User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/11

Your latest scripting goodies
Since I do my fair share of username blocks I've just added your usernameblockwarning thingy to my already bulbous bag-o'-scripts. Cheers for that; I'll let you know how it turns out. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, a thought just occurred to me about this. I use User:Animum/easyblock.js quite extensively - how will your script deal with that, or will it just fail to run? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, after completely destroying my watchlist with block entries for my test account, I've come up with this: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/easyBlock.js. t's basically a slightly-modified version of Anmimum's script, with the username request check added. Other than that, it should be identical. If you like, replace Animum's version with mine. It doesn't require or depend on my original script, though, so you can install them separately. (And yeah, my original script would've ignored Animum's.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well how fab are you? Tell you what, if you want to earn some additional overtime (by which I mean: earn nothing whatsoever except my gratitude, which isn't legal currency (as my bank manager keeps pointing out)), how's about knocking up a script that pings up a notification if you start to delete a page that has already been deleted in the past (especially via AFD)? I'm thinking of my recent deletion of Teal Scott, which should really have been under G4, rather than A7. I'll confess, I don't always check the logs for a page before deletion if it's that obvious - a script that did so for me would be jolly handy. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, while it doesn't do it as you're about to delete, I've actually already written something like that: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js. Basically, every time you load a page, if it had already been deleted, it'll put a link next to the title that says "prev dels", which will link you to the deletion log, and if the article's been at AfD, it'll do the same with a link to "prev AfDs", with that linked to a list of the AfDs for that article. It's not perfect; it'll report revdels to the page as regular deletions, so there are false positives. But I haven't noticed any false negatives, and it's very handy to know whether things have been deleted and how. I wrote it back when I was really heavy on NPP (before becoming an admin actually), so that I could tell when I couldn't PROD something (since you can't PROD something that's already survived an AfD.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So let me see if I've understood this correctly: I come to you begging for (yet another) script, and you are not only able to write one, but actually already wrote it, having somehow psychically predicted my need...
 * You're fantastic, but occasionally you scare me a little... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I "already" wrote it a year and a half ago. Because that's just how I roll. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 08:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What I'm forever after going to call "prevdels" (because the name sounds to me like some sort of delicious Eastern European pastry) is a jolly handy script. You shouldn't keep these things to yourself, you know; next time you psychically intuit something I need before I know about it myself, drop me a note! Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I feel a bit bad about asking this, but since you've already rewritten Animum's script anyway, please could I request a small tweak to your revamped version? At present, the minimum block length for an anonblock using the script is one week - I find that a bit excessive in many cases, so tend to hand down 24- and 48- hour blocks to IPs the old-fashioned way (by whittling the block message onto a piece of teak, taking a steamship to the geolocation of the IP, and presenting the teak plaque to them with a short ceremonial dance - seems a bit of an onerous way to do it, but that's what they told me when I got the bit...). Could you perhaps add a couple of additional menu options to allow for shorter IP blocks (perhaps 24, 48 and 72 hours)? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think that should do it. Keep in mind that the new options aren't fully tested, as testing it would require either changing parts of the script that don't otherwise need to be changed (making the test kinda worthless) or finding some poor unfortunate IP to block arbitrarily. But it should be fine; adding options is actually quite easy. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Works like a charm. Thanks. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification about my contesting talkpage block
Writkeeper, I asked Blackmane, who had offered to raise my situation at WP:AN/ANI on a slightly different point, to raise it to review Kww's block of my talkpage to me based on WP:CANVASSING. Here is FYI, and if you have any other ideas, they'd be welcome. Kww is treading on your toes too if he didn't communicate with you beforehand, as you were the one who unblocked my page to me not long ago. This is Colt on Co5mic.
 * Yes, I saw. My toes are not so sacred that they can never be tread upon. Really, CC, what did you expect to happen? When I first saw that you were pinging individual people, I immediately thought it was canvassing, and I'm still not so sure that it wasn't. I couldn't make a strong case that it was de jure canvassing, which is why I left it, and I don't think it was going to change the outcome much in any event, but I can't exactly fault someone for assuming that it was canvassing and removing your talk page access for it. Even if it wasn't actually canvassing it was definitely pushing it, and in your position, pushing it is kinda the last thing you should be doing. Anyway, I can't restore your talk page access, as that would be the prelude to wheel warring if not outright wheel warring itself, and frankly, I don't think I would be able to convince anyone else that they should restore access, so I'm not really sure there's anything else I can do. If someone starts an AN thread, I'll participate, but I don't think I can do any more than that. (It might be better that you don't reply, to be honest: I don't think continuing block evasion is going to help your case. But as you will, I guess.) P.S.- I just noticed your edit summary. Please do not insult other users on my talk page. Invective against me is whatever, but I will not have my talk page used as a vehicle to insult others. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the policy. I sought broader participation in the RFC/U. That's not canvassing. You think those commenting now are representative of Wikipedians?! The vast bulk of them came to the RFC/U because they've been tracking me for ages saying "block him, block him, block him." My pings met *none* of the components of canvassing under WP:CANVASSING, the nutshell of which advises the right way to notify: "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Three requirements all met. Bwilkins tried to get me blocked at WP:AN on the allegation, which failed. This impliedly affirmed there was no violation. Does this stop the admonished editor Kww on the same allegation a couple days later? No. He blocks without warning. Transparent and unequivocal administrative abuse. Bwilkins and Kww don't haven't even bothered to read the policy. And then little Lukeno94 starts wikihounding me around, reverting my every edit. He's not even an administrator. Do you think I am some sort of yoga guru with unlimited patience for this? I told him what I thought of him, the insult was minor. Do you see what he's saying about *me* now at the RFC/U? He says I "can't be trusted." That's much worse. I am not some yoga guru, I've been bound and gagged long enough having to read people say all this factually erroneous garbage about me. You've seen it too. Put yourself in my shoes for once. Please do comment your position at the current WP:AN section . This is Colt on Co5mic. 20:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) PS: "I don't think continuing block evasion is going to help your case." Man, what do you want me to do. Accept it all and send my one allotted email to WP:BASC each six months so AGK and Timotheus Canens and co. can chuckle wildly as they click "send" on the form email decline? You know my position and that I was wrongly blocked all the way.

