, please feel free to also offer views. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: One major point of contention was my attempt to move content on the TV and movie adaptations of Superman into the article's Publication history section. I wanted to describe the development of the Superman franchise holistically, because my research showed that there has been so much creative cross-pollination between the comics and the TV/movies, and that the comic book audience is minuscule compared to the TV/movie audience, that it makes no sense to relegate the latter to a distant section. But the other editors working on the article insist that Superman is primarily a comic book hero and that the TV shows and movies are a side attraction. I've given up on this change due to this fierce opposition.

A more recent point of contention was my attempt to remove an excerpt from Jerry Siegel's memoir in the article's Creation and conception section. I haven't given up on this change and am still presenting arguments. BaronBifford (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Aside from presenting arguments, did you remake this change to the actual article content? -- Euryalus (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If you mean did I reinsert the aforementioned edits, then no. The excerpt is still there. Tenebrae has not responded to any of my arguments for many days now, which frustrates my attempts to be more collaborative. BaronBifford (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the edits that start [here] is what Tenebrae is referring to Euryalus all the way up to his revert [here] Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also contemptuous comments like this one directed at me, who has tried so hard so be supportive of him:

Maybe you should actual participate more in Talk and address my arguments instead of this knee-jerk reversion and whining.

And this one:

Maybe I should write my own Superman history book (under a different name), then cite that in the article to justify my edits. There are no qualifications required to be a historian, particular a comic book historian. Any git can write about comic books. I'll publish my own history book, which will make me a professional comic book historian, and my work will become a secondary source. Then you'd have to give me respect, no matter what snot I sneeze onto my pages.

I don't know. Maybe he can't help himself. But the continual stream of hubris, insults, incivility and just contempt for other editors has reached a breaking point with editors at Superman.

And for the record, over the last week I've responded to him on the Superman talk page: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, in addition to telling him yesterday that health issues kept me away for a couple of days. As others have noted, there's a fair amount of "I don't hear that" and argumentativeness over the same points, as if designed to exhaust other editors into submission. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I've used somewhat aggressive language against other editors in the past, and I am going to stop that. It didn't work anyway. I've brought up several issues several times, because I felt other editors were not giving my points serious consideration. But since my arguments went nowhere I will give up on those. BaronBifford (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself and other editors, I respectfully ask admin Euryalus to render a decision on this editor. At 19:49, 22 August 2016, BaronBifford said at User talk:Mkdw that, "I will not make any edit on the Superman article without first running it past other editors." Yet he made edits after that without doing as he said — and before any decision was made on this extension of the ANI.

I also note that on [User:BaronBifford/sandbox|his Sandbox]] of planned edits for Superman, he already includes one exceptionally contentious edit for which there is no consensus, as he repeatedly has been made aware. While I have hope, I have little confidence in any change in his behavior. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

While I do not support an Indef, I do support an article ban at the least. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A ban still seems extreme at this point. Looking at the superman talk it is just a argument between baron and tenebrae (i am new to the thread tho, who else did he upset?) Stg7 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure I smell dirty socks Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: This is an editor who has only been on Wikipedia since yesterday and virtually every edit is supportive of BaronBifford. That's often a telltale sign.

Stg7 is also not being truthful, as these Talk:Superman posts critical of BaronBifford show:

• BaronBifford can I ask for the next month you refrain from ad-hoc editing of the article and use the talk page to suggest changes and make the change if one other editor agrees with you and see how that works out? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  BaronBifford You're likely going to face a block unless you engage in these discussions and acknowledge them. Mkdw^talk 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And there are a number of other editors in August alone, all having to address BaronBifford's stream of contentious points and I don't hear that. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been kind of away for the last couple of days so apologies for not replying to this thread here a bit earlier. It will take me a day or two to work out the minutiae of the various Superman edits and talkpage threads. Will come back on the weekend with a view. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Btw, thanks everyone for making me read the Superman article. There's nothing like learning new things. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerned

