User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2019 – December 2019

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amina Abdi Rabar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SDE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for grabbing those BLPs and being part of the solution! Harrias talk 20:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Li Kuge

Thanks for reverting me on Li Kuge, I was trying out a new typo-correcting script (Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click) and didn't realise I had edited it! --Mirokado (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of sources in Affinity Credit Union

The reason I reverted your source adds to Affinity Credit Union is because they didn't add anything of value or add context. They were just added, in the first case, following the initial sentence that states the credit union exists. Moreover, based on my cursory review of both sources, I don't see how they provide more than passing mentions—certainly nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV or WP:CORPDEPTH.--Doug Mehus (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, references are given in articles to verify the content. If an independent reliable source does this it is perfectly valid, whether or not it contains significant coverage that counts towards notability. Secondly, the first source that I provided has several pages of coverage of this credit union, and is one source that meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that I did not remove the deletion tag because this is only one such source, the second source just being a passing mention confirming the membership of another organization. Please do not remove such top-quality academic sources from articles. They are worth far more than the ephemeral web and news reports that you appear to looking for. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger:, yes I note that you didn't remove the PROD tag and yes that one source does help to establish its notability, but it still wasn't covered in a significant way. And, I do appreciate, too, that you recognize a source confirming the credit union's membership in an advocacy organization doesn't amount to significant coverage. I would still question that your saying the first added source substantiates WP:CORPDEPTH; I respectfully disagree. It just establishes the organization existed and the year in which it was founded. As I understand it, WP:CORPDEPTH means there are sufficient, reliable, and independent sources which support writing more than a stub-class article. At present, we don't have that, which I why you didn't remove the PROD tag, I suspect. So, we seem to be disputing semantics of each other's arguments but mutually agree that notability is not yet established, at least as far as WP:CORPDEPTH is concerned. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (The Nibroc Trilogy)

Thank you for noticing and reversing the bizarre claim of copyright violation made against The Nibroc Trilogy, an article that I created. The claim was truly weird, since I cannot find a single point of commonality between my article and the work allegedly plagiarized. Wikipedia just gets weirder and weirder! Dylanexpert (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

And same here, regarding deletion of Climate change in the United States. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

New message from BigDwiki

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at BigDwiki's talk page.
Message added 22:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-BigDwiki ^talk 22:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -BigDwiki ^talk 22:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I presume that this relates to these edits, where I point out some mistakes that you have made but make no assumption about your good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Codie awards

Any reason why, when I have time, I shouldn't try and clean up these?[1] Doug Weller talk 19:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why these shouldn't be cleaned up apart from any possible cases where this award has been noted by an independent reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Željko Glasnović

Hello, I see that you recently removed/contested a deletion tag on the article on this person. I would agree that the article does not need to be deleted, but clearly requires fixing. It is so badly biased that it makes most articles relating to the Serb/Croat/Bosnian conflicts seem like models of objectivity. Do you intend to make any fixes? It appears that most of the biased content was added in a series of edits in October 2019 by a single unregistered user at a Croatian IP address, whose only Wikipedia contributions are these edits. Perhaps simply reverting back to the prior version before October would suffice in the short-term? I have not made any edits myself, as I am also currently unregistered and have not been able to access my Wikipedia editor account in several years (I was User:Airbornelawyer). I also don't really have a dog in this fight, such that it is, other than believing that such blatant bias does not belong on Wikipedia. If there is someone else more appropriate to contact, please let me know. Best regards.

I don't intend to spend much time on this article, but I agree that the edits made in October 2019 make the article worse so I have reverted them. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

rape case article

Thanks for changing the CSD criteria, it didn't occur to me that it would fall into G10 by naming the victim. I'll remember that if I ever come across a similar situation. Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Malta Presidential election

Thanks for your input into the 2019 Maltese presidential election page which I nominated for deletion. The issue is around the notability of the page - it describes a motion that goes through Parliament, and bearing in mind that the President has his own page, didn't feel this was merited. It gives a sense that this was a contested election, when in fact it is a nomination that's approved as a matter of course in parliament. Kilbosh (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Kilbosh, sorry I didn't reply to you sooner. I got sidetracked into other things and forgot to reply to you. It appears to me that such a motion in a national parliament is likely to be notable, but you are welcome to get input from other editors at WP:AFD if you think that it is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage bullying - and how to deal with it