So, how about that local sports team? And the weather, really cold this year, huh?
I thought I'd have a conversation with 1 of the (apparently) 3 remaining grownups on this site. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. I guess part of being a grownup is having the wisdom to get the hell out of Dodge.  Good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno, man, I'm just tired of things. It's one of those things where you feel like you're the only sane person in a world full of crazies, which I think usually means you're the one who's crazy. I don't feel crazy, but I guess one never does. Anyway, I dunno how much of an adult I am, in relative or absolute terms; I'm just this guy, y'know? (Also, speaking of sports, friggin' Canada, man. Though I can't really begrudge them it.) <3, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 07:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Word. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Request that you unilaterally unblock me for the purposes of the RFC/U
Writkeeper, well, the WP:AN/ANI discussion ended with like 12 in my favor and 16 against, or that was Blackmane's count. TParis closes as officially "no consensus." Would you consider acting unilaterally and unblocking for purposes of the RFC/U? You could not be accused of "overriding community consensus" because the discussion result had no consensus. Kww's WP:CANVASSING charge is transparently bogus, as you noticed. I minded that policy to the letter: small number of notifications, neutral text, did not select people according to their established positions. Prior to Kww, Bwilkins reported me to WP:AN/ANI, didn't get the agreement of a single other administrator that there was any violation. Does this stop Kww, who's already been recently admonished ? No, he blocks without warning on the same discredited charge. I looked at the WP:AN/ANI discussion for another administrator to ask, but didn't see anybody really. TParis has long derided me as "sock," refused to respond to my polite email, and reverted my attempts to discuss warning about the privacy implications of using his project WP:UTRS at its talkpage. So, not him. Who then? If you unblock me I promise to only post at the RFC/U talkpage and my own talkpage, and to adhere to a double civility behavior. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.17.230.41 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I wanted to be sure that I had enough time to explain my reasoning to you. First of all, the answer is no, I will not unilaterally unblock you to participate in the RFC/U. Here's why. I am of the opinion that it is not a single admin's job to make up the mind of the community for it. I am not yet convinced that you should be unblocked entirely (and to be honest, some of the posts you've made recently haven't exactly increased my confidence in that regard), but I am still reasonably convinced that you would not cause too much trouble if unblocked solely for the purposes of the RFC/U. But it's my philosophy that we admins aren't selected to listen to our own opinions: it's our job to listen to the will of the community, interpret it as best we can, and implement it. That's what we are trusted to do, not to implement our own opinions and ideas; our opinions and ideas are no more important than any other editor's. Yes, you're right that I could probably get away with unblocking you, as there was no explicit consensus against it. But that's not really the point; it's not that I'm allowed to do what I want unless consensus forbids it, it's that I'm only supposed to do what consensus allows. I guess, if you want to compare it to early American politics, I would fall under the "strict interpretation" school. So, while there was no real consensus either way, there was significant opposition to an unblock (stronger than the support for it, in fact), and I can't just ignore that. It's not my job to say, "well, the community can't make up its mind, so I'll decide for it". In the absence of consensus, I have to respect the status quo, even though I disagree with it. (This is all not to mention the fact that, as a participant in the discussion and also the admin who previously restored talk page access, it is probably not the best move for me to be the one and act without prior consensus.) I don't know if that sounds like a cop-out or what, and I know that not all admins share my philosophy, but that's what I think, and it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately; I'm sorry that it seems to be burning you this time. For what it's worth, I'm not exactly pleased that the thread went the way it did; I really don't see much harm to be done with this, and I'm disappointed that people didn't see it that way. But them's the breaks; it's not my job to supervote, and I don't think trying to start the discussion up again would help at all. I don't really know what else to tell you. I'm sorry I can't help more, but I just wouldn't feel right doing it. I hope that makes some kind of sense. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, no offense taken of course

 * Well, no offense taken of course, This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.227.64.30 (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What is this I don't even
I am really this close to reaching my limit. Seriously thinking about raising WP:CIR issues somewhere, or something. —  Scott  •  talk  18:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as hard as I facedesked when I read t Oh, well, he beat you to it, it would seem, so good times for all, I guess. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Triple facepalms with a side order of ah, for the love'a... all round. —  Scott  •  talk  18:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well possibly it shouldn't be then...
Since I've seen it flouted many, many times and policy is meant to describe what actually happens. I will admit it's been a while since I read the blocking policy and given how many times I've seen unblock requests denied by the same admin I assumed it wasn't. Will refactor comments. Dpmuk (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'd rather say that we should start enforcing it more. You're right, I have seen it flouted a few times, but that doesn't make it a bad idea, y'know? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd completely concur. I will definitely start pointing admins at it if I see them declining unblock requests from their own blocks. Dpmuk (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I'm thinking of unblocking Hilo; he says in the request he would've stopped had he known people would've objected to it; I think he knows now, so I don't think it's going to reoccur. I'll give him a note that explains my thinking. Sound okay? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With his newest post that sounds fine to me. Dpmuk (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused why one of the 2 warring parties was unblocked, but not the other. The newbie doesn't know the right things to say? --Onorem (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, trivially, it's because Hilo's block is the one I've looked at in depth. But yes, I guess you could put it that way: Hilo promised to take others' opinions into account and stop edit-warring, and Empire of War didn't. This is not a thing where if you unblock one, you have to unblock the other. Hilo has shown evidence that they won't repeat, whereas Empire of War has shown evidence that they likely will repeat. So, one gets unblocked and the other doesn't. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see it. I see them saying that they weren't warned, so they thought they were right. Whatever. (And I understand that both sides don't have to be unblocked, but both were warring equally.) Have a good weekend. --Onorem (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that too, but what I also see--and what I'm really looking for--is Hilo saying that, while he thinks he's right (of course), he's also willing to take other people's views into account. He said things like Had I received a warning, of any kind, from anybody, on this matter. I would have stopped and I may be mistaken, and would be happy to admit my mistake if that is the case and Did you think about warning me, as Empire of War was warned? I would have stopped. These kinds of statements indicate to me that, though Hilo is of the opinion that he is right (of course), he is willing to take others' opinions on board and not necessarily act on only his own if there's a conflict. In essence, he's saying that he'll listen and won't repeat. That's all I can ask for from an unblock request; I don't look for people to come groveling, saying "Oh, I was wrong, woe is me, have mercy on this poor misguided soul, oh mighty admin." Nor am I of the opinion that he needs to sit out the block because otherwise he's not being punished enough. I don't know how much credence the whole "preventative, not punitive" thing gets around here these days, but if a person promises to listen and take others' opinions into account, and we have no reason to disbelieve them, then the block ceases to be preventative and we should unblock. So, that's why I unblocked, and that's why I didn't unblock Empire of War; their unblock requests had no such statements. As for edit-warring equally, well, they were both edit-warring, yes. But first and foremost, that doesn't mean they need to be punished equally, because as I said, blocks aren't (supposed to be) about punishment. And even if they were, I'm not really sure how truly equal they were; Hilo had the benefit of a working consensus on his side. Granted, a 2-1 isn't that much of a consensus, but it's still more than Empire of War had, and that's gotta count for something. Hopefully that made some kind of sense, but thanks regardless, and I hope your weekend is good, too. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I brought it up. I feel a bit sick now. Still, have a good weekend. --Onorem (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:


 * By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OTRS
Hullo, picking you as a familiar name from the list of OTRS users... I just emailed info-en as a record of getting permission for something. Any chance you could find me out the ticket number so I can quote it somewhere? Many thanks! —  Scott  •  talk  23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if I can... It's been a while since I've really done anything on OTRS, and my login may have expired. I'll try. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, still works. Looking... Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like ticket #2014031010013444. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thank you. —  Scott  •  talk  00:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Spam only account?
Hey, WK, would you look at this user and see if you think that this is a nearly-spam only account which warrants action? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! I was wondering, "Why can't TM just handle it himself?" Why can't you? I'll take a look. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, given this edit, it calls for a username block, as "jdmi" clearly stands for "Joe D'Ambrosio Inc.", which would make it a role account. The editing itself isn't actually all that bad, really; I mean, it's not great, particularly the external link insertions, but it's not the most terrible spam I've ever seen, and they do do things like remove the spurious word "illustrious", so it's not all bad. I'm inclined to give them a username only block (but not a soft block, meaning they do have to file an unblock-un), and leave them a note about spam/COI/EL policy. Sound reasonable to you? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. As for your, question about why I can't handle it, 'cause I'm not an admin like you? Or was the question rhetorical? I'm confused. (But that's not uncommon...) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The question was, "Why are you not an admin"? ;) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, anyway, I had to use a somewhat harsher template than I really wanted, since the others implied that it was a soft block, but it's probably for the best anyway. I also nominated the article at AfD for notability/promo concerns. Maybe I'm just getting soft. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thank you for the kind words, my friend. The simple answer is that I don't have enough content creation edits to survive the process (and, knowing that, am sometimes a bit bolder in other ways than would be wise for someone who's trying to achieve the mop). This evaluation is a bit out of date, but the principles haven't changed much. Fortunately, I have admin friends like you who will listen to my nonsense without applying a trout when I get a bee in my bonnet about something. Best regards, and thanks again (and have you seen my most recent essay?}, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Stealing your crown
At least...it looks like a crown. I always thought this & was cool...so.....;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I do quite like it. It's the Unicode symbol for a white king in chess, so yep, a crown. Go for it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Writ and Mark, what popular culture reference is this? ♚  (Clue1.) (Solution.) Award yourself a stroopwafel if you got it right. See 'ya later, got to get back to helping the cabal & the &'s. Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (and people wonder why I'm not an admin...)
 * Well, I got it right, thohgh the fact that that's the queen symbol didn't help. It's funny, though; of all the people I was watching that show with, I was the only one to recognize that phrase as the title of a book. I've never read the book, but after watching the show (and being a big H. P. Lovecraft fan, to which I've seen the book compared), I really want to. Have you? Is it good? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the queen, Chess_symbols_in_Unicode has it wrong, but I'll yield to just about anyone's expertise on that question. Yes, I have read it, long ago, and enjoyed it quite a bit as I recall. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, now it looks like a king; maybe the device that I was looking at it on had a weird font that made it look more like the queen. Oh well. I'll have to see if I can get it on my kindle; it's old enough to be PD by now, I think, so it might even be free! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got Cajun friends down in that part of Louisiana (which was how I came to write this article) and have actually been to a couple of Courir de Mardi Gras's. I immediately recognized the courir riders in that photo in Lange's mother's house in episode 2 as such. I haven't spoken to them since the series has been on, so I don't know what they thought about it — I can see how they might feel less than thrilled — but the director had the look and feel of the place, especially the less-affluent parts of it, spot on. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that Carcosa was a reference to The King in Yellow, too. That is pretty cool. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Best straight man ever
I knew I could count on you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I aim to please. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ARTICLE RECREATION ON JOHNCONGO
Pls i noticed the article Johncongo has been locked from creating and i will like to write on it..pls can you help me open it back.? Enterjoor (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, I can't. As I explained to you on your talk page, I haven't seen any evidence that Johncongo is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I saw that you continued to recreate it, despite its repeated deletions, which is why I locked the title from being recreated; it still hadn't come very close at all to being an acceptable Wikipedia article. I strongly recommend that you stop trying to create this article, at least for a while; the status of the article won't change until there are reliable sources that indicate notability, as I explained before. Also, you should know that writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged; writing about oneself makes it extremely difficult to make sound, unbiased judgements about what is all right to include in an article, particularly in decisions about notability. Once there are sufficient reliable sources, if you still think you can maintain a neutral point of view, you can try creating the article as a draft via the AfC process; this will require another editor to review the article before it goes live (and I won't lie; the wait times for a review can be extremely long), but if another editor looks at it and approves it, the article will stand a much better chance of surviving as a real Wikipedia article. But right now, I don't think unprotecting the page is a good idea. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

indirectly quoted you at ani
Hi, WK.