Hi Euryalus. I am concerned about a potential edit that I want to make. Last month, I removed a note from The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror page. (At the time, I did not know that it was an edit that Hawkeye75 made; it was one of his first edits). I removed the note, stating in the edit summary that it was irrelevant to the article. He put the note back, saying "Possible vandalism (It is relevant)" I felt strongly about this, so I started a discussion on the article talk page here titled "Social media note" stating why I felt that the note was unnecessary. On his own talk page, I invited him to the discussion (unaware at the time of his personality.) The statements he made on the article talk page were antagonistic, unconstructive, and added no value to the discussion. He later called me a "snitch" on my talk page when he got wind that I asked for advice from an admin on how to handle things. It has been a few weeks, and post-admin discussion, so I really want to remove the note, as I feel that it is an irrelevant and trivial note, plus, he offered no valid reasons for it to remain, and did not even attempt to have a real discussion. However, If I make the edit I am concerned that he will just get fired up and resort to confrontational behavior. If we examine all of his past talk page comments, he has only ever had issues with editors who revert his edits, and he has always put up a fight when editors revert his own. Given his current restrictions right now, I am worried that he will think my edit is about me trying to "bait" him into saying something that will get him blocked, but I am not. When it comes to pages that he has edited, (and just happen to be ones I would like to edit as well) I can't help that feel as if he is hovering over, waiting to pounce if anyone removes something that he has done. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker)} If I'm not mistaken Hawkeye75 is Indef blocked. So I would make my edits and not worry about them. Maybe they have learned from past mistakes.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll wait a few days and see how things go. I just don't want any unnecessary confrontations with them. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't blame ya Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Responded on their talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus I wanted you to know I meant no disrespect by responding either, was just trying to help a fellow editor. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No problems at all, please feel free to contribute to any discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75

Further unblock condition violations in addition to the ones already mentioned at their talk page: 0RR violation, POINTy BATTLEGROUND edits mentioning editors previously interacted with (i.e., me) by name, edits in previous topic areas (articles including Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Orlando, Critter Country, New Orleans Square. Universal Studios Singapore, as well as others previously mentioned on their talk page), and using the "thank" feature on 15 of my edits on a completely unrelated article, which I believe violates condition (b). [I'm not sure if there's a way I can link to those actions, but my understanding is that they are publicly logged somewhere.] The editor has been given lots and lots of rope. They seem to be back to their old ways. They either cannot or choose not to participate in the project without confrontation and a battleground mentality. They have continued their course of action after being warned many, many times. I believe that is enough for a reblock. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Anna Frodesiak as a previously involved admin and Hawkeye75 as the subject editor Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree with James about a reblock, I tried to keep them out of trouble earlier after they removed a link and caused a link error. I put the link back and made a suggestion [here] about removing it and going to the talk page to get consensus to remove it and I would support it and they pretty much blew me off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just wait one second, I'm creating my side. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• For your point about "battleground edits", I'm not sure how it is a "battleground edit"? All I did was add the references and include "Attractions needs ref." in the edit summary.
• For your point about me putting your name in an edit summary: I'm not sure if you were meaning to say this is "harassment" of if I wasn't supposed to talk about you. From my understanding, I was only ordered to stay away from user's talk pages that I have had an issue with in the past. If it were for the "harassment" case, I contacted Wikipedia live chat and asked them that if there was a list: "do you either make one reference for all of the list or one reference for each sub-point on the list"? and the admin said all you need to do is make one reference for all of the list. In your case, you changed it so each "restaurant" and one reference (which was against the admin in the talk chat's point of view). So if anyone, tried to get mad at me, that I wasn't the one getting the "bad edit" talk.
• For your point about me visiting those 5 pages, I had never visited them prior to the unblock.
• For your "thank" point, I was just trying to thank you for your work (which you have done to me in the past).
• Honestly for the "0RR", I thought that a revert was only if it was the latest edit (which is no excuse)(also he didn't put an edit summary for his edit, which was valid info). (For your information, the page was Big Brother which was a live tv show that had 30 edits within 2 and a half hours, so everyone was scrambling to change it.
• For Chris' accusation, I'm not quite sure I "blew you off". All I said was Thank and a suggestion? That is far from blowing someone off.

At the end of the day, honestly it's hard to edit when there are people that you are not allowed to interact with and people that want you blocked, going to your user contr. and viewing every edit for a mistake. If you need any clarification on any of this, I'd be happy to explain. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am going to respond once and clarify. Your did says thanks but you said the article was old and noone used talk page, you didn't try the suggestion, that's blowing me off. As for the suggestion 2 people want it removed and no opposition to it for a week, consensus and remove. I was trying to help you but at this point I am removing myself from doing so any further. My help is not wanted, it won't be given. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 08:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to come off that way. I just don't get why every time I remove information that shouldn't be on an article, it always gets reverted, yet other people removed info and walk away clean. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75: pretty much everything needs references, including lists of attractions. I wouldn't worry too much about the "battleground edits" claim, but you're not doing that good a job staying away from the topics and editors you've interacted with before. Please note this is a voluntary ban on on interactions and topics, and not a formal sanction, but if you keep getting into the same old disputes you will reach a point where the disruption exceeds acceptable levels and the block will be reimposed.

Other people in this thread: it's appropriate to highlight when/if Hawkeye75 breaches their voluntary restrictions, but its also safe to assume a little bit of good faith. 15 "thanks" is just annoying, perhaps deliberately so. But for example, the edit summaries referred to above aren't worth the time it takes to make an issue of.