Administrators who disappear entirely from a discussion make it easy for ArbCom (the Arbitration Committee) to de-sysop them (that means remove their administrative powers). What happens is that a case is opened, i.e. a party (editor) files a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case using a simple template. When the other party (FP@S in this case) ignores it the Committee "suspends" it (i.e. declares that no further action is to be taken for the time being). After a while the administrator is de-sysopped for inactivity - problem solved. The Arbitrators are not part of WMF - they are administrators who have been approved for adminship (by passing WP:RfA) and then elected in a secret ballot to serve on the Committee.

There is an outstanding Arbitration case against FP@S dating back to February. Although he hasn't participated it has not been suspended, which means that anyone can file an evidence statement. The reason why it has been outstanding so long is that Callanecc, Courcelles, Opabinia regalis and RickinBaltimore weren't interested. They have all gone - the result of the latest election was announced this morning - so any evidence you file will be acted upon. You can do this by copying the following to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case". I am watching your talk page, so if you need any help just ask.

This looks like an old arbitration case

CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise Initiated by Stevepeterson (talk) at 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Involved parties Stevepeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request [diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise] Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_Personal_Attacks_with_disgracing_insults_by_Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise Link 2 Statement by Stevepeterson In a discussion in Talk:North_Macedonia I expressed my opinion that wikipedia should adhere to the recently signed Prespa agreement between North Macedonia and Greece in favour of peace in wikipedia. Specifically I shared my opinion that wikipedia could adopt term "North Macedonia's" as an adjective to the State's name: North Macedonia. This (along with "of North Macedonia") is the adjective recommended by "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia". Admin User User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has expressed that this would lead to poor English grammar and he is an advocate of the term Macedonian as the adjective of North Macedonia. As the discussion with other users went on he started to personally attack me using disgracing words and insults such as: you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884714936&oldid=884700282 And: you really need to shut up and learn some English and some proper grammatical terminology before you expose your incompetence further here. It's getting quite embarrassing to watch. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884848956&oldid=884848841 Later, he offended all participants in the discussion by trying to collapse the whole conversation claiming "Embarrassing display of linguistic incompetence." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884847688&oldid=884847206 I tried to explain that I feel insulted and disgraced so he should stop this behaviour by posting on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884730558&oldid=884559635 I would like to inform you that I consider your "you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears." a Derogatory comment and personal attack to me. . His response had no regret or apology: You don't need to inform me of that. What you do need to do, however, is to learn how to use talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884735657&oldid=884730558 I brought to to ANI but I received so many personal insults there by Administrators biased towards USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise. There not only did he make the reported comments, he doubled down by linking to an article discussing people of low ability [who] have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize this basic lack of ability.. I have not been rude neither at the ANI nor at the initial discussion page so there should be no action to be taken against me. USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise on the other hand, has selected a telling link (against himself). He says There's never a nice way of telling an incompetent person that they are incompetent which is extremely inappropriate. FP@S has hidden a discussion on my talk page and I believe that his action (WP:INVOLVED is a misuse of the revision deletion tool. The insults I received made lose control of the ANI and instead of a resolution of the conflict with USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am now proposed for Site Ban. Statement by John Doe There is nothing wrong with either SilentResident's English or her editing. There is a lot of gaslighting going on. Both El C and Dr.K. have admitted this - indeed Dr.K. wrote in the ANI thread Copyedited and restored text by user:Silent Resident [in mainspace]. He deleted the comment without giving a reason (that's because there is no reason - SilentResident's text was examined by an uninvolved editor and found to be flawless). FP@S must be removed from eastern Europe articles entirely because he is a disruptive influence and the source