I have referenced the fact at ANI that you warned a user for his comments in violation of an interaction ban here. I assume this is reasonable, given there's no other way for uninvolved users to be aware of the situation, unless the original comment is simply removed. Let me know if there;s some other way you want this handled.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know that mentioning the interaction ban was necessary there, nor do I know that wouldn't have constituted a violation of it on your own part. However, I let TRM's comments stand, so I'll let yours stand too. Probably best to avoid mentioning even that, too. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Right To Pretend to Work Act 1974
I am sorry. But I work very hard improving Wikipedia and every now and again I make a joke, to kinda relieve it. I work extremely hard to make the encyclopaeidia better and in no way would I want to harm it, I just threw it in as a joke and would have nominated at CSD myself if you hadn't beaten me to it! Last night I was translating Catalan. Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't nominate it; I just happened to have your talk page on my watchlist--I don't remember why--and saw the thread. Anyway, no worries; I have nothing against jokes; I'm a big fan of them, really. It's just probably best if they stay out of mainspace, y'know? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have quite a roving commission so I'm not surprised. It's a bit of a pity with Wikipedia: most encyclopaedias have jokes in them because they are edited by a small team so either the author of the article slips one past when the editor is nodding or that they are actually inserted by the editor. And Johnson's Dictionary for example is famous for having a few jokes thrown in.


 * That is not to say that Wikipedia should just become one great big joke book, but I think occasionally it's OK to have a lighter tone, Wikipedia seems overly-serious sometimes. The hardest thing with this is when editing articles about comedy, since for several reasons one doesn't just want to repeat the comic's jokes etc but on the other hand an overly-serious tone about someone who for a living made people laugh is a difficult balance, it can make them sound like they were the worst comic in the world. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ceiling fans
You pointed me to Sockpuppet investigations/Ghhgjjf/Archive on my talk page. After reading the latest unblock request, I decided to look in the substance of our friend's edits here. And it's clear that he's a sock. However, there is also Sockpuppet investigations/David Beals/Archive. Indeed, some of the accounts listed at the Ghhgjjf archive have tags on their user pages pointing to Beals. I'm assuming all of these accounts (both archives) are connected. Beals is significantly older than Ghhgjjf, so assuming nothing older, they would be the proper master. But I see no connection between the two archives. Finally, I was going to tag our friend as a suspected puppet, and I assume I should use Beals as the master, but wasn't sure. Unless you think it's better not to tag them, although I prefer it for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, Beals is the master I was actually thinking of (you'll see my name in the SPI in a few places). I've been discussing it with a couple CUs and stewards and stuff (some are globally locked or something). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I go ahead and tag both accounts (there's a new one found by, who left a very amusing note on my talk page)? What about merging the two SPIs or at least cross-referencing the one who's not the master?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you can tag the accounts; I don't think that tagging socks is particularly important, but I guess it wouldn't be wrong to do so. I don't really see the point of merging the SPIs, though; the correct master has the more recent socks, so merging won't really help any future investigations particularly (and really, I don't think it's that important that "the right sockmaster" be identified; as long as we know someone belongs to this particular sock group, I don't think it's important to identify the right account as master). But, as you will. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I like tidy, all done.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagging the accounts was not a good idea in this case, per WP:DENY, and considering the fact that several of the account names were globally locked and oversighted, as names attacking the users. Also, "confirmed" in this case is rather academic; since we can't see the CU log or results, it's hard to say what is confirmed and what is not, especially for the checks that were run crosswiki, and changing the tags is, quite frankly, a waste of time. --Rschen7754 09:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't object to the merger, just the tagging of the accounts with attack user names, right? I've commented on my talk page some more because I don't completely understand, but I'm going to bed (it's 2:15 a.m. and I'm tired). Feel free to redelete the user pages without me if that's what you think best. I'd like to understand, but if I don't, I don't, and not tagging them certainly isn't a big deal.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion requested
One of the problems of the current "higher" forms of DR — DRN and MEDCOM — is that not much can be done at either place if some of the major participants in the dispute do not choose to join in. I've worked up a draft proposal for a fourth form of DR (3O being the third one) which would avoid that problem, but only in those cases which have been rejected at DRN or MEDCOM for lack of partipation. I'm inviting a small group of my DR colleagues — AGK, Hasteur, Keithbob, Macon, Miller, Strad, Writ Keeper, and Zhang — to tell me what they think of the feasibility of this idea. (And if any of you would like to invite someone else to the party, feel free to do so.) The proposal is located in my sandbox in my sandbox here. If you have a minute, I'd really appreciate your comments on the talk page there. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Super-team
When the citation precedes the LIST and the LIST is indented then it is correctly cited. I am dedicated to curing ignorance.Stmullin (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. In the original version that Kuru deleted, the citation that includes the source of the list is located two paragraphs above the start of the list itself, attached to an unrelated sentence, with no actual textual connection between the list and the citation. There is no way for anyone reading it to know where that list came from. Moreover, the list was not indented, and even if it was, indentation alone is not enough of an indicator to signify to a reader that the content is a direct quote, not when the quote is of a list, where formatting changes like indents are common features and don't always indicate a quotation, and especially in the absence of any reasonable form of attribution. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited the list to 4 lines and connected those 4 lines to the author's names in prose and with a citation. . . why would that not be clearly understood? Stmullin (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Also, the point is to correct not eliminate. . . redirecting to High Performance Teams was the correct solution. . . but trigger happy deletionists never bothered to examine the correct solution and attacked my character rather than search for constructive solutions for the article.Stmullin (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what was in the article. As I've said twice now, what is in the article is a direct copy, word-for-word, of the list in this PDF, starting with the phrase "Forming - Awareness" on page S3, and ending with the sentence "Basic principles and social aspects of the organization’s decisions considered." on page S4. The only editing you did to it was to bold the titles and convert the numbers/letters to bullets, neither of which are remotely enough to assuage the copyright violation. The list was not in quotes, indented, or given any other possible indication that it was a direct quote, and there was no connection of that list to its (or any other) source whatsoever; as I said, the citation of the document in that PDF was located two paragraphs above the beginning of the list copy, attached to an unrelated sentence. It was a textbook copyright infringement. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also keep in mind that we do not go by the academic guidelines but the guidelines that we set here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that I had indented that passage. . . that is my error, not copyright. . . I need to learn how to correctly indent. Now that the problem is correctly defined it should be easy to solve. How do I indent?Stmullin (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * can be done with *
 * And a regular indent can be done : for one space :: for two, etc