Take-home message: Hawkeye75, please, again, stay completely away from the other editors in this thread and devote yourself to other articles, as I notice you've started to do. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for an even-handed response. My view remains that the editor fundamentally does not understand that wiki works by consensus -- it is less about individual violations, which I acknowledge can seem minor in a vacuum -- than about their overall confrontational, my-way-or-the-highway editing pattern. Frankly, edits like their response above, as well as this comment, do nothing to assuage my concerns. However, as the unblocking administrator, I believe it is up to your discretion. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 16:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Question#2

Hi Euryalus. I had a question about Hawkeye's unblock restrictions. (Which I admittedly found a bit convoluted) Is he, or is he not allowed to post on talk pages in which he participated in prior to his block? Because if not, he just recently did so on The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror talk page under the "Social Media note" subject that I started a while back, in response to a new post I made (feel free to read it in the section). At least now he is being polite in the discussion. However, I would rather not communicate with him, as we have had issues on the past. It is ultimately your choice on how to proceed, as you were the one who put the restrictions in place, and I will abide by whatever your decision is. In the future though I may just have to take an extended break from that article, I can't help but feel as if he is breathing down my neck on every edit (whether he agrees or disagrees) that I make to that page and it's talk page. Thank you for your time.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: An other editor has joined in the article discussion and the matter is being taken to a vote. So I went ahead and offered vote and my thoughts as well. So, it would appear that everything is fine for now. Thanks anyway for your time. :) Perhaps I was being overly cautious, but I really want to avoid any further problems or complications with them. If there is one things I like to avoid on Internet forums, it is drama.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delayed response - my time zones don't usually coincide with other people's. The shortened version of the restrictions is that Hawkeye75 has volunteered to stay away from every page he edited prior to being blocked, and not to revert anyone else's edits. These are voluntary restrictions - if he breaks them it might strongly imply either bad faith or disruption, but any reblock would really depend on whether genuine disruption occurred. On balance I think he is doing OK in editing in new areas, though there have been a series of slips and if they continue then we will likely get to the point where new sanctions are required. In your case, just feel free to edit as you like; if there is disruption on these or any pages please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicontributor12: You can always post on my talk page, rather than talking to other admins about me. It would save a lot of time for the both of us I think. And by asking about my unblock, it creates more drama, I wasn't causing any harm I was just posting on a talk page... Cheers Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though given how things played out during our first interaction last month, I'm sure you can understand why I am so hesitant to have direct interaction. Plus, as I recall, admins advised that any editors who have had issues with you in the past, should not post on your talk page. Though I could be wrong, so I was trying to abide by that. Take care, all.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you to decide if we've had any issues, I don't believe that we have. If we HAVE, than we should both be avoiding each other. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

DatCore Software

Can you please help with the article DataCore Software. You put a page protection on the article due to edit waring on August 13th and it expired a few days later. As soon as it expired, multiple people seemed to go after the page and try to vandalize it. The page was then tagged for speedy deletion due to unambiguous promotion, which was believed to be put on there by competitors. The article has been on the main space since 2011 and should have been restored to a previous version and then protected before deleted. Since you were the one that protected the article, figured I would ask for your help. Thanks in advance. 2601:58B:100:4B0B:54C0:AD46:B84D:BA68 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) Euryalus, please take note that this was already taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review#DataCore Software which was reviewed and remains deleted.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages. The Deletion Review remains open, so let's revisit this if necessary after that closes. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DataCore Software (Part II: Resurrection). Apparently there is some undisclosed paid editing going on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I suspect there is a vanishingly small number of distinct individuals behind all of these pro-DataCore accounts; possibly only a single paid or COI editor. Rampant sockpuppetry? Check. Accusing long-term constructive editors of "vandalism"? Check. Admin- and forum-shopping? Check. These guys really know how to win friends and influence people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Idly curious: if a paid editor's article gets deleted as badly written spam, do they have to refund their fee? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that the contracts sometimes (or usually?) contain a provision that the article has to stick for at least a certain period. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Levant (1758)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Levant (1758) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Close of Trump RFC

FYI, the RFC at the Trump article has been closed early, which I have just objected to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading it now ... -- Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There was never any editorial consensus to put footnotes into the lead, as required by WP:LEADCITE. The closer never found any such consensus despite being explicitly asked by me. Is there a way to appeal this early close?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Found it: "you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW

Thanks for commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Alceste (1806)/archive1. I was going to notify you of the nomination but thought you were probably busy with your own project.--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh, Levant is done for now, subject to any GA comments. I don't think there's enough there to take this to FA. Will have some more comments on Alwcwste in the next couple of days. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Admiralty court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord High Admiral. 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) 09:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Zhengzhang Shangfang

I was linked to a deleted article from a template on Wiktionary. Wiktionary users need to know about Zhengzhang Shangfang. It's on a Chinese template that is linked from thousands of entries. Please reconsider and revive. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've re-reviewed the deleted article, but there's nothing in it that meets the notability requirements. For reference the entire article content is that Zhengzhang Shangfang "is a Chinese linguist who specializes in historical Chinese phonology and comparison of the Sino-Tibetan languages."