of all the problems, not least because of his anti-Greek bias. Example: (edit conflict) I was unaware till today that @SilentResident: is a lady and of FP@S' misogynistic tendencies. @Khirurg: Another example of FP@S' anti-Greek bias: for years he has been pushing his POV that in 1923 Greece adopted the calendar which Turkey adopted in 1917. Rather than discuss on the talk page he removed the sources that confirm (a) that the Greek Orthodox Church is established (b) it does not use the Turkish calendar (c) Greece uses the same calendar as the Church. He followed up by protecting "Adoption of the Gregorian calendar" and "Gregorian calendar" forever, while his sidekick Jayron32 (another administrator who displays misogynistic tendencies) protected "Calendar reform" forever. FP@S also protected "Julian calendar" forever, whereupon another administrator told him to get lost and unprotected. Here's an example removal: Other countries of eastern Europe, most notably Eastern Orthodox countries, adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 1910s or early 1920s. As Greece, unique in eastern Europe, had an Orthodox Christian government, the course of the reform was rather different. Astronomer Demetrios Eginites proposed in December 1918 the excision of 13 days from the civil calendar, the religious calendar continuing as before. In 1919 the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church agreed to this pending the compilation of a new calendar, which was entrusted to the Church. Eginites joined a committee of the International Association of Scientific Academies looking at the introduction of a superior alternative to the Gregorian calendar, which could not be adopted for doctrinal reasons. A joint government/Church commission in January 1923 drafted a law for the introduction of a 1785 improvement of the Gregorian calendar. This came into effect on 16 February/1 March. The reform finally approved by the Church was the Revised Julian calendar (see following section). Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, one of the members of the commission, announced the introduction of this calendar by Church and state as of 10/23 March 1924 in a circular dated 9 April. SilentResident edits in precisely the same manner as thousands of others, none of whom has been criticised. When informed that SilentResident had a disability FP@S doubled down, claiming his "editing restriction" was valid after having been told by uninvolved editors it wasn't, and mocking SilentResident's disability by saying his warning was a shot across the bow. He also made accusations of incompetence and bias which were not (and still have not been) supported by diffs. References Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise Statement by Floquenbeam Dude... Statement by Khajidha While Future Perfect's wording was extreme, the fact remains that you demonstrate a lack of proficiency in the use of the English language. Especially considering that the argument is about proper English usage. You have been told numerous times, by numerous people, that the phrasing you wish to use is not proper English. You continue to argue based on your mistaken definitions (possessive nouns are NOT adjectives) and seem to refuse to learn from the grammar lessons that everyone is trying to give you. You even engaged in emotional blackmail (see this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevepeterson&oldid=885173108), insinuating that you were contemplating suicide based on your treatment here and that others in similar situations in the future may also contemplate such actions. The proposed ban is MORE than earned. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Legacypac The filer is about to be CBAN'd at ANi so nothing needs to be done on this request except close it for they will not be able to participate. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by 92.19.174.217 There is a procedural error here by the clerk. While it is true that he acted correctly at 19:22, 26 February, removing a case which the Committee had declined, that decline was without prejudice to a further filing should the alternative dispute resolution mechanism fail. See judgments: An Arbitration case should be the last resort if other dispute resolution attempts have failed. ... -GorillaWarfare 18:40, 24 February 2019 It looks like on occasion it would be justified to shove a sock into FutPerf's mouth ... - AGK 07:12, 25 February 2019 The second opinion shows that a second case would very likely have been accepted. The second filing was appropriate because by 16:46 on 26 February it was apparent that there would be no action against FP@S (see Legacypac's statement). His reasoning is flawed - the recent case brought by Twitbookspacetube against Winhunter continued after the filer was banned, and Winhunter went on to be de-sysopped. The only way the second case can be disposed of is by the Arbitrators giving their opinions in the usual manner - the clerk's removal of it at 19:25, 26 February, with an entry in the log that Arbitrators had declined it that day was out of process. Most, if not all Arbitrators, would have been unaware of the case because it was removed 1 1/2 hours after filing. Turning to Khajidha's statement, an inquest yesterday was discussing the deaths of four teenage soldiers at Deepcut training barracks between 1995 and 2002 from gunshot wounds amid allegations of bullying and