This Help:Cheatsheet will be of immense help. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "thank you . . . this also works" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.59.109 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for helping, HiaB. Stmullin: if it was unintentional, that's fine; we all make mistakes, and copyright things are some of the easiest things to mistake. But you have to understand that it doesn't need to be intentional to be a copyright violation; one can quite easily violate it by accident, and that's what happened here. We're not using "copyright violation" as a synonym for "plagiarism" here; "plagiarism" would indeed imply that you intended to pass off the work of others as your own, but that's not what we're saying here. So please don't take offense; I don't think anyone believes that you meant to commit a copyright violation. But the fact remains that you actually did commit it, even though you didn't mean to. My real point is that, at the time that Kuru looked at the page, there was a copyright violation, and it wouldn't have been unreasonable for them to assume that the rest of the article was one, too. That's the point here; even though it turned out to be wrong, their initial action wasn't a terribly bad one, given what they knew at the time. In any event, now that the article has been redirected, I don't think there's all that much more to discuss. Just, for the future, keep in mind that any direct quotes need to be clearly identified as such and directly attributed, and that we do take it pretty seriously when they're not. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Cindamuse"
This character is a sockpuppet of Altimgamr (and hundreds more), who has had issues with the real Cindamuse in the past - see my talk page for another example. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * *shrug* I figured it was someone or other. I don't really see the point in identifying exactly whose sock someone might be; if it's obvious enough that they're someone's sock, I don't think it really matters whose it is, y'know? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail rel AY
Could you pls. lemme' know if you're not interested in giving input or doing anything about this one. Thanks!
 * Yeah, I saw the email; I might not be able to get to it today, but I should be able to over the weekend. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Cheers, Haf. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Time
Writ, I am not sure about abrupt name changes and stuff, but how can this User:Telpardec, claim he has been on Wikipedia for 9 years and 10 months, when his/hers first edit is from 14 February 2011... 9 years should be starting 2004. Unless I am missing something. Haf (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, renames have nothing to do with it; their account was created on 13 February 2011. So no, you're not missing anything. There are a few possibilities: they might have had another account before that one that they decided to retire, they might be counting the time from their first edit as an IP address, rather than as a registered editor, or they could just be lying. Userboxes like that are done on the user's whim; they're not policed or anything, and I don't think that anyone takes them very seriously. Some people do take the "this user is an admin"-type ones seriously, as claiming to be an admin when one isn't might mislead people into asking one for admin help fruitlessly, but other than that, I don't think it's anything to worry about. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Stange. Why would a person pretend this? Hafspajen (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

GUF
Hello,

I'm a French speaking wiki-contributor and I noticed a slight problem when looking up GUF's as in Global union federation. I landed on French Guiana which is itself redirected from GUF as in French Guiana.

Could you please be so kind and create a "page d'homonymie" as they are called in French? So that anyone who is looking for Global union federation, commonly called the GUF's, may find the right page?

Thanks a million

--BiiJii (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Biijii! I'm not much of a French speaker myself, but I'd assume that the equivalent on en is the disambiguation page. However, we usually only make them if there are three or more pages to disambiguate. Instead, what we can do is add another hatnote to the French Guiana page, letting the reader know about the global union federation page. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the hatnote to French Guiana; feel free to change the wording as you see fit. Is that enough for what you were looking for? Cheers, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Mass rollback
I used the script today. I probably used it sometime in the distant past because it was already installed. I don't know what happened before, but this time was painful. It was slow, did things in fits and starts, opened up tons of windows, and ultimately killed my browser (Firefox). Even getting Windows 7 to cancel the Firefox task wasn't easy. Of course, you know more about script writing than I do (zilch), and, knowing how bright you are, there are probably reasons it works the way it does, but I just figured I'd give you (hopefully) constructive feedback. I'll probably uninstall it, though; can't go through that again. It's tedious doing it manually, but it's much faster and doesn't take over my PC. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I come back to you once more