Please feel free to go ahead and create an article on this person if you feel they are in fact notable enough for an en-WP article; however it would need some indication of how it met the general notability guideline, which alas the previous version didn't do. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Waysons (Swiss DJs)

Hello, Euryalus, you recently deleted the page that I created, "Waysons (Swiss DJs)," due to the fact that it was not "important" nor "significant." I was just wondering if you might be able to "undelete" it. Maybe? Infopage100 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: an answer would be appreciated. Please respond as soon as possible. :) Infopage100 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the article to User:Infopage100/Waysons (Swiss DJs) so you can continue to work on it. You've added a lot of entries in the references list, but almost all are either primary sources or fairly trivial mentions. The article as it stands does not meet the notability criteria. However please feel free to improve it before resubmitting. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Patrizia_mos (Cristina Bechtler)

Hi Euryalus, I would like to create a new article about Cristina Bechtler. I have already wrote an article about this person two weeks ago but it was deleted because I didn´t write bibliography that show the notability of this person. I found five articles from newspapers and magazines that speak show the relevance of Cristina Bechtler in the cultural panorama of Switzerland:

I would like to publish the article but the page "Cristina Bechtler" is currently protected so that only administrators can create it. The previous concerns are no longer a problem, since I can give reliable sources. I would appreciate an answer. Thank you. Patrizia_mos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrizia mos (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi, and thanks for the message. A quick look at the page shows it has been deleted three times in the last ten days, each time because it is about someone who is simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I'm not convinced this will be different in the next version, but suggest you try creating it as a WP:DRAFT so it can be reviewed for notability before being posted live. If the draft meets the notability requirements I will happily lift the page protection to allow it to be included in the main encyclopaedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I´m going to create the page as a WP:DRAFT. Have a nice day! Patrizia mos (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Patrizia_mosPatrizia mos (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You too. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Euryalus. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hello Euryalus - in regards to this, just so you're aware, it is better not to put the name of the LTA in the block log summary - most people would've guessed for themselves who it was anyway, or can be told by certain people upon request. This is done per WP:DENY, as you are probably aware. Thanks, Zero^talk 10:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Mochada BLP

I appreciate your protection of the article, but there are serious BLP issue involved here. Yes, I know about WP:WRONGVERSION but look at this edit. The first sentence in the lede says "she appeared on the Spanish reality show La Granja, where she had sex with another member of the show", cited to crap source. You need to remove that NOW. The rest of the included material is one huge BLP vio.

Please don't make Wikipedia look idiotic. The IP addresses and couple disruptive users are playing you. This needs to be removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction - not the lede, but still.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: you make a good point, given the primary of BLP over other policies. The material has already been removed by Neutrality, but thanks for the message. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Just saw Neutrality's edits. That should work. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Could you at least redact the thread? It is a fairly clear case of outing, is it not? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends if information gleaned from Commons counts as "off-site." But moot either way - thread has been removed by Salvio. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

FA review HMS Alceste (1806)

Hi Euryalus, just wondering if you have any more comments to make at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Alceste (1806)/archive1. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: hi, thanks for the reminder, will wrap up my bit today in the next day or so. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: struck most points, added one more and made some pedantic edits to the article itself - revert these if you think they're not helpful. If I get time I'll do some stubs for the redlinked ships tomorrow, though probably not Pulo Leat. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved this from user page

Really Euryalus you think an emergency with one of QantasLink/Qantas aircraft isn't important even though there the worlds safest airline so it should be documented yet you think some Arniston that was wrecked long ago after using dead reckoning is important then you need think logic there are a lot of aviation enthusiasts out ther

that love Qantas like me so really think the next time you try to delete someones work for not being important and see what unimportant things you have! You can delete this as long as you don't delete my work and if it happens again then someone may have to delete your work see how it feels. By the way this work is for Duke OF Ed so it is important to not delete it for proof that it is real. Thanks James.