abuse. The allegations against FP@S have been confirmed by Committee judgments spanning ten years. In the present climate, if social media platforms are not seen to be taking effective action against this it is likely that governments will do it for them. My comments at the ANI were removed by that interfering busybody Fortuna Imperatrix Tuesday, who claimed to have taken a break from editing when he was actually socking aggressively as an IP on pages he had previously posted comment on. If he starts playing up here I recommend an immediate block. What I said there was this: *Oppose The Foundation has never banned an editor for making sockpuppet allegations. SPI reports are turned down every day but the filers don't get indefinitely blocked. Anyways, Steve didn't make a sockpuppetry allegation, he just drew attention to those who did. So let's turn attention to the real issue here - FP@AS has accused an editor of alleging that he (FPAS) is "a self-declared sex worker" Special:Permalink/885051895#Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the following proposed statement of facts:. The Foundation has banned editors who have made comparable allegations and failed to provide supporting evidence despite having had years to do so. I have no particular interest in FP@S's sex life, other than to note that while other editors discuss their family life FP@S doesn't appear to have one - in which case it is legitimate to ask why not? Pinging @:Stevepeterson as I expect Serial Number 54129 or someone of his ilk to be along shortly to remove this !vote. Fun fact:Beyond My Ken is regularly proposed at ANI for siteban for edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry etc. Special:Permalink/866661947#Going forward. 11:47, 26 February 2019. 92.19.246.23 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC) I have a confession to make - last night I dreamt of FP@S. It's never happened before and I hope it never happens again. He has now been given a formal notice not to meddle with Arbitration pages, so when he gets blocked he can't say he wasn't warned. From the London Daily Telegraph of 23 February [2]: I am a cynical old hack who has been taught to question everything. I had first heard about the Bridge Retreat last summer, after I burst into tears on a magazine editor when she asked me how I was. "I'm...fine," I wept, but of course I wasn’t. I was having another one of my depressions, one so furious that on several occasions I contemplated suicide over getting up. This isn't me making a joke - as a mental health campaigner, I am not the kind of person to make jokes about suicide. It was awful. This case needs to be processed expeditiously. If it isn't, and something bad happens, the Foundation will want to know why it wasn't. 217.34.36.106 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Quoting AGK in the Signpost case, it is actually irrelevant that the filer has been banned. As AGK says, We accept cases whenever our community mission would be best served by involuntarily imposing a binding decision. We have here a case where an administrator was de-sysopped ten years ago for incivility and bullying. He has continued to be uncivil and he has continued to bully. No other administrator has enjoyed continued access to the tools after being de-sysopped for cause. It's time to iron out this anomaly. Bradv's action in hiding the case from the Committee is another example of his bad judgment - he previously caused a public relations disaster by deleting our article on Nobel Prizewinner Donna Strickland because he didn't consider the source (her faculty) to be "independent". The Committee should examine very carefully any application for promotion to full Clerk. One of FP@S's complaints against Stevepeterson, which eventually resulted in him being banned, was an allegation (18:44, 25 February 2019) of his writing in deliberately obfuscated Greek in order to make it more difficult for outsiders to understand. In January 2016 an editor made the following observation at DeltaQuad's unprotected talk page: In the sandbox two links from the "harasser"'s post are cited. What makes the respondent think The Rambling Man would have clicked on those links before replying? I have clicked on them. The first is claimed to be "a rant from another sock". It's actually a link to words written (yes, typed and saved) by the respondent which are so disgusting they would never be allowed in a family encyclopaedia. I hurried over to FP@S's sandbox to see what FP@S had been saying. Here are the words I found: f*** off, idiot (14:45, 28 March 2009) [no asterisks in original] fu**ing sick of you ... stupid idiotic lot ... fu**ing sick (19:33, 14 April 2009) [no asterisks in original] What the f**k(22:57, 19 April 2009) [no asterisks in original] the community can go f... itself (08:06, 3 September 2008) At 13:02, 19 April 2009 FP@S was wishing everyone a Happy Easter. That's Macedonian (or even "North Macedonian") Easter. The comment gives the lie to his claim to be a Roman Catholic - Roman Catholics in Germany had celebrated Easter long before. 2 days, 2 hours and 50 minutes later he told an editor αι σιχτίρ μαλακισμένε. I am reliably informed that the phrase means "F**k off, w*nk*r", but on its own the word μαλακισμένε is innocuous. @Stevepeterson's alleged "obfuscated Greek" is vicarage tea-party pleasantries by comparison. This was 6 days, 7 hours and 32 minutes after FP@S had told a Bulgarian academic that Bulgaria was "a banana republic". All remedies, up to and including siteban, must now be on the table. 