 * Anyway. Yes, I find it a little weird that Kww is going to lengths to revert your edits, and I certainly wish they wouldn't do so here, but it's not against the rules to do so; this is still de jure block evasion. As for the talk page block, I think I've explained it to you before: while I disagree with the action they took, it's not up to me to be the final arbiter of who's right and who's wrong, and to enforce my will on the encyclopedia, admin/crat or not. I see where they were coming from; though I don't agree with the block, I can't say it was totally unjustified, so I can't unilaterally overrule it. It may or may not have been wheel-warring for me to do so, seeing as how I was the one who originally restored TP access (I'm actually pretty sure it wouldn't have been, but people could undoubtedly make at least some sort of case otherwise), but that's really neither here nor there anyway, as I don't refrain from doing things because I might lose my bits. I refrain from doing things because I think, as I've said before, that--notwithstanding protection of my own talk page--the use of admin tools cannot contravene the will of the community, and if memory serves (and I was going to look this up to see before the endless stream of notification emails started to piss me off), the related ANI thread didn't come to a consensus to revert Kww's action, so I don't feel justified in reverting it unilaterally despite a lack of consensus to do so after discussion. As I said before, I'm sorry that my philosophy is burning you, but it is what it is.
 * I'm more sorry that the pseudo-edit-war between you, a few other editors, and the edit filter led you to insult another editor in your most recent edit summary. As I've told you before, I'm fair game on my talk page, but other people are not. No quibbling over whether that was an insult or not, please, and no links to NPA or CIVIL or whatever; this isn't about Wikipedia policy, these are my ground rules. If you can't obey them, then we have nothing more to discuss here. Now, when this protection expires: you are allowed to post here. However, you are not allowed to post more than once before I've replied. I get notified of all edits to this page, of course, so I can always read your comments in the edit history if they've been reverted, and this boxing match shit between you and the edit filter has got to go. I have 12 emails notifying me about your posts in little over an hour: no thanks. I'd ask other editors, particularly Kww, to respect this and not revert, but, y'know, it's within their rights to do so, I guess. No insults against other editors: if you can't figure out whether something is an insult or not, then just don't say it. That includes edit summaries. If you violate any of these rules, I will start reverting your comments myself unread. If you don't like 'em, well, you can find another admin, I guess. K? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * CC isn't permitted to post anywhere. Nowhere at all. If he chooses to communicate with BASC or UTRS via e-mail, that is his right, but that is the only method of communication available to him. By making statements that would appear to provide leniency, you do nothing but encourage him to evade his block again.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If all he's evading his block to do is appeal said block, well, I don't really think that's such a heinous crime, futile though it is. And it's not like discouragement has stopped him anyway. I mean, on the one hand, you're right of course, but I dunno: I just can't get worked up about evading a block just to appeal it. It's not doing the encyclopedia any harm, as long has his wilder excesses are curtailed. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks, T13. That's actually not a bad idea, though I tend to prefer liquor to beer. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Snow in Louisiana
Please take a lookg. And don't die too much, cuz we'd miss you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, what am I looking for? I don't see the phrase "rained in" used anywhere in that article. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it now. It's already been fixed by Yngvadottir (didn't even have to look up the spelling!) here. That's a whole other level of "rein" vs. "reign"; neither of those words would be appropriate there, even if either had been used instead of "rained". They probably meant "reined" as in "reined in", but I don't think that means what they think it means. They probably actually meant something like "brought in", but "produced", as Yngvadottir put it, was even better. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good to know it's fixed now.  I figured you were the reining expert.  Best regards.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One of these days, someone's going to have to reign in your rampant abuse of the English language for the sake of a pun. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Touché. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah? Well, what did Mrs. Claus say to Rudolph when she told him he was going to be made king of the North Pole without having to pay a penny for the honor?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The same thing that, after discovering that Miles Black, the famous phrenologist from Yorkshire, was going to take up yodeling to lonely goats in Bali, James White said after he decided to balance four planks of wood on a beer keg and call it an abstract work of art in the style of a famous fourteenth-century architect: that people will read any old garbage if they think there will be a good pun at the end of it? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Note
When you were added to Bureaucrats, you were marked as "TBD" for two entries in the table. Certainly these don't need to be filled in, but for now I've just removed them because TBD doesn't seem accurate some months on.

On an entirely unrelated note - have you considered registering User:Writkeeper (or WritKeeper or somesuch) and redirecting the user and usertalk pages here?

P.S. Please accept this belated welcome to the team; I'm not sure if I had the opportunity to do so before! – xeno talk 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, dunno where the "TBD" came from, but it's probably best not to list me down for any time range in particular; my hours are pretty variable. Thanks. I haven't really considered registering those accounts; I suppose it's not a bad idea, though I don't think it's that big a deal. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I suggested registering the account was to serve as a useful redirect for those looking for you who forget the space. – xeno talk 02:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * K, done. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Yup, no problem. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe
Don't know if you saw on Drmies' talk page that User:Cassandra Truth is an admitted sock of indef-blocked CensoredScribe. Says so on their user page as well. BMK (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, evidently I'm more vindictive than Drmies. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Gilliam
- Gilliam (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your input requested
Hey Writ! I'm letting you know of a discussion that may soon gain mass importance and be subject to extreme examination. Here.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   21:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 16, 2014. Please send me an email at jmatthews@wikimedia.org if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Open proxies
Hi, Writkins. I just made my first open proxy block, and it's gone to my head. Since you know everything, could you explain why there isn't apparently any coordination between the wikipedias (etc) when proxies are blocked? Only stewards can do global IP blocks, and it doesn't look like they do, much — look how small their block log is. The one I did,, was already blocked as an open proxy on fr wiki. Or, well, cough.. it was in 2007,, but that was good enough for me, since I had other indications. Anyway, do we really have to research such IPs separately on each national wiki? Seems like an awful lot of busywork, or am I missing something?

I'd ask the meta Wikiproject on open proxies, but it's marked historical. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC).
 * I dunno; I know that most proxy blocks are done by a bot (User:ProcseeBot), so no real discussion goes into them at all. Global blocks aren't really for proxies, IIRC, though it would've made sense to use them for such; it's more for active abuse: crosswiki vandalism, spamming, and the like, I think. Really, I think open proxies are just so routine that a deal big enough to require crosswiki discussion isn't usually made of it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-reverts...
It's amazing how many accidental reverts I've seen in the last 24 hours! I blame it on a rise in the number of people reading on phones and the design of the interface not being updated to reflect that. I actually removed the rollback option from my watchlist using CSS in order to avoid it happening. :-) —  Scott  •  talk  16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have, too. I usually have JS disabled entirely on my phone, so that Twinkle isn't an issue either, but I had had to turn it on for another site; figures that the one time I neglect to turn it off again it comes back to bite me in the ass. Oh well; that seems to be the general trend for me this week anyway. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My signature
Although not relevant to the AN/I discussion, read Sauron. " My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome! " 16:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but my point is: if you're the lieutenant of Melkor, i.e. Sauron, who is using the first person to call you "my master" in your sig? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * His Mouth. This is an indirect quote from the extended scene before the Black Gate in The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. " My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome! " 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

API page history
Thanks for taking the trouble to document the recent issue at User:Writ Keeper/FM-Interleaved edit history. The topic is a bit too hot for me to want to edit your page so I'll mention that the "10:44, 6 May 2014" item is missing "Mrdthree". Re the identical timestamps, if you ever wanted to dig deeper, it is possible to use the API to get the timestamp to the nearest second. Example: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&rvlimit=50&rvprop=timestamp|user|comment&titles=Human%20sexuality] The "Z" indicates UTC time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know about the API, but I didn't want to spend *that* much time on it; I was just copying and pasting from history pages, with user contribs pages as a reference. That's why the one username is missing; I must've accidentally pulled it from the contribs page instead. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