Problems with longitude: Where Arniston was wrecked in 1815 after using dead reckoning instead of a chronometer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamestheAviator (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@JamesTheAviator: Moved your post to Euryalus' talk page. Messages to users go on their talk page, not their userpage. Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixing ping @JamestheAviator:. Blackmane (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Your article was recommended for deletion as it lacked notability, in that its content was routine (a plane turning back to land after a minor incident) and was sourced solely to a single trivial news story. The content was accurate, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate mass of information - the articles need to be about notable subjects. If you really think this routine incident is worth inclusion, you might consider adding it as a sentence to the article on Qantas itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock query

Euryalus, will you confirm who this is? For whatever reason, there is silence on the matter at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've also emailed you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm on holidays for a few days, but will reply to the email soon. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Euryalus (talk)

I've activated your account, thank you for volunteering.--v/r - TP 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

DataCore Software Restoration

Hi There. I represent the company DataCore Software as I have noted on my Talk Page. I don't have very much experience with Wikipedia. But after noticing that our company page has been deleted. I decided to create an account and investigate. I saw that you were involved in the deletion review. I also noticed that the page is protected now and can only be edited by an administrator. Just wondering what your suggestion would be moving forward to get this page back up? I know I cannot write the article myself or have any paid editors in the matter. Do I add it to New Articles Request. Or maybe look for different editors that would be willing to write a stub? Would appreciate your guidance on the matter. Also btw, here are some references on the company to establish notability just in case this was a question.

TaraLynn (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Mildly, I suggest you do nothing at all re this subject, as you have a conflict of interest. If your company is notable then others will no doubt realise this also, and create an article on it independent of anything the company employees might do. As it stands the article was deleted, recreated, solidly rejected at deletion review and then deleted again. That's a fairly strong consensus that Wikipedia should not presently have an article on this topic. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion on this. I reviewed the consensus in the deletion review and it seemed like many agreed that it was a notable topic just was not written in a NPOV. TaraLynn (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Levant (1758)

The article HMS Levant (1758) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Levant (1758) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations for all your work on HMS Levant (1758); raising it from a single sentence stub to good article status. There does appear to be a mixture of English variations though; rumour and harbor for example.--Ykraps (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: thinks, and engvar fixed (I think); should of course be British spelling throughout. If I've missed any please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, why are you hanging about in the 1790s? Come back to the ship pages for the Seven Years War, that's where the real sourcing fun is! -- Euryalus (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mmm, good question. I think I started by filling in red links at Battle of Basque Roads and one thing led to another. Plus most of the books I own cover the period 1793-1815. Clowes is useful for earlier stuff but don't waste your money on the re-issues; they're all public domain and available here [[14]] --Ykraps (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

PS Is there anything more I can do to garner your support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Alceste (1806)/archive1?--Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Was lucky enough to find a fairly cheap original of the 1898 Clowes in an obscure bookshop. He has an entertaining habit of name-checking every ship in every engagement, which is helpful. Will have one last read through Alceste later today. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Port 666 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Port 666. Since you had some involvement with the Port 666 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right

[15] OK, I didn't mean to mean that, but I do think that, so I guess it slipped in subconsciously ;) I'm a terrible slowpoke at ARCA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: ARCA is effectively archaeology - you excavate a long-dead case, ponder its hieroglyphics, and consider whether to lift the ancient curse upon the editor.

Slow enough for one person to do, very slow when every action needs six or seven signatories. That's why I reckon a subcommittee might work - they could dedicate their time more effectively, and it would be vastly easier to get a majority outcome. We close contentious RfC's with a panel of 3 admins; no reason why we couldn't close a contentious ARCA with a panel of 5 Arbs. Anyway: just an idle idea to speed the process a little. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARCANE ;) I think you may be on to something. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Adegbohungbe Theophilus/True Circumcision

I agree with you placing the text, in good faith, into this user's sandbox. However, we also need to keep the edit history intact. As a result, I've deleted User:Adegbohungbe Theophilus/True Circumcision, restored True Circumcision and moved it to the user page, and then restored your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: thanks, don't know what I was thinking. It's the middle of the night here, so perhaps time to take a break. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It's morning here, but I've not had my first caffeinated beverage of the day yet, so I'm not sure how I remembered it. :)

Welcome (back) to the Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2017 Arbitration Committee. Please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org indicating which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term. Please also tell us what email address you would like to have subscribed to the Arbitration Committee mailing lists.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalize registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vic Dibitetto page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, done. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Signpost mail

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

Go Phightins! 00:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Euryalus: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Season's Greetings!

Hello Euryalus: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Revert

Thanks for this revert. I must have fat-fingered something on my tablet when viewing the page history. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: no problems, happens to me all the time. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I agree with your result about Allison and the legal threat insofar as no action should be taken other than introducing her warmly to our procedures. But I was disappointed that you didn't identify the inherent intimidation as an implicit legal threat. When admins deal with these things, they are creating another bit of our culture. Dealing with implicit legal intimidation by ignoring it only encourages a culture of implicit intimidation. We'd like to retain editors, so I'm hoping you'll change the reasoning in your closing. NO ACTION - UNWITTING NEWBIE would be a better closure, in my view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I simply don't read their message as being legal intimidation, implicit or otherwise. In this instance they were simply identifying themselves as a company officer - they could just as easily have been the CFO, or social media manager, or any other role.