80.5.252.147 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Favonian has been busy at Hebrew calendar and its associated talk page. Last time I looked the article was locked for two years and on the talk page a response to a personal attack was removed and the editor blocked. Less than half a day earlier, at 21:26, 15 April, FP@S removed another comment, blocking the editor 31.127.81.232. This was two minutes after a sockpuppet investigation had been opened. FP@S didn't report in. The case was closed no action at 22:03, as was to be expected since there was zero evidence. FP@S is sabotaging the SPI process by taking administrative action and not logging what he has done. This is not an isolated instance - it happens all the time. He has been reported to the Committee hundreds of times in the past thirteen years but they decline to take action. The Committee is on record as stating that FP@S's WP:INVOLVED actions are not involved actions because when he makes them he believes in his mind that they are not involved actions. If a convicted murderer goes to his gaoler, says his sentence has expired and demands to be released does the gaoler let him out? This case was filed fifty days ago and it is intolerable that the Committee has not yet taken any steps to deal with it. I'm not blaming them because it was removed by a trainee clerk within ninety minutes and they may not even know about it. I note that FP@S is now describing the Committee as a "heap of rubbish". I was under the impression that he was Greek (Dear Baristam, as a card carrying honorary member of the "GREEK WIKIPEDIAN NATIONALIST JUNTA" I strongly object to your exposing our despicable methods in this way - 10:23, 20 December 2006). However, I have just discovered that in April 2009 he kicked up a stink about the removal from the article about an Archbishop of Athens of sourced content implicating him in scandal. On the matter in hand, he says there is 'nothing to "separate"', but threatening a block to force out a consensus version and replace it with his Macedonist POV is classic WP:INVOLVED behaviour. Implicit in the words "final warning" is that the warner is an administrator. The timeline is awful. At 09:23 Gogo303 goes on FP@S' talk page and gives examples of undoubted Macedonist vandalism of Bulgarian churches. Now, we know what FP@S thinks of Bulgaria: Wow. I am really sorry for you, for having to live in a banana republic ... What a shame. - Future Perfect at Sunrise, 08:20, 15 April 2009 Why is someone who describes Bulgaria as "a banana republic" allowed anywhere near east European articles? At 09:30 FP@S removes the examples and accuses Gogo of "forcing" the consensus version into the article. At 09:41 Gogo clarifies that the "vandalism" reference relates solely to desecration of churches. At 10:26 he politely points out that FP@S should discuss the issue on the talk page rather than edit war. At 10:27 FP@S does go to the talk page, but instead of taking up this eminently sensible suggestion he issues his "final warning", "justifying" it with a reference to an issue which had already been put to bed. There wasn't even one personal attack, let alone three. He then accuses Gogo of not "meet[ing] other people's good-faith opinions" and threatens to block. Now fairly obviously, by this time Gogo would have done some basic research on FP@S, e.g. by accessing his user page, which contains an image of Wikipedia going up in flames on the left and a chimpanzee on the right. There are liberal references to him being an administrator, including the unpromising statement This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level. Replying to Banedon, the last ArbCom case against FP@S is in fact this one: Special:Permalink/885225348#CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise, which still has to be adjudicated on. @Callanecc, @Courcelles, @Gogo303, @GorillaWarfare, @KrakatoaKatie, @Opabinia regalis, @Premeditated Chaos, possibly they could both be dealt with together? A post from FP@S' sock account (12:33, 22 April 2009) under edit summary just fooling around a bit contains the Cyrillic letter Ж. The sock lost no time in vandalising the article currently titled "North Macedonia" [3]. I see Legacypac has been banned for using the word "bitch" once on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. Why has FP@S not been banned for multiple uses of the phrases "banned creep", "criminal harasser", etc. etc.? The only action performed by Favonian in a 15-hour period yesterday was a 2-year WP:INVOLVED block, based on the fantasy that an editor could travel 200 miles in 58 minutes (not allowing for the time spent composing, typing and saving the edit). @Gogo303: was probably right to go straight to Arbitration, bypassing ANI, after receiving FP@S' "I am just about to block you" warning. After all, Stevepeterson was blocked immediately he filed at ArbCom, having been brushed off at ANI. On Tuesday AGK noted: But you [FP@S] have history of acting while involved, and I will have no truck with admins who measure and calculate their wording just enough for it to go unnoticed by everyone other than the recipient. On Thursday he added that this bodes poorly for the future. He then removed the last part of the comment, pointing out that it was a "tautology". Indeed it is, but it's none the worse for that - after all, the Book of Common Prayer is full of them. But then he continues, ... I do not see this matter as part of a more troubling pattern. Seriously? 