question
Thanks for the db-user. Can you also salt the page? Malke 2010 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, sure, no problem. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko
Despite the fact that K. was banned, I have been scrupulous about not violating the voluntary IBAN between us. I did not participate in the banning discussion, have passed up many opportunities to comment about the rampant socking, etc. Now K, using 2607:fb90:1808:bdc6:db8b:aa6f:3ca9:e6b7 has left messages on my talk page. Please block this account and warn K. that the IBAN is still in effect. One more instance of their violating the ban, and I will consider myself released from it. BMK (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One can't really be warned for violating a voluntary interaction ban, and I'm not really sure what the use of warning Kumioko would be anyway. Nevertheless, I would urge you to respect the IBAN regardless. For good or ill, whether it was justified or not, Kumioko is considered banned by the community, and there's really not any good that will come from any comments on the situation. Let it be. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. he posted a comment about me on AN, so its over. You were supposed to be the keeper of the voluntary IBAN, a role I do not see that you could fulfill if you refuse to warn either of the parties when they break it.  Doesn't matter, I upheld it, biting my tongue the whole time, and he's behaved exactly as he always does, so pfffft. I'm deeply disappointed in you, Writ Keeper. BMK (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Disappointing people seems to be a running theme for me this week. Oh well, shit happens; I'm not too thrilled with your recent responses either, but y'know, you're not here to curry my favor any more than I'm here to curry yours, so I guess them's the breaks. I honestly don't remember what you are talking about as far as me being a referee of a voluntary interaction ban, but it may be so; it doesn't matter, though, because Kumioko is banned, so I don't really know what you want me to do about it (other than blocking the IP, which I was going to do before real life stood in the way). A warning would be meaningless, and it's not like there's some sort of super-double-secret ban that I can place on him now that he's done something while banned. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course he's banned, but from my POV, I was still upholding the voluntary IBAN between us, and as long as he didn't comment on me or interact with me, I was prepared to continue to uphold it. Some might consider that stupid, but I gave my word and I intended to keep it.  I asked you to intervene in order to do everything possible to save that IBAN - again, my word, my honor.  The community ban is between him and the Wikipedia commnity in general, the voluntary IBAN was between two people, him and me. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. BMK (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but now that Kumioko is banned, "everything possible" equates to "nothing", because there is no greater sanction to impose. I don't really know what you're expecting me to do. It's not that I don't want to help you, it's that there is nothing that can be done. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I was extremely explicit about what I was asking you to do: block the IP sock, and post a notice (warning) as the keeper of the IBAN that he had violated it, and if he did it again I would consider myself released from it. How could I have been any clearer than that?  Whether the warning had any effect in terms of the community ban, it had, at least to me, meaning in terms of the voluntary IBAN between two people.  If you had warned him, he would have been able to make the choice - continue to comment on me, or back off and honor the IBAN. I could not post that comment, because I was upholding the IBAN, and he was counting on me to keep my side of it: "When did I identify myself" he wrote in an edit summary, forgetting he had done so on another edit. BMK (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt worry about disappointing BK write keeper, he is an abusive editor that manipulates people into getting his way. And your right, I am banned, for advocating that admins should be held accountable for screwing up and for commenting about arbcom failures. I wasn't a vandal, I wasn't socking and I wasn't violating copyright. I was advocating policy so I was banned. Not blocked banned. I think its petty that people are so interested in deleting my comments and you are too happy to allow BMK to tell a user to fuck off and then call the an asshole inthe edit summary. No one has done anything about that, no one cares about his abuse. I have no respect for any of you if you cannot even uphold policy against editors like him. If you wanna do the right thing for once, then look at BMK's edit history for the day. He and editors like him are the ones that need to be banned, not me. Kumi's back. 172.56.2.223 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have, Kumioko, and I've also looked at Deoliveirafan's edit history as well, and here's what I see: Deoliveirafan makes edits to page, and BMK makes further edits that modify, yet do not revert, Deoliveirafan's changes. Neither have used edit summaries, but since neither are actually reverting anyone, neither really have to. Deoliveirafan decides to take offense at BMK's edits for some reason, I guess, reverts BMK with a condescending, nonsensical edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear", and posts a further condescending post on BMK's talk page. BMK takes the bait, reverts the condescending post, and calls Deoliveirafan a condescending asshole. Things escalate from there. So, no, it's not just as simple as "BMK said a bad word, he's being a meanie, block him". Deoliveirafan was being just as demeaning; they just chose to do so without bad words. That doesn't necessarily excuse BMK, but it's not nearly as much a slam dunk as you are making it out to be; responding in kind (or even overreacting) is not the same as being rude/mean/uncivil/whatever without provocation. As for your ban, I have several opinions about it (some you might not be expecting), but I don't have a comment about it, other than that unless and until it gets overturned through a legitimate channel, you should respect it even if you think it was unfair or against policy.
 * BMK: Kumioko clearly has no interest in heeding any warning, so I don't see any reason to give one; it will accomplish exactly nothing, and I'm not a fan in general of people throwing their weight around just because they can, without any expectation of improving a situation. But if it makes you feel better: Kumioko, please don't comment on BMK further. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked and I agree that user was a little condescending but BMK's comments of Fuck off and then calling the a condescending asshole were far worse IMO. Adding to that telling the user they were no longer allowed to post on his page and then stating on the AN thread that only admins were welcome on his talk page are further evidence of his abusive demeanor on Wiki. What I find even more appalling is that you and Andy, are jsutifying his conduct as others have done in the past so he gets away with being abusive yet again. Which will only ensure he does the exact same thing or worse later. At some point he is going to be banned, but how many editors will he run off the site and how much damage to morale will he cause with his shenanigans.
 * As for my ban, I think you think the same thing everyone else does. You either agree with the community, or you don't and don't have the courage to say so. I have had at least 3 dozen editors who have sent me emails telling me they were afraid to vote for fear of retaliation by admins. So I'll tell you the same thing as them in the off chance you think I got screwed. If you disagree with the communities decision, for whatever reason, and didn't take the time to vote, or care enough to argue the merits of my ban, then that's on you. I was banned for having the morale courage to advocate for what is right, not hide and keep it to myself so others would like me. Your also right I should let my ban ride out. But since the community banned me for trying to make things better for editors, I have no reason to think they will let me come back in 6 months or a year anyway. Additionally, me silently riding out my ban shows the bullies and abusers they can do whatever they want and it shows the community what will happen to them if they argue with the authority of the admins or arbs. I don't have any respect for this community anymore and the only reason I even bother editing is just out of the principle of the unfair ban. If I was unbanned I would edit about once a month if that. I would also add that when you guys create edit filters blocking my edits and username and block my account, it just makes it harder to identify my edits. I'm not changing accounts because I like it. I am doing it because I have no choice. Kumioko 172.56.2.154 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, please block the IP 172,56,2,154 as a sock of the banned user Kumioko. If you do not plan on doing this I would appreciate knowing this, as I will fill an SPI instead. Also, I would normally delete on sight the edits of a banned user, but as this is your talk page, I trust that your won't encourage the socking by allowing the comments to stay here. BMK (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really planning on replying any more. I've said my piece; I still have no comment on the ban and we clearly don't agree on the other issue. But for clarity, as I have discretion on my talk page that I don't elsewhere, I like to enforce a thing which could be called civility more strictly here than elsewhere, wherein people are not to insult people who aren't me on this talk page. So, yeah, this thread is pretty much done, all in all. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your page, your rules, I've absolutely no problem with that. BMK (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly is this being discussed here instead of on the Administrators' noticeboard where I requested for it to be discussed? Your comments about me are not very accurate either.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, another user brought it up, and discussion just kinda happened; it's the nature of a wiki, I guess. I think things like this are called forest fires, though this one hasn't quite gotten that out of control. I wouldn't worry about this, though; this conversation is pretty much done anyway, and it wasn't ever going to have real consequences come from it. As for the inaccuracy of my comments, you are free to discuss it more specifically here; as I said on AN, though, I'm not going to comment further unless you want me to, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok since I can't edit the comment about my sockpuppet investigation I'll put it here. Sorry writ, I had no choice. Clearly BMK's comments don't matter to anyone since he isn't blocked and I haven't seen a talk page message so fine, if he can be allowed to throw insults and make comments about peoples family, then I have no reason not to take the gloves off. When you guys start enforcing policy against admins and shitheads like BMK, then I'll be glad to stop. I wished I didn't have to keep creating accounts and IP's but since you want to play this childish game of blocks and reverts I can too.172.56.3.107 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, stop taking advantage of the fact that you and I appear to be in the same general area and deal with your own nonsense. Writ Keeper, The point I was originally making was that although not every single one of BMK's edits were reverting my own, he was disrupting my editing by reverting the first of a two part edit before I had finished. Therefore I asked him to be patient while I finished editing. Its not nonsensical at all. Its ridiculous to compare my condescending comments with BMK's vulgar comments. That's apples to oranges and at the very least he should be warned not to act that way. Personally I don't think anyone should be banned altogether from Wikipedia, perhaps just from specific pages, and at no point did I ever say that anyone should be blocked. I'm done with this now and hope that in the future when you choose to comment on your buddies conflicts that you can be a bit more objective.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is good seeing the distinguished gentleman. I'd argue against the assertion, here or there, that you "had no choice". Yes, you got fucked along the way; I wish it wasn't so. But, as we are past that; let's not extrapolate things to mean that you no longer have a choice in which direction you travel. The fact is, you have all the choices, and; if perhaps, "shitheads playing games" did give you a right to play along, it doesn't automatically follow that you would choose to. I love you either way; my Wikipedia brother.—John Cline (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, after the above, I'm not sure BMK would be so eager to call himself my buddy. If you think my objectivity is compromised, well, it's not like there's anything that I can say to change your thoughts, and like I said, I'm not going to comment at the AN thread any more. It's not ridiculous to compare your condescension with BMK's vulgarity, though if you really think that condescension is a form of humor, then I can see why you might think it is. But it's not humor: condescension doesn't convey humor, it conveys disdain. (When searching for "condescension", Google offers this definition: an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain. No mention of anything humorous.) It conveys pretty much the exact same sentiments that BMK's vulgarity does, really, it just does it without using any of the seven dirty words, or any of their lesser relatives. I'm generally of the opinion that meanings count for more than words, and since you and BMK expressed more or less similar contempt for each other, I'd hold your respective actions to be more or less comparable. Not exactly the same, true, and one doesn't excuse the other, so I'd agree that BMK should be warned against saying such things. But I would say that you should also be warned to avoid condescending messages towards other editors, since I bet that there are a significant amount of people who will be as just as offended by those as some dirty words.
 * John Cline: I have nothing at all against statements of support for Kumioko. I'm really not one of those "banned editors are THE DEVIL" types. But there's probably a better place for such statements than here. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, and apologize for barging in like that. I won't say that I had no choice however, admitting instead that I should have chosen better.—John Cline (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's say we give Kumioko what he wants: an unbanning discussion on AN. We could keep it open for a week or so, just to be sure we're getting an array of input from as wide a range of editors as possible. We couldn't prohibit editors who commented on the first ban discussion (which lasted for 48 hours) from chiming in, obviously.