I do agree with you regarding the importance of editor retention, but suggest it is also an important part of our culture not to jump at shadows, even implied ones. Editors should have due regard for the law when contributing, and shouldn't shy away from well-sourced contributions simply because another editor is a lawyer. But the issue in this case is undue weight, not legality. I think that is explicit in the contributions by AB GenC, especially their post here. I suggest that by emphasising the explicit nature of the post we do more to encourage new editors in the idea that they can make legitimate contributions with a sense of security.

So - short version: I disagree that a legal threat was implicit or that the wording of the close could tend to discourage editor retention. But of course YMMV, and I support your focus on editor retention as a whole. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Tartar's Prize

On 23 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Tartar's Prize, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Tartar's Prize had oversized cannons, a leaky hull, and a smoky galley, and sank in the Mediterranean when her timbers gave way? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Tartar's Prize. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Tartar's Prize), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reforming AE

Hi Euryalus. First of all, congratulations (condolences?) on being elected to ArbCom with such overwhelming support, I being among those who supported you. But now, of course, the actual work begins.

As you know, you expressed support for most of the reforms I proposed in my ACE question. One of those was AE reform, an issue which you promoted even before I mentioned it. I think this is a good place to start in the process of overhauling ArbCom generally, especially seeng that support for the general concept was virtually unanimous among those who were elected. I would like to start laying out a definite proposal, so that a motion can be put forward as soon as possible. To the best of my knowledge, AE is within the scope of ArbCom procedures, so any changes would not require ratification.

My initial proposal is as follows: No Arbitration Enforcement request shall be closed and/or actioned unless and until at least three uninvolved administrators have, within thirty-six hours, expressed an opinion on the matter. If thirty-six hours have elapsed and less than three uninvolved administrators have expressed an opinion on the matter, the enforcement request shall be closed without action. Note that these requirements do not preclude uninvolved administrators from imposing blocks under the regular blocking policy, if particularly egregious behavior independently warrants it.

The reasoning behind this proposal is that a meaningful majority is difficult to obtain when less than three people are involved. If a comment from only one admin is required, that defeats the entire purpose of preventing unilateral blocks, and a minimum of two admins is quite likely to lead to 1-1 splits. Therefore, a three admin requirement is probably best.

As for the second part of the proposal, my line of thinking is that if three admins cannot be bothered to comment within 36 hours (that is, after all, one admin every 12 hours), the issue is probably not important enough to warrant sanctions anyway. Finally, the last sentence is simply meant to ensure that especially urgent matters can be dealt with efficiently and without delay.

I welcome your views on this proposal and am open to any changes you may suggest. Thanks.

Biblio (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would be interested to see a paragraph describing the perceived problems with AE that ya'll would like to fix. My suspicion is that there isn't a perfect system, and by solving pain over here, new pain will manifest over there. I primarily edit climate related articles, a locus of a lot of disruption and battlegrounding. I fear that if 3 admins are required for action, we'll create a new playground for battle minded contestants.... gee, let's see how far I can push this heee heee heeee. Also, please recall the reason AE was established in the first place. If I remember correctly, the idea was to provide relief to the beleaguered admins at ANI. Any attempt to reform AE will be well intended but misguided if it fails to go back to the origins of AE as a starting point.

Said another way, AE was created as a dressing on a bloody wound. That bandage might not be suitable for the type of wound, and this merits discussion, sure. HOWEVER, it makes no sense to put a bandaid on the wrong dressing thinking that will fix AE's problems. If AE wasn't the right type of bandage then we need a better understanding of the injury AE was intended to address.

I'll now speculate about the perceived problem. My guess is that some eds are offended at suddenly being sanctions under AE and go away never to return. Well, that's bad. It would be interesting for the BEAUCRATs to do a survey of departed editors using their emails to see if we gain any unexpected insights. For example, maybe Editor-X did not retire because of their AE block per se, but because of the psychological toll of the subsequent badge of shame created by the record of the block? If that turns out to be the case, the problem for Editor-X is not current AE procedure but in the fact it remains traceable in the servers publicly available database.