188.221.78.85 (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC) A sockpuppet investigation was opened at 12:41 on Monday afternoon. FP@S blocked at 12:48, but, as usual, said nothing to nobody. It occurred to me that the reason why he said nothing to nobody is that he doesn't know what he is doing. I decided to test this theory by examining his block log. I concentrated on blocks with "VXfC" (or some variant) in the "reason" field, since this is what is entered in this field in his latest block. The editor blocked at 12:48, 6 May geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire. The editor blocked at 15:21, 4 May geolocates to Glasgow (not even the same country). The editor blocked at 12:40, 2 May geolocates to London. When we get back to 09:02, 26 April no "reason" is entered at all. Is any explanation to be found at SPI? Unfortunately not, as I pointed out earlier. It's not only blocks that FP@S doesn't report in. The SPI report of 19:24, 7 May and RfPP request by Aloha27 at 19:25 led to FP@S protecting Computus for one year at 19:39. Again he said nothing to nobody and it was left to the bot to make the report (which it did at 20:02). This immediately raises the question, what other pages has FP@S secretly protected? Well, he indefinitely protected Gregorian calendar at 08:05, 11 December 2016. The barney there was Jc3s5h's claim that: the Council of Trent approved a plan in 1563 for correcting the calendrical errors, requiring that the date of the vernal equinox be restored to that which it held at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and that an alteration to the calendar be designed to prevent future drift. The Council said no such thing. What it did say [4] was this: The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various ... books ... And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary. The article now says exactly what it said in 2016, with one difference - the date of the supposed canon has been changed from "1563" to "1545". Another indefinite protection is Julian calendar, from 19 December 2017. The trigger here was a vandal removing a substantial block of content at 01:04, 16 December. Johnuniq added it back at 01:15. The vandal removed it again at 13:35, 18 December and at 14:43 an editor added it back, noting in the edit summary that the removal had been vandalism. At 12:22, 19 December AstroLynx removed the content again, claiming the editor who removed the vandalism was the vandal! FP@S' protection came five minutes later. 400,000 people signed a petition asking for the first picture in Islamic calendar to be removed. AstroLynx told the RfC that the Prophet delivered his farewell sermon to a congregation of five from a mosque pulpit. It later emerged that he had delivered it on a hilltop in front of thousands of pilgrims while sitting on his camel. This morning AstroLynx reverted a good-faith edit to Coordinated Universal Time one minute after it was made. The edit corrected the false statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as Coordinated Universal Time, replacing it with the correct statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as UT1. The article was in fact unprotected on Saturday. The unprotecting administrator did not consult FP@S - ALL FP@S' protections should be reversed in this manner. On 4 December 2016 FP@S protected Solar time indefinitely. The trigger for that appears to be the removal of the incorrect information the difference builds up until mean time is ahead of apparent time by about 14 minutes near February 6 and its replacement with the correct information: sundial behind the clock 14m 06s on 12 February with a smaller minimum on 26 July. On Monday I had another dream - I opened an account on Wikipedia. [At this point the keyboard started typing in Cyrillic - I managed to correct it]. For many, such a dream can turn into a nightmare as rouge administrators hunt them down: Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylized" Suspected sockpuppets 96.43.171.209 Three edits by IP account. All reinstated edits which were removed as sock edits by this banned user. - Aloha27 11:49, 12 October 2017 The edits being restored were by 31.52.216.116, which was blocked as a sockpuppet of User: **** *** *** *****. - Peter James 15:11, 12 October 2017 --- 86.158.154.78, have you ever registered an account on Wikipedia? If the answer is no, then why not create an account for yourself, edit other articles for a month, and then try editing the one on Brexit?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks Toddy1. Your link to WP:ADMINABUSE is exactly what I was looking for. It seems I have taken the right step to talk to EdJohnston first to give him a chance to reply. So let us see what he says, before we take it to the next level. (Do you know anything about this NeilN interloper? - I saw his comment on the Sexual Intercourse article with regards to children in early 2017. He gives me the creeps.) 