Now, what happens when there is no consensus to overturn the ban? Would he really be satisfied with that? I sincerely doubt it. But, maybe he'll agree to stop his little "war" if he were given a "fair shake". I don't think there would even be consensus to offer such an unbanning discussion for him, but it's worth a shot. Maybe? Doc  talk  05:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it, man, I'm not stopping you. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Nissanx96
Hello. I'm not sure if you're familiar with long time vandal User:Altimgamr (see SPI), but Nissanx96 shows all signs of being the first of tonights socks from him (see SPI for the number of socks he created yesterday), and there will with all probability be a few more of them before all is quiet on the Western Front again. For tonight, that is... Thomas.W talk 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm quite familiar with Altimgamr, and did recognize the MO, but saw no need to give him more attention. A VOA block is just as effective as a sock or LTA block. Thanks for making sure, though; it might be worth asking a CU to run a check for sleepers. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've emailed you
Hi. I have emailed you about a third-party matter I think deserves serious attention. If you disagree or decline please let me know or comment on the relevant talk page. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I don't see it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Meaning you don't see the email? μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did just resend it 5 minutes ago. If you don't get it,could you email me and I'll respond?  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just sent. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just responded. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * K, revdeled then forwarded to oversight, who did their thing on it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tried thanking your edit, but for some odlly logical reason that option wasn't available. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, no problem. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)