Anyway, apologies for budding in. I just wanted to emphasize the importance of not just reforming the color of the paint, but to understand the framing of the wall. What was AE supposed to do, and how do ya'll think it is failing? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

PS Ah.... I haven't previously paid attention to the questions during ArbCom elections but after I budded in with the above comment I found your Q&A exchange and read some of that. It sounds like proposed reforms can be broken down into HOUSEKEEPING and STRUCTURAL, where the former are all the things that increase signal-to-noise ratio in matters brought to the ARBS and the latter involve minimum thresholds before AE sanctions can be imposed by the ADMINS. I'd like to suggest you do the housekeeping items right away, and give it some time to see how those actions impact the overall picture before acting on the structural end of enforcement. On the enforcement end, I'd be very interested in offering comments from the peanut gallery but am still unclear as to the precise nature of the perceived problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. The problem with arbitration enforcement is that it allows virtually any admin (even one who is well known to dislike the user in question) to unilaterally impose a virtually irreversible block at their sole discretion. If the admin chooses, they can block without any discussion whatsoever and without allowing the accused user any time to say a word in their own defense. No admin should have such power. In the past, this has led to much dispute and sometimes costs a good deal of time. There have already been two lengthy and greatly controversial cases on the issue, although neither decisively resolved any of the core problems. By reforming AE, we can prevent such disputes (thereby avoiding massive time sinks), as well as ensure fairness for the accused by prohibiting any one admin from unilaterally imposing such heavy-handed sanctions without discussion. By the way, I am starting with this reform because it is the one that had the broadest support among those who were elected. The other major changes (such as streamlining and redistribution of responsibility) are far more complex and will likely encounter more resistance than this proposal. Biblio (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: Thanks for reply although you weren't talking to me. I am replying to your modified proposal to Euryalus (below). Thankfully admin abuse has not come my way. I applaud your efforts but AE was intended to solve ANI problems. However, I am rather dubious of the idea that multiple admins must opine to create a sanction and must utter at least one word every X hours to prevent closure. I think those rules would turn AE into something barely distinct from ANI except AE complaints would have a built in auto-destruct. This would completely reverse the idea of "EXPEDITE" that was a key goal when AE was first created.

Here are some ideas that address the admin-abuse problem you flagged, plus other things I have been thinking about. This is my first attempt to gather these thoughts, so bear with me please. My ideas break down into three major components, and implementation would require some server programming.

To give targets a sense of up-front fairness and level playing field...

1. Prevent action on the complaint until the "target" replies. (If anyone makes a token reply and then does other editing before making a substantive reply, consider this as evidence of NOTHERE and GAMING behaviors that merit sanctions.

PURPOSE - Give honest eds an honest chance to make an honest reply before anything happens.

2. Prevent comments by third parties until the "target" replies (but let admins ask questions anytime).

PURPOSE - Reduce pack mentality and preserve initially level playing field.

3. Prevent "target" from doing any editing outside their own userspace until they answer the complaint

PURPOSE - Compels target to prioritize the AE complaint so the process moves along. This will not tie the hands of honest editors because they will make prompt replies, but it will restrict GAMERS and eds who are NOTHERE from making additional problem edits while we wait for their reply.

Give targets some ownership in the process and control over badges of shame

4. Give targets an initial choice of opposing the complaint and letting the chips fall, or take a wikibreak of __x__ days?/weeks? in exchange for hiding the AE complaint and record of the wikibreak from most users.

PURPOSE - This invites honest eds who have had a bad day admit their errors up front, go chill out for awhile, and eventually come back without a badge of shame to plague them. In the meantime, it prevents them from continuing to make waves, during their chill out period. A wrinkle I haven't completely figured out is how to deal with repeat customers. (Gee, I can make waves, then voluntarily take a break, and then come back to do it all over again bwaaaaa hahaha.....) So admins probably need access to all AE complaints and wikibreaks even if regular eds don't get to see that stuff.

Addressing admin abuse

5. If a sanctioned editor makes a very minimal showing that the sanctioning admin might be biased against them then the sanction should be erased and the AE complaint should be re-opened for action by another admin.

PURPOSE - To help sanctioned editors believe that their case is being decided fairly and neutrally. The threshold for this review should be high enough to prevent this from becoming standard procedure but low enough to inculcate a feeling that AE is an honest and fair process. Also, the moment an admin grants such a request, that admin should recuse themself from further participation in that comlaint. So if the sanctioned ed successfully shows a possibility of admin bias, the complaint will require at least three admins - the first one that is maybe biased, the second one who approved reopening the complaint, and a third one who eventually closes it (again). Just to be clear, this layer of procedure would be a precursor to any appeal, not an alternative.

These ideas keep AE distinct from ANI, preserve the EXPEDITE aspect of AE, and foster a sense of fairness and fair play that will hopefully reduce bitter feelings resulting from the current AE process. Congrats to you for calling attention to these needs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hello again Euryalus. Upon further consideration, I have concluded that my proposed three admin/thirty-six hour requirement would be a little too much ask for (the thirty-six hour requirement might raise questions about efficiency, for example) and would be unlikely to succeed. I would also like to more include a provision that explicitly grants accused editors sufficient time to defend themselves.