86.158.154.78 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC) @NeilN: @Toddy1 The latest remark from the IP resembles this gem of an edit summary from the ubiquitous WP:LTA/****. Agreed? Favonian (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC) @Favonian: Yes, same style, same waste of time. --NeilN talk to me 18:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Thank you! IP blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) --- I have nothing to do with a user named "**** *** *** *****" in whose name I have been blocked. - SdrawkcaB99, 22:19, 16 January 2018 The SPI report was filed by Jayron32, the administrator who illegally activated an "LTA" report. Jayron 32 responded to an SPI report (12:02, 7 May 2019) by Aloha27, whom we have met, with a block at 13:46. Normally it takes months for these reports to be actioned. Could there be some link to reports on Risker and GorillaWarfare's talk pages between 9 and 15 April 2019 detailing misogynistic bullying by Jayron32? Similar reports have been filed in respect of Favonian, whom we have met. --- Follow-up: Administrator Abuse by Users Mandruss and NeilN Good morning Yamla. Recently you participated in what I think is called "cyberbullying", after I had tried to file a complaint against two administrators, see below. Unlike the other bullies, you at least gave a reason, namely "block evasion". May I ask you for the background to this claim? It is a sincere question, and the reason that I am asking is that I am trying to understand the mechanisms of Wikipedia, so that I can file a successful complaint against these two administrators without risk of further allegations and blocks. Many thanks in advance for your cooperation. 86.158.154.106 (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC) 1=Yesterday, on the Wikipedia_talk:Consensus page, I made a Request for Comment on my proposed new algorithm for editing Wikipedia pages. Essentially, I proposed the idea of including a majority voting element, which is often already applied in practice, but has not been formalised. To my astonishment, Users Mandruss and NeilN ganged up on me with abusive language and blocked me. I request that I be unblocked immediately, and that those two Administrators be sanctioned for their behaviour. Otherwise I may refuse to participate in Wikipedia editing from now on. 86.158.154.104 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) | decline = I see talk page access has already been revoked. Good. If you aren't willing to address your block evasion, you shouldn't expect to be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Please don't request an unblock on my behalf. I'm not blocked. As to the unblock request I did yesterday, I presume you mean the one at User talk:86.158.154.104. I declined the unblock request because your block notice said you were blocked for "Block evasion" but you did not address this in your unblock request. As you did not address the reason for your block, there were no grounds for me to consider lifting the block. Nothing else in your request was relevant, when considering lifting your block. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the rapid response. So how do I (and you as an administrator/registered user) obtain information on the alleged block evasion? In other words, what precisely is the block about? 86.158.154.106 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Ask the blocking administrator. Or look at WT:Consensus where you started a conversation and see how the blocking administrator closed the discussion. ~ GB fan 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC) (edit-conflict) You'd have to ask the blocking admin. There's no information I have that you don't already have. I mean specifically, there's no sort of hidden blog log available only to admins, which has additional information. In your case, it's unclear if one of your other IP addresses was blocked, or if you previously used an account. You may know that, of course, but I don't. The one piece of information you may not know is that blocks apply to the person. What I mean is if you have an account and that account is blocked, you aren't permitted to edit through an IP address. Similarly, if one of your IP addresses is blocked, you aren't allowed to just change IP addresses and continue editing. Even though the block is placed on an account or an IP address, it applies to the person behind the account or IP address. --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC) In this specific case, you are believed to be the long-term vandal known as **** *** *** ***** (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** *****. I take no position on this claim. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC) I've blocked the latest IP. --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC) --- Message for Yamla Hi Yamla, I hope you will read this because NeilN has struck again, interrupting our dialogue on your Talk page. First of all, many thanks for the link pointing towards the long-term Vandal(X). So if I understand this correctly, NeilN is evading Administrator Abuse charges by blocking the plaintiff (me), by the simple means of tagging my IP onto a random other blocked account holder. How do you suggest I bring this behaviour to the attention of senior Wikipedia administrators? 86.158.154.106 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by {Non-party} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse) He's started again within the last hour with unsourced claims of "sensationalist treatment in the Greek news sources" and the recent invasion of a Greek island by Turkish soldiers being justified under "international law".

