User talk:Bishonen

October music

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

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

User:151.124.106.64

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

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

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

Macrobiotic Diet

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

Secondly, neither was my editing "disruptive".

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

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

You have no grounds to enact such an onerous punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing warring user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WMF, Editor Privacy, Courts, and India

Hi Bish,

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

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

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

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

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

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