Here is my revised proposal: "No Arbitration enforcement request shall be closed and/or actioned unless and until twenty-four hours have elapsed since the filing of the enforcement request. If twenty-four hours have elapsed and fewer than two uninvolved administrators have expressed an opinion on the request, the request shall be closed without action. All Arbitration Enforcement requests shall be closed by administrators who are not involved in the dispute at hand. These requirements do not preclude uninvolved administrators from imposing blocks under the regular blocking policy, if urgent circumstances (i.e., egregious behavior distinct from violation of ArbCom sanctions, per se) independently warrant it."

Biblio (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi both. NewsAndEventsGuy is correct, there does need to be a greater explanation of what's wrong with AE. I'll develop something more detailed to argue the case in the next little while, but the short form (in my view) is that as AE decisions are largely unappellable we need to ensure they're made with appropriate rigor, and are seen to be so. There's various instances where this hasn't worked that well - for example the events that led to this AE Arbcom case from 2015. More to come on this in due course.

Biblioworm, thanks for the post, some very preliminary views:

Sentence 1: "No Arbitration enforcement request shall ...." - agree, and support a 24 hour minimum. Would be subject to IAR on early removal of trolling or nuisance posts, but this doesn't need adding as a clause.

Sentence 2: "If 24 hours have elapsed ..." - don't agree with this, I can imagine many circumstances where it takes longer than 24 hours for any two admins to get up to speed and offer an informed view on AE, especially where the subject matter is complicated or there are multiple parties. Some kind of cutoff may have value, but let's propose a longer one than this.

Sentence 3: "All Arbitration Enforcement requests shall be closed .... " - agree. Note I don't consider Arbcom members to be "involved" solely by virtue of having closed the original case from which the AE stems. They may still be "involved" in other ways, like any other editor.

Sentence 4: "These requirements do not ..." - agree in principle, but need to think on this for a while, as it might also read as a get-out-of-jail card for people not willing to abide by/take part in AE process. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

QUESTION, how is sentence 1's 24 hour rule better than a rule that (A) requires the targets reply and (B) prevents the target from doing editing oustide their userspace in the meantime? I ask because the 24 hour idea seems good faith but 100% arbitrary... although it appears intended to give the target a chance to reply, there can be an endless number of reasons why the target might be offline for longer than 24 hours. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Its more to give multiple admins a chance to reply, rather than necessarily having the first arrival determine the outcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that is apples and oranges. We should forestall any action until targets reply (and prevent targets from editing in the meantime). That makes everyone happy including the targets. If you want to tack a minimum period of time after the target's reply, well ok, that works. But simply mandating a number of hours to let admins reply is a rule that makes life comfortable for admins snd does little to reduce bitterness on the part of eds sanctioned at AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Mildly, there's no means of forcing someone to reply, and no obligation for them to do so - per my recent comments during the elections, it's entirely acceptable to decline to reply to an accusation and let your editing record speak for itself. I'd also be interested in evidence that AE is moving too fast for people accused of breaches to be able to respond. Not saying there aren't any, just interested in examples. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

re sentence 1a, Requiring a reply is just a matter of programming the servers to put up a message box at login or clicking "edit"; re 1b, if one wishes to let their editing record speak for itself one can have the courtesy to say that out loud; re sentence 2, sorry for not being more clear. I'm not trying to fix a black-and-white problem but a problem that is touchy feely. The only real evidence of the latter would be community feedback. If the problem were evident by black and white examination of the flow of events, we could look for examples. However as I understand the perceived problems, we're trying to improve the emotional impact of the AE experience, so people emote bitterness less and stick around to edit more. We're also trying to build a culture that attracts diversity. So we should be assuring people that except for blatant cases they'd get their chance to answer before action is taken. My evidence is only that we do not currently do this, and people bitch a lot about AE and admin abuse. If the goal is to reduce those bad vibes, we need solutions that create better ones. Promising a chance to reply would do a little bit of that. New idea of course, these aren't mutually exclusive. The 24hr clock could run after a reply is made, and again, preventing other editing until an ed replies should just be a matter of programming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: As for sentence two, would you be okay with raising this to 36 or 48 hours? If so, which would you prefer?

As for sentence four, I'm not exactly clear on what you are saying. This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for "target" editors; much to the contrary, it is meant to keep editors from behaving in an inappropriate manner just because of the minimum running time of a AE request. If your fear is that admins might use this clause to circumvent the AE process and block editors unilaterally, that is why the proposed motion says that blocks may unilaterally imposed only if "urgent circumstances (i.e., egregious behavior distinct from violation of ArbCom sanctions, per se) independently warrant it." In other words, an admin could not independently block a user just because they are accused of violating an ArbCom restriction; to block the user, they would have to show that their behavior was an egregious violation of already-existing policy (such as WP:NPA), and that the block would have been applicable regardless of whether an ArbCom restriction was or was not in place.

Biblio (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Blocking 12.37.140.135

Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)