86.190.56.233 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not read all of the content that you pasted here, but would like to make a few points:

1) I have no intention of getting involved in content disputes about the Balkans, especially disputes about naming of the country that almost the whole world has known as Macedonia since it became independent. My only interest in the recent WP:ANI discussion was in calling out the bullying based on disability.

2) If I ever open an arbitration case about anything I will do so in my own words, not by pasting previous comments from others that they who may not still wish to be part of a case.

3) It is impolite of you to paste such large amounts of text to another editor's talk page. Please link to it instead. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to open a fresh case using "John Doe"'s evidence as the basis of your complaint you are welcome. 86.190.56.233 (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear that I would only consider opening an arbitration case about anything using my own evidence as the basis. Please stop trying to recruit me into anything. If you want to open an arbitration case then do it yourself - I will make my own decisions without your input. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI

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

Just an FYI because I mentioned you by name in this thread. – Levivich 22:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Theriocephaly

Thanks for your edit summary comment at Theriocephaly. I think it's a fair point and one I had considered – another way of looking at it would be that the words we use help to construct the concepts they describe (linguistic determinism, or something), so the two can't be so easily distinguished, but perhaps that would be getting too philosophical. One possibility for the article would be to merge into Human–animal hybrid, of which it's a subtopic; another would be to move to animal-headed deity, or something, and leave the content much the same. Theriocephaly would then be a useful redirect, seeing as it is in use (e.g.), albeit in what looks like a citogenetic manner. There may be other possibilities as well – do you have any thoughts? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはPhil Bridgerたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Glenn Anthony May

I attempted to start a AFD for Glenn Anthony May, but I’m not sure if I did it correctly. Feel free to fix any mistakes. Thanks. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting Deletion

Regarding deletion suggestion, how should it be done? Is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion the way to do? How to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion?

Also, is this page to be used to reply to you? Or is it my page? I don't know the exact procedures.09:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Payyan-2000 (talk)

@Payyan-2000: Yes, that's the procedure to follow. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

For enduring the talk page monstrosity in the form of a thread. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 00:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Becker

FYI, regarding this edit, the AfD was closed as "delete and redirect", not "redirect". --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can see (as I can't) anything so egregious as to need deleting from the history then please revert me. I note that you closed the AfD as "delete and redirect" even though nobody called for that result in the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That AfD had a clear consensus for "delete". Because some participants suggested that a redirect could be helpful, I closed "delete and redirect" instead of simply "delete". The version currently in the history is much poorer than the one that was AfDed (fewer text, fewer sources), so if you think that the previous discussion was closed incorrectly, take it to DRV, not this backhand way of changing the AfD outcome. --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Going to DRV would be a colossal waste of everyone's time and effort over such a triviality, as is our spending any more time on this than it would have taken for you to hit "undo" or "rollback". I tried to save more time and effort by simply reverting to a redirect, but if you are intent on wasting your time on getting the history deleted then please just do so, without wasting my time as well by arguing about it here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Punjab Sports University

Please see my proposal to undo the move of Punjab Sports University. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. It looks like we were addressing the same issue in different ways at the same time. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Phil Bridger!

Happy New Year!

Phil Bridger,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 23:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.